for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
  Subjects -> BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (Total: 2989 journals)
    - ACCOUNTING (85 journals)
    - BANKING AND FINANCE (259 journals)
    - BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (1130 journals)
    - COOPERATIVES (3 journals)
    - ECONOMIC SCIENCES: GENERAL (152 journals)
    - HUMAN RESOURCES (93 journals)
    - INSURANCE (24 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE (123 journals)
    - INVESTMENTS (26 journals)
    - MACROECONOMICS (13 journals)
    - MANAGEMENT (500 journals)
    - MARKETING AND PURCHASING (83 journals)
    - MICROECONOMICS (24 journals)
    - PUBLIC FINANCE, TAXATION (32 journals)


The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice.
Journal Cover Strategic Organization
  [SJR: 2.733]   [H-I: 19]   [11 followers]  Follow
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Print) 1476-1270 - ISSN (Online) 1741-315X
   Published by Sage Publications Homepage  [853 journals]
  • Strategic responses to institutional complexity
    • Authors: A.M. Vermeulen, P; Zietsma, C, Greenwood, R, Langley, A.
      Pages: 277 - 286
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016675997
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational
           heterogeneity in business models and governance
    • Authors: Ocasio, W; Radoynovska, N.
      Pages: 287 - 309
      Abstract: Theory and research on institutional pluralism and complexity provide an opportunity to re-examine a key question of strategy: the sources of organizational heterogeneity in the creation and capture of value. Concretely, we focus on the implications for value creation and capture in terms of organizations’ business models and governance strategies, respectively. We posit that strategic organizational choices are shaped by available institutional logics and theorize that greater institutional pluralism leads to increased heterogeneity—rather than isomorphism—in business models and governance strategies. As the mechanism for heterogeneity, we explain how pluralism leads to differentiated organizational commitments to distinct combinations and prioritizations of institutional logics. The article further examines how institutional complexity, wherein latent contradictions between logics become salient, provides opportunities for strategic change. We theorize that framing exposed contradictions as incompatible or paradoxical implies differentiated outcomes with respect to transformations in organizations’ business models and governance strategies.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127015625040
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and
           structural hybridity
    • Authors: Raynard; M.
      Pages: 310 - 335
      Abstract: This article unpacks the notion of institutional complexity and highlights the distinct sets of challenges confronting hybrid structural arrangements. The framework identifies three factors that contribute to the experience of complexity—namely, the extent to which the prescriptive demands of logics are incompatible, whether there is a settled or widely accepted prioritization of logics within the field, and the degree to which the jurisdictions of the logics overlap. The central thesis is that these "components" of complexity variously combine to produce four distinct institutional landscapes, each with differing implications for the challenges organizations face and for how they might respond. The article explores the situational relevance of an array of hybridizing responses and discusses their implications for organizational legitimacy and performance. It concludes by specifying the boundary conditions of the framework and highlighting fruitful directions for future scholarship.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016634639
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Organizational responses to institutional complexity stemming from
           emerging logics: The role of individuals
    • Authors: Bertels, S; Lawrence, T. B.
      Pages: 336 - 372
      Abstract: In this article, we address two important gaps in the study of organizational responses to institutional complexity. First, we examine how organizations respond to institutional complexity associated with newly emerging logics that lack well-defined sets of practices; although previous research has examined logics new to a field, those logics have tended to be well-established in other domains. Based on the responses of 10 Canadian public schools to the emerging logic of Aboriginal distinctiveness, we identify four organizational responses (reinterpretation, advocacy, isolation, and integration) that we argue are distinctive of emerging logics. Second, we explore how individuals in organizations shape organizational responses to institutional complexity. We show how individuals’ sensemaking and institutional biographies combine to affect the kinds of action in which organizations engage (discursive or practical) and the scope of that action (expansive across the organization or confined to a subset of actors).
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016641726
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses
           to intra-institutional complexity
    • Authors: Meyer, R. E; Höllerer, M. A.
      Pages: 373 - 406
      Abstract: Our research contributes to knowledge on strategic organizational responses by addressing a specific type of institutional complexity that has, to date, been rather neglected in scholarly inquiry: conflicting institutional demands that arise within the same institutional order. We suggest referring to such type of complexity as "intra-institutional"—as opposed to "inter-institutional." Empirically, we examine the consecutive spread of two management concepts—shareholder value and corporate social responsibility—among Austrian listed corporations around the turn of the millennium. Our work presents evidence that in institutionally complex situations, the concepts used by organizations to respond to competing demands and belief systems are interlinked and coupled through multiwave diffusion. We point to the open, chameleon-like character of some concepts that makes them particularly attractive for discursive adoption in such situations and conclude that organizations regularly respond to institutional complexity by resorting to discursive neutralization techniques and strategically producing ambiguity.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016633335
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Institutional complexity and the meaning of loose coupling: Connecting
           institutional sayings and (not) doings
    • Authors: Misangyi; V. F.
      Pages: 407 - 440
      Abstract: An understanding of decoupling in complex institutional fields remains elusive. In such fields, a multiplicity of logics engenders many possible institutional intentions as well as the likelihood of the co-occurrence of decoupled and coupled practices. In this study, I adopt Weick’s dialectical view of loose coupling and integrate it with theory on institutional logics and vocabularies of motive to posit that the meaning of the decoupling (and coupling) of practices when a formal program is adopted in a complex institutional field can be found in the connection(s) that the (de)couplings have with the various available institutional intentions for such adoptions. I used the fuzzy-set approach to comparative case analysis to explore this issue among 28 business facilities that adopted an environmental management system. I found very different systematic connections between the coupling and decoupling of expected environmental management system program practices and the multiple institutional intentions given for the environmental management system adoptions. Moreover, these connections showed that the decoupling of certain practices were pivotal to understanding the meaning of the program adoptions.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016635481
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Qualitatively capturing institutional logics
    • Authors: Reay, T; Jones, C.
      Pages: 441 - 454
      Abstract: There is an ever-increasing volume of studies investigating institutional logics, and yet qualitative methods for studying this phenomenon are not clear. In this essay, we examine how qualitative scholars convince their readers that they are actually studying institutional logics. We identify three different, but non-exclusive techniques that have been employed: pattern deducing, pattern matching, and pattern inducing. For each of these approaches, we explain the ontological assumptions, methodological techniques, challenges, and benefits. In addition, we provide examples of how specific studies have analyzed and presented qualitative data to improve theory about institutional logics.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127015589981
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
  • Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of
           competing demands
    • Authors: Smith, W. K; Tracey, P.
      Pages: 455 - 466
      Abstract: Organizational success increasingly depends on leaders’ abilities to address competing demands simultaneously. Scholars have applied both institutional theory and paradox theory to better understand the nature and responses to these competing demands. These two lenses diverge in their understanding and responses to tensions. Institutional theory depicts competing demands emerging from divergent field-level pressures and stresses their contradictory and oppositional nature. Organizational responses vary from making tradeoffs and choosing pressures with which to conform to seeking strategies for engaging both and managing conflict. Paradox theory locates competing demands as inherent with organizational systems, surfaced through environmental conditions, individual sensemaking, or relational dialogue. According to these scholars, paradoxes are contradictory, interdependent, and persist over time, demanding strategies for engaging and accommodating tensions but not resolving them. In this essay, we highlight these distinctions and argue that drawing from both of these lenses will results in rich, generative theorizing to better address key challenges in the world. We identify specific areas where future research can benefit from such integration.
      PubDate: 2016-11-03T21:31:30-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016638565
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 4 (2016)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016