for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
  Subjects -> BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (Total: 2980 journals)
    - ACCOUNTING (85 journals)
    - BANKING AND FINANCE (257 journals)
    - BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (1128 journals)
    - COOPERATIVES (3 journals)
    - ECONOMIC SCIENCES: GENERAL (151 journals)
    - HUMAN RESOURCES (93 journals)
    - INSURANCE (24 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE (123 journals)
    - INVESTMENTS (26 journals)
    - MACROECONOMICS (13 journals)
    - MANAGEMENT (500 journals)
    - MARKETING AND PURCHASING (81 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  [852 journals]
  • Learning while (re)configuring: Business model innovation processes in
           established firms
    • Authors: Berends, H; Smits, A, Reymen, I, Podoynitsyna, K.
      Pages: 181 - 219
      Abstract: This study addresses the question of how established organizations develop new business models over time, using a process research approach to trace how four business model innovation trajectories unfold. With organizational learning as analytical lens, we discern two process patterns: "drifting" starts with an emphasis on experiential learning and shifts later to cognitive search; "leaping," in contrast, starts with an emphasis on cognitive search and shifts later to experiential learning. Both drifting and leaping can result in radical business model innovations, while their occurrence depends on whether a new business model takes off from an existing model and when it goes into operation. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory on business models and organizational learning.
      PubDate: 2016-07-28T02:18:32-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016632758
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 3 (2016)
  • Following fashion: Visible progressiveness and the social construction of
           firm value
    • Authors: Nijholt, J. J; Bezemer, P.-J, Reinmoeller, P.
      Pages: 220 - 247
      Abstract: A central tenet underlying studies on management fashions is that the diffusion of novel forms, models and techniques is driven by an institutional norm of progress, which is the societal expectation that managers will continuously use ‘new and improved’ management practices. We add to the literature on management fashions by arguing that, if the display of progressiveness in the manner of managing and organizing is expected of organizations, firms that are visibly progressive would be evaluated more positively by organizational audiences following this institutional prescription. Using article counts of co-occurrences of firms and various fashionable management practices in Wall Street Journal, we hypothesize positive effects of such associations on security analysts’ evaluations of these firms. Results support this hypothesis. Our study enriches the management fashion literature by highlighting the consequential relevance of organizational adherence to the norm of progress.
      PubDate: 2016-07-28T02:18:32-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127015617673
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 3 (2016)
  • On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how
           in strategy research
    • Authors: Jarzabkowski, P; Kaplan, S, Seidl, D, Whittington, R.
      Pages: 248 - 259
      Abstract: This article challenges the recent focus on practices as stand-alone phenomena, as exemplified by the so-called "Practice-Based View of Strategy" proposed by Bromiley and Rau. While the goal of "Practice-Based View of Strategy" points to the potential for standard practices to generate performance differentials (in contrast to the resource-based view), it marginalizes well-known insights from practice theory more widely. In particular, by limiting its focus to practices, that is, "what" practices are used, it underplays the implications of "who" is engaged in the practices and "how" the practices are carried out. In examining practices in isolation, the "Practice-Based View of Strategy" carries the serious risk of misattributing performance differentials. In this article, we offer an integrative practice perspective on strategy and performance that should aid scholars in generating more precise and contextually sensitive theories about the enactment and impact of practices as well as about critical factors shaping differences in practice outcomes.
      PubDate: 2016-07-28T02:18:32-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127015604125
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 3 (2016)
  • Missing the point of the practice-based view
    • Authors: Bromiley, P; Rau, D.
      Pages: 260 - 269
      Abstract: In this article, we address Jarzabkowski et al.’s strategy-as-practice criticism of Bromiley and Rau’s practice-based view as ignoring the "who" and "how" of practice implementation. Bromiley and Rau explicitly note that any statistical model under the practice-based view should consider mediating and moderating variables that depend on the specific practice and context but that the article would not attempt to identify such variables. Strategy-as-practice’s focus on the "who" and "how" of a practice are two of many such potential mediating or moderating variables. More fundamentally, strategy-as-practice scholars’ discomfort with the practice-based view may arise both from their different definitions of practice and their different approaches to strategy research. Without diminishing the strategy-as-practice’s contribution to strategy research, we argue for the additional value in the practice-based view’s call for systematic, large-scale, quantitative studies that establish the performance impact of specific practices across populations of organizations.
      PubDate: 2016-07-28T02:18:32-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016645840
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 3 (2016)
  • If you arent talking about practices, dont call it a practice-based view:
           Rejoinder to Bromiley and Rau in Strategic Organization
    • Authors: Jarzabkowski, P; Kaplan, S, Seidl, D, Whittington, R.
      Pages: 270 - 274
      Abstract: In this debate about the value of introducing a supposed "practice-based view of strategy," we respond to Bromiley and Rau’s defense of their approach. Coming from a background of two decades of research on strategy-as-practice, we focus on two major concerns about their initiative. The first is that the very use of the term "practice" would seem to obfuscate more than elucidate, especially given their definition of "practice" which strongly deviates from that already established in the social sciences generally. The second is that, by applying the term "practice" to strategy specifically, it becomes incumbent upon Bromiley and Rau to engage with and build upon the extensive practice-related strategy research that has gone before them.
      PubDate: 2016-07-28T02:18:32-07:00
      DOI: 10.1177/1476127016655998
      Issue No: Vol. 14, No. 3 (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
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016