IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gro/rugsom/03g05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding variations between management fashions: a comparison of the different institutional expressions of two management concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Bezemer, Jelle
  • Karsten, Luchien
  • Veen, Kees van

    (Groningen University)

Abstract

In this paper, management fashion theory is criticised based on the fact that it does not pay attention to some relevant differences between fashions. An alternative three stage theory is suggested which can be used to understand and explain observable differences between management fashions. Subsequently this theory is used in order to describe and interpret the differences in development of two management fashions in the Netherlands, MANS and the Tilburg model.

Suggested Citation

  • Bezemer, Jelle & Karsten, Luchien & Veen, Kees van, 2003. "Understanding variations between management fashions: a comparison of the different institutional expressions of two management concepts," Research Report 03G05, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    • Handle: RePEc:gro:rugsom:03g05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/243925018
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Graham Astley & Raymond F. Zammuto, 1992. "Organization Science, Managers, and Language Games," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 443-460, November.
    2. Sue Newell & Maxine Robertson & Jacky Swan, 1998. "Professional Associations as ‘Brokers’, Facilitating Networking and the Diffusion of New Ideas: Advantages and Disadvantages," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: José Luis Alvarez (ed.), The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge, chapter 7, pages 182-200, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Juan C. Pastor & James Meindl & Raymond Hunt, 1998. "The Quality Virus: Inter-Organizational Contagion in the Adoption of Total Quality Management," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: José Luis Alvarez (ed.), The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge, chapter 8, pages 201-218, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:dgr:rugsom:03g05 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    3. João M. S. Carvalho & Célio A. A. Sousa, 2018. "Is Psychological Value a Missing Building Block in Societal Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Kevin Morrell, 2008. "The Narrative of ‘Evidence Based’ Management: A Polemic," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 613-635, May.
    5. Dag Øivind Madsen & Kåre Slåtten, 2015. "The Balanced Scorecard: Fashion or Virus?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-35, June.
    6. Helene Tenzer & Siri Terjesen & Anne-Wil Harzing, 2017. "Language in International Business: A Review and Agenda for Future Research," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 815-854, December.
    7. Meglio, Olimpia & Risberg, Annette, 2011. "The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 418-433.
    8. Thomaz Wood & Edvalter Becker Holz & Renato Souza, 2023. "When Rigor Meets Relevance: the Development of Hybrid Actionable Knowledge Production Systems," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Bullinger, Bernadette & Kieser, Alfred & Schiller-Merkens, Simone, 2015. "Coping with institutional complexity: Responses of management scholars to competing logics in the field of management studies," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 437-450.
    10. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    11. Jolanta BIENKOWSKA & Czesław SIKORSKI, 2024. "Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: a balanced approach to management research," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 15, pages 345-360, June.
    12. Joan E. van Aken, 2004. "Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-246, March.
    13. Carsten M. Syvertsen, 2016. "How Engineering and Business Schools can benefit from Using Regionalization in a Globalized World-Insights from Kant and Chaos Theory," International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 2(11), pages 7-14, October.
    14. Mari Karjalainen & Suprateek Sarker & Mikko Siponen, 2019. "Toward a Theory of Information Systems Security Behaviors of Organizational Employees: A Dialectical Process Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 687-704, June.
    15. Olivier Boiral, 2003. "ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 720-737, December.
    16. Daniela Ruggeri & Antonio Leotta & Carmela Rizza, 2023. "Digitalisation and accounting language games in organisational contexts," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 817-838, September.
    17. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss, 2009. "Social Reality, the Boundaries of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, and Economics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 654-668, June.
    18. Kari Jalonen & Henri Schildt & Eero Vaara, 2018. "Strategic concepts as micro‐level tools in strategic sensemaking," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 2794-2826, October.
    19. Wood, Matthew S., 2017. "Misgivings about dismantling the opportunity construct," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 21-25.
    20. Saku Mantere, 2013. "What Is Organizational Strategy? A Language-Based View," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1408-1426, December.
    21. Kari Jalonen & Henri A. Schildt & Eero Vaara, 2018. "Strategic concepts as micro‐level tools in strategic sensemaking," Post-Print hal-02312245, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gro:rugsom:03g05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Hanneke Tamling (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.