| 211. |
|
|
| 212. |
|
|
| 213. |
- Rennstam, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
HR-arbete
- 2019. - 3
-
Ingår i: Organisationer – ledning och processer. - 9789144122069
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 214. |
- Rennstam, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
HRM-arbete
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Organisationer, ledning och processer. - 9789144075730 ; , s. 413-439
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 215. |
- Rennstam, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Styrning - beteenden, resultat och normer
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Organisationer, ledning och processer. - 9789144075730 ; 2 edition, s. 175-199
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 216. |
- Rintamäki, Jukka, et al.
(författare)
-
RESISTING WHILST COMPLYING? A CASE STUDY OF A POWER STRUGGLE IN A BUSINESS SCHOOL
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Academy of Management Learning and Education. - : Academy of Management. - 1537-260X .- 1944-9585. ; 22:2, s. 257-273
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Business school faculty are frequently faced with management practices they find objectionable. Reactions vary, but compliance and hidden resistance are common responses. In this paper, we seek to understand compliance and hidden resistance as responses to objectionable management practices in business schools. To explore this problem, we present a case study of a business school where a new dean brought about aggressive and abrupt managerialist changes toward which faculty were broadly hostile. Faculty eventually failed to resist these changes and ended up resorting to exits and workplace disengagement while complying with management expectations regarding work outputs. To make sense of compliance and hidden resistance as responses to objectionable management practices in business schools, we propose the following concepts: “mercenary mentality” and “resipliance” (a combination of expressing resistance attitudes to peers-and to self-and complying with management demands for work outputs). The presence of a mercenary mentality and the related tendency to resipliance-which we argue are both common in business schools-undermines the capacity for resistance against objectionable management practices at the workplace, reminding us that resistance is fragile and elusive.
|
|
| 217. |
- Sandberg, Jörgen, et al.
(författare)
-
Clarifying and expanding the theory typology : A reply to readers’ comments
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Marketing Theory. - : SAGE Publications. - 1470-5931 .- 1741-301X. ; 21:3, s. 433-440
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We all want to develop impactful and valuable theories, but what do we mean by ‘theory’? In this piece, we reply to the four readers’ comments on a recent paper in which we propose a theory typology that, in comparison to existing literature, offers a considerably broader, more pluralistic and, at the same time, more precise definition of the meaning(s) of ‘theory’ within academia. In their comments, the readers raise several insightful points that encourage us to further clarify the theory typology, as well as to expand on how it can be useful for researchers in marketing and social science more broadly.
|
|
| 218. |
- Sandberg, Jörgen, et al.
(författare)
-
Meanings of Theory : Clarifying Theory through Typification
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Management Studies. - : Wiley. - 0022-2380 .- 1467-6486. ; 58:2, s. 487-516
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Developing and evaluating scientific knowledge and its value requires a clear – or at least not too unclear – understanding of what ‘theory’ means. We argue that common definitions of theory are too restrictive, as they do not acknowledge the existence of multiple kinds of scientific knowledge, but largely recognize only one kind as ‘theory’, namely explanatory knowledge. We elaborate a typology that broadens and clarifies the meaning of ‘theory’. Consisting of five basic theory types – explaining, comprehending, ordering, enacting and provoking theories – the typology offers a framework that enables researchers to develop and assess knowledge in more varied ways and for a broader set of purposes than is typically recognized, as well as providing a more level playing field within the academic community.
|
|
| 219. |
- Sandberg, Jorgen, et al.
(författare)
-
Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization?
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Organization. - : SAGE Publications. - 1350-5084 .- 1461-7323. ; 18:1, s. 23-44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article examines ways of constructing research questions from existing literature, which are likely to promote the development of interesting and influential theories. We review 52 articles in organization studies and develop a typology of how researchers construct their research questions from existing literature. The most common way across paradigmatic camps is to spot various 'gaps' in the literature and, based on that, to formulate specific research questions. The dominance of gap-spotting is surprising, given it is increasingly recognized that theory is made interesting and influential when it challenges assumptions that underlie existing literature. The article discusses why assumption-challenging approaches are rare, and it identifies a range of social norms that favour gap-spotting. Finally, the article proposes some ways of constructing research questions that move beyond gap-spotting, and discusses how these ways are likely to promote more interesting and significant theories.
|
|
| 220. |
- Schaefer, Stephan, et al.
(författare)
-
Epistemic Attitudes and Source Critique in Qualitative Research
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Management Inquiry. - : SAGE Publications. - 1056-4926 .- 1552-6542. ; 29:1, s. 33-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this essay, we explore and discuss current practices of source critique. In our empirical analysis of a sample of interview-based studies, we find that few studies show a careful and reflective stance toward their sources. In the majority of cases, we discern a tendency to either ignore basic issues of the trustworthiness of interview material or produce technical descriptions which seem to have no real effect on the actual assessment of the study’s sources. We suggest five epistemic attitudes which describe how scholars engage—or rather not engage—in source critique. To improve source critique, we suggest tactics of intra- and extrasource critique which seriously consider interactional dynamics behind and quality of interview content other than “truth” reporting, aiming to corroborate interview statements by carefully cross-checking interview material with observations and multiple sources.
|
|
