Academy of Management ReviewIn-Press DialogueAbductive Theorizing Is More Than Idea Generation: Disciplined Imagination and a Prepared MindAlf Steinar Sætre and Andrew Van de VenAlf Steinar SætreNorwegian University of Science and Technology and Andrew Van de VenUniversity of MinnesotaAccepted by Donald ConlonPublished Online:5 Jan 2024https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0317AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleReferencesBamberger, P. A. 2018. AMD: Clarifying what we are about and where we are going. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 1–10.Link , Google ScholarDane, E. 2020. Suddenly everything became clear: How people make sense of epiphanies surrounding their work and careers. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6: 39–60.Link , Google ScholarKahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. 2021. Noise: A flaw in human judgement. London, U.K.: William Collins. Google ScholarKoestler, A. 1964. The act of creation. London, U.K.: Penguin. Google ScholarMithani, M. A., & Kocoglu, I. 2021. Dialogue: Idea generation in abductive thinking: Not one but three approaches. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarPoole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.Link , Google ScholarRoberts, R. M. 1989. Serendipity: Accidental discoveries in science. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarSætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. 2021. Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46: 684–701.Link , Google ScholarVan de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32: 590–607. Google ScholarWeick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516–531.Link , Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails In-Press Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 5 January 2024 Information© Academy of Management ReviewDownload PDF

Purpose The purpose of this study is to discover the learning mechanisms and temporal dynamics of implementing systems (Six Sigma) as it unfolds over time. Design/methodology/approach The data come from a European engineering company that was implementing a Six Sigma-based quality management system (QMS) over a seven-year period. The analysis is based on an event-sequence reconstruction of the implementation process as it unfolded over time and discovers four different learning mechanisms that emerged: programmatic, persistent, adaptive and dialectical learning mechanisms. The research follows a process design study, where the authors study how the process unfolds over time. Findings Much of the literature on implementing management systems suggests that implementation follows a prescribed sequence of “turn-key” steps. However, the findings show that only 40% of all events were driven by prescribed “turn-key” generic practices, while 56% of events required constructing new practices via adaptive and dialectical learning. Moreover, the implementation process did not proceed in a linear programmatic fashion, but instead followed a punctuated equilibrium pattern, which alternated between periods of incremental change and major organizational change. The study also found that implementation required changing many complementary organizational structures and practices that were interdependent with the management system (i.e. Six Sigma). By understanding the implementation process, managers can better assess the time and effort involved, better adapt the system to their situated context and predict critical junctures where implementation could break down. Originality/value This research complements the few studies that have examined the process of implementing management systems. Most studies examine factors or conditions that result in implementation success (the what of implementing systems), but few examine the process of implementation and the learning that takes place during implementation (the how of implementing systems), which is a complex nonlinear process that involves different modes of learning.

Management theories developed in the United States and Europe have dominated management and organizational studies. As a result, scholars often overlook subtle cultural and ideological differences in other settings as they treat the theories from the United States and Europe as universal. All too often, as they attempt to apply these theories, scholars ignore critical research questions relevant to groups of people outside the United States and Europe. To overcome this shortcoming, Filatotchev, Ireland, and Stahl (in this issue) propose an open systems perspective that draws on multiple universal theories. Instead, we argue that such a solution does not address the fundamental problem of theories framed within the United States and European perspective. Using more of these theories does not solve this problem and may even exacerbate it. We argue, rather than simply placing bandages on existing theories, scholars should develop indigenous theory based on the distinctiveness of local contexts. The use of indigenous theory can also spur innovations in research methods, enhancing the rigor and relevance of findings.

Most observed processes of organization change far exceed the explanatory capabilities of any one theory. As the handbook chapters have shown, organization changes unfold in complex ways at multiple embedded levels over time on many interrelated issues, and involve multiple agents with diverse sensemakings, emotions, and actions. How are we to explain this complexity? This is a paradox for theory builders. On the one hand our theories must be accurate enough to explain the complexity, yet on the other hand simple enough to understand and guide behavior. We attempt to address this paradox by proposing a few simple models that are useful for explaining general patterns, and then to unpack and reconnect these models as assemblages or modules for addressing different contexts and shifting conditions in organization change processes.

This symposium will seek to explicate how Chinese thought differs from the western mode of thinking and the implications for managers and management. The discussion will focus on connecting specific Chinese constructs to topics of organization research, for example, building a Chinese indigenous model of organizational momentum for change, providing a Chinese Daoist processual explanation of endogenous motors of system evolution, and illuminating the implications of Chinese thought on strategy and organization as practice and process.

The need for understanding how new ideas and hunches are created that may subsequently lead to new theories or models has never been greater for academics and practitioners. Abduction provides a mo...

This chapter describes the core features of life cycle models of organizational change. These models of change are also referred to as regulated, mandated, prescribed, imposed, logically necessary, or prefigured in advance of their execution. Life-cycle models do not imply that an actor must passively comply with mandated changes; actors may be proactive individuals who adapt to their environments and make use of rules to accomplish their purposes. The strengths, challenges, and stages of life cycle models are examined, and future developments advancing life cycle models by considering the role of choice and of multiple forms of agency are advocated.

The panel symposium seeks to foster dialogues on the tensions that emerge in academic–practitioner relationships, as well as the practices through which organization and management scholars can respond to them. It does so by bringing together an esteemed panel of expert scholars who have provided major contributions to our understanding of academic–practitioner relationships, tensions, and responses to them. The aim of facilitating interactions between these panelists is to create awareness of the types of tensions that emerge in academic–practitioner relationships, and deepen understanding of the types of practices through which organization and management scholars can respond to these tensions.

Based on a review of selected chapters in this volume, this commentary examines how latent and salient contradictions unfold over time, and how perceptions and relative power of the parties involved may produce paradoxical and non-paradoxical outcomes. The empirical chapters also call attention to the need to expand the agenda of paradox scholarship to address the greater paradoxical complexities observed in organizational life.

This essay discusses how views of organizational change and innovation have traditionally focused on planned episodic change that focuses on rational, strategic, top-down and consensus-directed interventions following teleological or regulatory process models. Future scholarship seems to be focusing more on unplanned continuous organizational changes that emphasize experiential, emergent, bottom-up, pluralistic social movements following dialectical and evolutionary models of change. While planned-episodic and unplanned-continuous change may appear to be opposing views of organizational change, they are entangled in one-another, and provide a rich agenda of future scholarship on processes of organizational change and innovation.

Increased attention to paradoxical tensions has informed our understanding of organizations, challenging us to frame tensions as an inevitable part of organizational functioning which, when worked through effectively, can enable creativity and more sustainable institutions (Bednarek, Paroutis, & Sillince, 2017; Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016). Yet even as paradox theory emerged more recently within organizational theory, the roots of these ideas date back thousands of years (Smith, Lewis, Jarzabkowski, & Langley, 2017). Initially viewed through the fields of logic, philosophy, and religion, insights about paradox have informed and have been developed in a broad range of disciplines. As such, paradox arrives at the shores of organization theory from vast and varied fields. Expanding our insight about paradox and organizational theory therefore depends on both returning to and reconnecting with these rich interdisciplinary foundations, and using these insights to offer novel cutting-edge research. In this symposium, we engage more deliberately and deeply with these multidisciplinary roots in order to expand our insights about paradox scholarship in organizational theory, while also igniting opportunities for paradox theory to impact critical conversations in other disciplines. By doing so, we accept the challenge of the Academy of Management’s annual theme to ‘Broaden our Sights’ by diminishing false dichotomies and creating connections across broad disciplines and ideologies – including connections to theology, physics, music, and mathematics. This symposium showcases and provides a discussion point for a pending special issue to the Research in the Sociology of Organizations on the same topic, seeking to both look backwards to the multidisciplinary foundations of paradox theory and forward to its ongoing development via this foundation. In doing so, it showcases several thought-pieces in this volume (four papers), advances perspectives on how disciplinary roots can further advance paradox and organizational theory, and also fosters discourse and debate to explore similarities and differences across different foundational disciplines. Specifically, in this symposium, we showcase the breadth of multidisciplinary foundations. We showcase four papers from the special issue (shifting from logics to Ubuntu philosophy; from gender studies to quantum physics). We also offer space to reflect together on this multidisciplinary project via our distinguished discussant who will offer reflections and commentary on this issue and the specific papers at hand. Logic(s) and Paradox Presenter: Marco Berti; U. of Technology, Sydney Beyond Paradox Theory Orthodoxy, East and West: The Case of Ubuntu Presenter: Medhanie Gaim; Umea U. Presenter: Stewart R. Clegg; U. of Technology, Sydney Untangling the Paradoxical Knot: Sexual Harassment, Gender, and Resilience Presenter: Linda L. Putnam; U. of California, Santa Barbara Presenter: Avigail McClelland-Cohen; U. of California, Santa Barbara Paradox and Quantum Mechanics – Implications for the Management of Organizational Paradox Presenter: Tobias Hahn; ESADE Business School Presenter: Eric Knight; U. Of Sydney

In the pursuit of low-wage labor and access to technical talent, information technology (IT) projects today are often executed with sourcing structures that span the boundaries of a firm, a country, or both. Although the strategic implications of sourcing structures have received considerable attention in theory and practice, their implications from a project execution standpoint-specifically, in terms of execution efficiency-remain under-researched. Based on a large primary dataset on IT projects with distributed sourcing structures, this paper documents the findings of a theoretically grounded, empirical investigation using stochastic frontier analysis that evaluates whether and to what extent does the execution efficiency of projects vary across various types of sourcing structures (namely, Domestic-Insourcing, Domestic-Outsourcing, Offshore-Insourcing, and Offshore-Outsourcing). The results provide support for differential effects of crossing a firm or country boundary, or both boundaries, on the execution efficiency of IT projects. Specifically, we find that the execution efficiency of IT projects is significantly lower when their sourcing structures cross a country boundary (Offshore-Insourcing and Offshore-Outsourcing) relative to when their sourcing structures do not cross a country boundary (Domestic-Insourcing and Domestic-Outsourcing). Notwithstanding these trends across sourcing structures, a split-sample analysis of execution efficiency levels reveals that each structure presents a viable alternative for managers to realize high levels of execution efficiency. Finally, additional analysis highlights the benefits of sourcing structure capabilities-as represented by the extent of risk management planning and agile project management-in improving execution efficiency in IT projects that cross a country boundary.

We can learn many lessons on being an engaged scholar from the career of Andre L. Delbecq.

This chapter examines three kinds of relational bonds (trust-based commitments, forbearance-based commitments, and apprehension-based commitments) on which parties rely in the processes employed in negotiating, committing, and executing their cooperative inter-organizational relationships (CIORs). It also considers three different societal contexts with strong, moderately strong, and weak exogenous governance safeguards in which these relational bonds are employed. The authors propose a process theory of relational bonds that fit different contexts. Specifically, our central proposition is that parties to CIORs are more likely to achieve their goals when they rely on relational bonds that fit their societal contexts in which they engage in economic exchanges.

The dominant model of behavioral learning may not apply to organizations because it assumes that the people involved agree in their outcome assessments of actions and have relatively equal power to engage in joint learning. We relax these assumptions of consensus and power balance in order to apply the model to organizational (as opposed to individual) learning. We examine what happens when parties from different organizational units and levels engage jointly in learning from recurrent events. We examine behavioral learning as recurrent cycles of action–outcome assessment–response on similar tasks (i.e., recurrent events) over time. We observe different patterns of organizational learning (adaptive and dialectical) and nonlearning (persistent and compulsory behavior) in our 8-year real-time field study of the recurrent events while integrating a large health-care system. These four processes are interdependent and explained by just two contingencies: (1) agreement on outcome assessments and (2) power balance among the parties engaged in actions. These findings expand our repertoire to include processes that heretofore have not been considered in the organizational learning literature and explore how they change with different degrees of agreement and power among parties; that is, how an imposition of power by more powerful parties leads to nonlearning, while an openness to conflict and an empowerment approach enables organizational learning.

Despite the growth of entrepreneurship research, theory development has remained a key concern, with some scholars arguing that much of the research is atheoertical or that theory building is ad hoc. The goal of this Symposium is to shed light on how to advance theory development in entrepreneurship. It seeks to address three broad questions. First, given the pre-paradigmatic stage of theory development in entrepreneurship, how do we extend and refine current theories to enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship? Second, how do we use various approaches to develop new ideas or theories? Third, how do we learn from accomplished scholars? Human Enterprise Presenter: Rajshree Agarwal; U. of Maryland Building Innovative Theory: A Personal Journey Presenter: Jay B. Barney; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business Boundary Conditions as Spaces for Theory Development Presenter: James Fiet; U. of Louisville Becoming Theoretical Connoisseurs: The “Critical Mess” and Its Implication for Entrepreneurship Presenter: William B. Gartner; Babson College Theory Building in Entrepreneurship Presenter: Saras Sarasvathy; U. of Virginia Moving Forward Theories on Central Problems in Managing Corporate Entrepreneurship Presenter: Andrew H. Van de Ven; U. of Minnesota

In the face of grand challenges such as income inequality, xenophobia, and climate change, there is an urgent need for a deeper understanding of the historical forces shaping organizations’ role in both creating and responding to such challenges. Understanding how the present has emerged from the recent and deeper past enables us to make wiser choices in charting a path to more effective forms of organizing. But how exactly can we link this backward-looking historical perspective with forward-looking development of organizations? Our panel symposium aims to identify the requisite theoretical resources to build what we are calling “historical-evolutionary organization studies,” and to explore how that perspective can contribute to creating organizations capable of responding to society’s grand challenges such as more inclusive organizations, the theme of the Academy’s 2019 annual conference.

There is a growing interest in ecosystems as an approach for understanding the context of entrepreneurship at the macro level of an organizational community. It consists of all the interdependent actors and factors that enable and constrain entrepreneurship within a particular territory. Although growing in popularity, the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept remains loosely defined and measured. This paper shows the value of taking a systems view of the context of entrepreneurship: understanding entrepreneurial economies from a systems perspective. We use a systems framework for studying entrepreneurial ecosystems, develop a measurement instrument of its elements, and use this to compose an entrepreneurial ecosystem index to examine the quality of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the Netherlands. We find that the prevalence of high-growth firms in a region is strongly related to the quality of its entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strong interrelationships among the ecosystem elements reveal their interdependence and need for a systems perspective.