What is the relationship between legitimation and institutionalization? We take a fresh look at a more complex and nuanced landscape than has previously been documented. Our approach is to view legitimation and institutionalization as separate, though related, processes. We engage in theory building to develop a typology suggesting four different ways in which the social construction of reality can be achieved: instantiating (mutual causal emergence, coming into being), realizing (legitimating toward institutionalization), aspiring (legitimating from institutionalization) and missing (mutual causal suppression, unrealized potential). Our typology contributes a new foundational framework for the sociology of knowledge for better explicating socially constructed reality, not only in periods of stability but also in the uncertainty of liquid times and states.

Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

This article explores firms’ de-internationalisation and re-internationalisation through the lens of business model innovation. The purpose is to uncover the potential of business model innovation to enrich firms’ understanding of the reasons behind de-internationalisation and inspire their endeavour to re-internationalise. This article contributes to the research of this intersection. It supports practitioners in enhancing their decision-making by applying business model innovation lenses to their international business activities. Finally, it suggests and encourages further research of this scarsely researched intersection.

This chapter analyses common, contradictory, paradoxical patterns in the evolution and development of authentic leadership that emerged throughout this handbook. The authentic leadership literature has been valuable in focusing on and reawakening a wider discourse on leadership and in particular the need for a reappraisal of leadership values. The adamant, one might say absolutist, claims for the theory have begun to restrict understanding. The chapters in this book reveal dimensions and insights that broaden and diversify potential approaches to contextual understanding and exercising leadership. Reilly and Turcan conclude that authentic leadership is still in its embryonic stage and whether it will fully emerge and become a mature discipline remains to be seen.

This chapter employs analytic autoethnography to explore and reflect on the author's quest for meaning and whether this redefines or undermines the concept of authenticity as interpreted by the primary advocates of authentic leadership. The data start from author's studies in the Air Force Engineering Military Academy. Turcan develops the typology of search for meaning and its four types: dreamlanding; self-actualising; missing out; and self-transcending. The meaning of life is conspicuously absent from the authentic leadership literature and yet if a leader does not address it how can they function effectively as a leader? This typology may guide future research at this intersection.

This chapter explores authentic leadership at the ‘edge of chaos’ – a transitional period from one kind of stability to another triggered by the emergence and implementation of newness. The authors argue that continuous, abrupt or unpredictable change at the edge of chaos impacts authentic leadership, resulting in the development of new values, new perspectives on legitimacy and new identities. Kinyanjui and Turcan identify four leader legitimation strategies, when introducing newness at the edge of chaos: feedback loop; conformance; familiar cues; and consistency and repetition. Kinyanjui and Turcan call for future research into the co-emergence of newness at the edge of chaos to equip decision-makers and policy-makers with a better understanding of legitimation strategies in the implementation of newness.

This paper conjectures that the Authentic Leadership literature has fallen into a sample trap– primarily drawing its evidence base from modern Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) contexts. In seeking to address this bias this paper addresses Authentic Leadership at the intersection of tradition and modernity and seeks to advance understandings of Authentic Leadership by investigating insider-outsider dynamics that arise where traditional cultural groups interface with more modern WEIRD groups. It also addresses the importance of out-group legitimacy – this is particularly important in relation to the intersection of tradition and modernity where significant power disparities are regularly present between modern and traditional groups. This paper combines the concepts of insider perceptions of legitimacy and outsider perceptions of legitimacy into a typology that provides a framework for understanding authentic leadership roles at the intersection of tradition and modernity. This paper contributes to the Authentic Leadership literature, first by challenging an underlying assumption within Authentic Leadership, namely that the role of the individualised self is foundational in achieving Authentic Leadership. Instead this paper looks to broaden this concept to fluid alignment which includes degrees, not only of internalised self-alignment, but also socio-political or normative congruence with the in-group context. Whist this may not be foundational in WEIRD highly individualised modern contexts in less or non-WEIRD contexts traditional alignment can be foundational for achieving legitimacy (perceived authenticity) with leaders frequently becoming paragons of traditional authenticity. Secondly this paper challenges the sole focus on internal leader follower (in-group) legitimacy, asserting that this should be considered in relation to an outsider external (out-group) legitimacy. This is particularly relevant at the intersection of tradition and modernity where power inequalities between traditional and modern groups has historically been and continue to be substantial.

Purpose Fintech is an “untilled field” in which the relation between Fintechs and incumbents is yet to be understood. This paper aims to explore this relationship and advance its theoretical and practical understanding. It further contributes toward Fintech paradigm and research domain emergence that both to date remain yet elusive. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopted a multiple-case study strategy for the purpose of theory building. Seven players from the Fintech ecosystem in Quebec (Canada) were selected, representing financial institutions, Fintech start-ups and Quebec’s financial cluster. Primary data was collected via in-depth interviews with ten respondents at the level of vice presidents, Managers, directors, chief executive officers and founders, and unobtrusive data – in the form of running records, mass-media news reports, presentations and proceedings from Fintech events. Data analysis was informed by grounded theory methods and techniques. Findings Grounded in data, this paper puts forward a typology of “comfort zoning” and its four types: nimbling, imperiling, cocooning and discomforting. Research limitations/implications Following the tenets of the grounded theory, four criteria are used to evaluate the emergent theory: fit, relevance, workability and modifiability. It is expected the interpretation and adoption of comfort zoning typology will be challenged, modified and enhanced by Fintech researchers and practitioners. Practical implications The comfort zoning typology would aid practitioners in their efforts to define and refine the domain of Fintech, problematize it and eventually enhance the relationship between Fintechs. Originality/value This paper fulfills an identified need to explore the relationship between Fintechs and incumbents and advance the theoretical and practical understanding of this relationship.

In this paper we aim to explore the phenomenon of emergence in uncertain contexts. Specifically, we focus on co-emergence of new firms and sectors. It is an area high importance to practitioners and policy makers, but at the same, less researched and understood. We analyzed, synthesized, and theorized this intersection across 16 inter-disciplinary research contexts. Constant theorizing and iteration identified strong and weak emergence as key properties of emergence that can explain most of the co-emergence between new ventures and sectors. We employed typology construction by reduction to develop the typology of co-emergence by cross-tabulating weak and strong emergence of new sectors and ventures. This led to identification of four types of co-emergence: benign, supervenient, radical and nominal. These four types are the focus of the paper. Implications for academia, practice and polity conclude the paper.

In this conceptual paper, we employ business model configuration theoretical lenses to explore how firms re-internationalise. Specifically, we discuss various reasons for firms strategic choices to de-internationalise, and put forward, using a business model configuration perspective, respective re-internationalisation strategies, aimed, inter alia, at boosting further firm growth.

In this ‘Speaking Out’ paper, we challenge contemporary orthodoxies in the field of ‘advanced structural’ internationalization of universities by focusing on significant, but neglected issues and challenges which arise from the current substantive developments in this field. By referring to ‘advanced structural’ internationalization, we want to distinguish between what might be broadly defined as internationalization at home and internationalization abroad, which we consider ‘structural’. ‘Advanced structural’ precisely because it involves transporting and re-engineering relations with governments, partners, students and other stakeholders and tends to be high risk, high commitment, and high cost. We ‘look’ at ‘advanced structural’ internationalization through the theoretical lenses of university autonomy. Since there is limited research at the intersection of international business and university autonomy, along with our experience, we draw on publicly available data relating to issues and challenges which arise from the pursuit of ‘advanced structural’ internationalization in higher education to construct an analytical narrative and ethical discourse appropriate to the radically changing structural, theoretical, and ideological realities we now face in this field. ‘Advanced structural’ internationalization poses serious ethical questions, which suggest that it does not have strong ethical foundations. In this conclusion, we are influenced by the degree of difference between university autonomy settings at home and the operation in the host country. The greater the disparity the more it is likely that the standards and practices which would be applied in the home environment fail to apply in the host. Hence, our thesis: ‘advanced structural’ internationalization of universities is unethical.