Samenvatting
Summary articles Organization Theory ()
- Instelling
- Tilburg University (UVT)
Samenvatting alle behandelde artikelen Organization Theory: What is theory?, SIT, DCT, LT, IOT, EOT
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 89 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 89 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
1 beoordeling
Door: sonngo • 3 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Organization Theory Articles,What is theory? 2
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495. 2
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
371–384. 5
Mayer, K. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2013). Integrating Theories in AMJ Articles. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(4), 917–922. 6
Approaches to integrating theory: 6
Social Interdependence (onderlinge afhankelijkheid) Theory 7
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory. 7
Deutsch, M. (1949). A Theory of Co-operation and Competition. 31
Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) 35
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo Vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review
of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(1), 390-439. 35
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent (toevallige/gebruikelijke) value of dynamic capabilities for
competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(2), 179-203. 38
Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance Management Capability: An Investigation of the Construct
and Its Measurement. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1192–1219.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310362102 43
Legitimacy Theory 48
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. The Sage
Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 49, 77 48
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic
balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147-166. 51
Raaijmakers, A. G., Vermeulen, P. A., Meeus, M. T., & Zietsma, C. (2015). I need time! Exploring
pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1),
85-110. 55
Inter Organizational Theory 62
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American
Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548-577.) 62
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1997). The design and management of externally controlled
organizations. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), Writers on Organization (4 ed., pp. 130–161). London: Penguin 66
Fink, R. C., Edelman, L. F., Hatten, K. J., & James, W. L. (2006). Transaction cost economics,
resource dependence theory, and customer-supplier relationships. Industrial and Corporate Change,
15(3), 497-529. 73
Ecological Organization Theory 78
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1988). The Ecology of Organizational Mortality 78
Carroll, G. R. (1984). Organizational ecology. Annual review of Sociology, 10(1), 71-93. 84
,What is theory?
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Theory = must contain 4 elements
1. What = which factors (variables, constructs, concepts) logically should be considered as part
of the explanation of the social or individual phenomena of interest.
- Comprehensiveness = are all relevant factors included?
- Parsimony = should some factors be deleted because they add little additional
value to our understanding
- Sensitivity to the competing virtues of parsimony and comprehensiveness is the
hallmark of a good theorist
2. How = how are the factors related? Using arrows to connect the boxes, adding order to the
conceptualization by explicitly delineating patterns (causality). A visual representation clarifies
the author’s thinking and increases the reader’s comprehension. Together what and how
elements constitute the domain or subject of the theory. Formal models aid theory developers
and users to assess the balance between parsimony and completeness
3. Why = What are the underlying psychological, economic, or social dynamics that justify the
selection of factors and the proposed causal relationships. Is the theoretical glue that welds the
model together. - Why should colleagues give credence to this particular representation of the
phenomena Authors should push back the boundaries of our knowledge by providing
compelling and logical justifications for altered views. This requires explaining the Whys
underlying the reconstituted Whats and Hows. What and How de scribe; only Why explains.
What and How provide a framework for interpreting patterns, or discrepancies, in our empirical
observations.
4. Who, Where, When = These conditions place limitations on the propositions generated from
a theoretical model. These temporal and contextual factors set the boundaries of
generalizability, and as such constitute the range of the theory - The Who, Where,
and When of a theory are typically discovered through subsequent tests of the initial,
rudimentary theoretical statement (What, How, Why). In the process of testing these
ideas in various settings, we discover the inherent limiting conditions
, Criteria for making editorial judgments:
1. In principle, it is possible to make an important theoretical contribution by simply
adding or subtracting factors (Whats) from an existing model, this process seldom
satisfies reviewers
2. One way to demonstrate the value of a proposed change in a list of factors is to
identify how this change affects the accepted relationships between the variables
(Hows).
- Theoretical insights come from demonstrating how the addition of a new
variable significantly alters our understanding of the phenomena by
reorganizing our causal maps
3. Why = involves borrowing a perspective from other fields, which encourages altering
our metaphors and gestalts in ways that challenge the underlying rationales supporting
accepted theories
4. Who, when, where = it is insufficient to point out limitations in current conceptions of a
theory’s range of application. Theorists need to learn something new about the theory
itself as a result of working with it under different conditions. That is, new applications
should improve the tool, not merely reaffirm its utility.
- First, proposed improvements addressing only a single element of an existing
theory are seldom judged to be sufficient. Therefore, a general rule of thumb is
that critiques should focus on multiple elements of the theory. This approach
adds the qualities of completeness and thoroughness to theoretical work.
- Second, theoretical critiques should marshal compelling evidence. This evidence
can be logical (e.g., the theory is not internally consistent), empirical (its
predictions are inconsistent with the data accumulated from several studies), or
epistemological (its assumptions are invalid given information from another field).
- Third, theoretical critiques should propose remedies or alternatives. Although we
can think of classic critiques in the history of science that stood on their own
merits, the typical debate in our field is less clear cut. Consequently, critics
should share responsibility for crafting improved conceptualizations. Otherwise, it
is difficult to know whether the original is indeed inferior, or simply the best we
can do in a very complex world
Seven key questions = summarizes the concerns raised most frequently by our
reviewers:
1. What's new? = Does the paper make a significant, value-added contribution to current
thinking? Reviewers are not necessarily looking for totally new theories. However,
modifications or extensions of current theories should alter scholars' extant views in
important ways. Proposed changes can be calibrated in terms of scope and degree.
- Scope tends to reflect the level of theorizing (general versus middle level)
- degree reflects the radicalness of the proposal.
- scope (how much of the field is impacted) is less important in determining the
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper amyvannijnatten. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,29. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 57114 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen