A Process Perspective on Organizational Failure: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

A Process Perspective on Organizational Failure: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. / Habersang, Stefanie; Küberling-Jost, Jill A.; Reihlen, Markus et al.
in: Journal of Management Studies, Jahrgang 56, Nr. 1, 01.2019, S. 19-56.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{e64a88d80da84067a4bb305aebfe0837,
title = "A Process Perspective on Organizational Failure: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "An important stream of the organizational failure literature has proposed process models to describe how firms fail. Despite much progress, this stream is currently at a crossroads. Previous process models try to capture how failure unfolds in singular models that describe organizational failure as the result of either inertia or extremism or as a mixture of both. However, it remains unclear how these competing explanations are related and what underlying mechanisms explain why organizational failure processes unfold as they do. We address these issues by examining failure processes using a qualitative meta-analysis research design. The qualitative meta-analysis allows us to analyse and synthesize the wealth of previously published single-case studies in order to develop process models of organizational failure. The most salient finding of our analysis is that failure processes converge around four distinct process archetypes, which we name imperialist, laggard, villain, and politicized. Each process archetype can be explained by the interplay of distinct rigidity and conflict mechanisms. Differentiating the four process archetypes and explaining the underlying mechanisms helps to resolve some contradictions in the previous failure process literature.",
keywords = "Management studies, mechanisms, Organizational failure, process perspective, qualitative meta-analysis",
author = "Stefanie Habersang and K{\"u}berling-Jost, {Jill A.} and Markus Reihlen and Christoph Seckler",
note = "All authors contributed equally, and they are listed in alphabetical order. ",
year = "2019",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1111/joms.12341",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "19--56",
journal = "Journal of Management Studies",
issn = "0022-2380",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Process Perspective on Organizational Failure

T2 - A Qualitative Meta-Analysis

AU - Habersang, Stefanie

AU - Küberling-Jost, Jill A.

AU - Reihlen, Markus

AU - Seckler, Christoph

N1 - All authors contributed equally, and they are listed in alphabetical order.

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - An important stream of the organizational failure literature has proposed process models to describe how firms fail. Despite much progress, this stream is currently at a crossroads. Previous process models try to capture how failure unfolds in singular models that describe organizational failure as the result of either inertia or extremism or as a mixture of both. However, it remains unclear how these competing explanations are related and what underlying mechanisms explain why organizational failure processes unfold as they do. We address these issues by examining failure processes using a qualitative meta-analysis research design. The qualitative meta-analysis allows us to analyse and synthesize the wealth of previously published single-case studies in order to develop process models of organizational failure. The most salient finding of our analysis is that failure processes converge around four distinct process archetypes, which we name imperialist, laggard, villain, and politicized. Each process archetype can be explained by the interplay of distinct rigidity and conflict mechanisms. Differentiating the four process archetypes and explaining the underlying mechanisms helps to resolve some contradictions in the previous failure process literature.

AB - An important stream of the organizational failure literature has proposed process models to describe how firms fail. Despite much progress, this stream is currently at a crossroads. Previous process models try to capture how failure unfolds in singular models that describe organizational failure as the result of either inertia or extremism or as a mixture of both. However, it remains unclear how these competing explanations are related and what underlying mechanisms explain why organizational failure processes unfold as they do. We address these issues by examining failure processes using a qualitative meta-analysis research design. The qualitative meta-analysis allows us to analyse and synthesize the wealth of previously published single-case studies in order to develop process models of organizational failure. The most salient finding of our analysis is that failure processes converge around four distinct process archetypes, which we name imperialist, laggard, villain, and politicized. Each process archetype can be explained by the interplay of distinct rigidity and conflict mechanisms. Differentiating the four process archetypes and explaining the underlying mechanisms helps to resolve some contradictions in the previous failure process literature.

KW - Management studies

KW - mechanisms

KW - Organizational failure

KW - process perspective

KW - qualitative meta-analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052531552&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/joms.12341

DO - 10.1111/joms.12341

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 56

SP - 19

EP - 56

JO - Journal of Management Studies

JF - Journal of Management Studies

SN - 0022-2380

IS - 1

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Elektroaltgeräte
  2. Prevalence of depression in cancer patients
  3. Radical right populism and religion
  4. Entwicklung und Qualitätssicherung von Anwendungssoftware
  5. Sekem – Humanistic Management in the Egyptian Dessert
  6. What Makes a Person a Potential Tourist and a Region a Potential Tourism Destination?
  7. A "Studium generale" for German speaking Europe
  8. Albania
  9. Abschreiben – Ein Problem in mathematischen Lehrveranstaltungen?
  10. Driving anger expression in Germany—Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers
  11. Molinia caerulea responses to N and P fertilisation in a dry heathland ecosystem (NW-Germany)
  12. Bärenstark
  13. Protest 2.0 - Don't believe the Hype
  14. Impact of participation on sustainable water management planning: Comparative analysis of eight cases
  15. Editoral: Theoretische Autonomie oder Kritik der Kriminologie?
  16. Climatic responses of tree-ring width and δ13C signatures of sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.) on soils with contrasting water supply
  17. "You Are The Only Person In This Conference"
  18. Elektronische Anmeldeplattform für Tandem
  19. Playing seriously
  20. Good Lessons. What do we Really know
  21. Eine kluge Energiewende ist nicht zu teuer
  22. Fallbasiertes Lernen in der Lehrerbildung
  23. Einleitung: Warum hacken?
  24. Rethinking Chemistry for a circular economy
  25. Low cycle fatigue properties of extruded Mg10GdxNd alloys
  26. Medientheater/Theatermedien
  27. Engel der Effizienz
  28. Firms’ wage structures, workers’ fairness perceptions, job satisfaction and turnover intentions
  29. Research handbook on the law of treaties
  30. Notting Hill Gate 3 Basic
  31. Ins Bild kommen
  32. Inszenierungen im Fremdsprachenunterricht
  33. Natur schreiben
  34. Leitgedanke “Ermöglichen”: Herausforderungen in einer Benutzungsabteilung
  35. Die Materialität des Klangs und die Medienpraxis der Musikkultur
  36. Effects of human capital and long-term human resources development and utilization on employment growth of small-scale businesses
  37. Computerspielnutzung aus Elternsicht
  38. Monopsonistic labour markets
  39. Responses to Thanks in Ireland, England and Canada