Oliver, D. Balancing divergence and convergence: Stimulating creativity through hybrid thinking. Bilton, C. Strategy and organization at Singapore Airlines: Sustainable advantage through dual strategy. In Inderwildi, O. London: Springer-Verlag: Four propositions toward an interpretive theory of the process of discursive reality construction. In Aritz, J. Madison: Farleigh Dickinson: In Gabriel, Y.
Organizing words: A creative thesaurus of key words in social and organization theories. Oxford University Press: Developing strategy: The serious business of play. In Gallos, J. Business Leadership: A Reader. Jossey-Bass, chapter Wirtz, J. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag: Interpretive Theory. Marshak, R. Organization Development. In Linstead, S. Thinking Organization. London and New York: Routledge: Hendry ; Jarzabkowski and Wilson ; Whittington Part I of the book, on "Bases of strategic management" outlines the literature in the field; develops the organizational action view; applies organizational learning theory to the concepts of strategic thinking and planning; and explores how leadership research can improve our understanding of boards of directors.
Chapter 1, entitled "The strategic management field," opens the scene by briefly addressing the historical origins of strategy, the writings of classic authors and the entry of consulting firms; it then considers the industrial organization model with a look at the work of Michael Porter, organizational economics and the resource-based view.
Strategy and Organization - Realizing Strategic Management
The chapter ends by noting the disenchantment with the traditional planning paradigm, the fragmentation of the strategic management field, and the need for a new, more organizationally informed paradigm. Chapter 2 locates the dominant strategic management approaches outlined in chapter 1 in the functionalist paradigm, notes their main critiques, and discusses the emergence of what may be labeled the "organizational action" view of strategic management in terms of applications of interpretive sociology and organization theory to strategy.
It then discusses the conceptual building blocks of the organizational action view and their interrelationships, and concludes with some key theoretical features of this emerging view. Chapter 3 aims to disentangle the relationship between the terms "strategic thinking" and "strategic planning" as found in the literature; to develop the analogy of strategic planning as single-loop learning and strategic thinking as double-loop learning; to propose a dialectical view of the relationship between strategic thinking and strategic planning; and to offer examples of strategic thinking and planning and the dialectical process involved.
This discussion illustrates the general orientation of the organizational action view, the application of organization theory to strategic management issues, in this case using organizational learning concepts to clarify the nature and interrelationship between strategic thinking and strategic planning. It can also potentially contribute to a deeper understanding of strategic choice, a key facet of the organizational action view, by exploring the nature and complementarity of these two concepts.
Chapter 4 explores the relevance and applicability of leadership research in enhancing our understanding of boards of directors' xvi Preface functioning and effectiveness.
Secondly, it discusses methodological issues with respect to board research and indicates potentially fruitful methodological approaches. Consistent with the organizational action view of strategic management, this chapter aims to gain a deeper understanding of the dominant coalition, and shares the methodological perspective of this view.
Intended, Emergent, and Realized Strategies
Part II of the book, on "Realizing strategy," is concerned in various facets of strategy implementation within an organizationally informed perspective. Chapter 5 sets the scene, by highlighting the turbulence of the competitive environment, which makes capabilities for strategic thinking and successful realization of strategy even more critical.
It addresses the high costs of failed implementation efforts, as well as the reasons for which strategy implementation efforts can fail. Finally, it outlines various concepts and frameworks that can aid successful strategy implementation. Chapter 6 goes in depth into one facet of the organizational action view, the organizational paradigm, which provides the context for strategic choices and actions. It employs a processual approach to examine the nature of organizational culture and its effects, focusing on the close interrelationship between culture and strategic change.
The case discussion illustrates how a strategic re-direction involving market repositioning and substantial growth, can also entail significant cultural and organizational changes. The discussion suggests that rather than aiming for wholesale cultural change, an organization should recognize what aspects of the culture need to change and what aspects need to be nurtured.
The cultural web is employed as a useful framework for understanding the cultural and organizational situation of the firm, and identifying relevant changes. A typified framework for strategic decision-making is also presented as a useful tool for managing the change process, and some important issues of change management arising at each stage are discussed.
Continuing chapter 6's focus on the ideational aspects of the organization and a change perspective, chapter 7 emphasizes that effective change management is not just about the "hard" structural aspects of organizations; it requires an in-depth appreciation of the cultural and human aspects of organizations, and taking actions based on this understanding.
This chapter suggests that organizational discourse can provide access to this conceptual world of organizations and can also be used as an avenue for influencing it. Use of metaphor by change Preface xvii agents is discussed as a prime example of how discourse can help to achieve effective organizational change. Chapter 8 describes an organization development OD approach to managing strategic change processes, based on an "integrated organizational model" developed for this purpose, and illustrates its use through an empirical example.
Highlight your research
The process of applying the model and learning from this and other OD interventions, indicates how closer integration between the fields of OD and strategic management can help to bridge the gap of relevance between academic and practitioner concerns. The findings also highlight useful lessons which merit careful consideration by top management teams when developing strategy, and planning and leading strategic change.
In terms of the organizational action view, this chapter exemplifies a processual approach to strategic choice and implementation that takes into account key organizational factors in planning for and implementing change. In addition, it presents an organization development-oriented decision process that can support strategic choices by the dominant coalition; in doing so, it emphasizes the value of integrating organizational development with strategic management, in terms of enhanced practitioner relevance and more effective strategy implementation.
Part III of the book, entitled "Current themes and applications," discusses selected topical issues in strategic management. Chapter 9 outlines global privatization trends and the impact of privatization programs. Using a variant of the organizational action view as a theoretical framework, Singapore Telecom is analyzed as a case where state ownership combined with several contextual and firm-related factors, especially firm strategy, has led to sustained world-class performance relative to its peers. This analysis challenges the widely held position that public ownership is associated with inferior performance and points to the importance of strategy as a key factor in aiding superior performance even under public ownership.
Some theoretical and practical implications of the analysis are then outlined. Research on the importance of generally accepted "best practices" in corporate governance has generally failed to find convincing connections between these practices and organizational performance. Four possibilities are proposed for this tenuous xviii Freface relationship, that are not mutually exclusive. The methodological and substantive implications of each of these possibilities are then addressed. This chapter suggests that in order to gain an understanding of the strategic role and impact of boards, studies of structural board factors are insufficient; we must rather use in-depth qualitative methodologies to explore actual board functioning, and track the board's role in specific strategic decisions and actions.
This shares the methodological perspective of the organizational action view, its focus on strategic choices by the dominant coalition, and the importance of following through the decisions' impact on realized strategy and performance. Chapter 11 develops a typology of inter-organizational networks based on the key dimensions of organizational interdependence and network durability. This helps to place the network literature in context by suggesting that network features and processes vary in different types of networks, and have different implications for performance. This chapter includes an extended discussion of "embedded" networks found in East Asia.
A "micro-typology" of such embedded networks is developed, based on the dimensions of formalization of ties and networking scope. Thirdly, taking a strategic perspective on the role of the board of directors, it is suggested that in the context of achieving more effective governance, interlocking directors' roles should differ based on the type of network in which they are engaged. This chapter represents an attempt to operationalize a key conclusion of chapter 10, on the need to better understand directors' strategic roles, rather than the mostly fruitless attempt so far of attempting to relate structural board features to organizational performance.
Chapter 12 begins by addressing the characteristics of the shifting competitive landscape, significantly influenced by the forces of globalization and information and communication technologies. It expands on the crucial role of leadership for guiding organizations towards competitive success, especially the ability to effectively balance strategic and organizational tensions and paradoxes.
The implications of the new competitive environment for organizational design are then addressed, especially how firms can develop strategicflexibility. Intensified competitive churning leads to higher levels of uncertainty and risk. The chapter suggests that even though structured tools exist to help managers deal with such risk, the most effective defense at a strategic level is building sound strategic thinking and implementation capabilities.
The chapter ends by suggesting that notwithstanding the hype Preface xix and popular assertions that the old rules of strategy are not applicable any more, the opposite is true. Strategic clarity based on established principles is now more crucial than ever. Without Fiona's unceasing encouragement this book might not be a reality. I would also like to thank Chris Harrison and his colleagues at Cambridge University Press for their professional and outstanding work on all aspects of publishing this book.
Bibliography Barrett, M. Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice, Journal of Management Studies, Heracleous, L. Strategic thinking or strategic planning, Long Range Planning, The role of strategy implementation in organization development, Organization Development Journal, 18 3 : An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 4 : The contribution of discourse in understanding and managing organizational change, Strategic Change, A comment on the role of metaphor in knowledge generation, Academy of Management Review, Heracleous, L.
Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and deep structures in the context of IT implementation, Academy of Management Journal, Heracleous, L. Bridging the gap of relevance: strategic management and organizational development, Long Range Planning, Budging the gap of relevance: strategic management and organizational development, Long Range Planning, 31, Heracleous, L.
Discourse and the study of organization: towards a structurational perspective, Human Relations, xx Preface Heracleous, L. Seeing without being seen: towards an archaeology of controlling science, International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 3 : Jarzabkowski, P. C , Practice perspectives on strategy: unifying and developing a field, paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Denver, August I Bases of strategic management I The strategic management field Historical origins of the term "strategy" Strategy as a term was coined in Athens around BC, where ten strategoi comprised the Athenian war council and yielded both political and military power.
Etymologically, strategos, or general, derives from stratos the army and agein to lead. So, in this original sense, "strategy" is "the art of leading the army. Sun Tzu emphasized meticulous planning, the ideal of vanquishing the enemy indirectly without the need to fight, the qualities of effective generals, advice on managing the troops, and general principles and tactics of engaging with the enemy.
While strategy has originated in the military sphere, since the s it has risen into prominence in the business world. Drucker argued for an active approach to management which entailed 4 Bases of strategic management planning and actions intended to shape a firm's environment as opposed to simply reacting passively to it. The sociologist Philip Selznick at around the same time proposed the notion of an organization's "distinctive competence," which would become a central concept of the resource-based view of the firm Wernerfelt There are indeed good reasons for positing effective strategy as a cornerstone of high-performing organizations.
Research has shown that a firm's strategy is the most important determinant of its performance; industry context is important to performance, but not as important as firm strategy Bowman and Helfat ; McGahan and Porter ; Rumelt Some companies in very tough industries consistently deliver higher performance than their competitors, and this is because of the particular strategies they adopt at the global, corporate, business, and functional levels. Classic authors on strategy In , the Harvard Business School began offering a course in "Business Policy," intended to be a capstone course integrating the functional knowledge that the students had gained in earlier study.
Alfred Chandler of the Harvard Business School, in his classic Strategy and Structure , explored how large businesses adapted their administrative structures to accommodate strategies of growth. In this work he gave a basic definition of strategy and structure which would have long-lasting resonance in thefield:"strategy can be defined as the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals Structure can be defined as the design of organization through which the enterprise is administered" Chandler also suggested, based on his data, that "structure follows from strategy and that the most complex type of structure is the result of the concatenation of several basic strategies" Learned et al.
They viewed strategy formulation as a process The strategic management field 5 interrelated but practically distinct from strategy implementation, a distinction that has been questioned by strategy scholars, even those aligned with industrial organization economics such as Michael Porter, who has asserted that "there is no meaningful distinction between strategy and implementation, because strategy involves fine-grained choices about how to configure particular activities and the overall value chain" In formulating strategy, Learned et al.
Strategy could then be implemented through mobilizing resources, exhibiting leadership, and configuring the appropriate organization structure, incentives, and control systems. This broad approach was consistent with that of Chandler, and incorporated Selznick's concept of "distinctive competence" as well as the idea of an uncertain environment. Also in the mids, Igor Ansoff, in his Corporate Strategy argued that strategy provided a "common thread" for five interrelated issues - 1 product-market scope, 2 growth vector, 3 competitive advantage, 4 internally generated synergy, and 5 make or buy decisions - and stressed the need for mutual reinforcement among these choices.
Ansoff proposed the well-known product - mission matrix as a way for firms to define the common thread of their own strategy. This framework has nevertheless been popular as a means of identifying avenues for growth figure 1. This approach reinforced the notion that strategy had to be determined inductively on a case-by-case basis, depending on both the specific internal capabilities of each company and its particular external environment.
This approach assumed that the complexity of strategic decisions meant that it would be difficult if not impossible to establish useful generalizations. Strategic decisions such as divestments, new product launches, acquisitions, and overseas expansions do involve what has been referred to as "wicked" problems Mason and Mitroff Strategic decisions involve issues that are inherently ambiguous and unstructured, complex, have organization-wide implications and interconnections, are fundamental to the welfare of the organization, and often involve significant organizational change.
By comparison, operational decisions are routinized, operationally specific, and may involve smaller-scale change. Work by these early authors established the main parameters for how the subject of strategy would be understood and researched in the next few decades. These parameters included the link between strategy and performance, the importance of internal capabilities and resources as well as external environment, the distinction between formulation and implementation, and the active role of managers in setting and realizing strategy.
The entry of consulting firms While academics determined how strategy was to be taught in business schools, their insistence that strategy was idiosyncratic to each individual firm, meant that the growing business demand for standardized strategic frameworks could be addressed by consulting firms, who used this opportunity to exercise substantial influence on the practice of strategy. The Boston Consulting Group BCG , founded in , for example, was a pioneering consultancy that introduced influential concepts such as the "experience curve" and the "growth-share matrix" Stern and Stalk The experience curve concept held that total costs would decline by a certain percentage every time cumulative production doubled.
This idea spurred corporations to expand aggressively their The strategic management field capacity, focus on cost minimization, and seek higher demand, often by keen price competition. However, when inevitable market downturns occurred or innovative products were introduced, the flaws of this approach became apparent. Companies found themselves with excess capacity and outdated product designs, as well as reduced capacity for innovation given their previous focus on cost-cutting.
More criticism ensued. According to Ghemawat 9 , "the concept of the experience curve was also criticized for treating cost reductions as automatic rather than something to be managed, for assuming that most experience could be kept proprietary instead of spilling over to competitors, for mixing up different sources of cost reduction with very different strategic implications e.
When using the growth-share matrix, businesses are grouped in strategic business units SBUs a term introduced at a later stage by the CEO of General Electric for use in their own portfolio analysis tools and are mapped on a matrix along two dimensions: industry growth rate and relative market share. The SBUs are then divided into "stars," "question marks," "cash cows," and "dogs" figure 1.
BCG assumed that competitors with larger market shares would have the lowest costs and highest profits, and that in growing markets High growth Low growth High share Low share Star Question mark Cash cow Dog Figure 1. Based on these assumptions, the strategic implications of the BCG matrix were that cash from "cash cows" should be used to support selected "question marks" and to strengthen emerging "stars," the weakest "question marks" should be divested or liquidated, the company should exit from "dog" industries, and that the company should have a balanced portfolio of "stars," "cash cows," and "question marks.
One reason is that it is too simplistic to take important investment decisions based on just two, historically oriented dimensions. The historical performance of business or the historical growth pattern of markets were not guaranteed to continue along the same trajectory in future. Secondly, the relationship between market share and cost savings is not as straightforward as assumed by the growth-share matrix, for example in industries using low-share technologies such as mini-mills or micro-breweries, and in industries benefiting from computer-assisted manufacturing CAM.
Thirdly, even "cash cows" may require substantial investment to be kept competitive; for example, the motor vehicle industry is indeed low-growth and relatively consolidated, but it is also characterized by cut-throat competition. If the leading competitors reduce their investment in new vehicle designs, and product or process innovations in general, they are likely to be quickly overtaken by other more capable competitors.
Lastly, portfolio planning techniques tend to view businesses as free-standing entities, and thus ignore any potential or actual synergies between them. Even though such models are definite improvements over the BCG matrix, in that they address a much higher number of relevant dimensions of industry attractiveness and business strength, they still have some drawbacks.
They still tend to regard businesses as independent, downplay diversification as a strategy for creating value since they focus on existing businesses, and undervalue the need to leverage distinctive competencies and resources across business units to achieve synergies. The strategic management field 9 A significant alternative approach is Hamel and Prahalad's view of the corporation as a portfolio of core competencies as opposed to a portfolio of businesses Hamel and Prahalad Building on the resource-based view of the firm Wernerfelt , this view has important implications for investment decisions that are quite different from the implications arising from using portfolio tools such as the BCG matrix.
The aim shifts from strict maximization of financial performance of SBUs in the short term, to longer-term investment in the nurturing and creation of core competencies across SBUs that can enable the company to be a winner in the future; they thus focus on "opportunity share" rather than simply market share. The industrial organization model Meanwhile, developments in the academic sphere continued. Two streams of strategy research are particularly worth noting because of their significant influence on the field: the industrial organization model, and the resource-based model.
The industrial organization IO model focuses on the industry structure or attractiveness of the external environment, suggesting that the performance of any firm is largely determined by market characteristics Porter Economists have traditionally assumed a situation of perfect competition, where several equally capable competitors would gradually eliminate super-normal profits, and the choice of competing firms would be either to produce efficiently and price at cost, or exit the industry.
This emphasis has downplayed the empirically differential internal capabilities of firms, and focused on market structure, leading to the Structure-Conduct-Performance S-C-P paradigm that market structure would determine firm conduct which would determine performance. Bain identified three main barriers to entry to an industry as a means of explaining why some industries are more profitable than others: absolute cost advantages, product differentiation, and economies of scale.
Porter's model was an advance over existing understandings of the market in that it emphasized extended competition rather than simply current competitors, in the form of threat from substitute products, as well as offering a memorable, structured framework that could be easily applied. One subsequent development is the introduction of the concept of "complementers" Brandenburger and Nalebuff , firms from which customers buy, or suppliers sell, complementary products or services. Porter, however, believes that the relationship of complementors to industry profitability is not "monotonic," and that it has to be analyzed not as a force in its own right but through its effects on the five forces.
He made similar arguments for the role of government, that some have proposed as a sixth force Porter This early research set the foundations for the IO paradigm of strategic management; this includes using the industry as the unit of analysis, addressing the content rather than the process of strategies, methodologically employing archival data longitudinally, and posing the dominant inference pattern that industry structure sets limits onfirmperformance Jemison The realization that profitability differences within industries can be even greater than across industries, led to research on strategic groups The strategic management field 11 Hunt that aimed to explain this differential.
Companies within the same strategic group follow the same or similar strategies along certain dimensions Porter , and movement from one strategic group to another is hindered by so-called "mobility barriers" Caves and Porter , a similar concept to "barriers to entry. Fragmented industries are often characterized by low entry barriers and commoditylike products. Consolidated industries, on the other hand, have higher entry barriers and are composed of interdependent firms. Industry structure is dynamic; industries can move from being fragmented to more consolidated after an industry shakeout; or they can become fragmented after the entry of new competitors enabled by environmental shifts such as deregulation or the availability of new technologies or new distribution channels.
Porter's value chain and generic strategies Michael Porter also developed the value chain as a tool for analyzing an organization's internal activities. This represents the flow of activities that results in a product or service of value to the customer. Use of the value chain can enable a company gain a deeper understanding of where its distinctive value-adding competencies lie, or identify problems with its functioning.
Porter has shown how successful strategies involve clear choices as well as mutual reinforcement among a firm's internal activities Porter For example, a successful strategy of cost leadership involves cost control in all of a firm's activities which are mutually reinforcing to deliver a product or service of sufficient quality at a lower cost than most or all competitors.
With regard to generic strategies, Porter argues that "the fundamental basis of above-average performance in the long run is sustainable competitive advantage Each of the generic strategies involves a 12 Bases of strategic management fundamentally different route to competitive advantage" Porter Porter believes that a company should not try to follow more than one generic strategy, otherwise it risks being "stuck in the middle," achieving neither cost leadership nor differentiation: "achieving competitive advantage requires a firm to make a choice Being 'all things to all people' is a recipe for strategic mediocrity and below-average performance, because it often means that a firm has no competitive advantage at all" Porter Porter believes that it is possible for a firm to achieve both cost leadership and differentiation, but only where its competitors are stuck in the middle, cost is greatly affected by market share or firm interrelationships, or a firm pioneers a major innovation All of these situations, however, are seen as temporary, and there will come a time when a firm has to make a choice: "A firm should always aggressively pursue all cost reduction opportunities that do not sacrifice differentiation.
A firm should also pursue all differentiation opportunities that are not costly. Beyond this point, however, a firm should be prepared to choose what its ultimate competitive advantage will be and resolve the tradeoffs accordingly" Whether cost leadership and differentiation are compatible or not has been a point of controversy. Hill , for example, has argued that it is possible to have both, under certain conditions.
He argues that investment to increase differentiation can improve brand loyalty and expand sales, in turn reducing the long-run average costs. In this way, differentation allows afirmalso to attain a low-cost position. This proposition holds, however, only when expenditure on differentiation significantly increases demand, and the extent to which significant reductions in unit costs arise from increasing volume.
Generic strategies can be seen as a first step in deciding on businesslevel strategies. A company has also to decide on its particular image or positioning in the market and on its sales appeal to customers. Companies can also attempt to reposition themselves if they believe that this will lead to competitive advantage. For example, Volvo attempted to reposition not only as a brand associated with safety, but also associated with speed, and aired advertisements portraying a race between a Volvo and a BMW vehicle, with the Volvo The strategic management field 13 winning. BMW complained to the US advertising authorities, who ruled that the advertisement was not misleading because, taking into account the particular models shown, Volvo was indeed the faster.
The point is, however, that not many consumers were ultimately convinced of the Volvo brand's sportiness, illustrating how difficult it is to alter an already diffused brand image.
- Un médecin si troublant - Le mariage dont elle rêvait (Blanche) (French Edition);
- Lion House Bakery Cookbook!
- Saisons de Beyrouth (French Edition)!
- Manual para no morir de amor: Diez principios de supervivencia afectiva (Spanish Edition).
Organizational economics Two branches of organizational economics, transaction costs economics and agency theory, have been particularly influential in the strategic management field. Transaction costs economics Williamson , seeks to explain the existence of organizations hierarchies based on their higher efficiency in carrying through certain transactions, as compared to markets. The goal is minimization of transaction costs and the unit of analysis is firm-level dyadic transactions. Transaction cost logic can explain the widespread adoption of the multi-divisional form, as well as the potential benefits that accrue to firms undertaking related diversification through economies of scope or unrelated diversification through financial economies within an internal capital market.
Agency theory Jensen and Meckling ; Fama and Jensen suggests that the separation of ownership and control in modern corporations leads to a divergence of interest between the principals shareholders and the agents managers. It is assumed that the agents will act in a self-interested and opportunistic way to maximize their own interests at the expense of the principals.
Governance mechanisms thus become necessary. Internally they include the board of directors and configuration of executive compensation, and externally the market for corporate control and the market for managerial talent. Agency theory has been particularly influential in research on corporate governance, diversification, and firm innovation. The resource-based view While the traditional IO paradigm downplays internal firm capabilities and resources that can lead to competitive advantage, the resourcebased view suggests that above-average returns for any firm are largely determined by characteristics inside the firm.
Strategy and Organization: Realizing Strategic Management - PDF Free Download
This view focuses on 14 Bases of strategic management developing or obtaining valuable resources and capabilities which are difficult or impossible for rivals to imitate, because their link with the firm's competitive advantage may be causally ambiguous or the resources themselves may be socially complex. Thus, capabilities and resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and not substitutable can enable a firm achieve sustainable competitive advantage Barney While the concept of firms as sets of resources was originated by Penrose , it was Wernerfelt who more formally formulated the resource-based view of the firm.
He suggested that some resources can lead to higher profitability because they pose "resource position barriers" Wernerfelt , that afirmshould strike a balance between exploiting existing resources and developing new ones, and that acquisitions could be seen as purchasing a set of resources.
His definition of resources was "anything that could be thought of as a strength or weakness of a given firm. More formally, a firm's resources at a given time could be defined as those tangible and intangible assets which are tied semipermanently to the firm Examples of resources are: brand names, in-house knowledge of technology, employment of skilled personnel, trade contracts, machinery, efficient procedures, capital, etc. Barney et al. It has contributed to fields as diverse as human resource management, economics, finance, entrepreneurship, marketing, and international business.
Further potentially useful contributions can be made to the areas of organizational adaptation in fast-moving environments in the form of "dynamic capabilities" , corporate governance, management buyouts or venture capital financing Barney et al. The substantial influence of the resource-based view was partly because of its consonance with ongoing research at the time, as well as its consonance with the classic Harvard business policy model Wernerfelt With regard to theory, subsequent studies focused on specific The strategic management field 15 resources such as culture Barney , the dynamics of resource acquisition and shedding Montgomery , and the potential inertial effects of certain resources Leonard-Barton Upload PDF.
Follow this author. New articles by this author. New citations to this author. New articles related to this author's research. Email address for updates. My profile My library Metrics Alerts. Sign in. Get my own profile Cited by View all All Since Citations h-index 38 31 iindex 64 Verified email at wbs.
Strategic management organizational change organizational development organizational discourse corporate governance. Articles Cited by Co-authors. Title Cited by Year Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation L Heracleous, M Barrett. Academy of Management journal 44 4 , , Corporate governance: an international review 9 3 , ,