Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T08:06:37.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature of management frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2019

Marko Budler Open the ORCID record for Marko Budler [Opens in a new window]  and
Peter Trkman Open the ORCID record for Peter Trkman [Opens in a new window]
Marko Budler*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit for Business Informatics and Logistics, School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 17, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Peter Trkman
Affiliation:
Academic Unit for Business Informatics and Logistics, School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 17, Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A management framework (like the Business Model Canvas or SWOT) is a combination of interlinked items that support a particular approach to a specific objective. Various management frameworks are widely used even though their origins, adoption, and value remain vague. Previous research tried to decipher the adoption of these management frameworks, whereas considerably less attention was devoted to the theoretical explanation of the development and value of the frameworks. This paper investigates the nature of management frameworks in particular realms using analogical reasoning between biological and social systems, and mostly draws on memetics, intersubjective reality, and the network effect. By using memetics, the explanations on the origins of well-known frameworks are complemented. Second, the paper shows the role of the network effect in the growing value of a framework until it becomes an intersubjective reality. Finally, such a framework is explained as autopoietic within a particular realm.

Keywords

frameworksmemeticsnetwork effectautopoietic systemsintersubjectivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 2023 , pp. 173 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612. doi:10.2307/258636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285. doi:10.2307/258636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1993). Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. The Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 487–517. doi:10.2307/258906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
Andrew, N. L., & Evans, L. (2011). Approaches and frameworks for management and research in small-scale fisheries. In Smallscale fisheries management: Frameworks and approaches for the developing world (pp. 16–34). Oxfordshire: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67–92.Google Scholar
Arjen, W. v. (2015). What happened to Popperian falsification? A manifesto to create a healthier business and management scholarship – toward a scientific Wikipedia (1st ed., p. 36). United Kingdom: Cardiff Business School.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1983). Cheating in management science. Interfaces, 13(4), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldridge, J. V., & Okimi, P. H. (1982). Strategic planning in higher education: New tool-or new gimmick? AAHME Bulletin, 35(6), 15–18.Google Scholar
Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48–60. doi:10.1145/63238.63241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardone, E. (2011). Seeking chances: From biased rationality to distributed cognition (Vol. 13). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauckhage, C. (2011). Insights into Internet Memes. Paper presented at the Weblogs and Social Media 2011. ICWSM 2011. Fifth International AAAI Conference on.Google Scholar
Bazin, Y., & Naccache, P. (2016). The emergence of heterotopia as a heuristic concept to study organization. European Management Review, 13(3), 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechmann, G., & Stehr, N. (2002). The legacy of Niklas Luhmann. Society, 39(2), 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, P. W. (1982). Corporate planning for an uncertain future. Long Range Planning, 15(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. G., & Rochford, L. (2016). Rediscovering SWOT's integrative nature: A new understanding of an old framework. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benders, J., & Van Veen, K. (2001). What's in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization, 8(1), 33–53. doi:10.1177/135050840181003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.34421969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 1–16. doi:10.2307/2649279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braganza, A., Awazu, Y., & Desouza, K. C. (2009). Sustaining innovation is challenge for incumbents. Research-Technology Management, 52(4), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387. doi:10.1108/09600030810882816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T. (2004). The fashion of management fashion: A surge too far? Organization, 11(2), 297–306. doi:10.1177/1350508404030659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 995–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: A theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 231–267. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2554-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Quincey, C. (2000). Intersubjectivity: Exploring consciousness from the second-person perspective. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 32(2), 135–155.Google Scholar
Dirk, L. (1999). A measure of originality: The elements of science. Social Studies of Science, 29(5), 765–776. doi:10.1177/030631299029005004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 10(1–2), 16–35. doi:10.1177/1463499610370517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faran, D. (2009). The theory of the business, falsification and avoiding managerial unawareness. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 5, 89–101.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., & Blackman, D. (2017). Translating innovative practices into organizational knowledge in the public sector: A case study. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 42–57. doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. W., & Tesone, D. V. (2001). Management fads: Emergence, evolution, and implications for managers. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(4), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldkuhl, G. (1996). Generic business frameworks and action modelling. Muenchen, Germany: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1979). The idea of ‘advancement’ in theories of social evolution and development. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S. E. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. The Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2003). Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology, 7(3). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss3/art8/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heusinkveld, S., Sturdy, A., & Werr, A. (2011). The co-consumption of management ideas and practices. Management Learning, 42(2), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F. (1998). What makes a meme successful? Selection criteria for cultural evolution. Paper presented at the 15th International Congress on Cybernetics.Google Scholar
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huczynski, A. A. (1993). Explaining the succession of management fads. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(2), 443–463. doi:10.1080/09585199300000023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Boston: Northwestern University Press, 405. https://philpapers.org/rec/HUSTCO-7 https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-European-Sciences-Transcendental-Phenomenology/dp/081010458XGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (1980). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. Distributors for the U.S. And Canada, Kluwer Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39.Google Scholar
Jacky, S., Sue, N., Harry, S., & Donald, H. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking null. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262–275. doi:10.1108/13673279910304014Google Scholar
Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, D. II, & Lee, W.-H. (2016). Crossing the management fashion border: The adoption of business process reengineering services by management consultants offering total quality management services in the United States, 1992–2004. Journal of Management and Organization, 22(5), 702–719. doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1995). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Performance Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook, 66, 17511.Google Scholar
Karataş-Özkan, M., & Murphy, W. D. (2010). Critical theorist, postmodernist and social constructionist paradigms in organizational analysis: A paradigmatic review of organizational learning literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karayiannis, A. D., & Fullbrook, E. (2002). Intersubjectivity in economics: Agents and structures. Accademia Editoriale, Italy: JSTOR.Google Scholar
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. doi:10.2307/249410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. A new literacies sampler, 199–227.Google Scholar
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233. doi:10.2307/3069293Google Scholar
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109–117.Google Scholar
Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An evaluation of process-oriented supply chain management frameworks. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, R. B., & Wholey, D. R. (1993). Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 106–138. doi:10.2307/256514Google Scholar
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(2), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letscher, M. G. (1990). Fad or trend? How to distinguish them and capitalize on them. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(2), 21–26. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000002573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1994). Network externality: An uncommon tragedy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisack, M. (2003). The redefinition of memes: Ascribing meaning to an empty cliche. Emergence, 5(3), 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, A. S. (2012). Reviving organisational memetics through cultural Linnæanism. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(3), 349–370. doi:10.1108/19348831211254143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. Sociocybernetic Paradoxes, 6(2), 172–192.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1992). What is communication? Communication Theory, 2(3), 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1997). Globalization or world society: How to conceive of modern society? International Review of Sociology, 7(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2018). Organization and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, F. (1995). Die Integration wissens- und modellbasierter Konzepte zur Entscheidungsunterstützung im Innovationsmanagement. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mamman, A. (2002). The adoption and modification of management ideas in organizations: Towards an analytical framework. Strategic Change, 11(7), 379–389. doi:10.1002/jsc.608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, M. L. (1987). Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14(5), 491–511. doi:10.1177/009365087014005003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín, A. E., Martínez, C., Martínez Carod, N., Aranda, G. N., & Cechich, A. (2003). Classifying groupware tools to improve communication in geographically distributed elicitation. Paper presented at the IX Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación.Google Scholar
Marwell, G., Oliver, P. E., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the Critical Mass. III. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 502–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. In Bokulich, Alisa, Renn, J, Massimi, Michela Divarci, Lindy (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (Vol. 42, pp. 59–138). Dordrecht, Holland: Springer Netherlands, D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, D. (2002). ‘Waiting for dead men's shoes’: Towards a cultural understanding of management innovation. Human Relations, 55(5), 505–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, T. (2019). Examining management buzzwords – starting with ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., Hartwick, J., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2004). How to detect a management fad – and distinguish it from a classic. Business Horizons, 47(4), 7–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(04)00043-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minniti, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship and network externalities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(1), 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. (2006). Translating management ideas. Organization Studies, 27(2), 207–233. doi:10.1177/0170840605057667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohria, N., & Berkley, J. (1994). Whatever happened to the take-charge manager? Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 128–137.Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mahoney, J. (2007). The diffusion of management innovations: The possibilities and limitations of memetics. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1324–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-business-model-ontology-a-proposition-in-a-Osterwalder/87bbedf0efbf010515ed54086bdf31c7cb33e4a3Google Scholar
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 318–337.Google Scholar
Patel, T. (2017). Multiparadigmatic studies of culture: Needs, challenges, and recommendations for management scholars. European Management Review, 14(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pech, J. R. (2003a). Memes and cognitive hardwiring: Why are some memes more successful than others? European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 173–181. doi:10.1108/14601060310486244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pech, J. R. (2003b). Memetics and innovation: Profit through balanced meme management. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 111–117. doi:10.1108/14601060310475264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2004). Memetic engineering: A framework for organisational diagnosis and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 452–465. doi:10.1108/01437730410544764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. A. (1979). Revitalizing the culture concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1961). The poverty of historicism (Vol. 9). London: Routledge & Paul.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1989). How competitive forces shape strategy. In Readings in strategic management (pp. 133–143). Palgrave, London.Google Scholar
Postma, T. J. B. M., & Liebl, F. (2005). How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2003.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. (2016). The fashionable adoption of online learning technologies in Australian universities. Journal of Management & Organization, 11(1), 57–73. doi:10.1017/S1833367200004417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, I. (2012). The selfish signifier: Meaning, virulence and transmissibility in a management fashion. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(3), 337–348. doi:10.1108/19348831211243848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 57–66. doi:10.2307/259394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, T., & Michael, E. (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00036-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaei, R., Chiew, T. K., & Lee, S. P. (2014). A review on E-business interoperability frameworks. Journal of Systems and Software, 93, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. (1995). A framework for defining total quality management. Competitiveness Review, 5(2), 32–47. doi:10.1108/eb060192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of consumer Research, 2(4), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røvik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631–653. doi:10.1177/0170840611405426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2001). Explaining the diffusion of knowledge management: The role of fashion. British Journal of Management, 12(1), 3–12. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoder, D. (2000). Forecasting the success of telecommunication services in the presence of network effects. Information Economics and Policy, 12(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society, 47(2), 148–186. doi:10.1177/0007650306297942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secchi, D., & Gullekson, N. L. (2015). Individual and organizational conditions for the emergence and evolution of bandwagons. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 22(1), 88–133. doi:10.1007/s10588-015-9199-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, D., & Becker, K. H. (2005). Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Maelmo, Sweden: Liber Malmö.Google Scholar
Shepherd, J., & McKelvey, B. (2009). An empirical investigation of organizational memetic variation. Journal of Bioeconomics, 11(2), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 156–161.Google Scholar
Snowden, D. (2011). Good fences make good neighbors. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 10(1–4), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spell, C. S. (1999). Where do management fashions come from, and how long do they stay? Journal of Management History (Archive), 5(6), 334–348. doi:10.1108/13552529910288127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices: Theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Management Learning, 35(2), 155–179. doi:10.1177/1350507604043023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, R. A. (2007). Theory framework for applied disciplines: Boundaries, contributing, core, useful, novel, and irrelevant components. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 321–339. doi:10.1177/1534484307303770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenaglia, M., & Noonan, P. (1992). Scenario-based strategic planning: A process for building top management consensus. Planning Review, 20(2), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teresa, B. R. M. (2019). New ventures’ collaborative linkages and innovation performance: Exploring the role of distance. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(01), 26–41.Google Scholar
Thun, J.-H., Größler, A., & Milling, P. M. (2000). The diffusion of goods considering network externalities: a system dynamics-based approach. Sustainability in the Third Millennium. Systems Dynamics Society, Albany, 204.201-204.214.Google Scholar
Trigkas, M., Anastopoulos, C., Papadopoulos, I., & Lazaridou, D. (2019). Business model for developing strategies of forest cooperatives. Evidence from an emerging business environment in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 1–24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10549811.2019.1635031Google Scholar
Trompenaars, F. (1995). The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value Systems for Creating Wealth in Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Valentin, E. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Heij, C. V. (2013). Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review, 10(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). Digital Transformation: A roadmap for billion-dollar organizations. MIT Center for Digital Business and Capgemini Consulting, 1–68.Google Scholar
Whitney, J. G., & Tesone, D. V. (2001). Management fads: Emergence, evolution, and implications for managers. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 15(4), 122–133. doi:10.2307/4165791Google Scholar
Whitney, J. G., Tesone, D. V., & Blackwell, C. W. (2003). Management fads: Here yesterday, gone today? S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 68(4), 12–17.Google Scholar
Whitty, S. J. (2005). A memetic paradigm of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 575–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (2000). The business of memes: Memetic possibilities for marketing and management. Management Decision, 38(4), 272–279. doi:10.1108/00251740010371748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanotti, G. J. (2007). Intersubjectivity, subjectivism, social sciences, and the Austrian school of economics. Journal of Markets & Morality, 10(1), 27.Google Scholar