Advertisement

Umbrella Constructs: An Overarching Framework

  • Olimpia MeglioEmail author
  • Svante Schriber
Chapter
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

What are umbrella constructs and why they are popular? How do we analyze them? What is their contribution to the development of the management field in general, and the merger and acquisition one in particular? What roles can they play in research and practice? These are questions we delve into in this chapter. To achieve this aim, we critically reflect on how an umbrella approach can shed new light on these terms. We thereby complement efforts to primarily reduce their use or their meanings into more precise, narrowly defined measures. We develop a framework that helps disentangle different roles umbrella constructs play at different stages of the idea generation, acceptance, and dissemination process and identify mechanisms through which umbrella constructs spur the development of new ideas and shape their travel and transfer.

Keywords

Umbrella construct Wholeness approach Fragmentary approach Interpretive approach Ideas generation-acceptance-dissemination process Construct travel Citation 

References

  1. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Technical and aesthetic fashion. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 117–137). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
  3. Arend, R. J., & Bromiley, P. (2009). Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: Spare change, everyone? Strategic Organization, 7(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Astley, W. G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 245–273.Google Scholar
  6. Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barinaga, E. (2002). Levelling vagueness: A study of cultural diversity in an international project group. Stockholm: Ekonomiska forskningsinstitutet, EFI.Google Scholar
  8. Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
  10. Bartunek, J. M., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). The interdisciplinary career of a popular construct used in management: Empowerment in the late 20th century. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brozovic, D. (2018). Strategic flexibility: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caputo, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida (Vol. 53). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corvellec, H. (2018). Stories of achievements: Narrative features of organizational performance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (2005). Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Daft, R. L., & Wiginton, J. C. (1979). Language and organization. Academy of Management Review, 4(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Datta, D. K. (1991). Organizational fit and acquisition performance: Effects of post-acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deetz, S. (1996). Crossroads—Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Easterby‐Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management, 20, S1–S8.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engwall, L. (1995). Management research: A fragmented adhocracy? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(3), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engwall, L., & Kipping, M. (2004). Introduction: The dissemination of management knowledge. Management Learning, 35(3), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furnari, S., & Marti, E. (2018). Umbrella constructs and problem-driven research: A pragmatist approach. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 12726). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  25. Gherardi, S., & Strati, A. (1988). The temporal dimension in organizational studies. Organization Studies, 9(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giroux, H. (2006). ‘It was such a handy term’: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1227–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
  30. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  31. Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Kahn, R. L. (1974). Organizational development: Some problems and proposals. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10(4), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lervik, J. E., & Lunnan, R. (2004). Contrasting perspectives on the diffusion of management knowledge: Performance management in a Norwegian multinational. Management Learning, 35(3), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. McKinley, W., Wood, M. S., & Moon, G. (2011). Low heed in organization theory. M@n@gement, 14(3), 154–181.Google Scholar
  41. Meglio, O., & Capasso, A. (2012). The evolving role of mergers and acquisitions in competitive strategy research. In G. B. Dagnino (Ed.), Handbook of research on competitive strategy (p. 237). Cheltenam: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Meglio, O., & Risberg, A. (2011). The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(4), 418–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mica, A. (2013). From diffusion to translation and back. Disembedding-re-embedding and re-invention in sociological studies of diffusion. Polish Sociological Review, 181(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  44. Mone, M. A., & McKinley, W. (1993). The uniqueness value and its consequences for organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(3), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Örtenblad, A. (2005). Vague and attractive: Five explanations of the use of ambiguous management ideas. Philosophy of Management, 5(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Örtenblad, A. (2010). Odd couples or perfect matches? On the development of management knowledge packaged in the form of labels. Management Learning, 41(4), 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osigweh, C. A. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 14, 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 747–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riad, S., & Daellenbach, U. (2019). Varieties of value in mergers and acquisitions: Time for a new research agenda. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 18, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Risberg, A. (1999). Ambiguities thereafter. An interpretive approach to acquisitions. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shelton, L. M. (1988). Strategic business fits and corporate acquisition: Empirical evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 9(3), 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  57. Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357.Google Scholar
  58. Sun, H. C. (2003). Conceptual clarifications for ‘organizational learning’, ‘learning organization’ and ‘a learning organization’. Human Resource Development International, 6(2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  62. Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1972). The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. American Journal of Public Health, 62(3), 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Grinsven, M., Heusinkveld, S., & Cornelissen, J. (2016). Translating management concepts: Towards a typology of alternative approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Warriner, C. K., Hall, R. H., & McKelvey, B. (1981). The comparative description of organizations: A research note and invitation. Organization Studies, 2(2), 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.Google Scholar
  66. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell’s.Google Scholar
  69. Wright, C., & Kitay, J. (2004). Spreading the word: Gurus, consultants and the diffusion of the employee relations paradigm in Australia. Management Learning, 35(3), 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zollo, M., & Singh, H. (2004). Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: Post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in US bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1233–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BeneventoItaly
  2. 2.StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations