制度多元性和断裂的组织自我

IF 1.9 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Charles D.T. Macaulay, Sarah Woulfin
{"title":"制度多元性和断裂的组织自我","authors":"Charles D.T. Macaulay, Sarah Woulfin","doi":"10.1108/sbm-10-2022-0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the plurality of logics composing an organizational field and how that plurality affects a sport governing body's (SGB) sense of self. The authors sought to determine what logics exist in a specific field and how they interact according to Kraatz and Block's (2017) types of organizational responses. Finally, the authors explore how an organization's responses affect organizational outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed 476 unique organizational web pages and documents and 293 news media articles from four news outlets. The authors conduct a content analysis informed by Gioia et al .’s (2013) method to explore the website data to understand the logics of the field. The authors analyze the media articles for media accounts of events and determine how logics inform an SGB's actions (Cocchairella and Edwards, 2020). Findings The authors find institutional plurality leads to a fractured organizational sense of self, resulting in poor outcomes. The authors' findings suggest Kraatz and Block's (2017) as well as other previously theorized strategies do not lead to an organization reconciling competing logics. Rather, the strategies employed led to outcomes harming the organization's legitimacy and financial well-being. Originality/value There are several calls within the broader management field and the sport management field to address institutional plurality (Kraatz and Block, 2017; Robertson et al., 2022). Unlike previous research studies, this study finds detrimental effects of plurality on an organization. The authors discuss the strength of the strategies employed and why the strategies failed.","PeriodicalId":45818,"journal":{"name":"Sport Business and Management-An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional plurality and a fractured organizational self\",\"authors\":\"Charles D.T. Macaulay, Sarah Woulfin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sbm-10-2022-0096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the plurality of logics composing an organizational field and how that plurality affects a sport governing body's (SGB) sense of self. The authors sought to determine what logics exist in a specific field and how they interact according to Kraatz and Block's (2017) types of organizational responses. Finally, the authors explore how an organization's responses affect organizational outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed 476 unique organizational web pages and documents and 293 news media articles from four news outlets. The authors conduct a content analysis informed by Gioia et al .’s (2013) method to explore the website data to understand the logics of the field. The authors analyze the media articles for media accounts of events and determine how logics inform an SGB's actions (Cocchairella and Edwards, 2020). Findings The authors find institutional plurality leads to a fractured organizational sense of self, resulting in poor outcomes. The authors' findings suggest Kraatz and Block's (2017) as well as other previously theorized strategies do not lead to an organization reconciling competing logics. Rather, the strategies employed led to outcomes harming the organization's legitimacy and financial well-being. Originality/value There are several calls within the broader management field and the sport management field to address institutional plurality (Kraatz and Block, 2017; Robertson et al., 2022). Unlike previous research studies, this study finds detrimental effects of plurality on an organization. The authors discuss the strength of the strategies employed and why the strategies failed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sport Business and Management-An International Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sport Business and Management-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sbm-10-2022-0096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sport Business and Management-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sbm-10-2022-0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是探讨构成组织场域的逻辑多元性,以及这种多元性如何影响体育管理机构的自我意识。作者试图根据Kraatz和Block(2017)的组织响应类型来确定特定领域中存在哪些逻辑,以及它们如何相互作用。最后,作者探讨了组织的反应如何影响组织的结果。作者分析了来自4家新闻媒体的476个独特的组织网页和文件以及293篇新闻媒体文章。作者采用Gioia et al .(2013)的方法对网站数据进行了内容分析,以了解该领域的逻辑。作者分析了媒体报道事件的媒体文章,并确定逻辑如何通知SGB的行动(Cocchairella和Edwards, 2020)。研究发现,制度多元性导致组织自我意识断裂,结果不佳。作者的研究结果表明,Kraatz和Block(2017)以及其他先前理论化的策略不会导致组织协调相互竞争的逻辑。相反,所采用的策略导致了损害组织合法性和财务健康的结果。在更广泛的管理领域和体育管理领域,有几个人呼吁解决机构多元化问题(Kraatz和Block, 2017;Robertson et al., 2022)。与以往的研究不同,本研究发现了多元化对组织的不利影响。作者讨论了所采用的策略的强度以及策略失败的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutional plurality and a fractured organizational self
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the plurality of logics composing an organizational field and how that plurality affects a sport governing body's (SGB) sense of self. The authors sought to determine what logics exist in a specific field and how they interact according to Kraatz and Block's (2017) types of organizational responses. Finally, the authors explore how an organization's responses affect organizational outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed 476 unique organizational web pages and documents and 293 news media articles from four news outlets. The authors conduct a content analysis informed by Gioia et al .’s (2013) method to explore the website data to understand the logics of the field. The authors analyze the media articles for media accounts of events and determine how logics inform an SGB's actions (Cocchairella and Edwards, 2020). Findings The authors find institutional plurality leads to a fractured organizational sense of self, resulting in poor outcomes. The authors' findings suggest Kraatz and Block's (2017) as well as other previously theorized strategies do not lead to an organization reconciling competing logics. Rather, the strategies employed led to outcomes harming the organization's legitimacy and financial well-being. Originality/value There are several calls within the broader management field and the sport management field to address institutional plurality (Kraatz and Block, 2017; Robertson et al., 2022). Unlike previous research studies, this study finds detrimental effects of plurality on an organization. The authors discuss the strength of the strategies employed and why the strategies failed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sport Business and Management-An International Journal
Sport Business and Management-An International Journal HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
15.40%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信