Search results

This paper focuses on individuals' improvisation in organizations. The extant literature in this area examines improvisation as either a predictor or an outcome variable. However, there is still considerable confusion about the essence of improvisation and its individual-level determinants. To address these deficiencies, we discuss the differences between improvisation, creativity, and intuition, integrating insights and theories from those fields. Then, we propose a comprehensive model describing a process that includes contextual and individual level variables, which leads to improvisation. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our model and suggest avenues for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new insights into conflict styles by examining a new set of antecedents and outcomes.

A theory is outlined and a theoretical model is presented to explain the relationship between a motivational antecedent – goal orientation – and conflict styles, and to explain the relationship between conflict styles and resolution preferences.

The paper suggests that goal orientation serves as an antecedent for subsequent conflict style. Moreover, resolution preferences vary depending on goal orientation and conflict style.

This paper has several implications for future research. Empirical research is needed to investigate the relationship between goal orientation and conflict styles as well as the relationship between conflict style and outcome preferences. Such research may either provide grounding to the model or generate further theory development regarding the antecedents and outcomes of conflict styles.

This paper suggests that goal orientations are relatively stable but that conflict styles are relatively mutable. This suggests that if people become aware of their goal orientation, they can change their conflict style to achieve a solution that is more appropriate for their unique situation.

This paper fills a gap in the literature and offers a new theoretical framework as to the antecedents and outcomes of conflict styles. The paper offers a motivational explanation for conflict styles and examines resolution preferences that could predict party satisfaction with the outcome.

Austrian economics figures centrally in organizational entrepreneurship research. However, researchers have focussed almost entirely on the Austrian school's “gales of creative destruction” and “entrepreneurial discovery” metaphors, which are rooted in equilibrium assumptions and thus downplay the more subjective and dynamic aspects of entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to question such assumptions, proposing instead a “kaleidic” metaphor drawn from the radical subjectivist strand of Austrian economics. The paper develops, grounds, and enriches the theoretical concepts this metaphor embodies in order to advance the general understanding of entrepreneurship as a radically subjective, disequilibrium phenomenon, as well as the specific knowledge of entrepreneurs’ career and venture experiences. In doing so, the paper highlights creative imagination as a wellspring of entrepreneurship.

The paper employs a case study design to inductively develop the theoretical concepts embodied in the kaleidic metaphor and deductively ground them in the accounts 12 entrepreneurs provided about their career and venture experiences. The paper employs symbolist methods to develop thicker descriptions, generate alternative understandings, and facilitate richer interpretations. Moreover, the paper adopts a reflexive approach in considering the study's implications.

The results suggest the kaleidic metaphor comprises five overarching ideas that resonate, often very strongly, with entrepreneurs.

The study is the first to theoretically develop and empirically ground the ideas the kaleidic metaphor embodies. The paper contributes to a growing body of conceptual work and joins a handful of empirical studies by organizational entrepreneurship scholars using the radical Austrian perspective.