Management Fashion Theory - Literature review Example

Heading: Management Fashion Theory Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction Rogers and Abrahamson have developed different theories to explain their thoughts on management fashion. Nevertheless, each of these theories has various strengths, and weaknesses, as brought about by different individuals. Abrahamson’s theory features are lifecycles, triggers, and common learning processes. On the other hand, Roger’s diffusion theory features include innovation, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. This paper intends to explore some of the features of Roger’s theories, as well as Abrahamson’s theory. It also examines the criticisms of the theories, as well as better ways of theorizing IT innovation. The paper also seeks to analyze main features of popular management literature, and reasons for failure of management fads. Key features of Roger’s diffusion The key features of Roger’s diffusion theory include the considerable advantage of innovation, which means that each new idea is better than the old one it is being replaced. The second feature of theory involves measuring of the idea’s compatibility with the already existing values, adopter’s needs, and experiences. The third feature entails the degree of complexity, or the ease involved in the understanding of an innovation. Lastly, the fourth and fifth connected features are trialability and observability (Rogers 1995). Trialability can also mean the degree of innovation implementation, while observability refers to the degree to which the innovation results are noticeable to others. A communication channel refers to the way in which information gets to an individual from another. Besides, these communication channels exist in two categories including interpersonal and mass media (Smith, Rainnie, Dunford, Hardy, Hudson, & Sadler 2002; Rogers 1995). McMasters and Wastell’s criticisms of Roger’s approach According to Grant (2009), social constructivist models are more significant as compared to the diffusion theory. First, the diffusion theory does not consider the structure and the role of competition in any organization. Another limitation is that the theory does not consider marketing mix variables and competitive advantage. Additionally, it does not take into account allocation of resources and their influence on the pattern of diffusion in connection with the product cycle. Nevertheless, the limitations depend on the external and internal effects, and estimations of the values obtained at the peak of the bell-shaped curve (Gatignon & Robertson 1985; Lambkin & Day1989). Recommendations of better theorization of IT innovation In order to improve the theorization of IT innovations, it is important to make some changes. First, it is important to characterize the project, as well as its environment. Secondly, it is imperative to plan a set of objectives and the suitable process models, techniques, and tools used in the achievement of the goals. Thirdly, it is crucial to execute the process as per the defined objectives, product development, as well as collection and examination of every data for feedback reasons. Fourthly, it is important to analyze and package data collected after every project in order to use it future projects (Kautz & Larsen 2000). What are the key features of his theory of ‘management fashion’ Acording to Perkmann and Spicer (2008), the management fashion theory emphasizes on three key features, which include its lifecycles, forces that trigger stages of its lifecycle, and type of shared learning it promoted. Majority of the management fashion theory explain a different lifecycle for fashionable management discourse, which is a considerably long time of dormancy, after the invention, reinvention, or rediscovery of the management technique. This is normally followed by bell-shaped, short-lived, and symmetric fame curve. Nevertheless, there is no explicit proof that management fashions have a phase of dormancy, which has a considerably wavelike pattern, short-lived, or a symmetrical pattern (Abrahamson & Fairchild 1999). Additionally, it is unknown whether and why transitoriness, dormancy, and symmetry would attain. Regarding the relationship between a discourse lifecycle on management method and the lifecycle’s diffusion in all firms, different literature has analyzed both extent and rate of their diffusion and their adoption sequencing. There is an existence of a constructive feedback loop links the amount of discourse, which promotes a management technique, as well as its diffusion. Secondly, management fashion theory has both endogenous and exogenous forces to the management-knowledge market, whose work is triggering and shaping of fashions. Nevertheless, the theory does not specify whether both or either of the forces influence management fashions, and the manner in which they may interact (Perkmann & Spicer 2008). Under general standards of progress and rationality, certain beliefs exist that some organizational components like strategies, employees, and structures should be controlled by use of rational and progressive methods designed clearly to run the components. Furthermore, exogenous explanations assert that forces that originate outside the management-knowledge market can create or demolish the management fashions places or generate demand for new kinds of systems in an existing place. On contrast, endogenous explanations argue that under general standards of progress, knowledge entrepreneurs repeatedly refill existing places with supposedly improved and new management methods despite the exogenous forces (Kieser 1997; Abrahamson & Fairchild 1999). Thirdly, one trigger explanation mentions processes that generate actual learning, in which management discussion properly specifies the link between actions and results. Other explanations discuss the processes that seem to cause superstitious learning, which subjective learning experience is significant, and misspecifications of actions and results (Corbett-Etchevers 2004). Abrahamson management fashion theory and Roger’s diffusion theory Abrahamson management fashion theory and Roger’s diffusion theory are similar in that Abrahamson management fashion is an extension of Roger’s diffusion theory. While Rogers focuses on diffusion theory, Abrahamson emphasizes on management fashion. In Roger’s theory, the key features include relative advantage, compatibility with existing practices and values, easy, and simplicity of use, triability, as well as observable results. Moreover, Roger’s diffusion theory has certain elements including innovation, communication, time, and social systems (Rogers 1995). On the other hand, Abrahamson’s theory of management fashion entails key features including lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes (Abrahamson & Fairchild 1999). In the management of fashion, success is determined by certain factors including the ability and readiness to adapt to the changes, and to learn ways of managing and leading. Besides, success in fashion management depends on willingness to manage any changes that come in the organization. Effectiveness of management fashioned relies on willingness to share recognition, as well as to take action. Additionally, successful fashion management is achievable through readiness to learn from rebound and failure. Success is also determined by the ability to tolerate healthy conflicts to avoid unfavorable decisions, as well as the willingness to enhance work satisfaction among team members (Abrahamson & Fairchild 1999). Features of popular management literature Management literature involves use of various management myths and fashions. These management fashions follow a path, which is in form of normal shaped curves. These normal shaped curves imply that at the beginning of each management fashion, there are few pioneers willing to adopt the plan. As time passes by, the populace sees the management outcome, these people get motivated, and they mimic them and till the fashion is outdated. Therefore, new management fashions may arise, which the managers and the old management fashions are used by few then adopt. For instance, these management fashions include total quality management, organizational culture, and lean production. Criticism of Abrahamson’s approach and interpretative viability The main shortcoming is the disconnection between explanations of management style established in the literature and resultant empirical study. This research on management fashion is founded on a core paradox. Management fashion investigators argue that the gist of their research on diffusion means and the extent to which notions become implemented within institutions. They also proclaim that one result of their study is to come up with a way of assisting directors in identifying those key techniques and ideas, which are possibly temporary and lethal to the organization performance. Nevertheless, they seldom give straight empirical proof of organizational enforcement. In spite the cosmopolitan use, reference analysis has serious repercussions. Every article must be read to determine whether a notion is a core or peripheral importance to the main point, but the main thing is to determine if citation analysis actually will depict the full cycle of a notion. Reference analysis is restricted to the number references to a notion in particular of print media, mostly the peer reviewed journals. According to Benders and Van Veen (2001), interpretative viability is highly indispensable in the conceptual feature, which facilitates enforcement by organizational managers. This concept creates the probability of translating a concept to particular organizational context. Nevertheless, Morris and Lancaster (2007) say that this goes together with changes in local sense. The concept created different interpretations in various professional communities, and interpretations are connected to their professional practices and norms. Reasons for failure of management fads Lack of managerial Leadership Management fads fail when the management fails to show its dedication by actions to the process it is initiation. Certainly, most of these programs are introduced and run by mid-level managers who have, if any, participation by executives. When executives get involved, their zeal is rarely substantive. The firms that are effective over the long period, in spite of the program enforced, consistently feature the individual leadership of managerial teams (McCabe 2011). Failure to deploy Management of fads becomes ineffective when management fails to maintain the program past the commencement of the training, or enforce the program beyond the group of pilot department. After the first initial round of enhancement of attained, no mechanisms is created to maintain the process. Program actions are seen as homework instead of real work, and because several projects focus on below the standards, and since less biddable challenges are met. Sometimes, distinct groups in a firm assume various programs, and then expend precious resources and time throwing buzzwords at each other instead of looking for common ground. Successful firms, on contrary, create their own plans from several sources, actively involve all groups at every level, and develop lasting structures to resolve and identify challenges (McCabe 2011). Seeking shortcuts Management will involve superficial features of a program, aiming to mimic the successes of the initiation firms. These pioneers always established well thought-out processes involving several contributing elements. The firms that implement some elements and disregard others fail to achieve the synergy (McCabe 2011). Insufficient gauging Management fails if does not gauge success appropriately. These firms commonly do not lack measurements. A problem comes when these firms are disengaged from the business outcomes. Projects focus on ensuring all internal processes are effective whilst neglecting customer gusto, since the former is easier to gauge as compared to the customer satisfaction (McCabe 2011). Conclusion Rogers and Abrahamson have different theories, which explain the concept of management fashion. Abrahamson’s theory features are lifecycles, triggers, and common learning processes. Its criticism is that the researchers seldom give instant empirical proof of organizational enforcement. On contrast, Roger’s diffusion theory features include innovation, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. It is flawed because does not consider the structure and the role of competition in any organization, as well as resource allocation in a firm. To improve IT innovation, it is imperative to characterize the project, set objectives, execute the project, and analyze the outcomes. Main management myths and fashions include total quality management, organizational culture, and lean production. In addition, management fads fail because of insufficient gauging, shortcuts, lack of deploying, as well as lack of managerial leadership. References Abrahamson, E & Fairchild, G 1999, ‘Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 pp. 708-740. Benders, J & van Veen, K 2001, ‘What’s in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions’, Organization, vol. 8, no.1: pp. 33–53. Clark, T 2004, ‘The Fashion of Management Fashion: a Surge Too Far?’ Organization, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 297-306. Corbett-Etchevers, I 2004, ‘A narrative framework for management ideas: Disclosing the plots of knowledge management in a multinational company’, Management Learning, vol. 42, no.2, pp. 165–181 Gatignon, H, & Robertson, TS, 1985, ‘A prepositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research’, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 849-867 Grant, K 2009, Knowledge Management, An Enduring but Confusing Fashion’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 no. 2, pp. 117-131. Kautz, K & Larsen, EA 2000, ‘Diffusion theory and practice Disseminating quality management and software process improvement innovations’, Information Technology & People, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 11-26. Kieser, A 1997, ‘Rhetoric and Myth in Management Fashion’, Organization, vol. 4, no.1, pp. 49-74. Lambkin, M, & Day, GS 1989, ‘Evolutionary processes in competitive markets: Beyond the product life cycle’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 53, no.1, pp. 4-20. McCabe, D 2011, ‘Opening Pandora’s box: The unintended consequences of Stephen Covey’s effectiveness movement’, Management Learning, vol. 42, no.2, pp. 183–197 Morris, T, &Lancaster, Z 2007, ‘Translating management ideas’, Organization Studies, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 207–233. Perkmann, M & Spicer, A 2008, ‘How are management fashions institutionalized? The role of institutional work’, Human Relations, Vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 811–844 Rogers, EM 1995, Diffusion of Innovations. Pp. 1-20. Smith A, Rainnie A, Dunford, M, Hardy J, Hudson R, & Sadler D 2002, 'Networks of value, commodities and regions: reworking divisions of labor in macro-regional economies', Progress in Human Geography, vol. 1, no. 26, pp.41-63 Read More