Suchergebnisse

In recent decades, organizational scholars have set out to explore the processual character of organizations. They have investigated both the overtly ephemeral and sometimes dramatically unstable aspects of contemporary organizing and the social flux and flow of everyday organizing hiding beneath organizations' stable surface appearances. These studies manifest a range of different approaches and methods. In this chapter, we evaluate the use and usefulness of one of these – ethnography – for studying organizational processes. As ethnographers draw close enough to observe the precariousness of such processes, stay long enough to see change occurring, and are contextually sensitive enough to understand the twists and turns that are part of organizational life, ethnography is well suited for such study. Ethnographers are commonly aware that '… incremental shifts and repositioning are the rule, not the exception, in organizational life' (Morrill and Fine, 1997: 434). 'By virtue of its situated, unfolding, and temporal nature', then, as Jarzabkowski et al. (2014: 282) put it, ethnography 'is revelatory of processual dynamics'. Ethnography or, to emphasize the processual nature of doing ethnography itself, ethnographying (Tota, 2004; de Jong, Kamsteeg, and Ybema, 2013), typically means three things: (i) doing research (fieldwork), (ii) understanding the world with an orientation towards sensemaking (sensework), and (iii) articulating and presenting those understandings (textwork). The first of these refers to research done through prolonged and intensive engagement with the research setting and its actors, combining different fieldwork methods (observing, with whatever degree of participating; talking to people, including interviewing; and/or the close reading of researchrelevant documents). Second, ethnography embraces a sensibility towards meaning and meaning-making processes, and this shapes the ways its observations and interpretations are carried out. Third, ethnographic analyses are commonly presented through a written text presenting data that give voice to the minutiae of everyday life, in their social, political, and historical contexts, thereby conveying to readers a sense of 'being there'. This fieldwork, sensework, textwork trio may remind one of other treatments of field research methods (e.g., fieldwork, headwork, and textwork in Van Maanen, 1988; 2011; fieldwork, deskwork, and textwork in Yanow, 2000), which Wilkinson (2014) supplements with preparatory legwork. We replace the middle term with 'sensework' to encompass a broader range of analytic activity that is sensitive towards organizational actors' meaning making, the complexities of the everyday, and the tacitly known and/or concealed dimensions of organizational life. More is involved, in our view, than just the 'headwork' of theory-informed interpretation and distanced analysis. Although previous work has typically not made a process focus explicit, the history of organizational studies shows ethnographic research being sensitive to a key feature of organizing processes unfolding over time: the intersubjective processes of 'social reality' construction. Ethnography has commonly required a prolonged period of researcher immersion in the research setting in which fieldwork is being carried out. This has inspired many influential organizational studies, both in the discipline's early days and in more recent years (Fine, Morrill and Surianarain, 2009; Ybema, Yanow, et al., 2009; Yanow, 2013). Earlier studies delved into the dynamics of, for instance, bureaucratic control and resistance (e.g., Selznick, 1949; Blau, 1955; Kaufman, 1960; Roy, 1960; Crozier, 1964; Kunda, 1992), organizational performances and dramatics (Goffman, 1959), and the unofficial workarounds brought into play through processes of power struggles and local meaning making of labour relations (Dalton, 1959). Some of these studies also covered longer-term developments, such as Gouldner's follow-up account of worker–management relationships in a gypsum mine (Gouldner, 1954). Although these studies show that an ethnographic approach is well equipped for doing process analyses, processes themselves were not often their explicit concern. More recent ethnographic studies, however, have taken a more explicit 'process turn', focusing on the instability and dynamics of organizational life on the ground (e.g., Feldman, 2000; Jay, 2013; Lok and de Rond, 2013). We begin this chapter with a sketch of studying organizational processes which provides the conceptual footing to argue for the relevance of ethnographying for this kind of study. To bring the processual qualities of ethnographic work into sharp focus, ethnography can be seen as 'following' actors, interactions, and artefacts over time and space. Ethnographers go along with actors, interactions, and artefacts on the move or stay in one place observing things that move around them. Next, we explain in more detail what ethnographic fieldwork, sensework, and textwork entail, and how these relate to process. We discuss two different foci in process analysis – long-term developments and microdynamics – and present two recent examples of ethnographic work which illustrate what ethnography can do for the study of process. We conclude with a few suggestions as to how ethnographers could become more processsensitive in their field-, sense-, and textwork. That is, although ethnography has something to contribute to process studies, ethnographers could themselves learn from taking the issues engaged in this handbook into consideration.

Grammar has been used metaphorically to describe organizational processes, but the metaphor has never been systematically developed so that it can be applied in empirical research. This paper develops the grammatical metaphor into a rigorous model for describing and theorizing about organizational work processes, defined here as sequences of actions that occur in the context of enabling and constraining structures. A grammatical model starts with a lexicon of elementary actions (called moves) and specifies the ways in which they can be combined to create a process. Unlike other sequential data analysis techniques, grammatical models provide a natural way of describing the layering and nesting of actions that typifies organizational processes. The example of a simple retail sales transaction is used to illustrate the underlying concepts. The paper also examines some methodological considerations involved in using process grammars and proposes an agenda for research, including: (1) creating descriptive taxonomies of organizational processes; (2) creating disconfirmable theories about the relationship between processes and the structures that enable and constrain them; (3) explaining the distribution of observed processes and predicting new processes that have not yet been observed; and (4) designing new organizational processes.

"Bureaucratic Politics and Organizational Process Models" published on by Oxford University Press.

Past intrapreneurship research has mainly focused on a firm internal environment and its beneficial and impeding effects on intrapreneurship. This study extends previous theory of intrapreneurship by recognizing that intra-firm-based organizational processes need to be complemented by inter-firm processes. Propositions are developed highlighting relationships between intrapreneurship and its predictors. The following organizational characteristics that influence intrapreneurship are proposed: intra-firm and inter-firm communication, formal controls and trust, organizational support and values, environmental scanning, and network characteristics.

Purpose
The survival and growth of organizations presently depend on managing processes and capabilities to effectively use large volumes of data from different sources to assist organizations' strategic and operational goals. This paper aims to test the relationship between organizational analytical capabilities (OAC), the performance results in organizational resilience (OR) and the business process management maturity (BPMM).


Design/methodology/approach
Based on a survey of companies operating in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, a conceptual model was proposed and tested using the partial least squares algorithm.


Findings
The results confirm the proposed theoretical hypotheses that OAC and BPMM positively impact OR. In addition, the results show that OAC exert a moderating effect on the relationship between BPMM and OR.


Practical implications
It is understood that stimulating the practice of data and information analysis in the organizational routine translates into a relevant managerial behavior, as this attitude leverages the knowledge development and understanding about how to manage unexpected risk events, enabling companies to assess their ability to react to disruptions, even in terms of operational failures.

Abstract Purpose: This work has two objectives: 1. to present, based on theory, a Canvas framework, which helps in the analysis of elements used in the gamification of different processes, and 2. to use this framework to analyze multiple cases of sport, health, and wellness apps (fitness apps). We selected four apps for this study: My Fitness Pal, Nike Run, Nike Training, and Zombies, Run!. Originality/value: This study contributes to the theory with the systematization and organization of gamification components in a Canvas framework. For practitioners, this framework facilitates the creation and deepening of gamification initiatives. Design/methodology/approach: In order to support the comparison between cases, we used six gamification steps from the bibliography, divided into 1. define business objectives; 2. outline target behavior of players; 3. describe players; 4. determine activity loops; 5. entertain players; and 6. deploy appropriate tools. These steps were organized in a Canvas format. Through six propositions, we concluded that convergent and divergent factors exist between the cases studied, with no complete use of the gamification elements among the cases analyzed. Findings: Among the similarities, the following stand out: 1. search for users' well-being, 2. use of the steps suggested for gamification, 3. factors of the player's journey, and 4. fun. Among the differences are: 1. the specificity of each app, 2. ways of rewarding, and 3. motivating users, depending on the proposed activity and type of player.