Strategic Organization

Interstitial spaces are informal settings where interactions among actors from different organizational fields are more likely to succeed despite the institutional complexity that they face. Individuals acting as “catalysts” have been identified as being particularly important in the dynamics of these interstitial spaces. However, the focus to date has been on individuals interacting in interstitial spaces that have developed informally, and we know little about how formal organizations might purposefully create and manage interstitial spaces to initiate cross-field interaction. Using data from a study of six organizations involved in technology transfer activities between universities and industry in Italy, we explore how formal organizations use interstitial spaces to encourage cross-field collaboration and identify the set of formal and informal activities employed by catalysts to manage the complexity that arises. In addition, our analysis identifies two activities implemented at the organizational and field level by the formal organizations to support the interstitial spaces. Based on these results, we develop a model of the management of interstitial spaces by formal organizations.

In this article, we explore how paradoxical tensions related to exploration–exploitation dynamics may shape vicious cycles in high-growth ventures. Based on an inductive, interpretive case study at a telecommunications firm in the United Kingdom, we identify a set of drivers through which vicious cycles may emerge and persist over time. While some drivers are associated with originating the vicious cycle (cycle originators), others are associated with sustaining it (cycle perpetuators). Cycle originators identified in the study include tradeoff cognition, structural separation, and a structural leadership void. Cycle perpetuators include intergroup tensions, ineffectual integration, and a temporal leadership void. We show how the interplay between these drivers in a self-reinforcing process culminates in the escalation of tensions and a political turnover (cycle climax). In the field study, we observe the operation of this pattern over two full cycles. Based on the findings, we develop a framework relating paradoxical tensions to vicious cycles in new venture growth. We conclude by challenging traditional stage-based conceptualizations of new venture growth, and by discussing the implications of our study for research on the linkages between organizational paradox, ambidexterity, and venture growth theory.

In this essay that serves to introduce the So!apbox Forum on quality in qualitative research, we argue that achieving quality involves a process of navigating the tensions between structure and creativity, and between accountability and professionalism. Guidelines for achieving quality such as those offered in this forum or elsewhere should not therefore be seen as absolute standards, templates or checklists to be strictly followed, but rather as toolkits that can assist in navigating the tensions involved in participating in and developing the qualitative research craft as a community of scholars, reviewers and editors.

Interviews are an important method for studying a wide range of phenomena, especially those that directly involve members of the so-called business elite, which typically includes CEOs, top managers, and boards of directors. While it is necessary to get close to these actors and their settings for gaining valuable research insights, interviews are challenging interactions to accomplish. Even when one has negotiated access, members of the business elite are typically time-constrained, knowledgeable, used to being in a dominant position, and visible in the public domain and involved in impression management. These particularities pose distinctive challenges for collecting rich and authentic empirical material about important organizational, managerial, and societal matters. Drawing on our own experience, as well as the literature on qualitative interviewing and elites research, we discuss how different research designs and interview practices can help deal with these challenges.

This essay offers insight into methods for qualitatively capturing emotions in strategic organization research, a theme that has attracted increasing interest in the literature, but that raises methodological challenges. We review how researchers have examined emotions in the following three domains of strategic organization research—organizational processes, institutional processes, and strategizing activities. We discuss the ontological assumptions about emotion in each of these areas, and explain how researchers in each area examine particular aspects of the multi-dimensional phenomenon of emotion. We identify specific challenges in capturing emotions in each area, as well as the strategies that researchers use to address them. We outline a repertoire of coding resources and guidelines for the convenient use of future researchers. Finally, we evaluate the strengths and limits of each approach, and identify avenues for future research.

In this essay, we discuss how tables can be used to ensure—and reassure about—trustworthiness in qualitative research. We posit that in qualitative research, tables help not only increase transparency about data collection, analysis, and findings, but also—and no less importantly—organize and analyze data effectively. We present some of the tables most frequently used by qualitative researchers, explain their uses, discuss how they enhance trustworthiness, and provide illustrative examples to inspire readers in their use of tables in their own research.

Qualitative process research is becoming increasingly popular, yet authors often struggle with creating an effective write-up. Process articles must demonstrate a close-knit link between process data and process theory, and, at the same time, engage the reader. This requires trade-offs among options for composing the presentation of narratives, concepts, and theoretical process models. This essay distinguishes three compositional structures authors can use to write up their findings—inductive, conceptualized, and model-led. We discuss their key characteristics, pros and cons, and conditions for effective use and offer exemplars for inspiration.

This essay sharpens and refreshes the multi-case theory-building approach, sometimes termed The “Eisenhardt Method.” The Method’s singular aim is theory building, especially with multiple cases and theoretical logic. Its defining features (e.g. research questions without obvious answers, careful case selection, well-identified constructs and relationships, theoretical arguments, boundary conditions) reflect this aim. I begin with the influence of the 1980s, including grounded theorizing and case logic. Relying on exemplars, I illustrate the Method’s defining features. I also address common misconceptions (e.g. types of data, number of cases, performance emphasis). These miss the Method’s essence and imply a rigid template that does not exist. Instead, the Method’s relatively few defining features enable a wide variety of research possibilities. I conclude with what I would write today like a richer palette of research choices, more emphasis on time, and flexible philosophy of science. Yet the core message of theory building would remain.

As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but has started to look more formulaic as well (i.e. standards, templates, checklists). The very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. The question, thus, needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because reviewers and editors find it difficult to judge “quality” when there is no guidebook. The quality of science-based research is easier to judge than creative inductive research, which is often assumed to be in the “eye of the beholder.” From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head-on by asking: what is “quality inductive research” when we loosen the science-based methodological straightjacket so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods? In this editorial, we explore how editors can judge quality inductive research and offer innovative editorial practices that can help to foster creative inductive research.