Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109280
K. Weick
When a perceptual order is turned into a conceptual order a disjunction between continuity and discontinuity is created. Sensemaking to manage this disjunction often consists of attributions of typicality formed intuitively or through deliberation. The details lost during this process can lead to further breakdowns. This process of “arrested sensemaking” is illustrated with a disaster at sea when a 790-foot container ship, the El Faro, sailed into the eye of a category 3 hurricane and capsized. All 33 crew members perished. The prevailing sense was that the rough seas were a “typical” storm, arresting sensemaking in the face of a looming disaster.
{"title":"Arrested Sensemaking: Typified Suppositions Sink the El Faro","authors":"K. Weick","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109280","url":null,"abstract":"When a perceptual order is turned into a conceptual order a disjunction between continuity and discontinuity is created. Sensemaking to manage this disjunction often consists of attributions of typicality formed intuitively or through deliberation. The details lost during this process can lead to further breakdowns. This process of “arrested sensemaking” is illustrated with a disaster at sea when a 790-foot container ship, the El Faro, sailed into the eye of a category 3 hurricane and capsized. All 33 crew members perished. The prevailing sense was that the rough seas were a “typical” storm, arresting sensemaking in the face of a looming disaster.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75920616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109275
Waldemar Kremser, J. Sydow
Practice theories inform much of current organization and management research by focusing on social practices “in vivo and in situ,” helping us understand how they are produced, reproduced, connected, and eventually transformed by practitioners. Despite the explicit focus of these theories on process, some important dynamics within and across organizations remain undertheorized. This is particularly true for self-reinforcing processes like escalating commitment or path dependence. While such dynamics have been studied quite extensively with the help of other theories, this work often lacks a clear relation or relevance to lived life in organizations. This paper offers an integration of self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based theorizing, and thereby outlines a new way of understanding self-reinforcement “in vivo and in situ.” By discussing the role and relevance of specific performative linkages as being “weak signals” for self-reinforcement, we provide a new way of analysing this important process phenomenon that is closer to life lived forward, where outcomes are necessarily uncertain, and practitioners can always choose to act differently.
{"title":"When Practices Control Practitioners: Integrating self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based accounts of managing and organizing","authors":"Waldemar Kremser, J. Sydow","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109275","url":null,"abstract":"Practice theories inform much of current organization and management research by focusing on social practices “in vivo and in situ,” helping us understand how they are produced, reproduced, connected, and eventually transformed by practitioners. Despite the explicit focus of these theories on process, some important dynamics within and across organizations remain undertheorized. This is particularly true for self-reinforcing processes like escalating commitment or path dependence. While such dynamics have been studied quite extensively with the help of other theories, this work often lacks a clear relation or relevance to lived life in organizations. This paper offers an integration of self-reinforcing dynamics into practice-based theorizing, and thereby outlines a new way of understanding self-reinforcement “in vivo and in situ.” By discussing the role and relevance of specific performative linkages as being “weak signals” for self-reinforcement, we provide a new way of analysing this important process phenomenon that is closer to life lived forward, where outcomes are necessarily uncertain, and practitioners can always choose to act differently.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87198522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109277
A. Cunliffe
This essay is a provocation to debate. I argue that work in organization and management studies addressing how to theorize and construct ‘good’ theory is inherently masculinized and embraces a limited pluralism that ignores alternative, reflexive and more human ways of theorizing. As I will illustrate, most of the articles on the topic of theorizing about theory are written by men, and espouse forms of theorizing that are based on a masculinized rationality that privileges abstraction, a logic of objectivity and proceduralization. And while journal editors espouse theoretical pluralism, we are often exhorted to develop ‘theoretical balls’ by conforming to limited definitions of theory that privilege particular ways of knowing and theorizing which are considered imperative to getting published. I argue that there are other equally compelling ways of ‘theorizing’ that focus on who we are as human beings and how we experience self, life and work. I begin with a critique of the literature on theorizing theory, moving on to argue that this currently limits theorizing more humanly and imaginatively, due to ontological blindness, epistemological defensiveness, hegemonic masculinity and myopic self-referentiality. Finally, I offer alternative ways of theorizing and interpreting theory from a more human and reflexive perspective.
{"title":"Must I Grow a Pair of Balls to Theorize about Theory in Organization and Management Studies?","authors":"A. Cunliffe","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109277","url":null,"abstract":"This essay is a provocation to debate. I argue that work in organization and management studies addressing how to theorize and construct ‘good’ theory is inherently masculinized and embraces a limited pluralism that ignores alternative, reflexive and more human ways of theorizing. As I will illustrate, most of the articles on the topic of theorizing about theory are written by men, and espouse forms of theorizing that are based on a masculinized rationality that privileges abstraction, a logic of objectivity and proceduralization. And while journal editors espouse theoretical pluralism, we are often exhorted to develop ‘theoretical balls’ by conforming to limited definitions of theory that privilege particular ways of knowing and theorizing which are considered imperative to getting published. I argue that there are other equally compelling ways of ‘theorizing’ that focus on who we are as human beings and how we experience self, life and work. I begin with a critique of the literature on theorizing theory, moving on to argue that this currently limits theorizing more humanly and imaginatively, due to ontological blindness, epistemological defensiveness, hegemonic masculinity and myopic self-referentiality. Finally, I offer alternative ways of theorizing and interpreting theory from a more human and reflexive perspective.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75992541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109282
P. Fleming
Jean-Paul Sartre’s enormous and often difficult Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960/2004) has largely been forgotten today. But the concepts it contains are worth reconsidering, particularly from an organization theory perspective. The book offers novel explanations of organizations, groups, institutions, power, resistance and technology that remain eminently relevant. I argue that a compelling and fruitful organization theory lurks in the Critique of Dialectical Reason with respect to (at least) three key topics: power/resistance, management hierarchies and technology. I outline the contours of this Sartrean organization theory and present implications and avenues for future inquiry.
{"title":"Sartre’s Lost Organization Theory: Reading the Critique of Dialectical Reason Today","authors":"P. Fleming","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109282","url":null,"abstract":"Jean-Paul Sartre’s enormous and often difficult Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960/2004) has largely been forgotten today. But the concepts it contains are worth reconsidering, particularly from an organization theory perspective. The book offers novel explanations of organizations, groups, institutions, power, resistance and technology that remain eminently relevant. I argue that a compelling and fruitful organization theory lurks in the Critique of Dialectical Reason with respect to (at least) three key topics: power/resistance, management hierarchies and technology. I outline the contours of this Sartrean organization theory and present implications and avenues for future inquiry.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85920646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221109276
Johan Alvehus, Olof Hallonsten
As a theoretical framework in organization studies, institutional logics is immensely popular. It has been used in a large amount of highly contributory and enlightening empirical studies, and developed far beyond its original formulation in a classical paper by Friedland and Alford (1991). In our paper, we identify three key theoretical problems that have emerged in the development and use of institutional logics theory in the past three decades: the lack of uniformity and coherence in the definitions and empirical identifications of logics; the tendency of institutional logics theorists to attempt to build grand theory to connect micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis; and the difficulties to explain how institutional logics are reproduced and how institutional logics interrelate and evolve over time. To address these issues, we highlight the similarities between institutional logics theory and classical functionalist differentiation theory, drawing its legacy from Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton, and propose its use as a resource in further theoretical development. The aim of the paper is not to reject institutional logics theory, or merely to point out its weaknesses, but to demonstrate how a revival of some classics in sociological theory can be used to sharpen institutional logics as an analytical tool and thus assist in efforts to further improve the usefulness of institutional logics as a theoretical framework in organization studies.
{"title":"Institutional Logics and Functionalist Differentiation Theory: Challenges and pathways forward","authors":"Johan Alvehus, Olof Hallonsten","doi":"10.1177/26317877221109276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221109276","url":null,"abstract":"As a theoretical framework in organization studies, institutional logics is immensely popular. It has been used in a large amount of highly contributory and enlightening empirical studies, and developed far beyond its original formulation in a classical paper by Friedland and Alford (1991). In our paper, we identify three key theoretical problems that have emerged in the development and use of institutional logics theory in the past three decades: the lack of uniformity and coherence in the definitions and empirical identifications of logics; the tendency of institutional logics theorists to attempt to build grand theory to connect micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis; and the difficulties to explain how institutional logics are reproduced and how institutional logics interrelate and evolve over time. To address these issues, we highlight the similarities between institutional logics theory and classical functionalist differentiation theory, drawing its legacy from Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton, and propose its use as a resource in further theoretical development. The aim of the paper is not to reject institutional logics theory, or merely to point out its weaknesses, but to demonstrate how a revival of some classics in sociological theory can be used to sharpen institutional logics as an analytical tool and thus assist in efforts to further improve the usefulness of institutional logics as a theoretical framework in organization studies.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86477587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877211052296
M. Power
This essay is a conversation between Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism, Mikkel Flyverbom’s conceptualization of the hyper-visibility afforded by digital architectures, and my own ‘analog’ theory of accounting dynamics in the ‘audit society’. Drawing upon trends in accounting practice and research I develop a number of inflection points which define theoretical tensions between the concepts of audit society and surveillance capitalism. These tensions suggest that theoretical innovation is required in the face of: the accelerating constitution of organizations by platforms and their processes – ‘platformization’; the constitution of human agents as data-driven subjects of these data architectures – ‘cyborgization’; and the reconstruction of the social sciences by a pervasive data positivism in which accounting becomes ‘accountics’. The exploration of these three inflection points reveals the deep operational logic of surveillance capitalism as an ‘economy of traces’ and traceability. Zuboff’s challenge of a political dystopia governed by technology giants and Flyverbom’s image of a society ‘overlit’ by digital architectures necessitate a re-specification of the audit society dynamics that I have previously theorized. The re-specification that I propose in this essay is a form of a critical ‘traceology’ which takes as its focus the ongoing production of all manner of traces and how they make up organizations, people and forms of knowledge.
{"title":"Theorizing the Economy of Traces: From Audit Society to Surveillance Capitalism","authors":"M. Power","doi":"10.1177/26317877211052296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211052296","url":null,"abstract":"This essay is a conversation between Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism, Mikkel Flyverbom’s conceptualization of the hyper-visibility afforded by digital architectures, and my own ‘analog’ theory of accounting dynamics in the ‘audit society’. Drawing upon trends in accounting practice and research I develop a number of inflection points which define theoretical tensions between the concepts of audit society and surveillance capitalism. These tensions suggest that theoretical innovation is required in the face of: the accelerating constitution of organizations by platforms and their processes – ‘platformization’; the constitution of human agents as data-driven subjects of these data architectures – ‘cyborgization’; and the reconstruction of the social sciences by a pervasive data positivism in which accounting becomes ‘accountics’. The exploration of these three inflection points reveals the deep operational logic of surveillance capitalism as an ‘economy of traces’ and traceability. Zuboff’s challenge of a political dystopia governed by technology giants and Flyverbom’s image of a society ‘overlit’ by digital architectures necessitate a re-specification of the audit society dynamics that I have previously theorized. The re-specification that I propose in this essay is a form of a critical ‘traceology’ which takes as its focus the ongoing production of all manner of traces and how they make up organizations, people and forms of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74539443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1177/26317877221129290
Shoshana Zuboff
Surveillance capitalism is what happened when US democracy stood down. Two decades later, it fails any reasonable test of responsible global stewardship of digital information and communications. The abdication of the world’s information spaces to surveillance capitalism has become the meta-crisis of every republic because it obstructs solutions to all other crises. The surveillance capitalist giants–Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and their ecosystems–now constitute a sweeping political-economic institutional order that exerts oligopolistic control over most digital information and communication spaces, systems, and processes. The commodification of human behavior operationalized in the secret massive-scale extraction of human-generated data is the foundation of surveillance capitalism’s two-decade arc of institutional development. However, when revenue derives from commodification of the human, the classic economic equation is scrambled. Imperative economic operations entail accretions of governance functions and impose substantial social harms. Concentration of economic power produces collateral concentrations of governance and social powers. Oligopoly in the economic realm shades into oligarchy in the societal realm. Society’s ability to respond to these developments is thwarted by category errors. Governance incursions and social harms such as control over AI or rampant disinformation are too frequently seen as distinct crises and siloed, each with its own specialists and prescriptions, rather than understood as organic effects of causal economic operations. In contrast, this paper explores surveillance capitalism as a unified field of institutional development. Its four already visible stages of development are examined through a two-decade lens on expanding economic operations and their societal effects, including extraction and the wholesale destruction of privacy, the consequences of blindness-by-design in human-to-human communications, the rise of AI dominance and epistemic inequality, novel achievements in remote behavioral actuation such as the Trump 2016 campaign, and Apple-Google’s leverage of digital infrastructure control to subjugate democratic governments desperate to fight a pandemic. Structurally, each stage creates the conditions and constructs the scaffolding for the next, and each builds on what went before. Substantively, each stage is characterized by three vectors of accomplishment: novel economic operations, governance carve-outs, and fresh social harms. These three dimensions weave together across time in a unified architecture of institutional development. Later-stage harms are revealed as effects of the foundational-stage economic operations required for commodification of the human. Surveillance capitalism’s development is understood in the context of a larger contest with the democratic order—the only competing institutional order that poses an existential threat. The democratic order retains the legiti
{"title":"Surveillance Capitalism or Democracy? The Death Match of Institutional Orders and the Politics of Knowledge in Our Information Civilization","authors":"Shoshana Zuboff","doi":"10.1177/26317877221129290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221129290","url":null,"abstract":"Surveillance capitalism is what happened when US democracy stood down. Two decades later, it fails any reasonable test of responsible global stewardship of digital information and communications. The abdication of the world’s information spaces to surveillance capitalism has become the meta-crisis of every republic because it obstructs solutions to all other crises. The surveillance capitalist giants–Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and their ecosystems–now constitute a sweeping political-economic institutional order that exerts oligopolistic control over most digital information and communication spaces, systems, and processes. The commodification of human behavior operationalized in the secret massive-scale extraction of human-generated data is the foundation of surveillance capitalism’s two-decade arc of institutional development. However, when revenue derives from commodification of the human, the classic economic equation is scrambled. Imperative economic operations entail accretions of governance functions and impose substantial social harms. Concentration of economic power produces collateral concentrations of governance and social powers. Oligopoly in the economic realm shades into oligarchy in the societal realm. Society’s ability to respond to these developments is thwarted by category errors. Governance incursions and social harms such as control over AI or rampant disinformation are too frequently seen as distinct crises and siloed, each with its own specialists and prescriptions, rather than understood as organic effects of causal economic operations. In contrast, this paper explores surveillance capitalism as a unified field of institutional development. Its four already visible stages of development are examined through a two-decade lens on expanding economic operations and their societal effects, including extraction and the wholesale destruction of privacy, the consequences of blindness-by-design in human-to-human communications, the rise of AI dominance and epistemic inequality, novel achievements in remote behavioral actuation such as the Trump 2016 campaign, and Apple-Google’s leverage of digital infrastructure control to subjugate democratic governments desperate to fight a pandemic. Structurally, each stage creates the conditions and constructs the scaffolding for the next, and each builds on what went before. Substantively, each stage is characterized by three vectors of accomplishment: novel economic operations, governance carve-outs, and fresh social harms. These three dimensions weave together across time in a unified architecture of institutional development. Later-stage harms are revealed as effects of the foundational-stage economic operations required for commodification of the human. Surveillance capitalism’s development is understood in the context of a larger contest with the democratic order—the only competing institutional order that poses an existential threat. The democratic order retains the legiti","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80870194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-18DOI: 10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y
D. Pynadath, B. Dilkina, David C. Jeong, R. John, S. Marsella, Chirag Merchant, L. Miller, S. Read
{"title":"Disaster world","authors":"D. Pynadath, B. Dilkina, David C. Jeong, R. John, S. Marsella, Chirag Merchant, L. Miller, S. Read","doi":"10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43165209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-30DOI: 10.1007/s10588-021-09349-6
A. Naugle, D. Krofcheck, C. Warrender, K. Lakkaraju, L. Swiler, Stephen Verzi, Ben Emery, J. Murdock, Michael Bernard, Vicente Romero
{"title":"What can simulation test beds teach us about social science? Results of the ground truth program","authors":"A. Naugle, D. Krofcheck, C. Warrender, K. Lakkaraju, L. Swiler, Stephen Verzi, Ben Emery, J. Murdock, Michael Bernard, Vicente Romero","doi":"10.1007/s10588-021-09349-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09349-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46942249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-18DOI: 10.1007/s10588-021-09346-9
A. Naugle, Adam Russell, K. Lakkaraju, L. Swiler, Stephen Verzi, Vicente Romero
{"title":"The Ground Truth program: simulations as test beds for social science research methods","authors":"A. Naugle, Adam Russell, K. Lakkaraju, L. Swiler, Stephen Verzi, Vicente Romero","doi":"10.1007/s10588-021-09346-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09346-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43303238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：