International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Information Management j our na l ho me pa g e: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt Innovating strategically in information and knowledge management: Applications of organizational behavior theory Tor J. Larsen∗,1, Johan Olaisen Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0442 Oslo, Norway a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 3 July 2013 Keywords: Information systems Knowledge management systems Innovation Organizational behavior Top-down strategy a b s t r a c t A business school declares its strategy as becoming a leading European institution. As main vehicle for achieving recognition is the implementation of a top-down strategy naming ﬁve academic ﬁelds as key – (a) ﬁnance, (b) economics, (c) marketing, (d) law, accounting, and auditing, and (e) organizational behavior (OB). Top management allocates resources for research, academic activities, and positions to these ﬁve strategically chosen areas. Academic areas that are not strategically named must generate their own income through educational programs and research grants. Can OB serve as the platform to ensure the survival of IS/KMS? In our analysis, we found no other business school formulating a strategy along these lines; dominating strategic themes are internationalization, research excellence, and student environment. No academic ﬁeld is singled out as strategic. We argue that selecting a few academic areas as a strategy is dysfunctional. We also found that OB is not very actively employed in research, be it positioning, theory, research model, analysis, or discussion. Hence, we do not ﬁnd that OB offers any theorizing help to IS/KMS – this in contrast to innovation and change theories, for which we propose an framework as a means of deﬁning IS/KMS research projects. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The ﬁeld of information systems and knowledge management systems2 (IS/KMS) has throughout its history experienced exten sive change in technology, research, and education. These renewals will continue into the foreseeable future (Galliers & Currie, 2011). Yet, being met with success in developing the ﬁeld in desirable direction may quite well depend on the strategy the academic insti tution hosting IS/KMS develops and implements. In this article we address a true scenario in which a business school’s top management enforces a top-down strategy in which the ﬁve ﬁelds of: (a) ﬁnance, (b) economics, (c) marketing, (d) law, accounting, and auditing, and (e) organizational behavior (OB) are singled out as those which shall make the business school ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 47712735. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.J. Larsen), [email protected] (J. Olaisen). URL: http://infomgt.bi.no/larsen (T.J. Larsen). 1 The authors, listed in alphabetical order, have contributed equally to the article. 2 Different labels are used to refer to the ﬁeld, for example: information tech nology (IT), information communication technology (ICT), information systems (IS), management information systems (MIS), and information management (IM). Knowledge management systems (KMS) is increasingly taken into use. Each term has its proponents; however, the terms are often used interchangeably. We use the term Information and Knowledge Management Systems (IS/KMS), see Harzing (2013). recognized among similar top European institutions.3 The business school declares research as being the foundation for its educational programs, research efforts, and communication with the larger society. The school is relatively large, about 15,000 students, run ning programs on the levels of bachelor, master, and Ph.D. In May 2010 the business school’s President4 forwarded the new strat egy of becoming a leading European business school to the Board of Directors. The strategy further speciﬁed that these target ﬁelds may be a department but also limited to a group within a depart ment or a network of faculty across departments. Resources for new academic positions, visiting scholars, project seed resources and project support, seminars, and other academic activities, were 3 The name and location of the business school is kept anonymous. Since the business school’s strategy is achieving excellence, we use the acronym BSofEX for it. 4 A top down strategy could include other activities and structures than priori tizing a limited set of academic areas. These could be mechanistic of nature rather than organic (Burns and Stalker, 1994), including but not limited to: (1) the role and mandate of the BSofEX President be developed in the direction of those of CEOs in manufacturing organizations; (2) increased monopolization of communication between the Chair of Board of Directors and President by removing the Provost from meetings with the Chair prior to Board of Directors meetings; (3) in the style of Management by Objectives (Odiorne, 1965) deﬁning three objectives as a means to deﬁning the next level down managers’ jobs, but also serve as a means for job performance evaluation and salary increases; and (4) adherence to Critical Perfor mance Factors (Rockart, 1979; Kaplan and Norton, 1996) in making major decisions on program portfolio and other key organizational performances. 0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.003 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 765 to be prioritized to these target ﬁelds. Fields other than those pri oritized would be maintained as long as they successfully generate an acceptable level of income through the delivery of educational activities, externally funded research projects, and grants. In prin ciple, if a ﬁeld were to lose its attraction in the market, it would be discontinued. Because of these changes in focus, the faculty group of infor mation systems and knowledge management systems (IS/KMS), in the newly renamed Department of Organizational Behavior, recog nized the need for questioning its traditional thinking. Renewal and change in research and education became critical factors for future survival. It is recognized that IS/KMS is a key force in the ongo ing societal and organizational renewal and change (Baskerville & Myers, 2002; Davis, 2000; Kebede, 2010). For example, in the US business sector, IS/KMS continues to consume about a 30% of yearly total investments made (Centre for the Study of Living Standards, 2012). Recent research documents that IS/KMS supports the creation of business value, with particular emphasis on an orga nization’s innovation and change capabilities (Aral, Brynjolfsson, & Wu, 2012; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011). Knowledge management systems is, by default, strongly related to information systems; their creation, acquisition, implementation, and use (see for exam ple, Bera, Burton-Jones, & Wand, 2011; Davis, 2000; Harzing, 2013; Hirscheim & Klein, 2012). Hence, in the following mate rial we denote the two intertwined areas of information systems and knowledge management as IS/KMS. Traditionally, research in IS/KMS has been interdisciplinary in nature – since it draws on inno vation theory, models of value creation, actors’ roles and behaviors, the creation and running of task oriented groups, and how these relate to organizational structures and mechanisms (see for exam ple, Roberts, Galluch, Dinger, & Grover, 2012). Yet, throughout its history the question of beneﬁts from investing in IS/KMS has been lively discussed. Progress in understanding these key questions requires continued research into the role and connections among these complex issues and relationships. Organizational behav ior theories may have the potential for further development of IS/KMS theories and increased understanding of its practical value. The beneﬁts may be two-fold; ﬁrst, organizational behavior (OB) focus on individuals and groups–their relationship to change and change processes, and second, organizational behavior is concerned with the interactions among individual actors, groups, and the larger organizational environment. We note that in undergradu ate programs in IS in Great Britain, OB is ranked as the eighth most included business domain (Stefanidis, Fitzgerald, & Counsell, 2012). Hence, the objective of the present research project is the iden tiﬁcation of particular promising theories and concepts in OB and how these relate to the established insights into innovation and change capabilities in IS/KMS. In particular, the project is concerned with identifying the “people” behind organizational behavior the ories and concepts. Through the identiﬁcation of key actors, we intend to document how promising theories and concepts have been employed in practice. Our three intertwined research ques tions are: RQ1: Do business schools single out some academic ﬁelds as strategic relative to others? RQ2: Will organizational behavior be one of strategic academic ﬁelds? RQ3: To what degree will organizational behavior theories and concepts support and assist in the further development of estab lished theories and concepts in IS/KMS? We are particularly concerned with the degree of research value in OB theories and concepts when compared and contrasted with approaches in innovation and change theory. The ﬁnal outcome would be propositions addressing the integration of theories, con cepts, and value creation into the formulation of propositions, statements of direction, and frameworks. The article proceeds with background, methods, analysis, discussion, implications, and con clusions. 2. Background The prerequisite for understanding the role of organizational behavior is a thorough understanding of its deﬁnition, leading us to question #1: Q1: What are the salient deﬁnitions of OB? At our BSofEX, Organizational behavior is promoted to play a strategic role. To our understanding, the role has two aspects: (1) that also comparable academic institutions would name certain areas as strategic relative to other academic ﬁelds; and (2) that OB would be among these – otherwise it would not be possible to draw conclusions relative to OB’s strategic impact. Hence, question 2 becomes: Q2: Would recognized academic business institutions, as part of their strategy, select speciﬁc ﬁelds as a vehicle for obtaining recognition, and would OB be among these? “The proof is in the eating of the pudding,” says an old proverb. By this we mean that if OB is to play a decisive role, it must be actively put into use. We propose that this use must have a degree of uniqueness within its core rather than a term being employed by all, hence: Q3: In academic publications, would OB serve as a vehicle for differentiating a core group from other ﬁelds of academic activ ity (in particular, those having been chosen as being strategic)? It follows that if OB is to serve a strategic purpose, it must be concretely employed in academic publications. We propose the following question: Q4: In academic publications, is OB actively employed as a vehi cle for creating focus, as an active element in discussion, and in the development of theories and practice? For a strategy to work, it must be accepted among those man dated with carrying it out. In academia, this would imply that the research faculty would not only be cognizant of OB theories, but also recognize OB’s strategic role. We propose the following question: Q5: Do individual academicians in IS/KMS employ OB theories and concepts, do they recognize OB in its own right, and would they think it has a strategic role? 3. Methods In identifying OB deﬁnitions (Q1) two sources were consulted; (1) The most recognized textbooks in OB and (2) academic articles in the EBSCO EconLit database, through the Lancaster University library services, using the search terms of organizational behavior AND deﬁnition. The EBSCO data base was found appropriate since it has 9243 entries ﬁled for the search term organizational behavior (as of August 2011). The data for Q2, pertaining to specifying spe ciﬁc academic areas for recognition and if OB is included as one, were derived from top European and US business schools’ state ments on their internet web pages. The list of institutions visited is found in Appendix A. For ﬁnding articles that use the term OB (Q3), EBSCO was used by entering the search terms organizational behavior and knowledge management, organizational behavior and ﬁnance, etc., for the areas pointed out as strategically important. Also obtained for comparison was the number of articles in EBSCO 766 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 for permutations among the search terms, e.g., finance and market ing or marketing and information systems. In the analysis, the names of departments being combinations were decomposed into single terms. That is, law, accounting, and auditing were analyzed as sin gle terms (rather than combined), which was also the approach for the two terms of information systems and knowledge man agement. EBSCO was also used as the vehicle for ﬁnding articles using OB as an identiﬁer (Q4). We limited our analysis to the two combined areas of organizational behavior and knowledge manage ment systems and organizational behavior and marketing. Since many articles exist, a random sample of about 12 articles was identiﬁed for each of the two areas. We also limited the publication period to articles published between January 2006 and August 2011, see appendix B for an overview of articles. Finally, views on the use of theory and the role of OB in research (Q5) were obtained through semi-structured interviews with seven IS/KMS peers in Australia, US, and Europe–who were active researchers and publishers of aca demic material and knowledgeable about the role that OB may play in science. 4. Analysis Sorge and Warner forwarded in 1997 the following deﬁnition of OB: “Organizational behavior”; an interdisciplinary body of knowl edge and ﬁeld of research, concerned with how formal organizations, behavior of people within organizations, and salient features of their context and environment, evolve and take shape, why all these things happen the way they do, and what purposes they serve.” (Sorge A. and Warner, M (Eds.) (1997) The Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. London, England: International Thomson Business Press, p. xii.) Obviously, the deﬁnition includes very many aspects related to the term organization, some of which are behavior. But the deﬁnition also includes aspects of organizing, people, forces that inﬂuence organizations and people, processes, and how these interact. Hence, Sorge and Warner’s deﬁnition is very broad. We are left with the same impressions from reading Buchanan and Huczynski’s (2010) excellent textbook.5 The book is an overarch ing and encompassing exposé of organizational matters. As such, it resembles strongly textbooks with other titles, be it in management (Hannagan, 2008) or organization (Daft, 2004; Scott & Davis, 2007). One is left with the impression, and it parallels the deﬁnition above, that OB addresses every area or issue within organizational bound aries, among others, ﬁnance, marketing, human relations, logistics, operations, or information systems. Our search for organizational behavior and deﬁnition in the EBSCO database yielded 84 publications. When listing all articles found in a search the EBSCO database presents for each article the ﬁeld “Subjects”. In our sample, the term organizational behavior is consistently included in all subject ﬁelds. Yet, when one proceeds to the speciﬁc details about one particular article, a ﬁeld named “Descriptors” is presented and here the term organizational behav ior is found in about 70 per cent of our 84 hits. In addition, in the speciﬁc details for an article, the ﬁeld “Keywords” is found in about 60 per cent of our 84 publications – but here the term organizational behavior is not found at all. 5 There are many textbooks addressing Organizational Behavior: see for example French, Rayner, Rees, and Rumbles (2011); Greenberg and Baron, 2008; Wagner and Hollenbeck, 2005. Although each book has its own particular approach, the main conclusion is that they are similar in presenting a wide variety of issues. Textbooks in Organizational Behavior quite likely present a wider emphasis on HR issues than in textbooks within Management, Business, or similar types. We next inspected titles and abstracts for the 84 publications, and read 10 articles in full. The results showed that the term organizational behavior was included in the abstract of only four publications. However, three of these were in a language other than English. The fourth publication employing organizational behavior in the abstract is Harcourt (1998). Her article addresses the actions of the European Union relative to the media sector. However, in the article text, she does not employ the term organizational behavior at all – and hence, does not deﬁne it. OB is not a concrete theme in this article. It addresses the macro issue of how the European media industry, at least along certain dimensions, can be shaped and regulated. In the abstracts of the remaining 80 publications, the terms deﬁnition, behavior, and organization are employed as separate entities. When the term deﬁnition is employed, authors forward expressions such as: • deﬁnitions of corporate sustainability; • combined deﬁnition of criminal record and patient privacy rights; • deﬁnitions and descriptions of key ﬁelds; • lack of deﬁnition but the presentation of explicit characterization of organizations as central planning agencies; and • deﬁnition and streamlining of the role of local and regional actors. In conclusion, we ﬁnd that OB in textbooks is extremely widely deﬁned, encompassing every aspect of organizations, organizing, and people in organizations. In publications in the EBSCO database, we found no instance where a deﬁnition of OB is forwarded, neither in conﬁrming its content nor for developing it further. If anything, OB seems to be used as a convenience label for very many organi zational/behavioral aspects. The inconsistencies among the levels of key terms in subject deﬁnition, descriptors, and key words, gives the impression that EBSCO editors add terms that authors may not have suggested themselves – or authors may have to choose terms from predeﬁned lists in an arbitrary manner when ﬁling their work with a journal. For a strategy to work, the prerequisite is that key elements are clearly deﬁned and used. However, we see that orga nizational behavior is loosely deﬁned and not actively employed in these articles. In conclusion, it seems quite unlikely that organiza tional behavior has meaning as a strategic vehicle. OB may perhaps be used as a term for multiple activities, such as in naming a busi ness school as School of Organizational Behavior. With regard to Q1, the conclusion is that OB has a very wide deﬁnition and deﬁ nitions are not at all used as an anchor or as a means of its further development. In Q2 we raise the issue of the role of naming speciﬁc academic areas as a strategic tool in positioning a business school and, if so, the degree to which OB would be included. We base our reﬂec tions on the material in Appendix A. We see that four of the 11 institutions in Appendix A mention academic areas. Yet, although mentioned, they are not given the role of being an area that is strategically prioritized. Rather, we ﬁnd examples of high level characterizations of academic areas that a business school would be a custodian for in the fabric of society (HEC). In our sample, ESADE is the institution that mentions the largest number of areas as the basis for their international success. Still, ESADE uses the term “etc.” to signal that the list on the web is not exhaustive – and ESADE does not claim that the strategy for the future is prioritizing the men tioned academic areas per se. Harvard Business School is alone in mentioning OB. Yet, the context in which OB appears is in a state ment deﬁning the range of academic areas that have contributed to Harvard’s success; OB is listed as an example on one side of a continuum of academic areas and decision making is listed as an example of an academic area on the other side of the equation. With regard to Q2, business schools do not present explicit lists of academic areas that should be strategically prioritized. T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 767 Obviously, OB is not promoted to be seen as an important strategic element. In fact, there is no agreement on the portfolio of academic areas within a business school. For example, Harzing (2013) lists 16 subject areas (including Management Information Systems and Knowledge Management) and the Association of Business Schools (2011) deﬁnes 22 ﬁelds (including Information Management). The ﬁeld of IS is included in both of these listings although with differ ent labels. However, organizational behavior is not mentioned at all. Our next analysis is addressing the degree to which OB research compares with other academic areas in the strategy (Q3). Table 1 below presents in the body of the table the results for the number of publications in pairs of key terms used for access. Below the table, the sum of publications using the key word organizational behavior and the other ﬁelds declared as strategically important for the BSofEX is reported (8617). At the bottom of Table 1 the number of publications employing organizational behavior in each of the strategic ﬁelds is reported. We learn from the data in Table 1 that OB, with its 9243 publica tions in EBSCO during the period 1958–2011, absolutely is a search term in use. It is interesting to see that the search term that appears most often together with OB is economics with 5884 publications. This outstrips the number of common publications between OB and IS/KMS where 313 and 496 publications, respectively, are found. We also see that IS enjoys a much higher number of publications inter nationally (12,745) than is the case for OB (9243). Although overlap surely is a usual phenomenon, the combined areas of IS/KMS (KMS has 6041 publications) would have an even higher number of publications. Yet, the most popular area is economics with an astounding 782,587 publications, followed by its ‘little brother’ ﬁnance with 127,162 publications. Also, 80,155 publications are found in the combination of ﬁnance and economics, followed by 41,942 publications having both economics and law as search terms. We see that the number of publications in OB, when compared with the other areas included in the BS strategy, is fairly small. OB shares many publications with economics and law, but compara tively few with marketing, accounting, IS, and KMS. Additionally, the pattern of a high degree of sharing publications with some of the key words in the table and a low degree of sharing with others is common among the search terms. With regard to Q3, based on the data in Table 1, we cannot say that OB has a dominant posi tion relative to the other areas singled out in the BS strategy or with IS/KMS. It seems much more usual to ﬁnd that publications are shared among academic areas, rather than ﬁnding that publications are dedicated to one area only. Our analysis of Q4, seeking evidence of active use of OB in research articles, is summarized in Table 2. In our sample OB appears most of the time in EBSCO’s two search categories of Subject and Descriptor, but not at all in Keyword. We offer the explanation that authors deﬁne keywords that they see as central in their publications. It might be that EBSCO provides subject and descriptor–or that authors must choose their terms for subject and descriptor in a pre-deﬁned list. It is evident that OB, as a rule, does not appear in the articles’ titles, abstracts, or texts. In the only two occurrences we found in our sample, OB is employed in a very general manner; (a) as a way of ending an abstract – see entry #61 in Appendix B – organizational behavior and knowledge manage ment systems – and (b) as an umbrella term for the opening of the in depth discussion on a core variable – see entry #69 in Appendix B – organizational behavior and marketing. We also found the combi nation organizational behavior and marketing yielded three articles where the term OB did not appear at all. Rather, each term was employed separately, for example as in organizational leaning or innovative behavior. This points to a problem with the way in which EBSCO’s EconLit database works. It allows for inclusion of articles based on each single term in a search speciﬁcation composed of more than one word, such as organizational behavior. Yet, with regard to Q4, we must conclude that although OB is nearly always employed in EBSCO’s search categories of subject and descriptor, we have found no evidence that OB is being actively used in the deﬁnition and execution of research. Our last area of inquiry, as Q5 suggests, is the degree to which researchers in IS/KMS employ OB in their research, if they have knowledge about OB theories, and if OB would play a major role. We present our ﬁve interview themes (in italics) and selected inter viewee responses below: Theme 1: Thinking about theory, what theories have you used in your research during the last 5 years? As expected, our interviewees forwarded a range of theories, such as: • Social capital theory. • Theory of bounded objects and knowledge sharing. • Adaptive structuration theory. Yet, the issue that came strongly across all seven interviews was that research would start with observations and phenomena. Next, our researchers would contemplate a theory or theories that might be helpful in the particular context of these observations and phenomena. OB was not mentioned by any of the interviewees. Theme 2: Is there any theory you have not used but that you would like to work with? The answers to this theme were largely negative: • A clear “no” and no comment as to theories the respondent would like to work with. • There probably are but nothing comes to mind – one must ﬁrst and foremost have an idea about a concrete research project. • The question does not make sense given my answer to the ques tion above. • I have no immediate response, but I am thinking of: o Actor network theory (ANT) – but within that umbrella, how would I subscribe to actors’ roles to things/objects? o Polani’s theories about test of knowledge or Heidegger’s approach. o Social materiality and social meaning. OB was not mentioned by any of the interviewees. Theme 3: Are you familiar with Organizational Behavior and its theories (OBT) – How would you describe it? Examples of statements about OB are: • OB is not my area. • I am not familiar with OB or one theory that might be OB. I take it it’s about models of people and things for a purpose. I am critical of OB. • It’s addressing managerial organizational behavior. It is strong on the structure of individual – group – organization. I look upon ANT as an example of an OB theory. Understood in this wider context IS/KMS has to incorporate OB. • I would describe it as looking for generalizations about how peo ple act and react within an organizational setting. • Speciﬁcally targeted issues include leadership, communication, organizational design and structure, personnel issues, teams and workgroups, and more elementary motivation, productivity, pol itics, and strategy. We see that about half of the interviewees are not familiar with OB. Those who are offer views that parallel the deﬁnition of OB, that is, an umbrella term for many phenomena occurring in organiza tions. 768 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 Table 1 The number of publications found in EBSCO for Organizational Behavior and each of the ﬁelds declared as strategically important. OB Finance Economics Marketing Law Accounting Auditing IS KMS Finance 459 Economics 5884 80,155 Marketing 237 1265 14,457 Law 912 5281 41,952 561 Accounting 287 5625 17,892 569 1553 Auditing 29 714 975 26 274 1747 IS 313 1969 8170 496 839 761 106 KMS 496 445 3574 286 194 249 26 580 Sum for OB = 8617 Search term = 9243 127,162 782,587 25,071 58,923 31,949 2324 12,745 6041 Notes: The data in Table 1 were obtained during one single access session on August 19, 2011. With regard to our BSofEX’s strategic focus on the Department of Law, Accounting, and Auditing, these were decomposed into its separate areas for analysis. The areas of IS/KMS were also in the analysis deﬁned and accessed separately as the two terms information systems and knowledge management systems. There might be overlap between search term and publication, in as much that one publication may appear in more than one search term counting–simply because publications employ multiple search terms. Theme 4: Under the umbrella of OBT, what would its salient theories be? Examples of responses are: • I am familiar with theories of leadership and change manage ment. • Exploring the difference between management and leadership? • Knowledge management, management, and teams. • ANT could be viewed as a theory under the umbrella of OB, but that wouldn’t tell us much. • It is a profound problem that IS/KMS professionals do not appre ciate behavior. Theories pertain to the levels of organization – group – individual • There are far too many theories that might be relevant to enu merate. The valence theory of motivation is one that comes to mind. We conclude that the range of themes and theories mentioned are wide and disperse. Yet, OB and its theories do not play a role in our interviewees’ theoretical orientation. Theme 5: In your mind, what is the role of OBT in IS/KMS research? Would it play a major role? Examples of responses are: • In IS/KMS we are using theories and concepts that might be rec ognized as OBT already, we could not do without these theories – but OB does not offer anything helpful and new. • IS/KMS cannot be seen or understood through a lens of OB. But I strongly believe that one cannot force a theory or an umbrella on researchers. I would not be inspired by working in a department called Organizational Behavior. • Overall, I see OB and IS/KMS as distinct areas with distinct ques tions being asked. OBT pertains to general behaviors of people in organizations; IS/KMS to the production, use, and organization of information and information technology in organizations. They are as different as cell biology and ecology – they address different things, but truths in each should not be completely contradictory. • From an administrative perspective, I do not see why OB, as an umbrella that includes IS/KMS, is any better or worse than any other such as informatics, management science, accounting, or management in general. In any case, it is a ﬁctional arrangement to combine administrative tasks and costs without, hopefully, creating more than necessary conﬂict and stress. • It may be said that Rogers’ diffusion theory is OB. Saying some thing about physical entities in a human context. Is it types of theories? OB originally comes from OD thinking. • Emotional leadership used in teaching? Theory of inﬂuence to make a target population move? Have an expert guide for a novice? Clearly, the responses to this theme vary quite much. For some, this theme is most likely understood as was the question on how OBT may be of help in conducting research. Others see OB as a dysfunctional and arbitrary phenomenon. In the most elaborate responses obtained, it is pointed out that OB and IS/KMS are two distinctly different areas, like two different scientiﬁc disciplines. One respondent offers the view that OB can be employed as a department name, but then it would only serve administrative needs. With regard to Q5 we conclude that distinct OB theories are not mentioned by any of our interviewees as theories they employ in their own research. Respondents being familiar with OB offer views that clearly indicate that they look upon OB as a very general and genetic academic term. The respondents clearly hold the opin ion that OB includes almost every theory that may be employed in research on phenomena unfolding in organizations. None of the respondents offer the view that OB has a distinct role in conducting research in IS/KMS. 5. Discussion Our ﬁndings are summarized in Table 3. With regard to the academic aspects of OB, our ﬁndings strongly indicate that the term has a very wide deﬁnition – it includes, more likely than not, every organizational aspect one could think of, for example; structure, process, hierarchy, role, interaction among organization – group – individual, rela tionship between the environment and organization, networks, management, and leadership. We learn that OB, at least in our sample, is not actively used in research – be it in the development of research deﬁnition, its employment as a basis for deﬁning Table 2 Frequency with which OB is found in EBSCO and in Articles. Numb. of articles in sample OB in EBSCO’s search categories: OB in articles: Terms used singly # of full text articles Area Subject Descriptor Keyword Title Abstract Text Knowledge 12 12 11 0 0 1 0 0 4 Marketing 12 9 9 0 0 0 1 3 3 Totals 24 21 20 0 0 1 1 3 7 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 769 Table 3 Summary of ﬁndings for the ﬁve questions. Question number Question issue and ﬁndings Q1 How is OB deﬁned? We found that deﬁnitions of OB are very broad – covering every phenomena occurring in organizational settings. Q2 Would speciﬁc academic ﬁelds be declared strategic, including OB? We found no instance where a business school (or its equivalent) would select some (business school) academic ﬁelds as strategic. Hence, among Business Schools, OB is not mentioned as being strategic. Q3 Would OB be a vehicle for differentiating a core group from other ﬁelds? We found no evidence for saying that OB is distinctly differently used as compared with other academic disciplines. If anything, OB is most often employed as a term in economics. Q4 In academic articles, is OB actively employed in research? We found that the term OB is included as a search term in EBSCO’s EconLit database, but we found no instance of OB being employed as an active element in research–be it research problem formulation, concrete theory background or development, research model, analysis, discussion, or conclusion. Q5 Do academicians employ, recognize or look upon OB as strategic? None of our interviewees mentioned OB theories as an element in their past and present research efforts, or as an element in future research undertakings. Their understanding of OB is as a very wide umbrella term that may include (almost) every phenomenon that occurs in organizational settings. OB is looked upon as an academic discipline different from IS/KMS. The interviewees cannot see that OB has a strategic role. If anything it is looked upon as a non-relevant element. research, theoretical exploration of research issues, or an element in research models. Hence, OB does not serve as a basis for analysis or discussion. The impression that OB is used on a macro level only, with little precision at that, is strengthened through our observations on how OB is used in the EBSCO EconLit database. It is employed in EBSCO’s search ﬁelds for subject and descriptor. As such, it surely enjoys wide success, since 9243 publications use the term. Yet, active use does not proceed beyond subject and descriptor into keywords, article title, abstract, or in the body of articles. With reference to our research question RQ3, we conclude that in regard to academic value OB is used as a matter of convenience. This might be the reason why we also ﬁnd that OB has a too broad meaning and no concrete role in research, where precision and focus is the rule.6 We hasten to say that our conclusion is limited to the strategic analysis and samples used in the present research. Our investigation into mission and strategy at top interna tional business schools showed that none of these single out a set of business school academic ﬁelds. Rather, the prevailing 6 Of course, the term OB is employed in many settings, for exam ple, (part of) department name, see for example, Cornell University (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/academics/ob.html) and Stanford Graduate School of Business (https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/academicareas/ob.html) – or as an umbrella term for courses and publications, see, for example, Harvard Business Publishing (http://hbsp.harvard.edu/discipline/organizational-behavior). OB is also used as a heading in major academic events, for example, the recently announced Annual Conference on Business Strategy and Organizational Behavior, which will take place in Singapore, April 22–23, 2013, see http://www.biz-strategy.org/. Last but not least, OB has its own journals, for example, Journal of Organizational Behavior (http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-JOB.html), now in its 29th volume. mission and strategic themes among these business schools are internationalization, excellence in research, research as the ker nel in the development and delivery of educational programs, maintaining a student focus, delivering value to society through serving its organizations (public, private, social, as well as pro fessional), vigorously participating in media, communicating with practitioners, and conducting research that matters for business school stakeholders. Also, among the business schools surveyed, since academic areas are not singled out, obviously OB is not char tered by any with a strategic role. Our conclusion with regard to research question RQ1 is that business schools do not single out some academic ﬁelds as strategic relative to others. Consequently, in response to RQ2, organizational behavior has not a strategic role. Our research has limitations. We address one business school only. The EBSCO EconLit database may quite well favor literature in economics at the expense of social science disciplines such as marketing and IS/KMS. We deﬁned very small samples for investi gating the use of OB deﬁnitions and the role of OB in research. We chose expert sampling as our approach to selecting interviewees (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Obviously, our sample is small and may not be representative for academics in the ﬁeld of IS/KMS. Our investigation of the strategy and mission at business schools is not only restricted to a small sample, but also to using the avail able Internet data only. In-depth understanding of these business schools’ missions and strategies would require interviews with their leaders, faculty, and stakeholders. Still, we also think that if OB were to have a decisive role in business school strategies, we would have detected indications of it in the relatively rich mate rial we have collected. The fact that our ﬁndings are exceptionally consistent across investigated areas makes us draw the conclu sion that other quite different trends, relative to a strategic role for OB, will quite likely not emerge in larger samples or other data sources. We acknowledge that we quite well might have found more proactive use of OB material had we investigated journals dedicated to this ﬁeld. When seen in the perspective of IS/KMS we observe that OB is mentioned among its theoretical foundations, although OB journals are not recognized among the top journals of the ﬁeld (Wallace, Fleet, and Downs, 2011). OB journals are not included in an analysis of relationships among IS journals (Polites & Watson, 2009). The fact that journals speciﬁcally dedicated to OB are preciously few (none listed in the Association of Business Schools (2011) and three listed in Harzing (2013)) may be a good reason why OB journals do not have a recognizable impact in IS/KMS. What then, are the implications of a strategy singling out some academic disciplines as carrying the responsibility of achieving recognition and as a vehicle for resource allocation? We think that a strategy must consist of terms that are commonly shared among those who will judge if the strategy works or not. Otherwise the strategic content will be an unknown and cannot serve a strategic purpose (Elkington, 1994; Lorange & Roos, 1992). In essence, an aca demic institution can only survive when the faculty is recognized and understood as academic entrepreneurs (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). In the context of the present case, we see that no other business school deﬁnes selection of academic disciplines as an element in their strategy. We also believe that when a term is employed strategically to create the platform for direction, it must be concrete in nature as well as being widely accepted and used. With regard to OB, we see that its deﬁnition is extremely generic – for example, as such, OB is used more frequently in eco nomics than in the social sciences (such as marketing and IS/KMS). It follows, that resources cannot be allocated to OB in a logical manner reﬂecting a strategic program. Chances are that decisions are based on the BSofEX’s president and top managers’ preferences and whims. 770 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 6. Implications In motivating academics, the selection of some academic areas relative to others is problematic. Our understanding is that as a general rule each and every individual academician looks upon herself/himself as being a highly, self-motivated person – aca demicians are strongly motivated by intrinsic factors (Amar, 2002; Hooker & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Minbaeva, 2008; Johnson, Truxillo, Erdogan, Bauer & Hammer, 2009). This makes sense because the whole purpose of academic education and life is being individually self-propelled; in deﬁning and carrying out research, getting published, communicating ideas in class and in the media, and in discussing her/his pet topics with peers and practitioners. Hence, developing a top-down strategy in which the BSofEX president selects some areas as being more salient than others carry, by default, a strong resemblance to the slogan in Animal Farm that: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell, 1945, p. 114). As we see it, academicians are easily discouraged and would think they are given signal of being of less or inferior value if their areas of expertise do not count equally with all others. Besides, declaring some academic area as key has also in it the danger of developing an attitude of “them versus us”. Those on the inside are inclined to enjoy being exactly on the inside – enjoy ing fame and additional resource allocation. Insiders would develop strategies and tactics for staying on the inside. Their contributions may over time increasingly deteriorate in quality, making it harder to defend the position as insider. These processes would be part of a managerial culture of divide and conquer (Yukl, 2013). This type of culture would be counterproductive, since development and renewal within an academic environment depends not only on knowledge generation but also on knowledge sharing (Howell & Annansingh, 2013). A rigidly implemented top down strategy may allow for knowledge generation but be an obstacle for sharing. We have also observed that innovation in academia is difﬁcult to predict, precisely because it is based on individual academician’s performance and energy (Keller, 2012). One cannot command an academician or a group of academicians to excel. In short, the war stories of academic areas that grow and academic areas that vanish, because a limited number of academicians move among institu tions, are numerous. It is also profoundly true that what may take years to build can be rapidly torn down through inappropriate deci sion making and managerial behavior (March, 1991). For the reason of innovation, therefore, a strategy of singling out some academic areas appears to be dangerous. In fact one may wonder if a faculty’s acceptance of top-down decisions such as discipline selection and OB is a variant of “obedience to authority” (Milgram, 1974). The fact that a business school’s long term survival depends on the degree of success in academic entrepreneurship, suggests to us that the decision making space that the management of a business school (and other academic institutions for that matter) has rela tive to its faculty is in (a) its hiring procedures, (b) expectation of quality research and educational activity, (c) promotion of succinct and rich communication of research and views with peers, practi tioners, and society in general, (d) recognition of those that excel regardless of academic discipline (in the spirit of who knows where the next innovation will come from?), (e) nurture of an interna tional mode of academic endeavor, (f) determining the composition of mandatory courses on all levels, and (g) allocating seed money to academic activities that contributes toward these activities, means, and ends (Podolny, 2011). The preceding arguments are extremely good reasons why business schools do not single out some aca demic areas at the expense of others, but keep to the well known themes of internationalization, the role of research, culturing the student, and promoting the relationships with politicians, practi tioners, and other academic institutions that excel. Further research on business school strategies is needed. It seems to us that very little insightful work has been published in this area since the publica tion of the garbage can model for business school decision making (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). If anything, business schools seem to be preoccupied with present hot issues pertaining to rankings (see for example, Jain & Golosinski, 2009) and accreditation (see for example, Zammuto, 2008) – but without addressing issues such as the role of business schools in the larger academic setting, the role of business schools in society, strategies that would foster quality in research and curriculum development, or the ramiﬁcations of not knowing the effects of leaving ownership, administration, and reporting of rankings and accreditation to others. Since our data clearly says that OB offers no help, only ritu als, what theoretical perspective may be of strategic importance for IS/KMS? As is evident, there are many theoretical platforms used in IS research. But, at the bottom of our professional hearts (for what else is there that urges us forward?), we are particu larly interested in the aspects of innovation and change. One good reason why is that most private and public organizations invest more in IS/KMS than in other activities. More profoundly, future major development trends in organizations may quite likely be dialectic struggles between man and machine; between systems and intuition, between order and chaos, and between obedience and freedom (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). The innovation and change processes in IS/KMS are, for the majority of these undertakings, complex and risky undertakings with uncertain outcomes. We sin cerely believe that research in innovation and change must build on published research thinking and empirical reports. A particu lar challenge we see is that these reports have a somewhat limited scope. What then would be the macro level understanding of the challenges in innovation and change? Our ﬁrst reﬂection is that a positive outcome depends on the maturity of an organization and its actors in the innovation and change domain. One cannot experi ence success in innovation and change if competence and in-depth understanding do not exist (Pasher & Ronen, 2011). Yet, innovation and change processes unfold in phases, since there are differences between an initial activity of having an idea and promoting it, doing something with the idea into creating an artifact, and taking an artifact into use, until its demise (Larsen, 1998). However, the way in which innovation and change processes unfold does not explain how those engaged develop their cognitive understanding of the development of an idea, how to create the artifact, what would ensure successful use of the artifact, or what to do when it has become partially or wholly obsolete (Checkland, 1981; Checkland & Howell, 1998). But would it also be true that some issues are found to dominate across innovation and change undertakings (Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999)? We depict these four aspects of innovation and change in Fig. 1. The model needs further development and speciﬁcation. Yet, the added value of a macro model as in Fig. 1 is in the integration of multiple aspects of the innovation and change. The macro model needs speciﬁcation, exploration, and documentation with regard to content and meaning. Yet from it, speciﬁc areas in need of detailed reﬁnement can be deﬁned and made into projects in their own right. We end on a happy note by declaring that we have understood that practitioners in their major decision making do think along lines and principles as depicted in Fig. 1. However, their thinking is more likely, for the most part, intuitive rather than logical. There is per se nothing wrong with intuitive thinking and action. Yet, in research issues of logic dominate. Bringing intuition into IS research on innovation may advance our chance in building knowledge that also practitioners would value. Our model of innovation in IS/KMS research is forwarded as an example of strategic orientation that has relevance in the ﬁeld of IS/KMS. We are convinced that relevant theory addresses con crete phenomena in a ﬁeld. In IS/KMS this is systems built with and on information communication technology, but also the systems’ T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 771 Fig. 1. Competence, phases, understanding, and issues – and their relationships. instantiation in an organizational context (Lee, 1999). This is most likely the problem with OB. It does not offer theories and frame works that relate to IS/KMS. OB becomes a red herring, if anything, serving the needs of top management but not those of a lively and vibrant academic community. 7. Conclusions Our ﬁeld is IS/KMS. Its survival may depend on the strategies the host business schools formulate and how these impact the area. To explore this issue, we analyzed a business school (BS) in which its top manager and board of directors adopted a top-down strate gic approach within which ﬁve academic ﬁelds were named. These ﬁve areas were mandated with the responsibility of making the BSofEX recognized as a leading European business school. Among the ﬁve named academic areas are organizational behavior (OB) – which would be the umbrella for assisting the ﬁeld of IS/KMS in contributing to the strategy. Our analysis shows that business schools do not select some academic ﬁelds as being chartered with the responsibility of obtain ing recognition, leaving others to cater for themselves. Rather, in their strategy and mission formulations, business schools for ward themes such as; internationalization, excellence in research, research driven educational programs, cultivating students, and participating in the fabric of society. We think that the reason why business schools avoid naming some academic areas is that negative reactions that would counter the desired strategic direc tion of development will occur. Among these negative reactions would be the de-motivation among the non-chosen faculty, power games to stay among the chosen, and the stiﬂing of innovation and change processes, promoting a managerial culture of divide and conquer – reactions that would result in negative development loops (Chen, Lam, & Zong, 2007). If anything, when thinking of strategy among business schools, why are these called “business schools”? We appreciate that the term was coined when the ﬁrst business schools were established in the United States in the 1920s. It has a history and tradition. Yet, as we have learnt, a business school is mandated to serve private, public, social, and professional organizations. Surely, some of these have business as their mantra, but far from all. In fact, some of these organizations may be alien ated by the use of the term “business school” – for example, The Red Cross or trade union organizations. Hence, business is not the common denominator among these organizations. We suggest that what they all share area purpose, serving their constituencies, and surviving in monetary terms. To achieve these, they need leader ship and management that have the acumen to handle innovation and change. When taking all “clients” into account, would not a better name for our institution be “School of Leadership and Man agement”? With regard to OB we found that its deﬁnition is so wide that it cannot serve any strategic purpose, other than increasing the degree of freedom for top managers to make their preferred deci sions on resource allocation without interference. We also found that OB is not used in research for any speciﬁc purpose other than referencing. The term does not play a role at all in academic efforts aiming at its further development, understand ing, or creation of value to academia and practice. More starkly, we found no evidence for the employment of OB in research def inition, theory discussion, research model, research analysis, or discussion. We had to conclude that, based on our data, OB appears as an empty entity without speciﬁc meaning. As one of our inter viewees expressed it, “If OB is just a bureaucratic convenience, it seems no worse an umbrella for IS/KMS than any other. In terms of intellectual integrity, they are as separate ﬁelds as physics and math.” Because of these negative ﬁndings, we returned to the profound need we initially expressed for the development of issues pertain ing to innovation and change in IS/KMS. We suggest a macro model for key phenomena and relationships These would serve not only as the basis for further speciﬁcation of the model but also as an umbrella for the deﬁnition of research in speciﬁc areas in need of attention. Indeed, we know that organizations invest more money in IS/KMS than in any other area. Organizations are increasingly exposed to risk because of the increased portfolio of IS/KMS. These undertakings carry risk. Yet we also strongly think that the future major development lines in organizations will occur between man and machine, between systems and intuition, between order and chaos, and between obedience and freedom. 772 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 Indeed, despite extremely disruptive attempts at strategically engineering our value creation, the future looks bright, but not necessarily for IS/KMS in the setting similar to that of the BSofEX. Appendix A. Institutions and links to their Internet web pages: their material on speciﬁc academic areas for strategic positioning (all links last accessed on February 19, 2013) AUSTRIALIA The University of Sydney Business School at http://sydney.edu.au/business Focus on; Role of holding accreditations, To build and sustain a leading learning community in business and management education, Particular emphasis is put on intellectual and personal development, international orientation, engagement with government, industry, community organizations, and the professions, High quality research in business, economics, government, and related ﬁelds. EUROPE Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark, at http://www.cbs.dk/en/CBS-Focus Focus on; an “organic” strategic framework for CBS’ activities entitled “Business in Society.” CBS builds on its identity as a business university. CBS wish to develop a global mindet for the beneﬁt of the corporate sector, locally and regionally. Central to the CBS business-in-society strategy is the notion that research and education must make a positive difference through students, research and dissemination activities. Strategic program areas are entrepreneurship, program innovation, and principles of responsible management education. ESADE Business School, various campuses in Spain, at http://www.esade.edu/web/eng/ Focus on; Major issues and mission being related to the areas of education, research, and social dialog, ESADE’s claims international renown into key issues such as business management, highlighting the topics of the global economy and geopolitics, innovation and entrepreneurship, leadership and governance, knowledge management, corporate social responsibility, law and economics, brand management, etc., Presents material pertaining to integrity in academic and professional work, valuing diversity, assuming responsibility to create a fairer society, respecting others and self, and ensuring common good. HEC (Hautes Études Commerciales), Paris, France, at http://www.hec.edu/ Focus on; Role of holding accreditations, Being a leading innovator in being able to anticipate participants’ and corporations’ needs over the long term, Specifying the salient elements of collaboration internationally in the two areas of economics and management. INSEAD, Paris, France, at http://about.insead.edu/who we are/index.cfm Focus on; A business school for the world, Conducting cutting edge research and innovating across all programs, Promote non-dogmatic learning environment, Vision pertaining to diversity, independence, rigor and relevance in research and teaching, closeness to the international business community, entrepreneurial spirit, Lancaster University Business School, Lancaster, England, at http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/about/ Focus on; Stakeholders, Research mission as basis for educational programs, Serving social, public, and private organizations, Role of holding accreditations. London School of Economics, England, at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/aboutHome.aspx Focus on: Vision and Strategy in teaching and student experience, research, and engagement, Research assessment exercise in 2008. Individual subject areas, notably economics, law, social policy and European studies, also headed national tables of excellence. Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden, at http://www.hhs.se/ABOUT/Pages/default.aspx Focus on; (Academic) Talent attracts talent, Attracting the most ambitious and talented students, Close cooperation with the business community, Practical needs and the rigor of academic scholarship, Mission is to deliver top quality research-based education USA Haas School of Business, Berkeley, CA, at http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/haas/about/index.html Focus on; To develop innovative business leaders, Distinctive culture by the four deﬁning principles of question the status quo, conﬁdence without attitude, students always, beyond yourself, Strategy is to get the culture right through people, place, and culture, Strategic focus through redeﬁne the business graduate, realize our intellectual future, and transform our HAAS campus, Deﬁne a list of key strategic initiatives (but no mention of speciﬁc departments or issues.) Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, at http://www.hbs.edu/about/ Focus on; Educating leaders who make a difference in the world, Key aspects for HBS success are the case method, pioneering research, closeness to practice, international scope, a vital residential community, exceptional resources, alumni, Research contributions range from the creation and development of the ﬁeld of organizational behavior and marketing to key advances in understanding the nature of leadership, strategy, and decision making. Stanford Graduate School of Business, at http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/about/mission.html Focus on; SGSB seeks to attract faculty and students with high leadership potential and engage in an academically-rigorous, research-supported, mutually-responsible learning process, enhanced by uncommon levels of interdisciplinary scholarship and community engagement. Classes are conducted only on a full-time residential basis in an intimate-scale environment, and take full advantage of the assets of Stanford University and its surrounding communities. The impact of SGSB ideas and students extend globally in meaningful ways. Core SGSB values are engage intellectually, strive for something great, respect others, act with integrity, and own your actions. Appendix B. B.1. Overview of articles used for analysis of active use of OB in research The analysis was limited to articles found in EBSCO for the period January 2006–August 2011. The sample was deﬁned as a limited number of articles, see notes for each area below. Numbers in front of articles refer to the number EBSCO allocates to articles for a search. Organizational behavior and knowledge management sys tems 172 articles found. Each 15th article selected for analysis – 12 articles in sample (accessed on August 22, 2011). (#1) Dalota, M. -D. (2011). Successful implementation of knowl edge management in small and medium enterprises. Romanian Economic and Business Review, 6(Spring (1)), 7–17. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract (#16) Elbashir, M. Z., Collier, P. A., and Sutton, S. G. (2011). The role of organizational absorptive capacity in strategic use of business intelligence to support integrated management control systems. Accounting Review, 86 (January (1)), 155–184. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB not mentioned in the article text. (#31) Yagi, N. and Kleinberg, J. (2011). Boundary work: an inter pretive ethnographic perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(June–July (5)), 629–653. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#46) Cesnovar, T. (2010). Inﬂuences of implementing the learning organization on companies’ ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial perform ances. Managing Global Transitions, 8(Fall (3)), 285–306. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB not mentioned in the article text. (#61) Mo, S., and Xie, X. (2010). Team learning, transactive mem ory system and team performance: a longitudinal study based on the IMOI approach. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 4 (September (3)), 409–422. OB in EBSCO Subject, not in Descriptors or Keywords. OB mentioned in abstract in the last sentence: “We argue that orga nizational behavior research based on an IMOI approach would have more generalizability and ecological validity than the tradi tional I–P–O model.” (#76) Gosh, S., and Skibniewski, M. J. (2010). Enterprise resource planning systems implementation as a complex project: a T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 773 conceptual framework. Journal of Business Economics and Manage ment, 11(4), 533–549. OB in EBSCO subject and descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in title or abstract. (#91) Smeets, V., and Warzynski, F. (2008). Too many theories, too few facts? What the data tell us about the link between span of control, compensation, and career dynamics. Labour Economics, 15(August (4)), 688–704. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#106) Malerba, F. (2006). Innovation, industrial dynamics and industry evolution: progress and the research agendas. Revue de L’OFCE, June, 21–46. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#121) Alegre, J., Chiva, R., and Lapiedra, R. (2009). Measuring inno vation in long product development cycle industries: an insight in biotechnology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(May (4)), 535–546. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB not mentioned in the article text. (#136) Corvello, V., and Migliarese, P. (2007). Virtual forms for the organization of production: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 11(October (1–2)), 5–15. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#151) Maxim, C., and Scarlat, C. (2008). Online communication to mass media: Romanian insights. Current Issues of Business and Law, 1, 53–61. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#166) Phelps, B. (2007). Electronic information systems and organizational boundaries. Technology Analysis and Strategic Man agement, 19(January (1)), 17–29. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB not mentioned in the article text. Organizational behavior and marketing 72 articles found. Each 6th article selected for analysis – 12 articles in sample (accessed on September 6, 2011). (#1) Royer, A. (2011). Transaction costs in milk marketing: a com parison between Canada and Great Britain. Agricultural Economics, 42(March (2)), 171–182. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#7) Diez-Vial, I., and Alvarez-Suescun, E. (2011). The impact of geographical proximity on vertical integration through speciﬁc assets: the case of the Spanish Meat Industry. Growth and Change, 42(March (1)), 1–22. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#13) Hueth, B., Ibarburu, M., and Kliebenstein, J. (2007). Market ing specialty hogs: a comparative analysis of two ﬁrms from Iowa. Review of Agricultural Econonmics, 29 (Winter (4)), 720–733. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB not mentioned in the article text. (#21) Ramirez Bacca, R. (2010). Urban working class in coffee industry: sorter women, threshers and work regime in Antioquia, Colombia from 1910 to 1942. Desarrollo y Sociedad, 66(Semester), 115–143. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB (most probably) not mentioned in the article text (article written in Spanish). (#27) Bodlaj, M. (2008). The relationship between a responsive and proactive market orientation and degree of innovation. Akademija MM, 8 (December (12)), 9–17. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#33) Villegas, A., and Gladis, C. (2008). Company networks: criti cal design factors. Contaduria y Administraction, 255(May–August), 9–38. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#39) Birthal, P. S., and Joshi, P. K. (2007). Institutional innovations for improving smallholder participation in high-value agriculture: a case of fruit and vegetable growers’ association in India. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 46(1st Quarter (1)), 46–67. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#45) Dimitri, C., Jaenicke, E. C., and Efﬂand, A. B. (2009). Why did contracts supplant the cash market in the broiler indus try? An economic analysis featuring technological innovation and institutional response. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 7(1). OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors, not in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (#51) Ristino, R. J. (2007). Communicating with external publics: managing public opinion and behavior. Health Marketing Quarterly, 24(3–4), 55–80. OB not in EBSCO Subject, Descriptors, or in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (The terms “organizational settings”, “change behaviors”, and “managing organizational change and crises” are used in the abstract.) (#57) Filippi, M., and Triboulet, P. (2006). Typology of innovative behaviors of agricultural co-operatives: case studies in the midi pyrenees region. Economie Rurale, 296, 20–38. OB not in EBSCO Subject, Descriptors, or in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (The term “Innovative Behaviors” is used in the title and the term “organizational level innovation” is used in the abstract.) (#63) Veis, H., Rezvanfar, A., and Hejazi, Y. (2006). Impact of organizational learning on market orientation of higher educa tion agriculture departments. Iranian Economic Review, 11 (Winter (15)), 93–114. OB not in EBSCO Subject, Descriptors, or in Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. (The terms “organizational learning” and “marketplace behaviors” are used in the abstract.) (#69) Vosgerau, J., Anderson, E., and Ross, W. T. Jr. (2008). Can inaccurate percetions in business to business (B2B) relationships be beneﬁcial? Marketing Science, 27(March–April (2)), 205–224. OB in EBSCO Subject and Descriptors. No Keywords. OB not in Title or Abstract. OB mentioned once in the text: “In contrast, social psy chologists and researchers in organizational behavior have stressed the beneﬁcial role of positive illusions, . . .” p. 28, 2nd para. This one occurrence is found in the theory section as an umbrella term leading into a detailed dis cussion on illusions. OB is not mentioned again [not in theory, methods (operationalization), analysis, discussion, nor in conclusions]. References Amar, A. D. (2002). Managing knowledge workers: Unleashing innovation and produc tivity. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., & Wu, L. (2012). Three-way complementarities: Perfor mance pay, human resource analytics, and information technology. Management Science, 58(May (5)), 913–931. 774 T.J. Larsen, J. Olaisen / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 764– 774 Association of Business Schools. (2011). Academic Journal Quality Guide,. Version 4, at. http://www.associationofbusinessschools.org/ (last accessed on 05.02.13) Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference disci pline. MIS Quarterly, 26(March (1)), 1–14. Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Wand, Y. (2011). Guidelines for designing virtual ontologies to support knowledge identiﬁcation. MIS Quarterly, 35(December (4)), 883–908. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revo lution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press. Buchanan, D. A., & Huczynski, A. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour (7th ed., pp. ). Harlow, England: Pearson. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994). The management of innovation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hardback edition reprinted in 1996 Centre for the Study of Living Standards (2012), http://www.csls.ca/ (last accessed on 12.11.12). Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking systems practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Checkland, P. B., & Howell, S. (1998). Information. In systems and information systems: Making sense of the ﬁeld. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behav ior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202–212. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization theory and design. Mason, OH: Thomson. Davis, G. B. (2000). Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 Conference on The Social and Orga nizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology Aalborg, Denmark, June 9–11, (pp. 61–82). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win–Win–Win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, Winter, 90–100. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., & Rumbles, S. (2011). Organizational behaviour (2nd ed., pp. ). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Galliers, R. D., & Currie, W. L. (2011). The oxford handbook of management informa tion systems: Critical perspectives and new directions. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations (9th ed., pp. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harcourt, A. J. (1998). EU media ownership regulations: Conﬂict over deﬁni tion alternatives. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(September (3)), 369– 389. Hannagan, T. (2008). Management: Concepts & practices (5th ed., pp. ). Prentice Hall: Harlow, England. Harzing, A. (2013). Journal quality list, 48th edition of February 5, 2012. At http://www.harzing.com/jql.htm (last accessed on 06.02.13). Hirscheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A Glorious and not-so-short history of the infor mation systems ﬁeld. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(April (4)), 188–235. Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity and shared leadership: Rethinking the motivation and structuring of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the how’s and why’s of leadership (pp. 217–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Howell, K. E., & Annansingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in UK Uni versities: A tale of two cultures? International Journal of Information Management, 33, 32–39. Jain, D. P., & Golosinski, M. (2009). Sizing up the tyranny of the ruler. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 99–105. Johnson, J., Truxillo, D. M., Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. (2009). Perceptions of overall fairness: Are effects on job performance moderated by leader-member exchange? Human Performance, 22, 432–449. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Translating strategy into action: The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kebede, G. (2010). Knowledge management: An information science perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 416–424. Keller, R. T. (2012). Predicting the performance and innovativeness of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 225–233. Larsen, T. J. (1998). Information systems innovation: A framework for research and practice. In T. J. Larsen, & E. McGuire (Eds.), Information systems innovation and diffusion: Issues and direction (pp. 411–434). Hersey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Lee, A. (1999). Researching MIS. In W. Currie, & R. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking man agement information systems: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 7–27). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Lorange, P., & Roos, J. (1992). Strategic alliances: Formation, implementation and evo lution. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Orga nization Science, 2(February (1)), 71–87. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: HarperPerennial. Minbaeva, D. B. (2008). HRM practices affecting extrinsic and intrinsic motiva tion of knowledge receivers and their effect on intra-MNC knowledge transfer. International Business Review, 17(6), 703–713. Odiorne, G. S. (1965). Management by objectives: A system of managerial leadership. New York: Pitman Publishing. Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. Hammondsworth, England: Penguin Modern Clas sics. Pasher, E., & Ronen, T. (2011). The complete guide to knowledge management: A strate gic plan to leverage your company’s intellectual capital. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Podolny, J. M. (2011). A conversation with James G. March on learning about lead ership. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 502–506. Polites, G. L., & Watson, R. T. (2009). Using social network analysis to analyze rela tionships among IS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(August (8)), 595–636. Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., & Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 36(June (2)), 625–648. Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives deﬁne their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(March–April (2)), 81–93. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open system perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International. Sorge, A., & Warner, M. (Eds.). (1997). The handbook of organizational behaviour. London, England: International Thomson Business Press. Stefanidis, A., Fitzgerald, G., & Counsell, S. (2012). A comprehensive survey of IS undergraduate degree courses in the UK. International Journal of Information Management, 32, 318–325. Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research methods knowledge base (third ed., pp. ). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog, a Part of Cengage Learning. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of orga nization change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(August (3)), 58–74. Wagner, J. A., III, & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2005). Organizational behavior: Securing com petitive advantage (5th ed., pp. ). Mason, OH: Thomson South Western. Wallace, D. P., van Fleet, C., & Downs, L. J. (2011). The research core of the knowl edge management literature. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 14–20. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Edinburgh, England: Pearson Education Limited. Zammuto, R. F. (2008). Accreditation and the globalization of business. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 256–268. Tor J. Larsen holds a MA in Systems Thinking from the University of Lancaster, England in 1975 and earned his Ph.D. in Management Information Systems (MIS) from the University of Minnesota in 1989. He held the position of Senior Vice Pres ident at BI Norwegian Business School 2007–2010. At present he is full professor in Knowledge Management at BI. He has served as associate editor for MIS Quarterly. Dr. Larsen’s publications are found in, for example Information & Management, Jour nal of MIS, Information Systems Journal, and Computers in Industry. He is a member of AIS, IFIP WG8.2, and WG8.6 where he acted as vice-chair 2007–2012. Dr. Larsen’s research interests are in the areas of managers’ use of information, knowledge man agement, innovation, diffusion, representation, and innovation outcome. Johan Olaisen holds a MA and a MSc together with a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. He has published extensively in the areas of Information Management and Knowledge Management with a focus on people, leadership, orga nizational systems, technology, and the cultural context. He has been department chair for several departments at BI Norwegian Business School. His current research interests include Knowledge Management, Philosophy of Science, Service Quality together with Changing effectiveness/efﬁciency in and among organizations and societies.