In the last few decades, most organizations have embraced the notion of Change or Perish. As a result, Management Innovations (MI) are adopted the moment they are produced by fashion setters among others. However, these innovations are not usually adopted and implemented in full. The innovations are usually modified consciously and unconsciously. This has attracted a lot of criticism from researchers and experts. Although this phenomenon has been widely acknowledged by researchers and practitioners, surprisingly very little research has addressed the issue of why and how MI are modified. Given the importance of modification of MI to organizations who undertake it and to those organizations that wish to emulate them, understanding of why and how MI are modified is very important to the understanding of why MI work or do not work.. Therefore, the central objective of this paper is to explain why and how MI are modified. Using a theoretical framework, the paper argues that why and how MI are modified are largely influenced by the reason for the adoption of the innovation in the first place. The practical and research implications are discussed.
Abowd, J M (1990). Does performance-based managerial compensation affect corporate performance? Industrial and labor relations Review, 43: 52-73
Abrahamson, E (1991). Managerial Fads and Fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3) 586-612
Abrahamson, E (1997) the emergence of and prevalence of employee Management rhetoric: the effects of long waves, labour Unions, and turnover, 1875-1992 AMJ 40(3), 491-553.
Abrahamson, E & Rosenkopt, L (1990). When do bandwagon diffusion roll. How far do they go? And when do they roll backwards: A computer Simulation. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 155-159
Alvarez, J L (1997 ed.). The diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Arias, M E and Guillen, M (1998). The transfer of organizational techniques across borders: Combining neo-institutional and comparative perspectives. In Alvarez, J L (1997 ed.). The diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 37-45
Barley, S.R & Kunda, G (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in Managerial discourse. ASQ 37: 363-399
Bolton, M.K (1993). Imitation versus innovation: Lessons to be learned from Japanese. Organizational Dynamics, Winter 30-45
Botti, HF (1997). Going local: Hybridization process as situated learning. In Alvarez JL (ed.), The diffusion and consumption of business knowledge; Macmillan Press: London; 37.45
Choi, T. Y and Behling, O.C (1997). Top managers and TQM success: One more look after all these years. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1( pp. 37-47
Colins, D (2000). Management fads and Buzzwords: Critical-Practical perspectives. Routledge London
Donaldson, L & Hilmer, F (1998). Management redeemed: The case against fads that harm management. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, Pp. 7-20
Eskildson, L (1994). Improving the odds of TQM`s Success. Quality Progress, 27(4) April, 61- 63
Gibson, J, W and Tesone, D.V (2001). Management fads: Emergence, evolution, and implications for managers; Academy of Management executives, 15(4) 122-133
Gill, J and Whittle, S (1992). Management by Panacea: Accounting for transience. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2); 281-295
Hill, S and Wilkinson, A (1995). In search of TQM. Employee Relations, 17(3), 8-25
Huczynki, A.A (1993a). Management gurus: What makes them and how to become one. London: Routledge
Huczynki, A.A (1993b). Explaining the succession of Management Fads. International Journal of Human Resource Management 4(2), pp. 443-463
Huselid, M A (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672
Klein, J.A (1989). The human cost of manufacturing reform. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 60-66
Lozeau, D; Langley, A; and Denis, J (2002). The corruption of managerial techniques by organizations; Human relations, 55(5): 537-564
Mathews, J and Katel, P (1992). The cost of Quality. Newsweek 120(1) 48-49
Mazza, C (1997). The popularization of business knowledge diffusion: From academic knowledge to popular culture? In Alvarez, J L (1997 ed.). The diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Mazza, C & Alvarez, J.L (2000). The popular press and the diffusion of Management Practices: Organization Studies, 21(3), 567-588
McCabe, D (2002). Waiting for the dead men’s shoes: towards a cultural understanding of management innovation; Human Relations, 55(5), 505-536
Micklethwait, J and Wooldridge, A (1996). The witch doctors: Making sense of the management gurus. New York: Times Business
Newell, S; Robertson, M and Swan, J (1997). Professional association as “brokers”, facilitating networking and the diffusion of new ideas: Advantages and disadvantages. In J L Alvarez, (1997 ed.). The diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Pp. 183-199
Nohria, N and Berkley, J (1994). Whatever happened to the `Take-charge' manager?. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 128-137
Ouchi, W (1981). Theory Z. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Pfeffer, J (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unlea
Alharbi, A., & Mamman, A. (2015). Why Human Resource Management Innovations have many Versions not in Theory but in Practice. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(11). 187-199.
Copyright: © 2015 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
