Résumés
Abstract
Recent developments in the innovation literature suggest that even when an organization truthfully implements the adopted R&D policy, it may still fail to achieve its intended goals, a phenomenon called means-ends decoupling. We employ a systematic literature review to answer the question of “what is the current state of knowledge in the phenomenon of means-ends decoupling in the literature” and “where it can move in the future.” Our paper provides a framework that delineates means-ends decoupling from policy-practice decoupling and identifies the underlying mechanisms that explain when and how means-ends decoupling may occur within an organization’s activities.
Keywords:
- Means-ends decoupling,
- institutional theory,
- opaque fields,
- cooperative R&D projects
Résumé
Les développements récents dans la littérature en innovation suggèrent que même si une organisation implémente sincèrement une politique de R&D, elle peut ne pas atteindre les objectifs fixés, un phénomène appelé découplage moyens-buts. Nous réalisons une revue systématique de la littérature pour répondre à la question : « quel est l’état de la connaissance dans la littérature de découplage moyens-buts » et « où peut-elle évoluer dans le futur ». Nous proposons un cadre qui délimite le découplage moyens-buts du découplage politiques-pratiques, et identifions les mécanismes qui expliquent quand et comment le découplage moyens-buts apparait dans les activités d’une organisation.
Mots-clés :
- Découplage moyens-buts,
- théorie institutionnelle,
- domaines opaques,
- Projets R&D collaboratifs
Resumen
La literatura sobre innovación sugiere que incluso cuando una organización aplica una política de I+D, puede no alcanzar los objetivos propuestos, un fenómeno denominado disociación medios-fines. Realizamos una revisión sistemática de la literatura para responder a la pregunta: “cuál es el estado actual de los conocimientos sobre la disociación medios-fines en la literatura” y “hacia dónde puede dirigirse en el futuro”. Proporcionamos un marco que delimita la disociación medios-fines de la disociación políticas-prácticas, e identifica los mecanismos subyacentes que explican cuándo y cómo puede producirse la disociación medios-fines en las actividades de una organización.
Palabras clave:
- Disociación entre medios y fines,
- teoría institucional,
- ámbitos opacos,
- proyectos cooperativos de I+D
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aarikka-Stenroos, L. Jaakkola, E. Harrison, D. and Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). “How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 67, p. 88-105.
- Aravind, D., and Christmann, P. (2011). “Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance?” Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 21, p. 73-102.
- Ansari, S., Wijen, F., and Gray, B. (2013). “Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons.” Organization Science, Vol. 24, p. 1014-1040.
- Austen, A. (2016). “Decoupling between policy and practice through the lens of sensemaking and sensegiving”, Management, Vol. 20 N° 1, p. 225-238.
- Behnam, M.; MacLean, T. L. (2011). “Where is the accountability in international accountability standards?: A decoupling perspective”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 21, p. 45-72.
- Blanes, J. V.; Busom, I. (2004). “Who participates in R&D subsidy programs?: The case of Spanish manufacturing firms”. Research Policy, Vol. 33 N° 10, p. 1459-1476.
- Boli, J. (2006). ‘The rationalization of virtue and virtuosity in world society. In M.L. Djelic & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation’, p. 95-118. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Boxenbaum, E.; Jonsson, S. (2017). “Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges”, The Sage Handbook of Organisational Institutionalism, Vol. 2, p. 79-104.
- Briscoe, F.; Murphy, C. (2012). “Sleight of hand? Practice opacity, third-party responses, and the interorganizational diffusion of controversial practices”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 57, p. 553-584.
- Bromley, P., Hwang, H., and Powell, W. W. (2012). “Decoupling revisited: Common pressures, divergent strategies in the US nonprofit sector”, M@n@gement, Vol. 55 N° 5, p. 469-501.
- Bromley, P., and Powell, W. (2012). ‘From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 6, p. 483-500.
- Bussigel, M., Barzansky, B., and Grenholm, G. (1986). “Goal coupling and innovation in medical schools”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22, p. 425-441.
- Corley, K., and Gioia, D. (2011). “Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, p. 12-32.
- Cortez, R. M., Clarke, A. H., & Freytag, P. V. (2021). “B2B market segmentation: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 126, p. 415-428.
- Crilly, D., Zollo, M., and Hansen, M. (2012). “Faking it, or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, p. 1429-1448.
- Davies, H. T. O, and L K. Crombie. (1998). “Getting to Grips with Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’. Hospital Medicine, Vol. 59, N° 12, p, 955-958.
- Déjean, F., & Oxibar, B. (2010). Légitimation et communication sociétale: le cas Péchiney. Management International, Vol. 14, N° 2, p. 69-82.
- Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2008). “Producing a systematic review. In Buchanan, D. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage, p. 671-689.
- Dick, P. (2015). “From rational myth to self-fulfilling prophecy? Understanding the persistence of means–ends decoupling as a consequence of the latent functions of policy enactment”, Organization studies, Vol. 36 N° 7, p. 897-924.
- Fiss, P., and Zajac, E. (2006). “The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 N° 6, p. 1173-1193.
- Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). “Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 N° 1, 200-227.
- Foss, N. J. (2011). “Invited editorial: Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37, N° 5, p. 1413-1428.
- Frank, D. J., and Meyer, J. W. (2002). “The profusion of individual roles and identities in the postwar period”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 20 N° 1, p. 86-105.
- Frey, B., Homberg, F., and Osterloh, M. (2013). “Organisational control systems and pay-for-performance in the public service”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34, p. 949-972
- Giebe, T., Grebe, T., and Wolfstetter, E. (2006). “How to allocate R&D (and other) subsidies: An experimentally tested policy recommendation”. Research Policy, Vol. 35, N° 9, p. 1261-1272.
- Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D., and Wickert, C. (2012). “Talking the talk, moral entrapment, creeping commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in corporate social responsibility standardisation. Organisation Studies, Vol. 33, N° 5/6, p. 815-845.
- Howard, J., Nash, J., and Ehrenfeld, J. (2000). “Standard or smoke screen? Implementation of a voluntary environmental code”, California Management Review, Vol. 42, N° 2, p. 63-82
- Jabbouri, R., Truong, Y., Schneckenberg, D., & Palmer, M. (2019). Institutional means-ends decoupling work in industrial R&D project implementation. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 80, p. 296-311.
- Jiang, R. J., and Bansal, P. (2003). “Seeing the need for 14001”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, p. 1047-1067.
- Judge, TA, Cable, D.M., Colbert, A.E., and Rynes, S. L. (2007). “What causes a management article to be cited—Article, author, or journal?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, N° 3, p. 491-506.
- King, A. A., and Lenox, M. J. (2000). “Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, p. 698-716.
- Levy, D., and Lichtenstein, B. (2012). “Approaching business and the environment with complexity theory”. In P. Bansal and A. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment, p. 591-608. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). “Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 20, N° 1, p. 3-41.
- Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). ”A critical assessment of business model research”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11, N° 1, p. 73-104.
- Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1977). “Institutionalised organization: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, N° 2, p. 340-363.
- Meyer, J. W., and Bromley, P. (2012). “The worldwide expansion of “organization”. Paper presented at the 8th New Institutionalism Workshop, Barcelona.
- Möller, K., and Rajala A. (2007). “Rise of strategic nets—New modes of value creation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, N° 7, p. 895-908.
- Nigam, A., and Ocasio, W. (2010). “Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton’s healthcare reform initiative”, Organization Science, Vol. 21, p. 823-841.
- Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46, p 1-5.
- Perkmann, M. Tartari, V. McKelvey, M. Autio, E. Broström, A. D’Este, P., and Sobrero, M. (2013). “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations”, Research Policy, Vol. 42, N° 2, p. 423-442.
- Persais, E. (2010). La gestion de la RSE dans un contexte international: vers une “glocalisation” des pratiques? Une étude de cas d’entreprises françaises implantées au Mexique. Management International, Vol. 14, N° 2, p. 11-30.
- Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G.R. (1978). “The external control of organizations”. New York: Harper & Row.
- Power, M. (1997). “The audit society”. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- O’Rourke, D. (2007). “Bringing in social actors: Accountability and regulation in the global textiles and apparel industry”. In D. Brown and N. Woods (Eds.), Making global self- regulation effective in developing countries, p. 113-148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ocasio, W. (1997). “Towards an attention-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, p. 187-206.
- Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). “A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33, N° 6, p. 750-772.
- Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., and Denyer, D. (2008). “Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2, N° 1, p. 475-515.
- Santamaría, L., Barge-Gil, A., and Modrego, A. (2010). “Public selection and financing of R&D cooperative projects: Credit versus subsidy funding”, Research policy, Vol. 39, N° 4, p. 549-563.
- Santos, F., and Eisenhardt, K. (2009). “Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52, p. 643-671.
- Short, J.L., and Toffel, M. W. (2010). “Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55, N° 3, p. 361-396.
- Singh, V., & Point, S. (2009). Diversity statements for leveraging organizational legitimacy. Management international, Vol 13, N° 2, p. 23-34.
- Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, p. 333-339.
- Spar, D., and La Mure, L. (2003). “The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business”, California Management Review, Vol. 45, N° 3, p. 78-101.
- Strathern, M. (2000). “Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the Academy”. New York: Routledge.
- Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. (2009). “Methodological issues in researching institutional change. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman” (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, p. 177-195. London: Sage.
- Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y., & Salmador, M. P. (2018). “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 56, N° 5, p. 1088-1107.
- Tilcsik, A. (2010). From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 53, N° 6, p. 1474-1498.
- Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., and Smart, P. (2003). “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”. British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, N° 3, p. 207-222.
- Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, p. 356-367.
- Westphal, J., and Zajac, E. (2001). “Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, N° 2, p. 202-228.
- Westphal, J., and Zajac, E. (1994). “Substance and symbolism in CEOs long-term incentive plans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, p. 367-390.
- Wijen, F. H. (2014). “Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, p. 302-323.
- Zajac, E., and Westphal, J. (2004). “The social construction of market value: Institutionalisation and learning perspectives on stock market reactions”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 69, p. 433-457.
- Zucker, L. G. (1987). “Institutional theories of organization”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, p. 443-464.