The diffusion of management fads: a popularization perspective

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the transience of management fads in the academic and the practitioner-oriented communities to shed light on their roles in the diffusion of fads. Design/methodology/approach This study traces the lifecycles of the following fads in practitioner-oriented and academic journals over more than 50 years: balanced scorecard, business process reengineering, design thinking, knowledge management, learning organization, management by objectives (MBO), matrix organization and total quality management (TQM). Findings Contrary to the academic–practitioner gap lamented in the literature, this study indicates no such gap regarding these fads in general, but finds differences in the intensity with which the fads are dealt with. The two communities stimulate, sustain and abandon fads collectively, as the lifecycles of most of the fads were found to mirror each other in both communities. This provides evidence of a contemporary form of popularization with a dynamic exchange of knowledge between academic and practitioner-oriented journals, rather than the traditional one-way transfer of knowledge from academia to practice. Originality/value This paper is the first to study multiple fads simultaneously in academic and practitioner-oriented journals in a historical comparison to investigate their roles in the diffusion of fads.

An Exploratory Bibliometric Analysis of the Birth and Emergence of Industry 5.0

“…This ultimately remains an empirical question that will have to be addressed in future studies. Research has shown that the lifecycles and trajectories of management concepts and ideas vary considerably [21,93]. Therefore, it will be interesting to follow the future evolutionary trajectory of the Industry 5.0 concept.…”

“…More broadly, the analysis can potentially cast light on the processes and dynamics that take place in the early phase of establishing scientific literature and discourse around new management concepts. Therefore, the study can also possibly contribute to our understanding of the birth and emergence of management concepts and ideas [19][20][21].…”

El laberinto de las modas gerenciales: ¿ventaja trivial o cambio forzado en empresas disruptivas?

“…Por lo tanto, también considera necesaria la distinción entre «fashion» y «fad». Esta última entendiéndola como estallidos espontáneos y no acumulativos del comportamiento de multitudes o efectos «bandwagon» o efecto de arrastre que no concluye en aprendizajes; mientras que «fashion» lo describe como un proceso colectivo de innovación, selección y aprendizaje que responde a los cambios de gusto y sensibilidad e influye en tendencias culturales (Guthey et al, 2021) Ambos conceptos a la final revelan un carácter transitorio y efímero que las define Pollach (2021). Por lo tanto, la modas gerenciales son: una creencia colectiva transitoria difundida por sus creadores bajo la premisa de que una particular técnica logrará al progreso racional de la gestión; o el conjunto de intervenciones innovadoras, racionales y funcionales para fomentar un mejor rendimiento organizativo; o patrones de producción y consumo de un discurso temporalmente intensivo que conducen a cambios organizativos; o simplemente un conjunto de retóricas poderosas que dan forma a la comprensión y las prácticas de la gestión (Pollach, 2021).…”

Personality research in the 21st century: new developments and directions for the field

“…Over time, constructs go through various changes, with the relevance of management research being reevaluated over a 140-year span (Wood et al , 2022), and changes within the management literature (Pollach, 2022) being no different when it comes to how constructs are viewed. Indeed, some concepts become more focused, such as performance management, which in the past 20 years, has undergone a change from firms conducting a once or twice a year evaluation to having “forward-looking, feedback-enriched” systems (Justin and Joy, 2022, p. 428).…”