Narrow Results

This collaborative paper aims to reflexively evaluate the versatile and comprehensive application of grounded theory, comparatively using two studies researching the strategic behaviour of small organisations within a small island state. The methodological stance adopted is that of practitioner researchers, critically analysing the research positioning and processes in two large grounded theory studies that mapped the competitive behaviours of some 100 small businesses in the small island EU state of Malta. The study evaluates grounded theory processes and actions taken in the two studies, depicting the systematic collection, comparison and analysis of the data gathered, concept generation, continuous interaction between actions and context, use of in-depth interviews combined with quantitative data, coding, mapping and categorisation of the data collected, and the use of MAXQDA as a viable software tool to carry out grounded theory. This practitioner research study comprises detailed practice-related implications for the use of grounded theory in researching small organisations, in a manner that a novice grounded theory practitioner can adopt and a manager in a small business can appreciate.

The paper discusses the relationship between learning, innovation and (institutional) reflexivity. It is often held that reflexivity is a crucial factor for learning and innovation processes. However, a rather formalistic approach to reflexivity is predominant. We propose to overcome this limitation and to develop a more meaningful concept of reflexivity which "reflects" the contingent, relational, dynamic and complex character of organizational environments and reality. Based on this broadened understanding it appears that reflexivity is imminently a dialectic category and, under specific circumstances, it can also inhibit innovation. This is especially the case when reflexive tools are abused to push performance only. In order to illustrate our concept and hypotheses we added two case studies which highlight the conflicting counterparts of reflexivity and innovation and pointed us to important cultural "success factors".

Reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning, is widely considered a key factor for engendering team innovation. In this study, we propose that reflexivity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for team innovation. Outcome interdependence, defined as the extent to which team members perceive that attainment of goals by their colleagues will facilitate their own goal achievement, and shared team vision, will moderate the effect of team reflexivity on team innovation. An empirical study with 332 team members of 34 software projects reveals that as predicted high outcome interdependence and shared team vision magnified the positive impacts of team reflexivity on team innovation. However, an increase in team reflexivity at low outcome interdependence and shared team vision had a negative impact on team innovation. Further, in general, agile software teams consistently demonstrated higher outcome interdependence and team reflexivity and thereby higher team innovation compared to teams adopting plan-driven methods of software development.