Lesson Learned, Implications, and Summary of the Main Findings

  • Federica Brunetta
  • Maria Carmela Annosi
  • Mats Magnusson
  • Paolo Boccardelli
Chapter

Abstract

In the closing chapter, editors synthesize elements theorized across the volume and suggest further avenues for research both for theory and empirics based on the proposal arising from the contributors and form their own reading of each chapter.

References

  1. Adner, R. (2016). Ecosystem as structure an actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. Annosi, M. C., & Brunetta, F. (2017). New Organizational Forms, Controls, and Institutions. Understanding the Tensions in ‘Post-Bureaucratic’ Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Annosi, M. C., Foss, N. J., Brunetta, F., & Magnusson, M. (2017). The interaction of control systems and stakeholder networks in shaping the identities of self-managed teams. Organization Studies, 38(5), 619–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Vincenzo, F., & Mascia, D. (2012). Social capital in project-based organizations: Its role, structure and impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donaldson, L., & Joffe, G. (2014). Fit-the key to organizational design. Journal of Organization Design, 3(3), 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera, 15(1), 193.Google Scholar
  8. Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Mak, S., & Chao, G. T. (2016). Team-centric leadership: An integrative review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2011). Projects, paths, and practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), In press.Google Scholar
  12. Monti, A., & Bergami, M. (2014). Interpersonal citizenship behaviors (ICB): The role of ICB attitude and members prototypicality. In John Humphreys (Eds.), Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2014(1), p. 16717). Academy of Management. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.238.
  13. Monti, A., & Soda, G. (2014). Perceived organizational identification and prototypicality as origins of knowledge exchange networks. In Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks (pp. 357–379). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  14. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50.Google Scholar
  16. Välikangas, L., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). How to design for strategic resilience. Journal of Organization Design, 2(2), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federica Brunetta
    • 1
  • Maria Carmela Annosi
    • 2
  • Mats Magnusson
    • 3
  • Paolo Boccardelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business SchoolLUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Social Sciences and Management StudiesWageningen University and ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations