Innovations in Business Administration

  • Michael König
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history




What is new? The ancient Greek had two words for “new.” First, they used neos to address phenomena that were youthful, recent, and young. Second, they had kainos to address phenomena that were newfangled and strange. While both express “newness,” they have a profoundly different meaning. In between there was a third notion, that of “new” in the sense of other, next, diverse, implying “the same” rather than “new,” expressed by heteros, allos, and polla (see Fig. 1). D’Angour ( 2011) explains the crucial differences between them (and their derivatives): while neos stands for a kind of novelty that did not exist until recently and is therefore “new in time” (temporal), kainosdepicts a novelty that is “brand-new” (evaluative) and...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Akerlof D, Shiller RJ. Animal spirits: how human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Ansoff I. Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. Calif Manag Rev. 1980;2:21.Google Scholar
  3. Ariely D. Predictably irrational. The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins; 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson G. Mind and nature: a necessary unity (advances in systems theory, complexity, and the human sciences). New York: Hampton Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Baum H-G, Coenenberg AG, Günter T. Strategisches controlling. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Bilton N. Disruptions: the Holodeck begins to take shape. N Y Times. bits.blogs.newyorktimes (2014, January 26).Google Scholar
  7. Damodoran A. The dark side of valuation. Valuing young, distressed and complex businesses. Hoboken: Pearson; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. D’Angour A. The Greeks and the new: novelty in ancient Greek imagination and experience. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DoD. News briefing, secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers. News transcript of the U. S. Department of Defence; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Fama E. The behavior of stock market prices. J Bus. 1965;38:34–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fama E. Efficient capital markets. A review of theory and empirical work. J Financ. 1970;25:383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fama E. Efficient capital markets II. J Financ. 1991;46:1575–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feduzzi A, Runde J. Uncovering unknown unknowns: towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2014;124:268–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glimcher PW, Camerer C, Fehr E, Poldrack RA. Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen LP. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica. 1982;50:1029–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keynes JM. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan; 1936.Google Scholar
  18. Knight FH. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Schaffner & Marx; 1921.Google Scholar
  19. Krugman P. How did economists get it so wrong? N Y Times. 2009;2(9):15.Google Scholar
  20. Makridakis C. Foreword: foresight matters. In: Tsoukas H, Shepperd J, editors. Managing the future – foresight in the knowledge economy. Oxford: Wiley; 2004. p. XIII.Google Scholar
  21. Martin J. The meaning of the 21st century. A vital blueprint for ensuring our future. London: Random House; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Mattessich R. The beginnings of accounting and accounting thought: accounting practice in the Middle East (8000 BC to 2000 BC) and accounting thought in India (300 BC and the Middle Ages). New York: Taylor & Francis; 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Maturana HR, Varela FJ. Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing; 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgenstern O, von Neumann J. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.Google Scholar
  25. Müller AW, Müller-Stewens G. Strategic foresight. Trend- und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen – Instrumente, Prozesse, Fallstudien. Stuttgart: Schäfer-Poeschel; 2009.Google Scholar
  26. Nash J. Non-cooperative games. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University; 1950.Google Scholar
  27. Normann R. Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. Chichester: Wiley; 2001.Google Scholar
  28. Novotny H. The cunning of uncertainty. Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  29. Powell T. Neurostrategy. Strateg Manag J. 2011;39:1484–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell T, Puccinelli N. The brain as substitute for strategic organisation. Strateg Organ. 2012;10:207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramírez R, Wilkinson A. Strategic reframing. The Oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rohrbeck R. Corporate foresight: towards a maturity model for the future orientation of a firm. Berlin: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. Röpke J, Stiller O. Einführung. In: Schumpeter JA, editor. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot; 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Schumpeter JA. Business cycles. A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1939.Google Scholar
  35. Shiller RJ. Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends? Am Econ Rev. 1982;71:421–36.Google Scholar
  36. Shiller RJ. Irrational exuberance. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Tetlock PE, Gardner D. Superforecasting. The art and science of prediction. New York: Crown Publishing; 2015.Google Scholar
  38. Turing AM. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. 1950;LIX(236):433–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van der Heijden K. Scenarios. The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.Google Scholar
  40. Van Krogh G, Rossi-Lamastra C, Haefliger S. Phenomenon-based research in management and organization science: when is it rigorous and does it matter? Long Range Plan. 2012;45(4):277–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitehead AN. Adventures of ideas. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1933.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Strategy and InnovationVienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Section editors and affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty for Interdisciplinary StudiesAlpen-Adria-University KlagenfurtViennaAustria