Tackling the Complexity Challenge (Campbell & Fiss, 2026) | FT50 AMR скачать в хорошем качестве

Tackling the Complexity Challenge (Campbell & Fiss, 2026) | FT50 AMR

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast starts at 00:17:21 Hindi Podcast starts at 00:34:00 Danish Podcast starts at 00:47:36 Reference Campbell, J. T., & Fiss, P. C. (2026). Tackling the Complexity Challenge: When and How to Engage in Configurational and Hybrid Theorizing. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2024.0187 ‌Youtube Channel ⁠   / @weekendresearcher⁠   Connect over linkedin   / mayukhpsm   Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️📚 There is a special kind of headache that management scholars know well. You sit with a phenomenon that feels true in your bones, the way a great story feels true, but the minute you try to explain it with neat variables and straight lines, it turns thin. The world you are studying refuses to behave. Causes arrive in clusters. Outcomes flip depending on context. What works here fails there. And the closer you look, the more you realize the mess is not noise. The mess is the point 🧩🌀. Today’s episode takes that mess seriously, and does something rare in academic writing: it offers you a way to navigate it without pretending it is not there. We are discussing the paper Tackling the Complexity Challenge: When and How to Engage in Configurational and Hybrid Theorizing by Joanna T. Campbell and Peer C. Fiss, published online on 09 January 2026 in Academy of Management Review 🏛️✨. If you know the field, you know AMR is not just any journal. It is a prestigious FT50 journal, the kind that shapes careers, sets agendas, and quietly decides what counts as “good theory” for years to come 🏆📈. Campbell and Fiss step into a problem that shows up in so many review processes: when exactly is configurational thinking warranted, and when is it just fashionable window dressing? They answer with four clear indications that complexity is truly at work: causal conjunction, causal disjunction, outcome asymmetry, and outcome intentionality 🔍⚙️. In plain terms, they are telling us how to recognize when organizational life behaves more like recipes than equations. And then they go a step further. Because the real excitement is not only choosing configurational theorizing, but combining it. They introduce hybrid approaches that fuse configurational logic with propositional grammar and process grammar. Suddenly, configurational research is not locked into only abductive, after-the-fact explanations. It can also generate predictions, and it can also take time seriously ⏳🔁. Their idea of temporal-configurational layering lets us see how “recipes” unfold sequentially, concurrently, or cyclically, the way strategies and cultures actually do. If this sounds like a toolkit you wish you had during your last revise and resubmit, you are not alone ✍️🗂️. Before we dive in, subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify 🎧 and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 📺. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎🎙️. Now here is the curious question I want to leave hanging in the air: if your phenomenon keeps resisting linear explanation, is it because your theory is missing variables, or because your world is built from configurations that only make sense as patterns over time 🤔🧠? And sincere thanks to the authors Joanna T. Campbell and Peer C. Fiss, and to the publisher, the Academy of Management, for making this research available 🙏📄.