2021/2022 KAN-CIMMO1074U International Management – Emerging Perspectives
English Title | |
International Management – Emerging Perspectives |
Course information |
|
Language | English |
Course ECTS | 7.5 ECTS |
Type | Mandatory |
Level | Full Degree Master |
Duration | One Semester |
Start time of the course | Autumn |
Timetable | Course schedule will be posted at calendar.cbs.dk |
Study board |
Study Board for MSc in Economics and Business
Administration
|
Course coordinator | |
|
|
Main academic disciplines | |
|
|
Teaching methods | |
|
|
Last updated on 21-01-2022 |
Relevant links |
Learning objectives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prerequisites for registering for the exam (activities during the teaching period) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of compulsory
activities which must be approved (see section 13 of the Programme
Regulations): 1
Compulsory home
assignments
The students will work with cases similar to the exam for the two compulsory assignments. The evaluation of the two assignments is either fail or pass. Students must get one of the two compulsory assignments approved to be able to participate in the exam. Students will not have extra opportunities to get the required number of compulsory activities approved prior to the ordinary exam. If a student has not received approval of the required number of compulsory activities, the student cannot participate in the ordinary exam. If a student prior to the retake is still missing approval for the required number of compulsory activities and meets the pre-conditions set out in the program regulations, an extra assignment is possible. The extra assignment is a 10-page home assignment that will cover the required number of compulsory activities. If approved, the student will be able to attend retake. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Examination | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Course content, structure and pedagogical approach | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the course we explore the complexities, challenges and possibilities of practicing management in an international context. That is, the aims of the course are to analyze and highlight the managerial implications in transforming an input to an organizational output and provide an elaborated and contemporary understanding of how work is being organized and managed.
Overall, the course consists of three themes: 1. The history and evolution of management thinking, practices and contexts, 2. Inherent challenges in management, and 3. Contemporary and emergent challenges in management.
First, we explore basic definitions and understandings of international management, and how the managerial context has changed – or is about to change – into a new world of work relying on, for instance, knowledge workers and a gig economy dominated by free agents and precarious work.
Second, we focus on what may be termed traditional or inherent management challenges. Specifically, we explore five subthemes: a. creativity, b. disappointment, c. motivation, d. silos and structures, and e. social loafing. Altogether, the subthemes represent generic challenges in running organizations, and discussing and elaborating on each of the subthemes enable us to both understand how and why they pose challenges, and how to best manage these challenges.
Third, we discuss and elaborate on contemporary and emergent challenges in international management. By exploring five subthemes – a. boundaryless work, b. digitalization, c. distances, d. knowledge sharing, and e. purpose – we become better at both understanding today’s management challenges, and how to best manage them.
As such, the course explores perspectives from both organization theory and organization behavior to understand (in a world of constantly changing contexts) internal organizational structures and processes and their managerial challenges, implications, and possibilities. The course provides a thorough understanding of the complexities of managing internationally (and contemporarily) and thereby also aims at improving students’ abilities to analyze and practice management. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Description of the teaching methods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The course consists of 30 sessions, and is a mix
of large classes, online (pre-recorded) classes, and exercise
classes.
6 sessions are in large classes, 18 sessions are pre-recorded online sessions, and 6 sessions are in exercise classes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Feedback during the teaching period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The students have the possibility to practice for the exam during the semester in two assignments and will receive short feedback on these assignments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Student workload | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expected literature | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indicative literature (all articles are digitally available through CBS Library):
Theme 1. The history and evolution of management thinking, practices and contexts. Adler, P.S. & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 61-89. Ashford, S.J., B.B. Caza & Reid, E.M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38: 23-41. Eldor, L. (2021). Leading by doing: Does leading by example impact productivity and service quality? Academy of Management Journal, 64 (2): 458-481. Langfred, C.W. & Rockmann, K.W. (2016). The push and pull of autonomy: The tension between individual autonomy and organizational control in knowledge work. Group & Organization Management, 41 (5): 629-657.
Theme 2. Inherent challenges in management. Clancy, A., Vince, R. & Gabriel, Y. (2012). That unwanted feeling: A psychodynamic study of disappointment in organizations. British Journal of Management, 23: 518-531. Deci, E.L., A.H. Olafsen & Ryan, R.M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 19-43. Early, P.C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 565-581. Latané, B., Willians, K. & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (6): 822-832. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Jaworski, R.A & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30 (2): 285-304. Yuan, F. & R.W. Woodman (2021). The multiple ways of behaving creatively in the workplace: A typology and model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42: 20-33.
Theme 3. Contemporary and emergent challenges in management. Claggert, J.I. & Karahanna, E. (2018). Unpacking the structure of coordination mechanisms and the role of relational coordination in an era of digitally mediated work processes. Academy of Management Review, 43 (4): 704-722. Elsbach, K.D., Cable, D.M. & Sherman, J.W. (2012). How passive ‘face time’ affects perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations, 63 (6): 735-760. Gagné, M., A.W. Tian, C. Soo, B. Zhang, K.S. Benhamin & Hosszu, K. (2019). Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40: 783-799. Gratton, L. (2021). How to do hybrid right. Harvard Business Review, 99 (3): 66-74. Hinds, P. J. & Cramton, C.D. (2014). Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organization Science, 25 (3): 794-814. Kane, A.A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21 (3): 643-660. Mazmanian, M., W.J. Orlokowski & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24 (5): 1337-1357. Quinn, R.E. & Thakor, A.V. (2018). Creating a purpose-driven organization. Harvard Business Review, 96 (4): 78-85. |