Przemysław G. Hensel

Background. Eastern European authors in general, and Polish authors in particular hardly ever publish their work in the top management journals. For instance, out of the 3710 Administrative Science Quarterly papers available in the Web of Science, only 6 (0.16%) were authored or co-authored by scholars residing in the Eastern Europe, including none residing in Poland. The situation is not much better when we take a look at European management journals: Organization Studies features only 24 papers (0.87% of all OS papers available in WoS) authored by scholars residing in Eastern Europe, while Journal of Management Studies so far published one such paper (0.03% of all).

Research aims. The study aims at answering the question by analyzing institutionalized publishing practices manifested in the submission guidelines of Polish and global management journals.

Methodology. Content analysis of submission guidelines in two samples of journals: global and Polish.

Key findings. The study identified significant differences between Polish and global institutionalized publishing practices, regarding the requirements toward the contribution, the role of reviewers, and the technical features of papers. The obtained results shed light on difficulties associated with publishing papers by Polish scholars in the global top management journals. Findings also suggest that adopting different institutionalized practices necessary for successful submissions to global journals may be associated with identity work and depends on author’s willingness and ability to engage in such work. Finally, the results of this study contribute to research on the Americanization of management education and on the persistence of institutionalized practices despite prolonged exposure to global literature on management.

JEL Codes: M10, M14

Competing institutional logics and the management of culture

The methods and tools borrowed from the private sector, such as planning, cost-benefit analysis, quality management, and many others, seem to be indispensable in the management of art organizations such as museums, galleries, and theatres. However, the use of such methods increases the legitimization of business logic within the realm of culture and may bring on detrimental consequences. In this paper the competing logics perspective is employed to analyze this problem by showing the main tension lines between the institutional logics present in the sphere of culture. Specifically, the tensions between the bureaucratic, cultural, and market logics are analyzed. The paper ends with a number of suggestions regarding the future of institutional logics conflict in the realm of culture.

Competing institutional logics and the management of culture

The methods and tools borrowed from the private sector, such as planning, cost-benefit analysis, quality management, and many others, seem to be indispensable in the management of art organizations such as museums, galleries, and theatres. However, the use of such methods increases the legitimization of business logic within the realm of culture and may bring on detrimental consequences. In this paper the competing logics perspective is employed to analyze this problem by showing the main tension lines between the institutional logics present in the sphere of culture. Specifically, the tensions between the bureaucratic, cultural, and market logics are analyzed. The paper ends with a number of suggestions regarding the future of institutional logics conflict in the realm of culture.