Foundations in Management 2.0

The exercise was created 2025-10-24 by vonthax. Question count: 363.




Select questions (363)

Normally, all words in an exercise is used when performing the test and playing the games. You can choose to include only a subset of the words. This setting affects both the regular test, the games, and the printable tests.

All None

  • Leaders who maintain failed systems Zombie leadership
  • Leadership detached from followers’ needs Toxic leadership
  • Persistence of outdated ideas Undead ideology
  • Illusion of control through hierarchy Symbolic authority
  • Power sustained by compliance Passive followership
  • Reviving legitimacy via ritual Symbolic maintenance
  • Breaking free through new meanings Collective redefinition
  • Reality built through interaction Social constructionism
  • Knowledge as relational process Relational epistemology
  • Self created in relationships Relational self
  • Language creates social worlds Linguistic construction
  • Truth as social agreement Co-created truth
  • Challenge to individualism Anti-essentialism
  • Focus on shared meaning Relational coordination
  • Leadership as joint action Relational leadership
  • Meaning created in conversation Dialogic process
  • Power through coordination, not control Co-active power
  • Identity formed in interaction Relational identity
  • Organizations as meaning systems Discursive organization
  • Change through new narratives Narrative reconstruction
  • Ethics as relational responsibility Relational ethics
  • Experience improves performance Learning curve
  • Cost drop per output doubling Progress ratio
  • Search triggered below goals Problemistic search
  • Experimentation through slack Slack search
  • Balance between using and exploring Exploit–Explore
  • Transform experience into routines Knowledge creation
  • Team diversity enables learning Diversity
  • Stability reduces knowledge loss Retention
  • Learning across units Knowledge transfer
  • Loss of accumulated know-how Knowledge depreciation
  • Learning from others’ errors Vicarious learning
  • Ability to absorb new knowledge Absorptive capacity
  • Deliberate unlearning for adaptation Purposeful forgetting
  • Organizations learn through shared meaning Cultural learning
  • Rejects “organizations think” idea Anti-cognitivism
  • Learning as maintaining identity Preservation
  • Know-how in practice, not minds Tacit practice
  • Meaning embodied in artefacts Cultural artefacts
  • Power shapes whose voices count Power in learning
  • Learning for continuity, not change Identity maintenance
  • Knowledge transmitted by participation Embodied knowing
  • Collective understanding across generations Socialization
  • Rejection of established science Science denial
  • Advancing fake theories Pseudotheory promotion
  • Within science’s domain but unreliable Pseudoscience
  • Selective use of data Cherry-picking
  • Ignoring refutation Zombie arguments
  • Creating fake controversies Manufactured doubt
  • Unequal evidence standards Asymmetric scrutiny
  • Denial tied to ideology and power Ideological denial
  • Expose denial tactics Scientific response
  • Experience encoded in routines Organizational memory
  • Learning from performance feedback Error correction
  • Organizations as cognitive actors Cognitive model
  • Efficiency as learning goal Normative bias
  • Trapped in suboptimal routines Competency trap
  • False cause–effect learning Superstitious learning
  • Confused success interpretation Ambiguity of success
  • Imitation as knowledge transfer Mimetic learning
  • Learning as problem response Adaptive learning
  • Multiple groups learning together Inter-CoP learning
  • Technology shapes collaboration Material mediation
  • Radiation and tools guide roles Sociomaterial coordination
  • Learning through doing in real time Situated learning
  • Shifting expertise roles Dynamic expertise
  • Mutual dependence across groups Coordination
  • No single dominating community Distributed authority
  • Balancing autonomy and control Hybrid collaboration
  • Group bound by shared practice Community of Practice
  • Path from novice to expert Legitimate participation
  • Learning through involvement Participation
  • Four elements: practice, identity, community, meaning PICM model
  • Knowledge embedded in activity Situated knowing
  • Cannot command, only support Cultivation
  • Stories show value of learning Narrative evaluation
  • Shared passion and expertise Collective engagement
  • Balancing distinctiveness and legitimacy Strategic balance
  • Competing by being unique Differentiation
  • Surviving by fitting norms Conformity
  • Acceptable deviation range Range of acceptability
  • Too different → lose legitimacy Legitimacy threshold
  • Too similar → intense competition Competitive crowding
  • Best performance at moderate deviation Inverse U-shape
  • Being “as different as possible, as similar as necessary” Strategic motto
  • Legitimacy as a resource Institutional capital
  • Why firms become similar Isomorphism
  • Arena of interacting actors Organizational field
  • Pressure from law or state Coercive isomorphism
  • Copying successful peers Mimetic isomorphism
  • Shared norms through professions Normative isomorphism
  • Mature fields → more similarity Field maturation
  • Legitimacy more important than efficiency Social rationality
  • Homogenization of organizations Institutional conformity
  • Modern iron cage of legitimacy Iron cage
  • Purposeful actions shaping institutions Institutional work
  • Creating, maintaining, disrupting Work types
  • Defining and legitimizing new rules Creating
  • Supporting and policing norms Maintaining
  • Undermining old beliefs Disrupting
  • Building normative networks Networking
  • Making new seem familiar Mimicry
  • Explaining cause–effect through theory Theorizing
  • Embedding practices into routines Routinizing
  • Continuous effort sustains stability Everyday maintenance
  • Organizations not passive rule-takers Strategic choice
  • Five response types A–C–A–D–M Response spectrum
  • Full compliance to norms Acquiesce
  • Balancing conflicting pressures Compromise
  • Hiding nonconformity Avoid
  • Openly rejecting rules Defy
  • Changing the rules themselves Manipulate
  • Response depends on legitimacy vs autonomy Dual logic
  • Institutional pressure shaped by 5C factors Context dependence
  • Defending existing order Institutional maintenance
  • Powerful actors resist reform Status-quo defense
  • Making reform appear impossible Incommensurables
  • Claiming markets are unique Market exceptionalism
  • Transparency threatens liquidity Liquidity argument
  • Reform as impractical Implementation critique
  • Resistance through technical language Technical framing
  • Change blocked by “incomparability” Denying commensuration
  • Maintenance requires active strategy Strategic inertia
  • Elites shaping institutions for control Elite power
  • Creating environmental accounting tools Institutional creation
  • Three phases: creation–conflict–popularization Institutional phases
  • Gatekeeping access to knowledge Gatekeeping
  • Making the new look legitimate Mimicry
  • Framing alternatives as inferior Demonization
  • Deliberate non-diffusion of knowledge Absence of educating
  • Claiming scientific authority Theorizing
  • Change used to preserve power Defensive innovation
  • Competing logics co-existing Institutional pluralism
  • Medicine vs. market in healthcare Logic rivalry
  • Physician expertise logic Professional logic
  • Efficiency and cost logic Market logic
  • Collaboration without replacement Coexistence
  • Managing rivalry through interaction Collaborative management
  • Separating medical and admin issues Differentiation
  • Considering doctors’ input informally Respectful negotiation
  • Alliances against government Temporary alignment
  • Joint innovation projects Co-innovation
  • Maintaining distinct identities Identity preservation
  • Local practices influencing field Bottom-up change
  • Cultural frameworks guiding action Institutional logics
  • Socially constructed meaning systems Meaning structures
  • Dual nature: symbolic & material Duality of logics
  • Historical patterns of practice Institutional order
  • Logic of market competition Market logic
  • Logic of hierarchy & control Corporate logic
  • Logic of expertise & profession Professional logic
  • Logic of belonging & loyalty Community logic
  • Each logic shapes identity & authority Logic influence
  • Logics must be enacted to exist Performed logics
  • Dynamic system allowing new logics Inter-institutional system
  • Sustainability logic emerging New institutional logic
  • Different logics → different models Logic enactment
  • Same industry, different practices Logic diversity
  • Imitation blocked by legitimacy rules Legitimacy boundary
  • Community logic → cooperation focus Community logic
  • Corporate logic → growth and scale Corporate logic
  • Market logic → profitability focus Market logic
  • Profit as means, not goal Social orientation
  • Shared values prevent imitation Normative constraint
  • Different identities, same field Segmented field
  • Business models shaped by culture Logic-based design
  • Legitimacy over efficiency Institutional legitimacy
  • Competing logics prevent convergence Anti-imitation effect
  • Language constructs social reality Linguistic turn
  • Hidden cognitive models shaping society Stories we live by
  • Cultural narratives structuring thought Cognitive stories
  • Stability through language and discourse Linguistic stability
  • Forgetting stories are “just stories” Naturalization
  • Analyzing language to reveal power Critical ecolinguistics
  • Goal: tell new, sustainable stories Transformative discourse
  • Shared beliefs about how the world is Ideologies
  • Language use by social groups Discourses
  • Control of discourse defines normality Power through discourse
  • Economics portraying humans as selfish Neoclassical ideology
  • Green consumerism as partial care Ambivalent discourse
  • Indigenous or poetic respect for nature Beneficial discourse
  • Evaluate, resist, promote stories Ecolinguistic strategy
  • Using one concept to structure another Framing
  • Restructuring meaning through new lens Reframing
  • Knowledge package shaping understanding Frame
  • Climate as security, market, or violence Climate frames
  • Problem–solution vs. predicament view Frame contrast
  • Development language shifting over time Evolving frames
  • Frames shape moral perception Moral framing
  • Describing one thing through another Metaphor
  • Machine view of nature Destructive metaphor
  • Nature as patient needing help Ambivalent metaphor
  • Nature as web or community Beneficial metaphor
  • Corporation as legal person Person metaphor
  • Corporation as psychopath Critical reframing
  • Metaphors make ideas feel natural Conceptual power
  • Language marking good or bad Evaluation
  • Repeated positive/negative phrasing Appraisal pattern
  • Growth and profit as moral good Economic evaluation
  • Warm weather framed as good Media appraisal
  • Wellbeing over wealth Alternative evaluation
  • Stories define moral direction Linguistic morality
  • Stories defining who we are Identity
  • Social roles shaped by discourse Subject positions
  • Rational price-driven consumer Rational consumer
  • Ethical, value-driven consumer Ethical consumer
  • Masculine competitive identity Masculine consumer
  • Surfer turned eco-activist Identity reframing
  • Identity shifts change behavior Discursive identity
  • Stories about truth or falsity Convictions
  • Degree of certainty or doubt Modality
  • Truth degree assigned to claims Facticity
  • Climate change as settled fact High facticity
  • Authority or data as truth source Legitimization
  • Challenge low-modality arguments Truth defense
  • Making something invisible in language Erasure
  • Completely omitted element Void
  • Only hinted trace remains Trace
  • Replaced or distorted presence Mask
  • Passive and abstract language hides agency Linguistic erasure
  • Who is erased or made visible? Visibility question
  • Making something stand out Salience
  • Restoring erased elements Re-minding
  • Naming and sensory imagery Vividness
  • Individual examples create empathy Personalization
  • Pronouns highlight agency Linguistic focus
  • Showing what matters in discourse Ethical salience
  • Why decent managers act immorally Moral ambivalence
  • Acting immorally without guilt Moral disengagement
  • Separating behavior from consequence Cognitive disconnection
  • Explains unethical acts without emotion Neutralization
  • Selective deactivation of moral control Disengagement process
  • Disconnecting morality from profit logic Corporate detachment
  • Focus on descriptive and normative ethics Ethical duality
  • Framing harm as serving a noble cause Moral justification
  • Softening harmful actions through wording Euphemistic labeling
  • Comparing to worse acts to seem better Advantageous comparison
  • Recasting unethical acts as beneficial Moral reframing
  • Language as moral camouflage Linguistic disguise
  • Blaming authority for one’s actions Displacement of responsibility
  • Hiding behind collective decision-making Diffusion of responsibility
  • Ignoring or minimizing damage done Distorting consequences
  • Using cost–benefit logic to justify harm Rationalization
  • Denial of real effects on others Consequence denial
  • Stripping victims of humanity Dehumanization
  • Portraying others as provoking harm Attribution of blame
  • Seeing self as victim, not perpetrator Victim narrative
  • Shifting moral responsibility outward Blame displacement
  • Emotional detachment from victims Moral distancing
  • Clear accountability and roles Accountability
  • Making harm visible to all Transparency
  • Avoid sanitized corporate language Challenging euphemism
  • Show human impact of actions Humanization
  • Expose excuses and reassign agency Legitimacy challenge
  • Judging by outcomes Consequentialism
  • Judging by duty or intent Deontology
  • Profit vs. moral obligation Ethical conflict
  • Using ethics to evaluate actions Moral reasoning
  • Combining “is” and “ought” Descriptive–normative link
  • Historical boundary between reason and madness Reason–madness divide
  • Madness as social, not medical construct Social construction
  • Institutions define who is “normal” Institutional exclusion
  • From leprosy to confinement Replacement of isolation
  • Madness confined to protect order Great confinement
  • Knowledge and power create “truth” Power–knowledge
  • Medicine as moral authority Medicalization of control
  • Controlling deviance through exclusion Social discipline
  • Resistance through questioning “truths” Exposing power
  • Shift from violence to surveillance Disciplinary power
  • Controlling behavior through norms Normalization
  • Being seen without knowing when Panopticon
  • Observation produces obedience Surveillance
  • Testing and grading as control Examination
  • Measuring to define normality Evaluation
  • Internalized self-control Self-discipline
  • Power becomes self-regulation Internalization
  • Resistance within power relations Immanent resistance
  • Knowledge legitimizes control Knowledge as power
  • Rule through data and transparency Information regime
  • Power works through freedom Psychopolitics
  • Desire to be visible online Voluntary subjugation
  • Control through algorithms and data Data capitalism
  • Freedom turned into control Positive power
  • People exploited as data sources Data exploitation
  • Truth replaced by circulation Post-truth
  • Endless content blurs reality Infodemic
  • Loss of rational debate Collapse of discourse
  • Fragmented digital tribes Filter bubbles
  • Speed over reflection Virality logic
  • Panopticon 2.0: we want to be seen Digital surveillance
  • Exhaustion through self-optimization Self-exploitation
  • Numbers define what is responsible Ideology of numbers
  • Quantification as neutral truth Objectivity illusion
  • Only measurable aspects matter Visibility bias
  • Numbers as disciplinary tools Numerical control
  • Power through comparison Normalizing power
  • Firms internalize norms via rankings Self-disciplining
  • Defining “good” and “bad” firms Moral classification
  • Creating moral hierarchy via scores Rating hierarchy
  • Hiding power behind positivity Euphemization
  • Making systems seem rational Legitimation
  • “Helping firms improve” masks control Soft governance
  • Making unlike things comparable Commensuration
  • Transforming quality into quantity Quantification
  • Simplifying complex information Abstraction
  • Reducing uncertainty via metrics Rationalization
  • Numbers create social order Cognitive control
  • Measurement changes reality Performativity
  • Numbers as moral authority Mechanical objectivity
  • Legitimacy through appearing technical Depoliticization
  • When values cannot be compared Incommensurability
  • Protecting moral domains from markets Value boundary
  • Rankings and categories produce truth Constructed objectivity
  • Producing and communicating numbers Quantification
  • Two types: marking and comparing Number categories
  • Measures reshape what they measure Reactivity
  • Normalization through statistics Statistical morality
  • Remote control through data Audit at a distance
  • Trust built on rules, not people Mechanical objectivity
  • Ambiguity removed as data travels Uncertainty absorption
  • Metrics appear self-evident Authority of numbers
  • Numbers both reveal and conceal Dual power
  • Ask: who benefits, who is silenced? Ethical questioning
  • When indicators replace purpose Indicatorism
  • Focusing on numbers over meaning Goal displacement
  • Manipulating data to look better Gaming
  • Individual stress from targets Performance pressure
  • Short-term focus replaces mission Organizational cost
  • Societal complexity hidden by metrics Reductionism
  • Indicators should start dialogue Conversational use
  • Combine metrics with stories Mixed evaluation
  • Add qualitative context Narrative balance
  • Measure what matters, not what’s easy Purpose alignment
  • Social and material are inseparable Sociomateriality
  • Organizing always involves artefacts Material mediation
  • No social without material, no material without social Constitutive entanglement
  • Rejects dualism of human vs. technology Anti-dualism
  • Agency distributed among human and nonhuman Distributed agency
  • Temporary stabilizations of relations Assemblages
  • Technology part of everyday practice Embedded materiality
  • Studying entanglement, not effects Practice focus
  • Example: BlackBerry creates constant availability Sociomaterial norm
  • Organizing as ongoing entanglement Continuous enactment
  • Human ability to act intentionally Human agency
  • Technology shaping what actions are possible Material agency
  • Human and material actions interwoven Imbrication
  • Mutual dependence between people and tech Co-production
  • Technology enabling new actions Affordance
  • Technology constraining behavior Constraint
  • Affordance arises only in use Relational property
  • Routine or technology can adapt first Sequential change
  • Past imbrications shape future possibilities Temporal layering
  • Middle ground between determinism and constructivism Balanced view
  • Technology effects depend on use Feature-based analysis
  • Perceived possibilities for action Affordances
  • Individual benefits only Individualized affordance
  • Group benefits through division of tasks Collective affordance
  • Shared understanding of use Shared affordance
  • Shared affordance enables change Collective stabilization
  • Change arises from convergent use Convergent pattern
  • Technology alone doesn’t cause change Use-dependence
  • When feature use stabilizes → network change Stabilized enactment
  • Tech enactment reshapes communication Organizational reconfiguration

All None

Shared exercise

https://spellic.com/eng/exercise/foundations-in-management-2-0.12762427.html