Foundations in Management

The exercise was created 2025-10-17 by vonthax. Question count: 86.

Click

Learn the words

Type

Spell the words

Listen

Listen

Games

Play games

Print

Exercise hard copy



Select questions (86)

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

  • Encoding experience into routines and shared memory within an organization (Levitt & March, 1988) Organizational learning
  • Recurrent action patterns where experience is stored as organizational memory (Levitt & March, 1988) Routines
  • Groups where learning occurs through shared practice and participation (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) Communities of Practice
  • Learning that occurs through participation in practice rather than formal instruction (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) Situated learning
  • Novices learning from the periphery and gradually moving toward full participation (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) Legitimate peripheral participation
  • Knowledge created and shared within practice communities through artifacts and meaning (Cook & Yanow, 2012) Cultural learning
  • Learning curves representing efficiency gains but also potential forgetting (Argote, Lee & Park, 2021) Learning curve
  • Accumulated knowledge stored in people, routines, culture, and tools (Argote, Lee & Park, 2021) Organizational memory
  • Cognitive bias where successful routines become rigid and block innovation (Levitt & March, 1988) Competency trap
  • Drawing false lessons from ambiguous feedback (Levitt & March, 1988) Superstitious learning
  • Balancing use of existing knowledge with search for new alternatives (Argote, Lee & Park, 2021) Exploitation vs. exploration
  • Informal collaboration between experts from different communities mediated by technology (Lindberg et al., 2019) Emergent coordination
  • Technology and material artifacts shaping how coordination and learning unfold (Lindberg et al., 2019) Materiality in learning
  • Balancing similarity for legitimacy and difference for competitive advantage (Deephouse, 1999) Strategic balance
  • Conformity to institutional pressures leading to organizational similarity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Isomorphism
  • Legal or regulatory pressures forcing compliance (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Coercive pressures
  • Imitation of others under uncertainty (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Mimetic pressures
  • Similarity from shared norms and professional standards (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) Normative pressures
  • Strategic spectrum from Acquiesce to Manipulate as responses to institutional pressures (Oliver, 1991) Strategic responses (A-C-A-D-M)
  • Deliberate actions to create, maintain, or disrupt institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) Institutional work
  • Practices of advocacy, theorizing, policing, routinizing, or undermining beliefs to shape institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) Create–maintain–disrupt
  • Powerful actors shaping standards and preserving privilege (Gibassier, 2017) Elites
  • Creating “non-comparability” to resist regulation or reform (Weiss & Huault, 2016) Incommensurables
  • Controlling access to expertise or participation (Gibassier, 2017) Gatekeeping
  • Perceived appropriateness that grants resource access (Suchman, 1995 via Deephouse, 1999) Legitimacy
  • Historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices guiding action (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Institutional logics
  • Logics that exist only when enacted in practice (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Enactment
  • Dual nature of ideas and material practices shaping identities (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Symbolic and material
  • Transactions, efficiency, and profit orientation (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Market logic
  • Hierarchy, managerial authority, and growth orientation (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Corporate logic
  • Expertise-based legitimacy and professional reputation (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Professional logic
  • Shared values and loyalty driving collective identity (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Community logic
  • Coexistence of rival logics without hybridization (Reay & Hinings, 2009) Co-existing logics
  • Everyday collaboration maintaining multiple logics (Reay & Hinings, 2009) Micro-mechanisms of coexistence
  • Institutional logics shaping and constraining business models (Vaskelainen & Münzel, 2018) Logics and business models
  • Pluralism sustaining diversity in an organizational field (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012) Institutional pluralism
  • Shared story of how the world is or should be (Stibbe, 2021) Ideology
  • Linguistic patterns that enact and reinforce ideologies (Stibbe, 2021) Discourse
  • Using one domain to structure understanding of another (Stibbe, 2021) Framing
  • Changing the interpretive lens of an issue (Stibbe, 2021) Reframing
  • Mapping structure from a source to a target domain to shape perception (Stibbe, 2021) Metaphor
  • Language expressing cultural values of good or bad (Stibbe, 2021) Evaluation (appraisal)
  • Roles and positions constructed through discourse (Stibbe, 2021) Identity
  • Positions offered by discourse for speakers or actors (Stibbe, 2021) Subject positions
  • Degree of certainty or truth claim within statements (Stibbe, 2021) Modality
  • Making something invisible or irrelevant through omission or distortion (Stibbe, 2021) Erasure
  • Making something visible and important through linguistic emphasis (Stibbe, 2021) Salience
  • Underlying cognitive narratives shaping perception and action (Stibbe, 2021) Stories we live by
  • Cognitive processes that disconnect moral self-sanctions from harmful acts (Bandura et al., 2000) Moral disengagement
  • Reframing harm as serving a noble purpose (Bandura et al., 2000) Moral justification
  • Using sanitized or technical language to hide harm (Bandura et al., 2000) Euphemistic labeling
  • Comparing with worse actions to excuse wrongdoing (Bandura et al., 2000) Advantageous comparison
  • Shifting blame to authority or hierarchy (Bandura et al., 2000) Displacement of responsibility
  • Spreading accountability across group members (Bandura et al., 2000) Diffusion of responsibility
  • Ignoring or minimizing the harm caused (Bandura et al., 2000) Disregard or distortion of consequences
  • Denying victims’ humanity to justify abuse (Bandura et al., 2000) Dehumanization
  • Blaming victims or circumstances for outcomes (Bandura et al., 2000) Attribution of blame
  • Moral worth based on outcomes and total utility (Mill, 1863) Consequentialism
  • Right act maximizes overall happiness, risk of “ends justify means” (Mill, 1863) Utilitarianism
  • Moral worth based on duty and intention, not outcome (Kant, 1785) Deontology
  • Act only on principles you can universalize; treat humans as ends (Kant, 1785) Categorical imperative
  • Accountability, transparency, and personalizing victims reduce disengagement (Bandura et al., 2000) Counter-strategies
  • Power and knowledge are inseparable; defining truth shapes behavior (Foucault, 1977) Power/knowledge
  • Historical method revealing that “truths” arise from power relations (Foucault, 1961) Genealogy
  • Language and classification systems define what can be said and done (Foucault, 1977) Discourse and classification
  • Process of defining what is normal versus deviant (Foucault, 1977) Normalization
  • Visible, coercive rule punishing the body (Foucault, 1961) Sovereign power
  • Institutions producing self-disciplined subjects via surveillance (Foucault, 1977) Disciplinary power
  • One-way visibility leading to self-control (Foucault, 1977) Panopticon
  • Network of disciplinary mechanisms across social institutions (Foucault, 1977) Carceral network
  • Rule by data and communication flows (Han, 2022) Infocracy
  • Power acting on the psyche via data and algorithms (Han, 2022) Psychopolitics
  • Voluntary exposure and self-optimization as new control (Han, 2022) Voluntary subjugation
  • Courageous truth-telling against domination (Foucault, 1977) Parrhesia
  • The material actively shapes organizing, not just context (Orlikowski, 2007) Materiality
  • Social and material are mutually constitutive (Orlikowski, 2007) Constitutive entanglement
  • Organizing produced through intertwined human–artifact practices (Orlikowski, 2007) Sociomaterial practices
  • Agency distributed across human and non-human actors (Orlikowski, 2007) Distributed agency
  • Temporary stabilization of sociomaterial relations enabling work (Orlikowski, 2007) Sociomaterial assemblage
  • Perceived possibilities for action at the actor–artifact interface (Leonardi, 2011) Affordances
  • Perceived limitations that drive users to modify technology (Leonardi, 2011) Constraints
  • Interlocking of human and material agency over time (Leonardi, 2011) Imbrication
  • Focus on concrete feature use rather than abstract technology (Leonardi, 2013) Feature use
  • Individual, collective, and shared affordances enabling change (Leonardi, 2013) Affordance types
  • Mutual dependence required for shared affordances (Leonardi, 2013) Reciprocal interdependence
  • Interface where users interpret and adapt technology (Leonardi, 2011) Actor–artifact interface

All None

Shared exercise

https://spellic.com/eng/exercise/foundations-in-management.12752130.html