brilliant mistake!

8/8/2019 Brilliant Mistake!

1/24

Brilliant mistake! Essays onincidents of managementmistakes and mea culpa

Mark PalmerAston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Geoff SimmonsUniversity of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK, and

Ronan de KervenoaelAston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine students perceptions of managerial mistakes andwhy (and why not) managers admit mistakes.

Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a reflective account of how studentsperceive management mistakes and deal with admitting mea culpa I am to blame.

Findings The findings show a range of attitudes: they highlight the intermingling pressuresassociated with the cultural environment and mistakes; they identify media characteristics and itsinfluences on mistakes and mea culpa; they highlight ceremonial processes and tasks that shape andinfluence the declaration ofmea culpa; and they identify how the psychology and sociology of mistakesconfronts and affects students. Taken together, the study highlights the varying degrees of warinessthat is carried forward by the students from vicariously learning about management mistakes.

Originality/value This paper links up with recent discussions on retail failure and retail

pedagogy. It is hoped that this paper will encourage more academics to address, and engage with,management mistakes creatively in their teaching.

Keywords Managers, Human failure, Business failure, Retailing, Curricula, United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIt is widely acknowledged in retailing theory that success courts failure and vice versa as epitomized by the early work of Malcolm McNair and, specifically, the vulnerabilityphase in The wheel of retailing (Hollander, 1960; Brown, 1987, 2007). Mostnotably, studies investigating corporate failure have provided many insights into therelationship between failures and near-failures (Mellahi, 2005; Mellahi and Wilkinson,2004, 2005) and into retailing failures more precisely (Mellahi et al., 2002; Burt et al., 2003;

Jackson et al., 2004; Brown, 2007). In a similar way, and although not always exclusivelyconcerned with failure per se, the internationalization of retailing and the role of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviewers comments on an early draft of this paper.The authors also acknowledge the assistance of a British Academy Grant (SG-52497) oncorporate resistance and contestedness.

IJRDM38,4

234

Received January 2009Revised August 2009Accepted November 2009

International Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management

Vol. 38 No. 4, 2010

pp. 234-257

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0959-0552

DOI 10.1108/09590551011032072


2/24

international retail divestment activity in particular, has thrown into prominence theintimacy of investment and divestment as well as success and failure (Alexander and

Quinn, 2002; Palmer, 2004; Palmer and Quinn, 2007). What is most pronounced within thiswork, in spite of different emphases and theoretical horizons, is a shared sense of the

contested nature of processes of change and the various ways that management mistakespuncture retail success and failure.

One significant outcome of this process can be seen in the industries emerging

from the mistake-making phenomenon. In retailing, arguably the growth in factoryoutlet retail parks is a result of management mistakes stemming from excess stockallocation, cycle product design, or sourcing products that are not delivered and/or sold

on time (Fernie, 1996; Reynolds etal., 2002; Whyatt, 2008). More generally, the consultingindustry, the specialist investment bank industry and the loan-to-own private equityindustry as part of which people consult on how to avoid, repair and clear up mistakes

have all grown considerably over the last two decades from management mistakes(Haarmeyer, 2008; Tien et al., 2008).

This research is limited, however, in two important ways. First, as Palmer (2008,p. 444) observes:

[. . .] the developing and opening of stores, store swaps, partnering, acquisitions or the

sourcing of products in supply chains, or any of the dimensions of [ . . .] retailing, cannot be

solely viewed in passive terms.

The central point advanced here is that the retail firm is contested, as seen from

the interventions of regulatory authorities over planning proposals and counter-appealsof store development (Alfasi, 2004), shareholder activism in retail firms (Palmer andQuinn, 2003, 2005a), consumers eschewing stores, formats, concepts, merchandise

(Humphrey, 2007; Palmer and Quinn, 2007; Palmer et al., 2010), or organized employeestrikes and mobilizing government-lobbying practices by groups of indigenous retailers(Palmer, 2004). However, this contestedness is often downplayed in the teaching of

corporate growth, which largely reports it as a rather smooth, staged andstraightforward process (Hughes et al., 1998; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002; Friga et al., 2003;Mintzberg, 2004; Acito et al., 2008; Navarro, 2008). In practice, however, managementmust wrestle day-to-day with mistakes that are not just of their own making but those ofcolleagues, subordinates, or previous management teams. We suggest that mistakes are

particularly identifiable and rich critical incidents of this contestedness. Second,academics are increasingly critical of the curriculum in not reflecting the extant researchundertaken in this field (Hackley, 2003; Palmer, 2007, 2008). For the most part, success

dominates curricula and teaching in business schools today, which arguably setsbeyond dispute deeply assumed values and beliefs for those studying it (Hackley, 2003;

Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006; Brown, 2007). If, as suggested in the literature, mostventures fail a particularly pertinent point in the current global economic recession should business and management curricula not be designed to prepare students forcoping with the inevitability of mistake making?

This paper argues that it is imperative for students to learn about the contestednature of growth and, in particular, the role of management mistakes in this process

before graduating and joining the corporate retail world. The current global economicmalaise has accentuated the need for such a contribution. Therefore, the overall purpose

Managementmistakes and

mea culpa

235


3/24

of the study is to investigate students perceptions of managerial mistakes and why(and why not) managers admit mistakes. There are three specific objectives:

(1) to make the case for the importance of channelling students thinking throughan understanding of the ever-present nature of management mistakes;

(2) to investigate students perceptions on studying management mistakes; and

(3) to explore students perceptions of why (and why not) management admitsmistakes.

While mistakes are not unusual for any individual, firm or industry, the retailingsetting highlights issues of considerable theoretical importance and relevance forunderstanding management mistakes. First, the retailing sector offers an accessible sitefor observing the visible foreground practice of retailing (Palmer and Quinn, 2005b).Therefore, mistakes are particularly identifiable and rich, not least because retailers arepart of the everyday experience for consumers. Second, the retail landscape increasingly so in the current global economic downturn invariably reveals a long list

of failures and near failures, e.g. M&S, The Pier and Envy, Woolworths, Dolcis, TheWorks, Select, The Toy Zone, The Sleep Depot, Base, Empirestores and Elvi. The scaleand scope of this activity thus offers the potential for more complex theoretical insights.Third, the retail sector receives a large degree of media attention and coverage,particularly where there are accusations of wrong doing, which can provide insight intohow mistakes emerge (Alfasi, 2004; Fritz, 2005; Dawson, 2007). The role of the media inrelaying accounts of management mistakes and mea culpa is therefore theoreticallyimportant (Barry and Elmes, 1997). Finally, a recent study of retailing management byPalmer et al. (2010) revealed that managements operational impatience places moreemphasis on the immediate grounding of the retail format. We suggest that thisoperational-orientation, in turn, imposes more dynamism, stress and expediency in thedecision-making process, which can lead to management mistakes. The retail sector,

therefore, provides a theoretically rich context for the study. Any concerns about thespecificity of ideas and concepts from the retail sector are addressed by integratingthemes from the broader literature and actual examples of retail practice in thestudents accounts.

To determine how mistakes are conceptualized in the literature, the following sectionbegins by providing a definition of a mistake, along with a discussion on the overlapsand disparities that management mistakes appear to have with constructs in theliterature. Following on, the paper presents a rationale for why studying mistakes isimportant. The methodology is then outlined along with a discussion of the findings,emerging theoretical contributions and conclusions.

Defining mistakes and a literature synthesis of overlapping theoriesVaughan (1999, p. 284) defines a mistake as acts of omission or commission byindividuals or groups of individuals, acting in their organization roles, that produceunexpected adverse outcomes with a contained social cost. More presciently andgenerally, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a mistake as a wrong judgement ora wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge,or inattention. With both definitions, there is a negative association of wrong doing,either from action or inaction. They also seek to explain the premises of committing amistake, which they attribute to erroneous judgment, lack of knowledge or a failure to

IJRDM38,4

236


4/24


5/24

in this learning process. This literature concentrates on the positive side of mistakes,which also resonates with the learning organization literature in which Senge (1990)and other colleagues suggest that intelligent mistakes are inevitable and evenessential for firms driving innovative growth initiatives. Much of this learning comes

from redefining and experimenting with (small) failures; the business world has thusrecognised the learning potential within identifying, analysing and deliberatelyexperimenting with failures (Cannon and Edmondson, 2005). For Husted andMichailova (2002), learning from mistakes is highly valuable, not only at individual, butat group and organizational levels. However, individuals often do not freely and openlyshare knowledge about the mistakes they have made. Baumard and Starbuck (2005,p. 283) point out that the learning that should follow failure often does not occur andwhen it does occur, mistakes often teach the wrong lessons. Learning by observingother companies and acting in a similar way has been identified by researchers as acommon organizational learning mechanism (Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991). Therefore,firms frequently collect information regarding what other companies, especially

competitors, are doing, and why and how they do it. If a particular practice is found tobe a costly mistake, it will often be avoided.Management mistakes are central to organizational learning theory and have had a

long history in theories of psychology and sociology. As Vaughan (1999) notes, thisliterature is theoretically rich and abundant, offering theoretical explanations on threelevels of analyses. The first level, the institutional, emphasizes how aspects of theenvironment can shape mistakes. The second level considers how institutionalizedcultural understandings mediate between the environment and the cognitive practicesof individuals. The third (and most developed) area of research development has soughtto understand individual-level involvement with an undesirable event. This workconnects with the importance of the psyche of the individual managers and employeesthat make (important) decisions. For Mellahi (2005), the responsibility for failing

organizations lies with top management. Ma and Karri (2005) attribute corporatefailure to top managements gross negligence, arrogance, overconfidence andself-aggrandisement. Related to this is the work of Levinson (1994), which exploresthe psychological roots of corporate failure. Levinson (1994, p. 430) notes that:

[. . .] the combination of collective masculine competitive striving, attachment to aggressiveself-images and established corporate structures, and efforts to avoid failure and indictment

reinforce organizational narcissism.

The literature also suggests that mistakes are closely bound up with the mechanism ofcoping with blame. The concept of outcome anticipation lies at the heart of admittingmistakes. Elaboration on the potential outcomes of mistakes not only makes people

conscious of (un)desired standards and end-states, but also provides them withinformation as to whether an act has the potential to move them towards a desiredend-state, or away from an undesired one. Husted and Michailova (2002) outline severalanticipated outcomes:

. Uncertainty about colleague reaction might dissuade employees from disclosingtheir mistakes.

. Uncertainty about future negative consequences for career development oftenprevents individuals from admitting mistakes.

IJRDM38,4

238


6/24

. Uncertainty as to where the locus of responsibility lies, i.e. whether it is with theindividual or the team.

. Uncertainty over the degree of acceptance or hostility towards mistake making.

Therefore, considering future outcomes makes people more conscious of the possibleeffects of their mistakes and more aware of the standards to which to compare thoseoutcomes. Lee et al. (2004) argue that organizations also exhibit self-serving attributionbias by making less internal and controllable attributions for negative as opposed topositive events. Put differently, management attribute successful outcomes tothemselves (and accept the adulation that entails), while disassociating themselvesfrom anything related to a mistake what Heider (1958) called attribution theory.Attribution theory explains the process by which causal attributions affect outcomesby way of cognitive, emotional and motivational mechanisms (Lee et al., 2004; Hareliet al., 2005; Martinko et al., 2007). Hareli et al. (2005, p. 665) consider the role ofemployees emotions in confronting and relating failures, concluding that the:

[. . .

] conditions that enhance guilt feelings in work is to the benefit of all parties involvedwhen the motivation is to learn from that failure and to maintain a good relationship betweenthe organization and the employee. In contrast, a threatening atmosphere (inducing fear) notonly works against such effects but also blocks some of the desirable effects that guilt mighthave had in the same context.

Although this literature provides us with useful insights into our understanding ofmanagement mistakes, from a range of different theoretical perspectives, much lessobvious is the role of business curriculum in developing and preparing students formanagement mistakes, and the mechanisms for coping with mistakes.

The role and (re)production of business curriculum

Studies suggest that curricula introduce, create and preserve knowledge doctrines andset beyond dispute deeply assumed values and beliefs for those studying it (Hackley,2003; Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006). One of the most dominant influences embeddedwithin university business curricula, according to Brown (2007), is the logic of success.How to find, court and manage it? How to use management tools to unlock it? How tosustain it? Success, therefore, is defined and judged according to (current and local)culturally hegemonic standards set by the curricula. But which activities andbehaviours should be valued and which should not? Who defines development? Indeed,these questions have become a consistent feature of research in business andmanagement, with concerns that students the future business leaders are notadequately prepared for the workplace.

In an early critique, Calkins (1961) stated that business education is suffering from

ill-defined, confused purposes and an inadequate appreciation of the needs of studentsor business. A decade later, Livingston (1972) argued that several facets of managementare entirely missed out by management school curricula. More recent studies are nowquestioning the relevance and adequacy of management school curricula being taughttoday, with their direct influence on students performances (Mintzberg and Gosling,2002; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002; Friga et al., 2003; Mintzberg, 2004; Acito et al., 2008;Navarro, 2008). Arguably, this disjunction can be linked to the long-standing curriculaalignment problem. Pfeffer and Fong (2002, p. 80) state that a large body of evidence


mea culpa

239


7/24

suggests that the curriculum taught in business schools has only a small relationship towhat is important for succeeding in business. Mintzberg and Gosling (2002) have alsonoted that contemporary business education focuses on the functions of business morethan the practice of managing.

The problem is more multifaceted and complex than the curricula alignmentproblem however. Other research fronts have opened up, with recent studies nowstressing the value of: revisiting the role of business and management schools (Starkeyet al., 2004); the chasm between academic work and practice (Stiles, 2004; Jarzabkowskiand Wilson, 2006); and the type of modular business curriculum (Atwater et al., 2008).At one level, studies have acknowledged the unique challenges for business schools, asopposed to other university faculties. Prince (1999) states that:

[. . .] business schools find themselves at the interface of the business and academic worlds.They therefore have to cope with the changing external environment earlier than other, moresheltered faculties of the university.

Another feature of this debate is the disjuncture between teaching and research. As theaforementioned literature suggests, it would be entirely wrong to conclude thatmanagement mistakes has not been an important research domain across the literature.Indeed, many articles contain insights into mistakes. Yet, these are often not reflected intraditional textbooks (Hackley, 2003; Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2006; Palmer et al.,2010), or remain marginal texts (Hartley, 2005). That is to say (institutionalizedmainstream) curricula textbooks often lag behind the state of research in the field. Inthis sense, one cannot assume published research articles are built into the pedagogy ina systematic way. This can be seen in the way that traditional textbooks report successstories that would lead students to believe that corporate success is devoid ofimpasses, failures, mistakes, turnarounds, crisis, divestments and retrenchmentperiods (a point recently taken up in the retail literature, Burt et al., 2003; Wrigley and

Currah, 2003; Palmer and Quinn, 2007). Furthermore, the diffusion of ideas from journalresearch into mainstream textbooks is frequently a slow process, particularly wheresubject areas are dominated by longstanding incumbent textbooks (Palmer, 2008).

A number of observations may be made regarding the aforementioned literature.First, when management mistakes are discussed, it is often conflated with large-scalecorporate failure a crisis. This is perhaps inevitable given that management mistakesare heavily influenced by failure. Yet, management mistakes can be more mundane:mistakes in management reports or warranties; in promotional price discounts andpress releases; in the shop window display and in-store merchandising; in the deliveryto the wrong store; hiring and promoting the wrong employee(s); in sourcing productsthat cannot be assembled or delivered on time; and in delisting a product or in productrecalls. Second, the organizational learning literature suggests that, not only is

first-hand experience experiential learning important, but that people can learnvicariously from the observable portion of management: the who, what, when, andwhere aspects (Palmer and Quinn, 2005b). In this regard, students or competitors cangain an understanding of management mistakes through observation, particularlythose that come to light in a controversy following accusations, reactions toaccusations, and counter accusations. Third, it is argued that curricula is organized inways that ignore the importance of agency and systematically discourages participantsfrom communicating their subjective understandings of particular curricula practices.

IJRDM38,4

240


8/24

More importantly, if students are influenced by the mistakes made by management,how do these mistakes shape their perceptions? Do students empathize with managerswho have made mistakes? Do they consider mistakes to be part of an intellectual

journey towards career development, corporate progression, or innovative growth?

How would/could they cope with this process? It is to these questions that this studynow turns.

MethodologyIn order to address these questions, 62 students on a BSc Marketing degree programmewere asked to write an extended essay on their perceptions of management mistakesand mea culpa in the retailing sector. The participants in the study were studying a finalyear, first-semester course called strategic issues in distribution and retailing at aUK-based post 1970s university Aston University. Although not representative of theoverall student population, the sample provides an adequate mix of males and females,age ranges (18-27), social backgrounds, and employment statuses for initial theorization.

The students were informed that their assessment was designed as part of a researchproject to elicit perceptions on management mistakes. The written essay comprised50 percent of the overall assessment relating to a 20 credit module. The students had sixweeks to complete the essay. To ensure that students perceptions were not influencedby the course syllabus, retail failure and related issues were not covered until weekseven after the submission date of the extended essay. The assignment statementbrief read as follows: It is very rare for management to acknowledge mistakes and stillmore uncommon in management vocabulary to admit mea culpa I am to blame.Critically discuss and evaluate this statement.

The study adopted and adapted a range of research data collection tools (Figure 1)based upon a previous study by one of the authors (Palmer et al., 2009), jointlysupported by Aston Universitys Higher Education Learning and Management Centre,and the Centre for Learning, Innovation and Professional Practice. Following thismethod, the format of the extended essay comprised two stages:

(1) a priming stage; and

(2) a second stage comprising the essay and a personal introspective account.

Figure 1.The extended essay data

collection tools

Stage one

Exercise I: paper dialogue

Question: Make a list of TEN nouns or phrases or words you would use to describe what you think

about mistakes (e.g. shock)

Stage two

Exercise II: the essay

Brief: It is very rare for management to

acknowledge mistakes and still more

uncommon in management vocabulary to

admit mea culpa I am to blame. Critically

discuss and evaluate this statement.

Exercise III: introspective account

This part is a reflection of your subjective

personal thoughts on the issues raised when

writing the essay an autobiographical

account of initial impressions, stresses,

anxieties, joys etc


mea culpa

241


9/24

In the first part of the essay, students were asked to write down ten words thatdescribed management mistakes. A paper dialogue approach (Tee and Liang, 2005) wasutilized to stimulate, trigger and prompt thoughts here. In the second stage, studentswere asked to write an essay on the title brief. As previously discussed, the retail sector

receives a large degree of media attention and coverage, particularly surroundingcontroversies where there are often (counter-) accusations of wrong doing (Alfasi, 2004;Dawson, 2007). Fritz (2005) suggests that accusation-led controversies can providecritical incidents around which mistakes emerge and mea culpa is challenged. For thisreason, students were guided towards accusations as opening moves in controversies,where critical incidents of mistake-making function and public discourses emerge andare more visible.

In the second part of Stage 2, students were asked to reflect on and write up apersonal introspective account of the essay-writing process (see Brown (2005) for anextended discussion on the personal introspection technique). Taken together, theresearch exercises facilitated triangulation and, hence, attempted to unearth a morecomplete picture of the students perceptions of management mistakes and why (andwhy not) management admit mistakes. Rather than impose a prior conceptualization orframework within which to evaluate the findings, this study adopted Strauss andCorbins (1990) interpretation of grounded theory, which allows for the emergence ofimportant themes and patterns in the data while assuming some prior knowledge of theresearch field. The analysis used Gibbs (2002) analysis framework, which divides thisprocess into three stages: opening coding to identify relevant themes (each authorconducted this individually); axial coding to refine the categories; and selective codingwhich links the categories together and enables a story to be told. Themes wereidentified based on their persistence across the participants. Two forms of verificationwere used in the analysis. First, the convergence on the same interpretation wasachieved through ongoing discussion and debate between the three researchers.

Second, the findings present rich quotations from the actual student essays, whichinvite readers to assess the efficacy of the themes based on the evidence.Furthermore, recent consumer research has also pointed out the unilateral

dominance of polycentrism in research that privileges speech over writing (see Brownand Reid (1997) for an extended discussion). Verbal conversations, therefore, take on anautopoietic characteristic. That is, students might suppress emotions, appear rational,and non-confrontational. However, methods such as the paper dialogue approach andthe extended essay enables sensitive issues to be addressed anonymously, as studentsoften distrust authority (for example academics) not least because of the perceivedinstitutional norms and rules of universities. The findings are discussed in thefollowing section using excerpts from the students essays to illuminate andcontextualize each theme. As stage one functioned to prime the students, the findings

section begins by reporting from stage two.

FindingsThe findings highlighted many different, but real and understandable, issues andapprehensions on management mistakes. The students draw upon a variety of retailcases. Beyond consideration of retailing case studies, the students also supported theirarguments by drawing upon their own placement experiences (all spent one year onindustrial placement). These are now discussed in turn.

IJRDM38,4

242


10/24

Management mistakes and culturesThe students accounts of management mistakes are closely bound up in the culture ofsuccess. According to students, mistakes are tangled up in a web of intersecting andpressurizing cultural practices (home with parents, popular cultures, peer communities

and clubs, studies, etc.). This appeared in three ways in the essays. The first pointed tomanagement mistakes being seen as the last taboo of society, which had created amodern cultural averseness. This is revealed in the following quotations:

The fact that making mistakes is such a taboo highlights a deeper issue within society atlarge, where success is the ultimate goal [. . .] Because successful people and organizations areoften placed on a pedestal of superiority, seeing them fail is a public reminder of theirfallibility, which then acts as a self-esteem boost to regular people. It can be argued that it isthis cultural averseness to failure that affects whether managers acknowledge mistakes andclaim responsibility for them (Essay 3).

The cultural acceptance of failure significantly affects whether an individual managing acompany would admit their mistakes or not, as it could, in some cultures lead to

overwhelming shame and failure (as in the case of Japanese failures and the images of CEOsapologizing during the 1990s). However, the cultural acceptance of failure especially inWestern economies remains concealed and hidden away (Essay 9).

A second success-related theme relates to the cultures of global ambition endemic inmanagement mistakes. The students point to the globalizing ambition of managementleaders, which overstretched firms and contributed to management mistakes. Theaccounts show that students perceive that firms or managers appear to quickly adjustor bypass local, regional, or even national experience to become an internationaloperator:

Our environment is full of iconic global brands and iconic global leaders which has led tosuccess being taken as an unquestionable fact. This international success has produced a

number of myths or slogans of a totalistic sort for example, Time and Place HaveDisappeared, Saving Planet Earth, or The New World Order Worst still, it has produceda long list of restless megalomaniacs typically male who are want to turn the world blue,orange or impose yellow smiley faces on everybody [. . .] (Essay 62).

Another issue emerging from the accounts is that students are anticipating a staple dietof excess based on the business curriculum. Precisely because of this several studentssuggest that the business curriculum nurtures management mistakes:

It is common to hear in lectures and/or read in textbooks that any ambition must includeinternationalization/globalization. Somehow a strategy is underdeveloped unless it involvessome form of participation on the global stage. The mantra is where next? where next? wherenext? We are being saturated with these questions in our studies and our lives. Do we really

have carte blanch? Do or should all strategies lead to the globalizing one? (Essay 53).This raises the question about the dominance of the sanguine side of the curriculum. Oneof the problems with being lectured on all things global is that we start to form and(re)produce shared folklore about it. It also begs the question as to what extent theambitious-filled curriculum leads students astray. Has stressing the role of marketingmyopia inadvertently fuelled megalomania? Notwithstanding the answers to suchquestions, the overall effect of this might be to compound megalomania andmanagement mistakes.


mea culpa

243


11/24

Another indeed related manifestation was in the way management mistakescame about from the cultures of immediate gratification. It is not surprising then thatseveral students highlight how the modern environment nurtures their fantasies ofinstant success:

TV programmes such as the X-Factor provide a sense of success appearing over night.Success, it seems, is just around the corner. The ladder to success is shorter. Pilgrimages areno longer prolonged. Mistakes are the unwelcome and uninvited guest in the firm. The thrustis to succeed and it seems that nobody cares how this is achieved. The end is what counts sadly it is what we are judged on. Nobody wants to hear about the difficult process of gettingthere [. . .] (Essay 6).

[. . .] todays society expects and demands us to be instant success. This instant trendappears in a range of activities, for example, instant messaging, instant celebrities, instantcoffee, instant refunds, instant DNA detection, instant replays, instant recipes, instant credit,instant access accounts, instant news, instant recognition and so on. For us, even universitysurveys will judge us on how soon we get a job! It appears there is no waiting in wantinganymore (Essay 4).

Because of the pressures of immediacy, the probability of making mistakes increases,not least because of the haste in which action is taken, but also because the emphasis isplaced on the short-term to the detriment of either the medium or long-term.

Mistakes and mediaThe students accounts pick up on the role of the media in mediating and moderatingmanagement mistakes. More than half the students identified the role of the media inshaping disclosures of mistakes and mea culpa. Three themes stand out from the studentaccounts. The first concerned the way visible mistakes make the headlines. Separately ortogether, these serve a complex multifaceted role as authority, controller, or an

absolving actor. The students draw upon a variety of skeleton punch-line narratives from doing a Ratner to doing a Rodney, through cartoons and captions as epitomizedin the Dilbert cartoon series. The ritual efficiency of skeleton punch-line narratives arepreferred by media, with sound bites having the largest ceremonial impact:

Mistakes are often the butt of jokes and mocking in the media [ . . .]. unleashed like a punchline, making it cut more deeply. Add to that the usual hyperbole of jokes and the way thateach part of the media seeks that revelation to out-maneuver and out-wit the other, with theredtops leading the way, humour is arguably at the centre of this debate and has much toanswer for in the cover-up culture [. . .] (Essay 42).

There is a whole generation of students that have grown up with Dilbert cartoons and this isnow part of the folklore of doing management. If management use cliche s, then the audienceconnects with them, serving to undermine the manager. The television series, The Office, alsoextenuates and builds threads of humour around these mistakes and the ways to hidemistakes (Essay 53).

The second issue concerned the extent of the medias role in accounting for managementmistakes with the emerging array of modes of programmes, forums and blogs whatsome students referred to as Martini Media any time, any place and anywhere:

Management mistakes rarely (or are able to) go unnoticed by the business news wirenetworks such is the array of channels. Not only do management that make significant

IJRDM38,4

244


12/24

mistakes have to contend with mainstream such as TV, magazines, etc. along with businessoutlets MSNBC, the Wall Street JournalOnline, Reuters, but other specialist media outlets forretail and blogs as well. Blogs are the new way to expose. We are all would-be self-publishingand citizen journalists nowadays anyone can identify and run with a story (Essay 24).

In my view, if it were not for investigative and under cover programmes [for example, BBCsWatchdog, Panorama] getting involved in their business, many mistakes would never see thelight of day (Essay 6).

Retail firms are extremely visible when trading on the ground. Indeed, Tesco went to greatlengths in America to cover their pilot stores within warehouses. Retailers will always tellyou that mistakes always show in the store, while accountants will always tell you all themistakes are buried in the footnotes in annual reports. Not much arguably has changed there.Yet in todays environment, everybody is a pundit on retail and willing to blog it. With itsFresh and Easy format in America, Tesco have encountered the strategy pundit thePerishable Pundit, Triplepundit, the axe-to-grind-pundit all pointing out its mistakes in themarket!! Nowadays the media brings forward the voice of the pundit [. . .] (Essay 17).

The last quotation is extremely insightful. The relevance of frequent experientialcontact with the high street stores has given consumers a window through which toview corporate strategy dynamics and strategy trends. Most, if not all, shoppersimmediately recognise and place where the firms positioning quality-price axis lies andcan cite the fast-fashion turnaround times of Zara and Hennes and Mauritz (H&M).Sunday newspaper supplements also carry in-depth reflections on corporate activity,impending acquisitions, rich-lists, and entrepreneurial autobiographies. The sense ofthe being mediated by broadcaster status and internet blog and twitter access haselevated everybody to the status of pundit with the opportunity to engage.

The media dimension was again evident in the assessment of the essays, albeit inquite a different way. Some students empathized with the plight of management asregards what some described as a witch-hunt to find who is to blame and the

ceremonial ritual of a public hanging. The essays also draw attention to the role oftall poppy syndrome and the extent to which the media expose both the expression ofauthority and abuse of power:

Due to advances in technology and the need it seems to sensationalise even the slightest ofstories (for example, Sky News and its presenters), the role of media coverage has had a largepart to play in mea culpa [. . .] It seems like organisations are required to respond even quickerto the media now as they can expect the issue to spiral beyond their control [. . .] (Essay 5).

Evident in todays culture of celebrity with shows like The X-Factoris the way that humansare engrossed on seeing each other fail its now prime time Saturday night entertainment.Similarly, the reporting of the downfall of retail giants, bellwethers, bastions of the HighStreet crumbling under the pressure reminds them of their fallibility. It seems society seek

solace in the axiom the-bigger-they-are-the-harder-they-fall (Essay 14).

The essayists highlight the medias willingness to reveal dramatic mistakes and theirthirst for blaming, criticizing, objecting and insulting, which they see as morepronounced than ever before. Put another way, as the diagnosis of managementmistakes becomes more contested, it is likely that accusations will be more frequentlyused as opening moves in controversies, which strike at the perceived flawlessness ofbusinesses. The media strike at, and bring into sharp contrast, the disparity betweensuch flawlessness and our everyday experience. The students accounts bestow the


mea culpa

245


13/24

media with the authority in reconciling, or more often than not, exacerbating the agonyof retail firms who have slipped up in their operations.

Management mistakes and individualsStudents varied enormously in their responses to stimuli they thought were characteristicof those individuals making mistakes. When it comes to individuals, most studentsdiscussed a variety of metaphors and analogies of management mistakes, remarkinguponthe ritual of sweeping mistakes under the carpet or piling the skeletons in closets orburying failures. This is highlighted in the discourse individuals use in relation tomistakes. The students accounts pick up on the way the discourse surrounding mistakesis changing.Students highlight a number of phrases that are often used by management toacknowledge mistakes. For example, the phrases lessons learned and regrettablecircumstances are frequently used to mollify investors at annual general meetings or toaid editors and investigative journalists interrogating management (in)actions. As onestudent put it:

Failure and mistakes are dirty words, so much so it appears that in both everyday practiceand theory, a whole new range of new vocabulary has emerged. Deferred success, unintendedoutcomes, negative outcomes, lack of progress, lack of success, resistance and so on. Whatthis tells me as a student is that management can no longer look failure straight in the eye(Essay 34).

The essays ultimately acknowledge the inevitability of the mistake-makingphenomenon, and are of the opinion that mistakes are going to occur regardless ofthe rituals and discourses associated with them. The following quotations highlight thestudents views of the sunny side of things:

A failure can only be viewed as a negative if managers refuse to learn anything from it(Essay 2).

Mistakes are unavoidable. They are part and parcel of the human being. So managers andemployees have to deal with them, not avoid them [. . .] Instead of hiding unavoidablemistakes, organizations have to incorporate them in their management culture in order totake a benefit from them (Essay 14).

Why is this more apparent in the retail sector? I believe the nature of the competition,particularly the transparency of the retail strategists work location, product offerings, shoplayout, all engender and enforce a need to remain secretive [. . .] (Essay 46).

Some students speak of the courage it takes to not look the other way when things gowrong, particularly in light of the short-term business pressures that undermine thisperspective:

Managers are biased towards success; society has told us that in business the goal is tosucceed and to admit fault is a sign of weakness not only in the company but also in themanagement. From my research for this essay, this courage appears to be in decline, perhapsshort supply (Essay 18).

Willingness to admit mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness; but as I have found outmyself, in business this opinion is found few and far between. Short-term sales culturesprevail in retailing footfall (people, cars, provenance) and spend (product sales, shop sales,conversion, average spend). These dominate and are the basis of all failure (Essay 16).

IJRDM38,4

246


14/24

Most essayists devote up to a third of their arguments to narcissism. For most,narcissism strikes at the heart of the mistake-making issue both in terms of whymanagement make mistakes and consequently how they cope with them. Some of thestudents observations on this subject are as follows:

Leaders in any walk of life it seems will not admit to mistakes due to the damage it may haveon their credibility whilst decision making [. . .] to keep the feeling of power and invincibility(Essay 5).

If the manager has narcissistic tendencies then they are more likely to blame someone else orfind a scapegoat, as they resist change and believe in their organisation so much that theythink that the current processes and strategies will always apply and work (Essay 8).

There is a general consensus among the students, therefore, that narcissism, in particular,contributes to senior management mistakes. Yet another issue relates to mistakes as avital constituent in the learning process. The students comments also shed light on thelearning culture perspective:

In my opinion, innovation needs to be a free process, where employees dont hold back goodideas for fear of failure. If employees see a manager making the occasional mistake, andadmitting to it, it may reinforce the fact that it is acceptable, and that they will not bereprimanded for doing it themselves. This will create a better working environment for theemployee [. . .] (Essay 2).

Admitting mistakes is first of all the opportunity to improve [. . .] We can wonder to whatextent failure can be sometimes more beneficial than success (Essay 10).

While recognising the value of mistakes, it is entirely a different proposition admittingmea culpa.

Mea culpa and mistakes

The students frequently ask why someone should confess to a mistake. Some studentsdiscuss the wilfulness of mea culpa as a ceremonial confession, one for (re)producingand (re)distributing power amongst actors which judge, punish or forgive:

Coming clean can result in a severe backlash. Its this backlash which forms the basis ofregret and repentance in the 21st century commercial world. Yesteryears equivalent oftarring and feathering, sackcloth and ashes are still around albeit is a different guise(Essay 56).

Some students draw attention to the potential anguish that appears to be associatedwith admitting a wrong judgement or a wrong action. This anxiety may motivatemanagement to exonerate themselves, attributing causes elsewhere. This (re)producesa wider net of a blame culture inscribed in and re-created through different modes of

management discourses, manoeuvres and solutions:Managers can dissociate themselves with failure by blaming external factors [. . .] [utilizing]management speak by blaming headwinds for potential failures to come. By doing this,managers distance themselves from strategic mistakes, and consequently, any blame, byattributing it to factors which are out of their control (Essay 22).

The manoeuvring can also be seen more acutely in the way that managementportray themselves as hapless victims, with mistakes being entirely out of theircontrol the blame-it-on-the-rain-variety. These accounts have a weak emphasis


mea culpa

247


15/24

on agency things just happened to us. Collectively or individually, mistakes areprimarily down to markets misfiring, competitors manipulating and regulatorsmalfunctioning:

Whilst on placement in Halfords, it was evident that leaders spread the blame amongst peopleinstead of taking it on themselves [. . .] Leaders tend to be like politicians, they like to workaround the blame and suggest other ideas instead of simply taking the blame on themselves(Essay 61).

If you work in a company that has a blame culture, youre more likely to try and get out ofproblems and point the finger rather than accept responsibility [. . .] I think management havea responsibility to manage; not point the finger or accept the mistake on their terms, butinstead provide the necessary tools for the problem to be sorted out (Essay 47).

The accounts also underline the relations of power, not only in terms of individualreputations being at stake, but the reputation of the whole department and indeed firm:

Admitting a mistake and taking blame may be detrimental to a managers future career path

[. . .

] When admitting mistakes to colleagues, managers feel vulnerable and ultimately can beleft in a weak position in terms of the power they possess within the organisation. They areexposing their flaws to their closest colleagues, and more importantly, in my view, they areexposing their flaws to their opposition in terms of promotions and job opportunities(Essay 2).

In my view, mea culpa is not good for the CEO or an executive of an organisation within theretailing sector to admit to unless it is used for strategic purposes. I feel that it would leave theCEO in a position where they may lose respect, power and control. Whilst I agree we all makemistakes, I think for a CEO to take on the blame can be detrimental to a companysorganisational structure and culture. This could lead to a loss of direction and vision for thecompany which could lead to employee uncertainty; it could deflate employees if they loserespect or begin to doubt their leader (Essay 60).

For the most part, students accounts are armed with a prescriptive mindset studentsseek to offer solutions to the blame culture problem:

The environment is always unstable, so if a leader is to attribute blame to it, then they shouldequally attribute success to it. Far too often it seems the individuals who are willing to takethe plaudits of success, will not accept the scathing attacks of failure. Is that leadership?(Essay 51).

Within organizations that adopt a blame culture, the nature of the business is based onreprimanding employees who make mistakes, rather than re-educating employees so they donot make the same mistake again, which I believe would be more beneficial to both employeeand organisation [. . .]. Admitting blame can actually work in a managers favour. By showingremorse and strength of character through accepting responsibility, the manager may actually

receive a lighter penalty and even be viewed in a better light because of it (Essay 29).

Furthermore, the students essays suggest that attribution of blame is not astraightforward task. There is inaccuracy in identifying the causes of the mistake andthe guilty parties; inaccuracy in the responsible parties accepting the blame; andinaccuracy in reporting it. Mistakes, therefore, carry forward the momentum ofobfuscation (e.g. the mum effect or keeping mum to conceal).

Another related issue in their evaluation is the way that mea culpa practices are seenas a strategic tool, to be deployed as a means to deflect heat and mitigate against any

IJRDM38,4

248


16/24

criticisms and negative publicity spurred by a business failure; thus minimizingstakeholder dissatisfaction, as suggested by two students:

As leaders, managers have to make the right choice and it is often a battle between thecompanys image and their own [. . .] Depending on the nature of the retailer and the problemthey face, admitting mea culpa can, and should, sometimes be the answer (Essay 37).

Mea culpa could be used as a vital tool used in the event of negative outcomes. It can be usedto defuse and deflect away criticism. It can be used to re-engage disenchanted colleagues [. . .]In my opinion it would be effective to use mea culpa as a strategic and crisis decision tool inbusiness organizations (Essay 6).

Up until now, the paper has concentrated on the students perceptions of managementmistakes. In the next section, the paper summarizes, discusses and provides anexplanation for the students observations.

Discussion

This research aimed to investigate students perceptions of managerial mistakes andwhy (and why not) managers admit mistakes. The interpretation of managementmistakes and mea culpa by the students can be explained in a number of ways. First, thestudents interpretations of management resonates with a body of research, whichprovides evidence that mistakes are inextricably linked to: success (Sull, 2005); learning(Hughes et al., 1998); and, as activities that are closely bound up in collective cultures(Perez-Arce, 1999). There is, therefore, much to learn from the conditions of mistakes,including: ambition, global orientation, and instant success. These (re)interpretations what Perez-Arce (1999) termed interpretive frames help explain cultural aversenessto mistakes. An interesting point emerges here: students echo the ideas oforganizational learning theory, which are open to mistakes, whilst simultaneouslyviewing societys mistakes as disdainful and blame-centric. Students, however, appear

to grapple with the polymorphic nature of mistake making (Palmer et al., 2009); that is,being simultaneously enriched (e.g. the beginnings of new experiences and learning)and impoverished (e.g. failure, frustration, media), by the experiences of mistakemaking.

Second, the findings illustrate how students perceive the media to be instrumental,yet excessive, in their portrayal of corporate mistakes. This, in part, may relate to theway mistakes were observed as critical incidents surrounding controversies and also(counter-) accusations. In such cases, the role of media can be understood in co-creationterms. This co-creation of media content can be seen from its interaction with the firm,the professional media outlets, as well as lesser known activists and self-appointedretail analysts and retail pundits filtering and sifting content across differentinternational, national and local spheres of influence. Besides, the traditional places

where mistakes are observable, such as annual report and web sites, mistakes are alsomore visible in other micro media outlets appealing to every conceivable interest, belief,prejudice and opinion. Contradictions therefore emerge and reside, not only betweenindividuals, but within them as well (Bakhtin, 1981). While this is an ongoing process,arguably this media (co)creation particularly occurs for retail firms during theChristmas and New Year trading period, or more generally with the opening (a curtain-raising market entry event), or a closing event (a curtain-closing marketwithdrawal and even entire collapse), or simply where controversy might lurk. That is,


mea culpa

249


17/24

the ones that are most intense, most prominent or most visible. Yet, as Sull (2005)explains, many mistakes are mistakes-in-progress, enacted through time, rather thanvisible one-off moments in time. Sull (2005) draws attention to the temporality ofmanagement mistakes, arguing that actions during lulls between periods of radical

change determine long-term success. Sull (2005) asserts that major changes, whetherthey are golden opportunities or sudden death threats, are relatively rare eventsthat occur just once or twice a decade, which engage in a strategy of so-called activewaiting. This perspective redirects us towards equally important periods of apparentquiescence of the mistake-making activity what is sometimes referred to asinactivity, dormant, or the holding periods which is overlooked in the existingresearch into management mistakes and strategy more generally, and to a large degreeis omitted from student accounts.

The role of the media in mistakes and mea culpa can also be understood as aceremonial ritual event variously referred to by the students as witch hunting,tarring and feathering and tall poppy syndrome. Foucault (1980) states that theconfession is a ritual of discourse in which the speaking subject is also the subject ofthe statement; it is also a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship, for one doesnot confess without the presence (or virtual presence) of a partner who is not simply theinterlocutor but the authority who requires the confession, prescribes and appreciatesit, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive, console and reconcile. Mea culpais in effect a ritual process, which stands out all the more starkly when the media takeup this authority, particularly with humour. The undermining and bemusement ritualof mistakes from various media sources is also a reminder of Balkhtins (1965, p. 11)opposition idea between [. . .] a boundless world of humorous forms [. . .] [and] theofficial and serious tone of medieval and ecclesiastical and feudal culture. That is tosay, even the most light-hearted humour can be official and deadly serious a versionof playing fool to catch wise. While this ritualisation may subvert the serious tone of

the mistake, it does not subvert the mistake, the actor(s), the firm or the industry moregenerally.

Third, the students essays suggest that neither management mistakes nor theattribution of blame is a straightforward task. In other words, mistakes and theattribution process can be mistaken misdiagnosed with further mistakablerepercussions. Furthermore, the students accounts draw attention to the increasinglycontradictory and contested commentary on management mistakes. As discussed inthe review of the literature, management mistakes are often conflated with wholesalecorporate failure. Indeed, most of the students accounts associate mistakes with failure,yet both are not always synonymous. This is evident in the role ofex ante bankruptcyarrangements for retail firms, such as Whittard of Chelsea, Zavvi, USC, and TheOfficers Club where administration is a de facto way to jettison strategic mistakes

across store networks, and restructure capital structure debt-levels. This framing andreframing of mistakes and strategizing, the reinterpretation and shifting of ownershipback to the original owners, introduces significant complexities and obfuscation inunderstanding and reporting on management mistakes. The use of mea culpa as astrategic and crisis decision tool as described by some students, the various ways it isadopted and adapted, is arguably little understood in the literature.

The final significant point drawn from the students accounts of management mistakesis the way that narcissism figures (Levinson, 1994; Stiles, 2004; Ma and Karri, 2005).

IJRDM38,4

250


18/24

It figures in understanding the reasons (motives) why the lived experience ofmanagement practice is insufficiently represented in the storied experience whichmanagement tell themselves and others (and researchers) about their work and the storiestold through training courses, books, journals and so on. As White and Epston (1990,

pp. 11-12) explain:

[. . .] the structuring of a narrative requires recourse to a selective process in which we prunefrom our experience, those events that do not fit with the dominant evolving stories that weand others have about us. Thus, over time and of necessity, much of our stock of livedexperience goes unstoried and is never told or expressed.

It is precisely this selective practice and denial (Maccoby, 2004), which is emphasizedby the students accounts specifically in relation to narcissistic authority andrelations of power through which cultures of blame emerge and are promoted in theworkplace. This clearly has implications for teaching narcissistic students sometimesreferred to as the me generation and the various pedagogic initiatives used todampen student narcissism (e.g. more frequent feedback, assessment, grading, focus on

evaluation in assessment, less group work to prevent grade inflation and shapinginaccurate self-perceptions of knowledge and skills, and more lecturer-studentinteraction).

Contribution to retail literature and concluding remarksA decade on from Vaughans (1999) pessimistic assertion that the rise of formalorganizations wrought new possibilities as a result of mistake, misconduct anddisaster, we have witnessed the near collapse of the entire western banking system.This, in turn, is having a perverse affect on the retail landscape, where there is a spate offailures, bankruptcies, retrenchment and restructuring taking place. Clearly this is amurky and highly contested environment, and our data has concentrated on only one

aspect of Vaughans dark side how students perceive the practice of managementmistakes and mea culpa. While there exists a vast array of books and articles on thesubject describing successful retail firms (like Wal-Mart or Tesco), or individuals (likeBranson, Green), there is an overall lack of theoretical matters for debate on the subjectof management mistakes. Recognising this concern, this paper has attempted to buildon a theoretical perspective, which recognises that channelling students thinkingthrough an understanding of management mistakes as well as the various ways thatmanagement cope with mistakes can be instrumental in shaping the values of thenext generation of retail business leaders. The paper highlights students perceptions ofmanagement mistakes and why (and why not) management admit mistakes. Indeed,when given the opportunity to observe management mistakes, it is concluded thatstudents are simultaneously enriched and impoverished, liberated and constrained, in

part because such experiences are both positive and negative; not only related tostressful occasions (e.g. failure, frustration and media scrutiny), but also interconnectedwith positive effects (e.g. ethical, the beginnings of new experiences and learning).There are therefore clear benefits to including management mistakes and mea culpa inbusiness and management course curricula.

More specifically, the theoretical contribution of this paper rests in several areas.First, broadening the conceptual space of mistake making is important because ithelps to explain why mistakes happen, and why (and why not) managers admit


mea culpa

251


19/24

mea culpa I am to blame. Theoretical scrutiny of management mistakes underdifferent conditions of (counter-) accusations in management dialogue such asreproaching, blaming, complaining, criticizing, objecting, and insulting is generallylimited (Vaughan, 1999). Second, the study broadens the boundaries of and adds

nuances to theory because it details students accounts of management dialogue aroundcritical mistake-making instances or controversies, and the various ways in whichmanagement react and cope with these incidents. The student accounts therefore helpto extend the three streams of literature and simulate a range of research topics formistake studies. In doing so, it offers potential avenues for progressive theoretical andempirical possibilities, for example, in long-drawn-out retail planning controversies,male-dominated corporate retail board environments, retail management apologies andretail corporate rituals. Third, the study provides insights into the perceptions ofstudents and their (in)ability to recognise the conditions of mistake making as well asthe ways to cope with this business inevitability. That is, it adds to literature on retailmanagement pedagogy, not least because in practically considering future outcomes,it is argued, that this will make students more conscious of the possible effects of theirmistakes and more aware of the management cases to which to compare thoseoutcomes. Finally, this study provides insights into contestedness between socialgroups with different relationships to, and experiences of, management mistakes.Towards this end it widens the explanations of growth that point to the often bitter,rivalry between new and established retailing institutions (Brown, 1991, p. 135),specifically the dialectical (Gist, 1968) and the crisis-response (Stern and El-Ansary,1977) conflict-based theories. This research attempts to chart and extend thistheoretical route into understanding contestedness of retail change.

The management mistakes studied stimulate discussions on a range of questionsincluding: who and what is determining the (im)balance in business curricula? Why isthere a lack of research activity in this area? Quite why certain mistakes can have

destructive effects, yet simultaneously constructive effects in terms of innovation andrisk taking, is also worthy of closer examination. Few studies actually tackle questionsrelating to institutional pressures and cultures; why are certain retail firms moreaccepting of mistakes? How do corporate rituals in the retail firm shape mistakemaking? How do management cope with the consciousness of a wrong doing? Majorquestions also surround the processes involved in obfuscation, evasion and cover-ups advanced sneaky clean skills in practice, yet rarely seen or questioned in the (retail)management curriculum. How can research identify a phenomenon when it is treated asa management taboo? How can research techniques access the hidden transcript thatcharacterizes the discourse that takes place off stage beyond direct observation?A final way in opening up an agenda, the research findings highlight an awareness ofnarcissism in mistake making and the ways that retail management pedagogy might

dampen narcissism amongst me generation students. For example, via more frequentfeedback, assessment, grading, less group work, which is fuelling grade inflation andshaping inaccurate self-perceptions of knowledge and skills, or via more internationalexchanges, to encourage world views. In closing, this paper embraces the spirit of theoft said phrase that a stumble may prevent a fall, and calls on researchers to broadenthe explanatory scope of mistake-making research, to encourage more academics toaddress, and engage with, management mistakes creatively in their teaching, so thatstudents are given more insights into brilliant mistakes and treading more carefully.

IJRDM38,4

252


20/24

References

Acito, F., McDougall, P.M. and Smith, C.S. (2008), One hundred years of excellence in businesseducation: what have we learned?, Business Horizons, Vol. 51, pp. 5-12.

Alexander, N. and Quinn, B. (2002), International retail divestment, International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 112-25.

Alfasi, N. (2004), The meaning of words in urban conflicts: language, argumentation patternsand local politics in Israel, Urban Studies, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 2139-57.

Atwater, B.J., Kannan, V.R. and Stephens, A.A. (2008), Cultivating systemic thinking in the nextgeneration of business leaders, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7No. 1, pp. 9-25.

Bakhtin, M. (1965), Rabelais and His World, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bakhtin, M. (1981), The Dialogue Imagination, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Barry, D. and Elmes, M. (1997), Strategy retold: toward a narrative view of strategic discourse, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 429-52.

Baumard, P. and Starbuck, W.H. (2005), Learning from failures: why it may not happen, Long

Range Planning, Vol. 38, pp. 281-98.

Brown, S. (1987), Institutional change in retailing: a review and synthesis, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 5-36.

Brown, S. (1991), Variations on a marketing enigma: the wheel of retailing theory, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 135-55.

Brown, S. (2005), Reconsidering the classics: reader response to marketing myopia, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 473-87.

Brown, S. (2007), Fail Better! Stumbling to Success in Sales and Marketing, Cyan, London,pp. 1-200.

Brown, S. and Reid, R. (1997), Shoppers on the verge of a nervous breakdown: chronicle,composition and confabulation in consumer research, in Brown, S. and Turley, D. (Eds),

Consumer Research, Postcards from the Edge, Routledge, London, pp. 79-149.Burt, S.L., Dawson, J. and Sparks, L. (2003), Failure in international retailing: research

propositions, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research , Vol. 13,pp. 355-73.

Calkins, R. (1961), The problems of business education, The Journal of Business, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 1-9.

Cameron, K.S., Sutton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (1988), Issues in organizational decline,in Cameron, K.S., Sutton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (Eds), Readings in Organizational Decline:

Frameworks, Research, and Prescriptions, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

Cannon, M.D. and Edmondson, A.C. (2001), Confronting failure: antecedents and consequencesof shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 161-77.

Cannon, M.D. and Edmondson, A.C. (2005), Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently):how great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve, Long Range

Planning, Vol. 38, pp. 299-319.

Dawson, J. (2007), Scoping and conceptualizing retailer internationalization, Journal ofEconomic Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 373-98.

Fernie, S. (1996), The future for factory outlet centres in the UK: the impact of changesin planning policy guidance on the growth of a new retail format, International Journalof Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 11-21.


mea culpa

253


21/24

Finkelstein, S. and Sanford, S.H. (2000), Learning from corporate mistakes: the rise and fall ofIridium, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 138-48.

Foucault, M. (1980), The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Friga, P.N., Bettis, R.A. and Sullivan, R.S. (2003), Changes in graduate management education

and new business school strategies for the 21st century, Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 233-49.

Fritz, G. (2005), On answering accusations in controversies, Argumentation in DialogicInteraction, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 151-62.

Gibbs, G.R. (2002), Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo, Open University Press,Buckingham.

Gist, R.R. (1968), Retailing: Concepts and Decisions, Wiley, New York, NY.

Haarmeyer, D. (2008), Private equity: capitalisms misunderstood entrepreneurs and catalystsfor value creation, The Independent Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 245-89.

Hackley, C. (2003), We are all customers now. . . rhetorical strategy and ideological control inmarketing management texts, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1325-52.

Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (2006), The hidden traps in decision making,Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 118-26.

Hareli, S., Shomrat, N. and Biger, N. (2005), The role of emotions in employees explanations forfailure in the workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 663-80.

Hartley, R.F. (2005), Management Mistakes and Successes, 8th ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Hollander, S. (1960), The wheel of retailing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, pp. 37-42.

Huber, G. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,Organizational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.

Hughes, J.F., Humphrey, C. and Turley, S. (1998), Learning from mistakes? Using corporatescandals to enhance audit teaching, International Journal of Audit, Vol. 2, pp. 89-101.

Humphrey, J. (2007), The supermarket revolution in developing countries: tidal wave or toughcompetitive struggle, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 433-50.

Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002), Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility,Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 60-73.

Jackson, J., Mellahi, K. and Sparks, L. (2004), Shutting up shop: understanding the internationalexit process in retailing, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 355-71.

Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D.C. (2006), Actionable strategy knowledge: a practiceperspective, European Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 348-67.

Lee, F., Peterson, C. and Tiedens, L.Z. (2004), Mea culpa: predicting stock prices fromorganizational attributions, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30,pp. 1636-49.

Levinson, H. (1994), Why the behemoths fell psychological roots of corporate failure,American Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 428-36.

Livingston, J.S. (1972), Myth of the well-educated manager, Harvard Business Review, Summer,pp. 33-49.

Ma, H. and Karri, R. (2005), Leaders beware: some sure ways to lose your competitiveadvantage, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Maccoby, M. (2004), Narcissistic leaders: the incredible pros, the inevitable cons, HarvardBusiness Review, January-February, pp. 68-78.

IJRDM38,4

254


22/24

Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P. and Douglas, S.C. (2007), The role, function, and contribution ofattribution theory to leadership: a review, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 561-85.

Mellahi, K. (2005), The dynamics of boards of directors in failing organizations, Long RangePlanning, Vol. 38, pp. 261-79.

Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2004), Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and aproposed integrative framework, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 5/6No. 1, pp. 21-41.

Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2005), Organizational failure: introduction to the special issue,Long Range Planning, Vol. 38, pp. 233-8.

Mellahi, K., Jackson, P. and Sparks, L. (2002), An exploratory study into failure in successfulorganizations: the case of Marks and Spencer, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13,pp. 15-29.

Mintzberg, H. (2004), Leadership and management development: an afterword, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 140-2.

Mintzberg, H. and Gosling, J.R. (2002), Reality programming for MBAs, Strategy and Business,

Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 28-31.Navarro, P. (2008), The MBA core curricula of top-ranked USA business schools: a study in

failure?, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 108-23.

Palmer, M. (2004), International restructuring and divestment: the experience of Tesco, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1075-105.

Palmer, M. (2007), Selling up and getting out: understanding international retail divestmentactivities and approaches, European Retail Digest, No. 52, pp. 12-16.

Palmer, M. (2008), A review of international retailing by Nicholas Alexander and Ann-MarieDoherty, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 443-5.

Palmer, M. and Quinn, B. (2003), The strategic role of investment banks in the retailinternationalisation process: is this venture marketing?, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1391-404.

Palmer, M. and Quinn, B. (2005a), Stakeholder relationships in an international retailing context:an investment bank perspective, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10,pp. 1096-117.

Palmer, M. and Quinn, B. (2005b), An exploratory framework for analysing international retaillearning, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 15,pp. 27-55.

Palmer, M. and Quinn, B. (2007), The nature of international retail divestment: insights fromAhold, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 26-44.

Palmer, M., OKane, P. and Owens, M. (2009), Betwixt spaces: student accounts of turning pointsin the first year transition, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 37-54.

Palmer, M., Owens, M. and de Kervenoael, R. (2010), Paths of the least resistance: understanding

how motives form in international retail joint venturing, The Service Industries Journal,Vol. 30 No. 8 (forthcoming).

Perez-Arce, P. (1999), The influence of culture on cognition, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 581-92.

Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2002), The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye,Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 1, pp. 78-95.

Prince, C. (1999), Transforming the university business school for the 21st century, StrategicChange, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 459-71.


mea culpa

255


23/24

Reynolds, K.E., Ganesh, J. and Luckett, M. (2002), Traditional malls vs factory outlets:comparing shopper typologies and implications for retail strategy, Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 55, pp. 687-96.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A. and Tempest, S. (2004), Rethinking the business school, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1521-31.

Stern, L.W. and El-Ansary, A.I. (1977), Marketing Channels, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Stiles, D.R. (2004), Narcissus revisited: the values of management academics and their role inbusiness school strategies in the UK and Canada, British Journal of Management, Vol. 15,pp. 157-75.

Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures forDeveloping Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sull, D.N. (2005), Strategy as active waiting, Henley Manager Update, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 33-42.

Tee, N.P. and Liang, T.Y. (2005), Speaking the unspeakable: the paper dialogue approach, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 5,

pp. 190-203.Tien, C., Ho, Y. and Chiu, H. (2008), Does the involvement of private equity investments matter

to firm performance and internationalization?, Journal of American Academy of Business,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 102-10.

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. and Hui, C. (2004), Team learning from mistakes: the contribution ofcooperative goals and problem-solving, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 7,pp. 1223-45.

Vaughan, D. (1999), The dark side of organizations: mistake, misconduct and disaster, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25, pp. 271-305.

White, M. and Epston, D. (1990), Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, W.W. Norton, London.

Whyatt, G. (2008), Which factory outlet centre? The UK consumers selection criteria, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15, pp. 315-23.

Wrigley, N. and Currah, A. (2003), The stresses of retail internationalisation: lessons from RoyalAholds experience in Latin America, International Review of Retail, Distribution &Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 221-43.

Further reading

Turner, I. (2005), Corporate failure, Henley Manager Update, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 33-42.

About the authorsMark Palmer is a Senior Lecturer at Aston Business School, Aston University. His researchbuilds on a wide range of theory to explore the contested process of retail corporate strategizingand market development. This work draws upon the insights of consumers eschewing markets,

stores and products; market and corporate divestment, interventions from institutional investors;and the mobilizing practices of corporate activists. This work has been published in the Journalof Economic Geography, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management,

International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Environment & Planning A,and the Journal of Strategic Marketing. Mark Palmer is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Geoff Simmons is a Lecturer in E-Marketing within the Department of Marketing,Entrepreneurship and Strategy at the University of Ulster. Geoff lectures on a range ofundergraduate and postgraduate marketing programmes. His main research interests are in

IJRDM38,4

256


24/24

marketings relationship with other strategic orientations, internet branding and internetmarketing adoption by small businesses. He has published on these areas within journals such as:

International Small Business Journal, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of StrategicMarketing, and the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.

Ronan de Kervenoael is a Lecturer in Marketing at Sabanci University and network Lecturerat Aston University. He received his PhD from Sheffield University, UK. He has held researchpositions at Lancaster University, ITSM de Monterrey and Manchester University. Ronan has aparticular interest in consumer choice, anti-choice, and resistance. His wider research interests lieunder the umbrella of consumer behaviour and retailing.


mea culpa

257

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

brilliant mistake!

Documents