ESCP Europe > Faculty & Research > Faculty Search Engine > Professor


Compartir
| Más
FENDT
Jacqueline FENDT
Ph.D. in Organization Science
Professor
Strategy, Organizational Behavior, and Human Resources
Scientific Director of the ESCP Europe Chair of Entrepreneurship, Scientific co-Director of the Joint-Chair of entrepreneurship
Campus : Paris
Tel : +33 1 49 23 58 26

Current research

Complexity Management, constructionism and the CEO
Professor Fendt’s research is eclectic and transversal. It is mainly concerned with the management of complexity and multiple realities from the leaders‘ perspective both in corporate environments and in entrepreneurship. This discussion is nourished from such diverse fields of management theory as leadership, change management, complexity theory, stakeholder theory, culture management, human resources, knowledge and learning, business ethics and politics, power and the executive psyche. It takes a variety of angles looking at global strategy, mergers & acquisitions, business development, leadership, change management and, last but not least, CEOs. The latter are also the subject of her latest book: ‘The CEO in Post-Merger Situations: An Emerging Theory on the Management of Multiple Realities’, Eburon Publishers, Delft, 2005 (www.jaygroup.ch).

Relevance and Rigor in Management and Entrepreneurship Education
Professor Fendt (in collaboration with Prof. W. Sachs from ESC Rennes and Prof. Kaminska-Labbe from Ceram Sophia Antipolis) also studies the sometimes dysfunctional relationship between management education, management research and the practice of management. She collects and discusses views on intellectual and sociological roots of extant malaises, advocating an epistemological stance rooted in Pragmatism.

Qualitative Research Methods in Management Research
Still with Prof. W. Sachs, she studies the determination of quality in qualitative research, especially in studies using Grounded Theory Method. By means of a practical example on the one side and current critical GTM literature on the other, she examines seven major inconsistencies with GMT, namely: the concept of quality, the neutral role of the researcher and blank slate approach, a cost/benefit view, the notions of ground, emergence and discovery, validation and generalization, the pretense of theory, and the pretense of grand theory. The researchers posit that the very arguments for the use of GTM, namely its potential for reflection, interpretation and narrative can be undermined by a too canonical application of its rigorous objectivization procedures and propose new approaches.