Qijun Zhou, Honglan Yu, Kweku Adams, Rexford Attah‐Boakye, Jeaneth Johansson
Adopting digital technologies in different organizations has become a trend over the last decade, yet our understanding regarding impact of digital technologies on strategising needs to be more cohersive. This paper reviews existing research on how digital transformation intersects with strategic management to adress this gap. Specifically, the aim is to explore how the digital context changes strategising. Based on a systematic review of empirical evidence from 163 journal papers, we showcased the manifestation of strategising in the digital age in terms of strategic practitioners, practices and praxis. By consolidating these findings, a typology of strategic actions in the digital age is developed and discussed, highlighting the interplay among changes in strategy‐as‐practice parameters. This framework clarifies in strategic scenarios of digital transformation and identifies various strategic directions and actions. Overall, we argue that although digital transformation has created additional strategic options, it has yet to change the underlying assumptions of strategising in firms.
{"title":"Uncovering the impact of digital technologies on strategising: Evidence from a systematic literature review","authors":"Qijun Zhou, Honglan Yu, Kweku Adams, Rexford Attah‐Boakye, Jeaneth Johansson","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12387","url":null,"abstract":"Adopting digital technologies in different organizations has become a trend over the last decade, yet our understanding regarding impact of digital technologies on strategising needs to be more cohersive. This paper reviews existing research on how digital transformation intersects with strategic management to adress this gap. Specifically, the aim is to explore how the digital context changes strategising. Based on a systematic review of empirical evidence from 163 journal papers, we showcased the manifestation of strategising in the digital age in terms of strategic practitioners, practices and praxis. By consolidating these findings, a typology of strategic actions in the digital age is developed and discussed, highlighting the interplay among changes in strategy‐as‐practice parameters. This framework clarifies in strategic scenarios of digital transformation and identifies various strategic directions and actions. Overall, we argue that although digital transformation has created additional strategic options, it has yet to change the underlying assumptions of strategising in firms.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142673237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Existing literature on meta‐organization is divided into two distinct streams in organizational and management studies, with different definitions and boundaries, potentially leading to inconsistencies and theoretical misalignment. Can we disambiguate the conceptualizations of meta‐organizations, and what insights can be gleaned from this clarification? Using a systematic review of the meta‐organization literature, we propose a novel classification, distinguishing between meta‐organizations as ‘meta‐level actors’, rooted in the organizational perspective, and meta‐organizations as ‘orchestrated systems’, grounded in the management perspective. While synthesizing current knowledge about meta‐organizations, we highlight the commonalities, divergences and specificities of both perspectives. We contribute to the literature on meta‐organizations by bringing greater clarity to the field, by disambiguating the uses of meta‐organization, by outlining a state of the art for both new categories and by providing a detailed research agenda. We also provide fundamental insights about two distinct ways of meta‐organizing, that is creating order among and beyond single organizations through collectively decided social orders and orchestrated social orders.
{"title":"One name for two concepts: A systematic literature review about meta‐organizations","authors":"Philippe Coulombel, Héloïse Berkowitz","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12385","url":null,"abstract":"Existing literature on meta‐organization is divided into two distinct streams in organizational and management studies, with different definitions and boundaries, potentially leading to inconsistencies and theoretical misalignment. Can we disambiguate the conceptualizations of meta‐organizations, and what insights can be gleaned from this clarification? Using a systematic review of the meta‐organization literature, we propose a novel classification, distinguishing between meta‐organizations as ‘meta‐level actors’, rooted in the organizational perspective, and meta‐organizations as ‘orchestrated systems’, grounded in the management perspective. While synthesizing current knowledge about meta‐organizations, we highlight the commonalities, divergences and specificities of both perspectives. We contribute to the literature on meta‐organizations by bringing greater clarity to the field, by disambiguating the uses of meta‐organization, by outlining a state of the art for both new categories and by providing a detailed research agenda. We also provide fundamental insights about two distinct ways of meta‐organizing, that is creating order among and beyond single organizations through <jats:italic>collectively decided</jats:italic> social orders and <jats:italic>orchestrated</jats:italic> social orders.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142643176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geographical location sets the broad scene for people's access to knowledge and resources that are critical for career progression. Acknowledging the importance of location and following calls for a contextualized approach to career studies, an increasing body of literature on career success has incorporated geographical considerations over the past decades. However, this literature remains fragmented across disciplines, and a comprehensive understanding of how location influences individual success is lacking. This gap limits researchers’ ability to explain, predict and interpret the role of geographical location in career success. This gap also impedes a clear understanding of multi‐level influences that shape career outcomes, as location is a critical aspect of the macro context. We conducted a systematic review of 99 empirical studies published from 1970 to 2024, using a multi‐disciplinary, multi‐method and multi‐faceted approach. We developed an integrative model that illuminates how factors embedded in geographical context affect multiple aspects of career success through imprinting, (de)mobilizing and contingency mechanisms. Our review advances knowledge of career success from proximal to distal contexts and offers a shifting perspective of city and national career actors. In addition, it extends several streams of theory and scholarship by revealing the cross‐level effects on individual outcomes. We propose a future research agenda and provide suggestions for general career actors, companies and policymakers.
{"title":"Career success and geographical location: A systematic review and future research agenda","authors":"Huainan Wang, Mina Beigi, Yehuda Baruch","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12386","url":null,"abstract":"Geographical location sets the broad scene for people's access to knowledge and resources that are critical for career progression. Acknowledging the importance of location and following calls for a contextualized approach to career studies, an increasing body of literature on career success has incorporated geographical considerations over the past decades. However, this literature remains fragmented across disciplines, and a comprehensive understanding of how location influences individual success is lacking. This gap limits researchers’ ability to explain, predict and interpret the role of geographical location in career success. This gap also impedes a clear understanding of multi‐level influences that shape career outcomes, as location is a critical aspect of the macro context. We conducted a systematic review of 99 empirical studies published from 1970 to 2024, using a multi‐disciplinary, multi‐method and multi‐faceted approach. We developed an integrative model that illuminates how factors embedded in geographical context affect multiple aspects of career success through imprinting, (de)mobilizing and contingency mechanisms. Our review advances knowledge of career success from proximal to distal contexts and offers a shifting perspective of city and national career actors. In addition, it extends several streams of theory and scholarship by revealing the cross‐level effects on individual outcomes. We propose a future research agenda and provide suggestions for general career actors, companies and policymakers.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142597131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Radu Atanasiu, Christopher Wickert, Svetlana N. Khapova
Managerial heuristics – simple methods for solving problems – are critical for key functions, such as deciding, strategizing, and organizing. Yet, research on managerial heuristics has been siloed into divergent streams, creating polarization among empirical findings and sparking numerous calls for integration. The goal of this review is to integrate different understandings of the construct, different processes examined by extant research, and divergent perspectives on heuristics’ performance into a coherent conceptual framework. We systematically reviewed 54 articles focusing on two complementary processes: the creation and the use of managerial heuristics. We discovered that research which describes the performance of heuristics as suboptimal focuses on the study of innate heuristics which are used reflexively; meanwhile, research which frames heuristics positively focuses on the study of learned heuristics which are used deliberately. We, thus, propose that the two perspectives on managerial heuristics are not contradictory but complementary. Based on this novel differentiation, we, first, aggregate the inputs and outcomes of creating and of using managerial heuristics into an integrative framework built around the manager's cognitive effort; second, we propose managerial heuristics as storage devices for managerial experience, time, cognitive effort and information about the environment; and third, we discuss implications for future research.
{"title":"Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives","authors":"Radu Atanasiu, Christopher Wickert, Svetlana N. Khapova","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12382","url":null,"abstract":"Managerial heuristics – simple methods for solving problems – are critical for key functions, such as deciding, strategizing, and organizing. Yet, research on managerial heuristics has been siloed into divergent streams, creating polarization among empirical findings and sparking numerous calls for integration. The goal of this review is to integrate different understandings of the construct, different processes examined by extant research, and divergent perspectives on heuristics’ performance into a coherent conceptual framework. We systematically reviewed 54 articles focusing on two complementary processes: the creation and the use of managerial heuristics. We discovered that research which describes the performance of heuristics as suboptimal focuses on the study of innate heuristics which are used reflexively; meanwhile, research which frames heuristics positively focuses on the study of learned heuristics which are used deliberately. We, thus, propose that the two perspectives on managerial heuristics are not contradictory but complementary. Based on this novel differentiation, we, first, aggregate the inputs and outcomes of creating and of using managerial heuristics into an integrative framework built around the manager's cognitive effort; second, we propose managerial heuristics as storage devices for managerial experience, time, cognitive effort and information about the environment; and third, we discuss implications for future research.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142405104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The level of scholarly and practitioner interest in negative leadership behaviour has been increasing, but research in this field remains fragmented, and we lack a common understanding of what constitutes negative leadership behaviour and its antecedents, consequences and contexts. To address these research gaps, we systematically review 352 papers and identify 25 different negative leadership behaviours with large overlaps in their conceptualization and operationalization. Our analysis of conceptualizations reveals common attributes that constitute the behavioural intensity and the behavioural valence of negative leadership behaviour. Behavioural intensity attributes constitute negative leadership behaviour as active, reoccurring and intentional behaviour that targets subordinates’ psychological states. Behavioural valence attributes constitute negative leadership behaviour as being unethical, lack of empathy, leader self‐worthiness and self‐orientation, verbal hostility, use of power asymmetry and harming and belittling of others. The vast majority of operationalizations for negative leadership behaviour reflect the perceptions of subordinates or colleagues, whereas only a few operationalizations reflect supervisors’ self‐assessments. Our findings further reveal that the antecedents of negative leadership behaviour focus mainly on supervisors, whereas the consequences of negative leadership behaviour focus mainly on subordinates. We develop a unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour and discuss our findings in the light of an impactful future research agenda that revolves around the unified conceptualization and empirical representation of negative leadership behaviour on the basis of behavioural attributes, the role of subordinates and dyad‐related factors leading to negative leadership behaviour and the integration of the negative and positive psychological and economic consequences of negative leadership behaviour.
{"title":"The good, the bad and the evil: A unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour","authors":"Robert Modliba, Theresa Treffers","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12384","url":null,"abstract":"The level of scholarly and practitioner interest in negative leadership behaviour has been increasing, but research in this field remains fragmented, and we lack a common understanding of what constitutes negative leadership behaviour and its antecedents, consequences and contexts. To address these research gaps, we systematically review 352 papers and identify 25 different negative leadership behaviours with large overlaps in their conceptualization and operationalization. Our analysis of conceptualizations reveals common attributes that constitute the behavioural intensity and the behavioural valence of negative leadership behaviour. Behavioural intensity attributes constitute negative leadership behaviour as active, reoccurring and intentional behaviour that targets subordinates’ psychological states. Behavioural valence attributes constitute negative leadership behaviour as being unethical, lack of empathy, leader self‐worthiness and self‐orientation, verbal hostility, use of power asymmetry and harming and belittling of others. The vast majority of operationalizations for negative leadership behaviour reflect the perceptions of subordinates or colleagues, whereas only a few operationalizations reflect supervisors’ self‐assessments. Our findings further reveal that the antecedents of negative leadership behaviour focus mainly on supervisors, whereas the consequences of negative leadership behaviour focus mainly on subordinates. We develop a unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour and discuss our findings in the light of an impactful future research agenda that revolves around the unified conceptualization and empirical representation of negative leadership behaviour on the basis of behavioural attributes, the role of subordinates and dyad‐related factors leading to negative leadership behaviour and the integration of the negative and positive psychological and economic consequences of negative leadership behaviour.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142397991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Should we still use the concept of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) in management research? In response to recent and significant challenges in the management literature regarding the relevance of PCSR as a concept, we conduct a review of the literature in the field. We combine a bibliometric analysis and a qualitative content analysis to assess the use of the concept of PCSR between 2005 and 2022. We contribute to the PCSR literature in four ways: First, we map the field of PCSR in order to develop an objective understanding of the concept. Second, we demonstrate that PCSR exhibits the features of a concept, and that current research has begun to address some of the significant challenges that question its relevance. Third, we identify the four pillars at the base of the concept and uncover a fifth pillar: the dynamic perspective of PCSR. Last, we propose research directions to strengthen the PCSR concept and enrich its contributions to theory and practice.
{"title":"Assessing the relevance of the concept of political corporate social responsibility in management research","authors":"Marie Di Nardo, Franck Brulhart, Marion Vieu","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12383","url":null,"abstract":"Should we still use the concept of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) in management research? In response to recent and significant challenges in the management literature regarding the relevance of PCSR as a concept, we conduct a review of the literature in the field. We combine a bibliometric analysis and a qualitative content analysis to assess the use of the concept of PCSR between 2005 and 2022. We contribute to the PCSR literature in four ways: First, we map the field of PCSR in order to develop an objective understanding of the concept. Second, we demonstrate that PCSR exhibits the features of a concept, and that current research has begun to address some of the significant challenges that question its relevance. Third, we identify the four pillars at the base of the concept and uncover a fifth pillar: the dynamic perspective of PCSR. Last, we propose research directions to strengthen the PCSR concept and enrich its contributions to theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142386286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Giacomo Marzi, Marco Balzano, Andrea Caputo, Massimiliano M. Pellegrini
The steady increase in academic production has been paralleled by a surge in the number of bibliometric and systematic literature reviews (SLRs) published. Over the years, scholars began to combine bibliometric analyses with SLRs. However, such combined approaches relied on fragmented methodological suggestions without clear guiding frameworks. This article introduces integrated guidelines for undertaking multi‐method literature reviews, combining bibliometric analyses with SLRs and theory development, which we call ‘Bibliometric‐Systematic Literature Review’ (B‐SLR). In doing so, we develop a 10‐step process on how to apply the B‐SLR. In each of the proposed steps, we discuss critical decisions and best practices to support researchers while crafting meaningful and theoretically relevant literature reviews. The B‐SLR is intended as a flexible toolbox designed to accommodate diverse research objectives in the miner–prospector continuum, spanning from reviewing, theorising, tracing future roadmaps or creating bridges among different topics. The B‐SLR incorporates the pillars of critical analysis, timeliness, coverage, rigour, coherence and originality of contribution, also emphasising the need for a novel and relevant theoretical contribution. The B‐SLR is supported by a companion website, providing additional resources to assist researchers in this 10‐step process: https://www.b‐slr.org.
{"title":"Guidelines for Bibliometric‐Systematic Literature Reviews: 10 steps to combine analysis, synthesis and theory development","authors":"Giacomo Marzi, Marco Balzano, Andrea Caputo, Massimiliano M. Pellegrini","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12381","url":null,"abstract":"The steady increase in academic production has been paralleled by a surge in the number of bibliometric and systematic literature reviews (SLRs) published. Over the years, scholars began to combine bibliometric analyses with SLRs. However, such combined approaches relied on fragmented methodological suggestions without clear guiding frameworks. This article introduces integrated guidelines for undertaking multi‐method literature reviews, combining bibliometric analyses with SLRs and theory development, which we call ‘Bibliometric‐Systematic Literature Review’ (B‐SLR). In doing so, we develop a 10‐step process on how to apply the B‐SLR. In each of the proposed steps, we discuss critical decisions and best practices to support researchers while crafting meaningful and theoretically relevant literature reviews. The B‐SLR is intended as a flexible toolbox designed to accommodate diverse research objectives in the miner–prospector continuum, spanning from reviewing, theorising, tracing future roadmaps or creating bridges among different topics. The B‐SLR incorporates the pillars of critical analysis, timeliness, coverage, rigour, coherence and originality of contribution, also emphasising the need for a novel and relevant theoretical contribution. The B‐SLR is supported by a companion website, providing additional resources to assist researchers in this 10‐step process: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"https://www.b-slr.org\">https://www.b‐slr.org</jats:ext-link>.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142386296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maximilian Palmié, Andreas Aebersold, Pejvak Oghazi, Natallia Pashkevich, Oliver Gassmann
The era of digitization coincides with a growing interest in social and environmental sustainability. Management scholars, therefore, turned their attention to the intersection of both trends, seeking a better understanding of how firms can manage digital sustainability. Business models are a central element in the strategic management of digital sustainability. Due to the diverse roots in the digitization literature, the sustainability literature and the business model literature, previous work on digital‐sustainable business models is highly fragmented. We, therefore, develop a strategic management framework and conduct an integrative literature review to synthesize fragmented insights, covering 134 studies published between 2007 and 2023 in leading academic journals. Examining the synthesized body of knowledge from the lens of affordances and our framework's inclusive strategic management perspective, we then identify promising avenues for further strategy research. Among others, future research should examine complementarities and conflicts between the three business model dimensions (value propositions, value creation and delivery processes, value capture mechanisms), between multiple options within each dimension, between different digital technologies, between various digital affordances, between digitalization and sustainability and between the outcomes of the triple‐bottom‐line. More efforts should also be directed towards the antecedents and boundary conditions of digital‐sustainable business models and towards questions of generalizability, especially towards generalizable theoretical mechanisms. Our framework, synthesis and research agenda support strategy scholars in advancing our understanding of business models for digital sustainability.
{"title":"Digital‐sustainable business models: Definition, systematic literature review, integrative framework and research agenda from a strategic management perspective","authors":"Maximilian Palmié, Andreas Aebersold, Pejvak Oghazi, Natallia Pashkevich, Oliver Gassmann","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12380","url":null,"abstract":"The era of digitization coincides with a growing interest in social and environmental sustainability. Management scholars, therefore, turned their attention to the intersection of both trends, seeking a better understanding of how firms can manage digital sustainability. Business models are a central element in the strategic management of digital sustainability. Due to the diverse roots in the digitization literature, the sustainability literature and the business model literature, previous work on digital‐sustainable business models is highly fragmented. We, therefore, develop a strategic management framework and conduct an integrative literature review to synthesize fragmented insights, covering 134 studies published between 2007 and 2023 in leading academic journals. Examining the synthesized body of knowledge from the lens of affordances and our framework's inclusive strategic management perspective, we then identify promising avenues for further strategy research. Among others, future research should examine complementarities and conflicts between the three business model dimensions (value propositions, value creation and delivery processes, value capture mechanisms), between multiple options within each dimension, between different digital technologies, between various digital affordances, between digitalization and sustainability and between the outcomes of the triple‐bottom‐line. More efforts should also be directed towards the antecedents and boundary conditions of digital‐sustainable business models and towards questions of generalizability, especially towards generalizable theoretical mechanisms. Our framework, synthesis and research agenda support strategy scholars in advancing our understanding of business models for digital sustainability.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142142431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas Ortner, Julia Hautz, Christian Stadler, Kurt Matzler
Digital technologies increasingly facilitate more transparent information exchange and the inclusion of new and more actors in organizational processes. This resulting ‘openness’ has been studied in multiple domains, including open strategy. Since increased transparency and inclusion are the main dimensions of open strategy, it seems reasonable to assume a theoretical linkage between digital transformation and openness in the strategy process. So far, however, we lack a nuanced understanding about their overlaps and the nature of their interrelationships. In this review, we therefore explore how digital transformation and open strategy interrelate and influence each other and what conditions support or constrain the identified relationships. To do so, we systematically review and synthesize research on open strategy considering the role of digital transformation. We make two contributions: First, we develop a framework mapping out the relationships between digital transformation and open strategy. Our framework shows how open strategy and digital transformation are situated in a dynamic circle of mutual influence. Second, we adopt a strategy‐as‐practice perspective and identify and discuss the roles of agency, power, temporality and materiality. These features can either further support or hamper the identified linkages. Finally, we identify trajectories for future research.
{"title":"Open strategy and digital transformation: A framework and future research agenda","authors":"Thomas Ortner, Julia Hautz, Christian Stadler, Kurt Matzler","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12379","url":null,"abstract":"Digital technologies increasingly facilitate more transparent information exchange and the inclusion of new and more actors in organizational processes. This resulting ‘openness’ has been studied in multiple domains, including open strategy. Since increased transparency and inclusion are the main dimensions of open strategy, it seems reasonable to assume a theoretical linkage between digital transformation and openness in the strategy process. So far, however, we lack a nuanced understanding about their overlaps and the nature of their interrelationships. In this review, we therefore explore how digital transformation and open strategy interrelate and influence each other and what conditions support or constrain the identified relationships. To do so, we systematically review and synthesize research on open strategy considering the role of digital transformation. We make two contributions: First, we develop a framework mapping out the relationships between digital transformation and open strategy. Our framework shows how open strategy and digital transformation are situated in a dynamic circle of mutual influence. Second, we adopt a strategy‐as‐practice perspective and identify and discuss the roles of agency, power, temporality and materiality. These features can either further support or hamper the identified linkages. Finally, we identify trajectories for future research.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142045558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amrita Manohar, Eleni Lioliou, Martha Prevezer, George Saridakis
Born global firms (BGs) in emerging markets differ in significant ways from those in developed countries and this study aims to comprehensively examine those differences. To do this, we conduct a systematic literature review that analyses 148 empirical research articles published during 2010–2023, highlighting how BGs from developed and emerging economies differ in terms of their firm and entrepreneurial characteristics, as well as their operating environments. We find that these differences shape the BG's disposition to distance, liabilities and risks, with BGs from emerging economies facing additional liabilities and demonstrating a greater tolerance for risk and distance compared with BGs from developed economies. This leads to particular outcomes with regard to the BG's strategic choice of host country and internationalization mode, as well as its performance. The paper concludes by suggesting pathways for future research.
{"title":"Explaining differences in internationalization between emerging and developed economy born global firms: A systematic literature review and the way forward","authors":"Amrita Manohar, Eleni Lioliou, Martha Prevezer, George Saridakis","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12378","url":null,"abstract":"Born global firms (BGs) in emerging markets differ in significant ways from those in developed countries and this study aims to comprehensively examine those differences. To do this, we conduct a systematic literature review that analyses 148 empirical research articles published during 2010–2023, highlighting how BGs from developed and emerging economies differ in terms of their firm and entrepreneurial characteristics, as well as their operating environments. We find that these differences shape the BG's disposition to distance, liabilities and risks, with BGs from emerging economies facing additional liabilities and demonstrating a greater tolerance for risk and distance compared with BGs from developed economies. This leads to particular outcomes with regard to the BG's strategic choice of host country and internationalization mode, as well as its performance. The paper concludes by suggesting pathways for future research.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142007464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：