{"title":"Issue Information - Notes for Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/joms.12956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12956","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"61 8","pages":"3843-3847"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.12956","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142641610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Issue Information - Notes for Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/joms.12954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12954","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"61 7","pages":"3396-3400"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.12954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142439049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas Roulet, April Wright, Stav Fainshmidt, Trish Reay
<p>Essays are currently flourishing as a genre in the field of management and organization studies. Decidedly distinct from empirical, theoretical, or agenda-setting work, essays take a variety of forms throughout the field, including expository essays offering explanation, polemical essays providing critique, theoretical essays introducing new theoretical lenses, and narrative essays grounded in storytelling of personal experiences and emotions (Vince and Hibbert, <span>2018</span>). Essays are an important platform where academics can recognize that our role is not only to predict or explain (Lindebaum and Wright, <span>2021</span>) but also to motivate change through our writing. In this way, essays can be a generative genre for inviting purposeful (and sometimes radical) action towards changing our field.</p><p>The Journal of Management Studies is a strong proponent of this view of essays as a generative genre. In 2016, the journal launched its new essay section, entitled ‘<i>JMS Says</i>’. In its eight years of existence, JMS Says has matured, and the essays we edit have taken on a more defined objective and format as we lean into the possibilities of essays as a generative genre. Our focus has sharpened on narrative essays, which provide the opportunity for scholars to set out a unique and personal view on our environment (for us, as management academics) and what it could ideally become. We note that several other outlets have also created their own essay sections in accord with their views of the essay genre and particular focus. As JMS Says advances, and based on our collective years as editors at JMS Says, here we set out our views on the role, format, and potential of essays as a generative genre for management and organization scholars.</p><p>Essays matter more than ever because they can help shed light on unspoken aspects of our work as academics, from the vulnerabilities we experience (Hibbert, <span>2024</span>) to the increasing risk of research extraction in marginalized communities (Bothello and Bonfim, <span>2023</span>). They can also flip the script by challenging the assumptions at the core of our profession, such as those we have around data sharing (Schwarz and Bouckenooghe, <span>2024</span>) or the roles of the deans in business school (Cassell, <span>2024</span>). In short, essays have the power to inspire us to be better at what we do.</p><p>Yet, we can only shape essays as a generative genre with a clear definition and expectation, which we have progressively refined for the Journal of Management Studies. We see that the strength of JMS Says is its distinctiveness in coexisting with more traditional genres such as empirical or theoretical work. As a generative genre, JMS Says essays need to (1) draw from personal experiences to carry emotional weight, (2) identify an original or overlooked issue among management scholars, and (3) offer a clear ‘call to action’ for our academic community. Building on this threefold man
论文目前在管理和组织研究领域蓬勃发展。与实证、理论或议程设置工作截然不同,论文在整个领域采取各种形式,包括提供解释的说明性论文、提供批评的辩论性论文、介绍新理论镜头的理论论文,以及以个人经历和情感故事为基础的叙事论文(Vince and Hibbert, 2018)。论文是一个重要的平台,学者可以认识到我们的角色不仅是预测或解释(Lindebaum和Wright, 2021),而且通过我们的写作来激励变革。通过这种方式,文章可以成为一种生成类型,邀请有目的的(有时是激进的)行动来改变我们的领域。《管理研究杂志》(Journal of Management Studies)强烈支持这种观点,认为论文是一种生成体裁。2016年,该杂志推出了名为“JMS说”的新文章部分。在过去的八年里,JMS说已经成熟了,我们编辑的文章也有了更明确的目标和格式,因为我们研究了散文作为一种生成体裁的可能性。我们把重点放在了叙事性论文上,这为学者们提供了一个机会,让他们对我们的环境(对我们这些管理学者来说)及其理想状态提出独特的个人观点。我们注意到,其他几个网点也创建了自己的文章部分,根据他们的观点的文章类型和特别的重点。随着JMS的发展,基于我们作为JMS编辑的共同岁月,我们在这里阐述了我们对论文作为管理和组织学者的生成体裁的角色、格式和潜力的看法。论文比以往任何时候都更重要,因为它们可以帮助我们揭示作为学者的工作中不言而喻的方面,从我们所经历的脆弱性(希伯特,2024年)到边缘化社区研究提取的风险日益增加(Bothello和bonfilm, 2023年)。它们还可以通过挑战我们专业的核心假设来扭转局面,比如我们对数据共享的假设(施瓦茨和布肯努格,2024年),或者商学院院长的角色(卡塞尔,2024年)。简而言之,文章有能力激励我们做得更好。然而,我们只能将论文塑造成一种具有明确定义和期望的生成类型,我们已经为《管理研究杂志》逐步完善了这一定义和期望。我们看到,《JMS说》的优势在于它与更传统的体裁(如经验主义或理论著作)共存的独特性。JMS表示,作为一种生成体裁,论文需要(1)从个人经历中汲取情感分量,(2)在管理学者中找出一个原始的或被忽视的问题,(3)为我们的学术界提供一个明确的“行动呼吁”。基于这一三重使命,我们的团队编辑了一系列文章,希望这些文章能让我们作为管理学学者进行不同的思考和行动。管理学术通常被视为旨在“建立理论并为管理实践做出贡献”(George, 2014,第1页)。然而,我们如何具体做到这一点还有待想象,这两个目标可能很遥远。为管理实践做出贡献是影响力的典范(MacIntosh et al., 2021),而撰写新颖的理论是打开顶级期刊大门的原因(Cornelissen and Durand, 2014)。但在旨在为理论和实践做出贡献的科学写作之外,还有一个世界。在我们的领域,围绕论文的许多争论都是为了确定它们如何构成“合法的管理知识”,并帮助我们“克服经验主义的教条”(Suddaby, 2018,第441-442页)。如今,论文的有用性受到的质疑较少,它已被接受为一种“学术形式”(Delbridge等人,2016年,第239页)。论文是对管理学者的一种邀请,让他们用不同的代码和方法为不同的流派写作,但具有不同的影响潜力。在将论文视为一种生成类型时,我们将论文视为我们领域的一种制度性创业形式(Battilana et al., 2009):它们的内容以一种对我们的职业及其与社会的关系具有生成性的方式挑战我们的假设和价值观。我们对管理学术影响的痴迷(Bothello and Roulet, 2019)忽视了实现这一目标的非常平凡的方法:简单地研究我们自己和我们作为管理学者的实践。论文通过让我们和我们的同事重新思考我们作为管理学者认为理所当然的东西,可以改变我们是谁、我们做什么,以及最终我们如何影响实践世界和更广泛的社会的本质。我们倾向于将自己(管理学者)视为一个认知共同体,而不是试图实现集体目标的专业人士。我们需要彼此交谈,讨论我们的经历,以及我们如何工作,如何为我们的领域和社会做出贡献。 在我们目前经历的快节奏世界中,这一点尤为重要:论文可以帮助我们参与对话,探讨作为一名管理学者意味着什么。它给了我们一个放慢脚步的机会(Marinetto, 2018),重新考虑我们的实践和身份。自2016年第一篇论文发表在《管理研究杂志》(Journal of Management Studies)上以来,其他媒体也开始接受和印刷论文。期刊论文部分的蓬勃发展证明了它们给我们的领域带来的活力。然而,与我们领域的其他类型的论文相比,论文数量的增加可能模糊了论文的界限。随着JMS的发展,我们逐渐对我们发表的文章类型采用了更明确的定义。我们过去发表的一些文章,尽管质量很高,但不适合今天的JMS说。例如,以前的一些论文为未来的研究设定了议程,充实了一个特定的理论结构,或者发展了方法论命题;尽管这些都是重要的话题,但这些文章的重点并不是鼓励我们作为管理学者采取不同的行动。此外,一些旧的JMS文章并没有像我们现在所要求的那样,以个人叙述为基础。目前的编辑团队认为,JMS Says文章的一个关键优势是将个人情感作为行动的燃料,因此使JMS Says与其他期刊的文章部分有重要的不同。下面,我们将解释该期刊这部分文章的主要特征。我们相信,我们编辑的论文将继续对我们的领域产生重大影响,这符合我们的总体目标。综上所述,这四个核心要素(表1)支撑着JMS说的论文部分,作为一个个人反思和批评学者的生活经历的出口,学术生活的许多不同方面可能会给我们带来麻烦、困惑、恐惧、沮丧和/或激励我们想要做不同的事情。旨在通过研究推进经验知识,或通过基于现有文献的论点来推进概念知识的投稿,不适合JMS Says部分,更适合作为传统的完整论文撰写并提交给该期刊。类似地,关于需要新的研究计划或方法的呼吁行动的提交也不适合JMS所说的部分。希望提出更广泛的政治或方法论观点的潜在作者可以考虑JMS的观点/对位部分。在本节中,我们将重点关注一篇优秀的JMS论文的关键特征。我们寻找的手稿表明,学者如何有一个原创的和批判性的采取自己的个人经验,学术生活的某些特定方面。此外,他们还将这些见解与具体的行动呼吁结合起来,要求采取不同的行动,以及由谁采取不同的行动。在我们担任《JMS说》编辑的这些年里,我们一直在强化上面强调的四个核心要素,作为从提案到出版的旅程的一部分。我们相信,坚持这些元素有助于作者完善他们的行动呼吁,提出新颖的主张,并解释他们的呼吁是如何根植于他们的个人经历的。就流程而言,每个初始的300字提案由两名JMS said编辑(在给定的任期内执行此角色)和一名JMS总编辑或副编辑考虑。编辑们共同决定是否为作者提供一个机会来写一个修改后的建议或完整文章的第一版,或者如果它不符合上述标准,则拒绝提交。如果有机会发展一篇完整的文章,仍然有可能被拒绝。然而,大多数邀请提交一篇完整的文章都导致了发表。作为这个过程的一部分,编辑和作者会反复进行一系列的修改,以强化信息和号召行动,同时强调对文章至关重要的内省和个人叙述。该杂志的目标是“发表原创、创新和高质量的论文,
{"title":"Essays in Management and Organization Studies: Past, Present, and Future of a Generative Genre","authors":"Thomas Roulet, April Wright, Stav Fainshmidt, Trish Reay","doi":"10.1111/joms.13149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13149","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Essays are currently flourishing as a genre in the field of management and organization studies. Decidedly distinct from empirical, theoretical, or agenda-setting work, essays take a variety of forms throughout the field, including expository essays offering explanation, polemical essays providing critique, theoretical essays introducing new theoretical lenses, and narrative essays grounded in storytelling of personal experiences and emotions (Vince and Hibbert, <span>2018</span>). Essays are an important platform where academics can recognize that our role is not only to predict or explain (Lindebaum and Wright, <span>2021</span>) but also to motivate change through our writing. In this way, essays can be a generative genre for inviting purposeful (and sometimes radical) action towards changing our field.</p><p>The Journal of Management Studies is a strong proponent of this view of essays as a generative genre. In 2016, the journal launched its new essay section, entitled ‘<i>JMS Says</i>’. In its eight years of existence, JMS Says has matured, and the essays we edit have taken on a more defined objective and format as we lean into the possibilities of essays as a generative genre. Our focus has sharpened on narrative essays, which provide the opportunity for scholars to set out a unique and personal view on our environment (for us, as management academics) and what it could ideally become. We note that several other outlets have also created their own essay sections in accord with their views of the essay genre and particular focus. As JMS Says advances, and based on our collective years as editors at JMS Says, here we set out our views on the role, format, and potential of essays as a generative genre for management and organization scholars.</p><p>Essays matter more than ever because they can help shed light on unspoken aspects of our work as academics, from the vulnerabilities we experience (Hibbert, <span>2024</span>) to the increasing risk of research extraction in marginalized communities (Bothello and Bonfim, <span>2023</span>). They can also flip the script by challenging the assumptions at the core of our profession, such as those we have around data sharing (Schwarz and Bouckenooghe, <span>2024</span>) or the roles of the deans in business school (Cassell, <span>2024</span>). In short, essays have the power to inspire us to be better at what we do.</p><p>Yet, we can only shape essays as a generative genre with a clear definition and expectation, which we have progressively refined for the Journal of Management Studies. We see that the strength of JMS Says is its distinctiveness in coexisting with more traditional genres such as empirical or theoretical work. As a generative genre, JMS Says essays need to (1) draw from personal experiences to carry emotional weight, (2) identify an original or overlooked issue among management scholars, and (3) offer a clear ‘call to action’ for our academic community. Building on this threefold man","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"62 1","pages":"518-525"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13149","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jay Joseph, François Maon, Maria Teresa Uribe‐Jaramillo, John E. Katsos, Adam Lindgreen
There is growing recognition that business activity can promote peacebuilding, yet contradictory claims have emerged about company roles in peace and conflict. The research field of business and peace has focused on this issue, as have scholars in related fields like political science, economics, law, and ethics. This has led to definitional variations, alongside unit and level of analysis differences, which generate contradictory claims that hamper future research on this critical topic. To reconcile extant research around companies and their place in peacebuilding scholarship, we undertake an organizational‐level examination of the field, cataloguing the research by scholars across disciplines through a systematic review of 215 publications. Our review maps the known ways by which businesses can engage in peacebuilding, while demonstrating how organizations exercise their agency to create heterogenous effects on peace and conflict. Our analysis highlights the need for businesses to advance peace‐positive ends across a range of activities to reduce the conflict‐causing effects of business. By showing that businesses, intentionally or not, create peace or conflict through their activities, this article issues a call to action for scholars and decision‐makers to advance knowledge concerning peacebuilding organizations.
{"title":"Business, Conflict, and Peace: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework","authors":"Jay Joseph, François Maon, Maria Teresa Uribe‐Jaramillo, John E. Katsos, Adam Lindgreen","doi":"10.1111/joms.13139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13139","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing recognition that business activity can promote peacebuilding, yet contradictory claims have emerged about company roles in peace and conflict. The research field of business and peace has focused on this issue, as have scholars in related fields like political science, economics, law, and ethics. This has led to definitional variations, alongside unit and level of analysis differences, which generate contradictory claims that hamper future research on this critical topic. To reconcile extant research around companies and their place in peacebuilding scholarship, we undertake an organizational‐level examination of the field, cataloguing the research by scholars across disciplines through a systematic review of 215 publications. Our review maps the known ways by which businesses can engage in peacebuilding, while demonstrating how organizations exercise their agency to create heterogenous effects on peace and conflict. Our analysis highlights the need for businesses to advance peace‐positive ends across a range of activities to reduce the conflict‐causing effects of business. By showing that businesses, intentionally or not, create peace or conflict through their activities, this article issues a call to action for scholars and decision‐makers to advance knowledge concerning peacebuilding organizations.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142255052","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}
Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a global phenomenon aimed at tackling societal grand challenges through market‐based activities. A holistic understanding of social enterprise outcomes is crucial for reflecting their effectiveness in meeting social objectives and informing internal organizational processes. This study explores the outcomes of social enterprises through a comparative qualitative analysis of 49 social ventures in Austria, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, spanning diverse sectors. Three key outcome dimensions are identified: individual transformation, capital provision, and societal influence. Our analysis results in a typology of seven distinct types of social enterprises, each integrating these dimensions to varying degrees. Utilizing this typology, we reveal how social enterprises navigate barriers to solving complex social and environmental problems, illustrating the dynamic interplay between outcome dimensions and the importance of multi‐objective organizing – beyond hybrid organizing – in addressing complex societal issues.
{"title":"Outcome‐Based Typology of Social Enterprises: Interlacing Individual Transformation, Capital Provision, and Societal Influence","authors":"Georgios Polychronopoulos, Martin Lukeš, Giuliano Sansone, Anirudh Agrawal, Florian Ulrich‐Diener, Veronika Šlapáková Losová","doi":"10.1111/joms.13138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13138","url":null,"abstract":"Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a global phenomenon aimed at tackling societal grand challenges through market‐based activities. A holistic understanding of social enterprise outcomes is crucial for reflecting their effectiveness in meeting social objectives and informing internal organizational processes. This study explores the outcomes of social enterprises through a comparative qualitative analysis of 49 social ventures in Austria, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, spanning diverse sectors. Three key outcome dimensions are identified: individual transformation, capital provision, and societal influence. Our analysis results in a typology of seven distinct types of social enterprises, each integrating these dimensions to varying degrees. Utilizing this typology, we reveal how social enterprises navigate barriers to solving complex social and environmental problems, illustrating the dynamic interplay between outcome dimensions and the importance of multi‐objective organizing – beyond hybrid organizing – in addressing complex societal issues.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142255053","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 Lübcke, Norbert Steigenberger, Hendrik Wilhelm, Indre Maurer
In extreme contexts, actors must often engage in collective sensemaking to enable coordinated action. While prior research has established that cognitive disparities and emotive distractions disrupt collective sensemaking, we lack theory on how actors overcome these common challenges in extreme contexts. To address this shortcoming, we conducted a process study, collecting unique multi‐perspective video and archival data during a maritime search and rescue mission in the Aegean Sea where actors (i.e., rescue crew members and refugees) faced cognitive disparities (e.g., different levels of maritime expertise) and distracting emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, and tension) yet needed to coordinate their actions to ensure a safe evacuation. We draw on this data to develop a collective sensemaking model that details the auxiliary process steps and multimodal communication – verbal, para‐verbal, and non‐verbal cues – actors use to alternately frame emotional states and convey task‐related information. Our model demonstrates how actors, through multimodal collective sensemaking, overcome the challenges posed by cognitive disparities and distracting emotions in extreme contexts. It thus adds a dynamic emotive and bodily perspective to the predominantly cognitive and verbal understanding in sensemaking theory, and also has implications for practitioners working in extreme contexts.
{"title":"Multimodal Collective Sensemaking in Extreme Contexts: Evidence from Maritime Search and Rescue","authors":"Thomas Lübcke, Norbert Steigenberger, Hendrik Wilhelm, Indre Maurer","doi":"10.1111/joms.13133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13133","url":null,"abstract":"In extreme contexts, actors must often engage in collective sensemaking to enable coordinated action. While prior research has established that cognitive disparities and emotive distractions disrupt collective sensemaking, we lack theory on how actors overcome these common challenges in extreme contexts. To address this shortcoming, we conducted a process study, collecting unique multi‐perspective video and archival data during a maritime search and rescue mission in the Aegean Sea where actors (i.e., rescue crew members and refugees) faced cognitive disparities (e.g., different levels of maritime expertise) and distracting emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, and tension) yet needed to coordinate their actions to ensure a safe evacuation. We draw on this data to develop a collective sensemaking model that details the auxiliary process steps and multimodal communication – verbal, para‐verbal, and non‐verbal cues – actors use to alternately frame emotional states and convey task‐related information. Our model demonstrates how actors, through multimodal collective sensemaking, overcome the challenges posed by cognitive disparities and distracting emotions in extreme contexts. It thus adds a dynamic emotive and bodily perspective to the predominantly cognitive and verbal understanding in sensemaking theory, and also has implications for practitioners working in extreme contexts.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142219996","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}
Charity organizations are important to solving complex social and environmental issues that are beyond the reach of government and commercial organizations. However, these organizations are under increasing pressure for survival due to a sharp decrease in their traditional sources of funding. This study examines how leaders of charity organizations can improve the financial security and impact of their organization by adopting commercial structures into their organization, and therefore undergoing a process of hybridization. We conducted a multiple comparative case study of 18 UK charities comparing how they engaged with emerging social finance funding opportunities that required them to adopt commercial structures which lay outside their dominant logic of action. We identified several aspects that influenced the likelihood of a charity organization to engage with this opportunity and, therefore, strategically hybridize. These included whether a charity executive had sufficient socialization in both the social and commercial logics to view social finance as a strategic opportunity and whether the organization could alter the role expectations of trustees with a commercial background to enable them to actively use both logics rather than compartmentalizing them in their decision‐making. Our findings have important implications for research streams on hybridization and hybrid governance.
{"title":"Getting Down to Business: Governing the Hybridization of UK Charities","authors":"Kevin Curran, Pinar Ozcan","doi":"10.1111/joms.13136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13136","url":null,"abstract":"Charity organizations are important to solving complex social and environmental issues that are beyond the reach of government and commercial organizations. However, these organizations are under increasing pressure for survival due to a sharp decrease in their traditional sources of funding. This study examines how leaders of charity organizations can improve the financial security and impact of their organization by adopting commercial structures into their organization, and therefore undergoing a process of hybridization. We conducted a multiple comparative case study of 18 UK charities comparing how they engaged with emerging social finance funding opportunities that required them to adopt commercial structures which lay outside their dominant logic of action. We identified several aspects that influenced the likelihood of a charity organization to engage with this opportunity and, therefore, strategically hybridize. These included whether a charity executive had sufficient socialization in both the social and commercial logics to view social finance as a strategic opportunity and whether the organization could alter the role expectations of trustees with a commercial background to enable them to actively use both logics rather than compartmentalizing them in their decision‐making. Our findings have important implications for research streams on hybridization and hybrid governance.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142220006","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}
Memory work involves mnemonic practices such as remembering, forgetting, and enactment of the past to address past wrongdoing, foster future action, and contribute to a sense of belonging. Working with diversity and plurality of memories, however, necessitates confronting the underlying politico‐ethical considerations and struggles when memory work transcends organizational bounds. This study focuses on the viewpoints of memory workers in communities in order to theorize the various possibilities and limitations of memory work as such. In this work, the politico‐ethical tensions are evident between the requirements of practicing an occupation and those of the communities, who in turn exhibit hierarchies, conflicts, and diversity within and between themselves. I suggest that taking a community‐centric approach to memory work can serve the dynamic integrity of memories, and foster community engagement and empowerment. Memory workers, then, can account for the politico‐ethical struggles over memories by orchestrating interpretive, open, and embodied mnemonic practices to remain in tune with the diverse, disputed, polyvocal, and ever‐unfolding memories. The contributions of this paper carry implications for a more pluralistic and dynamic approach to memory work, suited to our times marked by increased historical consciousness, rival memories, and fierce debates over what and how must be remembered.
{"title":"‘From the Ivory Tower’? Memory Workers and Mnemonic Practices in Communities","authors":"Yasaman Sadeghi","doi":"10.1111/joms.13135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13135","url":null,"abstract":"Memory work involves mnemonic practices such as remembering, forgetting, and enactment of the past to address past wrongdoing, foster future action, and contribute to a sense of belonging. Working with diversity and plurality of memories, however, necessitates confronting the underlying politico‐ethical considerations and struggles when memory work transcends organizational bounds. This study focuses on the viewpoints of memory workers in communities in order to theorize the various possibilities and limitations of memory work as such. In this work, the politico‐ethical tensions are evident between the requirements of practicing an occupation and those of the communities, who in turn exhibit hierarchies, conflicts, and diversity within and between themselves. I suggest that taking a community‐centric approach to memory work can serve the dynamic integrity of memories, and foster community engagement and empowerment. Memory workers, then, can account for the politico‐ethical struggles over memories by orchestrating interpretive, open, and embodied mnemonic practices to remain in tune with the diverse, disputed, polyvocal, and ever‐unfolding memories. The contributions of this paper carry implications for a more pluralistic and dynamic approach to memory work, suited to our times marked by increased historical consciousness, rival memories, and fierce debates over what and how must be remembered.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142220008","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}
This study explores the often‐overlooked political dimension of social enterprises, particularly their advocacy activities aimed at influencing public policy, legislation, norms, attitudes, and behaviour. While traditional management research has focused on commercial activity and the beneficiary‐oriented aspects of social enterprises, this paper considers their upstream political activity. Using a phenomenon‐based approach, we analyse original survey data from 718 social enterprises across seven countries and six problem domains to identify factors associated with their engagement in advocacy. Our findings reveal that public spending and competition in social enterprises’ problem domains, as well as their governance choices – legal form, sources of income, and collaborations – are significantly associated with advocacy activities. We propose a new theoretical framework to understand these dynamics, positioning social enterprises as key players in markets for public purpose. This research underscores the importance of recognizing the political activities of social enterprises and offers new insights for studying hybrid organizing and organizations that address complex societal challenges. By highlighting the integral role of advocacy, our study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how social enterprises drive social change, not only through direct service provision but also by shaping the broader sociopolitical environment.
{"title":"The Political Side of Social Enterprises: A Phenomenon‐Based Study of Sociocultural and Policy Advocacy","authors":"Johanna Mair, Nikolas Rathert","doi":"10.1111/joms.13134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13134","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores the often‐overlooked political dimension of social enterprises, particularly their advocacy activities aimed at influencing public policy, legislation, norms, attitudes, and behaviour. While traditional management research has focused on commercial activity and the beneficiary‐oriented aspects of social enterprises, this paper considers their upstream political activity. Using a phenomenon‐based approach, we analyse original survey data from 718 social enterprises across seven countries and six problem domains to identify factors associated with their engagement in advocacy. Our findings reveal that public spending and competition in social enterprises’ problem domains, as well as their governance choices – legal form, sources of income, and collaborations – are significantly associated with advocacy activities. We propose a new theoretical framework to understand these dynamics, positioning social enterprises as key players in markets for public purpose. This research underscores the importance of recognizing the political activities of social enterprises and offers new insights for studying hybrid organizing and organizations that address complex societal challenges. By highlighting the integral role of advocacy, our study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how social enterprises drive social change, not only through direct service provision but also by shaping the broader sociopolitical environment.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142220007","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}
B. Parker Ellen, Jennifer C. Sexton, Marla Baskerville Watkins
Despite significant knowledge on the demographic composition of workgroups, the literature lacks group‐level theory that addresses the tendency of work groups with token levels of diversity to maintain their demographic imbalance over time. We explain this phenomenon by extending moral licensing theory to the group level, arguing that a token level of racial or gender diversity leads to the development of a collective moral credential. This credential provides psychological permission for groups to relax their moral strivings, such that they are less likely to question the influence of bias in group member selection decisions, and thus more likely to make subsequent homogenous group member additions. Additionally, we argue that the diversity climates within which groups are embedded can either magnify (i.e., in fairness‐focused diversity climates) or mitigate (i.e., in synergy‐focused diversity climates) the development of a collective moral credential. Further, we suggest that the effect of token levels of diversity on the development of a collective moral credential can be affected by the prevailing social norms for diversity. Finally, we theorize that the effects of this process can be accentuated by group use of a majority decision rule and attenuated by group use of a unanimous decision rule.
{"title":"Why a Little Diversity doesn't Go a Long Way: A Collective Moral Licensing Explanation for Homosocial Reproduction","authors":"B. Parker Ellen, Jennifer C. Sexton, Marla Baskerville Watkins","doi":"10.1111/joms.13132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13132","url":null,"abstract":"Despite significant knowledge on the demographic composition of workgroups, the literature lacks group‐level theory that addresses the tendency of work groups with token levels of diversity to maintain their demographic imbalance over time. We explain this phenomenon by extending moral licensing theory to the group level, arguing that a token level of racial or gender diversity leads to the development of a collective moral credential. This credential provides psychological permission for groups to relax their moral strivings, such that they are less likely to question the influence of bias in group member selection decisions, and thus more likely to make subsequent homogenous group member additions. Additionally, we argue that the diversity climates within which groups are embedded can either magnify (i.e., in fairness‐focused diversity climates) or mitigate (i.e., in synergy‐focused diversity climates) the development of a collective moral credential. Further, we suggest that the effect of token levels of diversity on the development of a collective moral credential can be affected by the prevailing social norms for diversity. Finally, we theorize that the effects of this process can be accentuated by group use of a majority decision rule and attenuated by group use of a unanimous decision rule.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141969846","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}