Journal of Management Studies最新文献

The use of coworking spaces – flexible, shared workplaces for mobile knowledge workers – has gained popularity among entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and freelancers over the last decade. Coworking spaces shape a social setting for a community, within which mobile knowledge workers can network, collaborate, and share ideas. This study adopts a social-symbolic work perspective to explore how founders and community managers create and curate the communities in their coworking spaces. Based on qualitative data gathered from 16 coworking spaces, we elaborate on how founders and community managers can integrate boundary work and social identity work in their social-symbolic work practices to create a sense of community.

Scholars have explored how hybrid organizations balance conflicting values internally, but less attention has been given to how they address critiques from external stakeholders who regard the combination of social and economic goals as illegitimate. Drawing from a study of influential stakeholders challenging the dual practices of a hybrid organization fighting child malnutrition, we examine how a hybrid organization can address what we call the ‘liability of hybridity’. We show how a hybrid organization can overcome this liability by combining ‘wedging’ and ‘alignment’ strategies through strategic framing, prompting influential stakeholders to revise their negative legitimacy assessments. Our study contributes to research on hybrid organizations and their capacity to address societal grand challenges, expands research on framing strategies by focusing on framing microprocesses (in particular, the ‘modularity’ of framing), and advances our understanding of how legitimacy assessments are made and revised.

We examine the effects of CEO succession coupled with a change in political ideology – when a conservative CEO is replaced by a liberal CEO or vice versa. We argue that in such CEO transitions, the new CEOs must alter their predecessors’ ideological imprints to imbue strategic leadership with their own values, which increases their executive job demands in the critical early years of their tenure and raises the likelihood of their early departure. We also suggest that this relationship is moderated by two strategic leadership interface (SLI) factors that influence the executive job demands these new CEOs face: (a) the retention of the ideologically incongruent predecessor as board chair, and (b) the ideological fit between the new CEO and the incumbent executive team. We first test our framework using data from 2286 CEO successions in S&P 1500 firms. We then conduct an experimental study to ensure causality and confirm executive job demands as a mediating mechanism underlying the relationship. Overall, our study advances the disruption theory of succession by shedding light on the deeply held mechanisms that lead to early failure in CEO transitions.

Amidst the rapidly evolving work environment that increasingly necessitates personalized approaches towards employees, there is a pressing need to broaden our understanding of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) and their third-party implications in the workplace. Although immediate responses to i-deals often hinge on equity and social comparison, this approach does not fully explain co-workers’ perceptions of others’ i-deals. By reconciling various theoretical accounts, we propose that co-workers’ perceptions of i-deals largely depend on the implementation of i-deals and related justice perceptions of co-workers. However, our understanding of how i-deal implementation shapes co-workers’ perceptions of i-deals from a justice perspective remains limited. Therefore, we conducted an inductive multiple-case study through 48 in-depth interviews involving managers, i-deal receivers (i-dealers), and co-workers. Building on our findings, we develop an emergent framework that explains how the implementation of i-deals, when viewed through the lens of organizational justice, can shape co-workers’ perceptions of i-deals. This novel perspective enriches the i-deal literature by offering a fresh angle on the third-party implications of i-deals, emphasizing the significance of their implementation and related fairness perceptions.

Although prior research on the dark side of corporate political activity (CPA) has examined the negative impact of CPA on firms from the perspective of the macro cost of CPA (i.e., organizational loss) and the self-interested motives of executives (i.e., personal gain), it has largely overlooked the negative repercussions of CPA for individuals intimately engaged in that process (i.e., personal loss). Drawing on the conservation of resources (COR) theory and focusing on Chief Executives Officers (CEOs) who engage in political networking (PN), we investigate how PN affects CEO burnout. We conceptualize PN as a form of relational exchanges between firms and political entities, positing that PN entails substantial resource depletion for those deeply involved, primarily due to significant ethical and moral challenges (i.e., identity threat). As PN intensifies, CEOs are compelled to allocate more time, effort and energy to navigate these escalating challenges, consequently exacerbating CEO burnout. Through the analysis of a 2-year matched survey of CEOs and comprehensive archive data, we find robust support for our hypothesis. Furthermore, our findings suggest that CEO altruism and institutional knowledge weaken the relationship between PN and CEO burnout, indicating that individual intentions to benefit the collective and the ability to navigate such networking practices alter CEOs’ perceived identity challenges. Our study contributes an individual-level resource-depletion perspective of CPA and cautions against the propensity of CEOs to engage in CPA driven by Machiavellian logic.

Despite the impact of CEO regulatory focus on a wide range of organizational outcomes, most research does not consider how regulatory focus can vary based on situational factors. Taking an interactionist perspective rooted in industrial-organizational psychology, we propose that CEO regulatory focus exhibits variance driven by situational factors, namely, a CEO’s job demands. Integrating this perspective with regulatory focus theory and research on executive job demands, we theorize and test the extent to which CEO regulatory focus is influenced by relative firm performance, with stakeholder activism and CEO tenure as moderators of this relationship. Using a sample of large U.S. companies, our tests offer evidence for how situational factors cause CEO regulatory focus to vary. We conclude our work by developing a research agenda regarding situational antecedents of CEOs’ intrapersonal constructs more broadly.

We systematically review business research concerning the planetary boundaries framework: A natural science framework that identifies nine Earth system boundaries that govern the safe operating space for humanity. Ten years after the introduction of the planetary boundaries in business studies, we pose two critical questions: How has the planetary boundaries concept been integrated into business studies and how has research on each of the nine boundaries advanced? Our review demonstrates growing scholarly interest in both questions. However, the topic remains niche with critical gaps, with most studies published in sustainability-focused journals and only occasionally in mainstream journals. Theoretical development remains fragmented and of greater concern, a systems perspective is lacking in empirical studies: Most articles focus solely on one issue – climate change – and there is almost no cross-analysis between boundaries. We contrast this with evidence that the planetary pressures of the Anthropocene are approaching dangerous thresholds and make the provocative assertion that planetary boundaries are not simply the foundation for specialized research on corporate sustainability but rather are the necessary boundary conditions for all business studies in the Anthropocene. We call for a transformation in how business scholars theorize, measure and engage.

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, 2018). Essays are an important platform where academics can recognize that our role is not only to predict or explain (Lindebaum and Wright, 2021) 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.

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 ‘JMS Says’. 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.

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, 2024) to the increasing risk of research extraction in marginalized communities (Bothello and Bonfim, 2023). 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, 2024) or the roles of the deans in business school (Cassell, 2024). In short, essays have the power to inspire us to be better at what we do.

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

This study investigates the phenomenon of founder CEOs playing an inordinately crucial role in achieving firm innovation performance. While existing research compares the effectiveness of founder and non-founder CEOs, the reasons behind founder CEOs’ advantage in achieving high innovation performance remain unclear. Building on upper echelons theory, this study explores micro-foundations underlying this phenomenon. We propose that CEO founder status positively influences innovation performance through the application of ambidextrous firm strategy, with such effects being moderated by the extent to which CEOs experience a sense of calling for their work. Based on data from 200 small- and medium-sized high-tech enterprises in China, we find that founder, as compared to non-founder, CEOs have a more positive relationship with innovation performance, mediated by ambidextrous firm strategy, and this effect is strengthened by calling for their work. These findings provide new insights regarding how and when a ‘founder advantage’ is most likely to be achieved regarding innovation performance. Moreover, by focusing on Chinese firms, this study responds to calls for expanding management research beyond Western contexts, enriching our understanding of founder CEOs and innovation in diverse cultural settings.