Journal of Management Studies最新文献

Cross-sector partnerships (XSPs) are embraced by policymakers and practitioners to address complex social and environmental challenges that no single sector can tackle alone. However, extant research on XSPs has primarily focused on isolated phases and singular theoretical perspectives. In our paper, we synthesize XSP research in the public policy and management fields to deliver a comprehensive and coherent understanding of XSPs’ different phases and theoretical perspectives – the XSP ‘theoretical topology’. We introduce two approaches for theoretical enrichment: informing and interacting. We emphasize the significance of ‘theoretical interstices’ as undominated spaces for new knowledge exploration. Through our integrative cross-phase, cross-theoretical approach, we address fundamental yet open questions on XSP effectiveness, value, and impact. Our work challenges existing understandings and opens new research possibilities; offers implications for practitioners; and informs current policy debates on mandating XSPs and on the role of ‘big data’ – powered algorithms in the XSP landscape.

This editorial introduces and explains the Journal of Management Studies’ (JMS) new policy on artificial intelligence (AI). We reflect on the use of AI in conducting research and generating journal submissions and what this means for the wider JMS community, including our authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Specifically, we consider how AI-generated research and text could both assist and augment the publication process, as well as harm it. Consequentially, our policy acknowledges the need for careful oversight regarding the use of AI to assist in the authoring of texts and in data analyses, while also noting the importance of requiring authors to be transparent about how, when and where they have utilized AI in their submissions or underlying research. Additionally, we examine how and in what ways AI's use may be antithetical to the spirit of a quality journal like JMS that values both human voice and research transparency. Our editorial explains why we require author teams to oversee all aspects of AI use within their projects, and to take personal responsibility for accuracy in all aspects of their research. We also explain our prohibition of AI's use in peer-reviewers’ evaluations of submissions, and regarding editors’ handling of manuscripts.

Management is a global phenomenon. Yet, the vast majority of empirical investigations and theoretical explanations of management, managers and those being managed that are published in leading management journals are based on research that predominantly originates from Western contexts, particularly the USA and the larger European countries. Non-Western contexts, in turn, reside at the periphery of mainstream management scholarship. This is problematic for multiple reasons. It provides an inherently limited view on the contextual factors that may explain variation in management practices across the globe, and it leads to a reductionist view of non-Western contexts to offer little more than a means for teasing out the boundary conditions of mainstream ‘Western’ theories. This exclusion of non-Western contexts has resulted in a marginalization of non-Western scholarly voices, who are often hesitant to submit their research to leading scholarly journals. To address these interrelated problems, we use this introduction to the Thematic Collection on ‘Embracing non-Western contexts’ in the Journal of Management Studies to call on scholars to more fully embrace non-Western contexts in their research, and in doing so, to unleash the explanatory potential of these contexts for our understanding of management.

The COVID-19 crisis has been associated with existential concerns regarding mortality. These concerns, described as ‘mortality cues’, can influence people's emotions, behaviours, and the quality of leadership in organizations. Using the contingency model of death awareness (CMDA; Grant and Wade-Benzoni, 2009), we provide new evidence on how mortality cues can incite negative and positive leadership behaviours via two forms of death awareness: death anxiety and death reflection. Specifically, we theorize that mortality cues can increase leader death anxiety, giving rise to leader expediency (a leader's use of unethical practices to expedite work for self-serving purposes); however, mortality cues can also facilitate leader death reflection and, consequently, servant leadership behaviour. We further suggest that leaders’ responses to mortality cues depend on their psychological capital (PsyCap), such that leaders with high (vs. low) PsyCap respond to mortality cues with less expediency (via death anxiety) and more servant leader behaviours (via death reflection). We support our hypotheses through three separate studies using an experiment, time-lagged data from healthcare workers, and daily diary data from non-healthcare professionals. We conclude that mortality cues have a double-edged influence on leadership behaviour. We also discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

We use the concept of means–ends decoupling to examine why companies continue to be major contributors to environmental and social problems despite committing increasingly to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Specifically, we ask: How do companies restrain (versus fail to restrain) means–ends decoupling? We answer this question through a comparative case study of four multinational companies with different levels of means–ends decoupling. Based on interviews and secondary data, we inductively identify two distinct approaches to CSR implementation: experimental vs. consistency-oriented CSR implementation. Experimental CSR implementation means that companies (1) produce CSR knowledge about what is happening in specific CSR contexts and use this knowledge to (2) adapt CSR practices to local circumstances – an interplay that restrains means–ends decoupling. Consistency-oriented CSR implementation lacks this interplay between knowledge production and practice adaptation, which fosters means–ends decoupling. Our model of experimental versus consistency-oriented CSR implementation advances two streams of research. First, we advance research on means–ends decoupling by highlighting the importance of experimentation for restraining means–ends decoupling. Second, we advance research on the impact of CSR activities by questioning the widespread assumption that consistency should be at the heart of CSR implementation.

The Journal of Management Studies, founded in 1963, is celebrating its 60^th year. Clark et al. (2014) conducted a bibliometric analysis for its 50^th anniversary assessing whether the journal had maintained its leading international ranking and sustained its mission to serve as a broad-based management outlet. In this review, we build on and extend their findings by examining trends in the journal over the past decade (2012–22). We present a broader analysis of JMS by exploring its unique identity within the management journal ecosystem and examining its scope and breadth in terms of topics, methods, and author demographics to document JMS's evolution, impact, reach, and accessibility. We develop a new bibliometric framework that employs a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses (including regression, text, and language analysis) to cover a broad range of considerations for a journal and its stakeholders. In so doing, we contribute to the bibliometric and review research areas by proposing new metrics (related to diversity, equity, and inclusion) and analysis tools to assess the relative position of an academic journal. Employing this framework, we conclude that JMS has retained and enhanced its position as a leading, cutting-edge general management journal.

This research develops an attention-based, environment-inclusive model of organizational aspiration determination. The behavioural view embraces that organizations determine aspirations based on three reference points: past aspiration, past performance, and social reference group performance. We build hypotheses to explain how environmental munificence, dynamism, and complexity shape organizational attention allocation among these three reference points. Using data on US publicly traded firms (2006–16), we find that organizations, when determining sales aspirations, allocate (1) more attention to past aspiration and social reference group performance but less attention to past performance in more munificent environments; (2) more attention to past performance and social reference group performance but less attention to past aspiration in more dynamic environments; and (3) more attention to past performance but less attention to past aspiration and social reference group performance in more complex environments. Overall, we contribute to aspiration research by explicitly theorizing a previously understudied contingency, using direct aspiration measures from a wide range of industries, and providing evidence that organizations’ attention allocation rules are regulated by the external environment when determining aspirations.

The work relationships between CEOs and Chairpersons are key to the functioning of the firm. This study uses survey and interview data to explore how these work relationships serve as a micro-foundation for an organization's communication climate. Survey data suggested that CEO-Chairperson relationships can be characterized by emotional carrying capacity (ECC; constructively expressing more positive and negative emotions). The survey-based model further demonstrated that CEOs and Chairpersons perceive their ECC to positively predict organizational communication climate and, in turn, knowledge creation capabilities. The latter, in turn, are positively associated with firm performance. CEO-Chairperson dyadic interview data supplemented the associations identified in our survey model. Interviewees identified specific mechanisms behind the associations in the survey model, such as the strategic sharing of positive and negative emotions. Our mixed-methods approach provides initial evidence for the importance of emotional expression and management as micro-relational foundations that underpin firm-level capabilities and performance.

According to the ‘Point’ essay, management research's reliance on corporate data threatens to replace objective theory with profit-biased ‘corporate empiricism’, undermining the scientific and ethical integrity of the field. In this ‘Counterpoint’ essay, we offer a more expansive understanding of big data and algorithmic processing and, by extension, see promising applications to management theory. Specifically, we propose a novel management metaphor: organizations as algorithms. This metaphor offers three insights for developing innovative, relevant, and grounded organization theory. First, agency is distributed in assemblages rather than being solely attributed to individuals, algorithms, or data. Second, machine-readability serves as the immutable and mobile base for organizing and decision-making. Third, prompting and programming transform the role of professional expertise and organizational relationships with technologies. Contrary to the ‘Point’ essay, we see no theoretical ‘end’ in sight; the organization as algorithm metaphor enables scholars to build innovative theories that account for the intricacies of algorithmic decision-making.

In this Counterpoint, we introduce a conceptualization of the symbol that constructively contrasts the ideas presented by Phillips and Moser. We do not see the need to mobilize ideas and vocabularies from evolutionary biology, as they do, but instead propose to return to cultural approaches to the symbol that resonate more deeply and profoundly within our discipline. Specifically, we revisit the work of German philosopher Ernst Cassirer on the symbolic foundation of culture and society. To fully harness the potential of such a renewed approach in organization research, we encourage a conversation with foundational and more recent work in institutional organization theory. The aims of our article are to (a) offer an alternative understanding of the symbol; and (b) elaborate how such understanding can reinvigorate organizational and institutional analysis.