Vijaya Venkataramani, Rellie Derfler-Rozin, Xin Liu, Jih-Yu Mao
Although employees come up with creative (i.e., novel and useful) ideas, many of those ideas are not endorsed or implemented by managers. In shedding light on this phenomenon, we propose that managers who have lower social status in the organization are more likely to reject employees’ novel (but still useful) ideas. Guided by associative-propositional evaluation theory (AP-E) and the literature on the psychology of having low status, we hypothesize that when employees propose novel (compared with more mundane) ideas, it triggers greater feelings of insecurity and threat in low-status (versus high-status) managers, who perceive that these employees, if successful, could potentially infringe on their own domains at work. In turn, such low-status managers feel the need to be territorial—that is, to maintain and protect their existing work domains from potential infringement by others—and therefore refrain from endorsing their employees’ novel, yet useful ideas. However, we suggest that such negative effects are attenuated when low-status managers have high levels of organizational identification, allowing them to subordinate their self-interest to the interests of the broader organization. We demonstrate these effects in four preregistered studies—three laboratory experiments and a field study (with real employee ideas provided to managers for their assessment). We discuss the implications for the literature on the receiving side of creativity, territoriality, and status in organizations. Funding: This research was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72002214, 72372151 and 72302122] and Humanities and Social Sciences Research of Ministry of Education of China [Grant 22YJC630105]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15132 .
{"title":"Keep Off My Turf! Low-Status Managers’ Territoriality as a Response to Employees’ Novel Ideas","authors":"Vijaya Venkataramani, Rellie Derfler-Rozin, Xin Liu, Jih-Yu Mao","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2021.15132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15132","url":null,"abstract":"Although employees come up with creative (i.e., novel and useful) ideas, many of those ideas are not endorsed or implemented by managers. In shedding light on this phenomenon, we propose that managers who have lower social status in the organization are more likely to reject employees’ novel (but still useful) ideas. Guided by associative-propositional evaluation theory (AP-E) and the literature on the psychology of having low status, we hypothesize that when employees propose novel (compared with more mundane) ideas, it triggers greater feelings of insecurity and threat in low-status (versus high-status) managers, who perceive that these employees, if successful, could potentially infringe on their own domains at work. In turn, such low-status managers feel the need to be territorial—that is, to maintain and protect their existing work domains from potential infringement by others—and therefore refrain from endorsing their employees’ novel, yet useful ideas. However, we suggest that such negative effects are attenuated when low-status managers have high levels of organizational identification, allowing them to subordinate their self-interest to the interests of the broader organization. We demonstrate these effects in four preregistered studies—three laboratory experiments and a field study (with real employee ideas provided to managers for their assessment). We discuss the implications for the literature on the receiving side of creativity, territoriality, and status in organizations. Funding: This research was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72002214, 72372151 and 72302122] and Humanities and Social Sciences Research of Ministry of Education of China [Grant 22YJC630105]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15132 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"41 11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135779085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marlo Raveendran, Kannan Srikanth, Tiberiu Ungureanu, George L. Zheng
Employees in organizations are frequently subject to performance goals such as sales or publication targets. However, often employees do not know what actions will allow them to meet these goals. To perform such tasks effectively, employees need to explore to quickly learn from experience which among the available alternatives offers the higher reward potential, so that they can concentrate subsequent efforts on exploiting it. Prior work models such explore-exploit problems as an adaptive learning process, where employees sequentially sample various options and learn from feedback. However, we currently do not know how performance goals influence this adaptive learning process. We argue that performance goals influence the adaptive learning process by modifying how feedback is perceived. Individuals subject to challenging goals are more likely to interpret feedback from poor alternatives as failures. Therefore, they quickly develop high belief strength that the inferior alternative is worse than the superior alternative, enabling them to reduce “useless exploration,” but also making them slow to adapt to environmental shocks. We test our predictions in a series of laboratory experiments and find that decision makers subject to challenging goals exploit more (relative to those with moderate goals). We also show that such an exploitation focus, while beneficial in stable environments, is detrimental in unstable ones. Our finding that challenging performance goals improve performance in learning tasks stands in contrast to prior findings that such goals inhibit performance in search tasks, an insight that warrants further study to improve our understanding of goal setting in the knowledge economy. Funding: K. Srikanth was supported by SMU Seed Funding Grant for the initial version of this paper. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.13311 .
{"title":"How Do Performance Goals Influence Exploration-Exploitation Choices?","authors":"Marlo Raveendran, Kannan Srikanth, Tiberiu Ungureanu, George L. Zheng","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2019.13311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.13311","url":null,"abstract":"Employees in organizations are frequently subject to performance goals such as sales or publication targets. However, often employees do not know what actions will allow them to meet these goals. To perform such tasks effectively, employees need to explore to quickly learn from experience which among the available alternatives offers the higher reward potential, so that they can concentrate subsequent efforts on exploiting it. Prior work models such explore-exploit problems as an adaptive learning process, where employees sequentially sample various options and learn from feedback. However, we currently do not know how performance goals influence this adaptive learning process. We argue that performance goals influence the adaptive learning process by modifying how feedback is perceived. Individuals subject to challenging goals are more likely to interpret feedback from poor alternatives as failures. Therefore, they quickly develop high belief strength that the inferior alternative is worse than the superior alternative, enabling them to reduce “useless exploration,” but also making them slow to adapt to environmental shocks. We test our predictions in a series of laboratory experiments and find that decision makers subject to challenging goals exploit more (relative to those with moderate goals). We also show that such an exploitation focus, while beneficial in stable environments, is detrimental in unstable ones. Our finding that challenging performance goals improve performance in learning tasks stands in contrast to prior findings that such goals inhibit performance in search tasks, an insight that warrants further study to improve our understanding of goal setting in the knowledge economy. Funding: K. Srikanth was supported by SMU Seed Funding Grant for the initial version of this paper. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.13311 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"75 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135883857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prior work has emphasized the role of positive attention spillovers in driving cost advantages for high-status firms, with exchange partners offering preferential terms to high-status organizations because they anticipate benefits. Yet, spillovers from a client to a supplier may also be negative. These negative spillovers can be exacerbated when high-status actors are involved, because of the high level of publicity they attract. In this paper, we propose that suppliers’ concerns about negative attention are an important contingent factor determining whether high-status firms enjoy cost advantages or, instead, pay a premium. We expect that when suppliers anticipate that negative spillovers are more likely than positive ones and when they enjoy some bargaining power over their clients, a positive relationship between status and costs will result. To test this argument, we analyze fees paid by clients of varying status levels in the U.S. market for audit services. Consistent with our theory, we find that (1) high-status clients are charged more than their lower status peers and (2) the media attention clients receive does mediate this relationship. Indicative of the role of the supplier’s expectation of negative spillovers and their bargaining power, we also demonstrate that the positive relationship becomes stronger when auditors view clients as presenting a greater risk of future negative events and when clients have more bargaining power. Our efforts at theoretical integration result in a fuller picture of the role of status in shaping a firm’s costs, suggesting that status involves advantages in some settings but disadvantages in others. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15814 .
{"title":"Accounting for Negative Attention: Status and Costs in the Market for Audit Services","authors":"Amandine Ody-Brasier, Amanda J. Sharkey","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2021.15814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15814","url":null,"abstract":"Prior work has emphasized the role of positive attention spillovers in driving cost advantages for high-status firms, with exchange partners offering preferential terms to high-status organizations because they anticipate benefits. Yet, spillovers from a client to a supplier may also be negative. These negative spillovers can be exacerbated when high-status actors are involved, because of the high level of publicity they attract. In this paper, we propose that suppliers’ concerns about negative attention are an important contingent factor determining whether high-status firms enjoy cost advantages or, instead, pay a premium. We expect that when suppliers anticipate that negative spillovers are more likely than positive ones and when they enjoy some bargaining power over their clients, a positive relationship between status and costs will result. To test this argument, we analyze fees paid by clients of varying status levels in the U.S. market for audit services. Consistent with our theory, we find that (1) high-status clients are charged more than their lower status peers and (2) the media attention clients receive does mediate this relationship. Indicative of the role of the supplier’s expectation of negative spillovers and their bargaining power, we also demonstrate that the positive relationship becomes stronger when auditors view clients as presenting a greater risk of future negative events and when clients have more bargaining power. Our efforts at theoretical integration result in a fuller picture of the role of status in shaping a firm’s costs, suggesting that status involves advantages in some settings but disadvantages in others. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15814 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135738655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The literature on corporate political activity (CPA) generally views nonmarket actions aimed at influencing political actors (e.g., lobbying or campaign contributions) as related but separate activities from market actions. This study demonstrates how firms’ core market actions (e.g., market entry or geographic expansion) can function as CPA. We theorize two mechanisms through which firms leverage market actions as CPA: “pork” (i.e., ones that primarily benefit a politician’s constituents) and “perk” (i.e., ones that directly benefit the politician). We document these mechanisms through an empirical analysis of data from the U.S. airline industry in 1990–2019. Specifically, we find that airlines increase the supply of flights from the airports in the home district of the chair of the Transportation Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives (pork). We also find that the airlines increase the supply of nonstop flights to Washington, DC. from the Chair’s district (perk). We use counterfactual estimation methods and exogenous turnovers in committee leadership to provide causal evidence. Moreover, the observed increase in flight supplies is negatively associated with formal policy changes in Congress, and with text mining techniques, we find that this effect is stronger for bills related to aviation safety and security. We contribute to the literature on CPA by demonstrating a blurred boundary between market and nonmarket actions, which helps explain firms’ competitive actions that cannot be explained by market considerations alone. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.17026 .
{"title":"We Fly Congress: Market Actions as Corporate Political Activity in the U.S. Airline Industry","authors":"Min-Seok Pang, Russell J. Funk, Daniel Hirschman","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2022.17026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.17026","url":null,"abstract":"The literature on corporate political activity (CPA) generally views nonmarket actions aimed at influencing political actors (e.g., lobbying or campaign contributions) as related but separate activities from market actions. This study demonstrates how firms’ core market actions (e.g., market entry or geographic expansion) can function as CPA. We theorize two mechanisms through which firms leverage market actions as CPA: “pork” (i.e., ones that primarily benefit a politician’s constituents) and “perk” (i.e., ones that directly benefit the politician). We document these mechanisms through an empirical analysis of data from the U.S. airline industry in 1990–2019. Specifically, we find that airlines increase the supply of flights from the airports in the home district of the chair of the Transportation Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives (pork). We also find that the airlines increase the supply of nonstop flights to Washington, DC. from the Chair’s district (perk). We use counterfactual estimation methods and exogenous turnovers in committee leadership to provide causal evidence. Moreover, the observed increase in flight supplies is negatively associated with formal policy changes in Congress, and with text mining techniques, we find that this effect is stronger for bills related to aviation safety and security. We contribute to the literature on CPA by demonstrating a blurred boundary between market and nonmarket actions, which helps explain firms’ competitive actions that cannot be explained by market considerations alone. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.17026 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135696135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the growing complexity of social and environmental issues, there has been a blossoming of hackathons and open innovation challenges. This push to accelerate innovation embraces a perspective of time as clock time—conceived as objective, linear, measurable, and therefore, rather easy to compress. Such a view of time conflicts with the emergent nature of idea generation and the indeterminate process that leads to social impact, which both rely on event time. Drawing on a 40-month ethnographic study of OpenIDEO, an open social innovation platform, I examine how, in designing open innovation challenges, the OpenIDEO team interwove clock time and event time in order to foster idea generation and support social impact. Through inductive analysis, I identify three practices—mapping, stretching, and squeezing time—enacted by the OpenIDEO team to “make time” and thus, continuously engage participants and sponsors in the challenges as well as to allow participants to implement their ideas. My findings demonstrate how organizations can intentionally use time to nurture collaborative innovation and yield sustainable social impact. My study questions the traditional interpretation of clock time as the foundation of all temporalities as it shows how temporal work can be grounded within event time. Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [NSF VOSS Grant 1122381].
随着社会和环境问题的日益复杂，黑客马拉松和开放式创新挑战层出不穷。这种加速创新的努力包含了一种将时间视为时钟时间的观点——它被认为是客观的、线性的、可测量的，因此很容易被压缩。这种时间观与想法产生的突发性和导致社会影响的不确定过程相冲突，这两者都依赖于事件时间。通过对开放社会创新平台OpenIDEO进行为期40个月的人种学研究，我研究了OpenIDEO团队如何在设计开放创新挑战时，将时钟时间和活动时间相结合，以促进创意产生和支持社会影响。通过归纳分析，我确定了三种实践-映射，拉伸和压缩时间-由OpenIDEO团队制定，以“创造时间”，从而不断吸引参与者和赞助商参与挑战，并允许参与者实现他们的想法。我的研究结果表明，组织可以有意识地利用时间来培养协作创新，并产生可持续的社会影响。我的研究质疑了将时钟时间作为所有时间性基础的传统解释，因为它显示了时间性的工作是如何以事件时间为基础的。本研究由美国国家科学基金会[NSF VOSS Grant 1122381]资助。
{"title":"Making Time for Social Innovation: How to Interweave Clock Time and Event Time in Open Social Innovation to Nurture Idea Generation and Social Impact","authors":"Anne-Laure Fayard","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2020.0832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.0832","url":null,"abstract":"With the growing complexity of social and environmental issues, there has been a blossoming of hackathons and open innovation challenges. This push to accelerate innovation embraces a perspective of time as clock time—conceived as objective, linear, measurable, and therefore, rather easy to compress. Such a view of time conflicts with the emergent nature of idea generation and the indeterminate process that leads to social impact, which both rely on event time. Drawing on a 40-month ethnographic study of OpenIDEO, an open social innovation platform, I examine how, in designing open innovation challenges, the OpenIDEO team interwove clock time and event time in order to foster idea generation and support social impact. Through inductive analysis, I identify three practices—mapping, stretching, and squeezing time—enacted by the OpenIDEO team to “make time” and thus, continuously engage participants and sponsors in the challenges as well as to allow participants to implement their ideas. My findings demonstrate how organizations can intentionally use time to nurture collaborative innovation and yield sustainable social impact. My study questions the traditional interpretation of clock time as the foundation of all temporalities as it shows how temporal work can be grounded within event time. Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [NSF VOSS Grant 1122381].","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135386550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Habits and routines are foundational to several organizational theories. Considering organizational members to be predominately employees, established habit-based models recognize how these members’ habits help build organizations and are shaped by them. Departing from this traditional, internal focus, our paper highlights an important aspect of organizing, which has been relatively overlooked by established habit-based models, namely, how firms engineer consumer habits to their advantage and, by extension, strategically shape the habits of other key resource providers. To better theorize consumer habits and their engineering, and to integrate these phenomena within extant organizational theory, we develop a new habit-based perspective relating firms, consumers, and social institutions. Inspired by Dewey’s transactional approach and drawing on modern habit science, our transactional framework helps illuminate habit engineering, promotes a richer and more integrated view of organizing, and opens new possibilities for habit-based organizational theories. Our paper also offers several implications for firms’ managers, individual consumers, and broader society.
{"title":"On Habit and Organizing: A Transactional Perspective Relating Firms, Consumers, and Social Institutions","authors":"Moshe Farjoun, Nudrat Mahmood","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2021.15803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15803","url":null,"abstract":"Habits and routines are foundational to several organizational theories. Considering organizational members to be predominately employees, established habit-based models recognize how these members’ habits help build organizations and are shaped by them. Departing from this traditional, internal focus, our paper highlights an important aspect of organizing, which has been relatively overlooked by established habit-based models, namely, how firms engineer consumer habits to their advantage and, by extension, strategically shape the habits of other key resource providers. To better theorize consumer habits and their engineering, and to integrate these phenomena within extant organizational theory, we develop a new habit-based perspective relating firms, consumers, and social institutions. Inspired by Dewey’s transactional approach and drawing on modern habit science, our transactional framework helps illuminate habit engineering, promotes a richer and more integrated view of organizing, and opens new possibilities for habit-based organizational theories. Our paper also offers several implications for firms’ managers, individual consumers, and broader society.","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134912483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stevo Pavićević, Jerayr (John) Haleblian, Thomas Keil
We draw on group information-processing theory to investigate how target boards of directors may contribute to target value capture during the private negotiations phase in acquisitions. We view target boards as information-processing groups and private negotiations as information-processing tasks. We argue that target board meeting frequency is associated with increased processing—gathering, sharing, and analyzing—of acquisition-related information, which improves target bargaining and, ultimately, target value capture. We further posit that this value-enhancing effect of target board meeting frequency is more pronounced when target board composition improves the ability of target boards to process acquisition-related information. Finally, we expect that meeting frequency is more consequential for target bargaining and value capture when acquisition complexity imposes high information-processing demands on the target boards during private negotiations. Empirical evidence from a sample of acquisitions of publicly listed firms in the United States offers support for our group information-processing perspective on board contribution to shareholder value in firms targeted for acquisition. Funding: This work was supported by the Strategy Research Foundation [Dissertation Grant SRF-2015DP-0016]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1643 .
{"title":"When Do Boards of Directors Contribute to Shareholder Value in Firms Targeted for Acquisition? A Group Information-Processing Perspective","authors":"Stevo Pavićević, Jerayr (John) Haleblian, Thomas Keil","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2022.1643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1643","url":null,"abstract":"We draw on group information-processing theory to investigate how target boards of directors may contribute to target value capture during the private negotiations phase in acquisitions. We view target boards as information-processing groups and private negotiations as information-processing tasks. We argue that target board meeting frequency is associated with increased processing—gathering, sharing, and analyzing—of acquisition-related information, which improves target bargaining and, ultimately, target value capture. We further posit that this value-enhancing effect of target board meeting frequency is more pronounced when target board composition improves the ability of target boards to process acquisition-related information. Finally, we expect that meeting frequency is more consequential for target bargaining and value capture when acquisition complexity imposes high information-processing demands on the target boards during private negotiations. Empirical evidence from a sample of acquisitions of publicly listed firms in the United States offers support for our group information-processing perspective on board contribution to shareholder value in firms targeted for acquisition. Funding: This work was supported by the Strategy Research Foundation [Dissertation Grant SRF-2015DP-0016]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1643 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134994724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johannes Kleinhempel, Mariko J. Klasing, Sjoerd Beugelsdijk
Does national culture influence entrepreneurship? Given that entrepreneurship and the economic, formal institutional, and cultural characteristics of nations are deeply intertwined and co-vary, it is difficult to isolate the effect of culture on entrepreneurship. In this study, we examine the self-employment choices of second-generation immigrants who were born, educated, and currently live in one country, but were raised by parents stemming from another country. We argue that entrepreneurship is influenced by durable, portable, and intergenerationally transmitted cultural imprints such that second-generation immigrants are more likely to become entrepreneurs if their parents originate from countries characterized by a strong entrepreneurial culture. Our multilevel analysis of two independent samples—65,323 second-generation immigrants of 52 different ancestries who were born, were raised, and live in the United States and 4,165 second-generation immigrants of 31 ancestries in Europe—shows that entrepreneurial culture is positively associated with the likelihood that individuals are entrepreneurs. Our results are robust to alternative non-cultural explanations, such as differences in resource holdings, labor market discrimination, and direct parent-child linkages. Overall, our study highlights the durability, portability, and intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial culture as well as the profound impact of national culture on entrepreneurship. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1645 .
{"title":"Cultural Roots of Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Second-Generation Immigrants","authors":"Johannes Kleinhempel, Mariko J. Klasing, Sjoerd Beugelsdijk","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2022.1645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1645","url":null,"abstract":"Does national culture influence entrepreneurship? Given that entrepreneurship and the economic, formal institutional, and cultural characteristics of nations are deeply intertwined and co-vary, it is difficult to isolate the effect of culture on entrepreneurship. In this study, we examine the self-employment choices of second-generation immigrants who were born, educated, and currently live in one country, but were raised by parents stemming from another country. We argue that entrepreneurship is influenced by durable, portable, and intergenerationally transmitted cultural imprints such that second-generation immigrants are more likely to become entrepreneurs if their parents originate from countries characterized by a strong entrepreneurial culture. Our multilevel analysis of two independent samples—65,323 second-generation immigrants of 52 different ancestries who were born, were raised, and live in the United States and 4,165 second-generation immigrants of 31 ancestries in Europe—shows that entrepreneurial culture is positively associated with the likelihood that individuals are entrepreneurs. Our results are robust to alternative non-cultural explanations, such as differences in resource holdings, labor market discrimination, and direct parent-child linkages. Overall, our study highlights the durability, portability, and intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial culture as well as the profound impact of national culture on entrepreneurship. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1645 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research suggests that multibusiness firms often misallocate financial resources. However, research also suggests that firms differ in how effectively they allocate a range of resources. We argue that some firms have a resource allocation capability that enables them to more effectively determine the allocation of resources than often portrayed in the literature. We identify key search and selection routines that form the building blocks of a resource allocation capability and explain how these routines facilitate critical activities at different levels of the management hierarchy that are involved in the determination of resource allocations, including for related and vertically linked businesses. We further explain how a resource allocation capability, and the routines that make up the capability, help firms allocate resources effectively to meet their strategic and financial objectives. Part of the improved effectiveness of resource allocation arises because the routines help to mitigate the factors that prior research has identified as leading to resource misallocation, namely information asymmetry and distortion, internal politics, and cognitive biases and backward-looking aspirations. Finally, we move beyond research on whether firms effectively allocate resources to explain why resource allocation capabilities are likely be heterogeneous among firms due to differences in their routines and the ways that firms structure their use of routines. This heterogeneity stems in part from tradeoffs that firms face when choosing among resource allocation routines. As a result, firms are likely to vary in how effectively they allocate resources, leading to heterogeneity in firm adaptation and change and ultimately in firm performance.
{"title":"Resource Allocation Capability and Routines in Multibusiness Firms","authors":"Constance E. Helfat, C. Maritan","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2022.16778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16778","url":null,"abstract":"Research suggests that multibusiness firms often misallocate financial resources. However, research also suggests that firms differ in how effectively they allocate a range of resources. We argue that some firms have a resource allocation capability that enables them to more effectively determine the allocation of resources than often portrayed in the literature. We identify key search and selection routines that form the building blocks of a resource allocation capability and explain how these routines facilitate critical activities at different levels of the management hierarchy that are involved in the determination of resource allocations, including for related and vertically linked businesses. We further explain how a resource allocation capability, and the routines that make up the capability, help firms allocate resources effectively to meet their strategic and financial objectives. Part of the improved effectiveness of resource allocation arises because the routines help to mitigate the factors that prior research has identified as leading to resource misallocation, namely information asymmetry and distortion, internal politics, and cognitive biases and backward-looking aspirations. Finally, we move beyond research on whether firms effectively allocate resources to explain why resource allocation capabilities are likely be heterogeneous among firms due to differences in their routines and the ways that firms structure their use of routines. This heterogeneity stems in part from tradeoffs that firms face when choosing among resource allocation routines. As a result, firms are likely to vary in how effectively they allocate resources, leading to heterogeneity in firm adaptation and change and ultimately in firm performance.","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78682208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Organizations benefit from including employees with dissimilar values and perspectives, but their ability to realize these benefits is constrained by the degree to which those holding the dissimilar values (i.e., value minorities) feel comfortable engaging with their colleagues and the work of the collective. We extend theory on value dissimilarity by directly examining the experience of individuals whose values are dissimilar from those of their colleagues, and factors driving their engagement in work. Our examination spanned three studies: a laboratory experiment, a vignette study of employed adults, and a three-wave survey of student project groups. We found that the negative relationship between holding dissimilar values from one’s colleagues and engagement was lessened when value minorities disclosed personal information unrelated to their dissimilar values (Studies 1–3). Self-disclosure also moderated the negative relationship between value dissimilarity and feeling respected by one’s colleagues (Studies 2 and 3). Furthermore, felt respect mediated the effect of value dissimilarity on engagement, and this indirect effect was moderated by self-disclosure (Studies 2 and 3). Overall, this research is relevant to organizations seeking to capitalize upon the benefits of minority perspectives in the workforce but suggests that a critical first step is to prioritize the experience of value minorities and the decreased sense of social worth that can accompany this experience. By fostering an environment conducive to self-disclosure, organizations can help to alleviate the discomfort associated with value dissimilarity, thereby ensuring that all people, including the value minority, feel respected and are maximally engaged at work. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15768 .
{"title":"Self-Disclosure and Respect: Understanding the Engagement of Value Minorities","authors":"T. Dumas, Sarah P. Doyle, Robert B. Lount","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2021.15768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15768","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations benefit from including employees with dissimilar values and perspectives, but their ability to realize these benefits is constrained by the degree to which those holding the dissimilar values (i.e., value minorities) feel comfortable engaging with their colleagues and the work of the collective. We extend theory on value dissimilarity by directly examining the experience of individuals whose values are dissimilar from those of their colleagues, and factors driving their engagement in work. Our examination spanned three studies: a laboratory experiment, a vignette study of employed adults, and a three-wave survey of student project groups. We found that the negative relationship between holding dissimilar values from one’s colleagues and engagement was lessened when value minorities disclosed personal information unrelated to their dissimilar values (Studies 1–3). Self-disclosure also moderated the negative relationship between value dissimilarity and feeling respected by one’s colleagues (Studies 2 and 3). Furthermore, felt respect mediated the effect of value dissimilarity on engagement, and this indirect effect was moderated by self-disclosure (Studies 2 and 3). Overall, this research is relevant to organizations seeking to capitalize upon the benefits of minority perspectives in the workforce but suggests that a critical first step is to prioritize the experience of value minorities and the decreased sense of social worth that can accompany this experience. By fostering an environment conducive to self-disclosure, organizations can help to alleviate the discomfort associated with value dissimilarity, thereby ensuring that all people, including the value minority, feel respected and are maximally engaged at work. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15768 .","PeriodicalId":48462,"journal":{"name":"Organization Science","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84061568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：