Pub Date : 2024-11-14DOI: 10.1177/01492063241292568
Christina S. Li, Daniel D. Goering, Huiyao Liao, Qi Zhang
Asian Americans (AsAms) carry unique group identifications that likely impact how they navigate workplace racial discrimination. Yet, extant workplace discrimination research has not thoroughly considered the implications associated with such unique group identifications, especially given the context of American society’s increasingly polarized views of AsAms as outsiders versus insiders. To gain insights into these aspects, we conducted three studies using qualitative and quantitative methods. Our qualitative interviews (Study 1) with AsAm employees during COVID-19 reveal that AsAms have internalized society’s polarization of their American and Asian group identifications and navigate their workplace discrimination accordingly. Integrating these findings with group identification research, we develop a dual-serial-mediation navigation process model, whereby AsAms with strong American group identification intend to leave their organization via blaming and then not forgiving their offenders (i.e., “suffering path”), whereas those with strong Asian group identification intend to stay in the organization via perspective taking and then forgiving their offenders (i.e., “protected path”). In a different sample of AsAms who faced workplace discrimination, we found support for our model (Study 2). Finally, we largely replicated these results in a third sample of AsAms who faced workplace discrimination and found that such navigation processes were largely unique to AsAms versus other racial-minority groups (Study 3). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
{"title":"We Are (Not) on the Same Team: Understanding Asian Americans’ Unique Navigation of Workplace Discrimination","authors":"Christina S. Li, Daniel D. Goering, Huiyao Liao, Qi Zhang","doi":"10.1177/01492063241292568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241292568","url":null,"abstract":"Asian Americans (AsAms) carry unique group identifications that likely impact how they navigate workplace racial discrimination. Yet, extant workplace discrimination research has not thoroughly considered the implications associated with such unique group identifications, especially given the context of American society’s increasingly polarized views of AsAms as outsiders versus insiders. To gain insights into these aspects, we conducted three studies using qualitative and quantitative methods. Our qualitative interviews (Study 1) with AsAm employees during COVID-19 reveal that AsAms have internalized society’s polarization of their American and Asian group identifications and navigate their workplace discrimination accordingly. Integrating these findings with group identification research, we develop a dual-serial-mediation navigation process model, whereby AsAms with strong American group identification intend to leave their organization via blaming and then not forgiving their offenders (i.e., “suffering path”), whereas those with strong Asian group identification intend to stay in the organization via perspective taking and then forgiving their offenders (i.e., “protected path”). In a different sample of AsAms who faced workplace discrimination, we found support for our model (Study 2). Finally, we largely replicated these results in a third sample of AsAms who faced workplace discrimination and found that such navigation processes were largely unique to AsAms versus other racial-minority groups (Study 3). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142637544","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}
Pub Date : 2024-11-14DOI: 10.1177/01492063241296129
Haeyoung Koo, Margarethe Wiersema, K. Francis Park
Hedge fund activism has become an integral part of publicly traded firms, and our paper adopts a behavioral lens to examine how the hostility of tactics employed by activist hedge funds may influence the response of target firms. Drawing on cognitive mechanisms and insights from interviews with investment professionals, we propose that activists’ use of hostile tactics may paradoxically trigger greater resistance from target firms. Specifically, we argue that management and the board may seek greater desire for control, and experience ego threat and heightened anxiety in the face of hostility, which increases target firm resistance. Using a sample of 731 activist hedge fund campaigns from 2002 to 2015, we find that target firms are more likely to resist when the activist hedge fund uses more hostile tactics. Further, our findings indicate that resistance towards hostile tactics increases when activist demands challenge the position of management or the board, but is mitigated by a firm’s prior activism experience or boards with more directors that have experienced hostile campaigns.
{"title":"Dare to Fight? How Activist Hedge Funds’ Hostile Tactics Influence Target Firm Resistance","authors":"Haeyoung Koo, Margarethe Wiersema, K. Francis Park","doi":"10.1177/01492063241296129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241296129","url":null,"abstract":"Hedge fund activism has become an integral part of publicly traded firms, and our paper adopts a behavioral lens to examine how the hostility of tactics employed by activist hedge funds may influence the response of target firms. Drawing on cognitive mechanisms and insights from interviews with investment professionals, we propose that activists’ use of hostile tactics may paradoxically trigger greater resistance from target firms. Specifically, we argue that management and the board may seek greater desire for control, and experience ego threat and heightened anxiety in the face of hostility, which increases target firm resistance. Using a sample of 731 activist hedge fund campaigns from 2002 to 2015, we find that target firms are more likely to resist when the activist hedge fund uses more hostile tactics. Further, our findings indicate that resistance towards hostile tactics increases when activist demands challenge the position of management or the board, but is mitigated by a firm’s prior activism experience or boards with more directors that have experienced hostile campaigns.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142637542","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}
Pub Date : 2024-11-12DOI: 10.1177/01492063241291532
Poornika Ananth, Markus Baer, Dirk Deichmann
Organizational research has long suggested that when working with problems that are complex and ill-defined it is imperative for organizational members to understand and represent these problems in order to effectively address them. However, research on the topic has remained fragmented across different organizational literatures resulting in the development and persistence of ambiguities in our understanding of the activities that compose the process of developing problem representations, the temporal patterns through which they unfold, and the associated mechanisms and outcomes. In this paper, we review and synthesize research across seven different literatures—all of which examine different organizational contexts that involve complex and ill-defined problems—and offer a framework that integrates research across these different literatures. Our framework delineates the different activities constituting the process of developing problem representations, provides insights about different approaches to developing problem representations, elaborates our understanding of the mechanisms associated with the process, and broadens our understanding of the different outcomes of the process. In so doing, our review and framework not only offer clarity and coherence on the topic but also highlight new opportunities for theoretical and methodological advancements.
{"title":"Developing Problem Representations in Organizations: A Synthesis across Literatures and an Integrative Framework","authors":"Poornika Ananth, Markus Baer, Dirk Deichmann","doi":"10.1177/01492063241291532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241291532","url":null,"abstract":"Organizational research has long suggested that when working with problems that are complex and ill-defined it is imperative for organizational members to understand and represent these problems in order to effectively address them. However, research on the topic has remained fragmented across different organizational literatures resulting in the development and persistence of ambiguities in our understanding of the activities that compose the process of developing problem representations, the temporal patterns through which they unfold, and the associated mechanisms and outcomes. In this paper, we review and synthesize research across seven different literatures—all of which examine different organizational contexts that involve complex and ill-defined problems—and offer a framework that integrates research across these different literatures. Our framework delineates the different activities constituting the process of developing problem representations, provides insights about different approaches to developing problem representations, elaborates our understanding of the mechanisms associated with the process, and broadens our understanding of the different outcomes of the process. In so doing, our review and framework not only offer clarity and coherence on the topic but also highlight new opportunities for theoretical and methodological advancements.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142601938","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-29DOI: 10.1177/01492063241286493
Matthew J. Mazzei, Jason DeBode, K. Ashley Gangloff, Ruixiang Song
Since its introduction more than four decades ago, threat-rigidity theory has emerged as a popular managerial theory of threat response used in a wide variety of literature streams. The theory explains that individuals, groups, and organizations revert to familiar responses (i.e., rigidity) in navigating threats, even when doing so may not be ideal. Yet, despite its popularity, fidelity to the theory’s assumptions and core arguments have been missing, and development of the theory has been limited. As organizations continue facing new and unique threats (e.g., advancing technologies, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, global health crises), a review and synthesis of threat-rigidity theory is necessary to drive new knowledge and allow for better understanding of the conditions around and appropriateness of rigidity. Our assessment of the literature reveals several gaps to address, which inform three primary directions for future research. We encourage future scholars to (a) clarify the nature of threats that elicit rigid responses, (b) explore the contextual factors and boundary conditions of the theory, and (c) utilize advanced methodological approaches to examine rigidity effects and outcomes across levels and over time. We provide guidance and sample research questions in each of the proposed directions for scholars to use in future efforts to refine or enhance threat-rigidity theory.
{"title":"Old Habits Die Hard: A Review and Assessment of the Threat-Rigidity Literature","authors":"Matthew J. Mazzei, Jason DeBode, K. Ashley Gangloff, Ruixiang Song","doi":"10.1177/01492063241286493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241286493","url":null,"abstract":"Since its introduction more than four decades ago, threat-rigidity theory has emerged as a popular managerial theory of threat response used in a wide variety of literature streams. The theory explains that individuals, groups, and organizations revert to familiar responses (i.e., rigidity) in navigating threats, even when doing so may not be ideal. Yet, despite its popularity, fidelity to the theory’s assumptions and core arguments have been missing, and development of the theory has been limited. As organizations continue facing new and unique threats (e.g., advancing technologies, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, global health crises), a review and synthesis of threat-rigidity theory is necessary to drive new knowledge and allow for better understanding of the conditions around and appropriateness of rigidity. Our assessment of the literature reveals several gaps to address, which inform three primary directions for future research. We encourage future scholars to (a) clarify the nature of threats that elicit rigid responses, (b) explore the contextual factors and boundary conditions of the theory, and (c) utilize advanced methodological approaches to examine rigidity effects and outcomes across levels and over time. We provide guidance and sample research questions in each of the proposed directions for scholars to use in future efforts to refine or enhance threat-rigidity theory.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142541378","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-29DOI: 10.1177/01492063241289892
Fabrice Lumineau, Dejun Tony Kong, Nicky Dries
McNamara and Schleicher have identified four principal paths for contributing to the Journal of Management (JOM): theoretical insights, phenomenon-driven research, research methodologies, and review papers. This editorial focuses on phenomenon-based research, emphasizing its potential for enhancing management knowledge by offering a nuanced understanding of real-world phenomena. Unlike traditional approaches, phenomenon-based research prioritizes the complexity of phenomena over the immediate generation of theoretical contributions. Grounded in established theory, phenomenon-based research utilizes the phenomenon itself as the primary source of insight, facilitating the development of relevant organizational frameworks. We propose a multistep framework encompassing phenomenon selection, framing, data collection, and study constraints, highlighting criteria—Pertinence, Reach, Insightfulness, Magnification, and Expediency (PRIME)—to guide scholars in identifying meaningful phenomena. Additionally, we discuss constraints that may limit research, including cultural, logistical, ethical, academic, and resource-related challenges (CLEAR). By addressing these considerations, we encourage management scholars to explore diverse and impactful phenomena, ultimately aiming to position JOM as a leading platform for phenomenon-based research and its contributions to real-world organizational challenges. This editorial advocates for a balanced approach that values both theory-driven and phenomenon-driven research in advancing management scholarship.
{"title":"A Roadmap for Navigating Phenomenon-Based Research in Management","authors":"Fabrice Lumineau, Dejun Tony Kong, Nicky Dries","doi":"10.1177/01492063241289892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241289892","url":null,"abstract":"McNamara and Schleicher have identified four principal paths for contributing to the Journal of Management (JOM): theoretical insights, phenomenon-driven research, research methodologies, and review papers. This editorial focuses on phenomenon-based research, emphasizing its potential for enhancing management knowledge by offering a nuanced understanding of real-world phenomena. Unlike traditional approaches, phenomenon-based research prioritizes the complexity of phenomena over the immediate generation of theoretical contributions. Grounded in established theory, phenomenon-based research utilizes the phenomenon itself as the primary source of insight, facilitating the development of relevant organizational frameworks. We propose a multistep framework encompassing phenomenon selection, framing, data collection, and study constraints, highlighting criteria—Pertinence, Reach, Insightfulness, Magnification, and Expediency (PRIME)—to guide scholars in identifying meaningful phenomena. Additionally, we discuss constraints that may limit research, including cultural, logistical, ethical, academic, and resource-related challenges (CLEAR). By addressing these considerations, we encourage management scholars to explore diverse and impactful phenomena, ultimately aiming to position JOM as a leading platform for phenomenon-based research and its contributions to real-world organizational challenges. This editorial advocates for a balanced approach that values both theory-driven and phenomenon-driven research in advancing management scholarship.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"238 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142541377","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-25DOI: 10.1177/01492063241284962
David H. Zhu, Zeyu Zhao, Matthew Semadeni
Scholars have shown increasing interest in the relationship between top executives and firm innovation. However, no systematic effort has been made to integrate or synthesize the theoretical mechanisms in this literature. Without such an integrative framework, this field remains fragmented, offering limited guidance for future research. In this study, we integrate and synthesize findings from over 100 articles on the effects of top executives on innovation. Our review identifies four major categories of theoretical mechanisms (Motivations, Cognitions, Leadership Behaviors, and Influences), eleven sub-categories of mechanisms, and three prominent causal chains in the literature. Our review also examines how these mechanisms align with those in the broader innovation literature, highlighting numerous opportunities for future research. These include deeper integration within and across four categories of mechanisms in strategic leadership literature, drawing insights from strategic leadership research to better inform future research on organizational motivations for innovation, examining top executives’ economic motivations for innovation, and elucidating how strategic leaders shape absorptive and economic capacities to innovate.
{"title":"How and Why Top Executives Influence Innovation: A Review of Mechanisms and a Research Agenda","authors":"David H. Zhu, Zeyu Zhao, Matthew Semadeni","doi":"10.1177/01492063241284962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241284962","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have shown increasing interest in the relationship between top executives and firm innovation. However, no systematic effort has been made to integrate or synthesize the theoretical mechanisms in this literature. Without such an integrative framework, this field remains fragmented, offering limited guidance for future research. In this study, we integrate and synthesize findings from over 100 articles on the effects of top executives on innovation. Our review identifies four major categories of theoretical mechanisms (Motivations, Cognitions, Leadership Behaviors, and Influences), eleven sub-categories of mechanisms, and three prominent causal chains in the literature. Our review also examines how these mechanisms align with those in the broader innovation literature, highlighting numerous opportunities for future research. These include deeper integration within and across four categories of mechanisms in strategic leadership literature, drawing insights from strategic leadership research to better inform future research on organizational motivations for innovation, examining top executives’ economic motivations for innovation, and elucidating how strategic leaders shape absorptive and economic capacities to innovate.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490870","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-22DOI: 10.1177/01492063241287188
Barbara Fasolo, Claire Heard, Irene Scopelliti
The detrimental influence of cognitive biases on decision-making and organizational performance is well established in management research. However, less attention has been given to bias mitigation interventions for improving organizational decisions. Drawing from the judgment and decision-making (JDM) literature, this paper offers a clear conceptualization of two approaches that mitigate bias via distinct cognitive mechanisms—debiasing and choice architecture—and presents a comprehensive integrative review of interventions tested experimentally within each approach. Observing a lack of comparative studies, we propose a novel framework that lays the foundation for future empirical research in bias mitigation. This framework identifies decision, organizational, and individual-level factors that are proposed to moderate the effectiveness of bias mitigation approaches across different contexts and can guide organizations in selecting the most suitable approach. By bridging JDM and management research, we offer a comprehensive research agenda and guidelines to select the most suitable evidence-based approach for improving decision-making processes and, ultimately, organizational performance.
{"title":"Mitigating Cognitive Bias to Improve Organizational Decisions: An Integrative Review, Framework, and Research Agenda","authors":"Barbara Fasolo, Claire Heard, Irene Scopelliti","doi":"10.1177/01492063241287188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241287188","url":null,"abstract":"The detrimental influence of cognitive biases on decision-making and organizational performance is well established in management research. However, less attention has been given to bias mitigation interventions for improving organizational decisions. Drawing from the judgment and decision-making (JDM) literature, this paper offers a clear conceptualization of two approaches that mitigate bias via distinct cognitive mechanisms—debiasing and choice architecture—and presents a comprehensive integrative review of interventions tested experimentally within each approach. Observing a lack of comparative studies, we propose a novel framework that lays the foundation for future empirical research in bias mitigation. This framework identifies decision, organizational, and individual-level factors that are proposed to moderate the effectiveness of bias mitigation approaches across different contexts and can guide organizations in selecting the most suitable approach. By bridging JDM and management research, we offer a comprehensive research agenda and guidelines to select the most suitable evidence-based approach for improving decision-making processes and, ultimately, organizational performance.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"234 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142487597","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-17DOI: 10.1177/01492063241286494
Frederick P. Morgeson, Dong Liu, Albert A. Cannella, Amy J. Hillman, Scott E. Seibert, Michael L. Tushman
This special issue explores the transformative role of discrete events in fostering changes at different organizational levels, challenging traditional feature-oriented approaches that focus on stable attributes of individuals, groups, and organizations. Joining the growing body of event-oriented research in diverse settings, the nine published articles evoke a novel theoretical lens (i.e., Event System Theory) to examine a number of discrete events (e.g., everyday change events, organizational downsizing, merger, corporate scandal, technology implementation, the U.S.–China trade war, the Black Lives Matter movement). Their findings demonstrate the interesting ways discrete events disrupt routines, prompt adaptation, and impact individual and collective behaviors across various levels within organizations. Our further analysis underscores the importance of adopting an event-oriented perspective for a better understanding of management issues, offering new insights and directions for future research. We hope this special issue provides a robust foundation for integrating event-centric research approaches into organizational theory, emphasizing the need for continued empirical investigation and theoretical refinement in a variety of management research domains, such as strategic management, organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, and human resource management.
{"title":"This Is an Eventful Era: Exploring Event-Oriented Approaches to Organizational Research","authors":"Frederick P. Morgeson, Dong Liu, Albert A. Cannella, Amy J. Hillman, Scott E. Seibert, Michael L. Tushman","doi":"10.1177/01492063241286494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241286494","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue explores the transformative role of discrete events in fostering changes at different organizational levels, challenging traditional feature-oriented approaches that focus on stable attributes of individuals, groups, and organizations. Joining the growing body of event-oriented research in diverse settings, the nine published articles evoke a novel theoretical lens (i.e., Event System Theory) to examine a number of discrete events (e.g., everyday change events, organizational downsizing, merger, corporate scandal, technology implementation, the U.S.–China trade war, the Black Lives Matter movement). Their findings demonstrate the interesting ways discrete events disrupt routines, prompt adaptation, and impact individual and collective behaviors across various levels within organizations. Our further analysis underscores the importance of adopting an event-oriented perspective for a better understanding of management issues, offering new insights and directions for future research. We hope this special issue provides a robust foundation for integrating event-centric research approaches into organizational theory, emphasizing the need for continued empirical investigation and theoretical refinement in a variety of management research domains, such as strategic management, organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, and human resource management.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142448564","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}
Research on the influence of internal and external stakeholders on diversity outcomes within organizations has grown in the past decade. Across multiple macro and micro theoretical domains, this body of research has examined various diversity outcomes at different organizational levels. Through an integrative review of literature from management, sociology, psychology, and entrepreneurship, we highlight the channels and pathways of influence and the underlying mechanisms through which four major stakeholder groups—organizational actors, resource exchange partners, institutional actors, and societal forces—impact diversity outcomes in organizations. We discuss future research directions, empirical and conceptual, and present a promising path for future studies to unpack the complex relationships between stakeholders and organizations regarding diversity issues, particularly at the intersection of multiple stakeholders and diversity aspects.
{"title":"A Stakeholder Perspective on Diversity Within Organizations","authors":"Priyanka Dwivedi, Yashodhara Basuthakur, Sridhar Polineni, Srikanth Paruchuri, Aparna Joshi","doi":"10.1177/01492063241280718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241280718","url":null,"abstract":"Research on the influence of internal and external stakeholders on diversity outcomes within organizations has grown in the past decade. Across multiple macro and micro theoretical domains, this body of research has examined various diversity outcomes at different organizational levels. Through an integrative review of literature from management, sociology, psychology, and entrepreneurship, we highlight the channels and pathways of influence and the underlying mechanisms through which four major stakeholder groups—organizational actors, resource exchange partners, institutional actors, and societal forces—impact diversity outcomes in organizations. We discuss future research directions, empirical and conceptual, and present a promising path for future studies to unpack the complex relationships between stakeholders and organizations regarding diversity issues, particularly at the intersection of multiple stakeholders and diversity aspects.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142440188","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}
Pub Date : 2024-10-10DOI: 10.1177/01492063241281466
Anastasia Kukula, Max Reinwald, Rouven Kanitz, Martin Hoegl
Organizations launch diversity initiatives to promote diversity within their ranks, improve the work experiences of underrepresented groups, and satisfy growing demands for diversity in workplace settings. While typically welcomed by the target group, diversity initiatives can be compromised when employees who are not the initiative’s targets—for example, men in the case of gender diversity initiatives—withhold their support. Particularly organizations that are mostly composed of nontargets may thus struggle with a lack of support for their diversity initiatives. To understand how organizations can successfully implement diversity initiatives while preserving nontarget support, we take an uncertainty management perspective and examine the interactive effects of diversity practice type (identity-conscious vs. identity-blind) and leader continuity rhetoric (high vs. low vision of continuity) on nontarget support. In Study 1, using data from a 2 × 2 between-person field experiment in a firefighter organization, we find that framing the initiative under a vision of high (vs. low) continuity preserves nontargets’ anticipatory distributive justice in the face of identity-conscious (vs. identity-blind) practices and thereby promotes initiative support. Study 2, a vignette experiment, replicates our findings and shows that other justice dimensions above and beyond distributive justice appear secondary in this context. Our work has important implications for managing the initiation phase of diversity initiatives in organizations primarily composed of nontargets in a way that fosters nontargets’ perceived justice and support.
{"title":"Bridging the Past, or Breaking From It? Leader Continuity Rhetoric and Nontarget Employee Diversity Initiative Support","authors":"Anastasia Kukula, Max Reinwald, Rouven Kanitz, Martin Hoegl","doi":"10.1177/01492063241281466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241281466","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations launch diversity initiatives to promote diversity within their ranks, improve the work experiences of underrepresented groups, and satisfy growing demands for diversity in workplace settings. While typically welcomed by the target group, diversity initiatives can be compromised when employees who are not the initiative’s targets—for example, men in the case of gender diversity initiatives—withhold their support. Particularly organizations that are mostly composed of nontargets may thus struggle with a lack of support for their diversity initiatives. To understand how organizations can successfully implement diversity initiatives while preserving nontarget support, we take an uncertainty management perspective and examine the interactive effects of diversity practice type (identity-conscious vs. identity-blind) and leader continuity rhetoric (high vs. low vision of continuity) on nontarget support. In Study 1, using data from a 2 × 2 between-person field experiment in a firefighter organization, we find that framing the initiative under a vision of high (vs. low) continuity preserves nontargets’ anticipatory distributive justice in the face of identity-conscious (vs. identity-blind) practices and thereby promotes initiative support. Study 2, a vignette experiment, replicates our findings and shows that other justice dimensions above and beyond distributive justice appear secondary in this context. Our work has important implications for managing the initiation phase of diversity initiatives in organizations primarily composed of nontargets in a way that fosters nontargets’ perceived justice and support.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142397851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：