Pub Date : 2025-05-13DOI: 10.1177/01492063251330199
Stephen H. Courtright, Gary R. Thurgood, Huiyao Liao, Timothy J. Morgan, Jiexin Wang
Leader emergence is a critical organizational phenomenon, influenced by various individual attributes. One such attribute—often overlooked by scholars and practitioners—is physical attractiveness. This study provides a comprehensive meta-analysis of the beauty bias and its relationship to leader emergence. We first review implicit leadership and status generalization theories as the dominant frameworks explaining this bias. Next, we assess the magnitude of the physical attractiveness–leader emergence relationship and test the “beauty is beastly” effect by evaluating leader gender as a moderator. We also identify two key mechanisms—perceived warmth and perceived competence—that explain this relationship. Additionally, we explore the robustness of the beauty bias across different contexts, including observer characteristics, leadership roles, and national culture. Our findings confirm that physical attractiveness is significantly related to leader emergence, primarily through perceptions of warmth, but also through perceptions of competence. This relationship holds equally for male and female leaders and is stronger in informal leadership contexts. It is slightly more pronounced among college students than full-time employees and in collectivist rather than individualistic national cultures, yet remains equally strong across executive and non-executive leadership roles. Overall, our findings highlight the strength and consistency of the physical attractiveness–leader emergence relationship, underscoring the need for organizations to mitigate the beauty bias from influencing decisions around leader emergence.
{"title":"The Beauty Bias and Leader Emergence: A Theoretical Integration, Extension, and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Stephen H. Courtright, Gary R. Thurgood, Huiyao Liao, Timothy J. Morgan, Jiexin Wang","doi":"10.1177/01492063251330199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251330199","url":null,"abstract":"Leader emergence is a critical organizational phenomenon, influenced by various individual attributes. One such attribute—often overlooked by scholars and practitioners—is physical attractiveness. This study provides a comprehensive meta-analysis of the beauty bias and its relationship to leader emergence. We first review implicit leadership and status generalization theories as the dominant frameworks explaining this bias. Next, we assess the magnitude of the physical attractiveness–leader emergence relationship and test the “beauty is beastly” effect by evaluating leader gender as a moderator. We also identify two key mechanisms—perceived warmth and perceived competence—that explain this relationship. Additionally, we explore the robustness of the beauty bias across different contexts, including observer characteristics, leadership roles, and national culture. Our findings confirm that physical attractiveness is significantly related to leader emergence, primarily through perceptions of warmth, but also through perceptions of competence. This relationship holds equally for male and female leaders and is stronger in informal leadership contexts. It is slightly more pronounced among college students than full-time employees and in collectivist rather than individualistic national cultures, yet remains equally strong across executive and non-executive leadership roles. Overall, our findings highlight the strength and consistency of the physical attractiveness–leader emergence relationship, underscoring the need for organizations to mitigate the beauty bias from influencing decisions around leader emergence.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143945746","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 : 2025-05-06DOI: 10.1177/01492063251331910
Szu-Han (Joanna) Lin, Emily C. Poulton, Russell E. Johnson
Existing research assumes that supervisors invariably feel bad after engaging in abusive behaviors. We challenge this assumption by proposing that supervisors’ motives of abusive supervision shape their post-abuse experiences. Drawing on the social interactionist theory of aggression and theories of self-regulation, we suggest that instrumental (or goal-driven) abusive behaviors provide a temporary sense of fulfillment, whereas spontaneous (or reactive, emotionally-driven) abusive behaviors diminish need satisfaction and foster negative outcomes. Using an exploratory study and an event-contingent experiencing sampling study, we found that supervisors may justify their abuse with effecting compliance motives when subordinates perform poorly, which fulfills task achievement needs and increases next-day work engagement. Similarly, supervisors may also justify their abuse with identity maintenance motives when subordinates are disrespectful, thus enhancing social identity needs and next-day organizational-based self-esteem. We also found that when supervisors justify their abusive behaviors with spontaneous motives (i.e., depletion and negative affect), it has negative implications for need satisfaction and outcomes. Lastly, we highlight supervisor’s psychological power as a boundary condition of these effects. All told, our findings indicate that, at the within-person level, supervisors’ daily motives for abusive behaviors matter, given that certain motives actually yield short-term benefits for supervisors.
{"title":"Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors’ Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes","authors":"Szu-Han (Joanna) Lin, Emily C. Poulton, Russell E. Johnson","doi":"10.1177/01492063251331910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251331910","url":null,"abstract":"Existing research assumes that supervisors invariably feel bad after engaging in abusive behaviors. We challenge this assumption by proposing that supervisors’ motives of abusive supervision shape their post-abuse experiences. Drawing on the social interactionist theory of aggression and theories of self-regulation, we suggest that instrumental (or goal-driven) abusive behaviors provide a temporary sense of fulfillment, whereas spontaneous (or reactive, emotionally-driven) abusive behaviors diminish need satisfaction and foster negative outcomes. Using an exploratory study and an event-contingent experiencing sampling study, we found that supervisors may justify their abuse with effecting compliance motives when subordinates perform poorly, which fulfills task achievement needs and increases next-day work engagement. Similarly, supervisors may also justify their abuse with identity maintenance motives when subordinates are disrespectful, thus enhancing social identity needs and next-day organizational-based self-esteem. We also found that when supervisors justify their abusive behaviors with spontaneous motives (i.e., depletion and negative affect), it has negative implications for need satisfaction and outcomes. Lastly, we highlight supervisor’s psychological power as a boundary condition of these effects. All told, our findings indicate that, at the within-person level, supervisors’ daily motives for abusive behaviors matter, given that certain motives actually yield short-term benefits for supervisors.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"142 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143915966","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 : 2025-05-04DOI: 10.1177/01492063251333791
Afonso Almeida Costa, Javier Gimeno
The view that a business unit can better compete against product-market rivals if granted funding from its parent firm’s internal capital market (ICM) has lost traction within strategy, despite conflicting evidence. We develop a theory to explain when funding from a parent firm’s ICM should enable a business unit to more effectively capture value (i.e., profit) from its investment opportunities under product-market competition. We depart from prior theories by examining how opportunities relate to competition. Specifically, we propose a typology of opportunities along two strategic dimensions. The first dimension is firm-specificity, a concept derived from the resource-based view. It refers to whether an opportunity stems from unique firm resources and capabilities and is therefore exclusive to a business unit rather than shared with (and contestable by) its product-market rivals. The second dimension is uncertainty about the investment path, a concept derived from the literature on investment under uncertainty and real options. When present, it is impossible (and undesirable) to commit upfront to a fully predetermined set of investments in an opportunity. These dimensions imply that different opportunities may have distinct critical needs in terms of funding—such as secrecy, timeliness, and reliability—that must be satisfied for a business unit to capture value. Ultimately, our theory indicates that receiving funding from a parent firm’s ICM increases a business unit’s chances of capturing value when those critical needs are present, suggesting that units with ICM funding may prevail in some competitive environments.
{"title":"Capturing Value From Investment Opportunities Under Product-Market Competition: When Do Internal Capital Markets Matter?","authors":"Afonso Almeida Costa, Javier Gimeno","doi":"10.1177/01492063251333791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251333791","url":null,"abstract":"The view that a business unit can better compete against product-market rivals if granted funding from its parent firm’s internal capital market (ICM) has lost traction within strategy, despite conflicting evidence. We develop a theory to explain when funding from a parent firm’s ICM should enable a business unit to more effectively capture value (i.e., profit) from its investment opportunities under product-market competition. We depart from prior theories by examining how opportunities relate to competition. Specifically, we propose a typology of opportunities along two strategic dimensions. The first dimension is firm-specificity, a concept derived from the resource-based view. It refers to whether an opportunity stems from unique firm resources and capabilities and is therefore exclusive to a business unit rather than shared with (and contestable by) its product-market rivals. The second dimension is uncertainty about the investment path, a concept derived from the literature on investment under uncertainty and real options. When present, it is impossible (and undesirable) to commit upfront to a fully predetermined set of investments in an opportunity. These dimensions imply that different opportunities may have distinct critical needs in terms of funding—such as secrecy, timeliness, and reliability—that must be satisfied for a business unit to capture value. Ultimately, our theory indicates that receiving funding from a parent firm’s ICM increases a business unit’s chances of capturing value when those critical needs are present, suggesting that units with ICM funding may prevail in some competitive environments.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143909874","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 : 2025-04-30DOI: 10.1177/01492063251330268
Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang, Ran Huang, Dongyuan Wu, Huijie Shi
Insufficient effort responding (IER) presents a significant challenge in management research, potentially leading to flawed inferences. This review critically examines IER practices in 17 leading management journals from 2012 to 2023, highlighting inconsistencies in screening methods, cutoffs, and reporting. We find that IER screening is more prevalent in studies using online paid samples, experimental tasks, and computerized data collection. However, researchers’ IER-related practices, specifically the use of multiple detection methods, predicted IER removal rate above and beyond these study characteristics. Our review revealed that, despite increasing awareness, IER detection and reporting remain unstandardized, with varied practices across studies. While attention checks are frequently used, details about their implementation are often inadequately reported, and multiple detection methods, though recommended, are inconsistently applied. Variability in cutoffs and reliance on single-item checks raise concerns about the risk of retaining IER cases or mistakenly excluding attentive respondents. Our assessment of the impact of IER removal suggests that while it generally improves reliability and model fit, its effect can vary widely across measures and studies. We call on methodologists to resolve existing inconsistencies by developing clearer, empirically derived guidelines for IER detection and removal. We urge researchers to adopt more comprehensive and transparent reporting practices to enhance replicability and methodological rigor, with a flowchart to guide research design and method communication. This review underscores the need for a more systematic approach to IER mitigation in management research to enhance data quality and research validity.
{"title":"Insufficient Effort Responding in Management Research: A Critical Review and Future Directions","authors":"Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang, Ran Huang, Dongyuan Wu, Huijie Shi","doi":"10.1177/01492063251330268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251330268","url":null,"abstract":"Insufficient effort responding (IER) presents a significant challenge in management research, potentially leading to flawed inferences. This review critically examines IER practices in 17 leading management journals from 2012 to 2023, highlighting inconsistencies in screening methods, cutoffs, and reporting. We find that IER screening is more prevalent in studies using online paid samples, experimental tasks, and computerized data collection. However, researchers’ IER-related practices, specifically the use of multiple detection methods, predicted IER removal rate above and beyond these study characteristics. Our review revealed that, despite increasing awareness, IER detection and reporting remain unstandardized, with varied practices across studies. While attention checks are frequently used, details about their implementation are often inadequately reported, and multiple detection methods, though recommended, are inconsistently applied. Variability in cutoffs and reliance on single-item checks raise concerns about the risk of retaining IER cases or mistakenly excluding attentive respondents. Our assessment of the impact of IER removal suggests that while it generally improves reliability and model fit, its effect can vary widely across measures and studies. We call on methodologists to resolve existing inconsistencies by developing clearer, empirically derived guidelines for IER detection and removal. We urge researchers to adopt more comprehensive and transparent reporting practices to enhance replicability and methodological rigor, with a flowchart to guide research design and method communication. This review underscores the need for a more systematic approach to IER mitigation in management research to enhance data quality and research validity.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143893471","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 : 2025-04-28DOI: 10.1177/01492063251332551
Xiaoming He, Di Fan, Xinli Huang, Mike W. Peng
The internationalization of emerging market firms (EMFs) has attracted substantial research attention. Yet, how EMFs engage in diversification and innovation during internationalization remains underexplored. Drawing insights from a geographic relational perspective, we perform a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a sample of EMFs. Our findings suggest that EMFs can choose from multiple equifinal internationalization pathways to capture growth opportunities in diversification and/or innovation. These new insights emphasize that achieving diversification or innovation requires a combination of organizational contextuality, international path dependence, and geographic practice attributes. We further develop a taxonomy of five EMFs’ geographic relational configurations for diversification and/or innovation: entrenching specialist, niche explorer, global adapter, transnational agent, and strategic aspirant. Overall, by unleashing the power of configurational analysis, this paper reveals what is behind the intriguing internationalization of EMFs with a focus on diversification and innovation.
{"title":"Behind Emerging Market Firms’ Internationalization, Diversification, and Innovation: A Geographic Relational Approach","authors":"Xiaoming He, Di Fan, Xinli Huang, Mike W. Peng","doi":"10.1177/01492063251332551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251332551","url":null,"abstract":"The internationalization of emerging market firms (EMFs) has attracted substantial research attention. Yet, how EMFs engage in diversification and innovation during internationalization remains underexplored. Drawing insights from a geographic relational perspective, we perform a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a sample of EMFs. Our findings suggest that EMFs can choose from multiple equifinal internationalization pathways to capture growth opportunities in diversification and/or innovation. These new insights emphasize that achieving diversification or innovation requires a combination of organizational contextuality, international path dependence, and geographic practice attributes. We further develop a taxonomy of five EMFs’ geographic relational configurations for diversification and/or innovation: entrenching specialist, niche explorer, global adapter, transnational agent, and strategic aspirant. Overall, by unleashing the power of configurational analysis, this paper reveals what is behind the intriguing internationalization of EMFs with a focus on diversification and innovation.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"140 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143884267","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 : 2025-04-25DOI: 10.1177/01492063251331002
Lauren E. Aydinliyim, Deepak Somaya
The ability of employees to move between firms of their own volition is a defining characteristic that distinguishes human capital from other resources. This review bridges previously isolated research communities by synthesizing knowledge on “employee mobility barriers”—mechanisms that restrict employee movement and help firms maintain human capital-based competitive advantages. We introduce a typology of ten categories of employee mobility barriers, differentiated by level of analysis (individual, organizational, societal) and degree of firm control, to organize the disparate literature on this topic. Building on this foundation, we propose an architecture of strategic modes that characterizes firm responses to employee mobility barriers based on the level of firm control (high vs. low) and the level at which barriers operate (individual vs. organizational). This framework offers a theoretical lens for understanding how firms navigate these barriers through proactive and reactive strategies, highlighting implications for decision-making, centralization, and delegation. Our review examines the dual nature of employee mobility as both an opportunity and a challenge for firms and individuals, with implications across three primary domains: individual careers, human capital/human resource management (HC/HRM), and strategic management. We propose a portfolio perspective for future research to explore whether different mobility barriers act as complements or substitutes. Additionally, we consider the relational benefits of employee mobility and suggest directions for further inquiry. By integrating our typology and the architecture of strategic modes, this review advances theoretical and practical understanding of employee mobility barriers, reflecting recent developments and setting the stage for future research.
{"title":"Employee Mobility Barriers: An Integrative Review Across Careers, Human Resources, and Strategic Management Research","authors":"Lauren E. Aydinliyim, Deepak Somaya","doi":"10.1177/01492063251331002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251331002","url":null,"abstract":"The ability of employees to move between firms of their own volition is a defining characteristic that distinguishes human capital from other resources. This review bridges previously isolated research communities by synthesizing knowledge on “employee mobility barriers”—mechanisms that restrict employee movement and help firms maintain human capital-based competitive advantages. We introduce a typology of ten categories of employee mobility barriers, differentiated by level of analysis (individual, organizational, societal) and degree of firm control, to organize the disparate literature on this topic. Building on this foundation, we propose an architecture of strategic modes that characterizes firm responses to employee mobility barriers based on the level of firm control (high vs. low) and the level at which barriers operate (individual vs. organizational). This framework offers a theoretical lens for understanding how firms navigate these barriers through proactive and reactive strategies, highlighting implications for decision-making, centralization, and delegation. Our review examines the dual nature of employee mobility as both an opportunity and a challenge for firms and individuals, with implications across three primary domains: individual careers, human capital/human resource management (HC/HRM), and strategic management. We propose a portfolio perspective for future research to explore whether different mobility barriers act as complements or substitutes. Additionally, we consider the relational benefits of employee mobility and suggest directions for further inquiry. By integrating our typology and the architecture of strategic modes, this review advances theoretical and practical understanding of employee mobility barriers, reflecting recent developments and setting the stage for future research.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143875880","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 : 2025-04-24DOI: 10.1177/01492063251328267
Stephanie B. Escudero, Aaron H. Anglin, Thomas H. Allison, Marcus T. Wolfe
Crowdfunding is a relatively nascent, rapidly growing phenomenon whereby individuals or ventures pursue funding from a potentially large number of backers via the Internet. This rapidly emerging literature invites a variety of conceptual lenses and offers significant potential to advance theoretical understanding of important organizational activities, such as how entrepreneurs and organizations are evaluated by external stakeholders or how the crowdfunding process shapes the strategic decisions of emerging organizations. Our integrative review seeks to discover how the extant body of crowdfunding research challenges, extends, and contributes to the theoretical understanding of management and organizational phenomena and how these insights might drive further theoretical advancement. To do so, we inductively identify ten dominant topics that span the crowdfunding landscape across disciplines (268 articles) and synthesize the major findings within each topic based on relevant theoretical concepts. In doing so, we highlight how each topic area has applied and advanced various organizational theories. We then leverage the ten topics to articulate opportunities for future research uncovered by our review that provide potential contributions to theories germane to the management literature and to guide the next decade of crowdfunding research.
{"title":"Crowdfunding: A Theory-Centered Review and Roadmap of the Multidisciplinary Literature","authors":"Stephanie B. Escudero, Aaron H. Anglin, Thomas H. Allison, Marcus T. Wolfe","doi":"10.1177/01492063251328267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251328267","url":null,"abstract":"Crowdfunding is a relatively nascent, rapidly growing phenomenon whereby individuals or ventures pursue funding from a potentially large number of backers via the Internet. This rapidly emerging literature invites a variety of conceptual lenses and offers significant potential to advance theoretical understanding of important organizational activities, such as how entrepreneurs and organizations are evaluated by external stakeholders or how the crowdfunding process shapes the strategic decisions of emerging organizations. Our integrative review seeks to discover how the extant body of crowdfunding research challenges, extends, and contributes to the theoretical understanding of management and organizational phenomena and how these insights might drive further theoretical advancement. To do so, we inductively identify ten dominant topics that span the crowdfunding landscape across disciplines (268 articles) and synthesize the major findings within each topic based on relevant theoretical concepts. In doing so, we highlight how each topic area has applied and advanced various organizational theories. We then leverage the ten topics to articulate opportunities for future research uncovered by our review that provide potential contributions to theories germane to the management literature and to guide the next decade of crowdfunding research.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872810","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 : 2025-04-20DOI: 10.1177/01492063251330200
Brent B. Clark, Karen A. Schnatterly, Felipe Calvano, John P. Berns, Cynthia E. Devers, K. Ashley Gangloff
While many boards adopt technology committees to support firm innovation, the impact of such committees is largely unexplored. We draw on agency and resource dependence theories to suggest that technology committees can improve firm innovation (patenting and new product introductions). We further hypothesize that relevant committee expertise (technology and executive expertise) enhances the effectiveness of the committee, and that the benefit of committee expertise is strengthened when coupled with financial resource provision. Our results support our theorizing about the impact of technology committees—they positively impact new product introductions, although they had no impact on patenting. We also found that committee expertise enhances committee effectiveness, but only when accompanied by greater financial resources. We discuss the implications of optional board structures, such as technology committees and their composition, on firm innovation.
{"title":"Aligning the Stars: How Technology Committees and Relevant Resources Drive Firm Innovation","authors":"Brent B. Clark, Karen A. Schnatterly, Felipe Calvano, John P. Berns, Cynthia E. Devers, K. Ashley Gangloff","doi":"10.1177/01492063251330200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251330200","url":null,"abstract":"While many boards adopt technology committees to support firm innovation, the impact of such committees is largely unexplored. We draw on agency and resource dependence theories to suggest that technology committees can improve firm innovation (patenting and new product introductions). We further hypothesize that relevant committee expertise (technology and executive expertise) enhances the effectiveness of the committee, and that the benefit of committee expertise is strengthened when coupled with financial resource provision. Our results support our theorizing about the impact of technology committees—they positively impact new product introductions, although they had no impact on patenting. We also found that committee expertise enhances committee effectiveness, but only when accompanied by greater financial resources. We discuss the implications of optional board structures, such as technology committees and their composition, on firm innovation.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143853643","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 : 2025-04-20DOI: 10.1177/01492063251325220
Frank Wijen
Why do so many responsible business initiatives fail? While earlier studies have stressed the lack of commitment, we know little about the ways in which prosocial firms seek to secure the requisite resources to accomplish such practices. This study investigates how the management of multiple resource dependencies impacts the (non)accomplishment of a firm’s aspired responsible practices. A granular, comparative study of six prosocial firms embarking on voluntary environmental practices over a decade shows that mainstreamed development resulted from securing the full-fledged and sustained support of all complementary resource providers over a longer period, whereas practices facing constrained or missing resources turned into partial or outright failures. Securing multiple resources involves several problems (resource inaccessibility, resource dispersion, and resource instability), which firms address through different mechanisms. They empathically mobilize resources to overcome resistance from reluctant actors, enact integrative structures to secure resources from dispersed actors, and reshuffle resources to respond to fluctuations in availability and need. The combined use of these mechanisms does not guarantee success but is imperative to overcome the barriers that threaten the mainstreaming of responsible practices. These insights have implications for the corporate responsibility, resource dependence, and ecosystem literatures.
{"title":"Moving in Tandem or Failing Altogether: Managing Resource Configurations for Responsible Practice Development","authors":"Frank Wijen","doi":"10.1177/01492063251325220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251325220","url":null,"abstract":"Why do so many responsible business initiatives fail? While earlier studies have stressed the lack of commitment, we know little about the ways in which prosocial firms seek to secure the requisite resources to accomplish such practices. This study investigates how the management of multiple resource dependencies impacts the (non)accomplishment of a firm’s aspired responsible practices. A granular, comparative study of six prosocial firms embarking on voluntary environmental practices over a decade shows that mainstreamed development resulted from securing the full-fledged and sustained support of all complementary resource providers over a longer period, whereas practices facing constrained or missing resources turned into partial or outright failures. Securing multiple resources involves several problems (resource inaccessibility, resource dispersion, and resource instability), which firms address through different mechanisms. They empathically mobilize resources to overcome resistance from reluctant actors, enact integrative structures to secure resources from dispersed actors, and reshuffle resources to respond to fluctuations in availability and need. The combined use of these mechanisms does not guarantee success but is imperative to overcome the barriers that threaten the mainstreaming of responsible practices. These insights have implications for the corporate responsibility, resource dependence, and ecosystem literatures.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143853644","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 : 2025-04-20DOI: 10.1177/01492063251328584
Alexander C. Romney, Daniel W. Newton, Michael D. Ulrich
Organizations rely on employees to report problems that hinder organizational effectiveness and on supervisors to resolve those problems. Although prohibitive voice is generally thought to help organizations avoid costly and tragic outcomes, the voice literature has also demonstrated that supervisors respond more negatively to prohibitive voice than promotive voice. This tension motivates our inquiry into a fundamental but overlooked reason as to why supervisors might implement prohibitive voice. Drawing upon theoretical distinctions between prohibitive and promotive voice articulated in the voice literature and regulatory focus theory, we propose that supervisors tend to implement prohibitive voice episodes because they elicit an urgency to respond. We find support for our theoretical model in a field study of 555 discrete voice episodes delivered over the course of four years in a high-speed transit system (Study 1). We reproduce and extend these findings—that supervisors implement prohibitive voice because it triggers an urgency to respond—in a recall experiment in which we find that prevention focus enhances supervisors’ response urgency toward prohibitive voice (Study 2). Taken together, our findings demonstrate that despite the potential negative consequences voicers may incur for speaking up with prohibitive voice, a primary function of prohibitive voice is to elicit response urgency that ultimately generates real change.
{"title":"Putting Out Burning Fires: Investigating the Urgency Triggered By Prohibitive Voice","authors":"Alexander C. Romney, Daniel W. Newton, Michael D. Ulrich","doi":"10.1177/01492063251328584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251328584","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations rely on employees to report problems that hinder organizational effectiveness and on supervisors to resolve those problems. Although prohibitive voice is generally thought to help organizations avoid costly and tragic outcomes, the voice literature has also demonstrated that supervisors respond more negatively to prohibitive voice than promotive voice. This tension motivates our inquiry into a fundamental but overlooked reason as to why supervisors might implement prohibitive voice. Drawing upon theoretical distinctions between prohibitive and promotive voice articulated in the voice literature and regulatory focus theory, we propose that supervisors tend to implement prohibitive voice episodes because they elicit an urgency to respond. We find support for our theoretical model in a field study of 555 discrete voice episodes delivered over the course of four years in a high-speed transit system (Study 1). We reproduce and extend these findings—that supervisors implement prohibitive voice because it triggers an urgency to respond—in a recall experiment in which we find that prevention focus enhances supervisors’ response urgency toward prohibitive voice (Study 2). Taken together, our findings demonstrate that despite the potential negative consequences voicers may incur for speaking up with prohibitive voice, a primary function of prohibitive voice is to elicit response urgency that ultimately generates real change.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143853642","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：