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}
Pub Date : 2025-04-20DOI: 10.1177/01492063251324500
Dejun Tony Kong, Nicole A. Gillespie, Kurt T. Dirks
Human resource (HR) practices hold great promise in fostering employee trust, and insights into how HR practices relate to employee trust are critical to evidence-informed management. However, extant research findings are fragmented and dispersed across disciplines and use a confusing plethora of concepts, limiting insights. To address these problems, we conducted a systematic review to offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of “what,” “how,” and “when” HR practices influence employee trust toward four referents (supervisor, management, peers, and organization). Specifically, we identify the evidence-based patterns regarding “what” HR practices are related to employee trust toward “what” referents, “how” HR practices are related to employee trust, and “when” HR practices are more or less related to employee trust. We find that while bundles of HR practices are positively associated with vertical trust toward management, lateral trust toward peers, and organizational trust, individual HR practices have differential associations with trust toward the four referents, which in turn predict different outcomes. We discuss research limitations and opportunities and provide a framework and set of methodological recommendations to guide a new wave of future research. We propose a broader set of theories to enrich understanding of “how” HR practices lead to employee trust, further clarifications on the HR and trust concepts examined, and explore additional moderators. These efforts will further integrate trust and HR research and generate more rigorous knowledge to inform management of employee trust through HR practices.
{"title":"Human Resource Practices and Employee Trust: A Systematic Review With a Guiding Framework","authors":"Dejun Tony Kong, Nicole A. Gillespie, Kurt T. Dirks","doi":"10.1177/01492063251324500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251324500","url":null,"abstract":"Human resource (HR) practices hold great promise in fostering employee trust, and insights into how HR practices relate to employee trust are critical to evidence-informed management. However, extant research findings are fragmented and dispersed across disciplines and use a confusing plethora of concepts, limiting insights. To address these problems, we conducted a systematic review to offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of “what,” “how,” and “when” HR practices influence employee trust toward four referents (supervisor, management, peers, and organization). Specifically, we identify the evidence-based patterns regarding “what” HR practices are related to employee trust toward “what” referents, “how” HR practices are related to employee trust, and “when” HR practices are more or less related to employee trust. We find that while bundles of HR practices are positively associated with vertical trust toward management, lateral trust toward peers, and organizational trust, individual HR practices have differential associations with trust toward the four referents, which in turn predict different outcomes. We discuss research limitations and opportunities and provide a framework and set of methodological recommendations to guide a new wave of future research. We propose a broader set of theories to enrich understanding of “how” HR practices lead to employee trust, further clarifications on the HR and trust concepts examined, and explore additional moderators. These efforts will further integrate trust and HR research and generate more rigorous knowledge to inform management of employee trust through HR practices.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143857753","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 : 2025-04-17DOI: 10.1177/01492063251333788
José M. Cortina
Waiting to evaluate one section of a paper (e.g., the Methods) until you have decided whether another section (e.g., the front end) passes muster is analogous to “multiple hurdle” systems in personnel selection. This usually creates a suboptimal weighting scheme in which the part of the system that represents the first hurdle is overvalued. I explain why “multiple hurdle” reviewing is counterproductive and offer a superior alternative.
{"title":"The Problem With “Multiple Hurdle” Reviewing","authors":"José M. Cortina","doi":"10.1177/01492063251333788","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251333788","url":null,"abstract":"Waiting to evaluate one section of a paper (e.g., the Methods) until you have decided whether another section (e.g., the front end) passes muster is analogous to “multiple hurdle” systems in personnel selection. This usually creates a suboptimal weighting scheme in which the part of the system that represents the first hurdle is overvalued. I explain why “multiple hurdle” reviewing is counterproductive and offer a superior alternative.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143847275","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 : 2025-04-12DOI: 10.1177/01492063251328256
Christine Scheef, Thomas Zellweger
This study examines the performance consequences of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) successions, focusing on the types of board chairs and firm ownership structures. While CEO successions can bring adaptation benefits and performance gains through strategic realignment, they can also cause disruption costs and performance losses by disturbing stakeholder relationships. We examine how the presence of a predecessor CEO or an independent individual as board chair affects postsuccession performance differently depending on the level of family control. Our analysis of a panel dataset of S&P 1500 firms from 2003 to 2022 and a series of robustness tests provide strong support for our predictions. We found that with increasing family control, predecessor CEOs as board chairs have a more positive effect on postsuccession performance, while the opposite holds true for independent board chairs. Further, within family-controlled firms, the effect of predecessor retention is stronger for outside than inside CEO successions. Our findings expand CEO succession and board chair research by demonstrating that the value of a board chair type after a CEO succession depends on a firm’s ownership structure, particularly the degree of family control.
{"title":"Ownership Matters: How Family Control Affects the Value of Board Chair Types After CEO Successions","authors":"Christine Scheef, Thomas Zellweger","doi":"10.1177/01492063251328256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251328256","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the performance consequences of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) successions, focusing on the types of board chairs and firm ownership structures. While CEO successions can bring adaptation benefits and performance gains through strategic realignment, they can also cause disruption costs and performance losses by disturbing stakeholder relationships. We examine how the presence of a predecessor CEO or an independent individual as board chair affects postsuccession performance differently depending on the level of family control. Our analysis of a panel dataset of S&P 1500 firms from 2003 to 2022 and a series of robustness tests provide strong support for our predictions. We found that with increasing family control, predecessor CEOs as board chairs have a more positive effect on postsuccession performance, while the opposite holds true for independent board chairs. Further, within family-controlled firms, the effect of predecessor retention is stronger for outside than inside CEO successions. Our findings expand CEO succession and board chair research by demonstrating that the value of a board chair type after a CEO succession depends on a firm’s ownership structure, particularly the degree of family control.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"137 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143824855","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 : 2025-04-10DOI: 10.1177/01492063251325188
Anthony J. Nyberg, Deidra J. Schleicher, Bradford S. Bell, Corine Boon, Peter Cappelli, David G. Collings, Joseph E. Dalle Molle, Stefan Feuerriegel, Barry Gerhart, Yoojin Jeong, M. Audrey Korsgaard, Dana Minbaeva, Robert E. Ployhart, Prasanna Tambe, Ingo Weller, Patrick M. Wright, Valery Yakubovich
This paper reviews the transformative role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Human Resource (HR) management, from a practice perspective, highlighting both opportunities and challenges and laying out a use-inspired future research agenda. This scoping review is grounded in insights from a unique Summit held in Spring 2024, which brought together HR academic scholars with dozens of Fortune 500 Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs) and their top technical leaders to discuss the workforce implications of GenAI. The paper identifies six key themes from the Summit practitioners: GenAI as disruptive and transformative, data as competitive advantage, adoption challenges, potential ethical abuses, the experimentation imperative, and the critical role of CHROs. These six themes provide a foundation for future research directions, which are discussed regarding six functional HR areas: recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management, job and work design, talent management, and compensation and benefits. The research agenda in each area emphasizes the need for academic researchers to understand and address the practical challenges posed by GenAI. Overcoming these substantive challenges will demand meaningful effort and a keen willingness to learn, on the part of both HR leaders and scholars. The paper concludes with a call to action for management scholars to engage in use-inspired research that bridges the gap between academic knowledge and practical HR challenges.
{"title":"A Brave New World of Human Resources Research: Navigating Perils and Identifying Grand Challenges of the GenAI Revolution","authors":"Anthony J. Nyberg, Deidra J. Schleicher, Bradford S. Bell, Corine Boon, Peter Cappelli, David G. Collings, Joseph E. Dalle Molle, Stefan Feuerriegel, Barry Gerhart, Yoojin Jeong, M. Audrey Korsgaard, Dana Minbaeva, Robert E. Ployhart, Prasanna Tambe, Ingo Weller, Patrick M. Wright, Valery Yakubovich","doi":"10.1177/01492063251325188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251325188","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the transformative role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Human Resource (HR) management, from a practice perspective, highlighting both opportunities and challenges and laying out a use-inspired future research agenda. This scoping review is grounded in insights from a unique Summit held in Spring 2024, which brought together HR academic scholars with dozens of Fortune 500 Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs) and their top technical leaders to discuss the workforce implications of GenAI. The paper identifies six key themes from the Summit practitioners: GenAI as disruptive and transformative, data as competitive advantage, adoption challenges, potential ethical abuses, the experimentation imperative, and the critical role of CHROs. These six themes provide a foundation for future research directions, which are discussed regarding six functional HR areas: recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management, job and work design, talent management, and compensation and benefits. The research agenda in each area emphasizes the need for academic researchers to understand and address the practical challenges posed by GenAI. Overcoming these substantive challenges will demand meaningful effort and a keen willingness to learn, on the part of both HR leaders and scholars. The paper concludes with a call to action for management scholars to engage in use-inspired research that bridges the gap between academic knowledge and practical HR challenges.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143818959","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 : 2025-04-10DOI: 10.1177/01492063251323849
Murod Aliyev, Jeoung Yul Lee
We extend the business group (BG) literature by combining the knowledge-based perspective and the dynamic capabilities view to explain the benefits of group affiliation. In the BG context, group affiliates can use not only their own firm-level knowledge-based assets (KBAs), but also group-level KBAs. While prior research examines the efficiencies of BG affiliation by comparing BG affiliates to non-affiliated firms, we ask to what extent affiliate-specific rents from group-level KBAs vary among affiliate firms and why. To explain this variation, we identify affiliate-specific rents generated by the complementarity between firm- and group-level KBAs. Drawing from the dynamic capabilities view, we developed a framework to explain the sources of such complementarity and tested a series of hypotheses. This study provides empirical evidence using firm-level data on 524 affiliates of keiretsu groups in Japan from 1985 to 2015. To measure KBAs and their characteristics, we use data on 11.5 million patents matched to the sample firms. This study provides a knowledge-based perspective to explain BG affiliation benefits and the persistence of BGs as an organizational form of economic activity.
{"title":"Knowledge-Based Assets in Business Groups: A Dynamic Capabilities View of Complementarity and Rents","authors":"Murod Aliyev, Jeoung Yul Lee","doi":"10.1177/01492063251323849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251323849","url":null,"abstract":"We extend the business group (BG) literature by combining the knowledge-based perspective and the dynamic capabilities view to explain the benefits of group affiliation. In the BG context, group affiliates can use not only their own firm-level knowledge-based assets (KBAs), but also group-level KBAs. While prior research examines the efficiencies of BG affiliation by comparing BG affiliates to non-affiliated firms, we ask to what extent affiliate-specific rents from group-level KBAs vary among affiliate firms and why. To explain this variation, we identify affiliate-specific rents generated by the complementarity between firm- and group-level KBAs. Drawing from the dynamic capabilities view, we developed a framework to explain the sources of such complementarity and tested a series of hypotheses. This study provides empirical evidence using firm-level data on 524 affiliates of keiretsu groups in Japan from 1985 to 2015. To measure KBAs and their characteristics, we use data on 11.5 million patents matched to the sample firms. This study provides a knowledge-based perspective to explain BG affiliation benefits and the persistence of BGs as an organizational form of economic activity.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143819406","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 : 2025-04-08DOI: 10.1177/01492063251322429
Barbara Galleli, Lucas Amaral
This review examines the integration of institutional theory with social and environmental efforts in management (i.e., regarding sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and environmental, social, and governance objectives). By analyzing 720 studies published between 1997 and 2023, we develop a multi-level model that maps the antecedents of different actors (e.g., industries, organizations, individuals) to respond to or reshape institutional structures, the mechanisms they use, the moderators, and outcomes of their practices. Our findings emphasize the dynamic interplay between structure and agency across systemic, organizational, and individual levels, offering a comprehensive framework for future research. We highlight three key observations: first, while substantial research explores how institutions shape actors, more attention is needed to understand the reciprocal influences as actors are shaped by and reshape institutions over time. Second, individual-level dynamics remain significantly underexplored, with limited focus on resistance, demotivation, and failure—essential elements of the complexity of institutional processes. Finally, we identify a critical need to examine the unintended consequences of social and environmental efforts, revealing how these endeavors may undermine their goals, create new challenges, or generate unexpected solutions.
{"title":"Bridging Institutional Theory and Social and Environmental Efforts in Management: A Review and Research Agenda","authors":"Barbara Galleli, Lucas Amaral","doi":"10.1177/01492063251322429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251322429","url":null,"abstract":"This review examines the integration of institutional theory with social and environmental efforts in management (i.e., regarding sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and environmental, social, and governance objectives). By analyzing 720 studies published between 1997 and 2023, we develop a multi-level model that maps the antecedents of different actors (e.g., industries, organizations, individuals) to respond to or reshape institutional structures, the mechanisms they use, the moderators, and outcomes of their practices. Our findings emphasize the dynamic interplay between structure and agency across systemic, organizational, and individual levels, offering a comprehensive framework for future research. We highlight three key observations: first, while substantial research explores how institutions shape actors, more attention is needed to understand the reciprocal influences as actors are shaped by and reshape institutions over time. Second, individual-level dynamics remain significantly underexplored, with limited focus on resistance, demotivation, and failure—essential elements of the complexity of institutional processes. Finally, we identify a critical need to examine the unintended consequences of social and environmental efforts, revealing how these endeavors may undermine their goals, create new challenges, or generate unexpected solutions.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143805929","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 : 2025-04-03DOI: 10.1177/01492063251323858
Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Jake T. Harrison, Rong Su, Robert E. Ployhart
Attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory proposes that “the people make the place” and has served as a foundation for many areas of organizational research. In this review, we take stock of the ASA literature to identify what we know and what we need to know about ASA processes and their effects on organizations. Based on a review of over 6,000 articles that cited ASA, we identified 321 studies that used the theory as a basis for their hypotheses. However, only 77 (24%) of those studies actually tested an aspect of the theory. For example, although ASA is an organizational-level theory, most studies used the theory to test phenomena at other levels, such as individuals, teams, or occupations. Among studies that did test the theory, very few directly assessed its core hypotheses. For instance, only one published study directly tested the central hypothesis that ASA processes lead to homogeneity. Moreover, some parts of the theory were not supported. As an example, although the theory suggests that ASA processes will reduce organizational effectiveness, several studies found that homogeneity was associated with better performance. Although the amount of empirical support for ASA theory was uneven, we believe it still has the potential to help understand organizations and the people that make them. To that end, we provide an agenda for future research that prioritizes how to best test ASA’s core hypotheses. We also highlight connections between ASA and other theories and literatures that examine similar phenomena to inspire future research opportunities.
{"title":"Do the People Make the Place? A 40-Year Review of Research on ASA Theory","authors":"Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Jake T. Harrison, Rong Su, Robert E. Ployhart","doi":"10.1177/01492063251323858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251323858","url":null,"abstract":"Attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory proposes that “the people make the place” and has served as a foundation for many areas of organizational research. In this review, we take stock of the ASA literature to identify what we know and what we need to know about ASA processes and their effects on organizations. Based on a review of over 6,000 articles that cited ASA, we identified 321 studies that used the theory as a basis for their hypotheses. However, only 77 (24%) of those studies actually tested an aspect of the theory. For example, although ASA is an organizational-level theory, most studies used the theory to test phenomena at other levels, such as individuals, teams, or occupations. Among studies that did test the theory, very few directly assessed its core hypotheses. For instance, only one published study directly tested the central hypothesis that ASA processes lead to homogeneity. Moreover, some parts of the theory were not supported. As an example, although the theory suggests that ASA processes will reduce organizational effectiveness, several studies found that homogeneity was associated with better performance. Although the amount of empirical support for ASA theory was uneven, we believe it still has the potential to help understand organizations and the people that make them. To that end, we provide an agenda for future research that prioritizes how to best test ASA’s core hypotheses. We also highlight connections between ASA and other theories and literatures that examine similar phenomena to inspire future research opportunities.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143775330","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：