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}
Pub Date : 2025-04-03DOI: 10.1177/01492063251327588
Joonyoung Kim, Huikun Chang, Bradford S. Bell
While extensive research has examined the relationship between human resource management systems and organizational performance, the impact of organizational-level training—defined as the quantity and quality of training that an organization provides to its employees—remains less understood. In this article, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance to determine the magnitude of the relationship and test a set of moderators of the relationship. Grounded in human capital theory, our meta-analysis employs a theoretically driven moderator analysis to identify the conditions under which organizational-level training significantly influences organizational performance. The results from 159 studies (N = 75,033) show that the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance is positive and significant ( ρ = .13, SD ρ = .17, 95% CI [.11, .16]). More importantly, the effect size differs significantly across several theoretical (e.g., training dimensions, type of human capital, outcome dimensions, and timing of measurement) and contextual (e.g., industry knowledge intensity, firm age, and region) moderators. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"Organizational-Level Training and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Investigation","authors":"Joonyoung Kim, Huikun Chang, Bradford S. Bell","doi":"10.1177/01492063251327588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251327588","url":null,"abstract":"While extensive research has examined the relationship between human resource management systems and organizational performance, the impact of organizational-level training—defined as the quantity and quality of training that an organization provides to its employees—remains less understood. In this article, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance to determine the magnitude of the relationship and test a set of moderators of the relationship. Grounded in human capital theory, our meta-analysis employs a theoretically driven moderator analysis to identify the conditions under which organizational-level training significantly influences organizational performance. The results from 159 studies (N = 75,033) show that the relationship between organizational-level training and organizational performance is positive and significant ( <jats:italic>ρ</jats:italic> = .13, SD <jats:sub>ρ</jats:sub> = .17, 95% CI [.11, .16]). More importantly, the effect size differs significantly across several theoretical (e.g., training dimensions, type of human capital, outcome dimensions, and timing of measurement) and contextual (e.g., industry knowledge intensity, firm age, and region) moderators. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143766529","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 : 2025-04-02DOI: 10.1177/01492063251318260
Philipp Benedikt Becker, Daniella Laureiro-Martinez, Zorica Zagorac- Uremović
Managerial mental representations (MMRs) are mental constructs that structure cognitive content to guide perception and interpretation. MMRs have been examined across a broad spectrum of management research contexts, leading to the use of numerous related terms such as “mental representation,” “schema,” “mental model,” “cognitive frame,” “cognitive map,” and “mindset.” This proliferation of terms has caused considerable definitional overlap and ambiguity. To foster definitional clarity, this review systematically analyzes 206 articles employing any of 33 MMR terms used during the past 30 years. We identify the conceptual and functional definition facets of MMRs and use them to analyze commonalities and differences among the most prominent MMR terms. We further examine both established and emerging discussions surrounding the characteristics of MMRs. Established discussions focus on MMR content and levels of analysis, while emerging discussions explore MMR permanence and implicitness. We propose suggestions to advance each conversation. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we create a guiding framework aiding future research to conceptualize MMRs and navigate terminology choices. Finally, we propose two future research directions: integrating the content and process perspectives on MMRs and applying an MMR lens to examine the emergence of artificial intelligence in organizations.
{"title":"Thirty Years of Managerial Mental Representations: A Review Guiding Conceptualization and Future Research","authors":"Philipp Benedikt Becker, Daniella Laureiro-Martinez, Zorica Zagorac- Uremović","doi":"10.1177/01492063251318260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251318260","url":null,"abstract":"Managerial mental representations (MMRs) are mental constructs that structure cognitive content to guide perception and interpretation. MMRs have been examined across a broad spectrum of management research contexts, leading to the use of numerous related terms such as “mental representation,” “schema,” “mental model,” “cognitive frame,” “cognitive map,” and “mindset.” This proliferation of terms has caused considerable definitional overlap and ambiguity. To foster definitional clarity, this review systematically analyzes 206 articles employing any of 33 MMR terms used during the past 30 years. We identify the conceptual and functional definition facets of MMRs and use them to analyze commonalities and differences among the most prominent MMR terms. We further examine both established and emerging discussions surrounding the characteristics of MMRs. Established discussions focus on MMR content and levels of analysis, while emerging discussions explore MMR permanence and implicitness. We propose suggestions to advance each conversation. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we create a guiding framework aiding future research to conceptualize MMRs and navigate terminology choices. Finally, we propose two future research directions: integrating the content and process perspectives on MMRs and applying an MMR lens to examine the emergence of artificial intelligence in organizations.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143757786","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 : 2025-03-31DOI: 10.1177/01492063251318257
Terrance L. Boyd, Michael A. Johnson, Alison V. Hall
Management scholarship has long explored how life outside of work impacts work, and it has accumulated rich theoretical insights on how being a mother or father impacts one’s job and the organization. Importantly, however, this literature has adopted a limited scope of who and what caregiving embodies, overlooking the millions of workers globally who find themselves caring for a parent, a person with a disability, or someone who faces unique marginalization. We use new research on nontraditional caregiving (NTC) roles to enrich the topic of caregiving more broadly. As such, we provide an integrative review of 353 multidisciplinary workplace articles to detail the workplace outcomes explored in the literature and identify four caregiving dimensions that cannot be fully understood by a traditional caregiving framework alone. Further, we build a multilevel framework that identifies novel processes across roles, thereby bridging the nontraditional and traditional caregiving literatures and introducing ways to redirect future research. Overall, this review aims to show that caregiving should be viewed more broadly than it is currently, and this review aims to build a foundation for better understanding the complexities of caregiving in all its forms.
{"title":"Expanding the Caring Capacity: An Integrative Review of Nontraditional Caregiving and the Workplace Caregiving Literature","authors":"Terrance L. Boyd, Michael A. Johnson, Alison V. Hall","doi":"10.1177/01492063251318257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251318257","url":null,"abstract":"Management scholarship has long explored how life outside of work impacts work, and it has accumulated rich theoretical insights on how being a mother or father impacts one’s job and the organization. Importantly, however, this literature has adopted a limited scope of who and what caregiving embodies, overlooking the millions of workers globally who find themselves caring for a parent, a person with a disability, or someone who faces unique marginalization. We use new research on nontraditional caregiving (NTC) roles to enrich the topic of caregiving more broadly. As such, we provide an integrative review of 353 multidisciplinary workplace articles to detail the workplace outcomes explored in the literature and identify four caregiving dimensions that cannot be fully understood by a traditional caregiving framework alone. Further, we build a multilevel framework that identifies novel processes across roles, thereby bridging the nontraditional and traditional caregiving literatures and introducing ways to redirect future research. Overall, this review aims to show that caregiving should be viewed more broadly than it is currently, and this review aims to build a foundation for better understanding the complexities of caregiving in all its forms.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143736593","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 : 2025-03-13DOI: 10.1177/01492063251316464
Yea Hee Ko, Charlie O. Trevor
The well-established disruptive effects of employee turnover on firms have typically been attributed to post-exit dynamics, such as losses of human and social capital. Little is known, however, about leavers’ pre-exit job performance, which, if declining in sufficient magnitude as separation nears, may drive some of this disruption. Drawing on career concerns research, we argue that impending exit weakens incentives to improve future career prospects at the firm, thereby resulting in reduced performance. Our analysis reveals strikingly large negative relationships, as job performance during the impending-exit period declines by 53.9% and 79.8% across two performance measures. Additionally, we predict and find that these performance decrements are more pronounced for junior-level employees and partially mitigated for those anticipating a continuing relationship with the organization after exit. We test our predictions using longitudinal data on 4,104 patent examiners who left the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2001 to 2018.
{"title":"Impending-Exit Period and Employee Performance: Rethinking Human Capital Disruption","authors":"Yea Hee Ko, Charlie O. Trevor","doi":"10.1177/01492063251316464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251316464","url":null,"abstract":"The well-established disruptive effects of employee turnover on firms have typically been attributed to post-exit dynamics, such as losses of human and social capital. Little is known, however, about leavers’ pre-exit job performance, which, if declining in sufficient magnitude as separation nears, may drive some of this disruption. Drawing on career concerns research, we argue that impending exit weakens incentives to improve future career prospects at the firm, thereby resulting in reduced performance. Our analysis reveals strikingly large negative relationships, as job performance during the impending-exit period declines by 53.9% and 79.8% across two performance measures. Additionally, we predict and find that these performance decrements are more pronounced for junior-level employees and partially mitigated for those anticipating a continuing relationship with the organization after exit. We test our predictions using longitudinal data on 4,104 patent examiners who left the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2001 to 2018.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143618537","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 : 2025-03-13DOI: 10.1177/01492063251320025
Nicky Dries, Joost Luyckx, Ute Stephan, David G. Collings
In this editorial, we discuss and define the “future of work” as a phenomenon and research area, and outline avenues for further research at the conceptual and empirical level. We first offer a brief review of the different streams of research that study the future of work, both in management and organization studies and in adjacent fields. We then elaborate on what we see as the most promising avenues for research on the future of work, organized around five questions of what, when, who, how, and why. That is, research on the future of work needs to clarify its assumptions about (1) the phenomena it considers within scope; (2) the temporality associated with these phenomena; (3) which future of work actors it is about and whom it is for; (4) the methods and data types used to be able to study the future empirically; and (5) desired impact and envisioned outcomes. We discuss how moving beyond techno-determinism, depoliticization, and a present-day focus could open up new and important avenues for further research on the near and distant future of work. We conclude with some specific examples of research questions and methods.
{"title":"The Future of Work: A Research Agenda","authors":"Nicky Dries, Joost Luyckx, Ute Stephan, David G. Collings","doi":"10.1177/01492063251320025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251320025","url":null,"abstract":"In this editorial, we discuss and define the “future of work” as a phenomenon and research area, and outline avenues for further research at the conceptual and empirical level. We first offer a brief review of the different streams of research that study the future of work, both in management and organization studies and in adjacent fields. We then elaborate on what we see as the most promising avenues for research on the future of work, organized around five questions of what, when, who, how, and why. That is, research on the future of work needs to clarify its assumptions about (1) the phenomena it considers within scope; (2) the temporality associated with these phenomena; (3) which future of work actors it is about and whom it is for; (4) the methods and data types used to be able to study the future empirically; and (5) desired impact and envisioned outcomes. We discuss how moving beyond techno-determinism, depoliticization, and a present-day focus could open up new and important avenues for further research on the near and distant future of work. We conclude with some specific examples of research questions and methods.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143618553","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 : 2025-03-04DOI: 10.1177/01492063251316479
Larry J. Williams, Andrew A. Hanna, Troy A. Smith
Research questions and subsequent methodology in the field of management continue to evolve, bringing about more complex models and heightened data requirements and considerations. Thus, the difficulties associated with meeting the requirements of growing methodological rigor (e.g., increasing sample size) have influenced scholars to develop procedures aimed at mitigating these challenges. One such practice is parceling or combining subsets of scale items to form composite indicators of latent variables. Since introduced, parceling approaches have proliferated in a piecemeal fashion, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies regarding how parceling is both conducted and reported. With limited consensus about how to parcel, scholars risk perpetuating disjointed, incomplete, or errant approaches that confound the quality of research, accenting the need for a review that organizes the concept of parceling. In response, we offer an examination of parceling in management research with the aim of offering much-needed insight and instruction. To accomplish this, we provide insights that include an overview of parceling from practical and theoretical standpoints, needed clarification surrounding the importance of construct dimensionality when parceling, and robust, informed insights into best practices to aid future researchers in appropriately crafting and reporting on parceling moving forward.
{"title":"Methods and Theory for Using Parcels in Management Research: An Overview and Guide for Improved Analysis","authors":"Larry J. Williams, Andrew A. Hanna, Troy A. Smith","doi":"10.1177/01492063251316479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251316479","url":null,"abstract":"Research questions and subsequent methodology in the field of management continue to evolve, bringing about more complex models and heightened data requirements and considerations. Thus, the difficulties associated with meeting the requirements of growing methodological rigor (e.g., increasing sample size) have influenced scholars to develop procedures aimed at mitigating these challenges. One such practice is parceling or combining subsets of scale items to form composite indicators of latent variables. Since introduced, parceling approaches have proliferated in a piecemeal fashion, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies regarding how parceling is both conducted and reported. With limited consensus about how to parcel, scholars risk perpetuating disjointed, incomplete, or errant approaches that confound the quality of research, accenting the need for a review that organizes the concept of parceling. In response, we offer an examination of parceling in management research with the aim of offering much-needed insight and instruction. To accomplish this, we provide insights that include an overview of parceling from practical and theoretical standpoints, needed clarification surrounding the importance of construct dimensionality when parceling, and robust, informed insights into best practices to aid future researchers in appropriately crafting and reporting on parceling moving forward.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143546344","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 : 2025-02-28DOI: 10.1177/01492063251315701
George C. Banks, Lisa M. Rasmussen, Scott Tonidandel, Jeffrey M. Pollack, Mary M. Hausfeld, Courtney Williams, Betsy H. Albritton, Joseph A. Allen, Nicolas Bastardoz, John H. Batchelor, Andrew A. Bennett, Roman Briker, Christopher M. Castille, Bart A. De Jong, Elise Demeter, Justin A. DeSimone, James G. Field, Maria Figueroa-Armijos, M. Fernanda Garcia, William L. Gardner, J. Jeffrey Gish, Laura M. Giurge, Claudia N. Gonzalez-Brambila, M. Gloria González-Morales, Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, Roopak Kumar Gupta, Amanda S. Hinojosa, Zion Howard, Sven Kepes, Tine Köhler, Dejun Tony Kong, Markus Langer, Teng lat Loi, Liam P. Maher, Chao Miao, Murad A. Mithani, Lakshmi Balachandran Nair, William G. Obenauer, Ernest H. O’Boyle, Jason R. Pierce, Deborah M. Powell, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Deborah E. Rupp, Srinivasan Tatachari, Jane S. Thomas, Tiia Vissak, Jako Volschenk, Chen Wang, Christopher E. Whelpley, Hans-Georg Wolff, Haley M. Woznyj, Tao Yang
The opaqueness of author naming and ordering, when coupled with power dynamics, can lead to a number of disadvantages in academic careers. In this commentary, we investigate gender differences in authorship experiences in a large prospective meta-analytic study (k = 46; n = 3,565; 12 countries). We find that women’s and men’s authorship experiences differ significantly with women reporting greater prevalence of problematic behaviors. We present seven actionable recommendations for improving the receipt and reporting of intellectual credit. Such actions are needed to ensure fairness in authorship, which is one of the most powerful factors in academics’ career outcomes.
{"title":"Women’s and Men’s Authorship Experiences: A Prospective Meta-Analysis","authors":"George C. Banks, Lisa M. Rasmussen, Scott Tonidandel, Jeffrey M. Pollack, Mary M. Hausfeld, Courtney Williams, Betsy H. Albritton, Joseph A. Allen, Nicolas Bastardoz, John H. Batchelor, Andrew A. Bennett, Roman Briker, Christopher M. Castille, Bart A. De Jong, Elise Demeter, Justin A. DeSimone, James G. Field, Maria Figueroa-Armijos, M. Fernanda Garcia, William L. Gardner, J. Jeffrey Gish, Laura M. Giurge, Claudia N. Gonzalez-Brambila, M. Gloria González-Morales, Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, Roopak Kumar Gupta, Amanda S. Hinojosa, Zion Howard, Sven Kepes, Tine Köhler, Dejun Tony Kong, Markus Langer, Teng lat Loi, Liam P. Maher, Chao Miao, Murad A. Mithani, Lakshmi Balachandran Nair, William G. Obenauer, Ernest H. O’Boyle, Jason R. Pierce, Deborah M. Powell, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Deborah E. Rupp, Srinivasan Tatachari, Jane S. Thomas, Tiia Vissak, Jako Volschenk, Chen Wang, Christopher E. Whelpley, Hans-Georg Wolff, Haley M. Woznyj, Tao Yang","doi":"10.1177/01492063251315701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251315701","url":null,"abstract":"The opaqueness of author naming and ordering, when coupled with power dynamics, can lead to a number of disadvantages in academic careers. In this commentary, we investigate gender differences in authorship experiences in a large prospective meta-analytic study (k = 46; n = 3,565; 12 countries). We find that women’s and men’s authorship experiences differ significantly with women reporting greater prevalence of problematic behaviors. We present seven actionable recommendations for improving the receipt and reporting of intellectual credit. Such actions are needed to ensure fairness in authorship, which is one of the most powerful factors in academics’ career outcomes.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143528306","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 : 2025-02-28DOI: 10.1177/01492063251315703
Bukky Akinsanmi Oyedeji, Yea Hee Ko, Sunkee Lee
This review examines the effect of physical work environments—the dedicated, tangible spaces where employees carry out their professional tasks—on organizational processes and outcomes. We synthesize decades of research across various disciplines using a conceptual framework that defines physical work environments along three key dimensions: ambience, spatial configuration, and aesthetics. These dimensions are analyzed for their effects on both internal stakeholders, such as employees, and external stakeholders, including clients, suppliers, and investors. Our analysis reveals two major themes in prior research: (1) task accomplishment, which focuses on how physical work environments influence physical and mental health, motivation and attitudes, as well as work processes; and (2) resource position, which explores how these environments impact a firm’s tangible resource position, its ability to attract and retain human resources, as well as shape intangible assets such as organizational culture and reputation. The study also highlights contradictory findings and methodological limitations in existing research and proposes future research agendas. By providing theoretical insights and practical guidelines, this work seeks to guide both scholars and managers in understanding how physical workspaces can be designed to improve organizational outcomes, particularly as firms adapt to evolving work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"Physical Work Environments: An Integrative Review and Agenda for Future Research","authors":"Bukky Akinsanmi Oyedeji, Yea Hee Ko, Sunkee Lee","doi":"10.1177/01492063251315703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251315703","url":null,"abstract":"This review examines the effect of physical work environments—the dedicated, tangible spaces where employees carry out their professional tasks—on organizational processes and outcomes. We synthesize decades of research across various disciplines using a conceptual framework that defines physical work environments along three key dimensions: ambience, spatial configuration, and aesthetics. These dimensions are analyzed for their effects on both internal stakeholders, such as employees, and external stakeholders, including clients, suppliers, and investors. Our analysis reveals two major themes in prior research: (1) task accomplishment, which focuses on how physical work environments influence physical and mental health, motivation and attitudes, as well as work processes; and (2) resource position, which explores how these environments impact a firm’s tangible resource position, its ability to attract and retain human resources, as well as shape intangible assets such as organizational culture and reputation. The study also highlights contradictory findings and methodological limitations in existing research and proposes future research agendas. By providing theoretical insights and practical guidelines, this work seeks to guide both scholars and managers in understanding how physical workspaces can be designed to improve organizational outcomes, particularly as firms adapt to evolving work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143528307","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：