Pub Date : 2024-03-15DOI: 10.1177/01492063231225166
Maria Minniti, Zachary Rodriguez, Trent A. Williams
Scholars have started unpacking how individuals, organizations, and communities interact to build a shared capacity for resilience. This research, however, has not yet examined how the institutional environment influences local responses to crises. This is an important omission since crises do not occur in a vacuum—decisions of actors, at one level, constrain or catalyze the resilience responses of communities and the individuals and organizations within them. Furthermore, research on resilience often assumes a relatively static nature of crises, without accounting for the need to revise responses over time. Using an original set of high frequency data on COVID-19 rates in the United States, we investigate the relationship between healthcare decision agency at the county level and the incidence of the pandemic as reflected in the number of COVID cases and death by county. Our results provide robust evidence that higher degrees of decision-making autonomy are associated with lower rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths. That is, a positive relationship exists between decision-making autonomy and higher capacities for resilience. We further show that this relationship is strengthened, the larger and more heterogeneous is the mix of healthcare organizations in a county, and the higher is the need for revising responses given the changing nature of the crisis. Our results emphasize the need for a system approach to the study of resilience, and suggest that, by enabling the customization of responses to local needs and resources, decision-making autonomy enhances the shared capacities for resilience.
{"title":"Resilience Within Constraints: An Event Oriented Approach to Crisis Response","authors":"Maria Minniti, Zachary Rodriguez, Trent A. Williams","doi":"10.1177/01492063231225166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225166","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have started unpacking how individuals, organizations, and communities interact to build a shared capacity for resilience. This research, however, has not yet examined how the institutional environment influences local responses to crises. This is an important omission since crises do not occur in a vacuum—decisions of actors, at one level, constrain or catalyze the resilience responses of communities and the individuals and organizations within them. Furthermore, research on resilience often assumes a relatively static nature of crises, without accounting for the need to revise responses over time. Using an original set of high frequency data on COVID-19 rates in the United States, we investigate the relationship between healthcare decision agency at the county level and the incidence of the pandemic as reflected in the number of COVID cases and death by county. Our results provide robust evidence that higher degrees of decision-making autonomy are associated with lower rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths. That is, a positive relationship exists between decision-making autonomy and higher capacities for resilience. We further show that this relationship is strengthened, the larger and more heterogeneous is the mix of healthcare organizations in a county, and the higher is the need for revising responses given the changing nature of the crisis. Our results emphasize the need for a system approach to the study of resilience, and suggest that, by enabling the customization of responses to local needs and resources, decision-making autonomy enhances the shared capacities for resilience.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140142142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-15DOI: 10.1177/01492063231225160
Hayley Blunden, Andrew Brodsky
Over the past half century, virtual interactions have become a mainstay of contemporary organizations, whether leveraged for formal job interviews or day-to-day communication. Despite this central role, there is a lack of a holistic understanding of how employees make and manage impressions in these virtual contexts. In this article, we review, organize, and evaluate the state of the growing body of cross-disciplinary research on virtual impression management. We develop a guiding theoretical framework that identifies three categories of virtual impression management behavior (verbal, nonverbal, and meta behavior) that meaningfully alter impressions, and the conditions under which these outcomes vary. Through considering this body of research as a whole, we highlight that virtual interactions are quite rich when it comes to creating impressions. By illustrating where virtual impression management research has concentrated thus far, our review enables us to conclude by offering an agenda for future research on virtual impression management.
{"title":"A Review of Virtual Impression Management Behaviors and Outcomes","authors":"Hayley Blunden, Andrew Brodsky","doi":"10.1177/01492063231225160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225160","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past half century, virtual interactions have become a mainstay of contemporary organizations, whether leveraged for formal job interviews or day-to-day communication. Despite this central role, there is a lack of a holistic understanding of how employees make and manage impressions in these virtual contexts. In this article, we review, organize, and evaluate the state of the growing body of cross-disciplinary research on virtual impression management. We develop a guiding theoretical framework that identifies three categories of virtual impression management behavior (verbal, nonverbal, and meta behavior) that meaningfully alter impressions, and the conditions under which these outcomes vary. Through considering this body of research as a whole, we highlight that virtual interactions are quite rich when it comes to creating impressions. By illustrating where virtual impression management research has concentrated thus far, our review enables us to conclude by offering an agenda for future research on virtual impression management.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140142129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-05DOI: 10.1177/01492063231224332
Ashenafi Biru, Pia Arenius, Garry Bruton, David Gilbert
This research investigates how entrepreneurs in an early-stage market economy decide their level of compliance with formal rules and finds the manner in which they interact with government officials to operate on a continuum of formality. Focusing on the nonmarket strategy approaches entrepreneurs employ to establish relationships with government officials, we build a model that shows how entrepreneurs adopt strategies aligned with their firm’s level of formality, spanning low to high formality practices. We draw on qualitative interview data from entrepreneurs who exhibit varying levels of compliance with state-provided rules and guidelines. We inductively theorize that deciding the firms’ level of formality involves strategic interaction approaches with government officials responsible for rule enforcement. Our findings highlight that the interaction strategies entrepreneurs use hinge on the political capital they possess, eliciting the desired response from government officials, and dissuading the officials from enforcing formal rules or imposing sanctions for informality. We offer theoretical and policy implications for future work on the nuances of firm formality and the interaction between entrepreneurs and government officials.
{"title":"Firm Formalization Strategy: The Interaction of Entrepreneurs and Government Officials in the Enforcement of Regulation","authors":"Ashenafi Biru, Pia Arenius, Garry Bruton, David Gilbert","doi":"10.1177/01492063231224332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231224332","url":null,"abstract":"This research investigates how entrepreneurs in an early-stage market economy decide their level of compliance with formal rules and finds the manner in which they interact with government officials to operate on a continuum of formality. Focusing on the nonmarket strategy approaches entrepreneurs employ to establish relationships with government officials, we build a model that shows how entrepreneurs adopt strategies aligned with their firm’s level of formality, spanning low to high formality practices. We draw on qualitative interview data from entrepreneurs who exhibit varying levels of compliance with state-provided rules and guidelines. We inductively theorize that deciding the firms’ level of formality involves strategic interaction approaches with government officials responsible for rule enforcement. Our findings highlight that the interaction strategies entrepreneurs use hinge on the political capital they possess, eliciting the desired response from government officials, and dissuading the officials from enforcing formal rules or imposing sanctions for informality. We offer theoretical and policy implications for future work on the nuances of firm formality and the interaction between entrepreneurs and government officials.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140046163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-05DOI: 10.1177/01492063241231505
Beth Livingston, Jamie L. Gloor, A. K. Ward, Allison S. Gabriel, Joanna T. Campbell, Emily Block, Dorothy Carter, Kimberly A. French, Rachel Frieder, Annika Hillebrandt, Jia (Jasmine) Hu, Kristen P. Jones, Dana L. Joseph, Nina M. Junker, Ashley Mandeville, Sarah M. G. Otner, Amanda S. Patel, Samantha Paustian-Underdahl, Manuela Priesemuth, Kristen M. Shockley, Mindy Shoss
Advice is often given to junior scholars in the field of organization science to ostensibly facilitate their career success. In this commentary, we discuss insights from 19 elite scholars (i.e., Fellows and top journal editors) about the advice they received–and, often, did not follow–throughout their careers. We highlight some of the pitfalls from the current, all-too-common, and often singular advice given to junior scholars while also adding necessary nuance to the requirements to achieve success in our field. We conclude with advice on how to give better advice, thereby more equitably encouraging a new generation of increasingly diverse researchers and future professors.
{"title":"Many Roads to Success: Broadening Our Views of Academic Career Paths and Advice","authors":"Beth Livingston, Jamie L. Gloor, A. K. Ward, Allison S. Gabriel, Joanna T. Campbell, Emily Block, Dorothy Carter, Kimberly A. French, Rachel Frieder, Annika Hillebrandt, Jia (Jasmine) Hu, Kristen P. Jones, Dana L. Joseph, Nina M. Junker, Ashley Mandeville, Sarah M. G. Otner, Amanda S. Patel, Samantha Paustian-Underdahl, Manuela Priesemuth, Kristen M. Shockley, Mindy Shoss","doi":"10.1177/01492063241231505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241231505","url":null,"abstract":"Advice is often given to junior scholars in the field of organization science to ostensibly facilitate their career success. In this commentary, we discuss insights from 19 elite scholars (i.e., Fellows and top journal editors) about the advice they received–and, often, did not follow–throughout their careers. We highlight some of the pitfalls from the current, all-too-common, and often singular advice given to junior scholars while also adding necessary nuance to the requirements to achieve success in our field. We conclude with advice on how to give better advice, thereby more equitably encouraging a new generation of increasingly diverse researchers and future professors.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140045860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1177/01492063231226136
Teppo Felin, Alfonso Gambardella, Elena Novelli, Todd Zenger
Recent scholarship has sought to develop a “scientific method” for startups. In this paper we contrast two approaches: lean startup and the theory-based view of startups. The lean startup movement has served an important function in calling for a normative and scientific approach to startups and venture creation. The theory-based view shares this agenda. But there are differences in the underlying theoretical mechanisms and practical prescriptions suggested by each approach. We highlight these differences and their implications for both research and practice. For example, we contrast lean startup’s emphasis on bounded rationality and entrepreneur–customer information asymmetry with the theory-based view’s emphasis on generative rationality and belief asymmetry. The theory-based view focuses on contrarian beliefs, associated problem formulation, and the development of a startup-specific causal logic for experimentation, resource acquisition, and problem solving. The right mix of entrepreneurial actions is contingent and startup-specific—guided by a startup’s unique theory. After pointing out differences between the lean and theory-based view of startups, we discuss opportunities for partial reconciliation, as well as opportunities for empirically comparing perspectives. Overall, we emphasize that a scientific method for startups needs to recognize the importance of contingent, discriminating alignment between entrepreneurial theories and the actions they prescribe (including different types of experimentation and validation, search, and forms of organization).
{"title":"A Scientific Method for Startups","authors":"Teppo Felin, Alfonso Gambardella, Elena Novelli, Todd Zenger","doi":"10.1177/01492063231226136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231226136","url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship has sought to develop a “scientific method” for startups. In this paper we contrast two approaches: lean startup and the theory-based view of startups. The lean startup movement has served an important function in calling for a normative and scientific approach to startups and venture creation. The theory-based view shares this agenda. But there are differences in the underlying theoretical mechanisms and practical prescriptions suggested by each approach. We highlight these differences and their implications for both research and practice. For example, we contrast lean startup’s emphasis on bounded rationality and entrepreneur–customer information asymmetry with the theory-based view’s emphasis on generative rationality and belief asymmetry. The theory-based view focuses on contrarian beliefs, associated problem formulation, and the development of a startup-specific causal logic for experimentation, resource acquisition, and problem solving. The right mix of entrepreneurial actions is contingent and startup-specific—guided by a startup’s unique theory. After pointing out differences between the lean and theory-based view of startups, we discuss opportunities for partial reconciliation, as well as opportunities for empirically comparing perspectives. Overall, we emphasize that a scientific method for startups needs to recognize the importance of contingent, discriminating alignment between entrepreneurial theories and the actions they prescribe (including different types of experimentation and validation, search, and forms of organization).","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1177/01492063231225420
Srikanth Paruchuri, Erik A. Hoempler, Amanda P. Cowen, Albert A. Cannella, Peter Inho Nahm
Research on organizational misconduct has mostly evolved independently from the literature on corporate governance. Yet, our survey of research on the role of directors in organizational misconduct contexts yielded more than 110 articles in the last 17 years across the management, accounting, marketing, operations, public relations, and finance literatures, showing that research on the role of corporate governance in organizational misconduct has increasingly become a distinct domain of inquiry. With its own scholarly audience, including scholars working in strategy, ethics, decision-making, and leadership, this research has employed diverse theories and investigated different antecedents, reactions, and outcomes. It has also focused on how directors both influence and are affected by organizational misconduct. Consequently, this literature is currently fragmented in several respects. Our aim in this review is to generate conceptual integration that brings coherence to this growing body of research and to facilitate future research in this important domain. The review offers a cohesive view of the effects of corporate governance on misconduct and of misconduct on corporate governance and provides frameworks for integrating the disparate macrolevel theories that currently characterize this work.
{"title":"Governance Failure and Governance Under Failure: Reviewing the Role of Directors in Organizational Misconduct","authors":"Srikanth Paruchuri, Erik A. Hoempler, Amanda P. Cowen, Albert A. Cannella, Peter Inho Nahm","doi":"10.1177/01492063231225420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225420","url":null,"abstract":"Research on organizational misconduct has mostly evolved independently from the literature on corporate governance. Yet, our survey of research on the role of directors in organizational misconduct contexts yielded more than 110 articles in the last 17 years across the management, accounting, marketing, operations, public relations, and finance literatures, showing that research on the role of corporate governance in organizational misconduct has increasingly become a distinct domain of inquiry. With its own scholarly audience, including scholars working in strategy, ethics, decision-making, and leadership, this research has employed diverse theories and investigated different antecedents, reactions, and outcomes. It has also focused on how directors both influence and are affected by organizational misconduct. Consequently, this literature is currently fragmented in several respects. Our aim in this review is to generate conceptual integration that brings coherence to this growing body of research and to facilitate future research in this important domain. The review offers a cohesive view of the effects of corporate governance on misconduct and of misconduct on corporate governance and provides frameworks for integrating the disparate macrolevel theories that currently characterize this work.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1177/01492063231224353
Jarrod P. Vassallo, Yeonji Seo, Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari
Current models of substantive reputation repair primarily focus on isolated reputation-damaging events (RDEs) and corresponding responses by firms within short time frames. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that firms encounter numerous RDEs over extended periods while only sporadically and intermittently engaging in top-down substantive repair. To investigate this event-response asynchrony, we adopt an event system theory (EST) approach and conduct a qualitative study of a multinational firm. Over a 10-year period, we analyzed 47 RDEs that eventually prompted top management to initiate substantive repair. Our findings reveal that top managers perceive reputation management as a complex system comprising self-correcting subsystems that follow recurring adaptive event cycles. These cycles consist of iterations, transitioning from routine business-as-usual activities managing most RDEs (foreloops) to nonlinear, transformative responses to certain events (backloops). As long as these cycles are deemed effective, top managers refrain from substantive repair, intervening only when they identify a subsystem breakdown. Consequently, our event-system model of substantive reputation repair elucidates event-response asynchrony in two phases: (1) top managers’ confidence in the hierarchy of adaptive event cycles leads them to purposefully avoid most RDEs, and (2) the convergent intersection of three specific event chain patterns gradually establishes a shared narrative among top managers, triggering top-down substantive repair. By employing EST, we not only provide novel insights into how firms manage reputations but also enhance the explanatory power of EST by illuminating event cycle dynamics.
{"title":"Reputation-Damaging Events Over a Long Time Horizon: An Event-System Model of Substantive Reputation Repair","authors":"Jarrod P. Vassallo, Yeonji Seo, Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari","doi":"10.1177/01492063231224353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231224353","url":null,"abstract":"Current models of substantive reputation repair primarily focus on isolated reputation-damaging events (RDEs) and corresponding responses by firms within short time frames. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that firms encounter numerous RDEs over extended periods while only sporadically and intermittently engaging in top-down substantive repair. To investigate this event-response asynchrony, we adopt an event system theory (EST) approach and conduct a qualitative study of a multinational firm. Over a 10-year period, we analyzed 47 RDEs that eventually prompted top management to initiate substantive repair. Our findings reveal that top managers perceive reputation management as a complex system comprising self-correcting subsystems that follow recurring adaptive event cycles. These cycles consist of iterations, transitioning from routine business-as-usual activities managing most RDEs (foreloops) to nonlinear, transformative responses to certain events (backloops). As long as these cycles are deemed effective, top managers refrain from substantive repair, intervening only when they identify a subsystem breakdown. Consequently, our event-system model of substantive reputation repair elucidates event-response asynchrony in two phases: (1) top managers’ confidence in the hierarchy of adaptive event cycles leads them to purposefully avoid most RDEs, and (2) the convergent intersection of three specific event chain patterns gradually establishes a shared narrative among top managers, triggering top-down substantive repair. By employing EST, we not only provide novel insights into how firms manage reputations but also enhance the explanatory power of EST by illuminating event cycle dynamics.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-29DOI: 10.1177/01492063241227422
Sherry M. B. Thatcher, Michael D. Pfarrer, Cynthia E. Devers
{"title":"Breaking News: JOM Wants Your Theory Papers","authors":"Sherry M. B. Thatcher, Michael D. Pfarrer, Cynthia E. Devers","doi":"10.1177/01492063241227422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241227422","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-29DOI: 10.1177/01492063231226250
Sergei Kolomeitsev, Kristie J. N. Moergen, Jason W. Ridge, Dan L. Worrell, Scott Kuban
Government agencies rely on general deterrence to protect the public. Firms utilize lobbying for influence and information purposes. This paper explores the intersection of general deterrence and lobbying by firms while investigating whether general deterrence efforts of regulators are met with a lobbying response. Specifically, we propose that following a competitor firm being sanctioned, the non-sanctioned peer firms will increase their amount of lobbying targeted at the sanctioning agency, and the key drivers of these increases in targeted lobbying will be penalty severity, concerns over likely reputational damage, and value alignment. We test our hypotheses using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violations as a context, and they largely receive support.
{"title":"Peer Response to Regulatory Enforcement: Lobbying by Non-Sanctioned Firms","authors":"Sergei Kolomeitsev, Kristie J. N. Moergen, Jason W. Ridge, Dan L. Worrell, Scott Kuban","doi":"10.1177/01492063231226250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231226250","url":null,"abstract":"Government agencies rely on general deterrence to protect the public. Firms utilize lobbying for influence and information purposes. This paper explores the intersection of general deterrence and lobbying by firms while investigating whether general deterrence efforts of regulators are met with a lobbying response. Specifically, we propose that following a competitor firm being sanctioned, the non-sanctioned peer firms will increase their amount of lobbying targeted at the sanctioning agency, and the key drivers of these increases in targeted lobbying will be penalty severity, concerns over likely reputational damage, and value alignment. We test our hypotheses using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violations as a context, and they largely receive support.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140015625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-27DOI: 10.1177/01492063241230511
Eero Vaara, Ana M. Aranda, Helen Etchanchu
In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of research on discursive legitimation, which has shed light on how legitimacy is established through communication. However, this body of work remains fragmented, and there is a need to synthesize and develop a more comprehensive and in-depth theoretical understanding of this vibrant area of research. This article aims to address this need by providing an integrative theoretical framework and outlining an agenda for future research. The framework encompasses five key elements of discursive legitimation: strategies, positions, foundations, temporality, and arenas. Drawing on this framework, we present a research agenda that highlights key topics related to these elements along with theoretical and methodological considerations cutting across them. Our contribution lies in conceptualizing discursive legitimation as a multifaceted and dynamic phenomenon, offering a complementary framework to existing models and paving the way for future studies, and placing discursive strategies—which have been the focus of prior research—in context by highlighting the critical role of key discursive elements in enabling or constraining legitimation processes.
{"title":"Discursive Legitimation: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and Agenda for Future Research","authors":"Eero Vaara, Ana M. Aranda, Helen Etchanchu","doi":"10.1177/01492063241230511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241230511","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of research on discursive legitimation, which has shed light on how legitimacy is established through communication. However, this body of work remains fragmented, and there is a need to synthesize and develop a more comprehensive and in-depth theoretical understanding of this vibrant area of research. This article aims to address this need by providing an integrative theoretical framework and outlining an agenda for future research. The framework encompasses five key elements of discursive legitimation: strategies, positions, foundations, temporality, and arenas. Drawing on this framework, we present a research agenda that highlights key topics related to these elements along with theoretical and methodological considerations cutting across them. Our contribution lies in conceptualizing discursive legitimation as a multifaceted and dynamic phenomenon, offering a complementary framework to existing models and paving the way for future studies, and placing discursive strategies—which have been the focus of prior research—in context by highlighting the critical role of key discursive elements in enabling or constraining legitimation processes.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.5,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139988568","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：