Matthew J. Mazzei, Jason DeBode, K. Ashley Gangloff, Ruixiang Song
{"title":"旧习难改:威胁-刚性文献回顾与评估","authors":"Matthew J. Mazzei, Jason DeBode, K. Ashley Gangloff, Ruixiang Song","doi":"10.1177/01492063241286493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since its introduction more than four decades ago, threat-rigidity theory has emerged as a popular managerial theory of threat response used in a wide variety of literature streams. The theory explains that individuals, groups, and organizations revert to familiar responses (i.e., rigidity) in navigating threats, even when doing so may not be ideal. Yet, despite its popularity, fidelity to the theory’s assumptions and core arguments have been missing, and development of the theory has been limited. As organizations continue facing new and unique threats (e.g., advancing technologies, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, global health crises), a review and synthesis of threat-rigidity theory is necessary to drive new knowledge and allow for better understanding of the conditions around and appropriateness of rigidity. Our assessment of the literature reveals several gaps to address, which inform three primary directions for future research. We encourage future scholars to (a) clarify the nature of threats that elicit rigid responses, (b) explore the contextual factors and boundary conditions of the theory, and (c) utilize advanced methodological approaches to examine rigidity effects and outcomes across levels and over time. We provide guidance and sample research questions in each of the proposed directions for scholars to use in future efforts to refine or enhance threat-rigidity theory.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Old Habits Die Hard: A Review and Assessment of the Threat-Rigidity Literature\",\"authors\":\"Matthew J. Mazzei, Jason DeBode, K. Ashley Gangloff, Ruixiang Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01492063241286493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since its introduction more than four decades ago, threat-rigidity theory has emerged as a popular managerial theory of threat response used in a wide variety of literature streams. The theory explains that individuals, groups, and organizations revert to familiar responses (i.e., rigidity) in navigating threats, even when doing so may not be ideal. Yet, despite its popularity, fidelity to the theory’s assumptions and core arguments have been missing, and development of the theory has been limited. As organizations continue facing new and unique threats (e.g., advancing technologies, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, global health crises), a review and synthesis of threat-rigidity theory is necessary to drive new knowledge and allow for better understanding of the conditions around and appropriateness of rigidity. Our assessment of the literature reveals several gaps to address, which inform three primary directions for future research. We encourage future scholars to (a) clarify the nature of threats that elicit rigid responses, (b) explore the contextual factors and boundary conditions of the theory, and (c) utilize advanced methodological approaches to examine rigidity effects and outcomes across levels and over time. We provide guidance and sample research questions in each of the proposed directions for scholars to use in future efforts to refine or enhance threat-rigidity theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241286493\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241286493","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Old Habits Die Hard: A Review and Assessment of the Threat-Rigidity Literature
Since its introduction more than four decades ago, threat-rigidity theory has emerged as a popular managerial theory of threat response used in a wide variety of literature streams. The theory explains that individuals, groups, and organizations revert to familiar responses (i.e., rigidity) in navigating threats, even when doing so may not be ideal. Yet, despite its popularity, fidelity to the theory’s assumptions and core arguments have been missing, and development of the theory has been limited. As organizations continue facing new and unique threats (e.g., advancing technologies, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, global health crises), a review and synthesis of threat-rigidity theory is necessary to drive new knowledge and allow for better understanding of the conditions around and appropriateness of rigidity. Our assessment of the literature reveals several gaps to address, which inform three primary directions for future research. We encourage future scholars to (a) clarify the nature of threats that elicit rigid responses, (b) explore the contextual factors and boundary conditions of the theory, and (c) utilize advanced methodological approaches to examine rigidity effects and outcomes across levels and over time. We provide guidance and sample research questions in each of the proposed directions for scholars to use in future efforts to refine or enhance threat-rigidity theory.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research.
The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.