Category Archives: Journal of Management Studies

Prescriptive Theorizing to Tackle Societal Grand Challenges: Promises and Perils

Posted on by

Abstract

Descriptive and prescriptive theorizing are two sides of the same coin and fundamentally complementary, if not reciprocal in their relationship. Both have a place in management theorizing, yet this Point-Counterpoint debate takes issue with how they are currently performed in research. The Point makes the case for prescriptive theorizing to help tackle societal grand challenges and meaningfully impact practice, and it offers a recipe for doing this on a solid normative foundation. The Counterpoint cautions against the impact that such prescriptions may have and calls for more contextualized approaches. In this introduction to the debate, I intend to take the conversation that both the Point and Counterpoint have provoked even further by highlighting some under-emphasized but important theoretical avenues to examine the (un)intended consequences of both prescriptive and descriptive theorizing; namely by mobilizing research on performativity and counter-performativity.

The Impact of CEO Successions Involving a Change of Gender on Strategic Change: The Moderating Role of Environmental Factors

Posted on by

Abstract

Prior research highlights the disruptive and detrimental effects of chief executive officer (CEO) successions that involve a change of gender, i.e., from a male CEO to a female CEO and vice versa. In contrast, we contend that the effects of CEO successions with gender change depend on the context in which they take place. Drawing on expectation states theory, we identify contexts in which each type of CEO succession with gender change can have positive effects on strategic change and subsequent firm performance, depending on whether the degree of gender parity in the context is sufficient for the new CEO to enact strategic changes. Consistent with our arguments, we report findings from Chinese and US samples showing that in the presence of high environmental dynamism female-to-male CEO succession yields greater strategic change. Conversely, when environmental dynamism is low, it is male-to-female CEO succession that brings about greater strategic change. Furthermore, in the Chinese context, we found that female-to-male CEO succession in state-owned companies results in greater strategic change, whereas male-to-female CEO succession has the same effect in privately-owned settings. Moderated mediation analysis showed that the significant interaction effects on strategic change affect long-term downstream performance (i.e., Tobin's Q). We discuss implications for theory and practice related to CEO successions.

How Political Actors Co‐Construct CSR and its Effect on Firms’ Political Access: A Discursive Institutionalist View

Posted on by

Abstract

This paper explores how corporate social responsibility (CSR) can incentivize political actors to increase firms' political access. Taking a discursive institutional perspective, I argue that the types of access negotiated depend on how political actors co-construct the multiplicity of CSR meanings. To study this process, I focus on the empirical case of the European Union (EU), offering a novel analysis of event observations, policy documents, and interviews with Commission officials, Euro-parliamentarians, and other stakeholders. I find that the value of CSR is highly contested in the EU political arena. I then elucidate four discursive strategies through which political actors interactively refined, reframed, and reinterpreted the meaning of CSR and its relevance for firm access in ways beneficial to their perceived interests. The findings highlight the importance for nonmarket strategy studies to conceptualize CSR as a co-constructed idea and access as negotiated, putting the micro-dynamic relationship between firms and political actors centre stage.

Populist Syndrome and Nonmarket Strategy

Posted on by

Abstract

Although recognized as a defining feature of the current political era, populism and its implications for non-market strategy remain undertheorized. We offer a framework that (a) conceptualizes populism and its progression over time; (b) outlines the risks populism generates for firms; and (c) theorizes effective nonmarket strategies under populism. Our framework anchors the political risk profile of populism in three interdependent elements: anti-establishment ideology, de-institutionalization, and short-term policy bias. These elements jointly shape the policymaking dynamics and institutional risks for firms under populism. Our analysis shows how firms can calibrate two nonmarket strategies – political ties and corporate social responsibility – to mitigate populism-related risks. We specify how particular configurations of political ties and CSR activities, aimed at the populist leadership, bureaucrats, political opposition, and societal stakeholders, minimize risk under populism. Further, we theorize how the effectiveness of specific attributes of political ties and CSR – namely their relative covertness (more vs. less concealed) and their relative focus (narrowly vs. widely targeted) – varies as a function of firm type (insiders vs. outsiders) and the probability of populist regime collapse. Finally, we address how motivated reasoning may bias firms' assessments of regime fragility and resulting strategy choices.

Have a Go or Lay Low? Predicting Firms’ Rhetorical Commitment versus Avoidance in Response to Polylithic Governmental Pressures

Posted on by

Abstract

This study extends prior research on corporate political behaviour (CPB) and firms’ pursuit of political legitimacy in response to monolithic government pressures by developing and testing a framework for analysis of CPB in response to polylithic pressures. We suggest that traditional forms of CPB may be ill-suited to polylithic governmental pressures, such as when firms need to navigate between conflicting home- and host-country political worldviews and policies. We posit that in such complex political situations, firms will turn to a more subtle form of CPB (i.e., rhetorical commitment versus avoidance) as a hoped-for solution to their international political legitimacy challenge. Our contingency perspective also highlights how geopolitical factors (i.e., whether governments of home and host countries are clearly aligned versus misaligned) will influence whether firms express their support for a home government’s foreign policy or avoid any such expression of support. We empirically test the predictive power of our framework by analysing how these political factors led Chinese firms to opt for rhetorical commitment versus rhetorical avoidance vis-à-vis the Chinese government’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). We conclude with a discussion of how our framework for analysis and our supportive findings can inform and extend research on CPB and political legitimacy.

A Blessing and a Curse: Institutional Embeddedness of Longstanding MNE Subsidiaries in Emerging Markets

Posted on by

Abstract

This article examines the institutional strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in an emerging market, drawing attention to how longstanding foreign subsidiaries proactively negotiate their involvement with socio-political actors. We build on institutional logics to explain how MNE subsidiaries develop sustained political, cultural, and cognitive embeddedness. Using an inductive, interpretive study of four century-old Dutch MNE subsidiaries with a colonial legacy in Indonesia, we examine these three dimensions of the institutional environment, finding that local employees embedded in both the MNE and the host country sets of logics ‒ rather than expatriate managers ‒ most effectively facilitated sustained institutional embeddedness. Our findings also suggest that embedding practices in host institutional contexts and developing structures that align with host institutional expectations provided a platform for the unfolding of institutional strategies by local employees. However, MNE subsidiaries face contrasting logics between home and host country institutions, placing significant strains on MNEs’ ability to enact change.

Why Do Some Multinational Firms Respond Better Than Others to the Hostility of Host Governments? Proximal Embedding and the Side Effects of Local Partnerships

Posted on by

Abstract

Using a multiple-case study of alleged expropriations reported before the World Bank, we examine how multinational companies (MNC) react to the escalating hostility of host governments. Our study reveals how different choices regarding the interaction with local nonmarket stakeholders – which we refer to as proximal vs. mediated embedding – shape how managers respond to these disputes by affecting their ability to collect, process and interpret information, and to act upon it in a way that effectively mobilizes local and international support. In contrast to the prevailing view that local partners in international joint ventures shelter MNCs from abuse from political authorities, our findings show that primary reliance on local partners to manage the local nonmarket environment can actually reinforce a liability of outsidership and even create a ‘liability of insidership’, to the extent that relying on local partners prevents the MNC from establishing quality connections with a broad range of nonmarket stakeholders, reducing its alertness and responsiveness to hostile acts from host governments.

Lost and Found in Translation: How Firms Use Anisomorphism to Manage the Institutional Complexity of CSR

Posted on by

Abstract

Prior research on the internationalization of firms from emerging countries has fruitfully invoked institutional theory to emphasize the legitimacy benefits that firms that obtain from showing isomorphism with international norms such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Without denying the intuitive appeal for these firms to communicate acceptance of CSR, we suggest that firms face a legitimacy trade-off, where the hoped-for legitimacy benefits of isomorphism must be weighed against other home-country institutional considerations. We advance and test this notion that firms will navigate this institutional complexity by engaging in anisomorphism, i.e., espousing general acceptance with international values but with selective ‘translation’ based on home country differences. We test our predictions by analysing firms' communication of CSR, using a unique dataset comprised of 245 firms observed over the period from 2000 to 2018. Consistent with our predictions, we find that firms from countries more reliant on natural resource extraction (e.g., mining and fossil fuel industries) de-emphasize the environmental component of CSR, and firms from more autocratic countries de-emphasize the human rights component of CSR. Additionally, and consistent with our presumption of firms' weighing the international versus home-country legitimacy trade-off, we find that these main effects are sensitive to changes in firms' levels of internationalization.