Category Archives: Journal of Management Studies

Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch’s Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing

Posted on by

Abstract

In this paper we provide a counterpoint to the view that prescriptive theorizing reflects a viable means for enhancing the practical impact of management theorizing towards addressing some of the most pressing societal concerns and grand challenges of our times. To do so, we first contextualize the roots of prescriptive theorizing in management research, arguing that the approach developed by Hanisch is reflective of the wider ‘positive’ prescriptive turn in social science theorizing. Second, we problematize the presumptive basis upon which much prescriptive theorizing as well as related ideas around utopian thinking are based. In doing so, our broader aim is to draw attention to the bases upon which prescriptive claims are made and we specifically highlight the dangers of implementing decontextualized, overly simple and stylized prescriptions in the face of complex grand challenges. In contrast to prescriptive theorizing, we propose that the practical impact of management theory may rather be enhanced through a tempering of instrumental rationality with a deep(er) concern for phenomena and experience. We conclude the paper by offering a number of ways in which this can be done.

Prescriptive Theorizing in Management Research: A New Impetus for Addressing Grand Challenges

Posted on by

Abstract

Although management research has a rich tradition of both descriptive and prescriptive theorizing, the latter is often (and erroneously) viewed as unscientific, purely practice-oriented, or simply a corollary of descriptive analysis. Prescriptive theorizing concerns how things should be and how they can be achieved, as opposed to descriptive theorizing, which focuses on why or how things are (interrelated). Accordingly, prescriptive theorizing has strong normative and instrumental properties, which are especially relevant when addressing pressing societal, ecological, and ethical concerns, also referred to as grand challenges, that demand a re-evaluation of established norms and behavioural patterns. However, this opportunity is currently underutilized in the management literature, and there is a lack of guidance on how to leverage the principles of prescriptive theorizing. Therefore, I clarify its main characteristics, outline how scholars can construct rigorous prescriptive arguments, and show how normative and instrumental reasoning can promote positive social change. Embracing prescriptive theorizing as a vital complement to descriptive theorizing in management research provides scholars with an intellectual toolkit to actively engage in the urgent discourse on grand challenges and develop compelling new and impactful theories.

How Context Matters in Non‐market Strategies: Exploring Variations in Corporate Social Responsibility‐Political Activity Relationships

Posted on by

Abstract

Managing the nexus between societal and political demands represents an important challenge for today's organizations. While non-market strategy research debates the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA), it remains unclear how and why this relationship varies across different contexts. Based on a literature review, we address this question by developing a multi-contextual framework that allows us to organize existing literature and generalize beyond it. We contribute to non-market strategy research by conceptualizing a theoretically grounded set of single contexts covering different country and industry environments, transitional contexts considering the dynamic nature of non-market environments, and cross-context settings to conceptualize environments multinational and diversified domestic firms operate in, and associate those with different CSR-CPA relationships. We further contribute to broader non-market strategy research by shedding light on the varying meanings of CSR and CPA, exploring novel epistemological and methodological perspectives, and developing a future research agenda.

The Biological Basis of the Symbolic: Exploring the Implications of the Co‐Evolution of Language, Cognition and Sociality for Management Studies

Posted on by

Abstract

In this essay, we approach the question of what it means for something to be symbolic in a different way from the usual answers rooted in philosophy, sociology or anthropology: we argue that the symbolic is, first and foremost, rooted in human biology and human evolution. We discuss how the development of the capability to create and share symbols was a key moment in human evolution that underpins our capability to communicate and store knowledge through language, to think abstractly about problems, and to live and work together effectively in large groups. It also underpins the unique ecological niche – the cognitive niche – that Homo sapiens construct using our capability to create and share symbols. We go on to explore some of the implications of an evolutionary understanding of the symbolic for management and organization research.

How Systemic Crises Uproot and Re‐establish Investors’ Acquisition ‘Recipes’: A Temporally Bracketed Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Posted on by

Abstract

We contribute to the literature on acquisitions by examining how investors’ cognitive schemata codifying their beliefs concerning the attributes of deal success (‘recipes’) are impacted by systemic crises. Specifically, we examine how and why configurations of attributes signalling deal attractiveness, acquirer competence, and acquirer corporate governance shape investors’ reactions to acquisition announcements before, during, and after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008–9. We apply temporally bracketed fuzzy sets qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a sample of 1867 acquisition announcements. Our results show that investors not only assess acquisition signals holistically, but also that their preferences change when a crisis uproots orthodox deal ‘recipes’ that were once believed to produce successful outcomes. We show that the explorative nature of investor behaviour changes when systemic crises strike, with investors becoming more explorative – as evidenced by a greater number of ‘recipes’ eliciting positive reactions – during crises than before or after. Second, we find that investors do not simply favour deals with a maximum number of safeguards, but rather employ a compensatory logic that matches attributes signalling deal risk with specific assurances. The importance of offering assurances increases following crises, suggesting that investors progressively prefer acquirers to protect their interests.

Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision‐Making and the Future of Management Theory

Posted on by

Abstract

The future of theory in the age of big data and algorithms is a frequent topic in management research. However, with corporate ownership of big data and data processing capabilities designed for profit generation increasing rapidly, we witness a shift from scientific to ‘corporate empiricism’. Building on this debate, our ‘Point’ essay argues that theorizing in management research is at risk now. Unlike the ‘Counterpoint’ article, which portrays a bright future for management theory given available technological opportunities, we are concerned about management researchers increasingly ‘borrowing’ data from the corporate realm (e.g., Google et al.) to build or test theory. Our objection is that this data borrowing can harm scientific theorizing due to how scaling effects, proxy measures and algorithmic decision-making performatively combine to undermine the scientific validity of theories. This undermining occurs through reducing scientific explanations, while technology shapes theory and reality in a profit-predicting rather than in a truth-seeking manner. Our essay has meta-theoretical implications for management theory per se, as well as for political debates concerning the jurisdiction and legitimacy of knowledge claims in management research. Practically, these implications connect to debates on scientific responsibilities of researchers.

Managing the “Downside” of Downsizing: Firms’ Impression Offsetting around Downsizing Announcements

Posted on by

Abstract

Past studies indicate that investors perceive workforce downsizing negatively, as evidenced by negative short-term stock returns around downsizing announcements. Impression management theory suggests that downsizing firms thus attempt to offset investors’ negative impressions by issuing positive news around downsizing announcements, and that firms’ impression offsetting can attenuate investors’ negative response. In this study, we test these theoretical predictions but also unpack why and how impression offsetting positively biases investor perceptions. Prior work theorized that impression offsetting is effective because it dilutes investors’ attention and compels them to average positive and negative news items in their minds but did not clarify whether both causal mechanisms are operative, and which one is more powerful. We posit that impression offsetting influences investor response primarily by forcing them to mentally average positive and negative news. Further, our study provides a more nuanced understanding of investors’ mental averaging process. While prior work assumed that all types of positive news are received equally by investors, we argue that positive financial news offsets investors’ negative impressions more effectively than positive operational or social news. The empirical analysis of nearly 1500 downsizing announcements by the largest, public US firms between 2001 and 2020 mainly supports our theoretical reasoning.

Stakeholder Existential Authenticity and Corporate Social Responsibility

Posted on by

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research has been slow to address the impacts of CSR on stakeholders, especially in terms of the mechanisms explaining how CSR translates into positive stakeholder outcomes. We introduce a new mechanism into this literature – stakeholder existential authenticity (SEA) – that helps explain how stakeholder participation in CSR can enhance stakeholder wellbeing through the experience of being authentic. We develop an original conceptualization of SEA and integrate this into a model explaining the relationships between CSR participation, SEA, eudaimonic happiness, and subjective wellbeing, as well as the moderating effects of individual stakeholder attributes and CSR activity design. We explain our contributions to the literature on society-centric CSR, authenticity in CSR, CSR implementation, and authenticity in management more broadly, before suggesting directions for future research and outlining the practical implications of our study.

How Do Innovation Ecosystems Emerge? The Case of Nanotechnology in Israel

Posted on by

Abstract

Research on innovation ecosystems has identified their evolution phases but neglected their emergence, which we know little about. We offer inductive theory to explain the emergence of the nanotechnology ecosystem in Israel. Our theory suggests that ineffective bureaucracy, resource constraints, and the conflicting agendas of the government and universities create organizational bottlenecks that impede the ecosystem's emergence. Only once these actors establish related dedicated units that are immune to these deficiencies and transition to simultaneous competition and cooperation does the innovation ecosystem begin to emerge. We further reveal how enabling and governing mechanisms legitimize the innovation ecosystem, facilitate its emergence, and direct its evolution trajectory. Hence, we extend research that has centered on subsequent phases of evolution and explain how actors interact to facilitate the emergence of the ecosystem following technological discovery. Our study contributes to strategy research on interfirm coopetition by applying this concept to government and university actors, and by alluding to its multiple facets: identity, direction, administration, and resources. We also complement innovation research on the post-formation dynamics of ecosystems by providing insights into the missing link between technological discovery and the creation of an innovation ecosystem that brings together stakeholders to commercialize that technology.