Category Archives: Review Article

Critical Management Studies: A Critical Review

Posted on by

Abstract

In this paper, we review the development of critical management studies, point at problems and explore possible developments. We begin by tracing out two previous waves of critical management studies. We then focus on more recent work in critical management studies and identify ten over-arching themes (Academia, alternatives organizations, control and resistance, discourse, Foucauldian studies, gender, identity, Marxism, post-colonialism, and psychoanalysis). We argue that CMS has largely relied on one-dimensional critique which focused on negation. This has made the field increasingly stale, focused on the usual suspects and predictable. We identify a number of problems calling for critique and rethinking. We label these author-itarianism, obscurantism, formulaic radicalism, usual-suspectism and empirical light-touchism.

Cross‐Sector Partnerships to Address Societal Grand Challenges: Systematizing Differences in Scholarly Analysis

Posted on by

Abstract

Research on how cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) contribute toward addressing societal grand challenges (SGCs) has burgeoned, yet studies differ significantly in what scholars analyze and how. These differences matter as they influence the reported results. In the absence of a comprehensive framework to expose the analytical choices behind each study and their implications, this diversity challenges interpretation and consolidation of evidence upon which novel theory and practical interventions can be developed. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of scholarly analysis in CSP management studies to develop a framework that contextualizes the SGC-related evidence and reveals scholars’ analytical choices and their implications. Conceptually, we advance the term ‘SGC interventions’ to illuminate the black box leading to SGC-related effects, thus helping to differentiate between transformative versus mitigative interventions in scholars’ analytical focus. Moreover, the framework stresses the logical interplay between the framing of the SGC-related problem and the reporting of the intervention's effects. Through this, we juxtapose what we call problem-centric versus solution-centric SGC analysis and so differentiate between their analytical purpose. We discuss the framework's implications for advancing an SGC perspective in scholarly analysis of CSPs and outline avenues for future research.

Cross‐Sector Partnership Research at Theoretical Interstices: Integrating and Advancing Theory across Phases

Posted on by

Abstract

Cross-sector partnerships (XSPs) are embraced by policymakers and practitioners to address complex social and environmental challenges that no single sector can tackle alone. However, extant research on XSPs has primarily focused on isolated phases and singular theoretical perspectives. In our paper, we synthesize XSP research in the public policy and management fields to deliver a comprehensive and coherent understanding of XSPs’ different phases and theoretical perspectives – the XSP ‘theoretical topology’. We introduce two approaches for theoretical enrichment: informing and interacting. We emphasize the significance of ‘theoretical interstices’ as undominated spaces for new knowledge exploration. Through our integrative cross-phase, cross-theoretical approach, we address fundamental yet open questions on XSP effectiveness, value, and impact. Our work challenges existing understandings and opens new research possibilities; offers implications for practitioners; and informs current policy debates on mandating XSPs and on the role of ‘big data’ – powered algorithms in the XSP landscape.

Happy Diamond Anniversary JMS! A Decade Analysis of the Journal of Management Studies

Posted on by

Abstract

The Journal of Management Studies, founded in 1963, is celebrating its 60th year. Clark et al. (2014) conducted a bibliometric analysis for its 50th anniversary assessing whether the journal had maintained its leading international ranking and sustained its mission to serve as a broad-based management outlet. In this review, we build on and extend their findings by examining trends in the journal over the past decade (2012–22). We present a broader analysis of JMS by exploring its unique identity within the management journal ecosystem and examining its scope and breadth in terms of topics, methods, and author demographics to document JMS's evolution, impact, reach, and accessibility. We develop a new bibliometric framework that employs a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses (including regression, text, and language analysis) to cover a broad range of considerations for a journal and its stakeholders. In so doing, we contribute to the bibliometric and review research areas by proposing new metrics (related to diversity, equity, and inclusion) and analysis tools to assess the relative position of an academic journal. Employing this framework, we conclude that JMS has retained and enhanced its position as a leading, cutting-edge general management journal.

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.

Dynamic Capabilities and MNE Global Strategy: A Systematic Literature Review‐Based Novel Conceptual Framework

Posted on by

Abstract

Global strategy cannot be fully understood without consideration of dynamic capabilities (DCs). This is because the three key constituents of DCs – the sensing and seizing of opportunities and the reconfiguration of the resource base – are essential preconditions for strategy development, within nations and cross-border. We investigate the aspects of DCs that are most suitable for global strategy and those that need to be revisited and developed. We discuss theory and evidence on DCs and global strategy, present a systematic literature review, compare theory and evidence, and identify gaps between the two as well as opportunities to align them more closely and to develop both. To help guide future research, we develop a novel conceptual framework and provide suggestions for more theory-congruent empirical research.

Lifestyle Entrepreneurship: Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

Posted on by

Abstract

Research in leading entrepreneurship and management journals has tended to conceptualize entrepreneurship as motivated by the goals of wealth, income, or social value creation. This research has thus largely overlooked entrepreneurial motivations such as the desire to engage in particular activities that the entrepreneurs find rewarding or the desire to live in particular locations. The literature on such Lifestyle Entrepreneurship (LE) includes research on artisan, artistic, craft, creative, fitness, hobbyist, leisure, sport, and tourism entrepreneurship. This literature has grown quickly over the last decade, but it is scattered across a range of domains, disciplines, and journals and lacks conceptual clarity. In this review, we take stock, synthesize and offer definitions and a framework for investigation of LE that allows for its development and theoretical integration with, and contribution to, existing entrepreneurship theory. We conceptualize LE in relation to its purpose and function, identify different types of LE, and examine their respective antecedents, behaviours, and outcomes. We propose a research agenda based on the merits of viewing LE as a distinctive and theoretically important domain for the study of entrepreneurship and highlight the vital role that LE plays in enriching both individual and social welfare.

Missing the Impact in Impact Investing Research – A Systematic Review and Critical Reflection of the Literature

Posted on by

Abstract

Impact investing (II) aims to achieve intentional social impact in addition to financial return. Our systematic literature review of 104 articles finds that the growing academic literature on II is scattered across a variety of disciplines and topics, with inconsistencies in terminology and concepts and a paucity of theoretical explanations and frameworks. To provide an overview of common research areas and findings, we integrate the articles on II in nine emerging topics and shed light on inconsistencies in the literature. The analysis reveals one major shortcoming in II research: Despite the fact that II aims to create a measurable societal impact, this impact of II, its raison d’être, is not scrutinized in the literature. We argue that investigating the impact of II requires a holistic lens, for which we propose systems theory. We suggest prospective future research avenues which combine socio-economic research approaches (esp. longitudinal qualitative studies and experimental methods) with socio-technical methods (esp. life cycle analysis) to enable a holistic systems perspective of II.

The Impact of Sustainable Investing: A Multidisciplinary Review

Posted on by

Abstract

We conduct a multidisciplinary review of how sustainable investing impacts the environment and society. Our review starts from the insight that shareholders can create impact not only through (1) portfolio screening and (2) shareholder engagement (two impact strategies most used by mainstream shareholders) but also through (3) field building (an impact strategy most used by shareholders at the periphery of the financial sector). Based on this framework of three impact strategies, we integrate insights from four disciplines (management, finance, sociology, and ethics/sustainability) to reconstruct how each impact strategy influences corporate sustainability. We identify 15 impact mechanisms through which the impact strategies produce three types of impact: portfolio screening and shareholder engagement mostly create direct impact on companies, while field building creates indirect impact via other shareholders and indirect impact via the institutional context. Our review suggests that shareholder impact emerges gradually as different types of shareholders build on each other's efforts, which we use to outline a research agenda on shareholder impact as a distributed process.