Programmatic Ad Mediation Explained Programmatic ad mediation allows publishers to manage multiple ad networks from a single platform, maximizing revenue and efficiency. This article explores how it works, its benefits, and tips for selecting the right platform. Key Takeaways Programmatic ad mediation streamlines the management of multiple ad networks through a unified platform, [...]

Social exchange theory is a broad theory that has been used to explain trust as an outcome of various exchange relationships, and research commonly presumes trust exists between exchange partners that have prior relationships. In this paper, we contribute to social exchange theory by isolating the trust outcomes of interorganizational exchanges from other outcomes emphasized by learning and knowledge-based perspectives, and by specifying important boundary conditions for the emergence of trust in interorganizational exchanges. We make such a theoretical contribution within the domain of strategic alliances by investigating the effects of previous alliance agreements, or prior ties, between the partnering firms. We find that prior ties generally lead to learning about a partner's anticipated behavioral patterns, which helps a firm predict when self-interested behavior may occur and know how to interact with the partner during the coordination and execution of the alliance tasks. By contrast, it is evident that the kind of trust emphasized in social exchange theory is not generally rooted in prior ties and only emerges from prior relationships under certain conditions. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on social exchange theory and for delineating the theory's domain of applicability.

CEO severance has captured the attention of a wide array of audiences, yet it remains largely unexplored by management scholars. This paper offers a rigorous theoretical examination of CEO severance with the goal of developing a foundation for a systematic research agenda. In particular, we consider if, and how, severance agreements can be effective in serving the interests of both CEOs and shareholders. We argue that severance agreements have potential value as both an executive recruitment and governance tool, but that the way they are conventionally structured undermines the value that shareholders realize from them. The implications of structure have been almost entirely overlooked by scholars, perhaps because the influence of compensation consultants has left little variance in how severance agreements are implemented across firms. We address this gap by theorizing about how severance agreements could be structured to effectively generate value for executives and shareholders. To do this, we introduce a categorization of key dimensions of CEO severance agreements, and consider how each of these dimensions can be structured to facilitate CEO recruiting, while simultaneously mitigating future governance problems. Our propositions offer new opportunities for governance and compensation scholars to link CEO severance agreements to important organizational outcomes.

Calls for greater diversity in management research, education and practice have increased in recent years, driven by a sense of fairness and ethical responsibility, but also because research shows that greater diversity of inputs into management processes can lead to greater innovation. But how can greater diversity of thought be encouraged when educating management students, beyond the advocacy of affirmative action and relating the research on the link between multiplicity and creativity? One way is to think again about how we introduce the subject. Introductory textbooks often begin by relaying the history of management. What is presented is a very limited mono-cultural and linear view of how management emerged. This article highlights the limits this view outlines for initiates in contrast to the histories of other comparable fields (medicine and architecture), and discusses how a wider, deeper and more engaged understanding of history can foster thinking differently.

Drawing on human capital theory, strategy scholars have emphasized firm-specific human capital as a source of sustained competitive advantage. In this study, we begin to unpack the micro-foundations of firm-specific human capital by theoretically and empirically exploring when employees perceive their skills to be firm-specific. We first develop theoretical arguments and hypotheses based on the extant strategy literature, which implicitly assumes information efficiency and unbiased perceptions of firm-specificity. We then relax these assumptions and develop alternative hypotheses rooted in the cognitive psychology literature, which highlights biases in human judgment. We test our hypotheses using two data sources from Korea and the United States. Surprisingly, our results support the hypotheses based on cognitive bias - a stark contrast to the expectations embedded within the strategy literature. Specifically, we find organizational commitment and, to some extent, tenure are negatively related to employee perceptions of the firm-specificity. We also find that employer provided on-the-job training was unrelated to perceived firm-specificity. These findings suggest that firm-specific human capital, as perceived by employees, may drive behavior in ways not anticipated by existing theory - for example, with respect to investments in skills or turnover decisions. This, in turn, may challenge the assumed relationship between firm-specific human capital and sustained competitive advantage. More broadly, our findings may suggest a need to reconsider other theories, such as transaction cost economics, that draw heavily on the notion of firm-specificity and implicitly assume widely shared and unbiased perceptions.

In this inductive study, we shift the focus of stigma research inside organizational boundaries by examining its relationship with organizational identity. To do so, we draw on the case of Keystone, a social enterprise in the East of England that became stigmatized after it initiated a program of support for a group of migrants in its community. Keystone's stigmatization precipitated a crisis of organizational identity. We examine how the identity crisis unfolded, focusing on the forms of identity work that Keystone's leaders enacted in response. Interestingly, we show not only that the internal effects of stigmatization on identity can be managed, but also that they may facilitate unexpected positive outcomes for organizations.

'What's going on?' Within the context of our critically-informed teaching practice, we see moments of deep learning and reflexivity in classroom discussions and assessments. Yet, these moments of criticality are interspersed with surface learning and reflection. We draw on dichotomous, linear developmental, and messy explanations of learning processes to empirically explore the learning journeys of 20 international Chinese and 42 domestic New Zealand students. We find contradictions within our own data, and between our findings and the extant literature. We conclude that expressions of surface learning and reflection are considerably more complex than they first appear. Moreover, developing critical reflexivity is a far more subtle, messy, and emotional experience than previously understood. We present the theoretical and pedagogical significance of these findings when we consider the implications for the learning process and the practice of management education.

Do firms learn from their failed innovation attempts? Answering this question is important because failure is an integral part of exploratory learning. In this study, we explore whether and under what circumstances firms learn from their small failures in experimentation. Building on organizational learning literature, we examine the conditions under which prior failures influence firms' R&D output amount and quality. An empirical analysis of voluntary patent expirations (i.e., patents that firms give up by not paying renewal fees) in 97 pharmaceutical firms between 1980 and 2002 shows that the number, importance, and timing of small failures are associated with a decrease in R&D output (patent count) but an increase in the quality of the R&D output (forward citations to patents). Exploratory interviews suggest that the results are driven by a multi-level learning process from failures in pharmaceutical R&D. The findings contribute to the organizational learning literature by providing a nuanced view of learning from failures in experimentation.

We consider how social and psychological connections among CEOs explain the propensity for corporate leaders to distance themselves socially from journalists who engage in negative reporting about firm leadership at other companies, and we examine the consequences for the valence of journalists' subsequent coverage. Our theoretical framework suggests that journalists who have engaged in negative coverage of a firm's leadership and strategy are especially likely to experience distancing from other leaders who (i) have friendship ties to the firm's CEO, (ii) are demographically similar to the CEO on salient dimensions, or (iii) are socially identified with the CEO as a fellow member of the corporate elite. Our theory and findings ultimately suggest that, due to the multiple sources of social identification between CEOs, journalists who engage in negative coverage of firm leadership tend to experience social distancing from multiple CEOs, and such distancing has a powerful influence on the valence of journalists' subsequent reporting about firm leadership and strategy across all the firms that they cover. We also extend our theoretical framework to suggest how the effect of social distancing on the valence of journalists' coverage is moderated by the early and late stages of a journalist's career.

Power in business schools is ubiquitous. We develop individuals for powerfull positions. Yet, the way we deal with power is limited by our utilitarian focus, avoiding the visceral nature of power. In relation to this we address two questions business schools don't ask: what is the experiential nature of power? How are we teaching power? We use experiential, aesthetic developments on power in the social sciences to critique the rational-utilitarian stance on power found in business schools, drawing on the work of Dewey and French philosopher Levinas to treat power as a lived phenomenon. We overview and critique approaches to teaching power in business curricula informed by our own research on Executive MBA students learning through choral conducting. Taking an appreciative-positive stance, this research showed students developing new, non-rational, non-utilitarian understandings of power. They developed nuanced learning on the feeling, relationality and responsibility of exercising power. Coming out of this we argue for more experiential and reflexive learning methods to be applied to the phenomena of power. Finally we shine a reflexive light on ourselves and our 'power to profess', suggesting ways we can change our own practice to better prepare our students for the power they wield.

N/A -- no abstracts in FTEs I believe

Beside making organizations look like their peers through the adoption of similar attributes (which we call alignment), this paper highlights the fact that conformity also enables organizations to stand out by exhibiting highly salient attributes key to their field or industry (which we call conventionality). Building on the conformity and status literatures, and using the case of major U.S. symphony orchestras and the changes in their concert programing between 1879 and 1969, we hypothesize and find that middle-status organizations are more aligned, and middle-status individual leaders make more conventional choices than their low- and high-status peers. In addition, the extent to which middle-status leaders adopt conventional programming is moderated by the status of the organization and by its level of alignment. This paper offers a novel theory and operationalization of organizational conformity, and contributes to the literature on status effects, and more broadly to the understanding of the key issues of distinctiveness and conformity.

We advance a model that highlights contingent linkages between overconfidence and narcissism, entrepreneurial entry, and the successful realization of venture opportunities. Overall, our proposals point to a paradox in which entrepreneurs high in overconfidence and narcissism are propelled toward more novel venture contexts—where these qualities are most detrimental to venture success, and are repelled from more familiar venture contexts—where these qualities are least harmful, and may even facilitate venture success. To illuminate these patterns of misalignment, we attend to the defining characteristics of alternative venture contexts and the focal mechanisms of overconfidence and narcissism.

Theories of status rarely address unearned status gain—an unexpected and unsolicited increase in relative standing, prestige or worth, attained not through individual effort or achievement, but from a shift in organizationally valued characteristics. We build theory about unearned status gain drawing from a qualitative study of 90 U.S.-based employees of a Japanese organization following a company-wide English language mandate. These native English-speaking employees believed that the mandate elevated their worth in the organization, a status gain they attributed to chance, hence deeming it unearned. They also reported a heightened sense of belonging, optimism about career advancement, and access to expanded networks. Yet among those who interacted regularly with Japanese counterparts, narratives also revealed discomfort, which manifested in at least two ways. These informants engaged in "status rationalization," emphasizing the benefits Japanese employees might obtain by learning English, and prevaricated on whether the change was temporary or durable, a process we call "status stability appraisal." The fact that these narratives were present only among those working closely with Japanese employees highlights intergroup contact as a factor in shaping the unearned status gain experience. Supplemental analysis of data gathered from 66 Japanese employees provided the broader organizational context and the nonnative speakers' perspective of the language shift. These findings expand our overall understanding of status dynamics in organizations, and show how status gains can yield both positive and negative outcomes.

Time is inherently present in empirical research on institutional change - most studies sequence actions and events across stages of development, over time. Yet, research has overlooked how temporality, as a negotiated organizing of time, shapes institutional processes, despite that timing, duration, and tenor of relationships are their foundational elements. To unpack the role of temporality in institutions, we examine how actors engage in temporal institutional work - that is, how they construct, navigate, and capitalize on timing norms in their attempts to change institutions. We draw on an inductive study of an institutional project to establish a novel foundation-based university that subsequently came to pace major statewide university reform. We identify three forms of temporal institutional work: entraining - as a top-down, routinized, reproductive form - and constructing urgency, and enacting momentum - both as bottom-up, issue-driven and generative forms. We show that by engaging in these types of work, actors produce windows of opportunity, synchronicity, and irreversibility as shared beliefs about temporality. These beliefs, in turn, shape how the wider institutional change unfolds. Our study shows that temporal institutional work enables institutional change. We discuss the implications for reconceptualizing institutional research from a temporal perspective.

This study looks at what happens to the collection of relationships (network) of service professionals during a role transition (promotion to a management role). Our setting is three professional service firms where we examine changes in relations of recently promoted service professionals (auditors, consultants, and lawyers). We take a comprehensive look at the drivers of two forms of network changes - tie loss and tie gain. Looking backward we examine the characteristics of the contact, the relationship, and social structure and identify which forces are at play in losing ties, revealing an overarching tendency for both cohesion and efficiency forces to play a role. Looking forward, we identify the effect of previous network structures that act as a "shadow of the past" and impact the quality of newly gained relations during the role transitions. Findings demonstrate that role transitions are not only influenced by a few key contacts but that the entire (extant) network of professional relationships shapes the way people reconfigure their workplace relations during a role transition.

Family firms are often portrayed as an important yet conservative form of organization that is reluctant to invest in innovation; however, at the same time, evidence shows that family firms are still flourishing and that many of the world's most innovative firms are indeed family firms. Our study contributes to disentangling this puzzling effect. We argue that family firms—owing to the family's high level of control over the firm, wealth concentration, and importance of non-financial goals—invest less in innovation but have an increased conversion rate of innovation input into output and, ultimately, a higher innovation output than non-family firms. Empirical evidence from a meta-analysis based on 108 primary studies from 42 countries supports our hypotheses. We further argue and empirically show that the observed effects are even stronger when the CEO of the family firm is a later-generation family member. However, when the CEO of the family firm is the firm's founder, innovation input is higher and, contrary to our initial expectations, innovation output is lower than that in other firms. We further show that the family firm-innovation input/output relationships depend on country-level factors, namely, the level of minority shareholder protection and the education level of the workforce in the country.

Drawing on expectancy violation theory, we explore the effects of anticipatory impression management in the context of acquisitions. We introduce impression offsetting, an anticipatory impression management technique organizational leaders employ when they expect a focal event will negatively violate the expectations of external stakeholders. Accordingly, in these situations, organizational leaders will announce the focal event contemporaneously with positive, but unrelated information. We predict impression offsetting will generally occur in the context of acquisitions, but also more frequently for specific acquiring firms and acquisitions that are more likely to lead to an expectancy violation. We also posit that offsetting will effectively inhibit observers' perceptions of events as negative expectancy violations by positively influencing shareholder reactions to acquisition announcements. Consistent with our hypotheses, in a sample of publicly traded acquisition targets, we find evidence for impression offsetting, in which characteristics of both acquirers and their announced acquisitions predict its frequency of use. We also find evidence that impression offsetting is efficacious; on average, it reduces the negative market reaction to acquisition announcements by over 40 percent, which translates into approximately $246 million in market capitalization.

Management educators often assume that research-based arguments ought to be convincing to students. However, college students do not always accept even well-documented research findings. Among the reasons this might happen, we focus on the potential role of psychological mechanisms triggered by scholarly arguments that affect students' self-concepts, leading them to engage in self-enhancing or self-protective responses. We investigated such processes by examining students' reactions to a research argument emphasizing the importance of intelligence to job performance, in comparison to their reactions to research arguments emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence and/or fit. Consistent with our predictions, students were less likely to accept the argument for the importance of intelligence compared to the alternative, less threatening, arguments (i.e., the importance of emotional intelligence or fit). Further, acceptance of the argument about the importance of intelligence was affected by students' grade point average (GPA) and moderated by their emotional stability. Specifically, consistent with self-enhancement theory, students with lower GPAs were more likely to reject the argument for intelligence and give self-protective reasons for their responses, whereas students with higher GPAs were more likely to accept the argument and give self-enhancing reasons. Implications for future research and for management teaching are discussed.

Building on prior work showing that abusive supervision is a reaction to subordinates' poor performance, we develop a self-control framework to outline when and why supervisors abuse poor performing subordinates. In particular, we argue poor performing subordinates instill in supervisors a sense of hostility towards the subordinate, which in turn leads to engaging in abusive supervision. Within this self-control framework, poor performance is more likely to lead to abusive supervision when (a) the magnitude of the hostility experienced is higher (e.g., for those with a hostile attribution bias), or (b) the translation of hostility into abusive supervision is unconstrained (e.g., for those who are low in trait mindfulness). In two experimental studies with full-time supervisors where we manipulated the independent variable (Study 1) and the mediator (Study 2), and in a multi-wave and multi-source field study with data collected from supervisor-subordinate teams (50 supervisors and 206 subordinates) at two time points (Study 3), we found overall support for our predictions. Implications for how to reduce the occurrence of abusive supervision in the workplace are discussed.

If partnering with local firms is an intuitive strategy with which to mitigate uncertainty in foreign ventures, then why don't organizations always partner with local firms, especially in uncertain settings? We address this question by unbundling the effects of uncertainty in foreign ventures at the venture and country levels. We contend that, while both levels increase the need for partnering with local firms in foreign ventures, country-level uncertainty increases the difficulty of partnering with local firms and decreases the likelihood of such partnerships. We also posit that experiential learning helps firms manage the two types of uncertainty, and thereby reduces the need for partnering—yet, experience in the host country makes partnering more feasible and increases the likelihood of such partnerships. To test our hypotheses, we conceptualize the decision to partner with a local firm in a foreign venture as a multilayered decision, and model it accordingly. Using a global sample of venture capital investments made between 1984 and 2011, we find support for the distinct effects of venture- and country-level uncertainty as well as for corresponding levels of experiential learning. These findings have implications for the literature on cross-border venture capital investment and international business in general.

While many studies explain how social science theories shape social reality, few reflect critically on how such theories should shape social reality. Drawing on a new conception of social welfare and focusing on financial regulation, we assess the performative effects of theories on public policy. We delineate how research that focuses narrowly on questions of efficiency and stability reinforces today's technocratic financial regulation that undermines social welfare. As a remedy, we outline how future management research can tackle questions of social justice and thereby promote an inclusive approach to financial regulation that better serves social welfare.

Firms play a crucial role in furthering social welfare through their ability to foster stakeholders' contributions to joint value creation, i.e., value creation that involves a public-good dilemma due to high task and outcome interdependence - leading to what economists have labeled the 'team production problem'. We build on relational models theory to examine how individual stakeholders' contributions to joint value creation are shaped by stakeholders' mental representations of their relationships with the other participants in value creation, and how these mental representations are affected by the perceived behavior of the firm. Stakeholder theory typically contrasts a broadly-defined 'relational' approach to stakeholder management with a 'transactional' approach based on the price mechanism - and has argued that the former is more likely to contribute to social welfare than the latter. Our theory supports this prediction for joint value creation, but also implies that the dichotomy on which it is based is too coarse-grained: there are three distinct ways to trigger higher contributions to joint value creation than through a 'transactional' approach. Our theory also helps explain the tendency for firms and their stakeholders to converge on 'transactional' relationships, despite their relative inefficiency in the context of joint value creation.

Most research on creativity describes it as a net positive: producing new products for the organization and satisfaction and positive affect for creative workers. However, a host of anecdotal and historical evidence suggests that creative work can have deleterious consequences for relationships. This raises the question: how does creativity at work impact relationships at home? Relying on work-family conflict and resource allocation theory as conceptual frameworks, we test a model of creative behaviors during the day at work and the extent to which employees spend time with their spouses at home in the evening, using 685 daily matched responses from 108 worker-spouse pairings. Our results reveal that variance-focused creative behaviors (problem identification, information searching, idea generation) lead to a decline in time spent with spouse at home. In contrast, selection-focused creative behaviors (idea validation) lead to an increase in time spent with spouse. Further, openness to experience moderates these relationships. Overall, the results raise questions about the possible relational costs of creative behaviors at work on life at home.

Psychological empowerment has been studied extensively over the past few decades in a variety of contexts and appears to be especially salient within dynamic and complex environments such as healthcare. However, a recent meta-analysis found that psychological empowerment relationships vary significantly across studies, and there is still a rather limited understanding of how empowerment operates across levels. Accordingly, we advance and test a multi-level model of empowerment which seeks to better understand the unique and synergistic effects between unit and individual empowerment in hospital units. Analysis of data involving 544 individuals in 78 units, collected from multiple sources over three different time periods, revealed that unit empowerment evidenced a synergistic interaction with individual-level psychological empowerment as related to individuals' job performance, as well as an indirect effect on performance via individual empowerment, while controlling for previous performance levels. Notably, these effects were significant at relatively high, but not at relatively low levels of unit empowerment. Furthermore, we found that unit voice climate increased unit empowerment and thereby enhanced individual psychological empowerment. These findings suggest that, in complex and dynamic environments, empowering work units is an important means by which leaders can enhance individuals' performance.

We develop and test a theoretical model that explores how individuals appraise different types of stressful job demands and how these cognitive appraisals impact job performance. The model also explores how charismatic leaders influence such appraisal and reaction processes, and by virtue of these effects, how leaders can influence the impact of stressful demands on their followers' job performance. In Study 1 (n = 74 U.S. Marines), our model was largely supported in hierarchical linear modeling analyses. Marines whose leaders were judged by superiors to exhibit charismatic leader behaviors appraised challenge stressors as being more challenging, and were more likely to respond to this appraisal with higher performance. Although charismatic leader behaviors did not influence how hindrance stressors were appraised, they negated the strong negative effect of hindrance appraisals on job performance. In Study 2 (n = 270 U.S. Marines) charismatic leader behaviors were measured through the eyes of the focal Marines, and the interactions found in Study 1 were replicated. Results from multilevel structural equation modeling analyses also indicate that charismatic leader behaviors moderate both the mediating role of challenge appraisals in transmitting the effect of challenge stressors to job performance, and the mediating role of hindrance appraisals in transmitting the effect of hindrance stressors to job performance. Implications of our results to theory and practice are discussed. Keywords: stress, leadership, job performance, multilevel modeling

This study explores the hybridization of field-level logics. We define hybridized logics as rules of action, interaction, and interpretation that integrate the goals of previously incompatible logics through material forms, practices, and governance arrangements. Through an inductive study of the wind energy field in Colorado, we find that a hybridized logic emerged through a process in which organizational responses to logic incompatibility drove shifts in the relationship between logics and organizations. Compromise and framing efforts unintentionally initiated a process of logic hybridization by catalyzing proponents of the subordinate logic to contest the dominant logic and alter the balance of power in the field. Hybrid organizations then emerged to establish, legitimize, and embed a new set of inter-linked frames, practices, and arrangements that integrated previously incompatible logics. Our findings suggest that the hybridization of field-level logics is a complex process in which organizational actions and field-level conditions recursively influence each other over time.

Hierarchy is a reality of group life, for humans as well as for most other group-living species. And yet, there remains considerable debate about whether and when hierarchy can promote group performance and member satisfaction. We suggest that progress in this debate has been hampered by a lack of clarity about hierarchy and how to conceptualize it. Whereas prevailing conceptualizations of hierarchy in the group and organization literature focus on inequality in member power or status (i.e., centralization or steepness), we build on the ethological and social network traditions to advance a view of hierarchy as cascading relations of dyadic influence (i.e., acyclicity). We further suggest that hierarchy thus conceptualized is more likely to capture the functional benefits of hierarchy whereas hierarchy as inequality is more likely to be dysfunctional. In a study of 75 teams drawn from a wide range of industries, we show that whereas acyclicity in influence relations reduces conflict and thereby enhances both group performance and member satisfaction, centralization and steepness have negative effects on conflict, performance, and satisfaction, particularly in groups that perform complex tasks. The theory and results of this study can help to clarify and advance research on the functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy in task groups.

Based on a multi-year field study of early-stage drug discovery project teams at a global pharmaceutical company, this paper examines how multidisciplinary teams engaged in knowledge creation combine formal and informal coordination mechanisms when faced with unpredictable interdependencies among specialists' knowledge domains. While multidisciplinary teams are critical for knowledge creation in increasingly specialized work environments, the coordination literature has been divided with respect to the extent to which such teams rely on formal coordination structures and informal coordination practices. Our findings show that when interdependencies among knowledge domains are dynamic and unpredictable, specialists design self-managed (sub-)teams around collectively held assumptions about interdependencies based on incomplete information (conjectural interdependencies). These team structures establish the grounds for informal coordination practices that enable specialists to both manage known interdependencies and reveal new interdependencies. Newly revealed interdependencies among knowledge domains, in turn, promote structural adaptation. Drawing on these findings, we advance an integrative model explaining how team-based knowledge creation relies on the mutual constitution of formal coordination structures and informal coordination practices. The model contributes to theory on organizational design and practice-based research on coordination in cross-disciplinary knowledge creation.

Previous academic and popular literature has raised important debates concerning the contradictory incentives of international firms to reduce their environmental impacts and offer transparent environmental information about their operations. As an exhaustive review of this literature reveals mixed and partial evidence, we compared the individual corporate environmental performance and disclosure of the 100 most international non-financial firms in the world to those of 16,023 firms in their industries and a group of matched pairs of firms for three different years. Our results show that although the top international firms have a much better record of environmental disclosure than the firms within their industries and the matched pairs, the top international firms also show worse environmental performance than their peers. The results suggest that the top international firms seek legitimation for their environmental activities by means of voluntary disclosure.

Competitive dynamics theory overlooks an entire class of attackers who pose a serious threat to commercial firms—nonmarket players (NMPs) such as activists, environmentalists, social entrepreneurs, and NGOs. Using an institutional perspective, this conceptual manuscript advances competitive dynamics theory by developing a framework of organizational hostility. The framework profiles NMPs according to their propensity to engage firms; it also classifies firms based on their vulnerability and initial reaction to NMP attacks. Corroborated with a mathematical model (Appendix), the conceptual framework explains which NMPs are most hostile to firms; why some NMPs issue threats whereas others quickly strike commercial firms; and which firms are most vulnerable to such hostility.

This study investigates Anglo expatriate managers learning, knowledge acquisition, and adjustment to the host culture when working within Anglo multi-national companies operating in China. A structural equation model based on data from 121 expatriate managers reveal that Anglo managers adjust more effectively when their learning styles are congruent with the demands of the host culture. Their levels of accumulated managerial tacit knowledge and adaptive flexibility were also associated with their learning styles which in turn led to more effective adjustment to the host culture. Implications for theory, global manager development, and expatriate management are provided.

The interview questions deal with the means by which Estonia and other republics of the former Soviet Union managed to transform their educational systems and the impact of the Soviet heritage on this transformation. An interview was conducted with Professor Olav Aarna. In 1991 Professor Olav Aarna became the rector of TUT. From 2000 to 2003 he held the position of rector of the first private university in Estonia - Estonian Business School (EBS). From 2003 to 2007 Olav Aarna was member of the Estonian Parliament, serving also as Chairman of the Committee for Cultural Affairs responsible for education, research, culture and sports affairs. From 1998-2000 he was Vice Chairman of Estonian National Council for Research and Development. His experience in the field of educational legislation stems from his advisory position to the Minister of Education of Estonia from 1990 to1992. His competence in the field of the Bologna process results from the development of higher education legislation in Estonia (2002-...) and the development of a higher education quality assurance system for Estonia (2008-...). Olav Aarna has consulted third countries in the national qualifications framework (NQF) development as a European Training Foundation (ETF) expert.

After new ventures have exhausted the limited financial resources of founders, family, and friends, they often pursue initial external capital. To secure investment, entrepreneurs can signal about their venture's latent potential by aligning themselves with reliable third parties. Such affiliations affirm the new venture's legitimacy and provide substantive benefits in the form of mentoring, access to resources, and ongoing monitoring. However, early stage financing is an especially "noisy" signaling environment owing to the large number of startups seeking funding, many of which will not survive. The real value of third party affiliations in this context resides in their ability to unlock the potential of other more pedestrian signals, such as the entrepreneur's characteristics and actions that might otherwise go unnoticed. We borrow from the sensemaking literature to explain how third party affiliation signals disambiguate signals with multiple possible interpretations so that potential investors interpret them positively. Findings support our theory that a startup's characteristics and actions are signals that remain relatively unnoticed unless a startup combines them with a third party affiliation that enhances the signal's value, thus increasing the likelihood of receiving external capital.

Accumulated knowledge on organizational justice leaves little reason to doubt the notion that organizational members benefit when leaders adhere to interpersonal justice rules. However, upon considering how justice behaviors influence subordinates' cognitive processes, we predict that interpersonal justice has a surprising, unintended negative consequence. Supervisors who violate interpersonal justice rules trigger subordinates to search for reasons why their supervisors are threatening them, causing subordinates to be more attuned to supervisors' individual characteristics and therefore unlikely to use stereotypes when evaluating them. In contrast, supervisors who adhere to interpersonal justice rules allow subordinates to divert attention away from them, leading subordinates' judgments of their supervisors to be influenced by stereotypes. Consistent with these predictions, in a survey we found that minority supervisors faced bias relative to Caucasian supervisors when supervisors adhered to—but not when they violated—interpersonal justice rules. We replicated this effect in an experiment and established that it is explained by an alternating pattern of stereotype activation and inhibition: participants viewed minority supervisors to be more deceitful than Caucasians when supervisors adhered to—but not when they violated—interpersonal justice rules. We then conducted exploratory analyses and identified one factor (unit size) that mitigates this troubling pattern.

Prior research on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) has substantially advanced our understanding of how isolated acquirer- and deal-specific factors affect abnormal returns. However, investors are likely to perceive and evaluate M&As holistically—that is, as complex configurations (i.e., Gestalts) of characteristics, rather than as a list of independent factors. Yet, extant M&A literature has not addressed why and how configurations of factors elicit positive or negative reactions. In other words, overlooking the interdependent nature of factors known to influence acquisition success has limited our understanding of both M&As and investor judgment. Taking an inductive approach to addressing this important issue, this study relies on fuzzy set methodology. Our results provide compelling evidence that investor perceptions of M&A announcements are not only configurational in nature but also characterized by equifinality - or the presence of multiple paths to success - and asymmetric causality - that is, configurations that represent bad deals are not simply a mirror image of good deals, but differ fundamentally. By constructing a typology of "good" and "bad" deals as perceived by market participants, we develop a mid-range theory of M&A stock market performance. As such, this study offers novel theoretical and empirical insights to scholars, and implications for practitioners.

The power of great novelists' storytelling is demonstrated by their ability to shape social attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and even to make life more worth living. However, although narrative pedagogical methods are widely employed in business education, and there are literature-focused electives, business seems to be too busy to require students to read novels. Novels may be perceived to be too long to generate an immediate return on investment. Few great novels are about business, and fewer still are set in a business environment relevant to the economic and technological context of the 21st century. The ones that are, however, are worth the investment, as they just might turn our business students into better business people. This novel claim builds upon the widely accepted thesis that narrative pedagogy cultivates better business people and increasing scientific evidence of the benefits of reading great novels. It goes further to suggest that great novels might belong as part of the core ethics requirement in that the form and quality of a narrative determines its enduring, ethical effectiveness. Particularly, novels distinctively explore the intersection of what to do and how to live that management education needs to develop better persons and more responsible professionals.

As evidenced by recent legislation and media attention, eradicating gender inequity in the workforce is of significant importance today. However, this interest in justice stands in bold contrast to the continued wage gap, the steady number of gender discrimination suits filed, and the plethora of cases exposed in the media. Previous data collected in 2006 suggests that university students do not perceive gender discrimination as a threat of major significance to themselves or others. University students tend to minimize or even disregard the likelihood that they will witness or experience gender bias or discrimination in their career. The current study serves as a continuation of and a comparison to the 2006 study, with the goal of determining whether the perspective of university students has shifted, or whether they continue to consider themselves to be immune to the injustice of gender discrimination at work. Our findings suggest that students in this cohort are not only more acutely aware of these issues, but that this awareness has expanded to include increased concern over gender discrimination against men as well. The reluctance of students to believe that they personally will be unaffected by gender discrimination has been and continues to be surprisingly high.

Literature on partnerships has grown rapidly in the past decade across different disciplines. However, despite conceptual attention to the value of strategic multi-stakeholder collaboration to promote peace and reconciliation, challenges posed by (post-)conflict, fragile contexts have barely been considered in empirical studies. In this article we contribute by bringing together debates from different partnership literatures and providing an overview of existing, relatively limited research insights on partnerships for peace in fragile states. We present a typology of different levels (local, national, international) at which collaboration takes place and different types of partnerships (philanthropic, transactional, engagement, transformative). This is exemplified with specific attention to Africa, where most fragile states are found, and to partnerships with transformative potential. The analysis suggests that the lowest-level (local) partnerships tend to exclude the national government, while the most recent international, multilateral-driven collaboration has not included business; national cases are most transformative but incidental and not yet leveraged internationally. Despite the interconnected nature of conflict and fragility issues, linkages between partnerships and partners at different levels are largely missing, offering potential for further development by a broad spectrum of scholars and thought leaders. Insights from 'extreme' unconventional contexts thus have relevance for management research more generally.

This article examines how and why business schools might be complicit in a growing disconnect between leaders, people supposed to follow them, and the institutions they are meant to serve. We contend that business schools sustain this disconnect through a dehumanization of leadership that is manifested in the reduction of leadership to a set of skills and its elevation to a personal virtue. The dehumanization of leadership, we suggest, serves as a valuable defense against, but as poor preparation for, the ambiguity and precariousness of leadership in contemporary workplaces. This article proposes ways to humanize leadership by putting questions about the meaning of leadership—about its nature, function, and development—at the center of scholarly and pedagogical efforts. Reflecting on our attempts to do so, we argue that it involves revisiting not just theories and teaching methods but also our identities as scholars and instructors.

There is a growing consensus that cooperative goal structures are more effective at motivating groups than competitive goal structures. However, such results are based largely on studies conducted in highly-controlled settings where participants were provided with the necessary resources to accomplish their assigned task. In an attempt to extend the boundary conditions of current theoretical predictions, we undertook a field experiment within a base-of-the-pyramid setting where resource scarcity is extremely high. Specifically, we collected data on 44 communities within rural Sri Lanka who were tasked with contributing a portion of their resources to the construction of a school building; 24 were assigned to a competition condition and 20 to a cooperation condition. The results of our field experiment, and subsequent follow-up interviews and focus groups, collectively suggest that competitive goal structures generally lead to higher levels of motivation within a resource scarce environment. However, our results also suggest that cooperative goal structures can be highly motivating when groups are unfamiliar with one another, as cooperating with unfamiliar groups can provide access to valuable and rare knowledge within such settings.

We extend the knowledge-based perspective to consider the impact of spin-out founders on knowledge transfer to new ventures. We argue that existing theory largely ignores the founder's role as team catalyst who mobilizes a team and transmits the team's knowledge to a new venture. We address this gap by building theory on the role of a spin-out founder as a facilitator of co-mobility, and whose impact on firm outcomes is mediated by the size and organizational experience of the recruited team. The support for our hypotheses, through use of linked employee-employer US Census data from the legal services industry, has theoretical and practical implications for the knowledge-based view and human resource strategies for both existing and entrepreneurial firms.

Using data from 607 subjects organized in 161 teams (84 laboratory teams and 77 organizational field teams), we examined how leader humility influences team interaction patterns, emergent states, and team performance. We developed and tested a theoretical model arguing that when leaders behave humbly, followers emulate their humble behaviors, creating a shared interpersonal team process (collective humility). This collective humility in turn creates a team emergent state focused on progressively striving toward achieving the team's highest potential (collective promotion focus), which ultimately enhances team performance. We tested our model across three studies wherein we manipulated leader humility to test the social contagion hypothesis (Study 1), examined the impact of humility on team processes and performance in a longitudinal team simulation (Study 2), and tested the full model in a multistage field study in a health services context (Study 3). The findings from these lab and field studies collectively supported our theoretical model, demonstrating that leader behavior can spread via social contagion to followers, producing an emergent state that ultimately affects team performance. Our findings contribute to the leadership literature by suggesting the need for leaders to lead by example, and showing precisely how a specific set of leader behaviors influence team performance, which may provide a useful template for future leadership research on a wide variety of leader behaviors.

How does the presence of domain experts on a corporate board—directors whose primary professional experience is within the focal firm's industry—affect organizational outcomes? We argue that under conditions of significant decision uncertainty, a higher proportion of domain experts on a board may detract from effective decision making and thus increase the probability of organizational failure. Building on exploratory interviews with board members and CEOs, we derive hypotheses from this argument in the context of local banks in the United States. We predict that the greater the level of decision uncertainty—due to rapid asset growth or operation in less predictable markets—the stronger the relationship between the proportion of banking expert directors and the probability of bank failure. Longitudinal analyses of 1,307 banks between 1996 and 2012 support this prediction, even after accounting for both the overall level of professional diversity among directors and banks' different propensities to have an expert-heavy board. We discuss implications for the key dimensions of board composition, the conditions under which the professional background of directors is more or less consequential, and the mechanisms whereby board composition affects organizational outcomes.

Social welfare, or the good society, is of central concern to the Academy of Management. In this paper, we review the concept of social welfare, suggesting that regardless of discipline, social welfare is defined as a multi-dimensional phenomenon. We then review the literature on the corporate objective within a market economy, where the dominant view is that of a single-objective function. Analyzing this view, we argue for a multi-dimensional objective for organizations in order to meet social welfare objectives: where decision making within a market economy better utilizes the benefits of markets. We suggest that improvements in social welfare are possible where markets are better-enabled to operate among stakeholders unconstrained by some single-valued objective. In doing so, we respond to the critics of stakeholder theory who argue that it is an untenable theory due to its inability to specify how stakeholder objectives are to be prioritized.

Agency theory-grounded research on boards of directors and firm legitimacy has historically viewed CEO power as de-legitimating, often taking this fact for granted in theorizing about external assessors' evaluations of a firm. With few exceptions, this literature has focused exclusively on capital market participants (e.g., investors, securities analysts) as the arbiters of a firm's legitimacy and has accordingly assumed that legitimate governance arrangements are those derived from the shareholder-oriented prescriptions of agency theory. We extend this line of research in new ways by arguing that customers also externally assess firm legitimacy, and that firms potentially adjust their governance characteristics to meet customers' norms and expectations. We argue that the cultural-cognitive institutions prevalent in customers' home countries influence their judgments regarding a firm's legitimacy, such that firms competing heavily in high-power distance cultures are more likely to have powerful CEOs, with CEO power a source of legitimacy—rather than illegitimacy—among customers. We also argue that the more dependent a firm is on its customers and the more salient cultural power distance is as a demand-side institutional norm, the greater this relationship will be. Data from 151 U.S. semiconductor and pharmaceutical firms over a 10-year period generally support our predictions.

Despite the extensive research into the effects of reputation, virtually all of this research has examined the effect of one type of reputation on one or more specific outcomes. In this study we ask the question: How do the reputations of analysts, CEOs, and firms individually and jointly affect firm outcomes? To answer this question we focus on a context where reputations are particularly relevant - changes in analyst recommendations and the effect of those changes on stock market reactions. Our study makes contributions to the growing reputation literature by being one of the first studies to recognize and measure how the market accounts for multiple reputations. Further, we argue and find that the reputations of different actors interact with each other when determining particular firm outcomes. We find that different actor's reputations influence the reactions of observers.

Drawing on theories of behavioral decision making and situational strength, we developed and tested a multilevel model that explains how the performance outcomes of personal initiative tendency depend on the extent of alignment between organizational control mechanisms and proactive individuals' risk propensities. Results from a sample of 383 middle managers operating in 34 business units of a large multinational corporation indicated that risk propensity weakens the positive relationship between personal initiative tendency and job performance. This negative moderating effect was further amplified when middle managers receive high job autonomy but was attenuated in business units with a strong performance management context. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on proactivity, risk taking, and organizational control.

A key finding in the literature on industry evolution and strategy is that knowledge "inherited" from the founder's previous employer can be an important source of a new firm's capabilities. We analyze the conditions under which knowledge that is useful for carrying out a key value chain activity is inherited, and explore the mechanism through which such an inheritance shapes an entrant's strategies and, in the process, influences its performance. Evidence from the early U.S. auto industry indicates that employee spinoffs generated from incumbents that had integrated a key value chain activity were also more likely to integrate that activity than other entrants, which, we suggest, reflects the application of knowledge inheritance relative to that activity. Moreover, we find that the integration of this key activity, stimulated by knowledge inheritance, contributed to the establishment of defensible strategic positioning, thereby enhancing the survival duration of inheriting spinoffs. We thus link together the phenomena of knowledge inheritance, vertical integration, and strategic positioning to explain entrant performance. These three phenomena tend to be treated disparately in the literature, rather than in combination.

The promise of a closer union between organizational and historical research has long been recognized. However its potential remains unfulfilled: the authenticity of theory development expected by organization studies and the authenticity of historical veracity required by historical research place exceptional conceptual and empirical demands on researchers. We elaborate the idea of historical organization studies, organizational research that draws extensively on historical data, methods and knowledge to promote historically informed theoretical narratives attentive to both disciplines. Building on prior research, we propose a typology of four differing conceptions of history in organizational research: history as evaluating, explicating, conceptualizing, and narrating. We identify five principles of historical organization studies - dual integrity, pluralistic understanding, representational truth, context sensitivity and theoretical fluency - and illustrate our typology holistically from the perspective of institutional entrepreneurship. We explore practical avenues for a creative synthesis, drawing examples from social movement research and micro-history. Historically informed theoretical narratives whose validity derives from both historical veracity and conceptual rigor, afford dual integrity that enhances scholarly legitimacy, enriching understanding of historical, contemporary and future-directed social realities.