本文精选了组织管理学领域国际顶刊《Organization Science》近期发表的论文，提供组织管理学领域最新的学术动态。

How Social Movements Catalyze Firm Innovation

原刊和作者：

Organization Science Volume 36, Issue 4

Kate Odziemkowska （University of Toronto）

Yiying Zhu （Montclair StateUniversity）

Abstract

We investigate the impact that social movements have on firm innovation through private politics. We argue that firms strategically respond to private politics by investing in new technologies that address movement-advocated issues material to firms’ performance. Although both contentious private politics—when activists contentiously target firms—and cooperative private politics—when activists and firms collaborate—catalyze innovation, they do so in different ways. Contentious private politics increases the amount of innovation that firms undertake by drawing managerial attention to movement-advocated issues material to the firm, prompting search for solutions to those issues. Conversely, cooperative private politics provides firms access to new knowledge that encourages firms to search for solutions in areas more distant from their existing knowledge and in so doing, increase innovation involving distant recombination on material issues. We find support for our arguments in a matched sample of firms contentiously targeted and with activist collaborations on climate change issues and firms that were not targets of private politics on those issues but had otherwise similar histories of climate-related innovation and relationships with climate movements and other environmental movements. Supplementary analyses corroborate the mechanisms that undergird our theoretical predictions; contentious private politics is associated with more innovation closer to a firm’s expertise, whereas cooperative private politics is associated with innovations that draw on more distant knowledge. We also find that when collaboration follows contention, their respective impacts on innovation are reduced, which may result from firms seeking collaborations for their legitimacy-granting benefits after contention rather than the learning opportunities they offer.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17497

The Six Dimensions of Strong Theory

原刊和作者：

Organization Science Volume 36, Issue 4

Andrew M. Carton （University of Pennsylvania）

Abstract

One of the most important features on which to judge the merit of any academic paper is the strength of its theory. Although commentary about what constitutes strong theory is widespread, there is no holistic account of the full range of existing perspectives. To address this oversight, I construct a typology composed of six dimensions of strong theory: importance, interestingness, actionability, generality, simplicity, and accuracy. This typology provides a lens to examine a vexing problem: the effort to increase the strength of a theory on one dimension will usually compromise its strength on others. Despite this reality, authors experience pressure in the review process to optimize theories on all six dimensions. I explain how the expectation to build theories that cannot possibly be built (what I call the fruitless search for unicorn theories) is driven by historical forces. The study of organizations emerged not from one source but from a half-dozen distinct traditions, including applied scientists who study time-sensitive problems, disciplinary scholars who identify universal laws of human behavior, and empiricists who prefer a tight link between concepts and measures. Review teams are often composed of referees who hail from different traditions and possess divergent views on theory. Even when each reviewer has concerns that are reasonable in isolation, authors often confront unrealistic expectations when reviewers’ preferences are aggregated. To mitigate this problem, I recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors (1) prioritize fewer dimensions in any single theory and (2) emphasize distinct dimensions in different theories on the same topic.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2024.19018

Design- and Theory-Based Approaches to Strategic Decisions

原刊和作者：

Organization Science Volume 36, Issue 4

Alfonso Gambardella （Bocconi University）

Danilo Messinese （Instituto de Empresa University）

Abstract

We develop a unified framework to examine the implications of two primary approaches to strategic decision making under uncertainty: designing and shaping future scenarios vis-à-vis testing theories about future scenarios. We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled trial involving 308 early stage entrepreneurs, dividing them into three groups—design-based training, theory-based training, and a control group—and tracked them over approximately 1.5 years. Our findings reveal that both approaches reduce the need for information in decision making and lead to higher commitment rates. The design-based approach encourages action despite negative beliefs, resulting in less frequent and later project termination. In contrast, the theory-based approach promotes a more conservative termination rule, leading to earlier and more frequent project abandonment. Although the theory-based approach is associated with higher average performance upon survival, the design-based approach fosters breakthroughs for decision makers. In sum, the design-based approach is well-suited for innovative ventures that gather information to shape their environment, whereas the theory-based approach is optimal for pursuing high performance under lower degrees of uncertainty.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.18245

Embrace the Unexpected: How Organizations Foster Participatory Improvisation with Customers

原刊和作者：

Organization Science Volume 36, Issue 4

Daphne Demetry （McGill University）

Abstract

This study explores how organizations, together with their customers, solve problems in the face of disruptions, a process I call “participatory improvisation.” Drawing on interviews, ethnographic observations, and archival data collected from an underground restaurant, Secret Kitchen, and the theory of interaction order, I develop a process model of participatory improvisation with a two-part structure. First, I find that an organization must lay the foundation for participatory improvisation by establishing alternative conventions (e.g., expect and embrace the unexpected). Second, these conventions facilitate mutual face work by both the organization and customers in response to disruptions, thereby protecting interactions from breakdowns. When alternative conventions are not established, participatory improvisation may be ineffective, and interactions may be severely threatened. These findings contribute to the literature on organizational improvisation by uncovering how organizations can foster participatory improvisation and how it unfolds in situ. They also reveal an alternate way for customer-facing organizations to achieve their goals beyond routinization.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17551

How Psychological Barriers Constrain Men’s Interest in Gender-Atypical Jobs and Facilitate Occupational Segregation

Organization Science Volume 36, Issue 4

Eileen Y. Suh （Northwestern University）

Evan P. Apfelbaum （Boston University）

Michael I. Norton （Harvard University）

Abstract

Scholarship regarding occupational gender segregation has almost exclusively focused on women’s experiences (e.g., as targets of discrimination in masculine domains), yet understanding factors that perpetuate men’s underrepresentation in traditionally feminine occupations is equally important. We examine a consequential dynamic early in the job search process in which individuals come to learn that an occupation that fits them is perceived as feminine versus masculine. Our research develops and tests the prediction that femininity or masculinity of occupations will exert a stronger impact on men’s (versus women’s) interest in them such that men will be less interested in gender-atypical occupations than women. Across five studies (n = 4,477), we consistently observed robust evidence for this prediction among diverse samples, including high school students (Study 1), unemployed job seekers (Study 2), U.S. adults (Study 3), and undergraduates (Study 4) and using experimental and archival methods. We observed this asymmetry after controlling for alternative accounts related to economic factors (e.g., expected salary), suggesting that they alone cannot fully explain men’s lack of interest in feminine occupations as previously discussed in the literature. Further, we consistently observed that men, compared with women, show heightened sensitivity to gender-based occupational status, and this greater sensitivity explains men’s (versus women’s) reduced interest in gender-atypical occupations. Though past scholarship suggests that increasing pay is key to stoking men’s interest in feminine occupations, our research suggests that targeting men’s underlying psychological concern—sensitivity to gender-based occupational status—may be an underappreciated pathway to reducing gender segregation.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17550