Search results

Extant paradox theory suggests that adopting paradoxical frames, which are mental templates adopted by individuals in order to embrace contradictions, will result in superior firm performance. Superior performance is achieved through learning and creativity, fostering flexibility and resilience and unleashing human capital. The creativity mechanism of paradox theory is limited by a few propositions and a rough underlying theoretical logic. Using the extant theoretical base as a platform, the paper aims to develop a more powerful theory using a computational simulation.

This paper relies on a psychologically realistic computer simulation. Using a simulation to generate ideas from stored information, one can model and manipulate the parameters that have been shown to mediate the relationship between paradoxes and creative output – defined as the number of creative ideas generated.

Simulation results suggest that the relationship between paradoxical frames and creative output is non-monotonic – contrary to previous studies. Indeed, findings suggest that paradoxical frames can reduce, rather than enhance, creative output, in at least some cases.

An important benefit of adopting paradoxical frames is their capacity to increase creative output. This assumption is challenging to test, because one cannot measure private cognitive processes related to knowledge creation. However, they can be simulated. This allows for the extension of current theory. This new theory depicts a more complete relationship between paradoxical frames and creativity by accounting for subjective differences in how paradoxical frames are experienced along two cognitive mechanisms – differentiation and integration.

This empirical paper investigates the relationships between the amount of human capital that flows into a firm and two activities underlying a firm’s knowledge production, variation or change and knowledge retention. We track the flow of human capital within and across organizational and geographic space for all multi‐unit banks operating in the world foreign exchange trade industry from 1973 to 1993. The findings indicate that an increased reliance on past experience reduces how much human capital a firm imports in the future. This effect is moderated by a self‐reinforcing cycle of human capital inflow. Inflows of human capital also decline when a firm has recently adopted novel changes in its operations. The paper uses evolutionary thinking to define a model for intrafirm knowledge production.

With the globalization of business, a relevant question is how might people deal with others from fundamentally different backgrounds (cultural, ethnic, functional, etc.)? Many authors (Rhinesmith, 1992; Paul, 2000; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002; Kefalas, 1998, just to mention a few) suggest that managers working in international contexts require a specialized way of thinking about the environment in which they operate, a so-called “global mindset.” In the current chapter, we discuss the evolving notion of a “global mindset” and contrast it with extant work on the related concept of “cultural intelligence” (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Thomas & Inkson, 2004).

In this response to the commentaries of Alutto, Morris and Young, we explore several important issues raised by the authors. The points raised in the commentaries highlight several important directions for cross-level and cross-cultural organizational research to follow including a strong cognitive orientation and an emphasis on contextualization.

To guide scholars interested in incorporating culture into research on behavior in organizations, this chapter discusses cross-level approaches to the study of culture that go beyond simplistic comparative analyses. We focus on the major issues confronting a cross-cultural management researcher. We consider diverse theoretical, research design, and analytical approaches that allow the researcher to link culture to organizational behavior. A central theme in our discussion is the paramount importance of a model that specifies mechanisms that link culture to lower levels of analyses, such as organizations, teams, and individuals. Our recommendations for empirical research revolve around the informed use of cross-level theoretical models to guide research design and analytical choices. We conclude with general recommendations for future research on culture and behavior in organizations.

To identify what scholars consider to be important and interesting for future research in social entrepreneurship (SE), this chapter analyzes 248 SE papers and generated 327 topics for future research. From these 327 topics, a modified Delphi process generated 27 underlying themes. Subject matter experts were surveyed as to how interesting each research topic is and the extent to which the topics lend themselves to theoretical or empirical development; this assessment was also used to calculate aggregate scores for each theme. In this chapter, we present all research topics that scored at or above 2.5 on a 5-point scale for both questions. We discuss the implications of both the method and the results of the study.

Because of the importance of a global mindset from both a theoretical and a practical point of view, there is need to examine this construct further to understand its contents, how it is developed, when and how it should be applied, and what its consequences are. Thus, we invited a select group of scholars to develop chapters on specific aspects of this topic to help build a volume accomplishing these goals. Our aim here was to invite the foremost thinkers and writers on this topic.

This paper claims that global corporations should rethink the concept of cultural control, which relies on an implicit culture, corporate culture, for the control of local managersș thoughts and behavior. Instead, based on hybridizations of corporate and local management cultures created through personal socialization conducted by Swedish and American corporations in local offices in Thailand and Mexico, the paper offers a perspective for cultural control that views and understands cultures in terms of change and hybridizations.