Search results

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The purpose of this study is to analyze reported good institutional responsible research and innovation (RRI) practices from an organizational and learning perspective to discuss the usefulness of RRI as a broad umbrella concept.

This study connects neo-institutional and translation accounts of diffusion to different modes of learning and discusses reported best practices from 12 reports, including in total 23 organizations in the research system worldwide, in light of this theoretical framework. This study categorizes the good practices identified in the reports and discusses how the nature of the practices influences the potential learning from them. The authors then apply the results from the discussion of this study to current policy developments on RRI.

The two most often mentioned good practices overall are organizational policies and the establishment of organizational units, but the type of good practices recommended differs across the various aspects of the RRI umbrella concept. This diversity within the RRI construct is a practical argument against the effectiveness of RRI as an umbrella concept.

This study is novel in the fact that the authors, building on Wæraas (2020), systematically relate types of good practice to neo-institutional theory and translation perspectives explicitly combined with learning approaches and apply this approach in the field of research organizations. The policy implications from the empirical and theoretical analyses are novel and timely in these early phases of the EU funding framework programme Horizon Europe and can also be relevant for the increasingly important umbrella concept of Open Science.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to science communication literature by further highlighting the underexplored role of organizational and corporate perspectives in science communication.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual article that uses two illustrative vignettes to highlight the power of corporate science communication.

The key argument is that corporate science communication is a compound ideology that results from merging the hegemonic corporate voice with the ultimate/god-term science (see the work of Kenneth Burke) to form a mega-ideological construct and discourse. Such communication can be so powerful that vulnerable publics and powerful advocates speaking on their behalf have little to no recourse to effectively challenge such discourse. While critiques of corporate science communication in practice are not new, what the authors offer is a possible explanation as to why such discourse is so powerful and hard to combat.

The value of this paper is in the degree to which it both sets an important applied research agenda for the field and fills a critical void in the science communication literature. This conceptual article, in the form of a critical analysis, fills the void by advocating for the inclusion of organizational perspectives in science communication research because of the great potential that organizations have, via science communication, to shape societal behavior and outcomes both positively and negatively. It also coins the terms “compound ideology” and “mega-ideology” to denote that while all ideologies are powerful, ideologies can operate in concert (compound) to change their meaning and effectiveness. By exposing the hegemonic power of corporate science communication, future researchers and practitioners can use these findings as a foundation to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns wielded by big corporate science entities and the public relations firms often hired to carry out these campaigns.

Some fuzzy definitions such as gray collar workers (GCW) needs to be constructed by academic research in management and organization field. The authors propose a framework for researchers who are interested in studying gray collar workforce after the fourth industrial revolution (I4.0) with network perspectives and methods. Hence, understanding different classes of workforce in the new industrial era needs better understandings of fuzzy concepts and well collected data for decision-making processes. Since literature of management studies are not sufficient to identify and study those new classes, the authors begin with the definition of collar colors in management studies. Following that section, referring to the importance of GCW research, a new literature construction via different types of network analyses is discussed. Three different methods of network concepts are matched with three main social science paradigms. The authors believe that the three perspectives are in the same importance about constructing a literature of future workforce in organizations in particular the GCW who are more exposed in technological developments and organizational changes.

The purpose of this research was to understand the role of interdisciplinarity in research and how communication structures and processes at universities facilitates such work.

Twenty-one semi-structured interviews with administrators, faculty, and staff from US R-1 Carnegie-designated higher education institutions were conducted.

Institutional culture reportedly drives interdisciplinary research efforts and participants offered different values associated with pursuing interdisciplinary work. Participants also shared formal and informal incentives that motivate their pursuit of interdisciplinary collaborations. Participants seemed to prefer a blended centralized-decentralized approach for the communication function's support of interdisciplinary research efforts.

This research fills a gap in understanding of how organizational capacities, structures and processes support collaborative research work and public communication about such work.

This chapter wants to understand under which circumstances and conditions non-traditional aids are effective in the strategic process. This study builds an agent-based computational simulation model – the S-uFUNK 2.1.0 – to explore the research question. The model features a group of managers that seeks to interpret environmental cues using both traditional and non-traditional tools. When interpretations converge, the group then settles on different focus areas to define a business strategy for their organization. The process is set in a way such that 11 parameters can be manipulated to explore the different conditions under which non-traditional aids are of use. Results suggest that non-traditional aids differ from traditional aids only in limited circumstances and that social dynamics and dispositions within the group are crucial. In general, the simulation helps us reflect on the way in which we consider traditional aids to strategy. In fact, if they are no different than non-traditional aids, their effectiveness is directly challenged.

This study, a theoretical article, aims to introduce new institutionalism as a framework through which business and management researchers can explore the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) in organizations. Although the new institutional theory is a fully established research program, the neo-institutional literature on AI is almost non-existent. There is, therefore, a need to develop a deeper understanding of AI as both the product of institutional forces and as an institutional force in its own right.

The authors follow the top-down approach. Accordingly, the authors first briefly describe the new institutionalism, trace its historical development and introduce its fundamental concepts: institutional legitimacy, environment and isomorphism. Then, the authors use those as the basis for the queries to perform a scoping review on the institutional role of AI in organizations.

The findings reveal that a comprehensive theory on AI is largely absent from business and management literature. The new institutionalism is only one of many possible theoretical perspectives (both contextually novel and insightful) from which researchers can study AI in organizational settings.

The authors use the insights from new institutionalism to illustrate how a particular social theory can fit into the larger theoretical framework for AI in organizations. The authors also formulate four broad research questions to guide researchers interested in studying the institutional significance of AI. Finally, the authors include a section providing concrete examples of how to study AI-related institutional dynamics in business and management.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the agent-system model of (in)justice and negative norm of reciprocity of social exchange theory to examine the indirect impact of supervisory interactional injustice (i.e. interpersonal and informational) on employees’ target-specific extra-role work behaviours [counterproductive work behaviour directed at supervisor (CWB-S) and organisational citizenship behaviour directed at supervisor (OCB-S)] via distrust in supervisor.

The authors conducted a two-wave study, and participants (n = 401) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk using a survey methodology. Bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) constructed in 20,000 bootstrap samples were used to test the mediation effects.

The findings indicated that interpersonal and informational injustice are positively related to employees’ distrust in supervisor. Furthermore, interpersonal and informational injustice indirectly affected CWB-S and OCB-S via distrust in supervisor.

Several limitations and future research should be discussed. First, the cross-sectional nature of this study prevented us from establishing the causal direction implied by the mediation models in this research. Second, the authors cannot rule out the potential for common method variance. These limitations can be addressed by collecting data from multiple sources (e.g. supervisor and coworkers) at different points in time or by experimental study design. Lastly, the authors did not consider contextual variables (e.g. formal policies, practices, ethical rules and cultural climate) that may influence the proposed relationships’ strengths and directions.

Even though perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice can affect employee deviant behaviours targeted at the organisation and organisational members, the present findings suggest that practitioners should be aware that perceptions of supervisory interactional injustice (i.e. interpersonal and informational) are likely be requited with employees’ extra-role work behaviours targeted at the supervisor. The present findings suggest that, via distrust in supervisor, employees are likely to engage in more CWB-S and fewer OCB-S as a result of supervisory interactional injustice. Considering the costs associated with high CWB-S and low OCB-S, supervisors should be trained in adhering to interactional justice rules. Additionally, supervisors should be mindful and practice caution when interacting with subordinates, to ensure that interactional justice norms are not violated. Lastly, supervisors can seek feedback from subordinates regarding their perceptions of supervisory interactional injustice, as these assessments will allow the supervisors to adapt their behaviours to impede subordinates’ deviant behaviours aimed towards them.

This study contributes to the literature on organisational injustice and workplace behaviour. First, most injustice research assumes that injustice is the opposite of justice; this study examines the effect of interactional injustice. Second, the authors develop a target-specific model focusing on the interactions between two key organisational stakeholders (i.e. supervisors and employees). The authors suggest that supervisor’s disrespect and untruthfulness towards the employee will eventually result in employee revenge (i.e. CWB-S) and lack of cooperation (i.e. OCB-S) towards supervisor. Finally, the authors examine the mechanism (i.e. distrust in supervisor) through which supervisory interactional injustice may ensue in employee extra-role behaviours directed at the supervisor.

This paper aims to present a model to incentivize sustainable performance (SUP) in small- and medium-sized tourism by strengthening inner relations to adapt to a complex environment.

The authors adopted the systemic approach complementing analytic, tourism, partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM), social network analysis (SNA) and systemic approach tools as follows: frame the problem through the soft systems methodology and SNA and identify the conflicting relationships; apply PLS-PM to validate the model; and propose new interactions for small- and medium-sized enterprises conducive to SUP based on the viable system model.

Considering the results, the authors pinpointed factors and relationships managers can address to foster SUP, highlighting the need to reinforce feedback loops and reduce inconsistencies between primary operations with coordination and management mechanisms.

This work is limited to the organizational domain. Although the results apply to the Mexican context, this could be overcome using methodological complementarity to extend the ideas to other organizations.

This study invites discussing methods and viewpoints for rethinking SUP because of multiple factors. This requires adopting methodological complementarity to generate alternatives and reconfiguring inner organizational interactions.

The model captures minimum but sufficient components advising leaders about SUP. This proposal differs from previous studies because it suggests exploiting methodological complementarity to capture the insights of key operative actors to conceive the model. Hence, the authors suggest new relations among organizational factors so managers can develop strategies for adaptability.