Knowledge that Transforms

We propose a conceptual framework of transaction governance that augments the existing transaction cost economics (TCE) model with research on organizational identity orientation. Our focus is on how particular identity orientations imply preferences for formal versus informal governance mechanisms. These preferences, in turn, are activated when a firm faces particular transaction hazards. In general, the identity orientation construct augments the current perspective on governance choice and helps expand the current TCE model. We also discuss how a firm’s identity orientation is itself systematically shaped (strengthened or weakened) by transactional outcomes. These feedback processes involve certain paradoxes. For instance, even successfully governed transactions may actually weaken a firm’s identity orientation, to the extent that the governance choice is incompatible with the firm’s prevailing identity orientation.

In this article, I develop insights into deliberate silence as a facilitator of institutional change. I argue that deliberate silence constitutes a form of text that can influence dynamics of discourse positions and discourse content, thereby affecting relationships among relevant actors as well as institutional dynamics. This makes it a useful resource for change proponents located at the center of fields to inconspicuously shift voice toward more peripheral allies, facilitate the visibility of problematizations and novel theorizations, and mitigate the effect of defense strategies from central opponents of change. Starting from a basic discourse-based model of institutional change, I show how a systematic acknowledgment of deliberate silence facilitates a better understanding of discursive dynamics. Specifically, I synthesize four types of deliberate silence—activating, suppressing, affirming, and concealing—in institutional change processes, and model a set of communication strategies based on these types of silence that support change in various ways. These ideas contribute to existing literature by suggesting novel ways of understanding how actors navigate barriers to institutional change, and how interactions between different types of actors during institutional dynamics unfold.

Although the phenomenon of dual-purpose organizations (DPOs)—market-based organizations that pursue both private (commercial) and broader social objectives simultaneously—has been explored extensively in prior literature, the role of organization design in addressing the distinct coordination problems inherent to DPOs has been largely overlooked. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes how design considerations can influence organizational outcomes for DPOs. We identify two central coordination challenges faced by DPOs: an aggregation problem, in which heterogeneous individual preferences and organizational goals must be effectively aligned; and a consolidation problem, in which the dual-purpose nature of DPOs prevents the consolidation of goals into a single organizational meta-goal, resulting in nonhierarchical decision-making structures. We argue that formal organization design processes and mechanisms alone may fail to resolve these coordination problems, and we conceptualize the role and notion of soft governance, which we define as the agentic deployment of informal design mechanisms that shape an organization’s informal decision-making structure. Our core contribution lies in developing an integrative model of dual-purpose organizing that demonstrates how soft governance may complement formal organization design in alleviating the coordination problems inherent in DPOs, thereby supporting their stability and growth.

While acquisitions are a popular means of corporate development, it is often uncertain whether acquirers capture positive value. This uncertainty is further compounded by the profound competitive implications associated with acquisitions. To shed more light on these implications, we develop the concepts of negative and positive competitive externalities in acquisitions in more detail and outline a framework that explains which acquisitions give rise to which competitive externalities. We then predict their impact on acquirers’ and rivals’ value capture under different synergy and information conditions, providing several insights: First, when negative competitive externalities exist, when no bidder can create unique synergies and bidders are aware of the synergies and externalities, bidders engage in value-destroying acquisitions to avoid negative externalities. A bidder with unique synergies only captures positive value if the unique synergies exceed a rival’s negative competitive externalities. Second, information advantages of one bidder over others are a key factor enabling positive value capture even when competitive externalities exist. Third, faced with positive competitive externalities, bidders may lack incentives to acquire even if further synergies exist, and the most capable acquirer may not capture the most value. Our paper sheds light on competitive externalities in acquisitions and provides important insights for strategic management research.

Organizational knowledge is essential for sustained competitive advantage, yet it naturally depreciates over time. Traditional rule-based technologies help counter this erosion by serving as stable repositories of knowledge. In contrast, machine learning (ML) systems—an increasingly prevalent and relied-upon technology—introduce new risks. Because their predictive models depend on historical training data, ML systems are vulnerable to model drift: a gradual misalignment with evolving operational realities that creates recurring needs for human-led repair. We develop a multilevel process model showing how and when repeated cycles of ML use and repair can unintentionally accelerate organizational knowledge depreciation. In doing so, we highlight the distinct vulnerabilities of ML systems, challenge the conventional view of technologies as stable repositories of knowledge, and emphasize the importance of deliberate human engagement alongside automation to sustain organizational knowledge over time.

While stakeholder support is essential for firm survival, when stakeholder pressures are at odds with firm interests, resistance becomes imperative for the firm. We theorize when and how empirically based responses enable firms to effectively resist stakeholders, without losing critical support, by following societal norms encouraging empirical debate. Extending arguments that stakeholder pressure progresses through phases, we argue that empirical debate is most influential before and after the phase when stakeholder deliberation occurs—that is, in the preceding phase, when issues are defined, and the subsequent phase, when remedies are debated. We detail two empirically based response strategies: (1) validity disputing and (2) validity promoting. While validity disputing sows doubt and uncertainty on the empirical elements of issues and remedies, validity promoting advances the empirical merits of the firm’s preferred remedy relative to stakeholders’ proposed remedy. Together, these strategies seek to mitigate stakeholder pressures by disrupting an issue’s rise to salience, and, failing that, to avoid remedies constituting more substantive concessions. We complete our model by examining three contingencies: firm dependence on stakeholders, causal complexity, and the strength of stakeholders’ values. Detailing empirical debate as a basis of response complements well-established, values-based approaches to address stakeholder pressures.

Management phenomena are often causally complex, and management research has increasingly turned to a configurational perspective to better account for this complexity. Yet, despite recent attention to configurational theorizing, we still lack comprehensive guidance on when a configurational approach is most appropriate, leading to confusion and avoidable disputes in the review process. Moreover, despite growing calls for theoretical triangulation, our understanding of how configurational theorizing can be effectively combined with other theorizing approaches is limited, slowing the development of novel organizational theories and confining configurational inquiry to largely abductive research and ex post theorizing. We address these challenges in two ways. First, we articulate a framework of four key indications—causal conjunction, causal disjunction, outcome asymmetry, and outcome intentionality—that provide systematic guidance on when a configurational approach is warranted. Second, we introduce two configurational hybrid theorizing approaches that integrate configurational theorizing with propositional and process grammars. Specifically, we demonstrate how configurational-propositional theorizing can generate novel predictions about complex causal relationships, and how configurational-process theorizing can incorporate temporal dynamics through temporal-configurational layering. Together, these contributions broaden the theoretical toolkit for studying complexity and offer new ways to advance the configurational perspective and management theory more generally.

Organizations devoted to care, morality, and social purpose sometimes generate rather than relieve suffering. Paradoxically, such suffering often persists not because it is unseen, but because acknowledging it threatens the organization and its members’ identities as benevolent and caring. We develop a process theory explaining how organizations respond to organizationally caused suffering under identity threat, and why responses diverge toward either propagation or mitigation. Drawing on systems psychodynamics, compassion research, and identity threat theory, we argue that identity-threatening harm activates threat appraisal concerning valued self-definitions. This appraisal channels responses along two pathways. “Constriction” narrows responsibility, localizes blame, and produces bounded or performative forms of compassion that stabilize personal identity while leaving systemic injuries unaddressed. “Expansion” distributes ownership of harm and enables responsible compassion that more substantively engages suffering. We further theorize how internal sensegivers and organizational conditions shape movement both along and between these pathways. By foregrounding identity threat appraisal as a central mechanism, we explain why compassionate intentions do not reliably produce compassionate outcomes, and why suffering may be compounded in organizations most committed to alleviating it.