Knowledge that Transforms

The dangers of mindless behaviors remain better defined than their remedies. Even as mindfulness becomes increasingly prevalent, we lack clarity on three key questions: What is mindfulness? How does mindfulness training operate? And why might mindfulness matter for organizations? In this article I introduce a new conceptualization of mindfulness, which I call metacognitive practice. Metacognitive practice is so named because it blends insights from metacognition and practice theory to answer these three key questions. First, when seen as metacognitive practice, mindfulness is not a single mode of information processing to be applied in all situations. Instead, it is a metacognitive process by which people adjust their mode of information processing to their current situation. Second, this metacognitive process is made possible by three specific beliefs that supersede lay beliefs about human information processing. A core function of mindfulness training, thus, is to provide a context that cultivates these beliefs. Third, when these beliefs are put into practice, people gain greater agency in how they respond to situations. This matters for organizations, because as people interrelate their individual actions into a collective response, metacognitive practice can get embedded in amplifying processes that transform the organization—or in fragmentation processes that threaten it.

In our original article (Etter, Ravasi & Colleoni, 2018), we argued that the rise of social media is changing how evaluations are made public and impact the formation of organizational reputation. In their counterpoint, [authors] argue in favour of a separation between the construct of media reputation and social media reputation. They further argue that the rise of social media is actually strengthening the impact of traditional media on the evaluations of key stakeholders. Finally, they urge scholars to take a cautious approach to the assumption that social media are introducing more dynamism in the formation of (media) reputation. We agree that, in some circumstances, a conceptual distinction between (traditional) media reputation and social media reputation might be useful to advance future research and theorization of reputational dynamics. In fact, in our original article we highlighted the importance to acknowledge the potential existence of different and separate “reputational arenas” (Aula & Mantere, 2013; see also Bromberg & Fine, 2002). We are less persuaded, however, by the other objections that [authors] raise.

In this article I seek to apply findings from recent research on rivalry relationships to firm-level competitive strategy. I integrate microlevel and macrolevel theory in arguing that certain pairs of firms can, over time, develop rivalry relationships much like those between athletic teams or universities. In turn, these rivalry relationships can drive firms’ competitive behavior above and beyond current market and competitive conditions (such as resource similarity or market overlap between firms). I then connect the relational rivalry literature and competitive dynamics literature and put forth a series of propositions centered on how relational rivalry between firms affects their competitive moves vis-à-vis one another. In doing so I aim to contribute to competitive strategy research by exploring social psychological and sociological factors, particularly by emphasizing the importance of pairs of firms’ histories of interaction in driving future competitive action. This work also extends the existing literature on relational rivalry by pointing to institutionalization as a key difference between interfirm and interindividual relational rivalry and by examining the consequences of relational rivalry for macrolevel strategic and competitive decisions.

Work and family are highly intertwined for many individuals, yet individual-level strategies for achieving effectiveness and satisfaction across work and family roles have not received sufficient attention. We address this issue by conceptualizing work-family balance from an action regulation perspective as the successful joint pursuit of work and family goals. Building on insights from the work-family literature, action regulation theory, and multiple goals research, we propose a theoretical model that explains how people can jointly attain work and family goals by using four action strategies: allocating resources, changing resources and barriers, sequencing goals, and revising goals. We address the conditions under which each strategy is used, depending on the malleability of resources and barriers for goal attainment, time to deadline of goals, and feedback and monitoring of progress across work and family goals. Our model offers new insights into and research implications for work-family balance and helps develop practical interventions that result in improved management of the work-family interface.

Online communities are an increasingly relevant yet relatively underexamined stakeholder group for firms. I argue that firms may garner distinct competitive advantages from engaging with online communities. Drawing on social capital theory and stakeholder theory, I examine the benefits, tactics, and firm attributes that underlie a positive relationship between firm engagement in an online community and firm performance. In so doing, I develop a theory pertaining to online community advantage, which both accounts for the information, influence, and solidarity benefits that flow to firms from firm engagement in an online community and highlights the firm tactics and attributes associated with the generation of such benefits.

In this article we develop a theoretical framework to explain values-based rivalry between activists and firms by integrating and advancing key insights from competitive dynamics and social activist research. The first part of our framework conceptualizes the unique tensions, actions, and responses that characterize values-based rivalry and distinguish it from rivalry between firms. The second part of our framework conceptualizes the role of managers’ perceptions in shaping their firms’ likelihood of responding to activists’ actions during values-based rivalry. Overall, our conceptualization primarily expands competitive dynamics research to account for rivalry between dissimilar actors and, in doing so, broadens social activist research to account for such rivalry.

Despite previous work developing an understanding of organizational violence through grounded theoretical frameworks (Clegg, 2006; Hearn, 1994), we still do not understand the extent to which the conscious practice of violence in bureaucracies can influence subsequent individual performance. Part of the problem is that the ‘talk about’ violence at work is so heavily fraught with negative connotations that theoretical and empirical efforts about its potential utility (see also Lindebaum, 2017), such as driving excellent performance at work, are oftentimes suppressed. In consequence, accounts on the potential utility of violence at work remain essentially under-explored within management and organization studies. However, the fact that we do not talk much about violence in management and organization studies cannot be taken as in indicator that it is not present, as classical management accounts have shown (Terkel, 1974). The lack of engagement with violence as a construct of theoretical and practical relevance poses significant challenges for management and organization studies. As Albrow (1992) reminds us, bureaucratic organizations revolve around emotional politics; their central purpose is to remove and suppress any unpredictable behavior that is an outcome of passionate drivers, so as to build a safe and rational world devoid of anger, violence and love. However, studies of bureaucracies show that it is an endless and hopeless quest for purity and neutrality (Gouldner, 1954). Bureaucracy ends up shaping the parameters of human existence in ways far more closely than anything Weber might have imagined. What is puzzling, though, is that organizational scholarship often discounts the significance of the passionate side of bureaucracies by systematically insisting upon its dispassionate and rule-driven side. As Graeber (2012) puts it, “it’s almost as if the more we allow aspects of our everyday existence to fall under the purview of bureaucratic regulations, the more everyone concerned colludes to downplay the fact (perfectly obvious to those actually running the system) that all of it ultimately depends on the threat of physical force” (p. 112). Thus, we see passions not as abstract and free-floating entities, but as concrete interactional processes in which physical violence, and the threat of violence, can play a constitutive role (Confortini, 2006). In that respect, despite prior influential work on the informal sides of bureaucracies (Gouldner, 1954), it remains obscure how bureaucracies can be something other than impersonal mazes alienating and destroying human capacities. In other words, how can bureaucracies be approached as places where individuals can achieve great things and cultivate a passion for their work, even if it involves violence? In this essay, we aim to analyze the role of passions when they are inscribed in practices of violence, as drivers for exceptional performance, such as becoming the next prodigy musician (or researcher, employee or soldier). While we elaborate further upon this later, we note here that this focus is relevant to management and organization studies for one specific reason: it enables a better understanding of the dynamics around the conscious practice of violence – and its passionate manifestations – in bureaucracies that can drive subsequent individual and organizational performance. As we argue later, the conscious practice of violence does not imply here that it is inflicted upon the victim against his/her will, but is rather consciously accepted by the victim as a necessary experience toward excellence. Our argument stands at an angle with the literature on work passion and bureaucracies. For one thing, it contrasts with the view that work passion represents “a psychological state characterized by the experience of intense positive emotions, an internal drive to do the work, and a sense of meaningful connection toward one’s work” (Perttula & Cardon, 2011:193, italics added). For another, it stands in direct contrast to the lingering domination within organizational scholarship of a Weberian image of the passionless bureaucracy. To this end, we derive inspiration from the award-winning movie Whiplash. We do so because the movie offers rich and fresh insights into how violence and passion can help explain – under certain circumstances – the everyday quest for excellent performance within bureaucratic organizations.

Dual-earner couples are increasingly prevalent and encounter demands arising from each partner’s commitment to various work and life domains. Unfortunately, there has been little theoretical progress in explaining how dual-earner couples navigate work-life shock events, which we define as disruptive, novel, and critical events that require investment of a couple’s resources. Drawing from identity and sensemaking theories, we develop a theory of work-life shock events to explain how dual-earner couples perceive and respond to these events. We theorize that partners initially make sense of the event as individuals and then engage in couple-level sensemaking. We argue that each individual’s shock intensity perceptions are shaped by the shock event’s characteristics and the identity factors of role salience hierarchy and future self. A subsequent couple-level process of sensemaking ensues, influenced by the salience of the originating domain and partner role, as well as relational identity factors. Couple-level shock intensity perceptions result in the couple’s decision regarding resource investment in the shock event’s originating domain. We discuss implications for future research and for organizations.