Knowledge that Transforms

Despite continued research on workers’ quit behavior, questions remain on how race influences voluntary departure. To make progress on this topic, in this study I treat race as a structural position with respect to resources in order to develop a theoretical frame on why members of racial groups leave jobs. I argue that Black workers are more apt than White workers to voluntarily depart for reasons related to a lack of resources, such as a lack of health or transportation, whereas White workers are more likely than Black workers to depart for reasons that require resources, such as to start a new business or to take a new job. Using a nationally representative cohort sample spanning a period of two decades, I find support for my theory. The results indicate that Black workers are more likely than White workers to voluntarily depart their jobs due to resource constraints, and White workers are more likely than Black workers to voluntarily depart their jobs for reasons that require resources. This study suggests ways to reconceptualize the constraints and opportunities underlying voluntary departure and why such departure varies across racial groups.

Third parties who refer clients to expert service providers help clients navigate market uncertainty by curating well-tailored matches between clients and experts and by facilitating post-match trust. We argue that these two functions often entail trade-offs because they require referrers to activate network relationships with different experts. While strong ties between referrers and experts promote trust between clients and experts, the presence of such ties reduces the likelihood that intermediaries refer clients to socially distal experts who may be better suited to serve clients’ needs. We examine this central and unexplored tension by using full population medical claims data for the state of Massachusetts. We find that when primary care physicians (PCPs) refer patients to specialists with whom the PCPs have strong ties, patients demonstrate more confidence in the specialists’ recommendations. However, a strong tie between the PCP and specialist also reduces the expertise match between a patient’s health condition and a specialist’s clinical experience. These findings suggest that the two central means by which referrers add value may be at odds with one another because they are maximized by the activation of different network ties.

According to the Carnegie School tradition of experiential learning, learning processes are driven by interpretations of experience relative to an observable goal. While prior research has considered how ambiguity may complicate interpretation, it has seldom considered how ambiguous experience emanating from the enactment of hidden goals may complicate the interpretive process. Drawing on a 13-month inductive study of CryptoTradingGroup (CTG), a distributed financial organization, and its interactions with MajorCryptoCommunity (MCC), a cryptocurrency investment community, we examine how actors engage in effective interpretation and learning when they face hidden goals and ambiguous experience. We examine how perpetrators in CTG plotted a hidden market manipulation goal in a backstage secret chatroom while simultaneously targeting MCC with invalid information enacted in the frontstage. Our analysis unpacks the dynamics of how MCC deciphered the hidden market manipulation goal and stopped the fraud through a process that we label inferential interpretation. In shifting away from a model of effective learning with statistical inference, in which interpretation is rarely examined, inferential interpretation shows how heterogeneous actors construct understandings from cues embedded in ambiguous experience during the learning process. Our study makes interpretation, i.e., the construction of meaning, central to conceptions of experiential learning when reality, causality, and intentionality are obscured.

Category emergence has been a central question in organization theory. Yet, we still do not understand what drives category persistence and updating during emergence as new information arises. We investigate this question through a rich set of oral histories and archival materials on the emergence of the category AIDS from 1978 to 1985. We show that the initial proto-category’s features and causal theories cohered with its stigmatized moral meanings. Over time, anomalies challenging these features and theories spurred a minority of medical professionals to update the category’s causal theory. However, a silent majority resisted updating the category because the new causal theory conflicted with the proto-category’s moral meanings, challenging the clear moral boundary dividing what was perceived as worthy from what was perceived as unworthy. As a result, the majority silenced the vocal minority’s updated understandings and withheld resources from the category. This article contributes to the literature on categorization by showing that conflicts between category dimensions can stifle updating, amplify imprinting, and prolong category persistence. Particularly, the dichotomous nature of the moral dimension might hinder the updating of other dimensions, such as the causal one, despite accumulated evidence suggesting the need for updates. We show that calls for category updating backed solely by rational arguments may fail to persuade the silent majority and may falter until the moral boundary is punctured and the category is morally reappraised.

Studies examining the impact of social movements on organizations have focused primarily on what leads to initial concessions in response to movement targeting. A key remaining question is what comes next, or how do movement priorities become institutionalized within organizations and across fields via downstream processes? We argue that central actors in these downstream efforts are members of occupations that have been created out of movement pressure on organizations. In this study, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a movement-backed occupation: recycling coordinators in higher education. By conducting historical, processual analyses of 25 years of online conversations among over 1,000 recycling coordinators, we identify three key tensions they faced in trying to embed practices and an ethos from the environmental movement and in trying to progress their organizations toward evolving movement concerns (from recycling to sustainability). We uncover how the coordinators navigated these tensions, finding that while they succeeded in institutionalizing recycling and expanding their organizations toward a new wave of movement concerns regarding sustainability, their occupation nonetheless experienced demise. Our findings set the foundation for future research on the downstream efforts and occupational actors that are vital for institutionalizing movement demands.

As rankings of organizations have proliferated in recent decades, much research has focused on organizational efforts to maintain a high position in rankings. A common theme in this literature is that changes in rank affect evaluations by external audiences and, consequently, organizational outcomes. Yet, accumulating evidence suggests that rankings sometimes have little effect on audience assessments and organizational outcomes, a finding that calls into question the power of rankings. Instead of asking whether rankings matter, this study adopts a contingency approach and investigates when rankings matter. I develop theory about contextual and organizational factors that shape the salience and information value of shifts in rankings: the direction of the change, the availability of information from other intermediaries, the sophistication of the audience, and the focal organization’s previous ranking position. Panel data analysis and a natural experiment focused on the Fortune 500 rankings support this theory. This article provides a framework to help scholars understand the contingent and asymmetric consequences of rankings on organizational outcomes, with implications for research on evaluation systems.

Racial inequality is remarkably resilient in organizational and labor market contexts despite efforts to resolve it, which raises significant questions about the mechanisms underlying its persistence. We argue that organizational efforts that increase the inclusion of underrepresented racial groups in the short term may conceal an emergent mechanism that paradoxically results in exclusion over time. The emergent mechanism stems from an acute misalignment between the scope of allocation in the matching process and the scope of valuation in the evaluation process, which ultimately increases voluntary and involuntary turnover among underrepresented racial groups. We examine this paradox through a revelatory case in higher education. Drawing on comprehensive administrative and research performance data from a large (R1) U.S. public university, we find that Black assistant professors are significantly more likely than their White colleagues to be allocated to non-standard positions, i.e., formally appointed in two academic departments with shared compensation. Our results demonstrate that such non-standard appointments are associated with a significant decline in research productivity, which remains central during the evaluation process. The end result is that jointly appointed assistant professors—among whom Blacks are disproportionately represented—experience lower likelihoods of retention.

Organizations can motivate and coordinate work by socializing members to internalize organizational values. Existing theories posit that organizations achieve normative control through encapsulation, wherein peers and managers are primary sources of members’ socialization. Drawing on ethnographic data from a not-for-profit school, I show how an external actor—beneficiaries—can become a source of normative control. I develop a multistage process that explains how teachers were socialized by parents, specifically by hearing these parent beneficiaries narrate their needs; engaging in collective storytelling about beneficiaries; experiencing episodic shaming centered on how teachers’ daily performance met (or did not meet) beneficiaries’ needs; and receiving validation from beneficiaries. Because these sequential stages establish beneficiaries as sources of control through social interactions set in specific times and places, and establish shared emotional states among organizational members, I theorize that these stages compose a ritual of integration. Although teachers initially arrived at the school with heterogeneous values, this ritual led many of them to internalize the organizational value of self-sacrifice. Teachers who were unmoved by parents’ stories or came to see parents as exploitative did not internalize this value, and they tended to exit the organization. This study reveals how normative control can arise not only through socialization from in-group members but also from ritual interactions with and about beneficiaries.

Organizations often claim that their actions benefit others, for example in social impact initiatives, eliciting positive legitimacy evaluations from a broad range of audiences even though such initiatives may produce limited or even harmful effects on target beneficiaries. While scholars have begun to examine relational dynamics between organizations and evaluators who render judgments about organizational legitimacy, target beneficiaries have been typically considered as the passive recipients of positive or negative impacts of organizational actions. Drawing on qualitative data from a corporate social responsibility project in Kenya, this study reveals a triadic relationship (organization–evaluators–target beneficiaries) that establishes organizational legitimacy in the eyes of evaluators while generating substantive benefits for target beneficiaries. Far from being passive, target beneficiaries actively participated in the organizational legitimation process by corroborating, in their communications with evaluators, the organization’s social impact claims. This corroboration provided leverage for the target beneficiaries to negotiate organizational support in order for them to redirect off-the-shelf practices toward contextualized practices that generated substantive benefits to themselves. Going beyond the organization–evaluator dyad, the study contributes a triadic perspective on social impact and reveals how target beneficiaries’ participation can reshape the processes and outcomes of social impact creation.