Knowledge that Transforms

Shareholder activism has become a dynamic institutional force, and its associated, rapidly increasing body of scholarly literature affects numerous disciplines within the organization science academy. In addition to equivocal results concerning the impact of shareholder activism on corporate outcomes, the separation of prior research into financial and social activism has left unanswered questions critical for both the scholarly discourse on shareholder activism and the normative debate on shareholder empowerment. The heterogeneity of factors in shareholder activism, such as the firm, activist, and environmental characteristics that promote or inhibit activism, along with the breadth of activism’s issues, methods, and processes, provide a plethora of theoretical and methodological opportunities and challenges for activism researchers. Our multidisciplinary review incorporates the financial and social activism streams and explores shareholder activism heterogeneity and controversy, seeking to provide an impetus for more cohesive conceptual and empirical work in the field.

Creativity and innovation in any organization are vital to its successful performance. The authors review the rapidly growing body of research in this area with particular attention to the period 2002 to 2013, inclusive. Conceiving of both creativity and innovation as being integral parts of essentially the same process, we propose a new, integrative definition. We note that research into creativity has typically examined the stage of idea generation, whereas innovation studies have commonly also included the latter phase of idea implementation. The authors discuss several seminal theories of creativity and innovation and then apply a comprehensive levels-of-analysis framework to review extant research into individual, team, organizational, and multilevel innovation. Key measurement characteristics of the reviewed studies are then noted. In conclusion, we propose a guiding framework for future research comprising 11 major themes and 60 specific questions for future studies.

Although both researchers and practitioners know that an employee’s performance varies over time within a job, this within-person performance variability is not well understood and in fact is often treated as error. In the current paper, we first identify the importance of a within-person approach to job performance and then review several extant theories of within-person performance variability that, despite vastly different foci, converge on the contention that job performance is dynamic rather than static. We compare and contrast the theories along several common metrics and thereby facilitate a discussion of commonalities, differences, and theory elaboration. In so doing, we identify important future research questions on within-person performance variability and methodological challenges in addressing these research questions. Finally, we highlight how the conventional practical implications articulated on the basis of a static, between-person perspective on job performance may need to be modified to account for the dynamic, within-person nature of performance.

In this essay we challenge standard approaches to the academic–practitioner gap that essentially pit sides against each other, treating them as dichotomous. Instead, we identify and suggest ways of working with such dichotomies to foster research and theory building. We delineate several tensions associated with the gap, including differing logics, time dimensions, communication styles, rigor and relevance, and interests and incentives, and show how such tensions are valuable themselves for research and theorizing. We show that the gap often reflects views of conflicting groups of academics, while practitioners’ voices are not always incorporated; thus we add a practitioner’s voice to the conversation. We describe the dialectical forces that foster the tensions associated with the gap, including initiatives of national governments, ranking systems, and special issues of journals. We then show how the tensions represent fundamental, unresolvable paradoxes that can be generative of new research and practice if appreciated as such. We suggest several implications for research that build on tensions, dialectics, and paradox. We conclude with a brief reflection about the tensions we experienced while writing this essay and what these might suggest about the importance of academic–practitioner relationships.

Adopting the theoretical framework of social exchange, the authors used the two dominant Confucian values—hierarchy and relationalism—to theorize the mediating role of affective trust in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee in-role and extra-role performance in the Chinese organizational context. Data from 601 supervisor–subordinate dyads of 27 companies in a Taiwanese conglomerate revealed that while the benevolence and morality dimensions of paternalistic leadership are positively associated with both in-role and extra-role performance, the authoritarian paternalistic leadership dimension is negatively related to subordinate performance. Furthermore, affective trust mediated the relationship between benevolent and moral paternalistic leadership and employee performance but did not mediate the relationship between authoritarianism and employee performance. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in the Chinese context and beyond.

This paper introduces a radically different conceptualization of human capital resources that runs counter to the individual-level approaches that have dominated human capital theory for the last 50 years. We leverage insights from economics, strategy, human resources, and psychology to develop an integrated and holistic framework that defines the structure, function, levels, and combinations of human capital resources. This multidisciplinary framework redefines human capital resources as individual or unit-level capacities based on individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) that are accessible for unit-relevant purposes. The framework and definition offer three broad contributions. First, multidisciplinary communication is facilitated by providing precise definitions and distinctions between individual differences, KSAOs, human capital, human capital resources, and strategic human capital resources. Second, given that human capital resources originate in individuals’ KSAOs, multiple distinct types of human capital resources exist at individual and collective levels, and these types are much more diverse than the historical generic-specific distinction. Third, the multiple types of human capital resources may be combined within and across levels, via processes of emergence and complementarity. Consequently, the locus of competitive advantage has less to do with whether human capital resources are generic or specific but instead occurs because nearly all human capital resource combinations are complex, are firm-specific, and lack strategic (or efficient) factor markets. Overall, the proposed multidisciplinary framework opens new avenues for future research that challenge the prevailing literature’s treatment of human capital resources.

Situational strength has long been viewed as a useful way of conceptualizing and predicting person–situation interactions. Some have recently argued, however, that more rigorous empirical tests of its behavioral influence are sorely needed. The current article begins addressing this literature gap by (a) developing the Situational Strength at Work (SSW) scale, (b) examining the ways in which individual differences influence perceptions of situational strength, and (c) testing situational strength’s moderating effects on two types of voluntary work behavior (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior). Results indicate strong psychometric properties for the SSW (thereby facilitating future organizational research on situational strength), support for theoretically based predictions regarding the role of individual differences in perceptions of situational strength, support for theoretically based moderator effects on organizational citizenship behavior, and the presence of countertheoretical (yet strong and consistent) moderator effects on counterproductive work behavior. Thus, this study makes several contributions to the situational strength literature but also reveals important areas for future theoretical development and empirical research.

Conceptualizing new knowledge development as a process of search and recombination, we suggest that a focus on individual productivity alone presents an undersocialized view of human capital. Rather, we emphasize the importance of embedded relationships by individuals to effectively perform knowledge-generating activities. We rely on intraorganizational knowledge networks emerging through individual collaboration to identify actors who can positively influence their organization’s knowledge outcomes. We study two types of such relational stars: integrators (outliers in centrality) and connectors (outliers in bridging behavior). We test our ideas using the patenting portfolios of 106 pharmaceutical firms from 1974 to 1998 predicting the effect of relational stars on their firm’s quantity and quality of inventive output—proxies for the firm’s capacity to develop more and better new knowledge stocks. We find that the presence of relational stars results in firm-level knowledge advantages not only through their own superior recombinant efforts, but also through their capacity to make others around them more effective at knowledge recombination. Relational stars are firm-specific, and their advantages are socially complex and causally ambiguous because they rely on a network of within-firm interactions. Relational stars, therefore, are prime candidates to be a source of sustainable firm-level knowledge advantage.

Building on theoretical and empirical work considering the implications of accountability on individual behavior, the authors explored the antecedents and consequences of individual perceptions of accountability for job performance. Using data from two field samples, the authors considered whether the manager’s monitoring behavior thought to enhance perceptions of accountability for behaviors and outcomes predicted greater perceived accountability for task performance and interpersonal facilitation performance. They also explored whether perceived accountability mediated the relationship between monitoring behavior and subsequent performance. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that subordinates of managers whose monitoring behavior reinforced perceptions of accountability perceived greater accountability for performance and that this perception mediated the relationship between managerial monitoring behavior and performance. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.

Research on human capital as a source of competitive advantage has focused largely on firm employees. In this article, we argue that outside directors’ general human capital can also be a source of competitive advantage. Firm performance is likely to benefit from directors’ human capital—that is, their prior experience and education—because such human capital is likely to make them more effective at monitoring management and providing advice. Drawing on insights from research on individuals’ cognitive limitations, we further argue that the extent to which the firm is able to benefit from this human capital can be severely limited by the demands for information processing that directors face from their other board positions. Consequently, we find that the benefit of directors’ human capital is contingent upon the information processing load placed upon them from their other board appointments. We find support for our hypotheses using data on over 5,700 directors from 650 firms sampled from the Fortune 1000. This study extends the nascent literature on board human capital by showing that in addition to specific expertise in relevant areas, directors’ general human capital can also help firms create competitive advantage. The theory developed in this article also contributes to the literature on strategic human capital by incorporating the concept of information processing demands, suggesting that not only do such demands leave limited cognitive capacity for directors to focus on the focal firm but also that they can severely diminish the beneficial effects of directors’ general human capital.