Knowledge that Transforms

This study examines how organizing is done reflexively through practice in the context of knowledge sharing. Organizing concerns reduction of equivocality and sensemaking so that actions can be interpreted and coordinated. Reflexivity refers to the fact that this organizing is done through talk, and that talk is an action that requires organizing. To examine how this reflexive organizing is accomplished, detailed analysis of video‐recorded interactions among photocopier service technicians revealed various interactional methods to make actions of requesting and offering assistance understandable and relevant. To explain these methods, Goffman's concept of embedding is applied. By embedding other social situations in the current talk, one can project a certain sense of one's talk. This reflexive organizing clarifies that organizing is part of, not separate from, any practice and that knowledge sharing is accomplished not through a retrospective narrative but through reflexive construction of the situation in which talk is made possible.

The issue of conformity to social norms has been a major focus of research. Yet, intermediate conformity, which refers to actors who are neither total conformers nor non‐conformers, has received scant attention even though the behaviour is likely widespread. This paper aims to extend the literature on conformity to social norms by laying the foundations for a tractable theory of intermediate conformity. Here, a set of key factors hypothesized to lead actors into intermediate conformity is identified and formal arguments about the dynamic‐legitimacy and reputational effects of their intermediate conformity moves are formulated. Important building blocks include a taxonomy of norms that allows for norm heterogeneity and a recognition that conformity may change over time. The developed framework provides a new conceptual lever for better understanding how intermediate conformers cope over time with social norms of different types and importance.

This research examines employees' anticipation of social and self‐sanctions as a self‐regulatory mechanism linking workgroup climates and counterproductive work behaviours (CWBs) and personality as a limit to these effects. A cross‐level study with 158 employees from 26 workgroups demonstrated that in groups with a high compliance climate – a climate emphasizing the importance of complying with organizational rules – employees anticipate more social and self‐sanctions, leading those low in conscientiousness and low in agreeableness to engage less frequently in CWBs. In contrast, a high relational climate – a climate emphasizing the importance of positive social relations over self‐interest – indirectly unbridles the CWBs of these employees by alleviating the social and self‐sanctions they anticipate for CWBs. Climates did not have indirect effects for employees high in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness. These findings elucidate why workgroup climates do not affect the CWBs of all members in the same way.

This paper explores how large‐scale social‐driven collaborations might grow in scale and help promote political change. We present the results of a qualitative investigation of a complex platform where multiple and hybrid collaborations co‐exist and where civil society plays a central role. Based on a longitudinal comparative case study, we draw a processual model describing micro‐practices and pathways of engagement. We show that the emergence of these collaborations requires a new type of convener, one that is able to manage the interplay between the sharing/co‐creation of abundant resources and the coordinated decentralization of informal authority. Our study extends existing debates on the role of resources and authority, showing the complementarity between possession and practice perspectives of power. Finally, we identified synergies between collaboration and social movement literatures, particularly showing that large‐scale collaborations could be mobilized to refine social movement agendas and achieve more purposive collective action.

Through a critique of existing financial theory underlying current accounting practices, and reapplication of this theory to a broad group of stakeholders, this paper lays a normative foundation for a revised perspective on the responsibility of the public accounting profession. Specifically, we argue that the profession should embrace the development of standards for reporting information important to a broader group of stakeholders than just investors and creditors. The FASB has recently moved in the opposite direction. Nonetheless, an institution around accounting for stakeholders continues to grow, backed by a groundswell of support from many sources. Based on institutional theory, we predict that this institution and the forces supporting it will cause changes in the public accounting profession, even if through coercion. We also provide examples of stakeholder accounting, building from the premise that a primary responsibility of accounting is to provide information to address the risk management needs of stakeholders.

We develop a nuanced understanding of what drives producers’ and audiences’ categorization activities throughout market category development. Prior research on market categories assumes prototypical similarity to be the main or even only driver of categorization. Drawing on a comparative, longitudinal case study of the market categories ‘functional foods’ and ‘nanotechnology’ in Finland, we find that evolving perceptions, knowledge, and goals also impact categorization. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers that goal‐based categorization is characteristic for vital market categories, and the lack thereof may mark a waning interest and category decline. Overall, while previous research stresses the role of clear boundaries and knowledge bases for a viable category, we find that overly strict boundaries may constrain category vitality and renewal.

In addressing the notion of team ambidexterity, we propose that socio‐psychological factors (i.e., team cohesion and team efficacy) may help team members to resolve paradoxical challenges and to combine exploratory and exploitative learning efforts. In addition, we theorize that senior executives may play an important role in facilitating the emergence of ambidexterity at lower hierarchical levels. In doing so, we develop a multilevel contingency framework and propose that the effectiveness of teams to achieve ambidexterity is contingent upon supportive leadership behaviours at the organizational‐level. Using multilevel, multisource, and temporally separated data on 87 teams within 37 high‐tech and pharmaceutical firms, we not only reveal how team cohesion and efficacy may matter for the emergence of team ambidexterity but also show that the effectiveness of supportive leadership behaviours from senior executives varies across cohesive and efficacious teams.

Research in stakeholder management has theorized extensively the prioritization of stakeholders as a key dynamic of firms’ value creation, but has paid less attention to the organizational practices involved in the process of deciding ‘who and what really counts.’ We examine changes underpinning managers’ prioritization of stakeholders and focus on how managers’ attention to salient stakeholders is represented and communicated in a firm's accounting and reporting system. We study the emergence and development of Social Return on Investment (SROI): an accounting methodology intended to permit managers both to incorporate stakeholders’ voices and to communicate the social value created by the firm for those stakeholders. We find that the ability of SROI to account for specific stakeholders, thus categorizing them as salient for the firm, is shaped by managers’ epistemic beliefs and by the organization's material conditions. Our findings contribute to stakeholder theory by showing that the prioritization of stakeholders is not solely a managerial decision, but instead is dependent on the construction of an appropriate accounting and reporting system, as shaped by managers’ epistemic beliefs and by the organization's material conditions.

Critics of entrepreneurial capitalism have argued that entrepreneurship creates dysfunction in individuals, families, communities, and society because entrepreneurs neglect social and environmental dimensions of value in favour of financial value creation. By way of contrast, hybrid organizations, such as Benefit Corporations, are created explicitly to address social and environmental objectives in addition to their financial objective. Therefore, in this paper we explore the consequences of a world of blended value in which every new venture is required to be a hybrid organization. In doing so, we reveal the boundary conditions of current social criticism levied against entrepreneurship and suggest that blended value may best be relegated to the role of ideal or guideline as opposed to normative or legal obligation.

The global coffee sector has seen a transformation towards more ‘sustainable’ forms of production, and, simultaneously, the continued dominance of mainstream coffee firms and practices. We examine this paradox by conceptualizing the underlying process of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) as a series of long‐term, multi‐dimensional interactions between civil society and corporate actors, drawing from the neo‐Gramscian concepts of hegemony and passive revolution. A longitudinal study of the evolution of coffee sustainability standards suggests that PCSR can be understood as a process of challenging and defending value regimes, within which viable configurations of economic models, normative‐cultural values, and governance structures are aligned and stabilized. Specifically, we show how dynamics of moves and accommodations between challengers and corporate actors shape the practice and meaning of ‘sustainable’ coffee. The results contribute to understanding the political dynamics of CSR as a dialectic process of ‘revolution/restoration’, or passive revolution, whereby value regimes assimilate and adapt to potentially disruptive challenges, transforming sustainability practices and discourse.