Knowledge that Transforms

In March 2019, Vivek was preparing to present a report based on his research on the labour conditions in fashion supply chains in India. This presentation was part of a series of events aimed at engaging stakeholders, including exporters in India who supply to large brands worldwide. However, just two hours before the scheduled event, Vivek received surprising news: the main point of contact, a gatekeeper in the industry, had decided to withdraw and asked the exporters to boycott the event. Facing this sudden setback, Vivek urgently called the gatekeeper and other key industry members. It quickly became apparent that they were opposed to the report because it highlighted the negative practices uncovered by the research. The industry gatekeepers wanted to protect the industry's reputation and avoid scrutiny of their labour practices. Consequently, out of the hundreds of invitees, only 30 showed up at the event. While some attendees expressed support for the research report and its objectives, a significant portion of the audience resisted the findings and even expressed anger. The event highlighted the tension between the research findings and the vested interests of industry stakeholders, underscoring the complexities involved in bringing about meaningful change in industry practices. Garima's initial encounter with the challenges of research translation occurred during her study in India, focusing on business partnerships with NGOs. The NGOs in her study worked closely with marginalized beneficiaries, including victims of sex trafficking and women living in impoverished villages. Garima faced situations where business managers would ask for the audio recordings of her interviews with the NGOs and their beneficiaries, which were conducted as part of the project. Recognizing the potential implications and ethical concerns, Garima firmly declined the managers’ request. It became evident that these managers wanted to control the data, and, hence, the translation and interpretation of the insights derived from the research. Their intention was to influence the narrative surrounding the findings by downplaying or omitting aspects that may be unfavourable to their business interests or reputations. This essay stems from our frustrating and challenging experiences in our efforts toward research translation and impact. However, the essay is not a mere venting of frustration; instead, we want to explore solutions and actions. We are not the first to emphasize the significance of research translation in driving practical impact. In fact, others have recognized research impact as a translation problem (Shapiro et al., 2007). However, we have come to realize that research translation is more than the straightforward rendering of evidence. It is a process in which the interests, agendas, and power dynamics of various actors come into play. Our hope is that we can show how we have experienced these dynamics, and what the research community can do about these implicit inequalities. Our experience with research translation shows that the complexity of translating research is currently hidden behind a ‘façade of rationality’ (Hodgkinson, 2012). Challenging this facade is especially important when we study marginalized stakeholders in the global South, such as lower caste workers or slum dwellers in India, stuck in entrenched poverty and exploitation. Moreover, we see that the inequalities compound when these translation efforts are led by researchers from these contexts. To address some of these inequalities, we propose three pathways that management and organization researchers can follow. These pathways are not prescriptive templates. Instead, they are a call to action for the research community to translate their insights with concern and sensitivity toward who is included and who is left behind. Translating with a sensitivity to the power dynamics has meant for us that marginalized stakeholders have a voice in research translation. One way to do so is to engage in the co-creation of research implications with the marginalized. Co-creation requires that we seek the marginalized stakeholders’ input throughout the research process, rather than sharing findings after the research has concluded. Those who will use or can be affected by the research findings have valuable insights on what is useful to amplify and how. By engaging these stakeholders right from the outset, we can integrate the criterion of ‘usefulness’ into the research process. We can use the (translated) outputs that such stakeholders want, as the north star to direct research efforts. By adopting this approach, the translated insights will be better positioned for research impact. However, co-creation is not easy because researchers are seen as experts detached from the lived realities of those we study. The marginalized stakeholders think that we do not understand their experiences, such that the research insights are irrelevant, disconnected from reality, or excessively abstract to bring about significant change. For example, in her fieldwork in a slum in India, it became evident to Garima that the slum dwellers were looking for immediate assistance. For example, they would often ask in interviews if they could receive a cash payment or information on a government assistance scheme that Garima may know about. This vastly differed from the focus of Garima's research on the role of place, identity, and dignity of work in the context of slum dwelling. Similarly, Vivek realized, during a dissemination meeting organized for workers, that the workers were interested in the immediate improvement in their working and living conditions, such as the provision of water, gender-specific clean toilets, and provision of sanitary pads, rather than the research insights published and translated months or years later. While long-term impact is essential, it is equally important that we do not disregard the immediate needs of the marginalized stakeholders. It requires that we ask them what their immediate needs are and include activities that are in response to these needs. For example, in our research contexts, conducting a training workshop for entrepreneurs in slums, sharing information about government schemes, mentoring slum dwellers for career development, offering guidance on kids’ education, creating awareness of their rights as workers, and similar activities can allow us to give back in the short term. These activities can also be helpful for translation that comes after the study is completed, i.e., such activities can help us understand what outputs can be created at the end of our project that will be useful for similar others. Further, co-creation brings our focus to those whose voices are excluded. We have experienced events in the translation process where the more influential stakeholders asked us to disregard the voices of marginalized stakeholders. For example, Vivek was asked by an influential actor in the supply chain to omit negative insights on poor working conditions from the report. In such instances, Vivek was steadfast in providing an unbiased representation, without favouring a specific stakeholder interest. He adopted a neutral and evidence-based approach, ensuring that the findings were translated objectively and without bias. While this made him the ‘bad guy’ for some of the influential actors in the context who created challenges for future research efforts, many saw the value of the insights in the report and continued to support him. Most importantly, Vivek's stance was aligned with the interests of the marginalized stakeholders. None of this was easy. Vivek faced significant pressure. However, he has been intentional about creating a safe space for the workers to share their voices, for example, by choosing a physical space that cannot be easily accessed by powerful stakeholders, giving time for the marginalized to trust Vivek before they share their experiences – at other times, including facilitators from the worker community to make workers comfortable. Also, he incentivizes their participation in various ways, such as offering food and monetary incentives for their time. We have also seen researchers involving community-specific arts and games to make the marginalized express themselves freely. In a nutshell, we call on researchers to co-create research implications with marginalized communities. In the co-creation process: (a) we have to take on the role of listeners and not always the role of an expert; (b) be intentional about considering the immediate needs of those we study, not just long-term systemic changes; (c) include the interests of the marginalized from the start of the project; (d) recognize power dynamics between various actors in the field, dynamics that can influence the translation process and (e) do the right thing even when it is hard and can sometimes mean researchers may lose access to future data sources. We have provided examples of how we have implemented these ideas, but there are likely many other creative approaches that we hope our essay encourages others to share. When it comes to complex social issues pertaining to the marginalized, such as poverty, inequality, and climate injustice, a long-term programme of research translation has more significant potential than single studies. Translation, when seen solely in terms of one-shot, big news headlines connected to a single study, is ineffective in reaching marginalized communities. Such translation may influence the practices of elite actors, but big news headlines are seldom read by the less powerful. Such headlines can exclude those who cannot participate in the mainstream public discourse around the big headlines. Instead, a programme of research builds a body of translated work that addresses a specific problem. In so doing, researchers can establish themselves as a legitimate voice on the topic. Despite the benefits, developing a comprehensive translation programme is resource-intensive. Resources for translation may not be readily available to many of us. So, instead of seeing a programme of translation as a grandiose project, we suggest seeing it as a series of small steps taken throughout our academic career. What has proven effective for us is trusting that each small step will contribute to meaningful change and ultimately benefit the communities we study. This approach involves disseminating research findings in accessible formats that cater to the needs and preferences of different stakeholders, especially the marginalized. When it comes to India, for example, the most accessed digital platforms are Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and Telegram. These platforms have a wider reach among the marginalized than reports and blogs. Vivek has an Instagram page, for example, in which he translates management research insights into Tamil (one of the regional languages of Southern India). With just a smartphone and social media platform software, content creation is now more accessible than ever before. Through this process, he learned that content should be concise, consistently posted, of good quality, and accessible in the local language. Also, researchers must be available to engage with comments and messages. In parallel, researchers can actively engage in platforms accessed by elite actors, such as reports, blogs, workshops, seminars, or public talks. These activities can get the attention of leaders and policymakers and possibly shift the conversation in the interests of marginalized communities. For instance, Vivek and his colleagues published a project report on garment exporters in India, which initially appeared to have limited impact. However, over time, the report garnered the attention of critical stakeholders concerned with labour rights in fashion supply chains. Moreover, it elevated Vivek's public visibility, resulting in an interview with the BBC for a feature on the exploitation of Indian factory workers in the fashion industry. If Vivek had not taken the initiative to write that initial report alongside his colleagues, the potential for long-term impact might have gone unrealized. In Garima's case, the journey has involved embracing opportunities for translation, regardless of their magnitude, recognizing that these efforts accumulate over time. She responds to every translation opportunity that comes her way, whether it is with a prominent name such as the Financial Times or a small local paper such as the Taos News in New Mexico. Her hope is that over time, these small steps will accumulate to make a change in practice. In engaging in these small steps, Garima is mindful that the interests and needs of marginalized stakeholders must not be lost in translation. For example, in translating her research on business-NGO partnerships in India, Garima was intentional that the call to action is loud and clear for businesses. Many, especially smaller NGOs in India, are chastised by businesses for not being more business-like. By focusing on what businesses can do to make such partnerships successful, Garima elevated the voice of the NGOs and translated the narrative to one in which the victim (in this case, the NGOs) is not blamed for not fitting into the ways of the more powerful (in this case, the businesses). Further, for researchers’ small steps of translation to have a more profound impact, they can leverage the influence and legitimacy of systemic actors such as the United Nations (UN), International Labour Organization (ILO), World Health Organization (WHO), business associations, and think tanks, who are interested in uplifting the marginalized. These entities have the necessary resources and networks for translation that may surpass what individual institutions can offer. Vivek's experience of working with organizations like UNDP, the Confederation of Indian Industries, and Partners in Change in India suggests that we must identify individual representatives who closely align with the project's interests. Along the same lines, Garima worked with the local B Corps and their association in New Mexico and DC to share the research insights they can disseminate further. Garima found that meeting them where they are, and listening as much as telling was important for such engagement. Influential individuals in such organizations have multiple commitments and hold distinct priorities. Thus, it is crucial to align with their interests to involve them. It is also important to share our expectations and utilize their time efficiently. To conclude, we urge researchers to take small steps toward impact by considering a programme of translation. Specifically, researchers must: (a) consider context-appropriate methods (e.g., videos) and platforms (e.g., Instagram and YouTube in India) tailored to diverse stakeholders (e.g., by translating in the local language); (b) act on every translation opportunity, regardless of its scale, (c) amplify the voices of the marginalized when faced with the decision of whose voice to amplify; and (d) deepen the impact of small steps with the help of institutions (e.g., WHO) working for the marginalized. Researchers situated in the same context as marginalized stakeholders (e.g., the global South) have a deep understanding of the local intricacies compared to those in the West who make intermittent visits to the field. Thus, collaborating with local researchers can improve the effectiveness of research translation. Nonetheless, this collaboration can be unequal. The local researcher's participation is often peripheral. Researchers working in the West, including us, can often relegate local researchers to conducting fieldwork and gathering data. Local researchers are overlooked and rendered invisible during the translation phase. A case in point is how researchers from Western institutions, such as ours, garner more international media attention in comparison to their institutions from the Global South. Even businesses and civil society groups operating within these contexts favour engaging with researchers from the West. While this is partially due to comparatively well-funded marketing departments in our institutions that provide substantial support for translation, it is also rooted in the disregard for research insights originating from institutions and researchers in the global South. For example, during the Covid pandemic, research implications from South African scientists regarding the Omnicorn variant were discounted by the Western world. This led to leading scientists in South Africa criticizing the West for disregarding their research evidence due to reasons of racism or disbelief in scientific contributions originating from Africa (Harding, 2022). As we dig deeper into our own roles of perpetuating these inequalities, we are cognizant of research presentations where research insights are presented to a global audience, the local researchers are not given due recognition for their immense contributions. We can find similar examples if we look around the presentations in academic conferences, such as when panels on management research in Africa may have no researchers from African institutions, or discussions on decolonization may leave out researchers from the global South. One often-cited explanation is that the skills and, hence, research outputs of the local researchers fail to meet the narrow Western standards. Consequently, we have observed that the ‘who’ behind the translation (e.g., a researcher from a resourceful institution in the West) can overshadow the content of the translation (‘what’). This dynamic often results in valuable insights being excluded from the public sphere or actively rejected by the audience if they do not originate from individuals or groups with preferred characteristics. One way to address this disparity is to recognize the value of the researchers from the global South. For example, both of us have been actively involved in the Center for Business and Society (CBOS) ‘thinklists’, which rewards social media engagement by social scientists. In curating these lists, CBOS, along with our own participation, has been deliberate in recognizing the voices of scientists in the global South that are often overlooked. However, recognition is only the first step. Researchers from the global South will need to be included as partners throughout the project, allowing them to bring insights that are relevant to marginalized stakeholders. To do so, we must critically evaluate the current metrics of quality of research, and be open to what quality can look like in a different context. For example, in putting together a research project with a local researcher on the transgender community in India, Garima proposed framing the project as ‘dirty work’, a framing that has traction in management research. This transgender community in India is highly ostracized and hence engages in in some The local who the community back on the use of the ‘dirty work’, that to these their work is not The framing would have the translation efforts the project was For it the framing with in and instead where the local researchers and the community take the even if it not fitting into what we the same time, the of resources in the institutions of the local often that there is an opportunity for skills development, which we can For instance, Vivek is in like to and Global for to the skills and of researchers in and that both research and translation. Similarly, Garima the providing a platform for to the of engagement in research impact efforts both of us actively and participate as in events around impact and translation. we focus on events toward such as or programme especially in of the global South. The institutions in the West can also establish a such as the for Business to help including those in the global South. for Business in Business translates research findings for a audience and support from institutions or government entities with available Garima to and the that to the researchers in the translated and providing a global of for disseminating these We have this essay with a clear call to action for our colleagues who to make a meaningful impact in the global Our call is for them to and recognize the inequalities in the research translation process. solutions often short in this context. if not and ask for the researchers to be mindful of the power and Our call is for researchers to recognize and from the of perpetuating inequalities in the of research translation. our call to action must not be taken to mean that the for this solely on the of individual The to business academic and institutions that business We that these complexities is no easy However, it is a that our efforts and

Middle management research has been synonymous with the contributions of Steven W. Floyd and his colleagues. The seminal work by Wooldridge and Floyd (1990), for instance, marked a notable turning point and established the strategic case for middle managers not only as bystanders, but central actors in strategy processes (see also Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992, 1994, 1997). This line of research continues to flourish decades later and Steve enthusiastically joined this Guest Editor team's journey to chart the way ahead for the field. As fellow Guest Editors, we were shocked and saddened by the sudden passing of Steve on 18 October 2022. While colleagues and friends will continue to pay homage to Steve's enduring legacy of research, teaching, service, and mentorship, here we celebrate Steve's centrality to middle management research. The motivation for the special issue built on Steve's work from its inception. To illustrate this intuition, Figure 1 presents a bibliometric visualization of Steve's influence on middle management scholarship since 1990. The visualization provided is not intended to be the definitive mapping of Steve's far-reaching scholarly influence, but a visual way to showcase Steve's impact on middle management research and notable researchers in this space. Different metrics to quantify Steve's impact and tools to visualize Steve's widespread influence on middle management research, all reveal a similar pattern: The field continues to flourish, with Steve's work at its centre. Bibliometric snapshot of Steven W. Floyd's impact on middle management research (1990 – present) Notes: Plotted using Vosviewer tool (https://www.vosviewer.com/). Database constructed by searching Scopus Web of Science for ‘middle manager’ OR ‘middle management’ OR ‘middle-manage*’ OR ‘middle-level manage’* and includes published articles in English in the area of ‘Business, Management, and Accounting’). Extraction window from 1990 (Steve Floyd's first publication on middle managers) to June 2023, resulting in 1961 documents included in the analysis. Analysis specified as citation analysis based on authors, which calculates relatedness based on the times they cite each other. Bibliometric citation analysis based on authors with ≥1 document appearing in dataset AND ≥ 100 citations (209 items meet threshold; map based on connection strength ≥10 [69 items included]). Quantifying Steve's impact tells only a part of the story of his legacy. While the illustration above helps us understand the past, the full impact of Steve on the management community at large cannot be restricted to quantitative interpretations. Accordingly, we reached out to the contributors to the special issue to share how Steve's work influenced their own contributions here. The focal topic of the special issue would not have been possible without Steve's scholarly imprint on the field. Steve's far-reaching influence is evident across the rich methodological approaches, empirical settings, and theoretical approaches covered in this special issue. We asked the contributors to the special issue: How has Steve's contributions inspired and/or influenced the work you have presented in the special issue? Jeanine Porck and Daan van Knippenberg, reflecting on their study of middle managers boundary-spanning through interrelated coordination mechanisms (Porck and van Knippenberg, 2023), note: ‘As a scholar, Steve leaves us with a much richer understanding of the strategy process and the role of middle managers. As an editor overseeing our manuscript, we found him insightful, thoughtful, and developmental in his comments. We are particularly appreciative of his encouragement and advice as we started our journey studying’ behavioural strategy. ‘May both his dedication to the field and to helping (younger) academics continue to impact and inspire the next generation of scholars’. Speaking on Steve's imprint on their study of middle managers' boundary work in an a Brazilian audit firm (Azambuja et al., 2023), Ricardo Azambuja shared with us that ‘[Steve's work] has influenced my thinking in the way his work calls our attention to the ambiguities of middle-managerial work, such as its relevance to both strategy formulation and implementation, its predisposition towards resistance to but also championing of change, its uses of formal and informal channels to influence internal and external actors, and much more. These insights have driven my curiosity, and continue doing so, and for that I am very grateful to Steve Floyd’. Reflecting on their experimental study contrasting top and middle managers' differences in selecting innovation projects (Wilden et al., 2023), Ralf Wilden notes that ‘through working with our MBA students, we recognized that many organizations continue to struggle to adapt to changes in the environment, often driven by radically new technologies and changed demand structures. Interestingly, our students, who are typically middle managers in their organizations, recognized that they have been provided with more opportunities than in the past to make decisions around innovation investments, given their closer proximity to the day-to-day business. That's when we turned to Steve's work, exploring the different decision making of middle managers versus senior managers, which inspired us to explore the role of middle managers in the radical innovation context’. Violetta Splitter, commenting on their study of middle managers' struggles with sense of identity and social agency as strategists (Splitter et al., 2023), shared with us that ‘Steve's work was seminal for understanding the daily work of middle managers and heavily influenced the Strategy-as-Practice community. Middle managers' upward and downward influencing is written large in the fundamentals of middle managers' research as well as novel understandings of middle managers' roles in contemporary organizing (such as in our article on middle managers' roles in inclusive strategy processes)’. In reflecting on their conceptual study of how middle managers navigate career advancement (Gerpott and Van Quaquebeke, 2023), Fabiola Gerpott and Niels van Quaquebeke shared that ‘Steve Floyd's work influenced our research not just based on his findings regarding the critical role that middle managers play in shaping organizations through their upward and downward influence activities. Instead, we were also inspired by his notion that it is not true that “managers are from Mars and academicians from Venus”. As a result, we particularly focused on ensuring that our theoretical model outlining how, when, and why managers engage in Kiss-Up-kick-Down behaviours is both academically rigorous and practically relevant in explaining a prevalent phenomenon in contemporary organizations’. Andrea Greven notes about their study of middle managers' human, social, and cognitive capabilities on product ambidexterity (Greven et al., 2023), that Steve's work drew them to the topic area itself, highlighting that ‘[Steve's] seminal research has sparked our passion for the middle managers' role in organizations which lead to our contribution in this special issue. We thank him for his outstanding achievements and contributions that will gravely shape the future of this field’. Sebastiaan van Doorn, on behalf of the team studying how automation of different functional tasks affects middle managers' involvement in strategy (Van Doorn et al., 2023), notes that ‘we fondly remember Professor Steven Floyd as someone who influentially informed (middle) management literature and practice. Given the rapid proliferation of AI and automation, his seminal contributions, such as Floyd and Wooldridge (1994), Floyd and Wooldridge (1997), Wooldridge et al. (2008) (to name a few), continue to gain in relevance, long since being published. We hope to continue to do justice to his vast legacy as we make modest advances to the grand theory framework he leaves to us. Apart from an outstanding scholar, Steve was an even more outstanding mentor, and he will be dearly missed’. The collection of quotes above provide but a sample of Steve's enduring impact on middle management research. The contributors to this special issue unanimously echo the inspiration drawn from Steve's scholarship. Steve's intellectual legacy in middle management research thus continues to be honoured, in part, through the studies included in this special issue. This short tribute is intended to bookend a wonderful collection of articles on middle managers, through which part of Steve's scholarly legacy lives on. We count ourselves amongst the fortunate who got to experience Steve's expertise, wisdom, and kindness first-hand through working with him. Yet, Steve was more than a member of the editorial team. He has been a wonderful advisor, mentor, and co-author to us and many others. We honour Steve's scholarship here, while we will duly miss the person behind the scholar. He was a generous and warm human being; his soft voice was always welcoming. Steve leaves us with a legacy of a flourishing research field on middle management, to which we are committed to keep it alive. This special issue serves as the first step toward that promise. We thank the contributors to the special issue for reflecting on their work and sharing how Steve has inspired their scholarship. Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley - Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

Writing compelling and impactful academic articles is hard. For years, senior scholars and journal editors have urged us to combine rigorous research with vivid writing. Engaging the reader requires narratives that are convincing, reflexive and imaginative. Yet, the reality is that most academic papers are rather formulaic and far from engaging. Sure, we cite each other a lot, but do we really enjoy reading each other's work? And if we don't, are we surprised that practitioners and the public cannot be bothered to look at anything we produce? Well, the good news is that we can do a lot to make our writing more exciting. As a mid-career academic, I decided three years ago to get into filmmaking alongside my academic work. I was curious about exploring film as a means of expression and storytelling. Through my work with film and other filmmakers, I have made a revealing observation: scholars and filmmakers often care about similar things. They seek to understand the human condition and they often dedicate their work to social and environmental causes. Also, both scholars and filmmakers rely in their work on strong narratives. They use powerful examples to tell a bigger story. Yet, good films seem more effective than most papers at telling stories of importance that entertain, while also making a lasting impression. This essay discusses how filmmakers do it, what scholars can learn from it, and what actions they can take to improve their ability to write engaging manuscripts. The power of filmmaking seems obvious. For example, films can create a strong emotional impact through audio-visual storytelling. This is also why academics increasingly use visuals, such as photographs, in their articles to add emotional richness to their narratives. Yet, I have also learned about other – less obvious – ingredients of effective storytelling in film, which, in combination with audio and visuals, could inspire academic writing as well: multi-layered storytelling, the use of characters, and building stories from scenes. All three aspects may not only help better engage academic audiences, but also generate a wider impact with academic research, which I discuss at the end of this essay. In sharing my thoughts and experiences, I will focus on three films I have been involved with as director and co-producer: ‘Finding Simon’, a short film, which I directed as part of a documentary film training and which I successfully submitted to several film festivals in 2021. The film is about a Brighton-based artist, his life and relationship with his work; ‘The Oldest Dance’ (executive producer), a short fictional film by Laura Girvent Alcalde about the role of consent in sex work; and ‘Finding Ubuntu’ (contributing producer), a documentary film by Annette King about the advocacy and community work of a Congolese refugee. ‘When making a film you need to be able to answer three questions: What is the film about? What is the film really about? And what is the film really really about?’ Yet, filmmakers approach multi-layered storytelling differently from scholars. Whereas scholars give primacy to theorizing empirical material, filmmakers give equal weight to the concrete and the abstract. This means that we should remember a story both for what happens in concrete terms and for the bigger ideas conveyed in the story. This helps viewers get invested in the story while making them think about it more deeply. When developing ‘Finding Simon’, I experienced first-hand the challenge of doing that effectively. At the concrete level, the film is about the artist Simon Mclennan and his work. But it is really about what connects us with our work and the work of others. And really really, at least to me, it is about the constant struggle of losing and finding ourselves in our life pursuits. In film, the more abstract dimensions of storytelling are often implicit. They ‘shine through’ the concrete story being told. Rather than telling the audience what to think, we want them to engage in their own thinking based on what they see and hear. As a result, stories can have multiple interpretations. When showing ‘Finding Simon’ to my friends I found that everybody had a different take on what the film is ‘really’ about. Some viewers saw in the film what I saw as the creator, but some had very different interpretations. First, I was a little irritated, but soon I realized that this openness can add value to the story and the viewer's experience, since it elicits conversations and helps viewers connect with stories in more personal ways. One core technique filmmakers use to get viewers engaged in their own thinking while enjoying the film is the three-act structure of storytelling, which has been applied in case-based teaching (Lambert, 2023), and which could benefit academic writing as well. The first act sets up the main story elements – characters, locations, time and events that call main characters into action. The set-up often creates a feeling of suspense which draws audiences in and makes them care about what happens next. The second act focuses on key dilemmas and conflicts characters are confronted with and need to deal with. The third act gives some kind of resolution in which characters either succeed or fail to accomplish what they want. Based on this principle, in ‘Finding Simon’ we first get introduced to Simon and his art in his home environment; then we follow Simon to various cafes he works in where he talks about how he manages but also struggles to see deeper meaning in his work; finally, we return to his home where Simon and I reflect on the need to lose and find ourselves as an ongoing journey. But how can we effectively use multi-layered storytelling across multiple ‘acts’ in academic writing? I see applications particularly in qualitative, case-based studies. As Figure 1 shows, I encourage academic writers to start the findings section with the set-up of the empirical story, mainly by introducing characters, locations, time markers and perhaps a troubling situation characters find themselves in to get readers invested. Authors could do that in the form of a vignette or in the main text. Next, authors should describe core interactions, processes and dilemmas – to share what the empirical story is about – and elaborate on key mechanisms and dynamics – to uncover what it is really about. The findings section could end with a ‘resolution’ that reveals what happens or could happen to the main characters in the empirical story. In the discussion section authors could then elaborate what the story is really really about in terms of fundamental theoretical insights, which may inspire follow-up research questions. Next, I will discuss in more detail how scholars can flesh out a multi-layered story. Based on my own work in film, I will focus on the role of characters and scenes. Filmmakers ensure that viewers care about stories by building up interesting characters viewers can identify with or at least emotionally respond to. As an academic, this approach was initially foreign to me, since I thought academic writing was mostly driven by topics rather than characters. However, I now see that a character focus can make academic writing more powerful, and I call on academic writers to try this approach. First, I have learned that characters give audiences access to complex questions and distant worlds. This is because, by identifying with characters, audiences can appreciate various life challenges that would otherwise not be immediately relevant to them. In ‘Finding Simon’, the character of Simon is not only interesting in his own right but serves as a vehicle for audiences to ask fundamental questions about the purpose and identity-building effects of creative pursuits. My other films additionally use characters to help audiences access distant worlds and appreciate complex questions within them. For example, ‘The Oldest Dance’ follows the fictional character of Sabine, a sex worker, who is confronted daily with the difficulty of negotiating with her clients the boundaries of what she is willing to do. Her struggles give audiences access to a rather hidden world, paid sex work, and help them sympathize with the immense difficulties of navigating power dynamics in this world. ‘Finding Ubuntu’ showcases, based on the story of Congolese refugee Maick Mutej, how people leading ordinary lives can become advocates of human rights, transforming their own lives and the lives of others. Maick's story also helps audiences understand how certain norms and values – here: the Ubuntu philosophy ‘I am because we are’ – can empower individuals to grow into leadership roles in their communities. Second, in filmmaking, I have found that character-based storytelling helps reflect on your own role and interest as an observer and storyteller. When making ‘Finding Simon’, I realized that the film is as much about Simon as it is about myself and my own search for meaning and identity in life. While I first disregarded this aspect as less relevant, I soon discovered from hearing other people's feedback that the interaction between Simon and myself as the storyteller is what makes the film particularly interesting. Consequently, I decided to turn myself much more into a protagonist of my own film, for example by having Simon ask me questions rather than just answer mine. As a result, ‘Finding Simon’ became a dialogic exploration of how we connect as humans. Figure 2 shows how Simon playfully interacts with me behind the camera, making me a character of the scene. Such moments make subjectivity transparent and invite audiences to ‘enter the scene’ as characters with their own perspectives. Similarly, in the film ‘The Oldest Dance’, the audience learns about the sex worker Sabine through Jane, who is an ‘audience character’ observing Sabine's interactions with clients on the street. Through Jane, audiences can build a relationship with Sabine and her struggles. In the film script, Jane asks herself ‘Every day, I see her. And every day, I wonder. How has her life been?’. Jane ignites the active observer in all of us. Perhaps we have seen sex workers in our neighbourhoods, wondering how they got into this world and how they cope with it. So, how can scholars effectively adopt a character-based storytelling approach? A character focus not only helps readers get invested in empirical stories, but also aligns well with the multi-layered, three-act story structure introduced above. In fact, a character-driven story could even frame the entire empirical findings section – opening with the introduction of one or two main protagonists in their specific settings (first act); then elaborating on key challenges they face (second act); and finishing with how they resolve them (third act) (see Figure 1). Next, I explain based on examples in my own work how character-based storytelling can be used. The early introduction of key protagonists and their challenges helps readers care about what is happening and sustain their attention throughout the empirical section. For example, in one study, we introduce an agrarian expert at a development agency who struggles to get a complex development project off the ground and who finds creative ways to work with another expert at a private company to get it done. This kick-off story is a teaser for the main subject of the paper – the facilitating role of informal networks in cross-sector development partnerships (Manning and von Hagen, 2010). In another study, my co-author and I use the story of a Ugandan entrepreneur and her journey of becoming an ambassador of female entrepreneurship through a fellowship programme to illustrate how new impact-oriented support infrastructures can shape business models and entrepreneurial identities (Manning and Vavilov, 2023). Though most readers may not be familiar with the specific situation facing the protagonists in each story, they can sympathize with their journey which brings an unknown empirical context to life. Authors can follow up on a character-based introduction either with a more conventional empirical analysis of processes and interactions, or an analysis that stays close to the views and experiences of particular protagonists while also making theoretical interpretations. For the latter, authors may use in vivo coding to mobilize the language of protagonists to invoke a bigger story without detaching it from the data. For example, protagonists might use certain metaphors to describe their situation, which could become guiding metaphors in capturing what many actors in similar situations go through. However, unlike films, credible empirical research needs to also move beyond individual experiences, because we sell the value of academic work in part based on the generalizable patterns we detect. To balance this tension, authors could move back and forth between repeat references to individual stories and more abstract categorizations of processes and practices, based on broader evidence. In addition, character-based storytelling can help us reflect on our own role as scholars and observers. Anthropology and feminist research have integrated reflexivity into research methodologies for some time. Following the example of film, one way we can bring reflexivity to life is by turning ourselves as authors into ‘characters’ of our own study. Like I did in ‘Finding Simon’, we could use dialogue samples rather than just quotes from interviewed people to reveal our own motivations and reflections as scholars. For example, many social movement scholars care deeply about the subjects they study. Why not make this more explicit by sharing our own story and some of our conversations with interview partners? Sharing what moves us to study or see things in certain ways can engage readers at a more personal level. For example, when I learned from Albert Hirschman that his own decision to leave Nazi Germany as a Jew inspired him to write his famous book ‘Exit, Voice, and Loyalty’, this made his framework more powerful and relatable for me. A word of caution though: making academic writing more character-driven is not always appropriate. For example, individual level data may not be available or irrelevant for the subject matter. Also, focusing on characters, including oneself as an author, may raise confidentiality issues. However, if needed, we can make characters non-identifiable and still ‘use’ them to open doors to important insights and a complex empirical world. Another technique in film to bring multi-layered stories to life are scenes. Scenes are relatively self-contained ‘story beats’ that carry the story forward. They typically involve protagonists interacting in a particular location. Well-written scenes reveal important aspects of a story's characters, their relationships and the world they operate in. I believe that scenes could also make academic writing more memorable. One interesting property of scenes is that they are self-contained yet embedded in a larger narrative. To achieve this, filmmakers often use distinct styles to separate different types of scenes while also connecting them into sub-narratives. For example, in ‘Finding Ubuntu’, real-life footage shows the current life of the protagonist, whereas animations depict his painful memories as a refugee. Similarly, in ‘The Oldest Dance’, naturalistic street scenes show the initial contact between sex worker and clients, whereas more metaphorical tango dance scenes illustrate interactions between them in the bedroom (see Figure 3). Another related benefit of scenes-based storytelling is the ability to repeat scenes in variation to expand and deepen the story. The film ‘The Oldest Dance’ makes effective use of this technique by repeating the two types of scenes – street scenes and tango scenes – with different participants and different interaction dynamics. Each variation explores how changes in the main protagonist's – the sex worker's – emotional experience of the situation changes her interactions. Based on an early script version, I remember discussions with the director about whether or how these interactions should escalate from one scene variation to the next. This is when I realized the power of scenes variations in expanding a narrative. How can academic writers use scenes-based storytelling to improve their manuscripts? One way is to use memorable scenes – either as separate vignettes or directly in the text – to showcase particular dynamics or practices. Consider for example how Weick (1979) uses a vivid scene to illustrate effective and ecologically sustainable decision-making: to determine where to hunt on a given day, the members of the Naskapi tribe in Labrador hold Caribou bones over a fire until they crack. Wherever the cracks point they hunt, which has worked out very well over time. Or consider the famous study ‘Banana time’ by Roy (1959/60) which effectively uses scenes to show how assembly workers ‘resist’ monotonous work – by celebrating breaks, or by joking around while working. In fact, when I first read this study many years ago, I imagined it as a film – perhaps thanks to the clever use of scenes-based storytelling. This study is also a good example of effective in vivo coding as it amplifies the voices of the protagonists. Every day the workers announce breaks by the fruits they are about to eat – ‘banana time’, ‘peach time’, etc. Roy uses this in vivo code to exemplify how workers re-claim a sense of agency within an alienating workplace. I also encourage academic writers to use scenes to explore interactions, processes or mechanisms with variation. Authors could design scene variations to showcase how the presence or absence of factors, or changes in characteristics of context or protagonists, can make a difference in interactions. For example, process or longitudinal studies at the individual or team level could include before-after scenes vignettes to highlight how changes in culture and organizational structure change how individuals or teams interact. Using supporting visual representations to compare scenes may contribute to a holistic understanding of how interactions can play out in changing contexts. In this essay I have outlined how we can make academic writing more exciting by balancing theoretical with character-driven and scenes-based storytelling. help better engage the make academic work more memorable help a wider this effectively needs us to create an that academic writers to with new storytelling First, journal editors should empirical to make empirical stories more for example by character or scenes by including dialogue or by a three-act editors should ask to how engaging and memorable they find the empirical section. with vivid empirical stories should be could also introduce a in which readers can share their thoughts and of the empirical story editors should the of a in which authors can make their personal motivations and reflections Second, business should consider making powerful empirical storytelling part of the training of and Such training could include with filmmakers and other sharing their and such will not only help make academics more effective but also help them wider This is because character-driven and scenes-based storytelling is an vehicle for turning research into teaching and for a wider impact in For example, we are the story of the character Maick in the film ‘Finding Ubuntu’ to share insights on leadership and with various and as part of an impact (see Figure can use a character approach to make our research to wider And this brings me back to why I filmmaking in the first to better audiences that we academics often fail to But we academics can make our work more exciting and – not just for but also for and practitioners – by becoming better is in the world more powerful than a good of I would to the and for their feedback and very I am also very to and for their feedback on of the a thanks to all the filmmakers I have and with in the three years for me and for making me

We contribute to the literature on acquisitions by examining how investors’ cognitive schemata codifying their beliefs concerning the attributes of deal success (‘recipes’) are impacted by systemic crises. Specifically, we examine how and why configurations of attributes signalling deal attractiveness, acquirer competence, and acquirer corporate governance shape investors’ reactions to acquisition announcements before, during, and after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008–9. We apply temporally bracketed fuzzy sets qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a sample of 1867 acquisition announcements. Our results show that investors not only assess acquisition signals holistically, but also that their preferences change when a crisis uproots orthodox deal ‘recipes’ that were once believed to produce successful outcomes. We show that the explorative nature of investor behaviour changes when systemic crises strike, with investors becoming more explorative – as evidenced by a greater number of ‘recipes’ eliciting positive reactions – during crises than before or after. Second, we find that investors do not simply favour deals with a maximum number of safeguards, but rather employ a compensatory logic that matches attributes signalling deal risk with specific assurances. The importance of offering assurances increases following crises, suggesting that investors progressively prefer acquirers to protect their interests.

We all know people we find difficult to deal with. Some we trust despite major past transgressions, others we do not. What explains the difference? Rather than looking for explanations inside the trustor–trustee dyad, we focus on the embedding social structure. Our argument focuses on two features: network closure around the trustor and the embeddedness of the difficult contact. We test and confirm our argument using data from 384 Chinese managers. Our results show that managers who cite colleagues as difficult following a major transgression report higher trust the more the difficult contact is embedded within the manager's network. The effect is smaller (larger) if the manager is surrounded by a rather closed (open) social network. At a practical level, our study helps distinguish between social situations that facilitate trust and those that impede trust once interpersonal conflicts have tainted a relationship.

Both academics and practitioners frequently argue that ‘excessive’ firm cash reserves are likely to be squandered and thus may actually be detrimental to firm performance. Contrary to this narrative, we show that large cash reserves can have strong benefits for firms. Specifically, being cash‐rich helps firms form more strategic partnerships because cash helps assure potential partners that the focal firm will be able to adapt to unfolding contingencies. This assurance is particularly relevant in industry conditions that make disruptions either more likely or more costly. We explain how such disruptions arise due to uncertainty about partners' behaviours and thereby extend the literature in the area of transaction cost economics by shifting the focus from intentional opportunism to encompass unintentional factors that can impede a firm's ability to honour partnership agreements. This shift highlights a beneficial role of excess cash that is often overshadowed by the popular narrative on its wastefulness.

While socially‐responsible large shareholders have been shown to have a substantial impact on corporate leaders’ decisions on social responsibility, prior research remains silent on whether that impact is subject to bias among these two sets of actors. To shed light on this issue, we study the role of socially‐responsible blockholders as well as CEOs in the occurrence of tax‐motivated international relocations of corporate headquarters (HQs) – a key form of shareholder‐oriented behaviour. Drawing on stewardship theory and corporate governance research, we first hypothesize that responsible blockholders’ total equity stake in a firm is negatively related to a firm's propensity to undertake a tax‐motivated HQ relocation. Using complementary insights from social identity theory, we then propose that both socially‐responsible blockholders and CEOs tend to identify more strongly with compatriots than with foreigners. This leads us to hypothesize that (a) the stake of responsible domestic blockholders is more negatively related to a firm's relocation propensity than the stake of responsible foreign blockholders, and that (b) the stake of responsible blockholders that are compatriots of their firm's CEO is more negatively related to that propensity than the stake of responsible blockholders with a different nationality than the CEO's. Logit analyses of a sample of US firms covering the period 1998–2017 lend substantial support to our hypotheses, indicating that affinity bias among socially‐responsible blockholders and CEOs shapes the occurrence of a key form of shareholder‐oriented behaviour.

Patented inventions play an important role in generating firm value, with conventional wisdom generally suggesting that dense patent portfolios promote greater value. We challenge the universality of this assumption and argue that the relationship between patent portfolio density and firm value depends on factors reflecting other key invention‐related conditions and choices. Specifically, we hypothesize that dispersed patent portfolios are positively associated with firm value when technology inputs are young and the technology is far from the locus of inventive activity, and dense portfolios are positively associated with firm value under the opposite conditions. We examine these relationships using a stock return response model, finding support for our hypotheses based on data collected from firms patenting in the chemicals technology area.

This study examines how organizational members cope with new work rhythms that are brought about by a strategic organizational change. Based on a two‐year qualitative case study of a major strategic change in a research unit at a university that encouraged academics to embody an upbeat, energetic work rhythm, we identify four different modes of engaging with rhythms (syncing, tuning, figuring, and settling). We found that individual academics engaged rhythmically in different ways to meet this expected way of working and with discernible consequences for how they participated in the strategic change and ultimately were able to support the change, or not. Based on our study findings, we conceptualize a process model of rhythmic coping that highlights a central but often overlooked part of strategic change with significant implications for the success of a change as well as for the continued health and well‐being of employees.

We examine whether having cross‐domain passion (i.e., harmonious and obsessive passion for work and for non‐work activities) during the COVID‐19 pandemic can help individuals fare better amid the crisis. Drawing from work‐family boundary framework, we develop a provisional theory of cross‐domain multi‐passion, and in two studies, we use latent profile analysis to uncover five passion profiles – Dispassionate at Work and Play ; Dispassionate at Work, Ambidextrous at Play ; Harmonious at Work, Ambidextrous at Play ; Harmonious at Work and Play ; and Moderately Harmonious at Work and Play . In Study 1, we inductively explore these profiles and their relationships with life satisfaction. In Study 2, we replicate the number and content of these profiles, and test whether segmentation‐integration preferences and work and non‐work constraints predict the probability of individuals belonging to a certain profile. Overall, these profiles reveal how individuals can co‐host multiple forms of passion simultaneously, and how doing so relate to their life satisfaction during the pandemic.