This article examines the evolution of trust, control, and learning in a joint venture relationship. Using a coevolutionary approach, we develop a framework that shows how initial joint venture conditions give way to evolved conditions as joint venture partners develop an understanding of each other and adjust the collaborative process. We explore the relationship between trust and control in joint ventures and identify how these two critical concepts impact joint venture processes. We argue that trust, along with partner collaborative objectives, creates the initial climate that shapes partner interactions. In turn, these interactions lead to subsequent decisions about the nature of controls. We then examine linkages between alliance learning and the trust and control concepts, and argue that learning processes are central to evolving joint venture dynamics. Once the joint venture is formed, and if the initial conditions support continued collaboration, then learning processes will be central to evolving alliance dynamics. As initial conditions give way to evolved conditions, learning and trust will coevolve and impact decisions about control. Propositions linking the concepts are provided as guides for future empirical research.

This 1.5-year ethnographic study of a U.S. medical center shows that avoiding loss of autonomy and work intensification for less powerful actors during digital technology introduction and integration presents a multisited collective action challenge. I found that technology-related participation problems, threshold problems, and free rider problems may arise during digital technology introduction and integration that enable loss of autonomy and work intensification for less powerful actors. However, the emergence of new triangles of power allows for novel coalitions between less powerful actors and newly powerful third-party actors that can help mitigate this problem. I extend the political science perspective of experimentalist governance to examine how a digital technology-focused, iterative collective action process of local experimentation followed by central revision can facilitate mutually beneficial role reconfiguration during digital technology introduction and integration. In experimentalist governance of digital technology, local units are given discretion to adapt digital technologies to their specific contexts. A central unit composed of diverse actors then reviews progress across local units integrating similar digital technology to negotiate a new shared understanding of mutually beneficial technology-related tasks for each group of actors. The central unit modifies both local routines and the technology itself in response to problems and possibilities revealed by the central revision process, and the cycle repeats. Here, accomplishing mutually beneficial role reconfiguration occurs through an experimentalist, collective action process rather than through a labor-management bargaining process or a professional-led tuning process.

Much of the change that social movements try to accomplish requires changing practices inside organizations, yet reform implementation is difficult to achieve. This comparative case study of two hospitals demonstrates that implementing reform inside organizations may require internal reformers not only to mobilize with one another but also to stand up to internal defenders' countertactics in everyday encounters. Because reformer alliances across identity lines often require reformers with different statuses to collaborate with one another, defenders can divide reformer coalitions by linking reform practices to a status characteristic associated with lower-status reformers, denigrating higher-status reformers by associating them with these practices, and reintegrating higher-status reformers into the defender group. When status threat inside an organization is high to begin with, higher-status reformers are likely to be concerned about loss of privilege in the face of defenders' status-based countertactics and, in response, distance themselves from reform practices and align themselves with defenders to protect their identity and its rewards. This can undermine the multi-identity reformer coalition and cause change to fail. These findings regarding status-based countertactics contribute to our understanding of social movement implementation and microinstitutional change.

One of the great paradoxes of organizational culture is that even when less powerful members in organizations have access to cultural tools (such as frames, identities, and tactics) that support change, they often do not use these tools to challenge traditional practices that disadvantage them. In this study, I compare data about work practice change from my own field study of an elite teaching hospital (conducted in the early 2000s) to previously reported data from field studies of two similar hospitals (one conducted in the 1970s and one in the 1990s). I demonstrate that although cultural toolkits supporting change may allow less powerful organization members to see traditional practices as running counter to their interests, they may not be able to significantly change traditional practices unless they also have access to what I call political toolkits (including tools such as staffing systems, accountability systems, and evaluation systems) that support change. Although cultural tools allow them to reinterpret practices that disadvantage them as unfair, political tools allow them to feel optimistic that others will help them effect change. Whereas cultural tools enable them to develop a “we” feeling with other reformers, political tools allow them to coordinate their change efforts. And although cultural tools provide them with a repertoire of contentious tactics, political tools afford them a sense of security that they can battle defenders of the status quo without ruining their careers. These findings contribute to our understanding of both the cultural construction of organizational life and social movement processes.

It is customary among contemporary organization theorists to equate North American and European scholarship with objectivist and subjectivist metatheoretical positions (respectively), treat these positions as mutually exclusive alternatives, and debate which is best suited to understanding organizational phenomena. Fueled by this dispute, questions of bias and fears of colonization are readily apparent in academic reviews of three recent “handbooks” of organizations. Caught in the current of these tensions, I was prompted to assess the status of this “Atlantic divide.” To do so, I examined the three recent compendia in terms of the rhetoric academic reviewers employed to characterize them and the geographic locations, preferred journals, and university affiliations of scholars who refer to them. The results are striking. Despite the unanimous typecasting of the volumes as epitomizing either objectivist North American or subjectivist European traditions, the geographic distributions of researchers citing them are indistinguishable. Citations to each compendium are, however, clustered within particular journals and among authors with particular university affiliations—but neither the journals nor universities are neatly North American or European. Current associations of these traditions with North American and European scholarship thus seem driven more by academic rhetoric than authentic continental distinctions. I examine the roots of this rhetorical mapping and explore its implications for the field. I advocate abandonment of the myth of the Atlantic divide and exploitation of perspectives that do not privilege the subjectivist–objectivist dichotomy.

Employee misconduct is costly to organizations and has the potential to be even more common in gig and remote work contexts, in which workers are physically distant from their employers. There is, thus, a need for scholars to better understand what employers can do to mitigate misconduct in these nontraditional work environments, particularly as the prevalence of such work environments is increasing. We combine an agency perspective with a behavioral relationship-based perspective to consider two avenues through which gig employers can potentially mitigate misconduct: (1) through the communication of organizational values and (2) through the credible threat of monitoring. We implement a real effort experiment in a gig work context that enables us to cleanly observe misconduct. Consistent with our theory, we present causal evidence that communication of organizational values, both externally facing in the form of social/environmental responsibility and internally facing in the form of an employee ethics code, decreases misconduct. This effect, however, is largely negated when workers are informed that they are being monitored. We provide suggestive evidence that this crowding out is due to a decrease in perceived trust that results from the threat of monitoring. Our results have important theoretical implications for research on employee misconduct and shed light on the trade-offs associated with various potential policy solutions.

Through two exploratory studies, we develop and test an introductory framework of “organizational disidentification.” Our first study explores the concept of organizational disidentification through a qualitative investigation of cognitive relationships with the National Rifle Association (NRA). Findings suggest that organizational disidentification is a self-perception based on: (1) a cognitive separation between one's identity and the organization's identity, and (2) a negative relational categorization of oneself and the organization (e.g., categorizations such as “rivals” or “enemies”). Organizational disidentification appears to be motivated by individuals' desires to both affirm positive distinctiveness and avoid negative distinctiveness by distancing themselves from incongruent values and negative stereotypes attributed to an organization. Our findings also suggest that organizational disidentification can lead individuals to take action (either volunteer work or voicing their opinion) as a result of their perceived separation from the organization's identity. Results of our second study”a large-scale survey of public attitudes about the NRA”provide support for this framework.

We examine whether prosperous economic times have both immediate and lasting implications for corporate misconduct among chief executive officers (CEOs). Drawing on research suggesting that prosperous times are associated with excessive risk-taking, overconfidence, and more opportunities to cheat, we first propose that CEOs will be more likely to engage in corporate misconduct during good economic times. Next, we propose that CEOs who begin their careers in prosperous times will be more likely to engage in self-serving corporate misconduct later in their careers. We tested these hypotheses by assembling a large data set of American CEOs and following their stock option reporting patterns between 1996 and 2005. We found that in good economic times, CEOs were more likely to backdate their stock options grants. Moreover, CEOs who began their careers in prosperous times were more likely to backdate stock option grants later in their careers. These findings suggest that the state of the economy can influence current ethical behavior and leave a lasting imprint on the moral proclivities of new workforce entrants.

We link two influential organizational learning models—performance feedback and experiential learning—to advance hypotheses that help explain how organizations’ learning from their own and others’ experience is conditioned by their aspiration-performance feedback. Our focus is on learning from failure; this kind of learning is essential to organizational learning and adaptation, and a necessary complement to studies of learning from success. Our analysis of U.S. Class 1 freight railroads’ accident costs from 1975 to 2001 shows that when a railroad’s accident rate deviates from aspiration levels, the railroad benefits less from its own operating and accident experience and more from other railroads’ operating and accident experiences. These findings support the idea that performance near aspirations fosters local search and exploitive learning, while performance away from aspirations stimulates nonlocal search and exploration, providing a foundation for constructing more-integrated models of organizational learning and change.

The choice of the firm's market environment is one of the fundamental decisions of firm founders. We study the pre-entry generation of founders' market choice sets by investigating their search for market opportunities in which the firm's technological resources, as embodied in a product or service, can be commercialized. Analyzing data collected through personal interviews with founders of 496 technology ventures, we find that founding teams with more diverse industry experience and more diverse external knowledge sourcing relationships identify not only a larger number of but, in particular, more varied (distant) market opportunities. However, the extent to which strategic variety of such opportunities is identified depends on the founders' technological expertise, whereas technological expertise is less relevant in identification of the number of opportunities. Furthermore, by showing that the extent and nature of the firm's pre-entry opportunity set has a significant effect on the likelihood of subsequent firm diversification, we document how initial constraints in founders' choice sets can have a lasting impact on the growth potential that the new firm exploits over time. We discuss the implications of our findings for the literatures on organizational learning and innovation, entrepreneurship, as well as the strategy literature examining firm growth, diversification, and value creation.