Knowledge that Transforms

Research on the returns to specialist versus generalist careers has largely neglected what drives individuals’ motivations to build different career profiles in the first place. Although specialization is widely associated with benefits, generalist careers are seen as more at risk except in certain mitigated conditions. At the same time, given the uncertainty in labor markets, future returns to specialization cannot simply be assumed. We introduce in this paper a novel mechanism behind the formation of generalist careers, opportunity-enhancing generalism, whereby workers willingly give up the benefits to specialization to dissociate from a past expertise considered to yield relatively poor future prospects. On the premise that one’s prior experience provides the basis for exploration-versus-exploitation decisions, we argue that aspects of one’s previous jobs, including status, will importantly affect decisions about whether to continue specializing. Specifically, negative feedback about prospects for advancement in their prior jobs will increase workers’ motivation to search for jobs in new areas of expertise. Focusing on managerial workers’ job search decisions, we predict that individuals who come from low-status firms, low-status work domains, or both will be more likely to search for jobs in a new area than job seekers coming from high-status firms and work domains. Using data on job searches in a Master in Business Administration labor market, we find support for our prediction and suggestive evidence for the opportunity-enhancing mechanism we propose.

Interruptions are common in organizational life and last from seconds and minutes to hours and days. We rely on a quantitative abductive strategy to determine how extended work interruptions shape employees’ creativity. We start by studying how surprising interruptions that cause idle time affect employees’ creative performance. We do so by exploiting a natural experiment—a supply chain shortage that caused unexpected stops in production plants—to show that individuals exposed to such an interruption produce 58% more ideas than uninterrupted employees in the three weeks after the interruption. We corroborate this effect in a replication and extend it to idea quality. Investigating the effect’s causes, we then show that we do not find the same effects for two other interruption types: for unexpected interruptions without idle time (i.e., intrusions), we find a negative effect on creative performance because employees forcefully disengage from their work and switch their attention to the interrupting task. For expected interruptions with idle time (i.e., planned breaks), we also find no positive effect on creative performance because employees discretionally disengage from work and focus on nonwork and leisure goals. We consider and evaluate three different theoretical explanations for our findings: attention residue, cognitive stimulation, and recovery. We end our abductive process by putting attention residue forward as the most likely explanation. Finally, we suggest three propositions based on our findings and discuss our contributions to the literature on interruptions and creativity in organizations.

In mediated markets, the categorization of products by mediators is critical to efficient interaction between producers and consumers. As organizational research tends to focus on the consequences of categorization rather than its antecedents, however, we know relatively little about why mediators assign one category label or another to a product. In this study, we argue that two informational properties of labels, specificity and distinctiveness, determine the outcomes of mediators’ categorization decisions. Our analysis of product categorization decisions made by members of an online music community, 2000–2020, supports this argument. We find that a label’s odds of being assigned to a product increase (a) if this label encodes information that is neither too similar nor too different from that which is encoded by a superordinate label, that is, it has moderate specificity; and (b) if it encodes information that differs as much as possible from that which is encoded by horizontally related labels, that is, it has maximal distinctiveness. These findings persist after controlling for other possible determinants of mediators’ categorization decisions, including producers’ claims to labels, products’ typicality, and mediators’ expertise.

Competence development in digital technologies, analytics, and artificial intelligence is increasingly important to all types of organizations and their workforce. Universities and corporations are investing heavily in developing training programs, at all tenure levels, to meet the new skills needs. However, there is a risk that the new set of lucrative opportunities for employees in these tech-heavy fields will be biased against diverse demographic groups like women. Although much research has examined the experiences of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and occupations, less understood is the extent to which gender stereotypes influence recruiters’ perceptions and evaluations of individuals who are deciding whether to apply to STEM training programs. These behaviors are typically unobserved because they occur prior to the application interface. We address this question by investigating recruiters’ initial outreach decisions to more than 166,000 prospective students who have expressed interest in applying to a midcareer level online tech training program in business analytics. Using data on the recruiters’ communications, our results indicate that recruiters are less likely to initiate contact with female than male prospects and search for additional signals of quality from female prospects before contacting them. We also find evidence that recruiters are more likely to base initial outreach activities on prospect gender when they have higher workloads and limited attention. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this research for our understanding of how screening and selection decisions prior to the application interface may undermine organizational efforts to achieve gender equality and diversity as well as the potential for demand-side interventions to mitigate these gender disparities.

Passion for work is highly coveted, but many employees report struggling to maintain their passion over time. In the current research, we explain the challenge of pursuing passion by conceptualizing passion as an attribute with temporal variation. Viewed through a daily lens, we argue that self-regulation plays a critical role in understanding the challenges underlying the daily maintenance of passion. More specifically, we hypothesize that—unless employees adequately regulate their passion on any given day—higher levels of passion will lead them to invest more time and energy into their work, decreasing their psychological detachment from work after the workday, and consequently resulting in higher levels of emotional exhaustion the next day. Higher levels of emotional exhaustion on a given day subsequently prompt a greater need for recovery, shifting employees’ focus away from devoting time and energy into work, thereby eroding their passion on the following day. Two daily-diary studies covering 30 and 10 consecutive working days provided support for our predictions (N total = 798; k total = 15,702). Employees who felt more in charge of their passion on any given day engaged in self-regulation during their workday, increasing their psychological detachment from work and subsequently being less likely to suffer the detrimental consequences of higher daily passion. Our theory and findings demonstrate the daily interplay between passion and emotional exhaustion and specify why passion may be self-limiting unless employees adequately manage it, reflecting a challenge they need to navigate each day in pursuing their passion.

Recent research has consistently highlighted the benefits of leader humility within organizations. However, much less is known about how leader humility can be contextually promoted beyond individual predispositions. This paper draws from the social-cognitive model of transference to illuminate how the contextual activation of significant-other schemas can enhance a leader’s expressed humility in the workplace. Specifically, we propose that the activation of significant-other schemas can lead to increased interpersonal warmth and psychological safety among leaders, which in turn, promote humility in their interactions with followers. Furthermore, we posit that these effects are amplified in leaders who possess a strong relational identity. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a field experiment with 97 leaders and their 194 followers, where we randomly applied daily significant-other activation interventions to the leaders and surveyed the leaders and their corresponding followers across 10 consecutive workdays. Our findings provide support for the positive impact of significant-other schema activation on leader humility and confirm the moderating role of a leader’s relational identity. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

The literature on corporate political activity (CPA) generally views nonmarket actions aimed at influencing political actors (e.g., lobbying or campaign contributions) as related but separate activities from market actions. This study demonstrates how firms’ core market actions (e.g., market entry or geographic expansion) can function as CPA. We theorize two mechanisms through which firms leverage market actions as CPA: “pork” (i.e., ones that primarily benefit a politician’s constituents) and “perk” (i.e., ones that directly benefit the politician). We document these mechanisms through an empirical analysis of data from the U.S. airline industry in 1990–2019. Specifically, we find that airlines increase the supply of flights from the airports in the home district of the chair of the Transportation Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives (pork). We also find that the airlines increase the supply of nonstop flights to Washington, DC. from the Chair’s district (perk). We use counterfactual estimation methods and exogenous turnovers in committee leadership to provide causal evidence. Moreover, the observed increase in flight supplies is negatively associated with formal policy changes in Congress, and with text mining techniques, we find that this effect is stronger for bills related to aviation safety and security. We contribute to the literature on CPA by demonstrating a blurred boundary between market and nonmarket actions, which helps explain firms’ competitive actions that cannot be explained by market considerations alone.

In contrast with for-profit companies, many “multiaudience” organizations, such as universities, hospitals, and nonprofits, receive revenues not just from customers but from third-party funders. This distinction is most stark in donative nonprofits that receive all of their funding from noncustomers and have long been perceived to underperform because of persistent underinvestment in organizational capabilities. In this paper, we explore how the need to manage funder perceptions influences how managers allocate resources to investment in organizational capabilities versus programmatic spending. We develop a model of capability dynamics based on fieldwork with six nonprofit organizations that incorporates the mechanism of reputation management. We argue that difficulties communicating the impact of nonprofits to donors often leads managers to instead focus on the amount of work being done, creating a bias toward programmatic spending. Analyzing our model, we show that a capability tipping threshold exists: for nonprofits with low capabilities, it is boundedly rational for managers to underinvest in organizational capabilities in order to manage donor perceptions even when this practice is known to limit performance. Our findings suggest that building high-performance nonprofits requires coordinated action between managers and donors to allow capability investments to accumulate. Counterintuitively, deliberately restraining programmatic expenditure (i.e., serving fewer recipients) while the organization builds its capabilities may be the best strategy for nonprofits to achieve sustained high performance and impact in the long run.

Although the canonical view of technology substitution describes the frequent failure of incumbent firms to adapt to new technologies, research suggests that firms adopt a variety of strategies when faced with a substitution. These include extending the incumbent technology, bridging to the new by creating hybrids of incumbent and threatening technology, and retreating to market niches in which incumbent technologies retain a competitive advantage. Because ex post views can depict such strategies as ineffectual in the face of inevitable substitution, we have a limited view of the impact of these strategies—whether, when, and how technology substitution occurs. In a study of technology substitution in the population of automobile carburetor manufacturers between 1979 and 1992, we find that these “technology counteroffensive” strategies effectively improved product performance, temporarily deferred technology substitution, and contributed to the continued survival of many firms. Significant firm outcome differences result from these strategies. The paper concludes by suggesting both a theory of technology hybrids and an ex ante theory of technology substitution as a complement to the dominant ex post view.

Despite recognizing potential ramifications for employees who protest in the workplace, researchers rarely explore the career consequences that stem from such instances of workplace protest participation. We integrated research on employee activism, workplace deviance, and careers to theorize that workplace protest represents a perceived deviation from workplace norms that can influence an individual’s organizational and labor market mobility outcomes. We investigated this premise with the 2016 National Football League “take a knee” protests as a strategic research setting. The results indicate that protesting is associated with an increase in organizational exit although this effect is moderated by the degree to which the organization is sensitive to the underlying social movement (with an organization’s movement sensitivity operationalized with a four-part index composed of the team’s managers, personnel decision makers, owners, and customers). Protesting also is associated with labor market sorting across organizations as players who protest are more likely to make subsequent transitions to more movement-sensitive teams compared with players who do not protest. Overall, our findings offer contributions for research on employee activism, workplace deviance, and careers.