Knowledge that Transforms

Category theory finds that markets partition producers into categories and producers who do not fit one specific category—or who span multiple categories—perform worse than their single-category peers. The dominant thread of this work argues that this miscategorization penalty arises when cognitive limits of categorization cause individual members of the market’s audience to exclude or denigrate ill-fitting producers. I present a null model of markets in which a miscategorization penalty appears without being caused by a market audience: drawing on cognitive science and research on rugged landscapes, the model shows that producer herding behavior generates a spurious correlation between market outcomes and miscategorizations. The model further predicts the dynamics of categorical emergence and change over time. I establish these results in a simulation and discuss strategies by which this landscape model can be empirically distinguished or integrated with the standard account of an audience-driven penalty.

In modern organizations, key sources of competitive advantage are embedded in employees. Management theory has traditionally viewed employee exit as the end of firms’ relationships with employees and, consequently, the end of access to human capital and other resources embedded in departing individuals. However, recent research suggests that firms can benefit from the continuation of relationships with alumni employees. We argue that how organizations create and maintain connections to alumni is critical, as it shapes the nature of potentially valuable organization-level alumni resources. We develop a theory of firm value capture from alumni that explains how firms’ norms and policies before, during, and after employee exit affect firms’ alumni relations climate—a shared perception among a firm’s current and former employees that the firm values alumni. We further theorize that the alumni relations climate will lead to creation of firm-level alumni resources, with the configuration of these resources shaped by alumni identification. That is, the extent to which firms’ alumni identify with the firm versus with members of the firm’s remaining workforce (or balanced between the two) will have implications for the configuration of alumni resources that are potentially accessible to the firm. Our theory describes how these different alumni resource configurations come with inherent benefits and costs when it comes to the value that firms are able to capture from their alumni resources. We illustrate the value of this theoretical perspective by identifying meaningful practical implications and avenues for future research.

Competition is one of the defining features of organizational life. In this research, we identify a prevalent but overlooked type of competition—covert competition, which we define as behaviors with the intention to win (i.e., advancing one’s interest/position while disregarding or hurting the other party’s interest/position) that are unclear to or hidden from the other party. We argue that one’s relative power in dyadic social relationships influences covert competition. Based on the theory of power dependence, we expect that lower-power individuals are more likely than higher-power individuals to compete covertly. This is because lower-power individuals fear the potential negative repercussions of revealing their competitiveness, which motivates them to engage in more covert competition. Lower-power individuals’ ability to escape from the current relationship mitigates the effects of having lower power on such fear and on their subsequent covert competition. With five experiments and a three-wave longitudinal survey study, we find support for our hypotheses. This research calls attention to the understudied covert form of competition and emphasizes the nuanced relationships between power and competitive behaviors.

Despite women having made significant progress in the modern workforce, gender gaps are still evident in creative work. In this paper, we propose that, although women and men are equally capable of generating creative ideas, gender differences emerge during the idea-selection stage. Specifically, compared with men, women engage in higher novelty avoidance during idea selection—the degree to which one selects an idea that is less novel than the most novel idea one has generated. In two laboratory studies and a field survey involving creative professionals, we found significant gender differences in novelty avoidance during idea selection and identified women’s concerns about social backlash when pursuing highly novel ideas as one explanatory variable. We also experimentally manipulated gender compositions of the evaluation panel and found that women’s novelty avoidance tendency during idea selection was reduced when they were informed about the presence of women evaluators. Finally, novelty avoidance during idea selection has an inverted U-shaped relationship with idea success; because women tend to engage in higher novelty avoidance than men, novelty avoidance in women (but not men) has a negative impact on the success of their ideas. By examining gender dynamics at specific stages, our work offers theoretical and practical insights regarding gender disparities in creative work.

Chief executive officers (CEOs) are expected to guard their firms against corporate social irresponsibility (CSIR) incidents. In this study, we hypothesize that CEO humility relates negatively to CSIR occurrence and positively to correction because of CEO preferences for protecting stakeholder interests and employing systematic information processing. These associations are stronger in industries with a high number of CSIR incidents and when top management teams have a higher ratio of gender and racial minorities. We develop and validate a new unobtrusive measure of CEO humility by using automated, objective behavioral indicators derived from earnings conference call transcripts. Our arguments and hypotheses are mostly supported by a sample of 197 Fortune 500 firms, 275 CEOs, and 1,243 firm-year observations from 2002 to 2015. Our study contributes to a more complete understanding of CEOs’ role in CSIR prevention and correction, widens the scope of CEO humility research by including stakeholder-centered firm outcomes, and mitigates measurement constraints in understanding CEO humility-firm action relationships.

New technologies create a dilemma for senior members of occupations. Traditionally, practical expertise and position are considered correlates, yet when new technologies arrive, they may be knocked out of alignment. This means that senior members must develop new expertise lest their position be threatened. However, because position often signifies expertise, developing new practical expertise may be challenging. Indeed, senior members face strong pressures not to appear to nor actually devote time to comprehensive formal training as they are booked with complex problems using prior methods, they are responsible for the learning of junior members, and they have passed early career training windows. Through comparative ethnographic field studies of urological surgery and investment banking, we show that “inverted apprenticeships,” defined as configured struggle and restructured interactions with junior members that allow senior members to develop practical expertise with new technologies while maintaining their position, resolve this dilemma. We identify four pathways that senior experts took to structure these inverted apprenticeships, including seeking, stalling, leveraging, and confronting. We uncover the conditions of each pathway and trace their consequences. Although these pathways allowed senior members to enhance or preserve their position, they generated widely varying practical expertise with the new technology. Furthermore, the majority of these pathways undermined the learning of those most junior, who were supposed to be developing expertise through their interactions with seniors.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds the potential to either complement workers by enhancing their productivity or substitute them. We examine the short-term effects of the recently released generative AI models (ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, and Midjourney) on the employment outcomes of freelancers on a large online platform. We find that freelancers in highly affected occupations suffer from the introduction of generative AI, experiencing reductions in both employment and earnings. We find similar effects studying the release of other image-based generative AI models. Exploring the heterogeneity by freelancers’ employment history, we do not find evidence that high-quality service, measured by their past performance and employment, moderates the adverse effects on employment. In fact, we find suggestive evidence that top freelancers are disproportionately affected by AI. These results suggest that generative AI may transform the role of human capital in the organization and reduce overall demand for workers.

Habits and routines are foundational to several organizational theories. Considering organizational members to be predominately employees, established habit-based models recognize how these members’ habits help build organizations and are shaped by them. Departing from this traditional, internal focus, our paper highlights an important aspect of organizing, which has been relatively overlooked by established habit-based models, namely, how firms engineer consumer habits to their advantage and, by extension, strategically shape the habits of other key resource providers. To better theorize consumer habits and their engineering, and to integrate these phenomena within extant organizational theory, we develop a new habit-based perspective relating firms, consumers, and social institutions. Inspired by Dewey’s transactional approach and drawing on modern habit science, our transactional framework helps illuminate habit engineering, promotes a richer and more integrated view of organizing, and opens new possibilities for habit-based organizational theories. Our paper also offers several implications for firms’ managers, individual consumers, and broader society.

This article adopts a relational perspective to demonstrate that characteristics of the dyadic relationship between supervisors and their employees are critical to understanding individual-level exploration—understood as the extent to which organizational members pursue new opportunities and experiment with changes to current practices. To this end, we introduce the concept of power framing—that is, whether the control over valued resources is emphasized as the ability to reward or to punish—and propose that supervisor power framing shapes employee exploration. In an experimental study, we demonstrate that reward (versus punishment) power framing increases employee exploration behavior and that this effect is mediated by perceived trustworthiness of the supervisor. In a second survey study, we replicate these findings in a field sample and show that the relationship between reward power framing and exploration depends on the degree to which the focal employee is sensitive to power characteristics (i.e., power distance orientation). This investigation advances scholarship on the microfoundations of exploration while also highlighting the ability of leaders to alter trustworthiness perceptions and induce employee exploration through power framing.

Existing research depicts occupational learning as predominantly happening through formal education, situated learning, or a combination of the two. How career switchers might develop occupational skills outside of these established learning pathways is understudied. This paper examines how novice outsiders break into a skilled occupation by looking at the case of aspiring software developers attending coding bootcamps. Drawing on 17 months of fieldwork in the San Francisco Bay area, I find that bootcamps did not resemble either schools or workplaces, the two institutions that facilitate occupational learning. Instead, bootcamps scaffolded learning collectives—groups composed of peers and near peers who learn collaboratively and purposefully to reach a shared goal. Within learning collectives, aspirants progressed from novice outsiders to hirable software developers, despite limited access to proximate experts to learn from or legitimate peripheral participation opportunities. Three scaffoldings facilitated learning at bootcamps. First, peer team structures turned what is normally a solitary activity—writing code—into a collaborative endeavor and facilitated peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Second, near-peer role structures engaged recent graduates in teaching and mentorship relationships with novices so that aspirants could access knowledge quickly and easily. Third, bootcamps encouraged aspirants to self-learn by reaching out to the expertise of the broader occupational community. This third scaffolding prepared aspirants for learning beyond the bootcamp curriculum and socialized them for an occupation with high learning demands. The outcome of this process was that novices pursuing an alternative mode of occupational entry developed both occupational skills and new self-conceptions as software developers.