Creativity and innovation in any organization are vital to its successful performance. The authors review the rapidly growing body of research in this area with particular attention to the period 2002 to 2013, inclusive. Conceiving of both creativity and innovation as being integral parts of essentially the same process, we propose a new, integrative definition. We note that research into creativity has typically examined the stage of idea generation, whereas innovation studies have commonly also included the latter phase of idea implementation. The authors discuss several seminal theories of creativity and innovation and then apply a comprehensive levels-of-analysis framework to review extant research into individual, team, organizational, and multilevel innovation. Key measurement characteristics of the reviewed studies are then noted. In conclusion, we propose a guiding framework for future research comprising 11 major themes and 60 specific questions for future studies.

Organizations, particularly those for whom safety and reliability are crucial, develop routines to protect them from failure. But even highly reliable organizations are not immune to disaster and prolonged periods of safe operation are punctuated by occasional catastrophes. Scholars of safety science label this the “paradox of almost totally safe systems,” noting that systems that are very safe under normal conditions may be vulnerable under unusual ones. In this paper, we explain, develop, and apply the concept of “organizational limits” to this puzzle through an analysis of the loss of Air France 447. We show that an initial, relatively minor limit violation set in train a cascade of human and technological limit violations, with catastrophic consequences. Focusing on cockpit automation, we argue that the same measures that make a system safe and predictable may introduce restrictions on cognition, which over time, inhibit or erode the disturbance-handling capability of the actors involved. We also note limits to cognition in system design processes that make it difficult to foresee complex interactions. We discuss the implications of our findings for predictability and control in contexts beyond aviation and ways in which these problems might be addressed.

AbstractManagement is a global phenomenon. Yet, the vast majority of empirical investigations and theoretical explanations of management, managers and those being managed that are published in leading management journals are based on research that predominantly originates from Western contexts, particularly the USA and the larger European countries. Non‐Western contexts, in turn, reside at the periphery of mainstream management scholarship. This is problematic for multiple reasons. It provides an inherently limited view on the contextual factors that may explain variation in management practices across the globe, and it leads to a reductionist view of non‐Western contexts to offer little more than a means for teasing out the boundary conditions of mainstream ‘Western’ theories. This exclusion of non‐Western contexts has resulted in a marginalization of non‐Western scholarly voices, who are often hesitant to submit their research to leading scholarly journals. To address these interrelated problems, we use this introduction to the Thematic Collection on ‘Embracing non‐Western contexts’ in the Journal of Management Studies to call on scholars to more fully embrace non‐Western contexts in their research, and in doing so, to unleash the explanatory potential of these contexts for our understanding of management.

Abstract Traditional management practices have long prioritized organizational performance and financial growth, primarily serving shareholder interests. However, escalating societal and environmental challenges – such as climate change, human rights violations, the dismantling of democratic institutions, and public health crises – raise questions about the adequacy of these priorities and call for greater attention to management’s role in advancing the public good. This Special Issue examines the relationships, tensions, and consequences associated with efforts to repurpose management towards broader societal aims. We distinguish between organizational purpose – the stated aspirational goals of firms – and repurposed management, which reflects broader shifts in managerial logic, practices, and institutional expectations aimed at serving the public good. The contributing articles explore how such repurposing is constructed and enacted across institutional settings, and how managerial practices influence governance structures, stakeholder dynamics, and field‐level norms to shape public outcomes – both intended and unintended. By shifting the analytical lens from purpose as internal intent to purpose as institutionally mediated consequence, we invite more inquiry into how, when, and for whom purposeful management contributes to the public good – foregrounding the institutional mechanisms, stakeholder dynamics, and societal outcomes through which purpose is interpreted, negotiated and enacted.