181-200 of 269 Results


Multilevel Theory, Methods, and Analyses in Management  

Michael T. Braun, Steve W. J. Kozlowski, and Goran Kuljanin

Multilevel theory (MLT) details how organizational constructs and processes operate and interact within and across levels. MLT focuses on two different inter-level relationships: bottom-up emergence and top-down effects. Emergence is when individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors are shaped by interactions and come to manifest themselves as collective, higher-level phenomena. The resulting higher-level phenomena can be either common, shared states across all individuals (i.e., compositional emergence) or stable, unique, patterned individual-level states (i.e., compilational emergence). Top-down effects are those representing influences from higher levels on the thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors of individuals or other lower-level units. To date, most theoretical and empirical research has studied the top-down effects of either contextual variables or compositional emerged states. Using predominantly self-report survey methodologies collected at a single time point, this research commonly aggregates lower-level responses to form higher-level representations of variables. Then, a regression-based technique (e.g., random coefficient modeling, structural equation modeling) is used to statistically evaluate the direction and magnitude of the hypothesized effects. The current state of the literature as well as the traditional statistical and methodological approaches used to study MLT create three important knowledge gaps: a lack of understanding of the process of emergence; how top-down and bottom-up relationships change over time; and how inter-individual relationships within collectives form, dissolve, and change. These gaps make designing interventions to fix or improve the functioning of organizational systems incredibly difficult. As such, it is necessary to broaden the theoretical, methodological, and statistical approaches used to study multilevel phenomena in organizations. For example, computational modeling can be used to generate precise, dynamic theory to better understand the short- and long-term implications of multilevel relationships. Behavioral trace data, wearable sensor data, and other novel data collection techniques can be leveraged to capture constructs and processes over time without the drawbacks of survey fatigue or researcher interference. These data can then be analyzed using cutting-edge social network and longitudinal analyses to capture phenomena not readily apparent in hierarchically nested cross-sectional research.


National Systems of Innovation  

Erik E. Lehmann and Julian Schenkenhofer

The pursuit of economic growth stands out as one of the main imperatives within modern economies. Nevertheless, economies differ considerably in their competitiveness. Theories on the endogeneity of growth agree on the value of knowledge creation and innovativeness to determine a country’s capability to achieve a sustained performance and to adapt to the dynamics of changing environments and faster information flows. To this effect, national institutional regimes shape nation-specific contexts and embed individuals and firms. The resulting incentive structures shape the attitudes and behavior of individuals and firms alike, whose interactions contribute to the accumulation and flow of knowledge among the nodes of their networks. National systems of innovation (NSIs) therefore embody a concept that aims to analyze the national innovation performance of economies. It rests its rationale in the variation of national institutions that shape the diffusion of technologies through the process of shared knowledge creation and the development of learning routines. Both public and private institutions are thought to interact in a given nation-specific institutional context that essentially affects incentive schemes and resource allocation of the involved economic agents in creating, sharing, distributing, absorbing, and commercializing knowledge. To this effect, public policy plays a key role in the NSI through building bridges between these actors, reducing information asymmetries, and providing them with resources from others within the system. The different actors contributing to the creation and diffusion of knowledge within the system are needed to exchange information and provide the engine for sustained economic growth. Universities, research institutes, companies and the individual entrepreneur are in charge of shaping their economic system in a way that resource and skill complementarities are exploited to the mutual benefit.


Natural Experiments in Business Research Methods  

Michael C. Withers and Chi Hon Li

Causal identification is an important consideration for organizational researchers as they attempt to develop a theoretical understanding of the causes and effects of organizational phenomena. Without valid causal identification, insights regarding organizational phenomena are challenging given their inherent complexity. In other words, organizational research will be limited in its scientific progression. Randomized controlled experiments are often suggested to provide the ideal study design necessary to address potential confounding effects and isolate true causal relationships. Nevertheless, only a few research questions lend themselves to this study design. In particular, the full randomization of subjects in the treatment and control group may not be possible due to the empirical constraints. Within the strategic management area, for example, scholars often use secondary data to examine research questions related to competitive advantage and firm performance. Natural experiments are increasingly recognized as a viable approach to identify causal relationships without true random assignment. Natural experiments leverage external sources of variation to isolate causal effects and avoid potentially confounding influences that often arise in observational data. Natural experiments require two key assumptions—the as-if random assignment assumption and the stable unit treatment value assumption. When these assumptions are met, natural experiments can be an important methodological approach for advancing causal understanding of organizational phenomena.


Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) and Its Diffusion  

Jan Dul

Necessary condition analysis (NCA) understands cause–effect relations in terms of “necessary but not sufficient.” This means that without the right level of the cause, a certain effect cannot occur. This is independent of other causes; thus, the necessary condition can become a single bottleneck, critical factor, constraint, disqualifier, or so on that blocks the outcome when it is absent. NCA can be used as a stand-alone method or in multimethod research to complement regression-based methods such as multiple linear regression (MLR) and structural equation modeling (SEM), as well as methods like fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). The NCA method consists of four stages: formulation of necessary condition hypotheses, collection of data, analysis of data, and reporting of results. Based on existing methodological publications about NCA, guidelines for good NCA practice are summarized. These guidelines show how to conduct NCA with the NCA software and how to report the results. The guidelines support (potential) users, readers, and reviewers of NCA to become more familiar with the method and to understand how NCA should be applied, as well as how results should be reported. NCA’s rapid diffusion and broad applicability in the social, technical, and medical sciences is illustrated by the growth of the number of article publications with NCA, the diversity of disciplines where NCA is applied, and the geographical spread of researchers who apply NCA.


The New Public Management and Public Management Studies  

Ewan Ferlie

The New Public Management (NPM) is a major and sustained development in the management of public services that is evident in some major countries. Its rise is often linked to broader changes in the underlying political economy, apparent since the 1980s, associated with the rise of the New Right as both a political and an intellectual movement. The NPM reform narrative includes the growth of markets and quasi-markets within public services, empowerment of management, and active performance measurement and management. NPM draws its intellectual inspiration from public choice theory and agency theory. NPM’s impact varies internationally, and not all countries have converged on the NPM model. The United Kingdom is often taken as an extreme case, but New Zealand and Sweden have also been highlighted as “high-impact” NPM states, while the United States has been assessed as a “medium impact” state. There has been a lively debate over whether NPM reforms have had beneficial effects or not. NPM’s claimed advantages include greater value for money and restoring governability to an overextended public sector. Its claimed disadvantages include an excessive concern for efficiency (rather than democratic accountability) and an entrenchment of agency-specific “silo thinking.” Much academic writing on the NPM has been political science based. However, different traditions of management scholarship have also usefully contributed in four distinct areas: (a) assessing and explaining performance levels in public agencies, (b) exploring their strategic management, (c) managing public services professionals, and (d) developing a more critical perspective on the resistance by staff to NPM reforms. While NPM scholarship is now a mature field, further work is needed in three areas to assess: (a) whether public agencies have moved to a post-NPM paradigm or whether NPM principles are still embedded even if dysfunctionally so, (b) the pattern of the international diffusion of NPM reforms and the characterization of the management knowledge system involved, and (c) NPM’s effects on professional staff working in public agencies and whether such staff incorporate, adapt, or resist NPM reforms.


New Venture Legitimacy  

Greg Fisher

Starting an entrepreneurial endeavor is an uncertain and ambiguous project. This uncertainty and ambiguity make it difficult for entrepreneurs to generate much needed resources and support. In order to address this difficulty, a new venture needs to establish legitimacy, which entails being perceived as desirable, proper, or appropriate within the socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions within which it operates. New venture legitimacy is generated from various sources and hence has three broad dimensions—a cognitive, a moral, and a pragmatic dimension. The cognitive dimension accounts for the extent to which the activities and purpose of a venture are understood by key audiences and how knowledge about that venture spreads. The moral dimension reflects the extent to which a venture is perceived to be doing the right thing. The pragmatic dimension accounts for the extent to which a new venture serves the interests of critical constituents. All three of these dimensions factor into a legitimacy assessment of a new venture. Legitimacy is important for new ventures because it helps them overcome their liabilities of newness, allowing them to mobilize resources and engage in transactions, thereby increasing their chances of survival and success. Although legitimacy matters for almost all new ventures, it is most critical if an entrepreneur engages in activities that are new and novel, such as establishing a new industry or market or creating a new product or technology. In these circumstances, it is most important for entrepreneurs to strategically establish and manage a new venture’s legitimacy. The strategic establishment and management of new venture legitimacy may entail arranging venture elements to conform with the existing environment, selecting key environments in which to operate, manipulating elements of the external environment to align with venture activities, or creating a whole new social context to accommodate a new venture. Enacting each of these new venture legitimation strategies may necessitate employing identity, associative, and organizational mechanisms. Identity mechanisms include cultural tools and identity claims such as images, symbols, and language by entrepreneurs to enhance new venture legitimacy. Associative mechanisms reflect the formation of relationships and connections with other individuals and entities to establish new venture legitimacy. Organizational mechanisms account for manipulating the organization and structure of a new venture and the achievement of success measures by that venture to attain legitimacy. Ultimately all of this is done so that various external parties, with different logics and perspectives, will evaluate a new venture as legitimate and be prepared to provide that venture with resources and support.


Online Communities and Knowledge Collaborations  

Samer Faraj and Takumi Shimizu

Online communities (OCs) are emerging as effective spaces for knowledge collaboration and innovation. As a new form of organizing, they offer possibilities for collaboration that extend beyond what is feasible in the traditional hierarchy. OC participants generate new ideas, talk about knowledge, and remix and build on each other’s contributions on a massive scale. OCs are characterized by fluidity in the resources that they draw upon, and they need to manage these tensions in order to sustain knowledge collaboration generatively. OCs sustain knowledge collaboration by facilitating both tacit and explicit knowledge flows. Further, OCs play a key role in supporting and sustaining the knowledge collaboration process that is necessary for open and user innovation. As collective spaces of knowledge flows, OCs are mutually constituted by digital technologies and participants. The future is bright for OC research adopting the knowledge perspective and focusing on how to sustain their knowledge flow.


Open Innovation  

Jennifer Kuan

Open Innovation, published in 2003, was a ground-breaking work by Henry Chesbrough that placed technology and innovation at the center of attention for managers of large firms. The term open innovation refers to the ways in which firms can generate and commercialize innovation by engaging outside entities. The ideas have attracted the notice of scholars, spawning annual world conferences and a large literature in technology and innovation management (including numerous journal special issues) that documents diverse examples of innovations and the often novel business models needed to make the most of those innovations. The role of business models in open innovation is the focus of Open Business Models, Chesbrough’s 2006 follow-up to Open Innovation. Managers have likewise flocked to Chesbrough’s approach, as the hundreds of thousands of hits from an online search using the term open innovation can attest. Surveys show that the majority of large firms were engaging in open innovation practices in 2017, compared to only 20% in 2003 when Open Innovation was published.


Organizational Happiness  

Howard Harris

Organizational happiness is an intuitively attractive idea, notwithstanding the difficulty of defining happiness. A preference for unhappiness rather than happiness in an organization would be out of tune with community expectations in most societies, as would an organization that promoted unhappiness. Some argue that organizational happiness is a misconception, that happiness is a personality trait and organizations cannot have personality. Others suggest that organizational happiness is derived from, or at least dependent on, the happiness of the individuals in the organization. A third approach involves virtue ethics, linking organizational happiness to virtuous organizations. Some discussion of the nature of happiness is needed before consideration of these three approaches to the concept of organizational happiness. If one leaves aside the notion of happiness as a psychological state, there remain three main views as to the nature of happiness: one based on a hedonistic view, which grounds happiness in pleasure, one based on the extent to which desire is satisfied, and one where happiness is linked to a life of virtuous activity and the fulfillment of human potential. Some would see no distinction between all three senses of happiness and what is called well-being. Whether or not organizations can experience happiness is to some extent determined by whether happiness is considered subjective well-being, fulfilled desire, or virtue and to some extent by one’s view of the moral nature of corporations. There are dangers in the unfettered pursuit of happiness. Empirical research is impacted by questions of definition, by changes over time for both individuals and society, and by the difficulty that arises from reliance on self-reported data. Recent decades have seen the publication of quantitative assessments of organizational happiness, despite the difficulty of constructing scales and manipulating data, and the problems of effectively taking into account cultural, organizational, and individual differences in concepts of happiness. Potential research questions fall into two groups, those that seek a better understanding of what happiness is and those that seek to collect data about happiness in pursuit of answers to questions about the benefits of happiness.


Organizational Innovation  

Fariborz Damanpour

Innovation is a complex construct and overlaps with a few other prevalent concepts such as technology, creativity, and change. Research on innovation spans many fields of inquiry including business, economics, engineering, and public administration. Scholars have studied innovation at different levels of analysis such as individual, group, organization, industry, and economy. The term organizational innovation refers to the studies of innovation in business and public organizations. Studies of innovations in organizations are multidimensional, multilevel, and context-dependent. They investigate what external and internal conditions induce innovation, how organizations manage innovation process, and in what ways innovation changes organizational conduct and outcome. Indiscreet application of findings from one discipline or context to another, lack of distinction between generating (creating) and adopting (using) innovations, and likening organizational innovation with technological innovation have clouded the understanding of this important concept, hampering its advancement. This article organizes studies of organizational innovation to make them more accessible to interested scholars and combines insights from various strands of innovation research to help them design and conduct new studies to advance the field. The perspectives of organizational competition and performance and organizational adaptation and progression are introduced to serve as platforms to position organizational innovation in the midst of innovation concepts, elaborate differences between innovating and innovativeness, and decipher key typologies, primary sets of antecedents, and performance consequences of generating and adopting innovations. The antecedents of organizational innovation are organized into three dimensions of environmental (external, contextual), organizational (structure, culture), and managerial (leadership, human capital). A five-step heuristic based on innovation type and process is proposed to ease understanding of the existing studies and select suitable dimensions and factors for conducting new studies. The rationale for the innovation–performance relationship in strands of organizational innovation research, and the employment of types of innovation and performance indicators, is articulated by first-mover advantage and performance gap theory, in conjunction with the perspectives of competition and performance and of adaptation and progression. Differences between effects of technological and nontechnological innovation and stand-alone and synchronous innovations are discussed to articulate how and to what extent patterns of the introduction of different types of innovation could contribute to organizational performance or effectiveness. In conclusion, ideas are proposed to demystify organizational innovation to allure new researches, facilitate their learning, and provide opportunities for the development of new studies to advance the state of knowledge on organizational innovation.


Organizational Learning and Adaptation  

Henrich R. Greve

Organizational learning theory is motivated by the observation that organizations learn by encoding inferences from experience into their behavior. It seeks to answer the questions of what kinds of experiences influence behaviors, how and under what circumstances behaviors change, and how new behaviors are stabilized and have consequences for organizations’ adaptation to their environment. Organizational learning research has as key mechanisms innovations and other triggering events that lead to major behavioral change, knowledge accumulation and experimentation that encourage incremental change, and interpretations that guide each of these processes. Organizational learning research has gained a central position in organizational theory because it has implications for organizational behaviors that also affect other theoretical perspectives such as institutional theory, organizational ecology, and resource dependence. Key research topics in organizational learning and adaptation are (a) organizational routines and their stability and change, (b) performance feedback and its consequences for organizational search and change, (c) managerial goal formation and coalition building, (d) managerial attention to goals and organizational activities, and (e) adaptive consequences of learning procedures. Each of these topics has seen significant research, but they are far from completing their empirical agenda. Recently, organizational learning research has been very active, especially on the topics of routines, performance feedback, and attention, resulting in a strong increase in learning and adaptation research in management journals.


Organizational Neuroscience  

Sebastiano Massaro and Dorotea Baljević

Organizational neuroscience—a novel scholarly domain using neuroscience to inform management and organizational research, and vice versa—is flourishing. Still missing, however, is a comprehensive coverage of organizational neuroscience as a self-standing scientific field. A foundational account of the potential that neuroscience holds to advance management and organizational research is currently a gap. The gap can be addressed with a review of the main methods, systematizing the existing scholarly literature in the field including entrepreneurship, strategic management, and organizational behavior, among others.


Paradox Theory and Corporate Governance: A Systems Perspective  

Timothy J. Hargrave

Stakeholder-shareholder contradictions experienced by managers are embedded in complex corporate governance systems that are composed of firm-level corporate governance bundles as well as higher-level institutional arrangements. This is known as the paradox perspective. This relationship is also knotted with other contradictions. To effectively manage stakeholder-shareholder contradictions, boards should seek to create and maintain a balance of power between stakeholders’ and shareholders’ interests within the totality of the corporate governance system, and not just within the governance bundle. To do so, they must design firm-level governance bundles to complement existing institutional arrangements. Because stakeholder-shareholder contradictions are highly complex, boards should govern them by establishing “learning spiral” processes in which they experiment and use trial-and-error learning to progressively adjust the governance bundle. While learning spiral processes will tend to involve learning by testing and produce incremental changes in governance bundles, exogenous shocks and changes to the distribution of power within the board can result in learning by discovery and more significant changes in governance arrangements. Firm-level mechanisms that provide managers discretion while also holding them accountable for achieving particular outcomes are more likely to stimulate learning spirals than are policies that prescribe particular structures, processes, or practices. So, too, government policies that combine discretion with accountability will be more effective than more prescriptive policies. Finally, paradox research suggests that boards under pressure to prioritize one pole of the contradiction (either stakeholders’ or shareholders’ interests) over the other rather than maintaining a continuous balance between the two poles can do so—as long as they employ deliberative spaces to engage in learning spiral processes that restore dynamic equilibrium in the long term.


Pathways in Stakeholder Research  

Ronald K. Mitchell, Bradley R. Agle, and J. Robert Mitchell

Stakeholder-focused research seeks to explain relationships among firms and stakeholders, using approaches that predominantly follow normative, instrumental, or descriptive pathways. Following circulation of the 1963 Stanford Memo and the 1984 publication of Freeman, the stakeholder perspective has become a sizable area of research in diverse fields, with growing influence in the business community as indicated in 2019 by the commitment of the US Business Roundtable to stakeholder principles. Still, the tendency to offer stakeholder theory as a replacement for neoclassical theories of the firm somewhat limits its adoption. An approach more likely to advance the trend toward an increasing stakeholder orientation is one of theory collaboration, in which researchers explore how self-interested action in the market system can be tempered by others-interested action. To this aim, the three stakeholder research pathways might be extended, as follows: (a) adding a moral and ethical leadership component to normative stakeholder theory research to move from a philosophy-centric literature toward one that better explains the how and why of normatively based actions toward stakeholders; (b) adopting a stakeholder-work-focused approach to instrumental stakeholder theory research to afford it the benefits of moral neutrality; and (c) returning the focus of descriptive stakeholder theory research to stakeholders as “natural persons,” as compared to corporations as “juristic persons.” With these extensions, scholars can encourage the ongoing reorientation in society toward the stakeholders of firms.


Pay Transparency: Conceptualization and Implications for Employees, Employers, and Society as a Whole  

Peter A. Bamberger

Pay transparency refers to the degree to which pay communication policies and practices governing employee pay knowledge facilitate or restrict the sharing of pay-related information. While relatively few enterprises have adopted transparent pay-communication practices, a variety of institutional factors, such as government regulations and social norms, are driving employers to provide their employees with greater pay knowledge. Consensus has emerged around the existence of three main dimensions or forms of pay transparency, namely pay-outcome transparency, pay-process transparency, and pay-communication transparency. Research findings indicate that pay-outcome transparency, which relates to the degree to which pay rate information is disclosed by the employer, has both beneficial and problematic consequences, depending on the outcome. For example, while pay-outcome transparency has been consistently found to be associated with enhanced individual task performance and reduced gender-based pay discrepancies, it has also been associated with higher levels of envy, diminished helping, heightened levels of counterproductive work behavior, and pay compression (which could elicit negative sorting effects). In contrast, pay-process transparency, which relates to the degree to which employees are informed about the parameters underlying reward-related decisions, has been found to have largely beneficial consequences and few unintended negative consequences. Finally, while it is least studied, pay-communication transparency, capturing the degree to which restrictions are placed on employees’ ability to share pay knowledge with others, is positively associated with employee perceptions of employer fairness and trustworthiness and can have significant implications for employee retention.


Person–Environment Fit: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptualizations, and Outcomes  

Rein De Cooman and Wouter Vleugels

The idea of person–environment (PE) fit builds upon interactional psychology, which suggests that the interplay between personal and environmental attributes is the primary driver of human behavior. The “environment” in PE fit research can take many different forms, with organizational environments being one of the most important settings with which people may fit or misfit. Henceforth, PE fit is defined as the compatibility that occurs when individuals match the characteristics of the work environment they inhabit. The notion that individuals with personal needs, values, goals, abilities, and personalities and organizational environments with distinctive demands, supplies, values, and cultures are differentially compatible and that “fitting in” is an evolving process that triggers behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses has been well accepted since PE fit was introduced as an independent theory in the mid-1970s. Presently, the PE fit idea has established itself as a firm research framework and has surfaced in many different literatures, ranging from applied and vocational psychology to human resource management, resulting in a plethora of theories that cover many different views on, and various conceptualizations of, PE fit. From an individual (i.e., employee) perspective, fit theories suggest that fit is a sought-after and rewarding experience in and of itself, especially when multiple types of fit (e.g., fit with the job and with the organization) co-occur. However, from a team, organizational, and societal perspective, the advantages of high levels of fit must be weighed against its potential costs, including favoritism, conformity, and homogeneity, which may eventually result in organizational inertia and the reproduction of inequality.


Perspectives on Help-Receiving in the Workplace: Review and Recommendations  

Victoria S. Scotney, Cavan V. Bonner, and Louis Tay

Helping behaviors and exchanges have long been studied in organizational research. However, it has generally kept a spotlight on the helper and the promotion of helping behaviors rather than help-receiving. While giving help in the workplace is generally construed as a desirable employee behavior (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors [OCB]), help-receiving in the workplace can be experienced positively and/or negatively. Nevertheless, receiving help is vital to the safety, performance, and well-being of employees. In conceptualizing help received, researchers should consider questions related to the form, initiator, and source of help, as well as the distinction between the behavior and outcomes of help. Careful consideration of these questions can help increase the precision and contribution of future research and lead to an understanding of the multidimensional nature of help-receiving in the workplace. Many determinants and consequences of help-receiving in the workplace have had mixed results across studies, but differences in the conceptualization and operationalization of help-received can help explain differential relationships to other variables. Understanding key determinants and consequences of help-receiving can move scholarly discussion toward a holistic view of considering both help-giving and help-receiving. Ultimately, helping in the workplace is an interactional phenomenon; to understand it, we need a deeper understanding of recipient experiences. Implications for future organizational research include the need for precise conceptualizations of the form, initiation, source, and outcomes of help, and the need for examining particular helping episodes in detail, as well as the cumulative effects of seeking and receiving help over long periods of time.


Platformizing Organizations: A Synthesis of the Literature  

Pankaj Setia, Franck Soh, and Kailing Deng

Organizations are widely building digital platforms to transform operations. Digital platforms represent a new way of organizing, as they leverage technology to interconnect providers and consumers. Using digital technologies, organizations are platformizing operations, as they open their rigid and closed boundaries by interconnecting providers and consumers through advanced application programming interfaces (APIs). Early research examined platformized development of technology products, with software development companies—such as Mozilla Foundation—leading the way. However, contemporary organizations are platformizing nontechnology offerings (e.g., ride-sharing or food delivery). With growing interest in platforms, the basic tenets underlying platformization are still not clear. This article synthesizes previous literature examining platforms, with the aim of examining what platformization is and how and why organizations platformize.


Pride in Organizations  

Yuen Lam Wu, Prisca Brosi, and Jason D. Shaw

Pride is a self-conscious emotion evoked when individuals perceive themselves attaining an outcome that is congruent with their goals and being responsible for achieving a socially valued outcome. The experience of pride can influence one’s own behaviors but the accompanying expressions can also elicit behavioral changes in observers. Although pride is a positive emotion and provides individuals with psychological rewards and pleasant feelings, accumulated empirical findings show a broad range of consequences in response to both the experience and expression of pride in organizations. In attempts to explain the various outcomes, pride researchers have conceptualized the construct in different ways. Some researchers examine pride as a unified emotion that arises from the attainment of positive outcomes; others adopt a multifaceted view to explain its divergent consequences. The multifaceted view suggests that pride can be authentic or hubristic depending on whether the achievement is assumed to arise from one’s efforts or abilities, and promotive or preventive depending on whether the achievement is assumed to result from promotion-related eagerness or prevention-related vigilance. Pride may also be differentiated into specific facets based on whether it is elicited by the achievement of performance or moral standards. Furthermore, as the individual self is embedded in social contexts, pride can arise from group belongingness. Thus, the conceptualization of pride can extend beyond the individual level to cover group and organizational pride. This article concludes that pride is an important source of motivation for both individuals who experience it and those who express it in organizations. Yet, what outcomes or behaviors result depends crucially on the source of pride because pride leads individuals to repeat behaviors attributed as the original cause of the positive feeling. Although pride is commonly engendered by achievements and socially desirable outcomes, it can also arise from immoral behaviors when those behaviors are assumed to benefit the organization. The outcomes of pride experience and expression are also contingent on individual and contextual boundary conditions.


Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises  

David Parker

Theoretical developments in economics, alongside evidence that state-owned enterprises were often inefficient and unresponsive to consumers, led to a substantial program of privatizations from the 1980s. Privatization can take a number of forms, from the outright sale of state-owned assets to private investors to forms of public-private partnership, such as contracting out and franchising of public services. Privatization was promoted in both developed and developing countries, and large-scale privatizations occurred in Europe, Latin America, China, and the former communist economies of Central and Eastern Europe, in particular. Privatization revenues rose substantially from the late 1980s internationally. Taking the years 1988 to 2016, revenues from sales are estimated to have been around $3,634bn. In terms of main sectors of the economy affected, privatizations have particularly occurred in telecommunications, transport and logistics (mainly railways, airlines, and airports), other utility businesses (especially energy companies), and finance. Numerous empirical studies suggest that the performance of the privatized businesses and services has been mixed. While privatization has led to some impressive economic gains, in a number of countries, wider governance issues relating to political and legal systems have led to disappointing outcomes. Privatization has not always led to the removal of state interference in the management of businesses and services. Corruption and cronyism have blighted a number of privatizations. State sell-offs have led to income and wealth redistribution with gainers and losers from the process. Some privatizations have led to spectacular capital gains for investors. The impact of privatization on employment and working conditions remains unclear. There are a number of issues that deserve further investigation, namely the consequences of privatization for technological change and innovation, competition policy, and income and wealth distribution. A further subject for investigation is how the effective and efficient management of state-owned enterprises can be best achieved. The boundary between the private and public sectors remains fluid, with a number of enterprises returning to state ownership as political and economic conditions change.