When teams in organizations are assembled to perform contingent tasks, team members carry with them experiences of prior interaction with partners in different teams. Focal team members share collaborative experiences to the extent that they worked with common external prior partners. Extending current research on team effectiveness, we investigate how shared collaborative experience (SCE) affects team performance. Consistent with the established understanding of team processes as carrying both a teamwork and a taskwork component, we conceptualize SCE as having two distinct dimensions that we call SCE extent and SCE diversity. We posit that high SCE extent increases the ability of teams to refine their teamwork processes, increasing their performance through enhanced coordination and reflexivity. We argue that high SCE diversity hinders the ability of teams to form a shared understanding of task demands, thus undermining team performance. Furthermore, we investigate the contingent effect of task complexity on the relationship between SCE and performance. We argue that the benefits of implicit coordination and the drawbacks of experience diversity decrease as tasks become more complex and require more explicit coordination and wider repertoires of responses. These predictions find support in an analysis of 1343 robot-assisted surgery operations performed by 114 surgeons during a four-year period in a private university hospital. By explicitly recognizing how team members benefit from the network of their shared prior partners, our study contributes to developing a new approach to study the effectiveness of temporary teams in organizations.

Sampling data from organizations and humans associated with those organizations is essential to organizational research. Much of what we know about organizations is based on such work. However, this empirical foundation may be compromised, calling into question the field's theoretical and empirical findings. Studies often sample data from relatively similar, narrow contexts, so a lack of sample diversity accumulates in the discipline. To conceptualize this lack of sample diversity and examine its prevalence across research publications, we conduct a pre-registered systematic review of articles from 2018 to 2022 in six top management journals and another systematic review of articles from 2013 to 2022 in six additional journals (not pre-registered). Our review assesses sample country diversity while also exploring within-country factors that are relatively under or oversampled, such as the size or industry of the sampled organization. We find a lack of sample diversity, for instance, a strong bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples and an underrepresentation of small and medium-sized enterprises in organizational research. Based on the findings and past work, we introduce a conceptual framework for sample diversity along three dimensions: the sample's geographical, organizational, and personnel contexts. Additionally, we discuss factors that contribute to a lack of sample diversity and propose guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance it. Overall, this article seeks to improve the robustness and relevance of theoretical and empirical organizational research, thereby preventing the formulation of misinformed policies and practices in both organizational settings and broader societal contexts.

Research suggests that teams can greatly enhance their performance through boundary management, which comprises activities that establish, maintain, and regulate linkages with the surrounding environment. However, such performance gains do not materialize equally in all instances, and some teams struggle to benefit from boundary management. Integrating insights from social network and team-level resource allocation theories, we develop a contingency framework that considers the internal organization of a team's boundary management (i.e., the carrier, target, and type of such activities) as a key moderating factor that accounts for the varying effects. To test this framework, we use a meta-analytic approach that synthesizes >30 years of empirical research (i.e., 85 primary studies covering 10,848 teams). Our results show a positive main effect of team boundary management on team performance. Crucially, these performance benefits are more pronounced when the target of boundary management is extraorganizational rather than inside the home organization and when the type of boundary management activities is boundary spanning (e.g., coordination, representation, or information search) rather than boundary strengthening (e.g., buffering, guarding, or sentry activities). Moreover, boundary management is more effective when executed by formal team leaders rather than team members, and our results tentatively suggest that this may reflect differences in effectiveness between leaders and members in boundary strengthening, rather than boundary spanning. Overall, our findings advance theory on team boundary management by clarifying previously ambiguous findings and illustrating how teams can design their boundary management activities to be most effective.

An intractable conflict environment (ICE) is an extreme context in which deep, unsolvable conflict between groups is central to the actors within it. While non-ICEs are typically assumed in organizational research, ICEs are increasingly common contexts for organizations. Moreover, this context influences peoples' interpretation of potential organizational conflict incidents inside the organization and therefore the likelihood and emotional intensity of organizational conflict events. Whereas a potential conflict incident, such as a disagreement over how to complete a task, may be perceived as benign in a more typical environment, the same incident is more likely to be interpreted as much more negative and emotionally intense when taking place in an ICE, increasing the frequency of conflict events (conflictual behavior). Prior work suggests that, in a typical environment, promotion-framed (achieving positives) interventions reduce conflict more than prevention-framed (avoiding negatives) interventions by temporarily inducing promotion orientations that reduce the likelihood of interpreting conflict. However, we argue an ICE induces a strong prevention focus, which overrides promotion-framed interventions. Instead, we argue in an ICE, a prevention- rather than promotion-framed intervention is likely to be more effective because it "matches" the strong prevention focus. To test this prediction, we examine the difference in number of conflict events in farming cooperatives in rural Ghana (an ICE) after instituting prevention- versus promotion-framed interventions aimed at addressing conflict. Quantitative and qualitative findings from a 9-month field experiment support our hypothesis.

Integrating a social identity approach with Cortina's (2008) theorizing about selective incivility as modern discrimination, we examine how identification-with an organization, with one's gender, and as a feminist-shapes bystanders' interpretations and responses to witnessed incivility (i.e., interpersonal acts of disrespect) and selective incivility (i.e., incivility motivated by targets' social group membership) toward women at work. We propose that bystanders with stronger organizational identification are likely to perceive incivility toward female colleagues as discrimination and intervene, but female bystanders with stronger gender identification are likely to do so. Results from two-wave field data in a cross-lagged panel design (Study 1,  = 336) showed that organizational identification negatively predicted observed selective incivility 1 year later but revealed no evidence of an effect of female bystanders' gender identification. We replicated and extended these results with a vignette experiment (Study 2,  = 410) and an experimental recall study (Study 3,  = 504). Findings revealed a "dark side" of organizational identification: strongly identified bystanders were less likely to perceive incivility as discrimination, but there were again no effects of women's gender identification. Study 3 also showed that bystander feminist identification increased intervention via perceived discrimination. These results raise doubts that female bystanders are more sensitive to recognizing other women's mistreatment as discrimination, but more strongly identified feminists (male or female) were more likely to intervene. Although strongly organizationally identified bystanders were more likely to overlook women's mistreatment, they were also more likely to intervene once discrimination was apparent.

Despite the prevalence and importance of multiple goals for organizations, research on how organizations respond to performance on multiple goals continues to be limited and has examined only search intensity as the focal response, ignoring that search may occur in different locations. We extend the research on multiple goals by developing and testing novel theory on the relationship between performance feedback on multiple goals and the locus of search. Drawing upon the behavioral theory of the firm and using panel data from global pharmaceutical firms, we first show that when performance is below aspirations on a primary goal, a firm's propensity to engage in distal search increases along both the technological (i.e., familiar vs. unfamiliar search) and the organizational dimension (i.e., internal vs. external search). However, building on more recent literature that points to the need to consider multiple goals of unequal importance and, specifically, the self-enhancement perspective, we argue and find that performance on a secondary goal modifies this pattern, particularly when performance on a primary goal is unsatisfactory. Under feedback inconsistency, where performance on a primary goal is low but performance on a secondary goal is high, decision-makers decrease distal search to both unfamiliar technological areas and areas external to the organization. Our theory and findings highlight the importance of performance feedback regarding multiple goals in regulating the key locus of search choices and extend research on self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback.

Traditional agency theory views the proper role of the board chair exclusively as providing independent oversight to monitor and control the CEO. Recently, firms have introduced innovations in board leadership that have confounded these theoretical expectations. One notable innovation is the executive board chair, a corporate governance hybrid responsible for both oversight and strategic decision-making, challenging agency theory's prescription that the two activities remain separate. In this study, we argue that an executive board chair position can resolve the trade-off between independent oversight and involvement in strategy and therefore generate a performance advantage. We also predict that, owing to the blurring of lines between the CEO and board chair roles that the executive board chair position creates, the relationship will be stronger the greater the need to monitor and control the CEO but weaker when organizational complexity and board leadership demands are greater. Analysis of S&P .

The relationship between institutional logics and organizational legitimacy remains largely unaddressed in organizational theory and management research. We explore how individual evaluators primed with a particular institutional logic react to organizational signals sent by a firm's product/service pricing and by its engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. In three experimental studies, we identify how the activation of a market logic or a family logic in evaluators' minds moderates the effect of pricing and CSR engagement signals on their judgments of legitimacy of a firm, as well as on their behavioral intentions. An unexpected finding from our study was that, while participants primed with the family logic reacted positively to a CSR engagement signal sent by the firm but remained indifferent to a market-based premium-pricing signal, those primed with the market logic reacted positively to both premium-pricing and CSR engagement signals, suggesting that CSR engagement forms part of their understanding of the market logic.

This research responds to calls for a more integrative approach to leadership theory by identifying subpopulations of followers who share a common set of perceptions with respect to their leader's behaviors. Six commonly researched styles were investigated: abusive supervision, transformational leadership (TFL), contingent reward (CR), passive and active management-by-exception (MBE-P and MBE-A, respectively), and laissez faire/avoidant (LF/A). Study hypotheses were tested with data from four independent samples of working adults, three from followers ( = 855) and a validation sample of leaders ( = 505). Using latent profile analysis, three pattern cohorts emerged across all four samples. One subpopulation of followers exhibited a constructive pattern with higher scores on TFL and CR relative to other styles. Two cohorts exhibited destructive patterns, one where the passive styles of MBE-A, MBE- and LF/A were high relative to the other styles (passive) and one where the passive styles co-occurred with abusive supervision (passive-abusive). Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we confirmed differential associations with work-related (i.e., burnout, vigor, perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment) and context-free (i.e., physical health and psychological well-being) outcomes. The passive-abusive pattern was devastating for physical health, yet passiveness without abuse was damaging for psychological well-being. Interestingly, we find a clear demarcation between passiveness as "benign neglect" and passiveness as an intentional and deliberate form of leadership aimed at disrupting or undermining followers-hence, the two faces of passiveness: "bad" and "ugly." We discuss the novel insights offered by a pattern (person)-oriented analytical strategy and the broader theoretical and practical implications for leadership research.

To date there has been little systematic organization of the extensive literature on the processes and mechanisms shaping social relationships in and around organizations. In an analysis of 372 studies from this literature, we identified a broad spectrum of assumptions, priorities, and relational issues emerging from multiple disciplines and theoretical lenses. Three dominant perspectives surfaced in our study: economic, organizational, and interactionist. Each manifests distinctive ontologies of social relations, actors, relational processes, and modes of social embedding. The rich variety of relationships and causal patterns discovered characterizes more fully these perspectives, suggesting opportunities for further research within each, and a wider range of conceptual options to target relational paradigms toward different types of organizations, problems, and levels of analysis. It also brings to light the pluralistic nature of social relations in organizational contexts and the processes by which they become embedded.

Competitive dynamics research has focused on studying whether rivals are able and likely to carry out competitive actions, typically by examining indirect reasons such as characteristics of the actions themselves, the firms involved, or the competitive context. We explore why rivals initiate a specific competitive action at a particular time and situation. Drawing from the philosophy of action literature, we introduce the concept of competitive rationales to examine the primary reasons that cause tactical actions. Given the rapid exchanges characterizing tactical competitive dynamics, we conducted an inductive, multicase study to explore the reasons behind over 800 discrete tactical decisions carried out by 9 professional basketball coaches during 15 basketball games. To garner insight, we develop a conceptual framework revealing their types and scope. Even during intense head-to-head rivalry, most rationales were not rivalrous but were instead organizational-to optimize resource use, strategic consistency, and reputation-or social-to manage relationships. Moreover, the three main types of rationales varied in scope, extending beyond immediate competitive situations and rivals to address longer term, strategic outcomes, and assorted stakeholders. Thus, our analysis reveals these rationales to be complex and potentially difficult for rivals to decipher. It also recasts each component of the dominant awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) model of rivalry, suggesting that awareness is challenged by subtle rationales, motivation drives not only action but also forbearance, and capability is both a requirement and product of action.

This article builds a broad theory to explain how people respond, both biologically and behaviorally, when targeted with incivility in organizations. Central to our theorizing is a multifaceted framework that yields four quadrants of target response: reciprocation, retreat, relationship repair, and recruitment of support. We advance the novel argument that these behaviors not only stem from biological change within the body but also stimulate such change. Behavioral responses that revolve around affiliation and produce positive social connections are most likely to bring biological benefits. However, social and cultural features of an organization can stand in the way of affiliation, especially for employees holding marginalized identities. When incivility persists over time and employees lack access to the resources needed to recover, we theorize, downstream consequences can include harms to their physical health. Like other aspects of organizational life, this biobehavioral theory of incivility response is anything but simple. But it may help explain how seemingly "small" insults can sometimes have large effects, ultimately undermining workforce well-being. It may also suggest novel sites for incivility intervention, focusing on the relational and inclusive side of work. The overarching goal of this article is to motivate new science on workplace incivility, new knowledge, and ultimately, new solutions.

In proposing two evolutionary trajectories, we demonstrate some paradoxical aspects of strategic resources that contrast with current theorizing. First, we discuss how an abundance of resources can subject an organization to vulnerabilities, taking a firm from competitive strength to potential weakness. Second, we describe an opposite trajectory in which a lack of resources can lead to reactions engendering significant strengths. In both cases, the effects of resource abundance and poverty on executive perceptions and conduct, organizational arrangements, and strategic behavior can play important roles in trajectories of value creation and erosion.

Organizational adaptation is equivocal. On the one hand, the concept is ubiquitous in management research and acts as the glue binding together the central issues of organizational change, performance, and survival. On the other hand, it lurks around in various guises (e.g., "fit," "alignment," "congruence," and "strategic change") studied from multiple theoretical streams (e.g., behavioral, resource based, and institutional) and at different levels of analysis (e.g., organization and industry levels). In a novel approach to reviewing 443 adaptation articles that leverages both computational and hand-coded analysis, we produce an interactive visual of the themes most studied by adaptation scholars. We inductively draw out a definition of adaptation as intentional decision making undertaken by organizational members, leading to observable actions that aim to reduce the distance between an organization and its economic and institutional environments. We then review the literature across three main areas of inquiry and six theoretical perspectives that surfaced from our analysis and identify 11 difficulties that have hampered adaptation research in the past 50 years. Our review suggests ways to address these difficulties to enable future research to develop and cumulate.

Global online platforms match firms with service providers around the world, in services ranging from software development to copywriting and graphic design. Unlike in traditional offshore outsourcing, service providers are predominantly one-person microproviders located in emerging-economy countries not necessarily associated with offshoring and often disadvantaged by negative country images. How do these microproviders survive and thrive? We theorize global platforms through transaction cost economics (TCE), arguing that they are a new technology-enabled offshoring institution that emerges in response to cross-border information asymmetries that hitherto prevented microproviders from participating in offshoring markets. To explain how platforms achieve this, we adapt signaling theory to a TCE-based model and test our hypotheses by analyzing 6 months of transaction records from a leading platform. To help interpret the results and generalize them beyond a single platform, we introduce supplementary data from 107 face-to-face interviews with microproviders in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Individuals choose microprovidership when it provides a better return on their skills and labor than employment at a local (offshoring) firm. The platform acts as a signaling environment that allows microproviders to inform foreign clients of their quality, with platform-generated signals being the most informative signaling type. Platform signaling disproportionately benefits emerging-economy providers, allowing them to partly overcome the effects of negative country images and thus diminishing the importance of home country institutions. Global platforms in other factor and product markets likely promote cross-border microbusiness through similar mechanisms.

Interorganizational scholars have long thought about how firms learn through buyer relationships. However, it is not clear whether dyadic learning gains are susceptible to imitation or are only inherited and whether these gains decay over time or are of an enduring nature. In this paper, I import ideas from the organizational imprinting literature into the interorganizational literature and apply the knowledge-based and learning views of the firm to examine how suppliers with differing initial endowments learn to work together with a buyer. The findings from an inductive multiple case study of spinoff and nonspinoff suppliers of an automotive manufacturer parent in Turkey reveal the following three learning mechanisms: informal relationships and social capital, transfer of routines, and shared identity. Although nonspinoff suppliers also exhibit evidence of several learning processes to a certain extent, spinoff suppliers' deeper relationship, in particular their shared identity, with their parent based on their direct parental heritage tends to be more difficult for them to copy. No matter how hard nonspinoff suppliers try, they have "one hand tied behind their back," they remain stepchildren, and they never truly become a biological child. By providing a novel setting and a rich set of qualitative data on the learning behaviors of these two types of suppliers, this study teases apart the knowledge and resources that can be "learned from external sources" versus those that can "only be inherited."

This paper presents the most comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the literature on cultural distance and firm internationalization to date. We analyze the effects of cultural distance on key strategic decisions throughout the entire process of internationalization. For the preinvestment stage, we examine the decisions on where to invest (location choice), how much to invest (degree of ownership), and how to organize the foreign expansion (entry and establishment mode). For the postinvestment stage, we examine the decisions of how to integrate the foreign subsidiary into the organization (transfer of practices) as well as the performance effects of cultural distance at both the subsidiary and the firm level. We find that firms are less likely to expand to culturally distant locations but if they do, they prefer greenfield investments and integrate subsidiaries more through transfer of management practices. Cultural distance does not seem to affect how much capital firms invest and whether they enter through a joint venture or full ownership. Interestingly, cultural distance has a strong negative effect on subsidiary performance but no effect on the performance of the whole multinational company. In addition, we find that the effects of cultural distance are not sensitive to time, but they are sensitive to the cultural framework used (e.g., Hofstede vs. Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) and the home country of the company (developed vs. emerging market). Based on our study, we feel confident to offer some theoretical insights, recommendations for improving the validity and reliability of cultural-distance research, and ideas for future research.

Due to growing work-family demands, supervisors need to effectively exhibit family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Drawing on social support theory and using data from two samples of lower wage workers, the authors develop and validate a measure of FSSB, defined as behaviors exhibited by supervisors that are supportive of families. FSSB is conceptualized as a multidimensional superordinate construct with four subordinate dimensions: emotional support, instrumental support, role modeling behaviors, and creative work-family management. Results from multilevel confirmatory factor analyses and multilevel regression analyses provide evidence of construct, criterion-related, and incremental validity. The authors found FSSB to be significantly related to work-family conflict, work-family positive spillover, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions over and above measures of general supervisor support.