Jack Carson, Jacob Waddingham and Jeremy Mackey
The purpose of this research is to describe organization members' attributions for managerial responses to obviously externally caused crises. The authors draw from attribution…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to describe organization members' attributions for managerial responses to obviously externally caused crises. The authors draw from attribution theory research and the actor-observer bias to argue that organization members' proximity to managerial crisis response is a key determinant of organization members' affective and behavioral outcomes following a crisis.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors develop a conceptual dual-process model of attributions that explains why organization members' judgments of managerial responsibility and associated outcomes differ depending on organization members' proximity to crisis response action.
Findings
The authors focus on organization members' attributions for the failure of managerial crisis responses to obviously externally caused crisis events. The authors present propositions regarding the impact of organization members' potential biases on their attributions for managerial crisis response. Then, the authors delineate how action proximity can assuage negative outcomes of managerial crisis response failure by encouraging an attitude of understanding and awareness of situational challenges.
Originality/value
The authors diverge from prior applications of attribution theory to crisis management by focusing on organization members' attributions of managerial crisis response failure, rather than attributions for the initial cause of the crisis itself. The authors also extend prior work that primarily focuses on crisis response strategies by instead elaborating on how organization members' attributions operate in the wake of their management's failure to effectively respond to an obviously externally caused crisis.
Details
Keywords
Willem Standaert and Elena Mazurova
This study aims to identify how the use of digital technology for performance and commercial aspects of action sports can both create and destruct value.
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to identify how the use of digital technology for performance and commercial aspects of action sports can both create and destruct value.
Design/methodology/approach
Exploratory research based on 30 interviews with coaches, athletes, judges, federations, fans and sponsoring organizations from Europe, across five action sport disciplines that are included in the Olympic program.
Findings
Value creation of digital technology use related to the performance aspect of action sports fall into two categories: performance enhancement and performance evaluation. Value creation related to the commercialization aspect of action sports relate to specific technologies, in particular a video streaming and a centralized data and engagement platform, as well as to possibilities for betting and making sponsoring more measurable. Notably, such value creation opportunities are also accompanied by possible value destruction, as they interfere with the ethos of action sports (i.e. the unique nature and special culture).
Originality/value
Drawing from service-dominant logic and adopting the value creation/destruction lens, this paper is the first to study how digitalization in the areas of performance and commercialization may further intensify tensions related to the ethos of action sports. Our approach is inclusive in terms of the types of digital technologies, action sport disciplines and stakeholders considered.