Search results

With the rise in public awareness of corporate social responsibility, business leaders are increasingly expected to recognize the needs and demands of multiple stakeholders. There may, however, be unintended consequences of this expectation for organizational managers who engage these needs and demands with a high level of moral attentiveness. This study aims to investigate the indirect effect of managerial moral attentiveness on managerial turnover intent, serially mediated by moral dissonance and moral stress.

Multi-phase survey data were collected from 130 managers within a large sales organization regarding experiences of moral dissonance and moral stress. The authors analyzed the relation of these experiences to measures of moral attentiveness and turnover intent using structural equation modeling.

Results support a serial mediation model, with a positive, indirect effect between moral attentiveness and turnover intent among managers through moral dissonance and moral stress. Overall, the results suggest that expecting business leaders to be morally attentive may result in greater moral dissonance and moral stress, potentially impacting their intentions to stay with the organization.

Implementing positive practices toward processing moral dissonance and reducing moral stress may be a mechanism toward retaining ethically inclined organizational leaders.

This study is the first to identify moral attentiveness as an antecedent to turnover intent within managers. It also establishes the serial mechanisms of moral dissonance and moral stress and provides suggestions on how to retain morally attentive managers by actively managing those mechanisms.

This article takes issue with Nick Carr’s thesis, developed in his book and in articles for Harvard Business Review and the Journal of Business Strategy, that IT has become a commodity. The thesis, write the authors, draws upon a straw man argument based on analogy and gross simplification of the nature of IT investment. Carr argues that IT has become a commodity, much as railroads and electricity became in the past, and therefore it cannot possibly produce competitive advantage. But IT is different from earlier technologies in two fundamental ways. First, its growth and change potential is unprecedented and still continues, and second, it is the most versatile and flexible technological platform the human race has ever created. Carr also fails to emphasize how much more important IT has become as a consequence of its ubiquity in executing successful business strategies. Telling people that they won’t obtain competitive advantage from IT will lead them to pay less attention to it, leading to worse results, and a self‐fulfilling prophecy. IT will indeed become incapable of contributing to competitive advantage. Yet it is very difficult to find examples of large scale strategic successes and failures in the past decade in which IT was not a contributor to the result.

New ventures search for external knowledge to break through the prevailing knowledge and resource constraints. The influence of search mechanisms can be assessed against the backdrop of internal factors such as the venture’s knowledge integration (KI) capability. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of knowledge search depth (KSD) and knowledge search breadth (KSB) on innovation outcomes and asks to what extent such effects are mediated by levels of KI.

The authors distinguish between the current depth and width of the firm’s knowledge base as to detect their possible moderating effects. The authors test the model using data collected from 167 Chinese start-ups.

The results show that KSB has a positive effect on KI and innovation performance, but KSD has an inverted U-shaped effect on KI and innovation performance. KI plays a mediating role between external knowledge search and innovation performance, while the breadth of the venture’s knowledge base positively moderates the relationship between explorative KI and innovation performance, and the depth of knowledge base positively moderates the relationship between exploitive KI and innovation performance.

These results differ from earlier research focusing on mature enterprises.

During hyper‐competition, disruptive technological innovations germinate causing significant changes in software development organizations' (SDOs) knowledge. The scope and flexibility of the SDO's knowledge base increases; its volatility and the demand for efficiency grows. This creates germane needs to translate abstract knowledge into workable knowledge fast while delivering solutions. The aim of this article is to examine SDOs' responses to such learning challenges through an inductive, theory‐generating study which addresses the question: how did some SDOs successfully learn under these circumstances?

The article takes the form of an exploratory, theory‐building case study investigating seven SDOs' web‐development activities and associated changes in their learning routines during the dot‐com boom.

The SDOs increased their ability to learn broadly, deeply, and quickly – a learning contingency referred as “hyper‐learning” – by inventing, selecting and configuring learning routines. Two sets of learning routines enabled broad and flexible exploratory‐knowledge identification and exploratory‐knowledge assimilation: distributed gate‐keeping; and brokering of external knowledge. Likewise, two sets of learning routines enabled fast and efficient exploitative‐knowledge transformation and exploitation: simple design rules; and peer networks. The authors further observed that SDOs created systemic connections between these routines allowing for fast switching and dynamic interlacing concurrently within the same organizational sub‐units. The authors refer to this previously unidentified form of organizational learning as parallel ambidexterity.

The study contributes to organizational learning theories as applied to SDOs by recognizing a condition where knowledge scope, flexibility, efficiency and volatility increase. It also argues a new form of ambidexterity, parallel ambidexterity, was created and implemented in response to this set of requirements. Parallel ambidexterity differs from traditional exploitative forms where SDOs focus on improving and formalizing their operational knowledge and improving efficiency. It also differs from traditional explorative forms where SDOs focus on identifying and grafting and distributing external abstract knowledge by expanding knowledge scope, flexibility. Most importantly, parallel ambidexterity differs from the widely recognized forms of sequential and structural ambidexterity because exploration and exploitation take place at the same time within the same unit in holographic ways to address volatility. Here learning outcome are applied directly and fast to the tasks for which the learning was initiated.

The exponential growth of digital technologies and their increased importance in both organizational and everyday life poses new challenges to paradox research within management studies. Management scholars taking a paradoxical lens have predominantly focused on social paradoxes within the confines of the organization. Technological change has often been treated as an exogenous force bringing previously latent tensions to the fore. Such newly salient paradoxes are viewed as instigating managerial sensemaking and exploration of strategic responses that will re-establish equilibrium. Our investigation of how digital innovations disrupted London taxiwork and global music distribution shows something different. The paradoxical tensions raised by emerging digital technologies inevitably play out at industry and societal levels. Concomitant changes in boundaries, categories, and potentials for action that shape and channel ongoing industry transformation call for organizational responses and adaptation. Critically, such tensions must be interpreted within the context of industry arrangements absent a centrally controlling actor. Rather than episodes of exogenous change, the nature of the digital, along with interactions across multiple sources of agency, continually surface complex dynamic and systemic tensions within and across industries. Our findings highlight the importance of explicitly accounting for the inter-relatedness and mutual dependence of the social and technical elements of change. As digital innovation expands and starts to impact all aspects of human experience it is critical for management scholars to reflect how the paradoxical perspective can be expanded to better understand these contemporary large-scale changes.

To give an overview of the papers contained in this Special Issue.

Looks at how each of the papers reflects the theme of the Special Issue, “Complexity and IT design and evolution”.

The collection of papers in this Special Issue addresses complexity, drawing on multi‐faceted, multi‐theoretical lines of inquiry.

Frameworks from complexity science, institutional theory, social science, philosophy, and recent thinking in science and technology studies (STS) are used as theoretical lenses to conceptualize and analyze complexity in IS and to offer ways to mitigate it.

Over the past decades, scholars advanced foundational insights about paradox in organization theory. In this double volume, we seek to expand upon these insights through interdisciplinary theorizing. We do so for two reasons. First, we think that now is a moment to build on those foundations toward richer, more complex insights by learning from disciplines outside of organization theory. Second, as our world increasingly faces grand challenges, scholars turn to paradox theory. Yet as the challenges become more complex, authors turn to other disciplines to ensure the requisite complexity of our own theories. To advance these goals, we invited scholars with knowledge in paradox theory to explore how these ideas could be expanded by outside disciplines. This provides a both/and opportunity for paradox theory: both learning from outside disciplines beyond existing boundaries and enriching our insights in organization scholarship. The result is an impressive collection of papers about paradox theory that draws from four outside realms – the realm of belief, the realm of physical systems, the realm of social structures, and the realm of expression. In this introduction, we expand on why paradox theory is ripe for interdisciplinary theorizing, explore the benefits of doing so, and introduce the papers in this double volume.

Existing literature acknowledges information systems development (ISD) to be a complex activity. This complexity is magnified by the continuous changes in user requirements due to changing organizational needs in changing external competitive environments. Research findings show that, if this increasing complexity is not managed appropriately, information systems fail. The paper thus aims to portray the sources of complexity related to ISD and to suggest the use of complexity theory as a frame of reference, analyzing its implications on information system design and development to deal with the emergent nature of IS.

Conceptual analysis and review of relevant literature.

This article provides a conceptual model explaining how top‐down “official” and bottom‐up “emergent” co‐evolutionary adaptations of information systems design with changing user requirements will result in more effective system design and operation. At the heart of this model are seven first principles of adaptive success drawn from foundational biological and social science theory: adaptive tension, requisite complexity, change rate, modular design, positive feedback, causal intricacy, and coordination rhythm. These principles, translated into the ISD context, outline how IS professionals can use them to better enable the co‐evolutionary adaptation of ISD projects to changing stakeholder interests and broader environmental changes.

This paper considers and recognizes the different sources of complexity related to ISD before suggesting how they could be better dealt with. It develops a framework for change to deal with the emergent nature of ISD and enable more expeditious co‐evolutionary adaptation.

The paper seeks to develop a theory of information processes that invokes three major explanatory factors to account for the escalating patterns of information growth that have been taking place over the last decades.

Conceptual analysis and review of relevant theories.

First, information is claimed to have a dual value as a description of a reference domain and a relationship that such a description may have or develop with already available descriptions within that domain or across reference domains. Second, the intrinsic combinability of technologically mediated information is substantially strengthened by the interoperable character of contemporary information infrastructures. Finally, information growth dynamics are intimately connected with the perishable and disposable character of information.

The paper presents a novel theory of information growth dynamics.

Seeks to raise the question of why large‐scale technochange is difficult and often failure‐prone and to attempt to answer this question by viewing technochange as an instance of institutional change and design in which self‐destructive mechanisms are inherently embedded.

In order to explore the complex institutional dynamics of large‐scale technochange the paper uses the exploration/exploitation framework originally developed by March and extended by Lanzara to the study of institution‐building processes in the political domain. The argument is that problems in implementing large‐scale technochange stem from learning dilemmas in the inter‐temporal and inter‐group allocation of material and cognitive resources. The paper uses a case of large‐scale technology in a major US university system to illustrate the institutional perspective on technochange.

It is argued and illustrated that the development and redesign of large‐scale information systems involve both the exploration of alternative institutional arrangements and the exploitation of pre‐existing ones, such that a delicate balance must be struck to overcome incoherences and dilemmas between the two activities.

The proposed framework to understand large‐scale technochange is not examined empirically. The illustration of the framework relies on a single large‐scale system project of a non‐profit organization in the USA. Further empirical work and comparative research on multiple cases are needed.

The paper discusses some sources of the failures of large‐scale technochange and offers three interrelated mechanisms to counteract such failure sources, namely focal points, increasing returns, and bricolage. These counteracting mechanisms may help organizations to effectively deal with the dilemmas of exploration and exploitation in technochange.

This paper fills the gap in understanding the nature of large‐scale technochange, providing an explanation of why it is difficult and failure‐prone and offering some modest proposals for intervention in large‐scale system projects.