Search results

Mentor teachers are tasked with supporting the professional development of student teachers. Yet, little is known about the mentoring practices they enact in the moment during classroom instruction. The purpose of this paper is to examine mentoring that happens in the moment, extending Schwille’s (2008) notion of mentoring “inside the action” of teaching (p. 156), and conceptualize mentoring in the moment as educative mentoring.

This paper shares findings of a qualitative case study, foregrounding the perspectives of a mentor teacher and a student teacher who audio-recorded conversations about what they considered to be instances of mentoring in the moment that took place earlier that day. Conversations were transcribed and analyzed through a process of iterative coding.

Mentoring in the moment occurred when the mentor teacher and student teacher made decisions about whether and how to adjust course during lessons to better support student learning; and highlighted strengths and recognized weaknesses across multiple and distinct moments. In addition to demonstrating in action examples of modeling, transparent decision-making and taking the stance of a learner, participants exhibited unique characteristics that enable educative learning to occur. Specifically, they demonstrated: flexibility; humility; and a desire to learn and improve.

The findings build upon the existing research about educative mentoring, mentoring inside the action and mentor teacher characteristics, contributing to a more robust definition of mentoring in the moment.

The purpose of this paper is to examine early career teachers’ Socialized Knowledge Communities (SKCs) as they relate to the pursuit of mathematics knowledge and teaching. The authors investigate Pinterest, a living data archive, as an opportunity to view teachers’ sense-making and construction of instructional resources. Through this lens, the authors examine how teachers form and share mathematical meaning individually and collectively through professional collaboration.

This work characterizes teachers’ curation of mathematical resources both in the kinds of mathematics teachers are choosing and the quality therein. Finally, the authors examine through epistemic network analysis how teachers are sense-making through a statistical approach to identifying their organization of mathematics curation by typology and cognitive process demand.

Results show that sampled teachers predominantly curate instructional resources that require students to perform standard algorithm and represent mathematics relationships in visualization within Pinterest. Additionally, the authors find the resources curated by teachers have lower cognitive demand. Finally, epistemic networks show teachers make connections among instructional resources with particular types as well as with different levels of cognitive demand as they sense-make their curated curriculum. In particular, difference in teachers’ internal consideration of the quality of tasks is associated with their years of experience.

Twenty-first century classrooms and teachers engage frequently in curation of instructional resources online. The work contributes to an emergent understanding of teachers’ professional engagement in virtual spaces by characterizing the instructional resources being accessed, shared, and diffused. Understanding the nature of the content permeating teachers’ SKCs is essential to increase teachers’ professional capital in the digital age.

In one of his most cited works, March (1991) observed that “The basic problem confronting an organization is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, devote enough energy to exploration to exploration to ensure its future viability” (p. 105). The need to simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation is a cornerstone of organizational ambidexterity, with the embedded assumption that exploratory ventures require organic management systems and exploitative activities benefit from more mechanistic management systems. The authors argue that this assumption about system alignment is neither well-supported by empirical evidence nor well-grounded in March’s original ideas about exploration and exploitation. The authors review the existing empirical evidence on the management systems that support exploration and exploitation and reveal some of the empirical and conceptual challenges. The authors then share a quasi-experimental study of 49 project teams over an 18-month period where they investigated how components of the management system – formalization, specialization, hierarchy, and leadership – differentially affect project success for explore and exploit projects. The authors find that exploitation projects can succeed under either mechanistic or organic systems, but that exploratory project performance suffers under a mechanistic system. In addition, the authors also find that leadership is the most important determinant of project success or failure. The authors discuss the implications of these results for future studies of organizational ambidexterity and draw attention to some of the underdeveloped ideas in March’s original article that might further advance the field.

In response to Ford and Sullivan's chapter, this commentary poses a number of questions intended to help future research efforts ascertain whether levels of analysis and phases of new-venture emergence happen concurrently. Strongly in agreement with Ford and Sullivan's call for a process approach toward the study of entrepreneurial ventures, the commentary focuses on the potential processes associated with different levels of analysis that might possibly underlie the enactment and effectuation processes depicted in their model. Through the examination of these underlying processes, questions for future research are raised to help address the question, “Do levels and phases of new-venture emergence always happen together?”

The purpose of this article is to understand how academics in management deal with the concept of generation in the workplace. We begin by conducting an interdisciplinary literature analysis, thereby elaborating a conceptual framework concerning generational diversity. This framework consists of four levels of analysis (society, career, organisation and occupation) and three dimensions (age, cohort and event/period). We then conduct a meta-analysis using this conceptual framework to analyse papers from the management field. The results from this analysis reveal the existence of a diversity of generational approaches, which focus on the dimensions of age and cohort on a societal level. Four factors seem to explain these results: the recent de-synchronisation of generational dimensions and levels, the novelty of theoretical models, the amplification of stereotypes by mass media and the methodologies employed by researchers. In sum, this article contributes to a more realistic view of generational diversity in the workplace for both academics and practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what are both the main theoretical basis and the recent perspectives within the organizational innovation literature.

The authors have conducted a bibliometric analysis reviewing the research on organizational innovation from 460 articles published in the period from 2007 to 2016 and indexed in the Web of Science through co-citation and bibliographical coupling analyses.

The clusters analysis results show that the main theoretical foundations are learning and evolution; implementation of innovation; and leadership, creativity and learning. Regarding recent perspectives, the clusters indicate studies on core concepts, knowledge and capability, learning for resource development and human resources for innovation.

This study organizes the knowledge basis for future research on organizational innovation, and, unlike most literature reviews, this study provides the current trends on the topic and presents a comprehensive research agenda.

Although most of the literature supports the existence of a substitutive relationship between exploration and exploitation, some authors suggest that this relationship is complementary (ambidexterity), and others argue that there is no relationship. This paper aims to introduce organizational innovation into the analysis and discusses which of these three relationships prevails.

Analyses were performed using data from Spanish Technological Innovation Panel for the period 2008-2013. It should be emphasized that the use of panel data is essential in the analysis of the interaction of exploration and exploitation, as exploration only makes sense in the long run. Econometric strategy uses a two-stage selection model, estimated using the Wooldridge’s (1995) consistent estimator for panel data with sample selection. To perform the test, the hypothesis uses the approach of complementarity.

The results show that the relationships exploration-organizational innovation and exploitation-organizational innovation are complementary, provided that the analysis is performed on companies that simultaneously carry out exploration and exploitation activities, respectively. This indicates that the achievement of ambidexterity is strongly conditioned by the simultaneous realization of organizational innovations.

Managers and policymakers should be aware that the simultaneous implementation of exploration and exploitation yields better results when the corresponding organizational innovations are also implemented.

This paper extends the empirical investigation of the relationship between exploration and exploitation, seen in conjunction with organizational innovation, and using the complementarity approach as a research tool.

Based on theoretical input from punctuated equilibrium theory and the exploration vs exploitation paradigm, a set of innovation drivers and propositions is developed. The purpose of this paper is to present a starting point for a more comprehensive investigation of companies’ innovation trajectories towards balance.

The paper builds on a thorough analysis of the literature and suggests the notion of “strategic inflection points” (SIPs). These points are supposed to mark the transgression between innovation types as reflected in respective performance enhancements.

The propositions developed in this paper serve as a basis for further understanding and for subsequent empirical research.

Managerial implications relate to the understanding that companies need to balance innovation types in order to increase performance.

This paper discusses a variety of innovation types and suggests the notion of SIPs.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a comprehensive framework that delineates how human resource (HR) practices are differentially configured for exploitative and explorative innovation as well as how the sets of HR practices support these two types of innovation.

Based on the structural ambidexterity approach and a bottom-up process in the multilevel theories, this research derives the need for the differential managerial structures for exploitation and exploration at the unit level. In addition, the Input–Process–Outcome model of team effectiveness and multilevel theories are employed to discuss the internal nature (e.g. resources, work styles) of exploiting and exploring units. Finally, building on strategic HR management literature, this research configures exploitation-targeted and exploration-targeted HR systems and delves into how these differentiated HR systems generate differential inputs of human capital resources and thereby foster exploitative and explorative innovation processes.

This research proposes several factors for exploitation and exploration, including: necessary inputs (i.e. commitment, narrowness, and cohesion for exploitation vs thoughtfulness, breadth, and openness for exploration), idiosyncratic innovation processes (i.e. convergent collective cognition vs divergent collective cognition), and differentiated HR systems comprised of different forms of unit staffing (homogeneity vs heterogeneity), performance appraisal, incentives, and training and development (short-term vs long-term orientation).

The proposed theoretical framework contributes to an improved understanding of the psychological foundation of organizational ambidexterity and systematizing how diverse HR practices work together to elicit exploitative and explorative innovation from employees.