Search results

Structural and technological changes are driving functional reorganization in many organizations. To date, there are very few articles that explicitly, consistently and cumulatively focus on cross-functional integration. This paper aims to review and explore the literature that does directly address cross-functional integration.

The authors conducted a literature review within the general management domain for the time frame 2010 to 2020 and identified 71 relevant articles that provide an overview of current practices and trends.

This conceptual paper reviews this identified literature and outlines key trends, noteworthy articles and a summary of relevant theories, and provides an overview of outcomes linked to cross-functional integration in the literature. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for practitioners and an outline of potential research areas for academic researchers, including a call for more theory integration, building and testing in the area of cross-functionality.

This paper is the first of its kind to attempt to summarize the literature on cross-functionality (published between 2010 and 2020), a currently very fragmented field of study spread out across different management disciplines.

The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the pros and cons of using employee information in big data projects.

The authors reviewed papers in the area of big data that has immediate repercussions for the experiences of employees and employers.

The review of papers to date suggests that big data lessons based on employee data are still a relatively unknown area of employment literature. Particular attention is paid to discussion of employee rights, ethics, expectations and the implications employer conduct has on employment relationships and prospective benefits of big data analytics at work for work.

This viewpoint paper highlights the need for more discussion between employees and employers about the collection, use, storage and ownership of data in the workplace. A number of recommendations are put forward to support future data collection efforts in organisations.

According to the significant growth of literature and continued adoption of people analytics in practice, it has been promised that people analytics will inform evidence-based decision-making and improve business outcomes. However, existing people analytics literature remains underdeveloped in understanding whether and how such promises have been realized. Accordingly, this study aims to investigate the current reality of people analytics and uncover the debates and challenges that are emerging as a result of its adoption.

This study conducts a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles focused on people analytics published in the Association of Business School (ABS) ranked journals between 2011 and 2021.

The review illustrates and critically evaluates several emerging debates and issues faced by people analytics, including inconsistency among the concept and definition of people analytics, people analytics ownership, ethical and privacy concerns of using people analytics, missing evidence of people analytics impact and readiness to perform people analytics.

This review presents a comprehensive research agenda demonstrating the need for collaboration between scholars and practitioners to successfully align the promise and the current reality of people analytics.

This systematic review is distinct from existing reviews in three ways. First, this review synthesizes and critically evaluates the significant growth of peer-reviewed articles focused on people analytics published in ABS ranked journals between 2011 and 2021. Second, the study adopts a thematic analysis and coding process to identify the emerging themes in the existing people analytics literature, ensuring the comprehensiveness of the review. Third, this study focused and expanded upon the debates and issues evolving within the emerging field of people analytics and offers an updated agenda for the future of people analytics research.

The purpose of the research is to investigate the impact of affective and emotional experiences on organizational learning in highly dynamic and chaotic environments, specifically in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

Based on an intensive 12-month inductive study, 24-project managers and 16 team members from biopharmaceutical organizations were interviewed and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Three themes emerged from the findings: (1) developing affective maturity as a socio-emotional resource, (2) mixed-motive emotional dynamics and (3) meaning-oriented organizational identification and commitment. The context of the COVID-19 crisis provided an unconventional performance environment.

Our study has several limitations, offering avenues for future research. Firstly, our focus on biopharmaceutical organizations, with their unique socio-cultural influences and management styles, may limit the generalizability of our findings to other sectors and institutional contexts. However, regulatory mechanisms in this sector may align with knowledge-based sectors, emphasizing the influence of organizational values and best practices. Secondly, our reliance on a posteriori interview data limits real-time observation of organizational learning (OL) processes. Future research could employ diverse data sources and survey methods for corroboration. Additionally, cross-cultural studies might explore how different societies respond to crises. Multi-level perspectives could also enhance understanding of affective experiences and their impact on OL outcomes.

The study contributes new insights into OL through its focus on how affective experiences and affective organizing efforts shape OL. We offer a novel and emergent theoretical model of OL in the context of trauma which has implications for organizations particularly in the areas of information processing and decision-making.

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

Ethical principles and practices frequently support the position that people with disability are vulnerable. Vulnerability in research traditionally infers a need for protection from harm and raises questions over the person’s capacity to consent and engage. In addition, vulnerability in ethics infers a state of permanency and one that is all-encompassing for everyone within the vulnerable groups. This construction of vulnerability in effect legitimises the exclusion of people with disability from research or monitors and restricts how people with disability can engage in research. This results in an implicitly ableist environment for research. In this chapter, which has been led by researchers with disability, we argue that there is a critical need to move beyond a popularised social construction of vulnerability which serves to perpetuate barriers to including people with disability in research. Like all terms, the traditional and popular construction of vulnerability is open to reclaiming and reframing. Under this reconstruction, what is traditionally viewed as a limiting vulnerability can be owned, openly disclosed and accommodated. Following a pandemic-inspired ‘new normal’ that supports flexible workplace practices, and in accordance with UNCRPD goals of inclusive employment and reducing disability inequity, we argue that the pathway for people with disability as career researchers needs an ethical review and overhaul. We provide readers with a practical roadmap to advance a more inclusive academy for researchers with disability.

With a focus on the evolution of human resource management (HRM) quantification over 2000–2020, this study addresses the following questions: (1) What are the data sources used to quantify HRM? (2) What are the methods used to quantify HRM? (3) What are the objectives of HRM quantification? (4) What are the representations of quantification in HRM?

This study is based on an integrative synthesis of 94 published peer-reviewed empirical and non-empirical articles on the use of quantification in HRM. It uses the theoretical framework of the sociology of quantification.

The analysis shows that there have been several changes in HRM quantification over 2000–2020 in terms of data sources, methods and objectives. Meanwhile, representations of quantification have evolved relatively little; it is still considered as a tool, and this ignores the possible conflicts and subjectivity associated with the use of quantification.

This literature review addresses the use of quantification in HRM in general and is thus larger in scope than previous reviews. Notably, it brings forth new insights on possible differences between the main uses of quantification in HRM, as well as on artificial intelligence and algorithms in HRM.

This paper examines the experiences of a team of female academics (teaching a large cohort of undergraduate students) and the coping mechanisms used to combat the challenges they confront in the Australian higher education sector.

Using a reflective autoethnographic method and strengths perspective, the authors share experiences as female professionals whose intersectional identities presented challenges that extend beyond those typically found in the current higher education setting.

The individualized nature of academic work exacerbates the systemic marginalization of female academics. Adopting a flock culture serves as a support network for addressing the various intersectional challenges. The authors liken the “flock cultural approach” to a “sisterhood” where individuals impacted by intersectional challenges build a strong and cohesive unit to support each other by utilizing their combined strengths to create positive synergy to cope with ongoing workplace challenges.

The study highlights the benefit of the strengths perspective to understand how female academics with intersectional identities can overcome the challenges of their highly individualized profession.

This paper highlights the importance of building team-based work, cultivating collective achievement and high trust in a highly individualistic profession.

Using the strength perspective, the authors disrupt the conventional and currently narrow usage of sisterhood to help develop strong, adaptive, flexible and responsive bonds among diverse female academics. The findings point to how using a “flock culture” – a membership-based philosophy – became the key support mechanism for the marginalized groups, empowering them to confront the systemic barriers within their profession.

First, the findings of this study are shaped by the intersections of factors such as ethnicity, age, race, religion and mode of employment, which all influences the participants’ lived experiences. Second, this study contributes to the transnational feminist movement by unveiling the contextualized barriers that junior academic females from various migrant backgrounds face and identify how they synergized their collective strengths to survive the challenging academic environment. Third, using the strength perspective, the authors disrupt the conventional and currently narrow usage of sisterhood to help develop strong, adaptive, flexible and responsive bonds among diverse female academics.

This research analyzed the existing academic and grey literature concerning the technologies and practices of people analytics (PA), to understand how ethical considerations are being discussed by researchers, industry experts and practitioners, and to identify gaps, priorities and recommendations for ethical practice.

An iterative “scoping review” method was used to capture and synthesize relevant academic and grey literature. This is suited to emerging areas of innovation where formal research lags behind evidence from professional or technical sources.

Although the grey literature contains a growing stream of publications aimed at helping PA practitioners to “be ethical,” overall, research on ethical issues in PA is still at an early stage. Optimistic and technocentric perspectives dominate the PA discourse, although key themes seen in the wider literature on digital/data ethics are also evident. Risks and recommendations for PA projects concerned transparency and diverse stakeholder inclusion, respecting privacy rights, fair and proportionate use of data, fostering a systemic culture of ethical practice, delivering benefits for employees, including ethical outcomes in business models, ensuring legal compliance and using ethical charters.

This research adds to current debates over the future of work and employment in a digitized, algorithm-driven society.

The research provides an accessible summary of the risks, opportunities, trade-offs and regulatory issues for PA, as well as a framework for integrating ethical strategies and practices.

By using a scoping methodology to surface and analyze diverse literatures, this study fills a gap in existing knowledge on ethical aspects of PA. The findings can inform future academic research, organizations using or considering PA products, professional associations developing relevant guidelines and policymakers adapting regulations. It is also timely, given the increase in digital monitoring of employees working from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.