Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings

Recent studies report an inability to replicate previously published research, leading some to suggest that scientific knowledge is facing a credibility crisis. In this essay, we provide evidence on whether strategic management research may itself be vulnerable to these concerns. We conducted a study whereby we attempted to reproduce the empirical findings of 88 articles appearing in the Strategic Management Journal using data reported in the articles themselves. About 70% of the studies did not disclose enough data to permit independent tests of reproducibility of their findings. Of those that could be retested, almost one-third reported hypotheses as statistically significant which were no longer so and far more significant results were found to be non-significant in the reproductions than in the opposite direction. Collectively, incomplete reporting practices, disclosure errors, and possible opportunism limit the reproducibility of most studies. Until disclosure standards and requirements change to include more complete reporting and facilitate tests of reproducibility, the strategic management field appears vulnerable to a credibility crisis

Using review articles to address societal grand challenges

We introduce a special issue of International Journal of Management Reviews that demonstrates how to use review articles to address societal grand challenges—complex, large-scale issues facing humankind, such as climate change, inequality and poverty. First, we argue that review articles possess unique features that make them particularly useful for addressing societal grand challenges. Second, we discuss three distinct but related roles of review articles in addressing societal grand challenges: (1) advancing theoretical knowledge; (2) advancing methodological knowledge; and (3) advancing practical knowledge. We conclude by providing future directions to enhance contributions of review articles for addressing societal grand challenges further by: (a) spanning disciplinary boundaries; (b) engaging practitioners; and (c) using alternative review approaches

Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how.

Many theories in management, psychology, and other disciplines rely on moderating variables: those which affect the strength or nature of the relationship between two other variables. Despite the near-ubiquitous nature of such effects, the methods for testing and interpreting them are not always well understood. This article introduces the concept of moderation and describes how moderator effects are tested and interpreted for a series of model types, beginning with straightforward two-way interactions with Normal outcomes, moving to three-way and curvilinear interactions, and then to models with non-Normal outcomes including binary logistic regression and Poisson regression. In particular, methods of interpreting and probing these latter model types, such as simple slope analysis and slope difference tests, are described. It then gives answers to twelve frequently asked questions about testing and interpreting moderator effects

A Multilevel Analysis of Implicit and Explicit CSR in French and UK Professional Sport

Research question: This paper examines the ways in which French and UK professional sports clubs implement and communicate their CSR policies. In addition to identifying similarities and differences between CSR practices in the two countries, our analysis extends and adapts the implicit-explicit CSR framework to the field of sport. Research methods: We used a mixed methods approach to analyse qualitative and quantitative data on the CSR strategies of 66 professional rugby union (Top 14, Aviva Premiership Rugby) and football (Ligue 1, Premier League) clubs over the 2017-2018 season. Results and findings: We found major differences in CSR communication between France and the UK. Communication by French clubs tends to highlight sport’s values, involve few media channels, whereas communication by UK clubs explicitly vaunts their social responsibility and involves numerous channels. In the case of CSR implementation, there are similarities between French and UK clubs, especially in the fields their CSR initiatives cover (e.g., health, diversity), as well as differences. However, the scope of initiatives varies more between sports than between countries, with football demonstrating a more international outlook than rugby. Implications: This article expands Matten and Moon’s (2008) implicit-explicit CSR framework by identifying the influence of interactions between sectorial/field-level factors and national/macro-level factors on CSR practices, and by distinguishing between CSR communication and CSR implementation. Our results throw light on the shift from implicit to explicit CSR in French professional sport

Revisiting James March (1991): Whither Exploration and Exploitation

We revisit March’s seminal 1991 article, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, and analyze the impact it has had on scholarly thinking, providing a comprehensive and structured review of the extensive and diverse research inspired by this publication. We show that although this influence has changed significantly over the years, there are still unexplored opportunities left by this seminal work. Our approach enables us to identify promising directions for future research that reinforce the themes anchored in March’s article. In particular, we call for reconnecting current research to the behavioral roots of this article and uncovering the microfoundations of exploration and exploitation. Our analysis further identifies opportunities for integrating this framework with resource-based theories and considering how exploration and exploitation can be sourced and integrated within and across organizational boundaries. Finally, our analysis reveals prospects for extending the notions of exploration and exploitation to new domains, but we caution that such domains should be clearly delineated. We conclude with a call for further research on the antecedents of exploration and exploitation and for studying their underexplored dimensions

Progress on outbound tourism expenditure research: A review

This study aims to identify how the paradigm of outbound tourism expenditure (OTE) research transforms from economic to social concern. It also explicates the evolution of OTE from an advocacy platform to a sustainability platform. This study adopts a hybrid of narrative and systematic reviews to study OTE as a complex social phenomenon. This hybrid review is complemented by a thematic review and semantic network analysis on gaps and future directions of relevant studies. The results reveal that the paradigm of OTE research is directed from economic toward social thinking. This study proposes an application of socially related antecedent configurations, social theories, pragmatic methods, and various scales of study contexts as promising solutions to address the complexity and heterogeneity of OTE. The study concludes that the conceptual structure of OTE is premised on a sustainability platform, which is influenced by socio-cultural, environmental, economic, and political issues. This study provides a road map that enlightens the current state of OTE, prevailing topics, and pathways for further research

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Scholarly Impact: A Pluralistic Conceptualisation.

We critically assess a common approach to scholarly impact that relies almost exclusively on a single stakeholder (i.e., other academics). We argue that this approach is narrow and insufficient, and thereby threatens the credibility and long-term sustainability of the management research community. We offer a solution in the form of a broader and novel conceptual and measurement framework of scholarly impact: a pluralist perspective. It proposes actions that depart from the current win–lose and zero-sum views that lead to false trade-offs such as research versus practice, rigor versus relevance, and research versus service. Our proposed pluralist conceptualization can be instrumental in enabling business schools and other academic units to clarify their strategic direction in terms of which stakeholders they are trying to affect and why, the way future scholars are trained, and the design and implementation of faculty performance management systems. We argue that the adoption of a pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact can increase motivation for engaged scholarship and design-science research that is more conducive to actionable knowledge as opposed to exclusive career-focused advances, enhance the relevance and value of our scholarship, and thereby help to narrow the much-lamented chasm between research and practice

Using self-definition to predict the influence of procedural justice on organizational, interpersonal, and job/task-oriented citizenship behaviors

An integrative self-definition model is proposed to improve our understanding of how procedural justice affects different outcome modalities in organizational behavior. Specifically, it is examined whether the strength of different levels of self-definition (collective, relational, and individual) each uniquely interact with procedural justice to predict organizational, interpersonal, and job/task-oriented citizenship behaviors, respectively. Results from experimental and (both single and multisource) field data consistently revealed stronger procedural justice effects (1) on organizational-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves strongly in terms of organizational characteristics, (2) on interpersonal-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves strongly in terms of their interpersonal relationships, and (3) on job/task-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves weakly in terms of their distinctiveness or uniqueness. We discuss the relevance of these results with respect to how employees can be motivated most effectively in organizational settings

State and trait anger predicting creative process engagement – the role of emotion regulation.

Drawing on the specific emotion approach, and based on the emotional regulation theory and cognitive and activation perspectives on emotions, this study examined the differentiated impact of state and trait anger on creative process engagement (CPE) and the moderating influences of emotion reappraisal and suppression. Data were obtained from daily surveys (N = 422) of 98 employees from three consultancy companies. Hierarchical linear modeling analysis revealed that trait anger has a stronger impact on CPE than state anger does. Furthermore, the relationship between state anger and CPE is stronger when emotion reappraisal is lower, rather than higher, and the relationship between trait anger and CPE is also stronger when emotion suppression is lower, rather than higher