Apologies for any cross-postings.
__________________________________________________
THIS MONTH'S FREE ACCESS ARTICLE
__________________________________________________
FREE to access until 31 July 2016:
The (non)distribution of leadership roles: Considering leadership practices and configurations
Samia Chreim
Human Relations 2015 68(4): 517–543; doi: 10.1177/0018726714532148
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/68/4/517.full.pdf+html
Abstract
This article draws on distributed leadership and leadership-as-practice perspectives to report on a comparative case analysis of leadership configurations. The context of acquisitions is used in the study. Attention is given to the practices of members of the two leadership teams – one from each of the acquiring and acquired organizations – as they attempted to integrate their practices and redistribute leadership roles. The findings show that, despite expectations that distributed leadership would be achieved, the emergent configurations varied across the firms and consisted of distributed leadership, distributed leaderlessness, overlapping leadership and non-distributed leadership. These configurations were underpinned by members' framings, relational practices and (non)exercise of agency. The article contributes to the leadership literature by proposing the notions of leadership deficits and leadership surpluses in configurations, by exploring how ambiguous leadership spaces are constructed, and by providing evidence of leadership models that vary in terms of conflict tractability. The study uncovers the limits of distributed leadership and shows that not all is well with distributed leadership models. The article also contributes to a broader understanding – than has been achieved through extant literature – of various potential leadership configurations that can emerge in the case of acquisitions and beyond.
Keywords
distributed leadership, leadership configurations, leadership practices, mergers and acquisitions, relational leadership
__________________________________
JULY ISSUE ARTICLES
__________________________________
Do women advance equity?
The effect of gender leadership composition on LGBT-friendly policies in American firms
Alison Cook and Christy Glass
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1431‒1456; doi: 10.1177/0018726715611734
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1431?etoc
Abstract
We advance the literature on the demographic factors that shape organizational outcomes by analyzing the impact of the gender composition of firm leadership on the likelihood that a firm will adopt lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)-friendly policies. Drawing on social role and token theory, we test the relative impact of CEO gender and the gender composition of the board of directors separately and together in order to identify the effects of gender diversity at the top of the organization. We rely on a unique data set that includes corporate policies (gender identity and sexual orientation non-discrimination policies, domestic-partner benefits, and overall corporate equality index scores) as well as the gender of the CEO and board of directors among Fortune 500 firms over a 10-year period. Our findings suggest that firms with gender-diverse boards are more likely than other firms to offer LGBT-friendly policies, whereas findings for firms with women CEOs offer mixed results.
What do employees want and why?
An exploration of employees' preferred psychological contract elements across career stages
Chin Heng Low, Prashant Bordia, and Sarbari Bordia
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1457‒1481; doi: 10.1177/0018726715616468
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1457?etoc
Abstract
Employees' psychological contracts comprise their beliefs about what they have to contribute to their organizations and what inducements they will receive in return. One recommended approach to attract and retain employees is to design psychological contracts that allow them to contribute in desirable ways and receive attractive inducements. However, we know little about the factors that affect psychological contract preferences. We present a qualitative study on the preferred psychological contracts of employees who are in different career stages. Our findings reveal that the roles and self-concepts that employees take on at a particular career stage may shape preferences for stage-relevant contributions and inducements. These findings advance psychological contract theory by highlighting the plausible link between employees' career stages and their psychological contract preferences.
Social comparisons and organizational support: Implications for commitment and retention
James M Vardaman, David G Allen, Robert F Otondo, Julie I Hancock, Lynn M Shore, and Bryan L Rogers
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1483‒1505; doi: 10.1177/0018726715619687
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1483?etoc
Abstract
Organizational support theory (OST) suggests that employees develop a general perception of the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support – POS), and respond to that support through attitudes and behaviors that are beneficial toward the organization. Although OST emphasizes both social exchange and self-enhancement processes, most accounts of POS's effects are rooted in social exchange. For example, POS's linkages with commitment and retention have been explained as an exchange of support for positive attitudes and continued employment. This research sheds light on self-enhancement's less-understood role in fostering these reactions by demonstrating the influence of social comparison effects. Drawing on a sample of 342 employees nested in 82 work-units of a US hospitality company, our analysis demonstrates that favorable POS comparisons with peers in one's work-unit are positively associated with commitment and retention, whereas unfavorable comparisons are negatively related. Results also show that comparisons taking place in less-supported work-units have stronger impact than comparisons made in those with better support. Our findings extend OST by revealing the importance of social comparisons in engendering responses to organizational support, and in so doing potentially explicate the differential ways social exchange and self-enhancement operate with regard to POS.
When and how does functional diversity influence team innovation?
The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of affect-based trust in a team
Siu Yin Cheung, Yaping Gong, Mo Wang, Le (Betty) Zhou, and Junqi Shi
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1507‒1531; doi: 10.1177/0018726715615684
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1507?etoc
Abstract
Findings from prior research on the relationship between functional diversity and team innovation have been inconclusive. This study aims to reconcile the mixed findings in the literature by investigating how functional diversity may influence team innovation and when such influence may or may not occur. The view of teams as information processors suggests that functionally diverse teams may capitalize on their knowledge benefits to produce innovations through knowledge sharing. However, knowledge sharing and subsequent team innovation do not necessarily occur in functionally diverse teams. Drawing on the motivated information processing in groups theory, we propose that affect-based trust in a team moderates the effects of functional diversity on team innovation (via knowledge sharing). The results based on a sample of 96 research and development teams indicate that functional diversity had a negative indirect relationship with team innovation via knowledge sharing when affect-based trust in a team was low, and this relationship became less negative as the level of affect-based trust in a team increased. The relationship was not significant when affect-based trust in a team was high.
Rhetoric of epistemic authority: Defending field positions during the financial crisis
Suhaib Riaz, Sean Buchanan, and Trish Ruebottom
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1533‒1561 ; doi: 10.1177/0018726715614385
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1533?etoc
Abstract
In this article we explore how elite actors respond to a field-wide crisis. Drawing from a study of CEOs of large US banks in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, we show how elite actors use rhetorical strategies to defend their dominant position in the field. Specifically, we show how actors strengthen their epistemic authority – the perceived expertise and trustworthiness of an actor – through four distinct but interwoven rhetorical strategies. Actors used two internally-directed means of strengthening epistemic authority by providing rational guarantees and expressing normative responsibilities, and two externally-directed strategies that sought to strengthen their own epistemic authority by lowering the epistemic authority of others through critiquing judgments and questioning motives. We contribute to research on defensive institutional work by highlighting how elite actors rhetorically defended their position following a field-wide crisis.
Knowledge leadership: Mobilizing management research by becoming the knowledge object
Michael D Fischer, Sue Dopson, Louise Fitzgerald, Chris Bennett, Ewan Ferlie, Jean Ledger, and Gerry McGivern
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1563‒1585; doi: 10.1177/0018726715619686
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1563?etoc
Abstract
This article explores contrasting forms of 'knowledge leadership' in mobilizing management research into organizational practice. Drawing on a Foucauldian perspective on power–knowledge, we introduce three axes of power–knowledge relations, through which we analyse knowledge leadership practices. We present empirical case study data focused on 'polar cases' of managers engaged in mobilizing management research in six research-intensive organizations in the UK healthcare sector. We find that knowledge leadership involves agentic practices through which managers strive to actively become the knowledge object – personally transposing, appropriating or contending management research. This article contributes to the literature by advancing the concept of knowledge leadership in the work of mobilizing management research into organizational practice.
Social organization, classificatory analogies and institutional logics: Institutional theory revisits Mary Douglas
Danielle M Logue, Stewart Clegg, and John Gray
Human Relations July 2016, 69(7): 1587‒1609 ; doi: 10.1177/0018726715614637
http://hum.sagepub.com/content/69/7/1587?etoc
Abstract
As a social theory of organization, it is unsurprising that institutional theory draws upon the profound and ambitious work of the late anthropologist Mary Douglas. One of the foundational concepts of organizational institutionalism, institutional logics, directly draws upon her work. Yet, in recent times this foundational role has faded from view. This is unfortunate for there is much continuity in current work with that of Douglas, it now being 50 years and 30 years respectively, since the publication of two of her formative works. The deep analogies that underpin classificatory systems and the processes by which they are sustained remain significant areas under continued investigation by institutional theorists. Thus, in this article we revisit Douglas' core arguments and their connections to institutional theorizing. We specifically explore her contribution of 'naturalizing analogies' as a way of accounting for the unfolding of change across levels of analysis, extending, modifying and enriching explanations of how institutional change is reified, naturalized and made meaningful. We do this by providing empirical descriptions of meta-organizing analogies and field-level applications. We explain how Douglas' major theoretical works are of considerable relevance for current institutional theorizing, particularly in informing accounts of institutional logics.
___________________________________________________________________________
RECENT PREVIEW ARTICLES
Access all OnlineFirst articles here: http://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/recent
___________________________________________________________________________
CALLS FOR PAPERS
Special issue: Politicization and political contests in contemporary multinational corporations – submit by 30 September 2016
http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/special_issues/Politics%20and%20MNCs.html
Special issue: Organizing feminism: Bodies, practices and ethics – submit by 30 November 2016
http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/special_issues/Organizing%20feminism.html
Special issue: The changing nature of managerial work – submit by 31 January 2017
http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/special_issues/Managerial%20work.html
Special issue: Inserting professionals and professional organizations in studies of wrongdoing: The nature, antecedents, and consequences of professional misconduct – submit by 30 April 2017
http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/special_issues/Professional%20misconduct.html
Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays:
- Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria.
- Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal's scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief.
__________________________________________________
WHY PUBLISH IN HUMAN RELATIONS?
Human Relations is an A* journal – the highest category of quality – in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABCD) Journal Quality List 2013. It is also ranked 4 in the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) Academic Journal Guide 2015. Human Relations is a top 5 interdisciplinary social sciences journal:
2-year impact factor: 2.619
5-year impact factor: 3.544
Ranked: 37/192 in Management and 4/93 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Source: 2015 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2016)
Best wishes,
Claire Castle
Managing Editor, Human Relations
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
Email: c.castle@tavinstitute.org
Website: www.humanrelationsjournal.org
Submission guidance: http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/submit_paper.html