Search

To explore the diverse mechanisms of how power influences trust, this symposium includes studies that introduce diverse perspectives using diverse methodological methods. The research questions answered in these studies consider how the power and trust of a buyer-supplier dyad influence each other, if and why power influences trust after third-party trust violations, how power influences self-disclosure which then influences trust, and when people are more trusting of those with power and those with more power are more trusting of others. These studies examine questions in various contexts including interpersonal relationships, buyer-supplier relationships, supervisor and subordinate relationships, and third-party relationships. They also utilize diverse research designs and statistical methods including lab experiments, field surveys, meta-analysis, and Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Following the study presentations, Dr. Sim Sitkin will serve as the symposium's discussant. Renowned for his seminal contributions to the field including numerous influential journal articles and books on the topic of trust and control, Dr. Sitkin will comment on the four presentations and offer an analysis on trust and power in organizational contexts. His insights promise to deepen the discourse of this symposium and enrich our understanding of the interplay between power and trust. The Influence of Power on Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: An APIM Approach Author: Nuno Oliveira; Tilburg U. Author: Oliver S. Schilke; U. of Arizona Author: Fabrice Lumineau; U. of Hong Kong Author: Baofeng Huo; College of Management and Economics, Tianjin U. Power Weakens the Spillover Effects of Third-Party Trust Violations Author: Marlon Mooijman; Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice U. Power and Missed Opportunities to Build Trust Through Self-Disclosure Author: Shuang Wu; Rady School of Management, U. of California San Diego Author: Yidan Yin; U. of Southern California -Marshall School of Business Author: Joseph Ocampo; U. of California, Berkeley Author: Christopher Oveis; U. of California, San Diego Author: Pamela K. Smith; U. of California, San Diego A Structural-Relational Model and Meta-Analysis of Power and Trust in Organizations Author: C. Ashley Fulmer; Georgia State U. Author: Claire Zhang; Georgia State U. Author: Jeewon Gwak; PhD Student Author: Kris Byron; Georgia State U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management and organization scholars have increasingly directed their attention to the study of grand challenges such as socioeconomic inequality, job losses, climate change, and the resurgence of populism. A core aspect of these interrelated challenges concerns an accelerated decline of trust in core societal institutions such as science, the law, and democracy itself. Research on trust or institutions has a long history in the field of management and organization studies. However, relatively few scholars have adopted an institutional approach to trust. To understand trust as a complex, macro-level phenomenon, we propose a research agenda that focuses on studying the dynamic relationship between institutions and trust. This symposium includes four papers that explore important aspects of these dynamics--including how global crises endanger the perceived trustworthiness of social institutions, how the erosion of trust in institutions unfolds, how institutionalization affects the level of trust, how organizations strategically use institutions to address the loss of trust, and how they use digital technologies as a governance institution to construct trust. Our agenda opens up new opportunities for research on the co-constitution of trust and institutions. Institutional trust in the age of global crisis Author: Maxim Voronov; Schulich School of Business Author: Gerardo Patriotta; U. of Bath The erosion of trust in modern institutions: The argumentative structures of science denial Author: Renate Elisabeth Meyer; WU Vienna & Copenhagen Business School Author: Dennis Clemens Jancsary; WU Vienna Trust of and in organizations: An institutional account Author: Oliver S. Schilke; U. of Arizona Author: Fabrice Lumineau; U. of Hong Kong Firm digitalization, trust, and trade credit receiving Author: Daokang Luo; Department of Management and Strategy, The U. of Hong Kong Author: Kevin Zheng Zhou; U. of Hong Kong [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the extent to which routine-based alliance capabilities of companies improve their chances of successful strategic alliances. It is noted that many such alliances do not live up to expectations. Research into organizational variables which mediate the relationship of corporate experience and structures to organizational performance is discussed, focusing on management routines which foster alliance capabilities. The results of a study of over 300 corporations involved in research and development alliances are discussed.

This symposium explores how integrating individual cognition into organization-level theories alters well-trodden predictions in organization and management theory. While augmenting traditional macro- level management theory with cognition typically begins as a micro- foundational effort to bolster extant theory, it often results in the development of an entirely different, novel theory. The symposium explores this approach in the context of a variety of firm-level theories and is intended to prompt rich discussion between micro and macro communities regarding the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating cognition into traditional management and organizational theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given their complex, company-specific and history-dependent nature, organizational capabilities are generally considered as the foundation of a firm's long-term strategy and as major source of competitive advantage. While the strategic significance of capabilities is uncontested, we still have an incomplete understanding of how they emerge, develop, and change over time. It is the aim of this symposium to push the discussion and advance the theoretical understanding in this realm. Topics such as capability rigidity, capability integration, learning mechanisms, and dynamic capabilities will be covered. The symposium will bring together different capability scholars and provide a platform for a productive discussion of how to push the field forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Institutional theory has developed into a leading perhaps the dominant perspective in organizational analysis these days. One prominent point of criticism of institutional theory has been its overly strong emphasis on the macro level. In recent years, however, institutional scholars have begun to vigorously address this issue by expanding the scope of the theory to embrace a multi-level approach that explicitly incorporates the role of intraorganizational phenomena. As a result, the study of micro-institutional processes has seen much advocacy and enthusiasm. The increasing attention over the past few years not withstanding, it is clear that research into micro-institutional processes is still nascent and little consensus exists on what exactly these processes are or should be. Therefore, the purpose of this panel symposium is to engage a group of panelists in a formal, moderated, interactive discussion of (1) the definition of key micro-institutional processes; (2) core research questions; (3) important hurdles in making progress; (4) interfaces to adjacent research streams; and (5) methods that can be employed (among other topics). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, scholars have begun to transform and expand institutional theory to a multi-level approach that explicitly incorporates the role of micro-processes. Although the emerging research stream of microinstitutionalism has seen much advocacy and enthusiasm, it is still in its infancy and relatively little consensus exists on what exactly microinstitutionalism is or should be. The purpose of this panel symposium is to engage in a discussion of (1) the definition of microinstitutionalism; (2) core research questions in microinstitutionalism; (3) important hurdles in making progress; (4) interfaces to adjacent research streams; and (5) methods that can be employed (among other topics). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of dynamic capabilities (DCs)--an organization's capacity to adapt to changes in the environment (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997)--has become a dominant topic in management research (Helfat et al., 2007). The large body of research has prompted valuable and unique insights into DCs, yet the understandings of the concept still diverge significantly (Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona 2010; 2014). Peteraf, Di Stefano, & Verona (2013) reveal that the field seems to be split into two camps that hardly engage in a joint scholarly discourse, while the differences between them are most divergent in high-velocity environments. One perspective averred that DCs take the form of simple rules (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), whereas the other portrayed DCs as involving complex routines (Teece et al., 1997). As a consequence, Di Stefano et al. (2014), call for the "bridging of diverging conversations" in order to move the field forward. They propose an illustrative metaphor, so called "organizational drivetrain" to link simple rules with complex routines. The aim of this symposium is to stimulate the discourse in the DC community by presenting three papers that explicitly connect to the organizational derivation proposed by Di Stefano et al. (2014). By scrutinizing the relevance of managerial cognition, routines, and simple rules, we address the (1) nature of simple rules, (2) the complex routines, and (3) the linking mechanisms from an empirical and a conceptual point of view. Christopher Bingham and Oliver Schilke, two acknowledged scholars in the field of strategic management and experts in the area of DCs, will facilitate and discuss the patterns emerging from the set of papers and engage the audience and presenters in a dialogue about the ideas and findings presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study introduces "acquiescent defiance" as a novel form of organizational response to judgment devices. Using the example of the Tuscan wine industry, we show that wineries can partially comply with the government's quality classifications system while, at the same time, maintaining their own philosophy to offer products outside the official classification system. Through this research, we provide new insights into the role and functioning of judgment devices and also contribute to a more nuanced understanding of responses to institutional pressures and of identity work in business environments. Extending prior research, our study illustrates that organizations' reactions to judgment devices are not limited to only the two options of compliance or resistance. The third option of "acquiescent defiance" encompasses a duality of compliance and resistance, potentially resulting not only in dysfunctional uncertainty about product quality but also in greater field-level diversity of product offerings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key problem faced by organizational decision makers is uncertainty regarding the relative value of alternative courses of organizational action. Two largely isolated streams of research in organization theory have emphasized different mechanisms for dealing with such uncertainty. Research in institutional theory indicates that uncertainty leads organizations to imitate others in their field. The literature on identity theory suggests that actors' group membership (i.e., organizational identity) strongly informs how they behave in the presence of uncertainty. This paper aims to synthesize these two theories by showing how organizational identity affects the degree to which organizational decision makers imitate others in their field. Three experiments not only test the relationship between organizational identity and resistance to environmental pressures but also examine status and identity type as potential contingencies. The results support the hypothesized positive link between organizational identity and resistance that becomes especially strong when status is high (rather than low) and when the organizational identity is normative (rather than utilitarian). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of dynamic capabilities--an organization's capacity to adapt to changes in the environment (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997)--has become a dominant topic in management research (Helfat et al., 2007). Publications are appearing at a rate hardly precedented in the social sciences (Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2014). Accordingly, the large body of research has prompted valuable and unique insights into dynamic capabilities (Vogel & Guettel, 2013), yet the understandings of the concept still diverge significantly (Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona 2010; 2014). Peteraf, Di Stefano, & Verona (2013) reveal that the field seems to be split into two camps that hardly engage in a joint scholarly discourse. As a consequence, Di Stefano et al. (2014), call for the "bridging of diverging conversations" in order to move the field forward. They propose a model that features five components around which dialogue seems required: (1) the nature of the construct, (2) the agent, (3) the action, (4) the object of the action, and (5) the aim or purpose of the construct. The aim of this symposium is to stimulate the discourse in the DC community by presenting four papers that explicitly connect to the model proposed by Di Stefano et al. (2014). By scrutinizing the relevance of managers, routines, and power, we address the (1) nature of the construct, (2) the agent, (3) the action, and (4) the object, both from an empirical and a conceptual point of view. Ultimately, Gianmario Verona and Oliver Schilke, two acknowledged scholars in the field of strategic management and specialists in the area of dynamic capabilities, will facilitate and discuss the patterns emerging from the set of papers and engage the audience and presenters in a dialogue about the ideas and findings presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate how and when contracts matter to alliance performance. Despite the substantial scholarly interest in the role of contracts in alliances, few studies analyze the mechanisms and conditions relevant to their influence on alliance performance. Drawing upon recent contract literature suggesting that alliance contracts may have multiple functions, we suggest that the effects of contracts depend on the types of provisions included and differentiate between the consequences of control and coordination provisions. Specifically, we argue that control provisions will increase the level of conflict between alliance partners whereas coordination provision will decrease such conflict. Conflict, in turn, reduces alliance performance, suggesting a mediated relationship between alliance contracts and performance. We also contribute to a better understanding of contextual influences on the consequences of contracts and investigate the interactions of each contractual function with both internal and external uncertainties. Key informant survey data on 171 alliances largely support our conceptual model. Our study contributes to the literature on contractual governance mechanisms by shedding new light on their contingent consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the economic effects of prizes with implications for the diversity of market positions in fields. Many prizes have three notable features that together yield an emergent reward structure: (1) consumers treat prizes as judgment devices when making purchase decisions, (2) prizes introduce sharp discontinuities between winners and also-rans, and (3) appealing to prize juries requires costly sacrifices of mass audience appeal. When all three of these conditions obtain, winning a prize is valuable, but seeking it is costly, so trying and failing yields the worst outcome--a logic we characterize as a Tullock lottery. We test the model with analyses of Oscar nominations and Hollywood films from 1985-2009. We create an innovative measure of prize-seeking, or "Oscar appeal," on the basis of similarity to recent nominees in terms of such things as genre, plot keywords, and release date. We then show that Oscar appeal has no effect on profitability. However, this zero-order relationship conceals that returns to strong Oscar appeals are bimodal, with super-normal returns for nominees and large losses for snubs. We then argue that the effect of judgment devices on fields depends on how they structure and refract information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]