Academy of Management Review

This article is intended to enhance the position of stakeholder theory as an integrating theme for the business and society field. It offers an instrumental theory of stakeholder management based on a synthesis of the stakeholder concept, economic theory, behavioral science, and ethics. The core theory—that a subset of ethical principles (trust, trustworthiness, and cooperativeness) can result in significant competitive advantage—is supplemented by nine research propositions along with some research and policy implications.

Thomas M. Jones

INSTRUMENTAL STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A SYNTHESIS OF ETHICS AND ECONOMICS

Scholars have studied emotions and affect in organizational settings for over twenty years, providing numerous insights into how organizations and the people who work in them behave. With such a rich accumulation of knowledge, the time seemed right to call for today's scholars of management to propose new and exciting theory. The eight articles in this special topic forum address topics that cross multiple levels of analysis and include a range of different theories, explicating how anger and fear can spark productivity, how employees respond to abusive supervision over time, how leader-member exchanges are shaped by affective events, the social functions of emotional complexity for leaders, team entrepreneurial passion, the effects of institutional beliefs on emotional displays, the nexus of affective climate and organizational effectiveness, and the role of gratitude in organizations. In this introduction we briefly summarize the main points from each article and discuss new research directions arising from the articles. To spur even deeper research into this important and still unfolding field of discovery, and stimulated by the articles in this special topic forum, we conclude with additional thoughts and ideas on the role of emotions and affect in organizations.

Neal M. Ashkanasy

Ronald H. Humphrey

Quy Nguyen Huy

Integrating Emotions and Affect in Theories of Management

整合情感与情绪的管理理论

Although many scholars and practitioners have assumed that workplace friendships lead to desirable organizational outcomes, a growing body of research suggests important complexities and downsides associated with them. This indicates a need to better understand how and when workplace friendships may lead to harmful outcomes, especially in light of organizational and technological shifts that are changing the way employees connect. Drawing on theories of close relationships, social exchange, and boundary management, we present a theoretical framework highlighting how four defining features of friendship (informality, voluntariness, communal norms, and socioemotional goals) are in tension with four fundamental elements of organizational life (formal roles, involuntary constraints, exchange norms, and instrumental goals). We also highlight how mutual self-disclosure and perceived similarity develop and deepen friendships but also lead to downsides for individuals, groups, and organizations. We articulate how specific features of a focal friendship clique (e.g., closeness, maturity, and status of members) may amplify or buffer negative aspects and how social media affect friendship formation and tensions. Our theoretical framework should inform new theory and research on positive relationships at work and boundary management of professional and personal identities, as well as how changes to work and technology affect workplace relationships.

Julianna Pillemer

Nancy P. Rothbard

Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

没有好处的友谊：理解职场友谊的阴暗面

Work relationships are dynamic entities that have the potential to change over time. Given this, I develop a process model to explain how some self-disclosures, which I term disruptive self-disclosures, have the power to shift a work relationship. By focusing on the relational consequences of disruptive self-disclosure, the process model highlights the actions and reactions at the individual level that have the potential to shift the relational level. To address the relational level, I conceptualize work relationships as a relational trajectory that captures the patterns of interrelating throughout the duration of the relationship. The process model illuminates how an internal assessment and an external behavioral response, ranging from enthusiasm to eschewal, combine with the initial disruptive self-disclosure to create either positive or negative shifts within the relational trajectory. By addressing the mechanisms through which disruptive self-disclosures shift work relationships, this process model brings attention to the ability to alter the patterns of interrelating within work relationships, creating a theory of how work relationships change.

Kerry Roberts Gibson

Can I Tell You Something? How Disruptive Self-Disclosure Changes Who “We” Are

我能告诉你一些事吗？破坏性自我披露如何改变“我们”的身份

Scholars in various disciplines have considered the causes, nature, and effects of trust. Prior approaches to studying trust are considered, including characteristics of the trustor, the trustee, and the role of risk. A definition of trust and a model of its antecedents and outcomes are presented, which integrate research from multiple disciplines and differentiate trust from similar constructs. Several research propositions based on the model are presented.

Roger C. Mayer

James H. Davis

F. David Schoorman

An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust

组织信任的综合模型

Liang Chen

Zhou Zhou

Lester T. Chan

Algorithm Envelopment in Platform Markets

平台市场中的算法封装

Academy of Management ReviewIn-Press ArticlesTheorizing Time in Management and OrganizationsPratima (Tima) Bansal, Abbie J. Shipp, Donal Crilly, Karen J. Jansen, Gerardo A. Okhuysen and Ann LangleyPratima (Tima) BansalWestern University, Abbie J. Shipphttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8909-9187Texas Christian University, Donal CrillyLondon Business School, Karen J. JansenNorth Carolina State University, Gerardo A. OkhuysenUniversity of California, Irvine and Ann LangleyHEC Montréal and University of WarwickPublished Online:20 Nov 2024https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2024.0554AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESAdam, B. 1990. Time and social theory. New York: Polity Press. Google ScholarAncona, D. G., & Chong, C. L. 1996. Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior. In B. M. StawL. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 18: 251–284. Grenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google ScholarAncona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. 2001. Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26: 645–663.Link , Google ScholarAncona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. 2001. Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26: 512–529.Link , Google ScholarBaer, M., & Shaw, J. D. 2017. Falling in love again with what we do: Academic craftsmanship in the management sciences. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1213–1217.Link , Google ScholarBansal, P., Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., & Langley, A. 2022. Temporal work: The strategic organization of time. Strategic Organization, 20: 6–19. Google ScholarBlagoev, B., Hernes, T., Kunisch, S., & Schultz, M. 2023. Time as a research lens: A conceptual review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 50: 2152–2196. Google ScholarBlagoev, B., & Schreyögg, G. 2024. Eigenzeit: A new lens on temporal complexity. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarBluedorn, A. C. 2002. The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Oxford: Stanford University Press. Google ScholarBoin, A., Comfort, L. K., & Demchak, C. C. 2010. The rise of resilience. In L. K. ComfortA. BoinC. C. Demchak (Eds.), Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events: 1–12. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Google ScholarBritt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. 2016. How much do we really know about employee resilience?. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9: 378–404. Google ScholarCallender, C. 2017. What makes time special? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarChristianson, M. K. 2019. More and less effective updating: The role of trajectory management in making sense again. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 45–86. Google ScholarClegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. 2006. The curious case of Max Weber. In S. R. CleggD. CourpassonN. Phillips (Eds.), Power and organizations, 94–110. London: SAGE. Google ScholarCostas, J., & Grey, C. 2014. The temporality of power and the power of temporality: Imaginary future selves in professional service firms. Organization Studies, 35: 909–937. Google ScholarEmirbayer, M., & Mische, A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023. Google ScholarFlaherty, M. G. 2011. The textures of time: Agency and temporal experience. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Google ScholarFoster Wallace, D. 2015. Commencent speech. Retrieved from http://bulletin-archive.kenyon.edu/x4280.html Google ScholarGannon, E. 2024. A year of nothing. Birmingham, U.K.: The Pound Project. Google ScholarGutierrez, C., Sloof, R., & Crilly, D. 2024. Time is not money! Temporal preferences for time investments and entry into entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 35: 622–643. Google ScholarHarvey, D. 2006. Spaces of global capitalism. London: Verso. Google ScholarHeidegger, M. 1927. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google ScholarHernes, T. 2022. Organization and time. Oxford University Press. Google ScholarHernes, T., Blagoev, B., Kunisch, S., & Schultz, M. 2024. From bouncing back to bouncing forward: A temporal trajectory model of organizational resilience. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarHernes, T., & Schultz, M. 2020. Translating the distant into the present: How actors address distant past and future events through situated activity. Organization Theory, 1: 1–20. Google ScholarHolling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 1–23. Google ScholarHolling, C. S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. In W. C. ClarkeR. E. Munn (Eds.), Sustainable development of the biosphere: 292–317. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarHolling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4: 390–405. Google ScholarIngold, T. 2009. Against space: Place, movement, knowledge. In P. W. Kirby (Ed.), Boundless worlds: 29–44. New York: Berghahn Books. Google ScholarKaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24: 965–995. Google ScholarKhurana, M. P. 2023. The trajectory of discovery: What determines the rate and direction of medical progress? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarKoselleck, R. 2004. Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. New York: Columbia University Press. Google ScholarLawrence, T. B. 2008. Power, institutions and organizations. In R. GreenwoodC. OliverK. SahlinR. Suddaby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 170–197. London: Sage. Google ScholarLefebvre, H. 1992. Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (S. Elden & G. Moore, Trans.). London: Continuum. Google ScholarLevine, R. 1997. A geography of time: The temporal misadventures of a social psychologist. New York: Basic Books. Google ScholarLight, S. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. 1995. The Everglades: Evolution of management in a turbulent ecosystem. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. In L. H. GundersonC. S. HollingS. S. Light (Eds.), Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions: 103–168. New York: Columbia University Press. Google ScholarLuhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google ScholarLuhmann, N. 2012. Theory of society, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google ScholarLuhmann, N. 2018. Organization and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarNowotny, H. 1992. Time and social theory: Towards a social theory of time. Time & Society, 1: 421–454. Google ScholarOdell, J. 2020. How to do nothing: Resisting the attention economy. Brooklyn: Melville House. Google ScholarOrlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2002. It's about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13: 684–700. Google ScholarPentland, B., Kremser, W., Goh, K. T. Path nets: Concurrence and recurrence in the dynamics of organizing. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarPérez-Nordtvedt, L., & Harrison, D. A. 2024. From time wrinkling to time razing disruptions: Understanding temporal resilience. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarPérez-Nordtvedt, L., Payne, G. T., Short, J. C., & Kedia, B. L. 2008. An entrainment-based model of temporal organizational fit, misfit, and performance. Organization Science, 19: 785–801. Google ScholarPrior, A. N. 1967. Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarRaetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., & Wohlgemuth, M. 2022. Resilience in organization-related research: An integrative conceptual review across disciplines and levels of analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107: 867. Google ScholarSadeghi, Y., Islam, G., & Van Lent, W. 2024. Practices of periodization: Towards a critical perspective on temporal division in organizations. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarSchatzki, T. R. 2020. Timespace and the organization of social life. In E. ShoveF. TrentmannR. Wilk (Eds.), Time, consumption and everyday life: 35–48. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge. Google ScholarSchildt, H., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. 2020. Power in sensemaking processes. Organization Studies, 41: 241–265. Google ScholarSchwartz, B., Zerubavel, Y., & Barnett, B. M. 1986. The recovery of Masada: A study in collective memory. Sociological Quarterly, 27: 147–164. Google ScholarShipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. 2015. Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often?. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2: 237–260. Google ScholarShipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. 2021. The "other" time: A review of the subjective experience of time in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 15: 299–334.Link , Google ScholarShipp, A. J., & Richardson, H. A. 2021. The impact of temporal schemata: Understanding when individuals entrain versus resist or create temporal structure. Academy of Management Review, 46: 299–319.Link , Google ScholarSlow Science Academy. 2010. The slow science manifesto. Retrieved from http://slow-science.org Google ScholarSuddaby, R., Israelsen, T., Robert Mitchell, J., & Lim, D. S. 2023. Entrepreneurial visions as rhetorical history: A diegetic narrative model of stakeholder enrollment. Academy of Management Review, 48: 220–243.Link , Google ScholarVogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2007. Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda. Paper presented at 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernertics, Montreal, Canada, 7–10 October: 3418–3422. Google ScholarWeick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628–652. Google ScholarWeick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385–390. Google ScholarWeick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2015. Managing the unexpected. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google ScholarWhite, K. 2023. Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202332 Google ScholarWinn, M., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., & Günther, E. 2011. Impacts from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20: 157–173. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails In-Press Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 20 November 2024 Information© Academy of Management ReviewAcknowledgmentsWe want to sincerely thank former Editor-in-Chief Sherry Thatcher, who supported this Special Topic Forum (STF) and guided us masterfully to a successful outcome. We also want to thank Managing Editor Irina Burns, who kept us on time and on task, in spite of the extra work we created for her. All authors contributed equally to this STF. The first author chaired the STF, the second author is a former Academy of Management Review associate editor and championed the idea during her term, and remaining authors are listed randomly.Download PDF

Pratima (Tima) Bansal

Abbie J. Shipp

Donal Crilly

Karen J. Jansen

Gerardo A. Okhuysen

Ann Langley

Theorizing Time in Management and Organizations

管理与组织中的时间理论化

Brian T. Pentland

Waldemar Kremser

Kenneth T. Goh

Path Nets: Concurrence and Recurrence in the Dynamics of Organizing

路径网络：组织动态中的并发与递归

Bart S. Vanneste

Phanish Puranam

Trust and Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Reply to Killoran, Park, and Kietzmann

Abbreviation	AMR
Journal Impact	19.17
Quartiles(Global)	MANAGEMENT(Q1)

ISSN	0363-7425, 1930-3807
h-index	306

Publication Information	Publisher: Academy of Management，Publishing cycle: ，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 1996，Proportion of original research papers: 100.00%，Self Citation Rate:3.10%， Gold OA Rate: 0.00%

Academy of Management Review

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience