Hiebl, Martin R. W.
Preferred name
Hiebl, Martin R. W.
ORCID
Scopus Author ID
55635544000
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication Access status: Metadata only , “An A is an A?” Maybe in North America, but less so elsewhere(2023)With reference to recent debate about the increasing “an A is an A” mentality at business schools, I provide evidence on the prevalence of this mentality in North America versus other regions of the world (RoW). The evidence presented is derived from the data selection procedures employed in conducting systematic reviews of management research because a focus on specific journals in this selection can be seen as an artifact of the “an A is an A” mentality. My findings suggest that this mindset is more widespread in North American business schools and less so elsewhere. This implies that in order to find remedies against the detrimental effects of the “an A is an A” mentality, North American business school leaders and academics might find inspiration in other countries. In addition, I suggest that a part of the solution could also be directing PhD students toward a more inclusive selection of journals and Articles in reviews of management research.Source Type:Article3 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication Access status: Metadata only , Automation, organizational ambidexterity and the stability of employee relations: new tensions arising between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation management and stakeholder managementWhile previous entrepreneurship research has only seldom drawn on organizational ambidexterity, the analysis of the important contemporary tensions among entrepreneurship, innovation management and strategic management issues may be facilitated by more closely analysing organizational ambidexterity in entrepreneurial settings. In this paper, we follow this thinking and more closely analyse an often applied form of corporate entrepreneurship: automation. Such automation is transferring work that was formerly conducted by humans to machines and may thus result in new tensions between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation management and the management of organizational stakeholders such as employees. The present paper investigates whether increased automation lowers the stability of firms’ relationships with their employees. In addition, we expect that this relationship is moderated by organizational ambidexterity, as employees may have perceived ambidexterity as a signal that their firm will not overly invest in exploitation only, but maintain a balance between exploitation and exploration. Drawing on stakeholder theory, previous insights into corporate entrepreneurship and a survey of German Mittelstand firms, our findings show that highly ambidextrous firms are indeed more vulnerable to automation, leading to lower employee relational stability. Our findings thus suggest that in highly ambidextrous firms, novel tensions around automation-related corporate entrepreneurship will be detrimental to the stability of the firm’s relations with one of its key stakeholder groups: employees.Source Type:Article1
