Journal of Management Studies最新文献

{"title":"The Acceleration of Artificial Intelligence: Rethinking Organization and Work in an Era of Rapid Technological Change","authors":"Dominic Chalmers,&nbsp;Richard ‘Rick’ Hunt,&nbsp;Stella Pachidi,&nbsp;Kristina Potočnik,&nbsp;David Townsend","doi":"10.1111/joms.70063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70063","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the epistemic, interactional, and institutional foundations of contemporary organizations, yet management and organization studies are only beginning to theorise the implications of this shift. Existing research often treats “AI” as a singular construct, despite the fact that predictive, generative, agentic, and embodied systems rely on different logics and produce distinct organizational outcomes. This article interrogates the limits of this conceptual flattening and argues that cumulative theorising requires more precise specification of the technological systems under study. Drawing on developments across the field, we demonstrate how different modes of AI reshape core organizational constructs, including expertise, judgement, coordination, authority, and institutional adaptation. We advance a heuristic framework that differentiates among contemporary AI systems and clarifies their distinct affordances. The article concludes by outlining a research agenda that focusses on the shifting loci of agency, new decision architectures, and the normative and institutional challenges introduced by increasingly powerful AI systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"285-314"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146680279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Dark Side of Managing Human–AI Collaborations: Implications for Leaders’ Moral Relativism and Unethical Behaviour","authors":"Guohua He,&nbsp;Dan Ni,&nbsp;Puchu Zhao,&nbsp;Xin Qin","doi":"10.1111/joms.70031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70031","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As collaborations between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) have become increasingly prevalent across various industries, the role of leaders in managing these collaborations has grown in importance. While the existing literature has highlighted the benefits of leader management in these settings – emphasizing the complementary strengths of humans and AI – the potential costs to key stakeholders, particularly to leaders themselves, have been largely ignored. This research addresses this gap by drawing on moral relativism theory to develop and test a model explaining how leader management of human–AI collaborations may induce leaders’ moral relativism and, in turn, result in unethical behaviour at work. Furthermore, we identify leaders’ need for cognitive closure as a crucial individual difference that negatively moderates these effects. Findings from a critical-incident experiment, two scenario-based experiments, and one field survey conducted with samples from both Western and Eastern cultures (i.e., the United States and China) support our model.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"722-760"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146223926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Demystifying AI for the Workforce: The Role of Explainable AI in Worker Acceptance and Management Relations","authors":"Miles M. Yang,&nbsp;Ying Lu,&nbsp;Fang Lee Cooke","doi":"10.1111/joms.70039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the digital era, organizations are increasingly leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to optimize their operations and decision-making. However, the opaqueness of AI processes raises concerns over trust, fairness, and autonomy, especially in the gig economy, where AI-driven management is ubiquitous. This study investigates how explainable AI (xAI), through the comparative use of counterfactual versus factual and local versus global explanations, shapes gig workers’ acceptance of AI-driven decisions and management relations, drawing on cognitive load theory. Using experimental data from 1107 gig workers, we found that both counterfactual (relative to factual) and local (relative to global) explanations increase the acceptance of AI decisions. However, the combination of local and counterfactual explanations can overwhelm workers, thereby reducing these positive effects. Furthermore, worker acceptance mediated the relationship between xAI explanations and management relations. A follow-up study using a simplified scenario and additional procedural controls confirmed the robustness of these effects. Our findings underscore the value of carefully tailored xAI in fostering equitable, transparent, and constructive organizational practices in digitally mediated work environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"438-472"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146256322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recalibrating Entrepreneurship Research: Decolonizing and Embracing the Pluralism of Entrepreneurial Activity","authors":"Robert Nason,&nbsp;Pablo Muñoz,&nbsp;Helen Haugh,&nbsp;Friederike Welter,&nbsp;Gerard George,&nbsp;Shameen Prashantham","doi":"10.1111/joms.70041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70041","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Entrepreneurship research has long focused on exceptional, high-growth, venture-funded firms while overlooking the everyday and modest ventures that make up most entrepreneurial activity. This Special Issue calls for a recalibration of the field by decolonizing its assumptions and embracing its pluralism. We distinguish between conventional entrepreneurship, shaped by ideals of technology-driven innovation and venture-capital funded growth, and unconventional entrepreneurship, which reflects diverse and contextually grounded practices. Focusing on everydayness, pluralism, and decolonization, we draw on Santos’ concept of abyssal line to invite a shift from studying outliers to studying the ordinary. Using the metaphor of moving from a microscope to a prism, we call for theories that capture the full spectrum of entrepreneurial life across contexts and cultures. We discuss how papers in this Special Issue exemplify this prism approach and, in doing so, cast new light on how entrepreneurship can be understood, studied, and imagined.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 1","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145751349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Curse or Blessing: Investigating the Influence of Firms’ Artificial Intelligence Adoption on Employee Job Satisfaction","authors":"Colin Schulz,&nbsp;David Bendig,&nbsp;Antonio Bräunche,&nbsp;Bastian Kindermann","doi":"10.1111/joms.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Artificial intelligence’s (AI’s) growing influence in business has introduced a pivotal shift in workplace dynamics. However, the understanding of how AI adoption influences employee job satisfaction remains inconclusive. Drawing on job characteristics theory, we argue that with increasing levels of adoption, the relationship between employees’ perceived benefits and costs of AI changes, resulting in an inverted U-shaped relationship between AI adoption and job satisfaction. We further propose that the firm-level contingencies exploration orientation and data governance moderate the effects of AI adoption on job satisfaction. Using longitudinal data from 509 publicly listed US firms between 2009 and 2020, we find broad support for our hypotheses. To better understand how specific job characteristics may explain these relationships, we conducted follow-up interviews with employees from our sample firms. Our study contributes to the AI adoption literature by highlighting the previously neglected interplay of enrichment and impairment effects that drive job satisfaction at varying levels of adoption. We also show that firm-level strategies shape how employees perceive AI-driven changes to their jobs and provide a nuanced view of how a job characteristics perspective can help organizational scholars and practitioners understand the multifaceted effects of AI on work environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"561-595"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146256526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"‘Marching to Someone Else’s Beat or Creating Your Own Groove?’ Towards a Rhythmic Understanding of Context, (Entrepreneurial) Agency, and Transformative Change","authors":"Pascal Dey,&nbsp;Simon Teasdale","doi":"10.1111/joms.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<p>How contexts shape organizational phenomena has long been a focus of management and organization studies (MOS), as has how actors influence contexts. This paper deepens this debate using a rhythm perspective, developed against the backdrop of entrepreneurship research, which has made context a priority but not fully clarified how entrepreneurial agency alters contextual conditions. Drawing on Henri Lefebvre’s <i>Rhythmanalysis</i>, we argue that the everyday provides a privileged vantage point for understanding how contextual forces permeate entrepreneurship and, conversely, how they are affected by it. Specifically, we theorize that the everyday forms a diverse and shifting symphony of rhythms, and suggest that entrepreneurial agency includes the transformative capacity to shape these rhythms to create tangible value. We refine our theorizing through the example of the Brukman textile factory, an entrepreneurial squat taken over by its former workers. The vignette explores how agency is enacted through the cultivation of moments of rupture (<i>arrhythmia</i>) and moments of rhythmic harmony (<i>eurhythmia</i>). Our contribution is to develop a rhythm perspective to spark new ways of thinking about context, agency, and transformative change. While our theorizing is rooted in entrepreneurship research, we identify ways in which it can stimulate MOS more broadly.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 1","pages":"101-132"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"‘Let Me Explain’: A Comparative Field Study on How Experts Enact Authority Over Clients When Facing AI Decisions","authors":"Anne-Sophie Mayer,&nbsp;Elmira van den Broek,&nbsp;Tomislav Karačić","doi":"10.1111/joms.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70022","url":null,"abstract":"<p>With organizations increasingly relying on predictive artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for decision-making, experts lose the authority to overrule AI-generated decisions yet remain responsible for presenting them to clients. As experts depend on clients’ recognition and approval of decisions, this shift presents a critical disruption to their authority. To investigate how experts respond to this challenge, we adopt a relational perspective that foregrounds the role of audiences in reconfiguring authority. Drawing on a comparative field study, we show how experts sought to reconstruct their authority by engaging in different activities to make clients understand and accept AI decisions, which we call ‘explaining practices’. These practices were shaped by two relational conditions: (1) whether clients recognized the expertise of human experts as unique; and (2) whether interactions between experts and clients provided rich opportunities for learning about clients’ evolving needs. When experts were able to learn about and tailor their explanations to those needs, clients could better make sense of AI decisions and were more willing to accept them, thereby reinforcing expert authority. By contrast, experts who failed to do so left clients with decisions they could not understand or endorse, undermining their authority. This study thereby offers new insights into the complex interplay between expert–client relationships, expert authority, and explaining practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"366-398"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146680344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Examining the Effect of a Firm’s AI Specialization on the Technology Firms it Acquires: A Real Options Perspective","authors":"Chi Hon Li,&nbsp;Steven Boivie,&nbsp;Gerry McNamara,&nbsp;Pok Man Tang","doi":"10.1111/joms.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The digital revolution is transforming global business practices. As organizations increasingly embed artificial intelligence (AI) within their operations, they face unprecedented uncertainty regarding future technological trajectories and competitive landscapes. To maintain competitiveness in the emerging technological space, they need to promptly acquire advanced knowledge to enrich their technological portfolio. Drawing on real options theory (ROT), our study integrates AI-based acquisitions with internal AI development. We posit that a firm’s AI specialization represents the accumulation of critical technological knowledge and creates a portfolio of strategic options. These options can subsequently be exercised as AI acquisitions to secure complementary external capabilities. Moreover, the efficacy of these options is contingent on distinct uncertainties, including technical, modal, and complementarity uncertainties, captured by target R&amp;D intensity, target self-fluidity, and product market overlap, respectively. Using a sample of US public firms that carried out acquisitions from 2004 to 2015, we find support for our hypotheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"631-667"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146216828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Opportunity Search in the Era of GenAI: Navigating Uncertainty in an Expanding Universe of Imaginable but Unknowable Futures","authors":"Stratos Ramoglou,&nbsp;Yanto Chandra,&nbsp;Qian Jin","doi":"10.1111/joms.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Entrepreneurship has often been viewed through a lens of scarcity of creativity. Yet, the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) forces us to appreciate that the bottleneck of entrepreneurship is not the lack of creative ideas but Knightian Uncertainty. In an era of abundant entrepreneurial ideas, what matters is whether AI-generated entrepreneurial futures are possible or figments of machine imagination. However, extant theory offers little guidance on navigating opportunity uncertainty – let alone amid an ever-expanding universe of AI-generated ideas that increases the risk of unsustainable venturing. Addressing what we theorize as a “grand epistemological challenge”, we develop a model of intelligent opportunity search. The architecture of the model is informed by Gerd Gigerenzer’s paradigm shift in decision-making under uncertainty, centred on the use of heuristics that match the structure of the environment. Our model advances a symbiotic division of epistemic labour between machine and human intelligence guided by decision strategies attuned to the structure of the decision environment as reshaped in the GenAI era. The gist of the model is that machine creativity <i>expands</i> the ideation space through generative variation, while human judgment <i>contracts</i> it through a curation process geared towards the elimination of non-opportunities. This structured opportunity detection process reflects a new ecology of entrepreneurial action, where successful opportunity search depends less on human creativity and imagination and more on eliminating what cannot be actualized. Besides advancing a novel perspective on the nature of human and machine symbiosis, this paper unpacks implications for opportunity theory and Knightian Uncertainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"695-721"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147315440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group","authors":"Marleen Huysman","doi":"10.1111/joms.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70021","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Long before AI entered the public spotlight, the AI@Work research group was already studying how algorithmic technologies change work. When the editors of this special issue invited me to reflect on my experiences, I saw this as a valuable opportunity to articulate our often tacit way of doing research – to make explicit the ontological commitments, methodological choices, and collaborative practices that have shaped how we study Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the wild.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I see the AI@Work research group as &lt;i&gt;a distinct school of thought&lt;/i&gt;, with a shared ontology, methodology, and epistemic culture that helps us study (and teach) AI in the wild. Since the group is more than just a collection of individual projects, I have chosen not to describe each project in detail. Instead, I use this opportunity to articulate our collective mission: to demystify popular beliefs around AI by analysing the actual changes that occur when AI systems are developed, introduced, and become embedded in everyday work practices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Management and organization scholars have paid insufficient conceptual and empirical attention to AI in the wild. Despite decades of critique, technological determinism has resurged in AI discourse, perpetuating several interrelated problems: treating AI as a pre-given force whose design remains black-boxed; employing methods that abstract work from the practices where it unfolds; and relying on snapshot analyses that miss how AI’s effects emerge over time. These limitations are not merely methodological; they reflect deeper ontological assumptions that leave us poorly equipped to understand AI’s emergent, relational character.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Against these dominant approaches, the AI@Work school of thought advances a relational perspective operationalized through relational ethnography. By scrutinizing if, when, how, and why AI reconfigures work and its surrounding social structures, we seek both to advance academic understanding and to support more informed organizational decision-making, before and after adopting (or declining) AI. This essay presents examples from our research on AI development and uses them to illustrate that claim. Central to our perspective is our use of a relational ethnography that helps us reveal and theorize how AI reconfigures knowledge work within specific organizational settings while also generating insights that are transferable across multiple cases. Moreover, how we study AI is deeply intertwined with how we organize our research. In the second part of this essay, I will elaborate on the AI@Work research group’s epistemic culture, one that centres on collectivity and ultimately strives to provide value for academia, industry, and society.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I want to stress already at the start of the essay that the AI@Work school of thought is grounded in a larger academic discourse on technology and knowledge work that uses a relational perspective and practice theory to study technology and organizing as mutually","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"63 2","pages":"315-334"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.70021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146256260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}