William M. Foster, Diego M. Coraiola, Roy Suddaby, Jochem Kroezen, David Chandler
Business History,Vol. 59, Issue 8, Pages: 1176-1200.
History has long been recognised as a strategic and organisational resource. However, until recently, the advantage conferred by history was attributed to a firm’s ability to accumulate heterogeneous resources or develop opaque practices. In contrast, we argue that the advantage history confers on organisations is based on understanding when the knowledge of the past is referenced and the reasons why it is strategically communicated. We argue that managers package this knowledge in historical narratives to address …
Pamela R. Haunschild, Francisco Polidoro Jr., David Chandler
Organization Science,Vol. 26, Issue 6, Pages: 1682-1701.
We know that organizations change over time as a result of their ability to learn and their tendency to forget. What we know less about, however, is why they might change back, despite evidence suggesting that this occurs. In this paper, we develop and test a model of organizational oscillation that explains why firms cycle through periods of learning and periods of forgetting. In particular, we identify a dual role for serious errors, which push firms toward a focus on safety while also pulling them away from other foci, such as efficiency or …
David Chandler, and Hokyu Hwang
Journal of Management, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp. 1446-1476
In spite of recent interest in its microfoundations, institutional theory’s account of what, why, and when ideas diffuse remains limited and oversocialized. As such, it is unclear how firms decide what to adopt and how these decisions evolve across a population as innovations spread and become taken for granted. We review recent work in institutional theory on this issue and draw from learning theory to inform institutional accounts of adoption decisions in ways that add to current explanations of organizational heterogeneity. In particular, we develop a model of adoption strategies that explains how firms identify which practices to adopt by drawing on knowledge that is either local or distant (search scope) to understand what works and what does not (mindfulness). We then theorize how the decision to adopt is further conditioned by the extent of diffusion (temporal variation) and the characteristics of the field, organization, and innovation (decision context). We discuss the implications of this model for our understanding of how things diffuse and identify additional ways in which the microfoundations of institutional theory can be advanced by studying how organizations learn.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies), Volume 44, March 2015, Pages 201-235
This paper investigates the substance of institutions in the context of business ethics. In particular, I test a theory of stakeholder attention to resource commitments by firms that implement the Ethics and Compliance Officer (ECO) position, from 1990 to 2008. Results support the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between resource commitments and stakeholder attention À while both high and low levels of ECO implementation generate low levels of reported ethics transgressions (the former due to good firm behavior and the …
Business Expert Press, November 2014
The goal of this project is to detail the core, defining principles of strategic CSR that differentiate it as a concept from the rest of the CSR/sustainability/business ethics field. It is designed to be a provocative piece, but one that solidifies the intellectual framework around an emerging concept–strategic CSR. The foundation for these principles comes from my perspective as a management professor within the business school. As such, it is a pragmatic philosophy, oriented around stakeholder theory, that is designed to persuade …
Organization Science, Volume 25 Issue 6, August 2014, Pages 1722-1743
The institutional environment is complex. This complexity is characterized by forces that ebb and flow in wavelike patterns as societal expectations evolve, with attention coalescing around specific events and then dissipating. Some of these critical events are broad and affect many firms, whereas others are narrow and affect individual firms. In either case, when they occur, these events elevate organizational susceptibility to societal demands but encourage different kinds of behavior in response. This study seeks to model this complexity in an area of growing interest for organization scholars—business ethics. In particular, I examine how firms respond to shifting societal pressures for greater ethical behavior by adopting and implementing the Ethics and Compliance Officer position, from 1990 to 2008. Results demonstrate that although firms decide when to adopt in response to broad fieldwide critical events, it is narrower firm-specific critical events that determine resource commitments in implementation.
Academy of Management Review, Volume 39 Issue 3, July 2014, Pages 396-406.
Institutional theory tells us that institutions “matter”(Powell, 1996: 297). They matter because they are powerful predictors of action, both enabling and constraining actors within socially constructed ranges of acceptable behavior (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin-Andersson, & Suddaby, 2008). In spite of the importance of demonstrating that institutions matter, however, institutional theory can be less helpful in terms of explaining why institutions are so influential. In particular, there is still much work to be done to investigate the values on …
David Chandler, William B. Werther Jr
Sage Publications, Inc., 2014
Blending theory with practical application, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Third Edition is a comprehensive CSR and strategy text. As such, it supports courses taught either as standalone electives or as core components of the business school curriculum across all discipline areas. Integral to the book’s unique format is its mix of theory and practical application divided into two parts. After five chapters that provide an overview of the field, core concepts, and practical challenges, the second half of the book illustrates the …
David Chandler, Pamela R Haunschild, Mooweon Rhee, Christine M Beckman
Strategic Organization, Vol 11, Issue 3, August 2013, pp. 217-244
In this article, we explore the differential effects of a firm’s reputation and status on its interorganizational network. We hypothesize that due to its stable, unitary, and relational characteristics, status has a stronger influence on partner selection than reputation, which is less stable, multidimensional, and based more on perceptions of product quality and financial performance. Results from our analyses of the director networks of the 300 largest US firms from 1985 to 1993 confirm that across multiple measures of network characteristics, it is status that is the stronger predictor. In particular, high-status firms have networks that are higher in partner quality but are less diverse and contain fewer opportunities to bridge structural holes than the networks of high-reputation firms. These results contribute to our understanding of the different effects of reputation and status on firm behavior by emphasizing the importance of studying both together in order to understand the effects of either. They also contribute to work on interorganizational networks by demonstrating how structure emerges primarily as a function of focal firm status.