No abstract

Business ethics, Corporate social responsibility, Ethical decision making, Bibliometrics, Literature review,

Manuscript Type: ReviewResearch Question/Issue: This study seeks to investigate whether governance research in fact is a discipline or whether it is rather the subject of multi-disciplinary research. We map the intellectual structure of corporate governance research and its evolution from 1993-2007. Research Findings/Results: Based on the analysis of more than 1,000 publications and 48,000 citations in Corporate Goverance: An International Review (CGIR) and other academic journals, our study identifies the most influential works, the dominant subfields, and their evolution. Our study assesses the maturation of corporate governance research as a discipline; it finds increasing sophistication, depth and rigor, and consistency in its intellectual structure. Theoretical Implications: There is a large body of accumulated corporate governance research in the US, yet there is an empirical gap on cross-national studies in the literature. Furthermore, hardly any of the top cited works undertake their study in a cross-national setting. Thus, corporate governance research and CGIR in its quest to contribute to a global theory of corporate governance might benefit if articles have a cross-national methodological approach and empirical grounding in their research design and if articles explicitly aim at stating the theoretical underpinnings they draw on. Practical Implications: Globalists find in CGIR an outlet addressing economics and finance (e.g., whether and how compensation or dismissal of CEOs is related to board characteristics), management (e.g., whether and how best practice codes adoption is related to board characteristics and performance), and accounting (e.g., whether and how earnings manipulations is related to board characteristics) issues globally.

Ambidextrous organizations succeed both in incremental and discontinuous innovation. However, there is little direct empirical evidence on how managers implement the principles of the “ambidextrous organizations” theory to dynamically align the structure and culture of ambidextrous organizations. Our study does not focus on analyzing the factors that give rise to organizational ambidexterity but focuses on analyzing whether the factors suggested by prior theorizing on “ambidextrous organizations” are implemented by managers in their daily practice as suggested by prior theorizing. Accordingly, this study does not investigate the traditionally conceptualized gap between academic theorizing and managerial practice since “ambidextrous organizations” theory can be characterized as rigorous and relevant. We investigate whether the “ambidextrous organizations” theory is implemented as suggested by prior theorizing and whether successful implementation is subject to managing in the way that scholars' prior theorizing suggests. Based on qualitative and quantitative data from two longitudinal case studies, we find that managers overlooked the process dimension in evaluating the required degree of ambidexterity. Furthermore, the organizational structure and culture for incremental innovation did not differ from the structure and culture for discontinuous innovation alongside the expected dimensions. Finally, the discontinuous innovation business unit had to be reintegrated to ensure sustained growth. During the reintegration processes, organizational capabilities mutated. We linked our findings on the processes and performativity of ambidextrous organizing to extant theories and developed the rationale for the observed novel phenomena of innovation myopia, second‐order competency traps, and capability mutations.