We analysed the self-representation of twelve watchmaking firms located in a cluster in East Germany to understand how they apply rhetorical history to craft their identity. The findings show that there are common elements of rhetorical history that help organizations craft their identity, but there are also differences based on each firm’s historical background. While some firms specifically relate their identity to their own history, others mainly employ cluster-level history, while still others may even self-construct fictional historical roots. By discussing these findings, we contribute to a better understanding of how an organization’s identity is crafted and how history is utilized in such identity creation.

The recent surge of interest in explainability in artificial intelligence (XAI) is propelled by not only technological advancements in machine learning, but also by regulatory initiatives to foster transparency in algorithmic decision making. In this article, we revise the current concept of explainability and identify three limitations: passive explainee, narrow view on the social process, and undifferentiated assessment of understanding. In order to overcome these limitations, we present explanation as a social practice in which explainer and explainee co-construct understanding on the microlevel. We view the co-construction on a microlevel as embedded into a macrolevel, yielding expectations concerning, e.g., social roles or partner models: Typically, the role of the explainer is to provide an explanation and to adapt it to the current level of understanding of the explainee; the explainee, in turn, is expected to provide cues that guide the explainer. Building on explanations being a social practice, we present a conceptual framework that aims to guide future research in XAI. The framework relies on the key concepts of monitoring and scaffolding to capture the development of interaction. We relate our conceptual framework and our new perspective on explaining to transparency and autonomy as objectives considered for XAI.

No abstract

This paper focuses on the question of the extent to which the institutional founding environment affects organizational success after a radical institutional change. We analyse firms founded in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) that experienced the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1990 and focus on how the institutional environment of their founding period influences their failure rates. Results show that organizational failure rates vary after institutional change due to differences in institutional founding conditions. This variation is influenced by the degree of (dis)similarity between the imprinted past and the present institutional context. Discussing the time-varying effect of institutional founding conditions, we contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of imprinting and organizational failure in situations of institutional change.

Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.