REFLECTIONS ON THE 2021 AMR DECADE AWARD: NAVIGATING PARADOX IS PARADOXICAL

对2021年抗菌药物耐药性（AMR）十年奖的反思：应对悖论本身就是一种悖论

MARIANNE W. LEWIS University of Cincinnati 辛辛那提大学 玛丽安·W·刘易斯

WENDY K. SMITH University of Delaware WENDY K. SMITH 特拉华大学

Over the past decade, paradox theory has developed impressively. Such advances have been fueled by a rising collective experience of paradox—as change, scarcity and plurality intensify awareness of conflicting, interdependent and persistent forces—and by a global community of paradox scholars—notably creative, dedicated and mutually supportive. We are honored by the 2021 Decade Award. Our 2011 publication helped shape rigorous research while informing vexing challenges. In this manuscript, we reflect on factors contributing to this scholarly expansion, offering insights into how advances of paradox theory could generalize to the rise of fields more broadly. We then explore the accumulation of paradox scholarship, noting the convergence of key ideas and definitions, while recognizing the divergence of ontologies, methodologies, theories, and phenomena. Building upon expanding insights into how to navigate paradox, we categorize varied approaches into four sets of tools—assumptions (cognition), boundaries (structures), comfort (emotions), and dynamics (change)—presented within an integrative framework that we label the Paradox System. By doing so, we highlight the breadth of underlying research, depict interwoven and paradoxical relationships across categories, and surface a core insight that navigating paradox is paradoxical. Finally, we offer suggestions and provocations for future research. 在过去十年中，悖论理论取得了令人瞩目的发展。这种进展得益于人们对悖论日益增长的集体体验——随着变革、稀缺性和多元性加剧了对相互冲突、相互依存且持续存在的力量的认知——以及一个由悖论学者组成的全球社区——特别是富有创造力、敬业且相互支持的学者群体。我们荣幸地获得了2021年十年成就奖。我们2011年的出版物在推动严谨研究的同时，也为棘手的挑战提供了参考。在本手稿中，我们反思了促成这一学术扩张的各种因素，探讨了悖论理论的进展如何能更广泛地推广至其他领域的兴起。随后，我们考察了悖论学术研究的积累过程，指出关键思想和定义的趋同，同时也承认本体论、方法论、理论和现象的差异。基于对如何应对悖论的日益深入的见解，我们将多种方法归类为四组工具——假设（认知）、边界（结构）、舒适（情感）和动态（变化）——并在一个我们称之为“悖论系统”的整合框架中呈现这些工具。通过这样做，我们强调了底层研究的广泛性，描绘了不同类别之间相互交织且具有悖论性的关系，并揭示了一个核心见解：应对悖论本身就是一项悖论性的任务。最后，我们为未来的研究提供了建议和思考。

…

research focuses on entrepreneurial thinking, processes, and practice. 研究聚焦于创业思维、创业过程和创业实践。

ENTREPRENEURS AS SCIENTISTS: A PRAGMATIST ALTERNATIVE TO THE CREATION-DISCOVERY DEBATE

企业家作为科学家：对“创造-发现”之争的实用主义替代方案

In a thoughtful comment on our paper (Zellweger & Zenger, Forthcoming), Sergeeva, Bhardwaj, and Dimov (2022) joined us in advocating for a pragmatist perspective on entrepreneurship. The authors, however, offered two closely related critiques of our pragmatist perspective. They suggested that entrepreneurs are more than scientists seeking to understand their world, but rather are engineers, designers, and artists who act to produce value within it. They also situate our pragmatist perspective within the epistemological creation versus discovery debate, and cast us into the discovery camp where entrepreneurs merely seek to discover a future that already objectively exists in the present. In our comments below, we develop two responses. First, while we wholeheartedly agree that entrepreneurs act to create value as they solve problems, in doing so, all humans, including entrepreneurs, engineers, and artists, act as scientists. Second, while we reject the placement of our perspective in the discovery camp, we argue that our entrepreneur-asscientist perspective, and pragmatism more generally, find little use for the made versus found distinction. 在对我们论文（Zellweger & Zenger，待刊）的深思评论中，Sergeeva、Bhardwaj 和 Dimov（2022）与我们一同倡导对创业精神采取实用主义视角。然而，作者对我们的实用主义视角提出了两个密切相关的批评。他们认为，创业者不仅仅是寻求理解世界的科学家，更是工程师、设计师和艺术家，他们的行动是为了在世界中创造价值。他们还将我们的实用主义视角置于认识论的“创造”与“发现”之争中，并将我们归入“发现”阵营，认为创业者只是试图发现一个在当下已客观存在的未来。在以下评论中，我们提出两点回应。首先，尽管我们完全同意创业者在解决问题时会创造价值，但在此过程中，所有人类（包括创业者、工程师和艺术家）都在扮演科学家的角色。其次，尽管我们反对将我们的视角归入“发现”阵营，但我们认为，我们的“创业者-科学家”视角以及更广泛意义上的实用主义，对“制造”与“发现”的区分几乎没有用处。

…

DIALOGUE

对话

MUTABLE REALITY AND UNKNOWABLE FUTURE: REVEALING THE BROADER POTENTIAL OF PRAGMATISM

可变现实与不可知未来：揭示实用主义的更广泛潜力

In this dialogue paper, we consider Zellweger and Zenger’s (Forthcoming) conceptualization, rooted in pragmatism, of entrepreneurs as scientists. While we agree that pragmatism provides a useful but neglected foundation for studying the entrepreneurial journey, we maintain that entrepreneurs are more than scientists—in addition, they are engineers, artists, and designers. Our view is predicated on enfolding considerations of time, emergence, and the associated unsurmountable epistemological barrier of unknowability, which enable entrepreneurs to not only describe (predict) the world as scientists do but also actively shape the future to fit their “mind.” 在这篇对话论文中，我们考虑了Zellweger和Zenger（待发表）基于实用主义将企业家概念化为科学家的观点。虽然我们认同实用主义为研究创业历程提供了一个有用但被忽视的基础，但我们认为企业家不仅仅是科学家——此外，他们还是工程师、艺术家和设计师。我们的观点基于对时间、涌现性以及相关的不可知论这一无法逾越的认识论障碍的考量，这些因素使企业家不仅能够像科学家那样描述（预测）世界，还能积极塑造未来以符合他们的“思维”。

…

SYNERGY IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS: TYPOLOGY, LIFE CYCLES, AND VALUE

并购中的协同效应：类型、生命周期与价值

EMILIE R. FELDMAN EXEQUIEL HERNANDEZ The Wharton School EMILIE R. FELDMAN EXEQUIEL HERNANDEZ 沃顿商学院

Value in mergers and acquisitions derives from the synergistic combination of an acquirer and a target. We advance the existing conceptualization of synergy in three ways. First, we develop a theoretically motivated, parsimonious typology of five distinct sources of synergy based on two underlying dimensions: the level of analysis at which valuable activities occur and the orientation by which those activities are governed. The typology uncovers three novel synergy sources (relational, network, and nonmarket) arising from acquisition-induced changes in firms’ external cooperative environments and classifies two other well-known synergies (internal and market power). Second, we introduce the concept of synergy life cycles to explore how the timing of initial realization and the duration of gains vary across the five synergies based on differences in the post-merger integration required and in the control the acquirer has over the assets and activities combined by the merger. Third, we consider how the synergy types interact, yielding co-synergies when they complement each other and dis-synergies when they substitute for one another. This enables us to expand the traditional conceptualization of the total value created by mergers and acquisitions as the sum of each of the synergy types, their co-synergies, and their dis-synergies. 并购中的价值来源于收购方与目标方的协同组合。我们从三个方面推进了对协同效应的现有概念化。首先，我们基于两个潜在维度（有价值活动发生的分析层面以及这些活动的管理方向），构建了一个理论驱动、简约的五种不同协同来源的类型学。该类型学揭示了三种新的协同来源（关系型、网络型和非市场型），这些来源源于收购导致的企业外部合作环境的变化，并将另外两种众所周知的协同效应（内部型和市场力量型）进行了分类。其次，我们引入协同生命周期的概念，基于合并后整合所需的差异以及收购方对合并资产和活动的控制权差异，探讨五种协同效应在初始实现时机和收益持续时间上的变化。第三，我们考虑协同类型之间的相互作用，当它们相互补充时产生协同效应，当它们相互替代时产生非协同效应。这使我们能够扩展传统的并购总价值概念化，将其视为每种协同类型、协同效应以及非协同效应的总和。

…

RETHINKING CORPORATE POWER TO TACKLE GRAND SOCIETAL CHALLENGES: LESSONS FROM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

重新思考企业权力以应对重大社会挑战：政治哲学的启示

RUTH V. AGUILERA Northeastern University Universitat Ramon Llull RUTH V. AGUILERA 东北大学 拉蒙·鲁尔大学

J. ALBERTO ARAGÓN-CORREA University of Granada J. ALBERTO ARAGÓN-CORREA 格拉纳达大学

VALENTINA MARANO Northeastern University 瓦伦蒂娜·马拉诺 东北大学

In this essay, we review and discuss potential changes to dominant governance approaches that may help business leaders play a more active role in global sustainability issues. Instead of refining the ideas from traditional management paradigms, we seek to be intentionally provocative by bringing in fresh ideas from new, influential works on political philosophy to unlock businesses’ ability to enhance the long-term sustainability of the communities where they operate. Collectively, the reviewed books point to the importance of moving corporate governance approaches from their current dominance on shareholders’ interests to a greater emphasis on more collaborative arrangements that integrate a broader set of stakeholders’ interests in a manner that accounts for the financial as well as social and environmental implications of corporate action. It is not our intention to engage in a philosophical discussion of these works, but rather to obtain relevant insights from a related discipline that can help us add novel ideas to existing corporate governance debates. 在这篇文章中，我们回顾并讨论了主导性治理方法可能发生的潜在变革，这些变革或许能帮助企业领导者在全球可持续发展问题中发挥更积极的作用。我们并非要对传统管理范式中的理念进行完善，而是有意通过引入政治哲学领域新的、有影响力的著作中的新鲜观点，来激发企业提升其运营所在社区长期可持续性的能力。总体而言，所回顾的书籍都强调了一个重要点：需将公司治理方法从当前对股东利益的主导地位，转向更重视更具协作性的安排，这些安排应整合更广泛利益相关者的利益，同时兼顾企业行动在财务、社会和环境方面的影响。我们的目的并非对这些著作进行哲学层面的讨论，而是从相关学科中获取有价值的见解，以帮助我们为现有的公司治理辩论增添新颖的观点。

…

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS MULTISIDED PLATFORMS

非营利组织作为多角色平台

JENNIFER KUAN California State University Monterey Bay JENNIFER KUAN 加利福尼亚州立大学蒙特雷湾分校

JEREMY THORNTON Samford University 杰里米·桑顿 萨姆福德大学

Nonprofit organizations provide various important social goods and services. Consequently, management and strategy scholars are increasingly interested in the nonprofit sector. Existing theories of nonprofit organizations posit multiple profit-deviating objective functions to explain below-cost pricing but these theories raise problems for management and strategy. Importantly, the literature provides scant guidance on how nonprofit managers should select objectives. We propose that nonprofits can be modeled as profit-maximizers serving a two-sided market, also known as a multisided platform (MSP). We present a formal model to demonstrate how MSPs, so influential in the technology sector, can also explain nonprofit behavior. In our model of donative nonprofits, donors comprise one side of the market and recipients of services comprise the other side. This article addresses a long-standing theoretical question about what nonprofits optimize. Our approach also gives rivals the analytical tools to compete against nonprofits. The theory we propose can be used to explain nonprofit types and the differences between nonprofits and for-profits, addressing some of the important limitations of existing nonprofit theory. 非营利组织提供各种重要的社会公益和服务。因此，管理学和战略学学者对非营利部门的兴趣日益浓厚。现有的非营利组织理论提出了多种偏离利润的目标函数来解释低于成本定价的现象，但这些理论给管理和战略研究带来了问题。重要的是，现有文献对非营利组织管理者应如何选择目标提供的指导极少。我们提出，可以将非营利组织建模为服务于双边市场的利润最大化者，也就是所谓的多边平台（MSP）。我们构建了一个正式模型，以展示在科技行业极具影响力的多边平台（MSP）如何也能解释非营利组织的行为。在我们关于捐赠型非营利组织的模型中，捐赠者构成市场的一方，服务接收者构成另一方。本文探讨了一个长期存在的理论问题：非营利组织优化的目标是什么。我们的方法也为竞争对手提供了与非营利组织竞争的分析工具。我们提出的理论可用于解释非营利组织的类型以及非营利组织与营利组织之间的差异，解决了现有非营利组织理论的一些重要局限性。

…

FINANCIAL REPORTING CHOICES, GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES, AND STRATEGIC ASSETS: A TRANSACTION COST PERSPECTIVE

财务报告选择、治理结构与战略资产：交易成本视角

PARTHIBAN DAVID American University 帕蒂班·大卫 美国大学

RAVI DHARWADKAR Syracuse University RAVI DHARWADKAR 雪城大学

AUGUSTINE DURU American University 奥古斯丁·杜鲁 美国大学

We integrate the governance and measurement branches in transaction cost economics to highlight how differences in performance measurement choices influence the governance of strategic assets, thereby affecting transaction costs. We develop our theory in the context of corporate governance in firms. Financiers of debt and equity employ market and hierarchical governance to safeguard generic and specific assets, respectively. Financial reporting choices constitute credible commitments to generate performance reports that are used by financiers in exercising governance. We explain why conservatism (more timely information about potential losses) bolsters the market governance of debt to reduce transaction costs for generic assets, while smoothing (informative reports about future earnings) strengthens the hierarchical governance of equity to reduce transaction costs for specific assets. We outline a research agenda incorporating the implications of performance measurement from financial reporting choices for the governance of strategic investments. 我们将交易成本经济学中的治理分支与衡量分支整合，以凸显绩效衡量选择的差异如何影响战略资产的治理，进而影响交易成本。我们在企业的公司治理背景下发展这一理论。债务和股权的金融投资者分别采用市场治理和层级治理来保护通用资产和专用资产。财务报告选择构成了可靠的承诺，以生成绩效报告，而这些报告被金融投资者用于行使治理权。我们解释了谨慎性（关于潜在损失的更及时信息）为何能增强债务的市场治理，从而降低通用资产的交易成本，而平滑性（关于未来收益的信息性报告）为何能加强股权的层级治理，从而降低专用资产的交易成本。我们概述了一个研究议程，其中纳入了财务报告选择中的绩效衡量对战略投资治理的影响。

…

HOW A FIRM’S VALUE CAPTURE AFFECTS VALUE CREATION IN ITS ECOSYSTEM

企业的价值捕获如何影响其生态系统中的价值创造

KOSE JOHN New York University 高丝约翰 纽约大学

DAVID GADDIS ROSS University of Florida DAVID GADDIS ROSS 佛罗里达大学

Using a formal model, we develop a theory of how value capture by a firm with market or bargaining power dampens the incentives of other agents in its ecosystem, showing that the implications for value creation depend critically on the nature of the complementarities these agents generate. If complementarities are net positive, then dampening agents’ incentives can dramatically reduce the value created in the ecosystem, even to zero—that is, the prospect of a firm’s value capture may even prevent the firm itself from operating. Conversely, if complementarities are net negative, dampening agents’ incentives can increase value creation by discouraging agents from imposing these negative complementarities on each other. The disincentivizing effects of a firm’s value capture can be mitigated by enforceable contracts, cooperative governance, and self-organization by agents, but what is optimal for the agents or the firm may not be optimal for value creation in the ecosystem. 我们使用一个正式模型，构建了一个理论，探讨具有市场或议价能力的企业对价值的捕获如何削弱其生态系统中其他主体的激励，并表明价值创造的影响关键取决于这些主体产生的互补性的性质。如果互补性是净正向的，那么削弱主体的激励可能会大幅降低生态系统中创造的价值，甚至降至零——也就是说，企业捕获价值的前景甚至可能阻止企业自身运营。相反，如果互补性是净负向的，削弱主体的激励可以通过阻止主体相互施加这些负向互补性来增加价值创造。企业对价值的捕获所产生的抑制效应可以通过具有约束力的合同、合作治理以及主体的自我组织来缓解，但对主体或企业而言最优的方案可能并非生态系统中价值创造的最优方案。

…

FROM THE EDITORS

致编辑

WHY I REJECTED YOUR PAPER: COMMON PITFALLS IN WRITING THEORY PAPERS AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

为什么我拒绝了你的论文：理论论文写作中的常见陷阱及避免方法

JOANNA T. CAMPBELL University of Cincinnati 乔安娜·T·坎贝尔 辛辛那提大学

RUTH V. AGUILERA Northeastern University Universitat Ramon Llull RUTH V. AGUILERA 东北大学 拉蒙·卢尔大学

In the last issue of AMR, our colleagues highlighted just how intensely emotional the process of publishing in AMR can be, and discussed specific coping strategies at each stage of the review process (Bundy, Shipp, & Brickson, 2022). As they outlined, each stage, from initial submission to acceptance or rejection, is accompanied by myriad feelings—both highs and lows. The lows associated with having a paper rejected have been well-documented. For example, Horn (2016) empirically examined the effect of rejection and showed that it puts the self-esteem and identity of scholars at risk. In a similar vein, Day (2011) discussed emotional responses to manuscript rejection and various coping strategies (on rejection and career resilience, see also Walker, 2019). Less often discussed are the negative emotions associate editors (AEs) experience when they have to reject a paper, even when it is clear that a lot of work has been put into the manuscript. Emotions can be even more crushing when we need to reject a paper after a reviseand-resubmit (R&R) invitation and the authors have again devoted months of work to revising the paper. The AE’s goal is to publish papers—there is no greater joy in an AE’s world than accepting a paper for publication, and perhaps no harder decision than having to reject a revision. With this in mind, we would like to share some of the AEs’ frequently cited reasons for rejection at both the initial submission and the revision stage, as well as suggesting possible remedies. 在上一期《AMR》中，我们的同事强调了在AMR发表论文的过程是多么情绪化，并讨论了评审过程每个阶段的具体应对策略（Bundy, Shipp, & Brickson, 2022）。正如他们所概述的，从最初提交到接受或拒绝，每个阶段都伴随着无数的情绪——有起有落。论文被拒的低谷已被充分记录。例如，Horn（2016）实证研究了拒稿的影响，发现这会危及学者的自尊和身份认同。同样，Day（2011）讨论了对稿件拒稿的情绪反应以及各种应对策略（关于拒稿和职业韧性，也可参见Walker, 2019）。较少被讨论的是，当编辑（AEs）不得不拒稿时，即使很明显稿件投入了大量工作，他们也会经历负面情绪。当编辑在收到作者再次投入数月时间修改的“修改后重投”（R&R）邀请后仍需拒稿时，情绪的打击可能更大。编辑的目标是发表论文——在编辑的世界里，没有什么比接受一篇论文发表更令人愉悦的了，或许也没有什么决定比拒稿修改更艰难。考虑到这一点，我们想分享编辑在初始提交和修改阶段拒稿的常见原因，并提出可能的补救措施。

…

AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF MODERATORS ATTENUATING OR EXACERBATING NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OF JOB INSECURITY

关于缓解或加剧工作不安全感负面结果的调节因素的综合综述

LIXIN JIANG $\textcircled{1}$ University of Auckland LIXIN JIANG $\textcircled{1}$ 奥克兰大学

Job insecurity is a lasting and pervasive issue in the modern workplace. Given the extensive body of research highlighting the detrimental effects of job insecurity, it is imperative to explore factors that may either buffer against or amplify these negative outcomes. This review identifies and discusses five primary theoretical perspectives commonly used in existing research to explain the moderating effects of job insecurity: resourcethreatening, appraisal, social-exchange, identity-threatening, and uncertainty reduction. Additionally, I categorize a wide array of moderators across three levels—individual, organizational, and societal—each with three subcategories. I summarize research findings within each category based on the theoretical perspectives, explore competing predictions from different perspectives, and highlight how quantitative job insecurity and qualitative job insecurity may activate the same or different moderators with varying effects. The review concludes with a comprehensive summary of overall findings, addressing the issues of research saturation and redundancy, the lack of replication studies, the jangle fallacy, and research gaps and future research directions. 工作不安全感是现代职场中一个长期且普遍存在的问题。鉴于大量研究强调了工作不安全感的不利影响，探索可能缓冲或加剧这些负面结果的因素至关重要。本综述识别并讨论了现有研究中常用的五种主要理论视角，以解释工作不安全感的调节效应：资源威胁、评估、社会交换、身份威胁和不确定性减少。此外，我将广泛的调节变量分为三个层面——个体、组织和社会，每个层面各有三个子类别。我根据理论视角总结每个类别内的研究结果，探讨不同视角下的竞争性预测，并强调定量工作不安全感和定性工作不安全感如何激活具有不同影响的相同或不同调节变量。综述最后全面总结整体研究结果，解决研究饱和与冗余、缺乏重复研究、“混淆谬误”以及研究空白和未来研究方向等问题。

…