<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss version="2.0">
	
  <channel>
    <title>AOM In-Press Articles</title>
    <description>Latest AOM In-Press Articles</description>
    <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/inpress</link>
	<language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate><![CDATA[Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:54:45 EST]]></lastBuildDate>
	
		    <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/AomIn-pressArticles" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="aomin-pressarticles" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
		      <title><![CDATA[AMJ: FAKING IT OR MUDDLING THROUGH? UNDERSTANDING DECOUPLING IN RESPONSE TO STAKEHOLDER PRESSURES [Issue-Unassigned]]]></title>
		      <description><![CDATA[We advance a multi-level argument that challenges and qualifies existing explanations of firms’ responses to institutional pressures. In an in-depth study of 17 multinational corporations involving 359 interviews with internal and external actors, we find that firms facing identical pressures decouple policy from practice in different ways and for different reasons. Firms' responses can be either intentional or emergent, where responses are generated locally without firm-wide coordination. In the presence of information asymmetry between firms and their stakeholders, we find that managers' responses are intentional ("faking it") and depend on how they perceive their interests. In the presence of competing stakeholder expectations, responses are emergent ("muddling through") and depend on the degree of consensus among managers in their readings of the environment. These findings suggest that theories of decoupling need to be broadened to include the role of “muddling through” and the interplay of internal managerial and external stakeholder dynamics.]]></description>
		      <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&amp;art_id=1134&amp;p_id=1&amp;p_short=AMJ</link>
		      <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:10:35 EST]]></pubDate>
		    </item>
	
		    <item>
		      <title><![CDATA[AMLE: EXEMPLARY CONTRIBUTION: THE DECREASING VALUE OF OUR RESEARCH TO MANAGEMENT EDUCATION [Volume 11, Number 2 June 2012]]]></title>
		      <description><![CDATA[For centuries we have expected the best teachers also to be scholars. Scholar comes from the Old English word for student, someone who is committed to learning. This tells us how scholars are expected to approach their teaching: scholars know the latest knowledge, seek to contribute new knowledge, and are always learning.]]></description>
		      <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&amp;art_id=1097&amp;p_id=2&amp;p_short=AMLE</link>
		      <pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:12:12 EST]]></pubDate>
		    </item>
	
		    <item>
		      <title><![CDATA[AMP: TEST-DRIVING THE FUTURE:
HOW DESIGN COMPETITIONS ARE CHANGING INNOVATION
 [Volume 26, Number 2 May 2012]]]></title>
		      <description><![CDATA[As organizations realize the potential of ‘open innovation’ models, the use of ‘design competitions’ - target-setting events that offer monetary awards and other benefits to contestants, is regaining popularity as an innovation tool.     In this paper we look at the innovations agendas of organizations and individuals that sponsor and organize design competitions.  We then examine the architecture and governance of design competitions.  We explore the transformative impact that ‘open innovation’ and ‘crowd-sourcing’, in combination with online platforms, have had on design competitions.   We also look at the evolution of design competitions and highlight their expanding scope and complexity.]]></description>
		      <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&amp;art_id=1132&amp;p_id=3&amp;p_short=AMP</link>
		      <pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:11:08 EST]]></pubDate>
		    </item>
	
		    <item>
		      <title><![CDATA[AMP: SAY ON PAY: A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? [Volume 26, Number 2 May 2012]]]></title>
		      <description><![CDATA[This paper debates whether Say on Pay can fix executive pay. We argue that Say on Pay benefits executive pay when shareholders’ voice offsets CEO power and mitigates directors’ information deficiencies. We admonish however that Say on Pay may raise novel problems. The pay resulting from Say on Pay can harm stakeholders whose interests differ from those of shareholders influential in pay-setting. Moreover, boards may resist shareholders’ intervention in pay-setting and, accordingly, manage compensation disclosures to ensure a passing shareholder vote. Consequently, Say on Pay may not only fail to remedy suboptimal pay but also legitimize it.]]></description>
		      <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&amp;art_id=1133&amp;p_id=3&amp;p_short=AMP</link>
		      <pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:16:04 EST]]></pubDate>
		    </item>
	
		    <item>
		      <title><![CDATA[AMR: CARE AND POSSIBILITY: 
ENACTING AN ETHIC OF CARE THROUGH NARRATIVE PRACTICE
 [Volume 37, Number 4 October 2012]]]></title>
		      <description><![CDATA[The feminist notion of an ethic of care emerged in the 1980s as a powerful alternative to justice as a central orienting value for the development of moral theory, but has been largely overlooked in the literature on care in organizations. We explore how an ethic of care could be enacted in organizations, arguing that it would involve narrative practices embedded in enduring relationships, such as work teams. We articulate three domains of discursive practice – how members construct their experiences, how they construct their struggles, and how they construct future-oriented stories – and from them identify three specific caring narrative practices – constructing histories of sparkling moments, contextualizing struggles, and constructing polyphonic future-oriented stories. We argue that, together, these practices foster an ontology of possibility, a belief system that emphasizes the socially constructed nature of both past and present, and thus facilitates action and an appreciation of its limits. We conclude by considering the organizational conditions under which an ethic of care is more likely to flourish and the impacts of an ontology of possibility on the resilience of organizational teams who adopt it.]]></description>
		      <link>http://journals.aomonline.org/InPress/main.asp?action=preview&amp;art_id=1135&amp;p_id=4&amp;p_short=AMR</link>
		      <pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:52:34 EST]]></pubDate>
		    </item>
	
  </channel>
</rss>

