Search results

When reporting wrongdoing internally, whistleblowers are confronted with the dilemma of weighing up their loyalty toward the organization (e.g., ethical standards) and their co-workers (e.g., the social norm of not snitching on peers). However, the role played by peers in the whistleblowing decision process and in the aftermath has rarely been addressed in existing reviews. We therefore perform a systematic review that identifies seven thematic clusters of peer factors, offering researchers an informative overview of (a) the peer factors that have been examined to influence the whistleblowing decision, and (b) the extent to which the whistleblower experiences adverse consequences from peers in the aftermath of whistleblowing. As peer factors seem to be important to explain and predict internal whistleblowing, researchers are encouraged to address in future works the research gaps our review unraveled.

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

Technology-enhanced learning (TEL), particularly in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM), revolutionizes educational approaches by fostering active, transformative learning and expediting the learning process. TEL employs various tools like online courses, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, virtual reality (VR), simulations, makerspaces, visual learning, and project-based learning, all contributing to accelerated learning in STEAM. A notable TEL innovation is the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI chatbots, exemplified by the release of GPT-3 in December 2022. These tools utilize extensive parameters to generate natural language and perform tasks such as classification and prediction, thereby offering personalized and collaborative learning experiences essential for STEAM education. The generative pre-training transformer (GPT), a leading model in natural language processing (NLP), excels in generating human-like text and handling complex tasks like translation, summarization, and question answering. This chapter explores TEL environments that support transformative learning in STEAM, focusing on AI models. It reviews research on TEL’s impact on STEAM education, discussing the constructionism theory and emphasizing TEL’s role in creating engaging, student-centered learning experiences. However, challenges like technology access, instructor training, infrastructure, internet connectivity, and hardware resources are crucial. Additionally, the rise of AI brings ethical concerns regarding privacy, security, and potential biases in AI algorithms. Despite these hurdles, TEL’s potential to enhance STEAM learning experiences and accelerate the educational process is significant. By effectively implementing TEL strategies and leveraging LLMs and AI tools, educators can substantially improve learning outcomes in STEAM education.

Recent studies have questioned the direct relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and firm performance (e.g., Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, 2013). Following this stream of research, this study examines this relationship by identifying the intermediate steps between these two variables (Alegre & Chiva, 2013; Wales, 2016; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). EO is considered essential for new market entry and new business foundation, which is why this study focuses on startups. Startups search for viable business opportunities, and this search is highly dependent on organizational learning (Kreiser, 2011). Previous studies suggest that organizational learning mediates the relationship between EO and performance (e.g., Real, Roldan, & Leal, 2014; Wang, 2008). This study investigates the role of organizational learning in this relationship by analyzing how EO and absorptive capacity (AC) interact. We propose a more direct and fine-grained measure of entrepreneurial success by developing a conceptual model that includes opportunity identification as an early outcome measure for startups. Drawing on a sample of 95 academic spin-offs in the Netherlands, this study examines the mediating role of AC and market readiness in the relationship between EO and market opportunities. The findings indicate that AC and market readiness mediate the direct effect of EO on market opportunity identification. By using opportunity identification as an outcome measure for EO, this study adopts a more direct measure for firm performance, resonating with recent discussions on the main effect of EO for organizations. These findings suggest that academic spin-offs’ AC leads entrepreneurial efforts to achieve a better product-market fit, and in return, helps to identify more market opportunities.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.