Objective: this article aims to exemplify critical reading, rereading, and estimation of an alternative model using the summary data and covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). Methods: we selected an article from a highly ranked journal that confirmed the importance of three out of eight antecedents of team performance. We then reanalyzed the article in three steps. Results: in step 1, we identified relationships that were not tested, or that were not significant, possibly due to multicollinearity (VIF > 3). In step 2, the correlation matrix indicated a discriminant validity issue and values that should have confirmed all hypotheses. In step 3, an alternative model was tested using CB-SEM and confirmed all hypotheses, with one of them as an indirect effect. Conclusions: structural equation modeling (SEM) is not just a statistical method for analyzing covariance structures. It is also a way of thinking about research and theory-building that involves abstract concepts and the imagination of ways to operationalize these constructs so that empirical research becomes possible.
This interview presents Professor Roy Suddaby’s reflections on history, values, and the future of institutional theory. He discusses the evolution of institutional work, the use of historical analysis, and the renewed attention to meaning and values in the study of institutions. The conversation addresses the challenges of theoretical dominance, the emergence of new ideas, and the role of collective memory in understanding institutional continuity and change.
Objective: examine how corporate governance indicators - Novo Mercado (NM), Novo - relate to tax litigation among B3-listed firms. Methods: we analyze 3,290 firm-year observations from 254 B3 companies (2009-2023) using OLS, random effects, difference GMM, system GMM, and quantile regressions, with controls for size, business risk, liquidity, leverage, age, profitability, asset structure, and sector litigiousness. Results: governance effects are heterogeneous: NM and IGC are associated with lower tax litigation, consistent with stronger monitoring and compliance, whereas IGNM and ITAG correlate with higher litigation, possibly reflecting greater visibility, complexity, and scrutiny. Quantile estimates show these effects are strongest in the upper tail of the litigation distribution. Conclusions: robust governance can reduce tax disputes, but visibility- and rights-driven mechanisms may increase exposure in complex settings. Firms should pair transparency with proactive tax risk governance to balance compliance, scrutiny, and litigation costs.
Objective: the objective of this study was to analyze the effect of capital structure on the relationship between intangible resources and innovation capability. Methods: the hypotheses were tested using a panel dataset of 487 US companies listed on the S&P index from 2015 to 2022, employing fixed-effects regression models. Results: the results indicate that three intangible resources — accounting intangibility, marketing investments, and market-to-book — positively influence innovation capability. However, the effects of accounting intangibility and market-to-book on innovation capability diminish when firms rely primarily on debt financing, as opposed to equity issuance (i.e., the moderator). Conclusions: the findings highlight that different types of intangible resources contribute to innovation capability and underscore the role of capital structure in shaping management practices aimed at achieving competitive advantages and long-term corporate sustainability.
Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have become a fixture of management scholarship, yet a commensurate rise has not matched their exponential proliferation in theoretical contribution. This editorial argues that SLRs in management are neither dead nor merely alive; they are at an inflection point that demands both methodological and intellectual reinvention. The core problem is not the method itself but the predominance of a descriptive, bibliometric mode of execution that delivers mapping when leading journals increasingly demand explanation, critical reflection, theoretical insight, and forward-looking research agendas. Drawing on recent advances in theory development and research methodology, this editorial proposes a portfolio of approaches ranging from framework-based integrative reviews and meta-analytic structural equation modeling to realist synthesis and theory-driven reviews organized by the level of theoretical contribution each can generate. A decision framework guides researchers in choosing the approach most aligned with their epistemological commitments and the field's maturity. The editorial concludes with explicit expectations for SLR submissions to the Brazilian Administration Review.
