Interdisciplinary research is widely promoted as essential for advancing understanding of complex managerial and organizational phenomena. Yet, while often celebrated rhetorically, authors keep facing significant challenges when they seek to integrate insights from other disciplines into management scholarship. To that effect, we outline four research-informed cornerstone practices to help management scholars craft interdisciplinary research. Employing a narrative-integrative review approach, we inductively develop an Interdisciplinarity Diffusion Framework that maps interdisciplinary research according to the proximity of the source discipline to management (proximal-distal) and the primary mode of diffusion (theory, methods, or phenomena). Drawing on exemplary studies to illustrate our points, we show how different positions within this framework create distinct opportunities and barriers for authors. We draw on these findings, as well as on our own scholarly experience to detail four cornerstone practices, which serve as practical guidance for authors interested in advancing management theory with interdisciplinary research. Finally, we shift attention to the responsibilities of reviewers, editors, and institutions in shaping an environment where interdisciplinarity can flourish. We argue that supporting interdisciplinary research should be a rich and shared endeavour, central to the future intellectual vitality and societal relevance of management studies.

Innovation research has long shown that firms depend on their R&D personnel to strengthen their innovation capabilities, sparking scholarly interest in how to best staff R&D departments for competitive advantage, with a focus on gender diversity. However, left unexamined are the mechanisms linking gender diversity in R&D departments and firm-level innovation. Further, despite growing interest in the conditions under which diversity may enhance innovation, researchers have not adequately addressed how department-level gender rank inequality-the disproportionate concentration of men and women at various hierarchical ranks-interacts with numerical diversity to affect innovation outcomes. We address both limitations by integrating insights from the information/decision-making perspective on diversity and research on inequality with research on innovation capabilities. Specifically, we develop and test a model explaining how R&D department gender diversity and gender rank equality jointly affect three firm-level innovation capabilities: breadth of external knowledge search, use of external knowledge, and quality of the innovation implementation process. We also examine the indirect effects of gender diversity on firm-level innovation, conditional on gender rank equality, via these capabilities. Our analyses of 552 corporate R&D departments over 12 years show how gender diversity and gender rank equality in R&D departments jointly relate to higher levels of all three firm-level innovation capabilities and, indirectly, to greater firm-level innovation. Our findings suggest that improving a firm's innovation capabilities and performance requires both increased representation of women in R&D departments and proportional representation of men and women at all ranks of R&D departments.

Research Question/Issue We examine how women's representation on boards (WRB) shapes board processes (effort norms, cognitive conflict, and use of knowledge and skills) and how board chairs' leadership moderates those relationships. Our theory integrates insights from information processing theory with intergroup threat theory.Research Findings/Insights Our survey of 731 directors across 95 boards shows that WRB helps board processes up to a point, after which the effect reverses. The inverted U-shaped relationships peak below gender parity, meaning benefits diminish before WRB reaches 50%. Boards led by more authentic chairs demonstrate better board processes and less variance in processes at different levels of WRB, likely because their directors perceive less threat and more psychological safety.Theoretical/Academic Implications This study (1) expands our understanding of how WRB shapes board processes, complementing prior research focused on firm-level outcomes and women's critical mass; (2) highlights unintended negative dynamics in upper-echelon teams as WRB tends toward parity; (3) identifies board chairs' authentic leadership as an explanation for variance in boards' ability to convert WRB into higher effort norms and better use of directors' knowledge and skills, contributing to research on leadership in diverse boards; (4) contributes to information processing theory by suggesting that high conflict-avoidance may represent an important boundary for the effectiveness of diversity in upper echelons; and (5) contributes to status threat theory by showing that the precise majority-minority tipping point may depend on what is at stake.Practitioner/Policy Implication Directors should remain vigilant to subtle biases and resistance as board diversity increases. Board chairs can enhance authentic leadership by embracing self-awareness, transparency, and consistency. Policymakers promoting gender equity on boards must anticipate and address challenges linked to increasing diversity.

Technological developments - particularly related to artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and digitalization - are disrupting the workplace in unprecedented ways, particularly in professional and knowledge-intensive sectors. Scholars' views on the implications of these disruptions range from optimism and pessimism to scepticism. Disciplines vary in how extensively they have considered the implications of these technological developments. With much prior work focusing on the more macro-level phenomena and effects, the role of institutions, organizations and individuals - as well as their interrelatedness - remains less examined. In this introductory article to the special issue, we discuss the scope, extent and new domains of change related to the Future of Work and, especially, to AI. We also reflect on the consequences of these changes as well as the related processes and mechanisms through which they will manifest. Then, we introduce and summarize the articles included in this special issue along the above dimensions. We conclude by reflecting on the overall contribution of the special issue and on future directions for examining the Future of Work from the perspective of management studies.

The Gender Data Gap concerns the circumstance that organizational decisions are based mostly on data that appear to be biased in favor of (white) men and fundamentally contributes to ongoing gender disparities in organizational decision making. The lack of (adequate) data for women leads to unfavorable outcomes for women's careers and ineffective interventions and can even shorten women's lives. In this management focus section of the European Management Journal, we use the Gender Data Gap as a novel approach to investigating the basis for policies that disadvantage women. Organizations' policies and practices might not discriminate overtly against women, but if they are based solely on male data, the resulting male bias in organizational expectations and outcomes negatively impacts women's careers. Our editorial features four articles that illustrate the pervasiveness of the Gender Data Gap yet also offer novel insights for interventions, and identify and discuss topical areas for future inquiry.

Contributing to emerging research on corporate governance and operations management, our study examines the connection between board diversity and workplace safety. We propose that boards with a higher representation of female directors prioritize and thus enhance workplace safety due to women's distinct social-cognitive perspectives on stakeholders, risk avoidance, and regulatory compliance. We also consider two conditions that may strengthen the relationship between female board representation and workplace safety: (1) the power of the female directors on the board, which may cause them to speak out more, and cause others to heed their perspectives; (2) accountability pressures faced by the board, which may increase board member epistemological motivation (the willingness to invest effort to fully understand the board's tasks and decisions being made). Analyzing a unique dataset that covers 1442 firm-year observations across 266 firms, we show that female board representation improves workplace safety when women have more power and when boards face greater accountability pressures. In an empirical extension, we examine how the representation of racial/ethnic minority directors impacts workplace safety and the synergistic effect of female and minority board representation. Our findings deepen our understanding of how board diversity interacts with situational factors to influence operational outcomes.

This editorial introduces and explains the Journal of Management Studies' . We reflect on the use of AI in conducting research and generating journal submissions and what this means for the wider JMS community, including our authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Specifically, we consider how AI-generated research and text could both assist and augment the publication process, as well as harm it. Consequentially, our policy acknowledges the need for careful oversight regarding the use of AI to assist in the authoring of texts and in data analyses, while also noting the importance of requiring authors to be transparent about how, when and where they have utilized AI in their submissions or underlying research. Additionally, we examine how and in what ways AI's use may be antithetical to the spirit of a quality journal like JMS that values both human voice and research transparency. Our editorial explains why we require author teams to oversee all aspects of AI use within their projects, and to take personal responsibility for accuracy in all aspects of their research. We also explain our prohibition of AI's use in peer-reviewers' evaluations of submissions, and regarding editors' handling of manuscripts.

This paper contributes to the diversity literature (especially as it relates to teams) by exploring an important and relatively under researched assumption, namely, that more variety in demographic...

In the last 40 years, research on manifestations and consequences of gender bias in upper echelons has exploded, becoming increasingly fragmented. At the same time, gender roles, stereotypes, and the composition of upper echelons have undergone important changes. We take a historical approach to review the evolution of gender bias research and methodologies and identify new opportunities for future research. Our review contributes to extant research by: (1) offering a historical perspective on research on gender bias in top management, thereby facilitating a broader understanding; (2) providing the first overview of explanations of female top executives’ underrepresentation beyond the predominant, role-theoretical reasoning; and (3) developing a comprehensive agenda for future research. We invite scholars to test and expand previous findings through replication in different empirical contexts and triangulation with other methods, investigate gender bias in light of intersectionality, and develop strategies to successfully mitigate gender bias and promote gender parity at all management levels.

Board processes are considered crucial to board effectiveness, yet research on female board representation (FBR) rarely evaluates its effect on board processes. Research suggests that as FBR increases, it has countervailing effects on board processes: improvements as a function of interpersonal qualities women are presumed to bring to the board, and deterioration as a function of increasing diversity resistance from male directors. Because of board chairs’ sizable influence on board processes, we consider how directors’ perceptions of their chair moderates the FBR – board processes relationship. Analyzing survey data from 826 directors, representing 111 boards, we find an inverted-U relationship between FBR and five key board processes. When FBR is relatively low, it is associated with more effective board processes, but as FBR approach 40% it becomes associated with deteriorating board processes. However, when directors perceive their chairperson as exhibiting transparency, seeking complete information, behaving consistently, and being self-aware (e.g., when they perceive their chair as exhibiting ‘authentic leadership’ behaviors), not only are board processes superior at all FBR levels, but the positive effects of FBR persist beyond the turning points.

Over the years, researchers have used various theoretical frameworks and analytical tools to evaluate the relationship between board gender diversity and firm financial performance. The results, however, have remained largely inconclusive, perhaps because the role of board gender diversity has been studied separately from other board and firm characteristics. To address this issue, we examine the relationship between board gender diversity and firm financial performance through the theoretical framework of complexity theory, using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Our sample comprises 204 non-financial firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). We find that board gender diversity does not affect firm financial performance in isolation, but rather in combination with other board and firm characteristics. In some combinations it is associated with both stronger firm financial performance and in other configurations with weaker firm financial performance. We also find that greater gender diversity on boards mitigates the negative effects of CEO duality on firm financial performance.

Combining research that examines the effect of performance feedback and available slack on firms’ innovation efforts with research on board ethnic diversity, we theorize that board ethnic diversity alters how firms adjust their innovation efforts in response to the information that search provides. Specifically, we theorize that more ethnic diversity in boards amplifies the intensification of firm research and development (R&D) search efforts caused by lower than anticipated performance and available slack, and exacerbates the drop in R&D search intensity that occurs when performance is above anticipated levels. Testing these predictions with a panel dataset of 11,036 observations from 1,527 S&P 1500 firms for the period 2006–2016, we find robust empirical support for most of our predictions.