While leadership development theory and practice often promote emotionally challenging programs designed to elicit negative emotions, it remains unclear whether individuals learn and develop from such situations. An interesting but unexamined question is thus, "When do negative emotions stimulate learning, and how?" Integrating the functionalist theory of emotions and the transactional model of stress and coping, we suggest that mindfulness plays a key moderating role in alleviating the known downsides of negative emotional experiences to achieving developmental benefits. We find that the relationship between negative emotions and learning performance is more nuanced, depending on mindfulness: In Study 1, we find that mindfulness is a critical condition that helps mitigate the negative effect of negative emotions on learning performance. In Study 2, we further demonstrate that mindfulness amplifies the benefits of negative emotions on learning performance. In Studies 3 and 4, we conduct controlled interventions to provide evidence that the interaction effect between negative emotions and mindfulness on learning performance is mediated by cognitive appraisals. Specifically, we find that mindfulness helps individuals appraise negative emotion as a challenge, which enhances learning performance. We discuss our results' contributions to the leadership development literature and the practical implications for leadership education and training.

Introduction While spatial and material aspects are fundamental to accomplishing any organizational activity and process, these have largely been neglected or treated as mere background in theoretical accounts that explain phenomena such as strategic change. This dearth of research exploring the role of materials has inspired ‘material turns’ in the fields of social studies of finance (for example, MacKenzie 2006; Pinch and Swedberg 2008), organizational routines (for example, D’Adderio 2011; Pentland et al. 2012) and technology studies (for example, Orlikowski 2007; Orlikowski and Scott 2008). Although multiple approaches exist that could shed light on the consequentiality of materiality for strategizing, at present these are not explicitly discussed in the literature. To establish a research agenda for strategy as practice scholars, this chapter provides an overview of different philosophical approaches and empirical traditions to materiality, explaining the assumptions inherent in each approach and how these assumptions alter the way we understand and study strategizing. When possible, we illustrate the approaches with examples from strategy as practice. In so doing, we develop a typology of materiality that researchers might draw upon to guide their own work. Critically, while this typology is conceptually helpful to better understand the different ways in which one may view and work with materiality, we do not see the approaches as absolutely distinct. Rather, we see them as operating on a sliding scale; some approaches may be blended relatively effortlessly, while others would be impossible to combine given their opposing assumptions. In introducing these approaches, we aim to critically engage with the notion of materiality, encouraging the reader to see materiality as something that goes beyond mere physicality. In line with these aims, our chapter is structured as follows. We briefly review the philosophical foundations of materiality to demonstrate the rich and diverse origins of the construct. We then introduce four empirical traditions to materiality: the communications approach, the technological approach, the sensemaking approach and the positivist approach. Reflecting on these approaches and their utility to SAP research, we draw up an agenda for future research. Herein we suggest the following as particularly fruitful avenues for research: time and space, and emotion and identity; connecting important levels of analysis, such as institutions and practice; drawing on innovative methods; and, most critically, using materiality to prompt new research questions that will significantly alter our understanding of organizations. Philosophical approaches to materiality

This article explains how employees construct inconsistencies between two separate mandated changes and use these inconsistencies to progressively resist the realization of both changes. Specifically, they use three practices – (1) demonstrating interdependencies between change elements, (2) framing these change elements as inconsistent and (3) establishing the consequentiality of specific change elements by constructing poor outcomes for these – to build capacity to critique, revise and eventually reject elements of both changes. As a result of this resistance, neither mandated change is fully realized. Our findings contribute to the literature on strategic change by illuminating the specific processual dynamics through which actors construct and manipulate the relationship between changes. This also allows us to contribute to the literature on resistance to change by illuminating the dynamics that over time enable actors to resist even mandated – that is, externally imposed – changes, by camouflaging resistance as non-resistance.

We study commensurating in a multi-stakeholder partnership established to address waterway health degradation in Australia’s critical Great Barrier Reef region. Actors of this partnership engaged in commensurating this issue, reifying it into a report card. This tool became central in representing the group’s assessment of the sustainability issue and driving collective action towards mitigation. As actors sought to commensurate the issue, they increasingly became dubious as to the real impact of their tool. Even so, they continued to engage in counterproductive commensurating practices that limited their impact. We offer two contributions based on these findings. First, we extend our understanding of the pitfalls attached to commensurating sustainability issues by revealing how efforts put in altering a commensuration tool can gradually shift actors’ attention away from ensuring the tool enables them to take impactful collective action. Second, we open the commensuration “black box” by revealing the interactional dynamics nested within the commensurating of sustainability issues. Specifically, practices aimed at including additional sustainability data in the tool are often met with practices seeking the opposite, that is, to exclude data. These countervailing practices eventually coalesce into changes to the commensuration tool which generate ‘small wins’ for actors, diverting their attention away from ensuring the tool enabled them to take impactful collective action.

While prior work has argued that negative emotions can be detrimental to learning, leadership development theory and practice continue to advocate for emotionally challenging programs. Integrating the functionalist theory of emotions and the transactional model of stress and coping, we suggest that mindfulness plays a key moderating role in alleviating the known downsides of negative emotional experiences to achieving developmental benefits. Results from three studies support our hypothesis that the relationship between negative emotions and developmental outcomes depends on the extent to which one is mindful. While we found that negative emotions were inversely related to learning satisfaction outcome, the relationship between negative emotions and learning performance was more nuanced, depending on mindfulness: In study 1 with full-time residential MBA students participating in an action learning module, we found mindfulness to be a critical condition that helped to mitigate the negative effect of negative emotions on learning performance, and in study 2 we further demonstrated a positive effect on learning performance with EMBA students. In study 3, we ran a controlled intervention to show that challenge appraisal is the key mechanism explaining the interactive effect of mindfulness and negative emotions on learning performance. We discuss the contributions to the leadership development literature and the practical implications for leadership training.

In this panel symposium, the editorial team of Organizational Research Methods (ORM) will reflect on the past 25 years of ORM publications with the intent of providing guidance to attendees on developing future methodological contributions. Each member of the editorial team will introduce and discuss a paper published in ORM between 1998 and 2023; discussion will involve what they appreciate about the paper, how it enriched academic debate at the time of its publication, and its subsequent impact on the field. The members of the editorial team will then share insight regarding what distinguishes an exciting submission and marks an important contribution to existing debate in research methods scholarship. Additionally, the panel will discuss the types of publications, topics, and methodological approaches they believe will shape the future of the field, including necessary methodological developments and potential solutions to existing challenges and shortcomings. The overarching goal of the symposium is to provide resources to attendees in how to generate and write impactful methodological contributions. New and less experienced researchers often struggle with how to recognize, frame, and structure methodological contributions. Dissecting exemplary papers from ORM may help researchers see new possibilities for developing their own fledgling methodological ideas. Despite being trained in 1) how to structure empirical and theoretical papers and 2) the appropriate application of research methods, many attendees may benefit from guidance on how to develop methodological contributions. Moreover, authors interested in enhancing their methodological toolkit may also benefit from the advice and encouragement offered by the panel. The panelists will include the current Co-editors and Associate Editors of Organizational Research Methods. Together, these editors represent methodological expertise spanning the divisions of AOM. Accordingly, we anticipate discussion topics to be broad, ranging from micro to macro, and quantitative to qualitative methods. Attendees will have ample opportunity to ask questions enabling panelists to address specific topics, possibly including 1) how to conceptualize and structure methods articles, 2) the integration of and distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches, 3) effective and ineffective ways of communicating methodological findings to a diverse audience, 4) the future of the field and relevant methodological developments, and more.

In this paper, we adopt a multistakeholder governance perspective to study how people collectively respond to a grand challenge. Specifically, we show how working through governance obstacles—that is, coordinating and collaborating challenges arising from a multistakeholder governance approach to responding to grand challenges—can erode actors' ability to mitigate these wicked problems. We illustrate this process through an in-depth case study of WaterHealthOrg, a multistakeholder initiative established to address degrading water health in Australia's critical Great Barrier Reef region. Our findings reveal how, in an effort to avoid group paralysis or dissolution, actors employ specific practices to address governance obstacles. By doing so, actors set off a cumulative self-reinforcing process, driving them to consolidate rather than critically reflect on and adapt their collective response. Drawing on these insights, we develop a conceptual process model of how efforts to manage multistakeholder governance obstacles can generate governance traps that shape participants' ability to collectively respond and, ultimately, mitigate grand challenges.

This paper briefly introduces qualitative approaches to Human Resource Development (HRD), before summarizing the current state of qualitative research methods in management and organization studies. Our intent is to draw lessons from management and organization studies for Human Resource Development, with the ambition of advancing theory building with the field, as well as general understanding of human resource development processes and practices (see Lester, 2023 ).

One of the raging debates in organization study concerns the use of "templates" in qualitative research. This curated debate brings together many of the players in that debate, who make statements of position relative to the issues involved and trade accusations and counter-accusations about statements they have made that in their view have been misinterpreted or misconstrued. Overall, it is quite a lively debate that reveals positions, points of tension and grounds for disagreement. Denny Gioia wrote the triggering essay that prompted other players to weigh in with their personal and professional views.

Interorganizational partnerships are a key mechanism to address grand challenges including climate change, poverty, energy security, and health crises. These partnerships are beset with paradoxes and must thus continuously respond to tensions at multiple levels. By studying paradoxical tensions and the responses to these tensions across the various levels of an interorganizational partnerships, this thesis traces the movement of paradoxical tension across levels and over time showing consequences for Grand challenges. Specifically, this longitudinal case study of interorganizational actors addressing the grand challenge of renewable energy in emerging economies, shows – in contrast to existing studies – that tensions continuously move between the individual, organizational, and interorganizational levels of the partnership in non-linear movements. This study explains these non-linear movements and highlights the implications for interorganizational partnerships and their ability to address grand challenges. Specifically, the research shows how critical incidents, can occur at any level, making tensions salient, sometimes at multiple levels simultaneously, with tensions then moving dynamically between various levels of the partnership based on how paradoxes are experienced and responded to by actors. The simultaneous dynamic movements, experience and response to paradoxical tension can provide an explanatory mechanism for how interorganizational partnerships are beset by paradox which in turn creates tensions and how the experience and response to tensions influences the focus on the grand challenge. Our narratives of dynamically moving tensions challenge existing depictions of paradoxical movement and highlights critical mechanisms in understanding the role of paradoxes in interorganizational settings.

In this article, we examine how scholars innovate research methods. Based on a review of published qualitative strategy and management research, we identify highly innovative academic papers, that is, papers that demonstrate substantial novelty in every part of the research process. We work through these papers in detail to demonstrate their novelty, highlighting concrete ways in which scholars have innovated three interconnected parts of the research process: data generation, data analysis, and presentation of findings. Based on our analysis, we develop a two-layered "iceberg" model of method innovation, which shows that important principles guide the innovative use of organizational research tools. These principles are engaging in holistic innovation, being excruciatingly clear in the presentation of methods, developing theory and method together, and being reflexive in innovating methods. Our model demystifies the largely implicit process of innovating research methods. We hope it serves to orient and encourage a more creative use of methods in future studies.

While AOM members are often exposed to graduate training involving the application of research methods, few have been trained regarding the development of methodological contributions to the research methods literature. As such, authors may find the substance and form of a research methods article to be challenging. Authors benefit from advice regarding how to structure an empirical or theoretical paper using a discipline-based research question as foundation. Similarly, they may benefit from advice involving methodological contributions. The panel symposium will act as a source of advice by offering insight from the editorial team of Organizational Research Methods on how to conceptualize and write methodology articles. The presenters include the current Co-editors and Associate Editors of Organizational Research Methods. Collectively, these editors represent expertise in methods that span all divisions of the Academy from micro to macro and from quantitative to qualitative methods. We anticipate discussion topics to be broad, with specific topics prompted by attendees’ questions. Potential topics include how to identify and select a valuable methodology contribution, ways to compare existing methodological approaches, how to structure a methodological paper, the differences between quantitative and qualitative methods papers, discrepancies between micro and macro methodological topics, and how to effectively communicate methods research to a diverse audience.

This chapter introduces two core notions from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory to paradox studies. Specifically, it offers the notions of decision paradox and deparadoxization as potential generative theoretical devices for paradox scholars. Drawing on these devices, the paper shifts focus to the everyday and mundane nature of decision paradox and the important role of deparadoxization (i.e. generating latency) in working through paradox. This contribution comes at a critical juncture for paradox scholarship, which has begun to converge around core theories, by opening up additional and possibly alternative theoretical pathways for understanding paradox. These ideas respond to recent calls in the literature to widen our theoretical repertoire and moves scholarship more closely in line with the rich, pluralistic traditions of paradox studies.

Pradies, Camille; Aust, Ina; Bednarek, Rebecca; Brandl; Julia; Carmine Simone; Cheal, Joe; Pina e Cunha, Miguel; Gaim, Medhanie; Keegan, Anne; Le, Jane K.; Miron-Spektor; Ella, Nielsen; Rikke Kristine; Pouthier, Vanessa; Sharma, Garima; Sparr, Jennifer; Vince, Russ; Keller, Joshua: The lived experience of paradox : how individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis, Journal of Management Inquiry (30(2)) pp. 154 - 167. Copyright © 2021 Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986874