Management research has examined how signaling at the time of an initial public offering (IPO) certifies firm quality and helps address the adverse selection problem for uninformed investors. We add to this literature by proposing a typology of signals based on whether the signal involves upfront cash investments (default-independent) or whether it is meant to be a credible non-cash commitment to suffer negative consequences should the firm underperform (default-contingent). We also argue that this definitional distinction highlights differences in the underlying characteristics of these signal types in terms of cost, certifiability, clarity, consistency, commitment, and visibility. Using underwriter reputation and patents as proxies for default-independent signals, and director ownership and founder status as proxies for default-contingent signals, we find that only default-independent signals improve post-IPO firm performance.

This study develops an integrative framework that refines and extends current understanding of corporate branding by highlighting its underlying processes and thereby offering guidance to companies on developing their corporate brand. The proposed integrative framework features a reassessment of the critical position of organizational identity in corporate branding. It also explicitly highlights the central role of an organization's construed and intended images in the design and implementation of a credible and successful corporate brand proposition that can foster stakeholders' organizational identification with and support of the organization. To complement our conceptual work and its theoretical propositions, we present an illustrative case study that contextualizes our framework and examines corporate branding practices at the furniture retailer IKEA and the challenges it faces. As a whole, this study helps unravel the key processes at play in corporate branding practices within a more manageable framework.

Most business education institutions (BEIs) try to hire good researchers for teaching. However, it is controversial to say that excellent researchers are always excellent instructors. This paper explores the students’ perception of the teaching delivered by both researchers and non-researchers. Our data suggests that the pure possession of a PhD is negatively related to measured aspects of students’ satisfaction with classes. However, the instructor's publication record is positively related to most – but not all – aspects. Having more teaching experience, another element that is typically considered in an instructor's job interview, is not positively related to the students’ satisfaction, but rather it is the specific teaching experience in that specific BEI that counts. Moreover, smaller group sizes, a key element in a BEI's cost structure, are appreciated by students. Finally, compulsory and optional classes are perceived to be equally useful, although the latter seem to overall better satisfy and entertain students.

This paper draws on insights from environmental psychology to develop a conceptual model for explaining pro-environmental behavior within companies. We delineate the voluntary pro-environmental behavior of employees (VPBE) from other forms of pro-environmental behavior (e.g., organizationally prescribed behavior) and identify determinants of VPBE. Specifically, we advance hitherto existing concepts by connecting different psychological models for the explanation of private sphere pro-environmental behavior and then adapting them to the corporate sphere. We conclude by assessing some implications for corporate interventions and providing recommendations for further research.

Innovation is considered to be the primary driving force of progress and prosperity. Consequently, much effort is put in developing new technological knowledge, new process technologies and new products. However, evidence from both SMEs and large firms shows that successful innovation is not just the result of technological innovation, but is also heavily dependent on what has been called ‘management innovation’. Management innovation consists of changing a firm's organizational form, practices and processes in a way that is new to the firm and/or industry, and results in leveraging the firm's technological knowledge base and its performance in terms of innovation, productivity and competitiveness. Recent research shows that management innovation explains a substantial degree of the variance of innovation performance of firms. More active stimulation of management innovation and its leverage of technological innovation will be crucial to improve the competitiveness of firms. However, only solid research can increase our understanding of what matters in various kinds of management innovations. Just as technological change requires systematic R&D, the development and diffusion of management innovations require systematic research on the crucial determinants of success. In this paper we will define management innovation, discuss the multidirectional causalities between technological and management innovation, and develop a framework that identifies common areas of research in terms of antecedents, process dimensions of management innovation, outcomes and contextual factors. Moreover, we will position the papers of this special issue in this framework and develop an agenda for future research into management innovation. We conclude this introductory paper by specifying the most important research priorities for further advancing the emerging field of management innovation.

This study contributes to both a deeper understanding of the drivers of management innovation, and the overarching debate about the relationship between competition and a firm's inclination to innovate. It distinguishes technological innovation from various types of management innovation, and investigates how a firm's competitive environment influences these types of innovation. We use firm-level evidence from the fourth wave of the German part of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS IV), comprising 2,789 German firms, to empirically validate the discriminatory predictions we develop from the theoretical literature. Our results show significant differences in the determinants of technological and management innovation. They, therefore, underscore the need for a contingency perspective when studying the relationship between innovation and competition.

For sustained competitive advantage of established process manufacturing firms, technological process innovation to improve resource productivity and environmental performance has become of pivotal importance. These firms, however, often face intra-organizational tensions to reconcile pressures for exploration and exploitation across subsequent phases of technological process innovation. Firms may, therefore, need to perform the development phase – being the most sensitive to these tensions – in the inter-organizational context of an external dedicated development facility. This requires new-to-the-firm management activities, i.e., management innovation. However, the role of management innovation in enabling technological process innovation in an inter-organizational context remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, in developing propositions we use illustrative examples from the research context of an external development facility for sustainable process technology. The paper has two contributions. First, by adopting a process perspective we are able to clarify how both types of innovation are combined over time in an intertwined way. Second, we extend management innovation theory by conceptualizing management innovation in an inter-organizational context. We conclude with implications for theory, practice and future research.

This paper examines the effect of management innovation on a firm's ability to effectively adopt an emerging core technology. Organizing for technological change is often associated with structural dilemmas for incumbents: while structural contingent solutions such as spatially separated units and parallel organizations have been frequently discussed as enablers of handling contradictory requirements of existing and emerging technologies, there is empirical evidence that such solutions are likely to be either unfeasible or unsustainable in the cases of core technologies. Our analysis on the adoption process of a new core technology by a large telecommunication firm reveals the role of management innovation in fulfilling seemingly paradoxical structural requirements of knowledge accumulation in a dynamic knowledge environment. We discuss how a novel structural approach enabled the organization to overcome rigidities in the existing routines and foster a favorable environment for adoption of cloud technology and to overcome organizational challenges, with which the firm's conventional practices failed to commensurate.