This article investigates responses of the international and domestic (South Korean) publics to one of the most hotly debated corporate scandals in recent years: Korean Air's so-called nut rage incident. By analyzing both international and domestic media coverage of the occurrence, we reveal contrasting interpretations between the two. Whereas the South Korean public tends to generate intense debates addressing a lack of ethics in Korean Air's public communication following the incident, international public criticism is dominated by questions regarding South Korea's chronic chaebol system and its negative image in relation to South Korea's unique institutional context. Korean Air's incongruent notice of the employee as a key stakeholder is also discussed in the international media. Our research findings indicate how, rather than focusing on legal responsibility, the normative attitude of businesses toward stakeholder pressures is crucial as a means of escaping legitimacy-threatening events. The results of this study demonstrate how public responses to a single incident are diverse in global society and offer new insights regarding the importance of ethics in management leadership and public communication after a crisis incident.

This work utilizes the theory of social power as a lens through which to analyze the power structure of firms and consumers involved in crowdsourcing and discusses the managerial implications of this power balance. The results of this analysis reveal how power is structured differently in each form of crowdsourcing, with consumer power being strongest in the case of idea crowdsourcing and weakest in the case of microtask crowdsourcing. These differences in power have implications for managers who initiate and maintain crowdsourcing endeavors. Understanding the structure of consumer power in different types of crowdsourcing allows firms to better prepare for the wide range of possible outcomes as consumers inevitably push their own agendas regardless of whether or not these agendas are aligned with those of the firm.

What strategic choices do business leaders make when implementing new business models? This study tries to answer this question by analyzing the development of several business model innovations that were new to the industry. We find that business model innovators face four strategic trade-offs and accompanying tensions during the implementation of their business model innovation process: (1) the level of independence granted to the developer (independence vs. dependence), (2) the degree to which the roadmap is planned in advance (discovery vs. planned execution), (3) the degree to which the value proposition challenges the status quo (challenging vs. maintaining status quo), and (4) the rigor to which business model innovators preserve the logic of the initial value proposition (solid vs. fluid logic). Our in-depth analysis reveals that business model innovators make pragmatic decisions that may deviate from the guidelines offered by existing literature, and we offer insights into the drivers behind these decisions.

Over the past few years, Bitcoin has emerged as the first decentralized, global currency. The rise of Bitcoin has brought attention not only to digital currencies but also to the underlying technology empowering digital currencies: blockchain technology. A blockchain is a distributed ledger that records and secures transactions in a peer-to-peer network. Besides empowering digital currencies, blockchain technology has given innovators the capability of creating digital tokens to represent scarce assets, potentially reshaping the landscape of entrepreneurship and innovation. Blockchain tokens may democratize entrepreneurship by giving entrepreneurs a new way to raise funds and engage stakeholders. They may democratize innovation by giving innovators a new way to develop, deploy, and diffuse decentralized applications. Blockchain technology and tokens have sparked a new wave of innovation, which may start to revolutionize entrepreneurship and innovation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has penetrated many organizational processes, resulting in a growing fear that smart machines will soon replace many humans in decision making. To provide a more proactive and pragmatic perspective, this article highlights the complementarity of humans and AI and examines how each can bring their own strength in organizational decision-making processes typically characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and equivocality. With a greater computational information processing capacity and an analytical approach, AI can extend humans' cognition when addressing complexity, whereas humans can still offer a more holistic, intuitive approach in dealing with uncertainty and equivocality in organizational decision making. This premise mirrors the idea of intelligence augmentation, which states that AI systems should be designed with the intention of augmenting, not replacing, human contributions.

As researchers and consultants, we have spent the last few years helping a dozen major public and private organizations understand what went wrong with their strategic planning. We discovered that executives have a hard time with strategy because they are at a loss when the time comes to engage in strategic dialogue. Either their teams debate the organization's values and goals when such issues should be settled, or they waste time on the details of specific projects that have yet to receive the green light. But whether the conversation is too broad or too narrow, strategy stays out of view. Drawing on recent developments in strategy-as-practice and decision-making literature, we propose a model that executives can follow to take control of strategy meetings and keep their teams on track. We ask them to focus on the right decision purpose, adjust the meeting's communication style, and cast the right leader for the job. When these three simple rules are followed, the pillars of successful dialogue are aligned, and executives can finally talk about what matters most to them: strategy.

Business schools, defined as educational institutions that specialize in teaching courses and programs related to business and/or management, are facing major challenges. These challenges stem from a number of major shifts in the business education landscape, including the rising importance of rankings and accreditations, the increased weight placed on ethical decision making, the ongoing debate on rigor vs. relevance in research, the digital revolution, and the significant decrease in public funding. In fact, they are so fundamental that the coming decade is likely to represent a new era in the history of business education, the fourth since the concept of the business school was created in 1819 with the establishment of ESCP Europe. The purpose of this article is to outline these main changes (TASK: T-from tower to Twittersphere, A-from auditorium to anti-café, S-from stakeholder to shareholder, K-from knowledge to know-how) and to discuss how they impact the different AS-SE-TS of a business school (alumni & students, staff & equipment, teachers & scholars). The article ends with a proposed classification of schools along four corners (culture, compass, capital, and content) and a discussion of which types of schools are best suited to adapt to these changes.

Social entrepreneurship research has often focused on the benefits and challenges of designing hybrid organizations that integrate competing institutional logics to tackle social problems using market-based methods, especially in developing economies. Drawing on case evidence from the Safe Water for Africa program, we show how and why pricing new products at other than market prices offers a seductive but dangerous mechanism for managers seeking to pursue dual objectives in hybrid organizations. We identify five strategic and operational challenges with ethical implications that manifest as pricing dilemmas and show how and why they are likely to elicit moral dilemmas among stakeholders of social entrepreneurship who are not equally committed to both social and economic objectives.

Social media is a rapid and dynamic medium of communication that forms a crucial component of the modern business toolkit. It can be used to detect corporate fraud by tapping into collective user wisdom, also known as the wisdom of crowds. This article highlights both the potential and limitations of social media in detecting corporate fraud by examining information from traditional media and social media for a recent corporate fraud case (i.e., Empowered Products Inc.). Using text analysis of information posted on traditional media compared to social media, this article illustrates how social media provides an increased level of relevant information in a faster manner. By using wisdom of crowds in this way, social media platforms such as Twitter can improve organizational knowledge quality. We identify methods for managers to utilize social media to improve their organizational knowledge management.

This article considers how employees engage with B2B firms on social media, a topic that is largely overlooked in the extant brand engagement literature. Using the results from a large-scale study of employee brand engagement on social media, two key drivers of employee brand engagement are identified using the content analysis tool DICTION-namely, optimism and commonality. Employees of top-ranked and -rated firms express higher levels of optimism and commonality in their reviews of their employers on social media than do their counterparts in bottom-ranked and -rated firms. This permits the construction of a 2x2 matrix that allows managers to diagnose strategies for increasing or improving employee brand engagement. This creates four different kinds of employee brand engagement situations, and offers human resources and marketing managers different strategies in each case. We demonstrate how practitioners and scholars can shed new light on the way stakeholders engage with brands.

While multiple studies have discussed the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in recruiting, two important but unaddressed questions constrain the understanding and practice of presenting firms' socially conscious efforts to their prospective employees. First, are companies engaged in CSR communicating their CSR practices effectively in online recruitment advertising? And second, what CSR information should companies include in online job advertisements to improve their employer attractiveness to prospective candidates? The findings of this study show that CSR communication in recruitment advertising is often limited, an ad-hoc practice, and mostly focused on company practices concerning employee participation and development. Even companies with a great CSR reputation take surprisingly little advantage of their CSR image when it comes to attracting job candidates. To improve employer attractiveness, we recommend that human resources managers consider (1) optimizing the structure of online job advertisements by including a company overview section in which CSR information can be presented easily, (2) expanding the scope of CSR dimensions in job advertisements to include environmental performance and community relations, (3) offering information about opportunities for employee engagement with CSR, and (4) adopting a strategic approach to the inclusion of CSR content in online job advertisements.

What's the optimal number of new products to launch in a given time frame? Does it matter whether the launches are spread out or bunched together, and whether a new product is similar to the rest of a company's portfolio? To answer those questions, researchers studied 1,904 new drugs launched by U.S. pharmaceutical firms from 1991 to 2015. This article describes their findings, including the calculation that the average firm in the study could increase its market value by more than $700 million if it reduced the irregularity of its launches by 10%. Also included is a Q&A with Ellen Donahue-Dalton, executive vice president and chief marketing and customer experience officer at Medecision, about how that company has put the research findings into practice.

New research shows that the key to equality may be to focus on the similarities between men and women, not the differences.

In the eyes of many leaders, artificial intelligence and cognitive technologies are the most disruptive forces on the horizon. But most organizations don't have a strategy to address them.

In response to increasing consumer demands for faster deliveries without added cost, more companies are implementing IT solutions that enable access to real-time sales data and inventory data across the whole enterprise. Real-time sales and inventory information, coupled with advanced analytics enables networks to accommodate fluctuations and changes in the business environment quickly, a quality the authors call distribution agility.

Researchers have identified six distinct mindsets that contribute to leaders' portfolio of leadership styles by asking one simple question: Whom do the leaders serve? Identifying these mindsets can help companies recognize how the leader's styles are helping -or hurting -their performance.

As digital disruption expands, many legacy businesses seek partnerships with tech companies to maintain competitiveness in the digital sphere. But instead of a centralized "hub"partnership, some companies find greater success through an adaptive ecosystem model, where partners develop significant projects or innovations together. This type of strategy requires imagination and flexibility.

The seductive clamor of social media is a workplace reality from which there's no retreat. Those who'll succeed in this distraction-filled world as managers and innovators must combine two seemingly opposing traits: They must to be able to absorb information from many sources and to focus intensely. Together, these apparently contradictory qualities comprise the skill set for managing your most valuable personal resource -- your attention -- in a hyper-connected age.

It used to be an article of faith that technology-intensive product manufacturers, automakers, or white goods makers could capitalize on their long-standing engineering and design leadership to cement their position worldwide. But that's no longer the case. Today, young upstarts in many product segments, especially from China, can develop world-class design and production capabilities in short periods of time. "In some cases, they are closing gaps with long-established incumbents and becoming market leaders within a decade,"writes Harvard Business School professor Willy Shih. Three main factors drive this: (1) blatant copying of intellectual property, (2) governments pressuring companies to share technology in exchange for rights to do business, and (3) normal knowledge spillover as workers move from multinationals to local companies. But other forces, the author argues, are accelerating commoditization and making product differentiation increasingly difficult to sustain.Knowledge, particularly the tacit know-how that takes years to develop, now flows through pathways that we take for granted. It is embedded in the tools used to design and manufacture products, or it is incor-porated into the building blocks that are used to build more-complex systems. Young competitors, armed with this knowledge, can now skip years of practice and become competitive threats almost instantly.The amount of commoditization pressure a company faces, the author writes, depends on the number of complementary assets it needs to operate successfully and how difficult they are to replicate. Such assets could be other tools or specific operating capabilities. If a producer needs to use a tool in conjunction with other tools or recipes, it's easier to protect the product space. However, if the tool is the keystone and complementary assets are easy to acquire, commoditization is the likely outcome.

The debate about how many and what kinds of jobs smart machines will leave for humans to do misses a salient point, argues author Thomas W. Malone. Just as the automation of human work allowed people and machines to do many things that couldn't be done before, groups of people and computers working together will be able to do many things that neither can do alone now.To think about how this will happen, Malone says, it helps to recognize that virtually all human achievements -"from developing written language to making a turkey sandwich"-require the work of groups of people, not just individuals working on their own. As Malone explains it, "superminds"-groups of individuals acting together in ways that seem intelli-gent -take many forms, including the hierarchies in most organizations; the markets that help create and exchange many kinds of goods and services; the communities that use norms and reputations to guide behavior in many professional, social, and geographical groups; and the democracies that are com-mon in governments and some other organizations. Increasingly, machines can take part in the activities of these groups. "That means we will be able to combine people and machines to create superminds that are smarter than any groups or individuals our planet has ever known,"Malone says. Malone describes a future where humans and computers play different roles, with computers begin-ning as tools, then moving progressively into becoming assistants, peers, and then managers. Before we have general AI, he writes, "we can create more and more collectively intelligent systems by building societies of mind that include both humans and machines, each doing part of the overall task."