All Highlights

• Unknown

  - > The term within-group agreement refers to the degree to which rat­ ings from individuals are interchangeable; that is, agreement re­ flects the degree to which raters provide essentially the same rating (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992; Tinsley & Weiss, 1975).

  Page 4 - > The most fre­ quently encountered measure of within-group agreement in the organizationalliteratureisther^gorr^j (Jamesetal., 1984, 1993).

  Page 6 - > Reliability can be considered a measure assessing the relative con­ sistency of responses among raters (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). It is the degree to which ratings are consistent “when expressed as deviations from their means” (Tinsley & Weiss, 1975, p. 359). One can have high reliability in cases where agreement is low. For ex­ ample, if rater A uses only 1, 2, and 3 on a 5-point scale while rater B uses only 3, 4, and 5, then across ratees a rating of 3 from rater A will be equivalent to a rating of 5 from rater B. Agreement will be low because 3 is different from 5, but reliability will be high be­ cause the responses are proportionally consistent.

• Unknown

  - > Figure 3 captures this process: Serendipity emerges when in a given situation, a serendipity trigger is being spotted (Busch, 2020; Busch and Grimes, 2023); individuals act on this trigger, for example, by relating an unexpected observation to an organization’s goal or identity (as- sociation; c.f., Cunha et al., 2010; de Rond, 2014; also see Thomas et al., 1993; Weick, 1995). All potential associations (‘connections between dots’) that are theoretically possible form a latent space of possibility (potentiality). To lead to a valuable outcome in an organizational context, latent value needs to be realized (Busch and Barkema, 2022a). Thus, the potential infiniteness of possibilities ‘collapses’ into a concrete materialization, which in itself opens up new (infinite) latent possibilities (potentiality).

• Unknown

  - > To answer this question, I embarked on a systematic literature review and screened the 50 journals that are broadly regarded as the leading journals in management for the search term ‘serendipity’. I then ‘snowballed’ (Flick, 2009) to integrate seminal works from other sources. Based on a systematic screening of the literature, I synthesized the managerially relevant research on serendipity, and developed a multi-level theory of (cul- tivating) serendipity that captures how, why, and when serendipity can emerge and be facilitated in the organizational context. Great explanation of how the author went from research question to method (systematic literature review) through to synthesis.

  Page 3 - > I integrated event-based theorizing, sensemaking, and quantum-based approaches to management to develop a multi-level conceptualization of cultivating serendipity that captures how, why, and when serendipity evolves in the or- ganizational context. I define cultivating serendipity as ‘facilitating an interplay between unplanned events, individual effort, and organizational enablers and constraints that al- lows for surprising and valuable discoveries to emerge’.

• ««
• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• »
• »»