Strategy & Leadership

The paper explores the evolution of the sharing economy, particularly focusing on the growing regulatory constraints and societal pushback. With platforms like Airbnb and Uber at the forefront, the paper investigates how these businesses, which initially thrived in an unregulated environment, are now facing tighter regulations and changing market conditions. It also examines potential future scenarios and strategic adaptations needed for the sharing economy to sustain its performance amid these emerging challenges. This article is an opinion piece based on secondary data sources. It analyzes the sharing economy's evolution by reviewing regulatory changes, competitive pressures, and societal responses. The sharing economy has reached significant boundaries due to evolving regulatory frameworks and increasing societal pushback. Examples include Barcelona's ban on short-term rentals and the U.S. Department of Labor's reclassification of gig workers. These changes indicate a shift in how these platforms operate, requiring new strategies to adapt to these pressures, such as increased transparency, partnerships with local governments, and environmental sustainability initiatives. The paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on the future of the sharing economy by highlighting its current boundary conditions, particularly focusing on regulatory developments and societal concerns. It offers unique insights into potential future adaptations and scenarios for platforms to sustain growth, making it relevant for both academics and practitioners interested in platform strategies and regulatory environments.

This article proposes that survival can be a legitimate organizational goal, challenging a common view that dismisses it as unambitious or contrary to innovation. Drawing parallels from nature and survival strategies across various systems, it advocates that organizations, much like living organisms, should prioritize survivability (i.e. ability to survive) to ensure long-term success. Contrary to being seen as limiting, survival, when understood in its broad sense, can encompass and enhance performance goals such as growth. The article outlines the ERP factors —efficiency, resilience and prominence—as key to achieving survivability, offering a framework for organizations to manage resources, adapt to external forces and balance visibility to thrive amidst challenges. Conceptual framework. This model introduces the significance of survivability as an organizational goal. This article argues for the consideration of survival as an overarching organizational goal, challenging the prevalent view that dismisses it as unambitious or contrary to innovation.

Recent reports show that knowledge-based sectors contribute significantly to the global economy and underscore the importance of innovation. Innovation in both products and processes is vital to maintaining competitiveness. Self-managing teams, emphasizing autonomy and limiting the role of management, have been viewed as a solution to encourage innovation. However, management's efforts to coordinate and align employees with the organization's interests can inadvertently stifle innovation. Achieving the appropriate balance between granting employees autonomy and retaining managerial involvement is paramount, creating a paradox known as the control-autonomy dilemma. This article highlights the importance of perceived managerial support to strike the appropriate balance. Practitioner paper To address the control-autonomy dilemma, organizational practices that balance management control and employee autonomy are crucial. These include input practices that emphasize skill development and/or output practices that set clear goals. With self-rule, maintaining perceived managerial support becomes harder. Without it, employees may hesitate to engage in innovative behaviors. While not needing constant supervision, employees do need to have the perception that their managers provide essential resources and motivation for their work. This paper is the first to highlight how the level of perceived managerial support (PMS) will differ due to the nature of the organizational practices and the type of innovation.

The rise of Industry 4.0 led to digitally-enabled evolutionary and radical changes in all branches of the retail industry, resulting in the emergence of the distinct term “Retail 4.0”. Within this paradigm, particular emphasis is placed on forming a balanced system of omnichannel sales and customer service, allowing reaching a synergistic effect in the face of constant changes, turbulence and uncertainty in the business environment. The main objective of this study is to offer and justify a practical strategy for optimal utilization of sales channels and customer service provision within the Retail 4.0 paradigm. The conceptual argument of the study is based on the review of the literature and illustrative case studies The decision-making model proposed in this study provides a roadmap for retailers. It underscores the need for a data-driven approach, where decisions are informed by real-time analytics and customer insights. This model also advocates for a flexible yet structured approach to managing various sales channels, ensuring that each channel complements and enhances the other. The study offers and justifies an original five-stage process model for forming a balanced system of omnichannel sales and customer service.

We encourage CEOs to exercise greater care when using research to inform their decision-making. For analytical framing, we draw on published literature to highlight three common inadequacies of research in leadership and management (lack of relevance, lack of credibility, and obsession with theory). We distinguish between three broad types of research: responsible research, irresponsible research and aresponsible research. When commissioning research or using research findings, CEOs should be guided by a six-point checklist that includes applying the principles of responsible research advocated by the Responsible Research for Business Network. We believe we are the first authors to propose the concept of aresponsible research