Journal of Management Scientific Reports

In their recent article, Theissen et al. (2023) re-examined the seminal study of Kim and Bettis (2014) on the positive relationship between firms’ cash holdings and firm value. Theissen et al. (2023) improved on the original Tobin's q measure used to capture firm value and found that—in contrast to the results of Kim and Bettis (2014)–there are not decreasing but increasing returns to holding cash. Separately, Souder et al. (2024) made various methodological improvements and developed a new measure of forward-looking firm value, ultimately finding no relationship between cash holding and value at all. In this article, we combine all methodological refinements made after the original study of Kim and Bettis (2014) into a single analysis. We find that Kim and Bettis’ (2014) original results are correct, despite the numerous limitations of their method.

In this editorial we examine theory testing within the work-family literature. We identified three highly cited theoretical articles ( Ashforth et al., 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) and examined the extent that the propositions posed in these articles had been tested. Results indicated that the majority of the propositions posed in these three influential theoretical articles have not been tested. We discuss possible reasons for the lack of testing and offer potential paths forward for improving work-family theory.

Within this editorial, we highlight the importance of testing and extending our understanding of core theories associated with affect and self-regulation at work. Specifically, we center our initial discussion on two theories that have garnered substantial attention within the organizational literature—control theory and social cognitive theory—highlighting how these theories offer differential predictions for the benefits of positive and negative affect at work. We then shift our focus on providing three theoretical and/or empirical misses that have significant potential to advance our science forward: (1) arbitrary selection of self-regulation theories within research studies; (2) oversimplifying affective experiences into broad categories of positive and negative affect; and (3) forgetting the complexity of multi-emotion (or ambivalent) events. Overall, we highlight theoretical and empirical contributions, as well as limitations, in this literature, and provide paths forward to enhance both our understanding of affect and self-regulation at work.

Speed across various organizational processes, such as decision-making, executing operational activities, and responding to competitive challenges, represents an essential component of firms’ ability to achieve a competitive advantage. However, a theoretical and empirical consensus has yet to form whether decision speed (DS), implementation speed (IS), and response speed (RS) are beneficial or detrimental to firm performance. To help reconcile these inconclusive findings, we meta-analyze 127 studies (representing 239 effect sizes) and report overall direct effects for DS (0.21), IS (0.22), and RS (0.10) on firm performance. In addition, we examine contingencies which reveal that the performance consequences of DS, IS, and RS vary across contextual and methodological conditions.