Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore how past and future temporal focus of CEOs in the hospitality industry influence their intention to invest in metaverse technology and the underlying mechanism under boundary conditions of perceived competitive pressure.

This multi-informant study collected data over three waves from a sample of 235 CEOs and their subordinates in India’s hospitality industry. A PLS-SEM was applied to the study data. Further, the study also used phenomenological interviews to capture CEOs’ perspectives on the study’s conceptual model.

Findings suggest that the past temporal focus of CEOs decreases technology orientation, and future temporal focus increases the technology orientation of firms, consequently impacting the intention to invest in the metaverse. CEOs’ perceived competitive pressure moderates the mediating relationship, such that the negative impact of past temporal focus on technology orientation is decreased and that of future temporal focus on the CEO is increased.

By exploring the role of a CEO’s past and future temporal focus on influencing technology orientation and, hence, adoption of new technology, the study extends upper-echelon theory to the field of metaverse adoption in the hospitality industry and responds to scholars’ calls to explore the industry’s technology adoption from the lens of the upper echelon.

The study has significant implications for the success of the adoption of metaverse technology in the hospitality industry. Findings imply that the board members should encourage CEOs to have future temporal focus.

The study provides novel insights into the adoption of metaverse technology by the hospitality industry, where CEO attributes such as their temporal focus influence intention to invest in metaverse.

The relationship between variation in time perspectives and collaborative performance is scarcely explored, and even less is known about the respective mechanisms that lead to varying task performance. Thus, we aim to further the literature on time perspectives and collaborative performance, shedding light on the underlying behavioral patterns.

We report a quasi-experiment analyzing the impact of past, present and future orientation variation in dyads (N = 76) on their quantitative and qualitative performance when confronted with a simple incentivized creative task with constraints. Subsequently, we offer a qualitative analysis of comments given by the participants after the task on the collaboration.

Results indicate that a dyad's elevation of past orientation and diversity in future orientation negatively affect collaborative performance. At the same time, there is a positive effect of elevation of future orientation. The positive effect is driven by clear communication and agreement during the task, while the negative effect arises from work sharing and complementation.

This study provides insights for organizations on composing individuals regarding their temporal focus for collaborative tasks that should be executed rapidly and require creative solutions.

Our study distinguishes by considering the composition of past, present and future time perspectives in dyads and focuses on a creative task setting. Moreover, we explore the mechanisms in the dyads with a substantial elevation of/diversity in future orientation, leading to their stronger/weaker performance.

This chapter provides a critical discussion of challenge-based learning (CBL) within future trends in higher education (HE). It explores how CBL may address challenges facing higher education institutions (HEIs) in response to these future trends by using a framework of common CBL characteristics. Clear recommendations for CBL practitioners to succeed in CBL implementation within the ever-changing HE landscape are presented. It complements previous chapters on CBL case studies by situating CBL in the broader HE space. A discussion on the interrelationships between these characteristics and predictions on the future integration of CBL in HE concludes this chapter. These macrolevel discussions of CBL will be of interest to government officials, managers, business stakeholders, teachers, policy advisors, and academic teachers. Insights on the future institutional impact of CBL, how it may improve business and academic collaborations, how it aligns with sustainability and transversal skills policies, and where CBL is situated in the post-COVID-19 landscape are discussed. Ultimately, it argues that CBL is part of a pedagogical toolkit to meet future trends in HE.

The duration of an innovation process, from new idea to new business, may take many years. This makes it necessary to incorporate a vision of the future. The Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) shows that aspects such as multiplicity (looking at multi-fold futures) and multidimensionality (looking at different aspects of the future) should be taken into account. Looking at the different actors involved in CIM, the future should be researched with an open mind (meaning that the transition path to the future should be kept wide open) and different time horizons should be taken into account.

This chapter explores collective imageries of the distant future and unpacks how fuzzy frames that anticipate things-to-come lead to variations in “technological solutions” envisioned for the distant future. It suggests that these frames are characterized by the struggle over the construction of different future plots and the proselytization of divergent pathways to the future. Such frames are a product of collective anticipation, which refers to a set of ideas, imageries and beliefs about the future that can be located in the form of structures of knowledge, such as cultural artifacts, scientific products and political frames that shape the thinking of the collective. This chapter posits that the “fuzziness” of our frames anticipating the distant future could be reduced through a selective process where alternatives of the future are winnowed out by processes of selection and exclusion based on faith, values and evidence.