Search

The text provides an overview of the Academy of Management Discoveries (AMD), a journal that focuses on exploring phenomena that are not well understood. AMD values abductive reasoning and embraces hunches and doubt in research. The journal attracts individuals who are passionate about real-world problems and value both quantitative and qualitative research. It emphasizes the importance of doubt in research, as it can lead to deeper thinking and productive empirical work. The document also highlights the value of having diverse experiences in research, as it allows researchers to make connections and identify anomalies. The editors of AMD are committed to supporting authors and advancing science through various initiatives. Overall, AMD is a respected journal that has a significant impact on scholars and practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

Diverse perspectives and ideas among senior leaders (topmanagement teams and boards of directors) might generate substantial value for organizations. In theory, such diversity could provide a foundation for creative insights, innovative strategies, and strong organizational performance. Unfortunately, empirical research on these and other possible outcomes has generated a complex array of confusing findings. Our systematic review, the first to consider all types of relevant studies, attempts to make sense of the complicated landscape. On the negative side of the coin, the review highlights unsolved theoretical puzzles, severely fragmented empirical studies, and methodological conundrums. As a result, it calls into question several widespread assumptions and practices. On the positive side of the coin, our work surfaces some important pockets of consistency in existing empirical findings, mostly driven by studies using direct measures of cognitive diversity among senior leaders rather than demographic proxies. Our recommendations for the future include dramatically increasing qualitative research to move beyond a powerful deductive straightjacket that seems to exist. We also recommend taking a finer-grained approach through a substantial narrowing of quantitative research in the near term to better capture and understand key concepts, measures, and boundary conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disagreement and debate are the lifeblood of any scientific field. With that truth in mind, we express our disagreement with some of the conclusions drawn by Samba et al. in a generally well-conducted meta-analysis recently published in Strategic Organization. We carefully reexamine several aspects of their study and suggest that two of their key conclusions are flawed because of misinterpretations of data and analyses. We present new findings that call into question their conclusion that observed positive relationships between decision comprehensiveness and firm outcomes are likely a methodological artifact of researchers' use of subjective outcome measures. In addition, we question Samba et al.'s conclusion regarding the unimportance of proper lag structures in assessments of comprehensiveness and outcomes. Because meta-analyses are vital tools for consolidating and extending research, our work is important for informing future directions of both science and practice. Because the value of systematic, extensive decision processes has been the focus of a decades-long debate in organizational science and strategic management, our goal is particularly important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 25, 2015, all 193 member countries of the United Nations (UN) adopted a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new global "Agenda 2030" ([39]). Many business organizations across a wide variety of sectors are now framing their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) actions in terms of the SDGs. For example, in exploring how a for-profit firm seeded sustainable and effective cross-sector partnerships (CSPs), Bode, Rogan, and Singh ("Sustainable Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Global Platform for Social Impact") show how individuals developed structures and processes within the firm that overcame the challenges to corporate involvement in CSPs. With issues as urgent and important as those captured in the SDGs, it is imperative that we find ways to encourage much more management scholarship that can inform - and critique - the way business and other organizations might make progress and improve their impact on economic and social outcomes for employees and individuals across diverse settings. [Extracted from the article]

This article presents a letter from the editors which discusses the effects of peer reviews in the organizational and management sciences. Peer reviews are discussed in how they can critique a belief or create a positive ego for the researcher. The editors explain that the "Academy of Management Journal" does not have a well defined paradigm or set of process norms to offer such reviews. However, the journal is employed with editors and article reviewers to make sure that the articles included in the journal are up to standard.

This article presents information regarding the policies of the "Academy of Management Journal" for accepting and publishing submissions. The editors are looking for work that contributes to theory and has meaningful new insights. They strongly suggest peer reviews of research prior to data collection and recommend consulting "Publishing in the Organizational Sciences," for more information. It also describes the publication's mission regarding the support of research into management theory and management practice.

Organizational control is a key managerial function, and the focus of a great deal of research in themanagement and organizations field. Our concern is that research has not kept pace with changes in contemporary organizations and the external environment. In response to this concern, we review extant empirical work on organizational control with an emphasis on the consequences of control (i.e., the control-outcome linkage). As part of our analytical process, we surface theories underlying existing control frameworks used in empirical research and identify key dimensions implied by the frameworks. The three dimensions of control--control formality, control coerciveness, and control singularity--map onto traditional versus more current issues in and around organizations, and therefore prove helpful in assessing the existing research stream. Based on our review, we show how control-outcome research has in fact reached a troublesome point in its evolution, particularly concerning quantitative research. Older frameworks, theories, and issues seem to have limited theorizing that better fits today's realities, and several empirical tactics appear to be negatively affecting quantitative work. We close with actionable suggestions for an area of scholarship that continues to have great potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the focal relationship, irreproducibility, and direct replication.

Bayesian estimation and inference remain infrequently used in organizational science research. Despite innumerable warnings regarding the entrenched frequentist paradigm, our field has yet to embrace the Bayesian “revolution” that seems to be sweeping through so many other disciplines. With this context as a backdrop, we address a simple yet difficult question: What is the likelihood that Bayesian methodologies eventually will supplement or even supplant traditional frequentist methodologies in the organizational science community? We draw on institutional theory to address this question, highlighting the cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative forces that play important roles. As novel contributions to the discussion, we go beyond our own ideas and previously published opinions on the subject to report the opinions of 26 institutional elites (current and former officers of academic associations, editors, and editorial board members). These leading scholars help us shed light not only on the likelihood that Bayesianism will take root in the field but also on practical steps that could be taken to assist in this process. In some ways, we build Bayesian priors about Bayesian analysis, where those priors will be qualified on the basis of future events and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational prosperity and even survival can be threatened unless strategic decisions are made through an effective process. But what does an effective decision-making process look like? Analysts and executives have struggled over the years to answer this question. Recently, however, empirical research has produced a consistent answer for one of the most fundamental aspects of strategic decision-making: comprehensiveness. This recent work suggests that higher levels of comprehensiveness are positive for firms facing turbulent conditions but are irrelevant for firms facing stable conditions. While this consistency would seem to be positive, it presents a puzzle: Why are comprehensiveness and performance unrelated in stable environments? In such environments, problems generally believed to plague comprehensive decision-making are less severe. The theory building and empirical results of the present research suggest a solution to the puzzle: comprehensiveness and performance exhibit a relationship more complex than previous studies have been designed to detect. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many executives and managers embrace intuition as an effective approach to important decisions. Indeed, recent surveys and business press articles indicate broad support for the use of intuition when making strategic decisions. The need for quick decisions, the need to cope with demands created by complex market forces, and the assumed benefits of applying deeply held knowledge combine to create strong perceived value for the intuitive approach. Intuition, however, has not been subjected to sufficient review, particularly in a forum for executives and other managers. This article responds to the need for critical evaluation. Utilizing holistic hunch and automated expertise as two fundamental definitions, our review evaluates intuition's costs and benefits in light of an organization's goals. Drawing evidence from the fields of behavioral decision making, strategic decision making, and mental modeling, our conclusions suggest intuition is a troublesome decision tool. To contribute to effective managerial practice, we offer tactics that decision makers can use to make intuitive judgments and choices less troublesome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]