Search

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]

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]