About Cynthia Nalevanko, Senior Editor, SAGE Publishing

Founded in 1965, SAGE is the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. Known for our commitment to quality and innovation, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students across a broad range of subject areas. With over 1500 employees globally from principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, and Melburne, our publishing program includes more than 1000 journals and over 900 books, reference works and databases a year in business, humanities, social sciences, science, technology and medicine. Believing passionately that engaged scholarship lies at the heart of any healthy society and that education is intrinsically valuable, SAGE aims to be the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. This means playing a creative role in society by disseminating teaching and research on a global scale, the cornerstones of which are good, long-term relationships, a focus on our markets, and an ability to combine quality and innovation. Leading authors, editors and societies should feel that SAGE is their natural home: we believe in meeting the range of their needs, and in publishing the best of their work. We are a growing company, and our financial success comes from thinking creatively about our markets and actively responding to the needs of our customers.

Effective Team Reflection: The Role of Quality and Quantity

[We’re pleased to welcome authors, Kai-Philip Otte, Udo Konradt,
and Martina Oldeweme of Kiel University. They recently published an article in Small Group Research entitled “Effective Team Reflection: The Role of Quality and Quantity,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they discusses some of the findings of this research:]

SGR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint

What motivated you to pursue this research?

Although reflecting about past activities in teams is generally considered a very effective strategy for learning and improving team performance, previous research on this topic has often revealed contradictory results. Some studies even reported negative relationships between team reflection and team performance, suggesting that the relationship is more complex than originally expected. Since this represents a very interesting conflict between the theoretical assumptions and the empirical data, we tried to find new explanations for these results. When discussing the possible reasons, we came up with the idea that it may not be enough to ask teams how often or to what extent they reflect, but that previously unobserved factors could also play a role. In fact, in our investigations, we often witnessed teams that reflected only on a superficial level and that even when these teams realized that something was wrong, they seldom used the opportunity for in-depth analysis, further compromising their future performance. Accordingly, we wanted to determine whether both the quantity and quality of a team meeting needed to be considered in order to better understand the relationship between team reflection and team performance.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

Although we believe that our findings provide important insights for the reflection process itself, we also believe that the general idea of the simultaneous consideration of quality and quantity is also applicable to other team processes. For example, other discussion-based processes, such as team planning, could be subordinate to similar principles. We therefore think that the distinction between quantity and quality can also provide valuable insights in other areas of research.

What advice would you give to new scholars and incoming researchers in this particular field of study?

Our perspective on teams is still comparatively simple because we base our conclusions mainly on averages that are believed to represent a team and its actions appropriately. However, we have often seen in our own research that team members can sometimes judge the same object in a fundamentally different way. For example, we observed some very strong team leaders who literally repressed all of the other team members’ reflexive activities and assumed that the feedback we provided was manipulated, rather than admitting that their way of solving the problem was suboptimal. Accordingly, future research should include this plurality within teams more closely in their studies and conclusions in order to get a better and, above all, more complete picture of how team members interact and how these interactions affect the outcomes of a team’s actions.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Small Group Research and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Multidimensionality: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Integration

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Xing Liu, Jieun Park, Christina Hymer, and Sherry M. B. Thatcher of the University of South Carolina. They recently published an article in the Journal of Management entitled “Multidimensionality: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Integration,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reveal the inspiration for conducting this research:]

What motivated you to pursue this research?

Guided by a mutual interest in diversity, we wanted to provide a perspective that captured the increasingly complex view of diversity in today’s society. Views about diversity are no longer limited to differences on one attribute or dimension, such as race or gender, but take into consideration bundles of differences, such as the differences between being a white male, a black male, a black female, and a white female. Our goal in reviewing the literature on individuals’ multidimensionality was to integrate diverse points of view and provide a theoretical framework for advancing research within this exciting and increasingly relevant area. Our review highlighted that there are three main areas where multidimensionality research has been conducted: intersectionality (how bundles of demographic attributes create emergent social identities), faultlines (subgroup divisions generated by the alignment of bundles of attributes across group members), and multiplexity (the overlap of individuals’ multiple relations with others). In our review, we develop a holistic understanding of multidimensionality and illuminate linkages across multidimensionality literatures to pave the way for scholars to advance theoretical and empirical perspectives on this topic. Researchers and managers interested in understanding the roles that multidimensional diversity play in organizations will be interested in this review.

Were there any specific external events –political, social, or economic –that influenced your decision to pursue this research?

This is a unique time in the United States. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed a biracial American president, an increased dialogue around acceptance of LBGTQ individuals, and discussions at the highest levels of corporations on how to ensure that diversity initiatives are inclusive. Researchers and practitioners alike are increasingly recognizing that employees often seek to bring their whole selves to work. The line between work and non-work selves is becoming more blurred in today’s organizational environment. As a result, effective management of employees’ “whole selves” is one way that employers can reap the benefits of their employees’ multidimensionality, such as tapping into their employees’ diverse experiences and social relations. Our review highlights that employees should embrace their own multidimensionality as well as that of their coworkers, subordinates, and managers.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

Our review is innovative in that rather than reviewing a set of studies that investigate multidimensionality from a single viewpoint, we explore three literatures that have approached multidimensionality from very different angles. Thus, our review provides a novel perspective to viewing the multidimensional diversity of today’s workforce. We highlight that individuals are not only multidimensional with respect to visible or skill-based attributes, but also multidimensional in their social relations with others. Using this perspective, we can better understand how employees may experience their work environment due to the multiple identifications and categorizations they use to define themselves. Our holistic perspective of multidimensionality is vital for organizations to effectively manage the multidimensional diversity of the workforce and provides a practical framework to help organizations benefit from their employees’ multidimensional diversity.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Development and Validation of the Workplace Dignity Scale

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Dr. Benjamin Thomas of the University of Nebraska Omaha and Kristen Lucas of the University of Louisville. They recently published an article in Group and Organization Management entitled “Development and Validation of the Workplace Dignity Scale” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they recount the story of how this research came about:]

Although our research and the result—a working measure of workplace dignity—merit discussion, Kristen (my coauthor) and I both tell the story of this project by describing how it started: As a graduate student studying employee motivation, I came across and grew fascinated by the concept of workplace dignity, only to find no real scale existed to measure it! On a bit of a whim and a wish, I sent an introductory email to Kristen—she has written pretty extensively on workplace dignity—asking if she would be interested in collaborating on a project to make that scale. After she agreed, we carried out our entire 4-study research project, data collection through manuscript writing and submission, remotely, exchanging insights completely through email and telephone. When we finally met in person at a conference, the paper had already been accepted!

Technology played a big part in how we collected our data too. Because we wanted to make a scale applicable to multiple work settings, we looked to Amazon Mechanical Turk, or MTurk, to gather responses for our scale validation. In each study using MTurk, we collected more than 450 responses in a number of hours, and were able to retain about 89% of responses after cleaning the data. Many times, I remarked how different this research process would look to an organizational scientist from a few decades ago. I think this kind of research study—authors with a strong, shared interest who meet and work remotely and use innovative data collection methods—will become more normal in coming years, and I would certainly encourage new scholars and researchers to explore digital connections and tools in their own research, especially if they connect with someone with a shared passion.
For us, the passion to advance our understanding of workplace dignity really sustained our research. Dignity is such an essential experience for humans, and work remains a major influence in people’s lives. A lot of previous work has looked at ways dignity can suffer as a result of work, because dignity is often only recognized in its absence, but we also know dignity can be enriched or affirmed by work. In developing a valid way to measure dignity, the good and the bad, we wanted to standardize, inform, and expand the conversations researchers are having on dignity, but also to give specific language to employees and leaders on how work impacts their dignity. The scale offers value to research and applied settings, by offering a standard for workplace dignity and a means of quantifying it, which will not only reveal what experiences harm dignity, but how work fosters and builds dignity for workers.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Group and Organization Management and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Studying Creative Workers

[We’re pleased to welcome author Dr. Holly Patrick of Edinburgh Napier University. She recently published an article in Management Learning entitled “Nested tensions and smoothing tactics: An ethnographic examination of ambidexterity in a theatre,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Patrick briefly describes her motivations for this research and her findings:]

What motivated you to pursue this research?

The Creative Industries, and the theatre industry in particular, is a thrilling and extremely rewarding arena for research. The content of the work is inherently fascinating to me, and most employees (from the artists on stage to the box office staff) are driven by a love of the art form, and by a commitment to one another. Aside from the pleasure of researching such a vibrant community, there are a couple of reasons why research in this area is particularly worthy. First, the production of art is in many ways the production of society, as it generates new ideas and new understandings of culture, identity and society which diffuse through high and popular creative forms to influence all areas of life. Second, creative workers and organisations are becoming increasingly important to the economy of developed countries as the manufacturing industry shrinks and certain areas of service work become automated.

What has been the most challenging aspect of conducting your research? Were there any surprising findings?

My research is ethnographic – based on observation, participant observation and interviews. It is a lot to ask that anyone allows another person to follow them around and take notes on a regular basis for an extended period of time. This wasn’t helped by the fact that I was a PhD student adopting an inductive methodology – so I didn’t walk into the theatre with a research question. Participants often wanted to know ‘what are you trying to find out?’ and ‘I’m not quite sure yet’ never felt like a very satisfactory answer! Despite being open and honest about this, ambiguity breeds insecurity, and sometimes I had to adjust my techniques and my plans to deal with the discomfort participants felt at my presence in their workspace (which in some cases were usually private, such as rehearsals). The findings I present in this paper about the linguistic tactics used to deal with paradox are some of the most interesting in the project, and resulted from me being able to develop a close and sustained relationship with a production team – but it was not without its challenges. I remember an actor who was having a difficult rehearsal legitimately (if a little uncomfortably) asking ‘what the f*** was I writing about in my notebook anyway’. Accounts of methodology are often sanitised in papers, but doing research is all about understanding and responding to participants concerns, which helps build our knowledge of the field and our reflexivity about the impacts of our methods on others.

What advice would you give to new scholar and incoming researchers in this particular field of study?

Paradox is a rapidly evolving area so going to conferences in key to keeping up with the field. IF you are considering research the Creative Industries, it is important to bear in mind that much of the foundational literature was written in an era of investment and political hype around the value of creativity to the economy. We do not live in the same world today, and contemporary research in the UK needs to focus on the value of the creative economy in a post-crash, austerity-driven context.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the journal and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

A Different Perspective on the Nonfamily vs. Family CEO Debate

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Rüveyda Kelleci of Hasselt University, Frank Lambrechts of Hasselt University, Wim Voordeckers of Hasselt University, and Jolien Huybrechts of Maastricht University. They recently published an article in the Family Business Review entitled “CEO Personality: A Different Perspective on the Nonfamily Versus Family CEO Debate,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reflect on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

What motivated you to pursue this research?

Current family business research on family firm CEOs has mainly focused on the characteristic of “family kinship” to explain the differences and the performance effects of nonfamily vs. family CEOs; however, such research has neglected other aspects of CEOs that may better explain their behavior. Indeed, we argue that the strategy and success of the family firm critically depends on the leadership behavior of the firm’s CEO, which is largely driven by CEO personality. Given that CEO personality has been largely unexplored in the family business domain, we wanted to address this substantial knowledge gap. Therefore, based on a unique, hand-collected dataset, we examined the personality traits of nonfamily and family CEOs in privately held Belgian family firms.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

Our research is one of the only studies to empirically examine the very hard to come by data on personality of family firm CEOs. Therefore, our study can serve as a foundation for future research in this unusual, yet important area. We offer a fresh new perspective on the debate about nonfamily vs. family CEOs and thereby alter the way in which differences between the two CEO types are commonly viewed. We argue that family kinship alone cannot fully explain or predict the differences between nonfamily and family CEOs and that we must incorporate their personalities. We find significant differences between nonfamily and family CEOs with regard to nine personality traits: independent minded, democratic, data rational, behavioral, detail conscious, conscientious, relaxed, worrying, and trusting. The findings suggest a very balanced personality profile for nonfamily CEOs and a rather strong-willed personality for family CEOs. Our findings also reveal several personality traits of nonfamily CEOs that are significantly associated with firm financial performance. Surprisingly, for family CEOs, we find no such indications. Moreover, our results call into question some assumptions in the literature about how family CEOs and nonfamily CEOs differ and provide a deeper understanding of prior work. We hope our study will become an important springboard for future research on CEO personality in family firms.

What advice would you give to new scholars and incoming researchers in this particular field of study?

One approach to advance our knowledge of family firm CEOs is to integrate family business research with insights from research on personality. This can help family business scholars to deepen and/or question current assumptions and predictions about differences in behavior between family and nonfamily CEOs. Moreover, as prior research has found that the success of the family firm reflects CEO personality, we argue that a deeper understanding of the personality traits of CEOs in family firms will further the debate on the conduct and performance of family firms. The findings of our study provide numerous fruitful avenues for future research.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Family Business Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Now at SAGE! Journal of Marketing Research

SAGE is proud to partner with the American Marketing Association (AMA), an essential community for marketers. AMA leads an unparalleled discussion on marketing excellence, with content from an unrivaled suite of scholarly journals.

Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed journal that strives to publish the best manuscripts available that address research in marketing and marketing research practice. JMR is a scholarly and professional journal. It does not attempt to serve the generalist in marketing management, but it does strive to appeal to the professional in marketing research. Ranked 25 out of 140 in Business, JMR has an impact factor of 3.854.*

Please enjoy exclusive access to top-read research from JMR, free for a limited time**

New in October:

Get engaged with the Journal

Call for papers:

JMR publishes articles representing the entire spectrum of research in marketing, ranging from analytical models of marketing phenomena to descriptive and case studies. Click here for more!

JMR has issued a Call for Papers, Education & Marketing: Decision Making, Spending, and Consumption, and is pleased to host a conference around this special issue. Click here for more!

Editor’s Perspectives:

JMR Editor-in-Chief, Rajdeep Grewal, offers his insights in getting your paper accepted. Watch the entire AMA Editors’ Perspectives series.

Nothing happened, something happened: Silence in a makerspace

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Dr. François-Xavier de Vaujany
of the Université Paris-Dauphine, and Dr. Jeremy Aroles of Durham University Business School. They recently published an article in Management Learning entitled “Nothing happened, something happened: Silence in a makerspace,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they briefly describe the motivations of this research and its significance to the present:]

What motivated you to pursue this research?

Over the course of our research, we had the opportunity to visit a wide range of collaborative spaces located in ten countries. During these visits, we were particularly surprised by the role and importance of silence in these different spaces. The collaborative orientation of these spaces, together with the idea that collaboration is a noisy endeavour, made the prevalence and centrality of silence rather counterintuitive. This prompted us to look more closely into silence and its manifestations. In particular, it seemed that there was more to silence than meets the eye: we began to appreciate how silence is not an emptiness or an absence but rather both a space and process full of potentialities, possibilities for learning and creative endeavours. In our paper, we explore this initial intuition through an ethnographic study of a makerspace located in Paris.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

Silence is a topic that is rarely featured in management and organisational studies. Fewer studies still have investigated silence in a ‘non-coercive context’, that is when silence is not directly forced upon people but rather chosen and actively sought. Our research is an invitation to consider the role of silence in new working configurations, and more precisely, the complex and multifaceted relation between silence and embodied forms of learning. We contend that silence creates the conditions for co-created and embodied learning. It gives visibility to the learning process of the workers and re-centres expression around gestures as well as focused conversations, highlighting how a silence ‘immediately felt’ in a physical space is not necessarily an absence of conversation.

What is the most important/ influential piece of scholarship you’ve read in the last year?

This is a difficult question to answer; in our case, this entailed rediscovering some fundamental texts published some seventy years ago. As our research progressed, our attention revolved increasingly more around the work of the French philosopher Merleau-Ponty. In particular, we rediscovered The Visible and The Invisible as well as Phenomenology of perception. In addition, we found Glen Mazis’ book (Merleau-Ponty and the Face of the World: Silence, Ethics, Imagination, and Poetic Ontology) particularly useful when reading Merleau-Ponty’s work. We discovered, in Merleau-Ponty’s work, a wealth of concepts and sensibilities that are particularly well suited to the study of the ‘new’ world of work. More precisely, his work invites us to rethink our perceptions and experiences through an engagement with the notions of embodiment, flesh and inter-corporeity.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the journal and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!