Different approaches to theory building with qualitative research

JMI_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgNewly published research from the Journal of Management Inquiry is now online! We invite you to view all of the Online First articles for JMI by clicking here, with articles that cover a variety of topics such as corporate corruption, emerging international markets, cross-cultural organization theories, and grounded qualitative research.

In particular, we would like to highlight an article by Joel Gehman, Vern L. Glaser, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Denny Gioia, Ann Langley, and Kevin G. Corley entitled, “Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building.” The article is currently free to read for a limited time. Please find the abstract below:

This article, together with a companion video, provides a synthesized summary of a Showcase Symposium held at the 2016 Academy of Management Annual Meeting in which prominent scholars—Denny Gioia, Kathy Eisenhardt, Ann Langley, and Kevin Corley—discussed different approaches to theory building with qualitative research. Our goal for the symposium was to increase management scholars’ sensitivity to the importance of theory–method “fit” in qualitative research. We have integrated the panelists’ prepared remarks and interactive discussion into three sections: an introduction by each scholar, who articulates her or his own approach to qualitative research; their personal reflections on the similarities and differences between approaches to qualitative research; and answers to general questions posed by the audience during the symposium. We conclude by summarizing insights gleaned from the symposium about important distinctions among these three qualitative research approaches and their appropriate usages.

Don’t forget to visit the journal homepage to sign up for email alerts!

Leading through Crisis Management

Preparation for crisis management is often overlooked.  While it is always important to prepare for the unknown, it is essential in recent times when uncertainty is especially prevalent. According to a study by the ODM Group, 79 percent of decision makers believe that they are about a year away from a potential crisis—however, only 54 percent of companies have a crisis plan in place.

How can we improve crisis management in the workplace? Can we expect the unexpected? What can we learn from those facing extreme crises on a regular basis? This month’s edition of the SAGE Business Bulletin looks closely at this issue.

 

Business Bulletin_June2017

Click to read and access this unique selection of resources.

Continue the conversation on Twitter @SAGEManagement

 

ASQ in the News: Media Mentions

asqp.jpgAdministrative Science Quarterly, owned and managed by the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has been at the cutting edge of organizational studies since the field began. This top-tier journal regularly publishes the best theoretical and empirical papers based on dissertations and on the evolving and new work of more established scholars, as well as interdisciplinary work in organizational theory, and informative book reviews.

To highlight ASQ‘s research, we’ve put together a Media Mentions page, where you can view the various articles from international news outlets that have referenced articles published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

For example,  The Huffington Post featured W. Chad Carlos and Ben W. Lewis’s recentlimage6.jpgy published article, “Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic.” Click here to view the article from The Huffington Post, entitled “Strategic silence: Why aren’t companies talking about their environmental accomplishments?”

View the entire Media Mentions page here, and don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you never miss the latest research!

 

A call for intervention: Lack of diversity in career pyramids

[We’re pleased to welcome author Claartje J. Vinkenburg of VU University, Amsterdam. Vinkenburg recently published an article in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences entitled, “Engaging Gatekeepers, Optimizing Decision Making, and Mitigating Bias: Design Specifications for Systemic Diversity Interventions.” Below, Vinkenburg discusses the motivation for pursuing this research, along with future applications. From Vinkenburg:]

3374725110_74426ba883_m.jpgWhat inspired you to be interested in this topic? I was triggered by the cover article of the July 2016 issue of Harvard Business Review which stated that diversity efforts fail. I have seen such failures, but also examples of quite successful diversity interventions in up-or-out systems such as academia and professional service firms that deserve a wider audience of researchers and practitioners. This journal and especially the special issue addressed questions around systemic change that provided a great fit with my story of design specifications for successful diversity interventions.

Were there findings that were surprising to you? I was surprised to discover in writing the article but also in presenting it in various forms to different audiences that so many people are unaware of the existence and effects of bias, and firmly believe that the way people are promoted in their organizations reflects meritocracy. Making them aware is one thing, but doing something about it is a wicked problem that requires working through paradox.

How do you see this study influencing future research? While the successful diversity interventions described may not challenge meritocracy directly, but they help to achieve ³true² meritocracy by reducing bias in the assessment of merit, focusing on the often capricious application of criteria in performance evaluation and/or reward allocation. Future action research or intervention studies could look at mediated sensemaking and other forms of working through paradox with gatekeepers, as well ways to de-bias our HR or people decision making such as selection and promotion.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you never miss the latest articles!

Diversity pyramid photo attributed to Ben Mason (CC).

Group decision making: Are you the bully?

[We’re please to welcome author David Dryden Henningsen of Northern Illinois University. Henningsen recently published an article in the International Journal of Business Communication entitled, “Nuanced Aggression in Group Decision Making” co-authored by Mary Lynn Miller Henningsen, also of Northern Illinois University. The article is currently free to read for a limited time. From D. Henningsen:]

IJBC_v51n1_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgWhat inspired you to be interested in this topic? Reflecting on our experiences in meetings, my co-author and I both noted the presence of people who rely on bullying or whining as their preferred influence style. It occurred to us that this is likely a common experience. Everyone probably knows a whiner and/or a bully. Examining the literature on group decision-making revealed that this is an area that has been largely unaddressed by scholars. We decided to conduct this study as a preliminary test of the effects of whining and bullying in organizations. It was the insights of one of the reviewers which helped us to frame both bullying and whining as aggressive behavior, but that offers an intriguing perspective on how submissive behaviors (i.e., whining) need not be passive behaviors.

Were there findings that were surprising to you? The findings were largely consistent with our belief that whining and bullying would be detrimental in the workplace. There is an interesting sex difference that emerges with regard to effectiveness. Whereas women tend to feel effectiveness is hurt by the presence of whining, bullying, or both, men tend to feel effectiveness is really only hurt when both whining and bullying occur.

How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice Although this is an exploratory study, it provides important insights into the use of aggressive tactics to gain influence. There is a lot of research on informational and normative influence. However, we suspect that non-rational forms of influence are fairly common in the workplace. We hope to further explore how those tactics may offset more rational approaches.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from IJBC, and sign up for email alerts today!

Strategies for coping with rejection in work-related circumstances

23391316560_d5a8565059_z.jpgCareer-related rejection is inevitable, since everyone faces this reality at some point in in his or her life. Your idea for approaching project management could be rejected, you could be passed up on a desired promotion, or you could simply not be offered that dream job you’ve wanted since high school.

In a recent paper published in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, author Nancy Day of the University of Missouri illustrates how rejection affects faculty members and how it affect their publication performance. This rejection also proves to affect their interpersonal relationships, and Day aims to analyze the negative strains more in-depth. The paper, co-authored by Tracy Porter of Cleveland State University, is entitled “Lacerations of the Soul: Rejection-Sensitive Business School Faculty and Perceived Publication Performance,” is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Day describes her motivation to pursue this research:

I initially had the idea for this research from an essay I published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. A couple of its reviewers mentioned that there was no research showing that academic researchers are negatively affected by rejection sensitivity, and their comments intrigued me. So I decided I would conduct the first research attempting to answer the question.

My hope in writing the essay and in this study is to stimulate university research administrators and to “normalize” rejections and consider its effects on faculty affect and performance. In my experience, it’s the “elephant in the room” that everyone wrestles with but few talk about.

Sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest research from JLOS!

Rejection word block attributed to Topher McCulloch (CC).

The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers

Get the latest insight on what editors are looking for in your submitted manuscript! SAGE Publishing is proud to feature the latest editorial from Family Business Review, entitled, “The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers.” This editorial is co-authored by James J. Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma and Jess Chua, and is currently free to read for a limited time.

Below, please find an excerpt from the editorial, shedding light on the necessary steps an author must face when preparing a manuscript that stands out:

The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.

Click here to read the full article. Don’t forget to sign up to receive email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Family Business Review!