#aom2020

We’re so excited to get back into the swing of things after such a crazy time for everyone, so Author of the Month will be starting back up this month!

Please keep in mind the author blacklist for these nominations!

In order to get this started, nominate your favorite author(s) below: the form will be open until October 22nd and we will post the interview at the end of the month!

Professional Development Workshop on 8 August 2020

Key learning points:

1. Systemic review of the literature makes explicit the values and assumptions underpinning a review.

2. Stage 1: Planning the review – It may be an iterative process of definition, clarification, and refinement. Must consider cross-disciplinary perspectives, as well as the theoretical, practical, and methodological history debates surrounding the field. Have a review protocol to describe the questions addressed by the study, the population/sample, search strategy, criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies.

Define your research question. Use a question framework such as CIMO (Context, Intervention, Mechanisms, Outcomes)

3. Stage 2: Conducting the review – Identify keywords and search terms and report this in detail to allow replication. Decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion of works remain subjective and should include more than one reviewer. Disagreements can be resolved within the review panel.

4. Stage 3: Reporting & dissemination – Two stage report should be produced. First stage provides descriptive analysis of the field, achieved using simple set of categories (E.g. age profile of articles, partitioned by interpretivist versus positivistic studies, behavioral versus cognitive studies). Second stage provides detailed audit trail back to core contributions to justify and ground their conclusions. Linking themes across these contributions is important.

Resources:

1. Crossan & Apaydin (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(60): 1154-1191

2. Rousseau (Ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management. New York: Oxford University Press.

3. Adams, Smart, & Huff (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4): 432-454.

4. Gaur & Kumar (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53(2): 280-289.

5. Post, Sarala, Prescott, & Gatrel (2020). Editorial: Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies. 57(2): 351-376.

6. Reporting standards for systematic reviews: PRISMA and JARS – Quant (quantitative meta-analysis article reporting standards)

This year, I consciously searched and joined women-themed sessions at the conference. This is in part because the “lock-down” in Singapore has made the tensions between work and family life even more salient to me. I wanted to learn how women navigated this crazy world of academia and how does an academic career looked like for them - especially for women who do not have a lot of resources at home. 

I did not blog about any of the sessions specifically because the stories shared are personal and private. And I have to say that I have very mixed feelings walking away from these sessions collectively. I will write the remaining reflections with a focus on women since that is the topic on my mind.

First, the reality for women in general does not look good. There are biases against women - and I’m not even talking about women with dependents - that hinder their advancement. Stories of being told to shut it and follow (older) male faculty’s instructions are not uncommon. Women faculty shared experiences of being given more service loads without commensurate resources to fulfill these roles simply because.

Second, motherhood penalty (or ceiling) is real. One panelist shared a study that showed how 1 year delay in motherhood results in 9% increase in earnings for women in corporate jobs. My guess is that this is the same - if not worse - in academia. I think there are many women who would love to have kids yet decided to delay such plans because of finding an academic job or working towards tenure. Sometimes, when women have achieved their desired career stages, they find that having a child is no longer as easy in part due to their age and biological clocks. This makes me feel that women have to choose between their careers or having kids - and this is very depressing because the men do not have to. 

Third, and this is my personal feelings, women are giving advice that perpetuates the motherhood penalty. Women faculty shared that job seekers should not talk about their families/children during campus visits. This is well-intended and from their own personal experiences or research findings. I can see where they are coming from, because most schools do not like to hire women with family demands. In order to get the job, we “should” focus on presenting ourselves as good fit with the school rather than our personal lives. 

Another woman shared how her senior woman faculty member explicitly told her that while family comes first, there are times when work comes first. I have heard stories of other people being told this before, so it is not new to me. Women in senior positions telling women in junior positions how to behave - without trusting that these women are fully-grown adults who know how to manage their lives.

The above three points are not exhaustive of the challenges women face in building an academic career. For example, there are other situations when faculty (of all genders) from top schools perpetuate the notion of having to work 16 to 20 hours a day, churn out A publications, and getting to a level of success (as defined by them and most of the academic world). 

While the above points are depressing (to me), I have found some glimmer of hope from a different set of voices. Women shared how they took a longer time (but eventually they did) to reach where they wanted to be in their careers while prioritizing their family needs. Other women created safe spaces for candid sharing of failures, fears, and challenges. Also, some shared alternative realities and perspectives on what success looks like in academia. Some women shared how they voice out against the biases, the oppression, and the mistreatment head-on.

What I really appreciated was the safe space I experienced during one of the sessions. I think in academia, we have to look like we have got it altogether - both life and career - in order to advance and make it. We mask our realities. Yet, in one of those sessions, there was psychological safety in sharing my fears and challenges and knowing that others also faced similar set of fears. We sought to think how we could solve or address challenging situations and to advance ourselves. There is collective strength in doing so. 

With AOM turning virtual this year, it has been a different - yet not so new - experience for me. Attending the sessions felt to me like I was sitting through online seminars and jotting notes, or virtually interacting with colleagues around the world. I think many of us would agree that turning an academic conference virtual has its pros and cons. 

While virtual conferencing has removed the opportunities to interact with others physically, it has been a great leveler for many. People who would not have been able to attend the physical conference were able to this year, such as those with family obligations or care-giving responsibilities, and those without financial support. 

Of course, the environmental impact and financial costs have been greatly reduced! I watched the ONE division’s business meeting and saw that the financial position improved due to reduced conference spending - makes me think about how we could use this sum of money to further environmental and social causes. 

Beyond these reasons, I was able to attend sessions that happened concurrently by watching the recordings. I was also able to slow the session down and match my learning pace by pausing and rewinding. All these would not have been possible if the conference were physical. Imagine running from one hotel to another 10 minutes away just to catch back-to-back sessions - much more exhausting - or having to choose between sessions that took place at the same time.

I do wish conferences could incorporate more of these virtual elements in the future. Also, since these typically occur in North America and Europe, I hope (more) sessions are recorded. I tried staying up till 4 am for the first day and was done with doing that for the rest of the conference. Plus, it can be quite disruptive when interacting with other attendees and having to attend to the wailing preschooler having nightmares. 

On a different note, I have a hunch that biases against people are reduced with virtual conference interactions. When we take away most of the physical interaction element, we are paying more attention to what is being said by the person. Plus, you can’t really escape from someone else when you are randomly assigned to a break out room - unlike physical networking. Perhaps after overcoming our initial biases through such forced interactions, we get to see beyond our mental stereotypes and be open to interact with one another.

Symposium on 12 August 2020

Key learning points:

1. Miner vs prospector strategy in literature review.

Miners spot conceptual gaps, organize and categorize literatures, problematize the literature. While some advice doctoral students to do this as it is lower risk, another significant risk is not getting the paper published at all in high impact journals.

Prospectors set out new narratives and conceptualization, blend and merge literatures across domains, and develop analogies and metaphors across domains. This is higher risk as it is not easy to accomplish, yet when done well is likely to get published in a high impact journal.

2. Two types of reviews we can write: what do we know vs what should we know?

What do we know seeks to: find a definite answer to a verifiable question, more convergent, can be meta-analysis or systematic review, sense-giving in nature, broad conclusions and practical relevance, usually cited to support theoretical arguments.

What should we know seeks to: aim to redirect the field, more divergent, rely on narrative or integrative review, sense-making in nature, changes thinking about the topic, contextualized practical relevance, usually cited to support contribution of new research.

3. Be thorough in breadth, length, and depth. Position your paper to be thorough, honest, and accurate to contribute to the conversation in the literature. This clarifies the state of the literature  and set the stage for your work.

Key afterthoughts:

The point about miners versus prospectors resonates with me – do we encourage PhD students to take a low-yet-high risk approach of being a miner, or do we push them towards a high-risk strategy of being a prospector?

I guess there is no fixed way to do this. As what some panelists shared towards the end, having a senior scholar with experience in being a prospector guide a junior scholar or PhD student is probably the best way at publishing narrative-changing review papers (i.e. mitigating the high-risk that comes with it). Otherwise, taking a miner approach might be the go-to approach for most PhD students. 

Resources:

By Joan Shapiro Beigh Doctoral Candidate at DePaul University Symposium on 9 August 2020

Key learning points:

1. Instructions rarely provide training or resources for teamwork training. Conservation of resources theory suggest that people under stress seek out new resources to cope with the stress. A concise teamwork effectiveness guideline can be a useful coping resource for students.

2. Four team effectiveness guidelines:

Find common ground: (1) start with social interactions (e.g. share something personal, meet for coffee); (2) agree on ground rules based on values; (3) listen first and then talk; (4) seek consensus but encourage diverse points of view; (4) set expectations; (5) how will we handle conflict; (6) how can we help each other in this class?

Grab a strategy, begin with the end in mind: (1) what’s the vision, how will the project look like when it’s complete? (2) Break it down into logical sections; (3) time it out with deadlines; (4) assign sections out; (5) work interdependently (e.g. in pairs) and communicate often; (6) project team = study group  to build team spirit.

Assign & rotate roles: Examples of roles include point person to communicate with instructor, meeting leader, schedule coordinator, recorder and agenda setter, timekeeper, detail person, big picture person.

What to do when things go wrong with a team member: (1) express frustration and listen to what the person has to say, find solutions together, stay away from bullying or personal attacks and address the behavior, involve the instructor and document your concerns.

3. Team training is only effective when members experience the positive training experience together. Even if members previously went through this training, the training effects disappear when they join new teams.

4. Team charter exercises must be conducted early in the life span, as this will have a longer lasting impact on team wellbeing. Creates team norms, values, expectations, roles, while mitigating the chaos that arise subsequently. This is dependent on the condition that everyone participates in this.

5. Teamwork intervention steps:

Step 0: Gather materials – teamwork effectiveness guidelines, team discussion guide, coloured markets, flipchart pages, etc.

Step 1 (15 mins): In class facilitation by introducing the activity – ask the students to think back on a great or bad team experience. Remember to allow for thinking time. Write “best teams” on the board and distill what made these teams so successful. Record students’ actual words in bullet point. Write “what to avoid” next about a challenging team experience and suggest that this exercise establishes class’ norms around teamwork. Add a personal experience of your own.

Step 2 (5 mins): Pass out and review teamwork guidelines. Ask what strikes them as important in the list. You point out what points strikes out to you as the instructor.

Step 3 (15 mins – can be done out of class): Review facilitated discussion guide as a reference, jot notes, plan project and roles, everyone present signs one copy. This is to create a shared experience.

Step 4 (5 mins): Debrief the experience – what was important and useful to your team, what’s the plan moving forward, how are you going to handle conflict and frustration, how are you going to encourage creativity? Encouraging creativity needs a team culture of psychological safety where people are comfortable expressing their views and others are respectful and interested in hearing what they have to say.

6. Team-based learning and accountability structure encompass “a rhythm of moments in which students’ social and intellectual experiences of the classroom become interlocked and amplified.” (Sweet & Pelton-Sweet, 2008: 30)

Key afterthought:

This is so timely as I prepare for my undergraduate class held next semester. I have experienced and heard stories about bad student teams that I would like to take some action to pre-emptively address such issues in my class. This teamwork intervention guideline is clear and succinct, and I will explore how to customize this further to my class’ needs. 

Professional Development Workshop on 8 August 2020

Key learning points:

Below are some tips for coding qualitative data in a computer system. 

1. Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis system (CAQDAS): Pattern based automated insights in NVivo allows you to get into your data and make sense of it. Use this to quickly go through the data and form initial codes.

First, key in a brief description of your idea/theme/hunch (e.g. outreach to community). The computer performs an initial search based on this, and you let the computer know if the 1st round of results are good or bad. The computer goes through a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc rounds of search after you train it on what you’re interested in till the search does not really yield anything new.

Next, tag the data to an initial coding quickly (e.g. “community” code).

You can also use this at the end of data analyses to build confidence in your data analyses, that the codes capture the key ideas.

2. Coding by attributes: Use the software to compare the codes across two groups of interviewees. This can be meaningful for identifying boundary conditions. You can delve into the data for the code that differs across the groups to see what is really happening there.

Professional Development Workshop on 7 August 2020

Key learning points:

1. Preventing reviewer concerns when preparing manuscript. Justify the decision that you are making: 

The use of content analyses (e.g. non-intrusive way to capture executive’s psychological attributes; psychological attributes may operate outside of individuals’ awareness and control and hence implicit and indirect measures can be more effective than self-assessments)

The dictionary used by demonstrating content validity

Choice of content to analyze, and

The content analyses software used.

2. Demonstrate the robustness of your findings to alternative measures, other data specifications, or other ways of measuring and testing our analyses. Adding supplemental analyses can be important when reviewers have concerns about the empirical approach. You can include in the paper as a supplemental section or an appendix. 

Another alternative is to include the supplemental analyses only in the response letter to reviewers – this allows you to add extra tables for the reviewers but you must explain why you only include them in the response letter and not in the paper. Offer to include them in the paper if the reviewers and editor think they make your paper stronger.

3. Empirical issues with content analyses include measurement error, omitted variables, reverse causality, autocorrelation (McKenny, et al., 2016). Hence, there needs to be strong validation procedures, such as using expert raters, crafting unique dictionaries, ensuring convergent and discriminant validity.

4. Endogeneity in computer aided text analyses (CATA): Omitted variable causing IV and DV – using two instrumental variables (sample from Busenbark & Pfarrer (2019)). 

Good natural/logical instruments include: total number of words in document, total number of documents/articles, readability index (Lougran & McDonald, 2014), characteristics of subjects or authors of text, average length of words in document, count of long words (words over a certain character threshold), coverage of related organizations in an industry or social grouping).

Resources:

1. Gamache & McNamara (2019). Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences sensitivity to negative media coverage of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3): 918-943

2. Gamache, McNamara, Mannor, & Johnson (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4): 1261-1282

3. Gamache, Neville, Bundy, & Short (2020). Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 41(7): 1305-1335

4. Colquitt & George (2011). Publishing in AMJ-Part 1: Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 432-435

5. Grant & Pollock (2011). Publishing in AMJ-Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 873-879

6. Lange & Pfarrer (2017). Editor’s comments: Sense and structure – The core building blocks of an AMR article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3): 407-416

7. Harrison, Thurgood, Boivie, & Pfarrer (2019). Measuring CEO personality: Developing, validating, and testing a linguistic tool. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8): 1316-1330.

8. Short, McKenny, & Reid (2018). More than words? Computer-aided text analysis in organizational behavior and psychology research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 415-435.

9. Short, Broberg, Cogliser, & Brigham (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2): 320-347

10. Nadkarni & Chen (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,57(6): 1810-1833

11. Busenbark, Marshall, Miller, & Pfarrer (2019). How the severity gap influences the effect of top actor performance on outcomes following a violation. Strategic Management Journal, 40(12): 2078-2104

12. Krause (2017). Being the CEO 's boss: An examination of board chair orientations. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3): 697-713