What I’ve learned (thus far in my tenure) as an associate ... · What I’ve learned (thus far in my tenure) as an associate editor at Academy of Management Review Russell E. Johnson

What I’ve learned (thus far in my tenure)

as an associate editor at Academy of Management Review

Russell E. JohnsonMichigan State University

Great times at Deakin & Melbourne

About this talk…

• Informal• Please ask questions!• What is AMR?• Looking under the hood• Making a theoretical contribution• Common issues/mistakes• Final (random) thoughts

What is AMR?

• One of seven AoM publications• Purely theoretical (scholarly audience)• Ranking

• 2015 Impact factor: 7.288• #2 of 192 in “Management” • #1 of 120 in “Business”

What is AMR?

• Mission:“To publish novel, insightful, and carefully crafted conceptual articles that challenge conventional wisdom concerning all aspects of organizations and their role in society.”

• Different paths• Creating new management & organization theory• Challenging or clarifying existing theory• Synthesizing recent advances and ideas into fresh theory

• The famous 2 x 2 !

• Initiating search for new theory by identifying novel problem

What is AMR?

• Published quarterly (Jan, Apr, July, Oct)• ~500 submissions/year• 6-8% acceptance rate• Turnaround:

• Desk reject: 4 days• Reject: 61 days• R&R: 66 days• Cond. accept: 72 days• Accept: 8 days

Who is AMR? • Editor: Belle Ragins, Wisconsin Milwaukee• Associate Editors:

• Gary Ballinger, Virginia• Jean Bartunek, Boston College• Kris Byron, Syracuse• Joep Cornelissen, Amsterdam• Russ Johnson, Michigan State• Don Lange, Arizona State• Mike Pfarrer, Georgia• Sherry Thatcher, South Carolina• Hugh Willmott, Cardiff

Who is AMR?• Editor: Belle Ragins, Wisconsin Milwaukee• Associate Editors:


Who is AMR?• Editor: Belle Ragins, Wisconsin Milwaukee• Associate Editors:


How are AMR submissions processed?

• Initial submission goes to Belle• Suitable for AMR?

• AE is assigned• Suitable for review?

• AE selects reviewers• Double-blind

• AE renders decision• Reject, R&R, conditional accept, accept• 2 rounds of review is goal• 50%+ acceptance rate for R&Rs!


• Reviewer feedback


• Reviewer feedback• Make one of the following recommendations:

• Accept as is• Minor revision needed• Major revision needed• Doubtful• Reject


• Big push for developmental reviews• Identifying ways to improve the work

• Find the “nugget!”• Offering suggestions, not just criticisms & limitations• Focused on the author • Pretend you are face-to-face…• *Not* a positive sandwich• *Not* ghostwriting


• Reviewing our reviewers

AMR Resources

• http://aom.org/amr/• Articles on theory building and theoretical

contributions• Resources for teaching theory (e.g., syllabi, articles, etc.)

• Resources for reviewing theory (e.g., Ballinger & Johnson, 2015)

• Evolution of articles from submission to publication• Best Article winners• Interviews with Best Author & Reviewer winners

http://aom.org/amr/

And now: making a theoretical contribution

What is theory?

• Statement of concepts and their inter-relationships that describes how and *why* a phenomenon occurs• What: set of constructs/concepts

• Comprehensive vs. parsimony• How: nature of relationships among constructs/concepts

• Description• *Why*: underlying logic for relationships

• Explanation• Who, where, when: boundary conditions

What is ‘good’ theory? • A good theory explains, predicts, and delights (Weick, 1995)

• Significance: Tackles “grand challenges” (Colquitt & George, 2011)

• Unanswered societal concerns (e.g., aging workforce, CSR, refugees) • Scientific and practical contributions

• Novelty: Changes the conversation• Introducing new constructs (either side of equation; e.g., job crafting)• Familiarity, maturity, & nearness traps

• Curiosity: Catches & holds attention• Challenge taken-for-granted assumptions (e.g., licensing from OCB)• Explaining breakdowns/discrepancies in past findings (e.g., team

diversity)

What is ‘good’ theory? • Dimensions for theoretical contribution (Corley & Gioia, 2011)

Revelatory

Incremental

Scientific Practical

UTILITY

ORIGINALITY

Challenges current thinking Creates new knowledge

CounterintuitiveSurprising (“mystery novel”)

Ideas for generating (good) ideas • Borrow ideas/theories from other literatures

• e.g., moral licensing, ego depletion• Don’t be selfish––give back to the literatures you borrow from!

• ‘Real world’ problem/issue• e.g., smartphones for work, fairness behaviors • Bonus: media coverage!!

• Identify equivocal or conflicting results• e.g., participative vs. assigned goals

Ideas for generating (good) ideas • Extending established findings

• Changing or eliminating ‘taken-for-granted’ effects (e.g., goal setting)• Digging deeper––uncovering the mechanism(s) (e.g., justice)

• Consider phenomena from different perspective • e.g., within- vs. between-person, recipient vs. actor,

insider/employee vs. outsider/client

• Intervention focus• Applying or implementing management knowledge• This is what distinguishes us from other social scientists!

Ideas for generating (good) ideas • Juggling two or more theories

• Integrating multiple theories (e.g., implicit leadership vs. social identity)• Pitting theories against each other (e.g., social cog vs. control theory)

• Counterintuitive or paradoxical• ‘Dark side’ of good stuff (e.g., ethical leadership, empowerment, OCB)• ‘Bright side’ of bad stuff (e.g., anxiety, abusive supervision, depletion)

• Read (or write) review papers• BUT…

And now: common issues in theory development papers…

#1 So what? or Who cares? • Little or no significance, novelty, and/or curiosity• ‘Hook’ section (Grant & Pollock, 2011)

• Introduce the topic & sell its importance• Choice of focal topic is not trivial (e.g., commute stress paper)

• Tell the reader what is known • Tell the reader what is *not* known

• Knowledge is incomplete/inaccurate and/or current perspective is inadequate

• Tell the reader what will be learned from your study• Consensus shifting vs. creation • Spell out the theoretical (and practical) contributions

• “Grandma test”

#2 Too broad

#3 Too narrow

#4 Wrong sequence

Predictor Outcome

ModeratorModerator

MediatorNew

construct

#5 Applying, not creating

Attitudetowardsaction

Socialnorms

Perceived behavioral

control

Behavioralintention Behavior

Attitudetowards

entity

Beliefs about entity

#5 Applying, not creating

Attitudetowards

FOR training

Socialnorms

re training

Perceived control

during training

Behavioralintention

Participation in FOR training

Attitudetowardstraining

Beliefs about training

#6 Combining, not creating

Valence

Instrumentality

Expectancy

Goal choice Performance

Specific

Challenging

#7 “What” instead of “why”• Missing or poor justification

• Argumentation by citation

• Argumentation by data

• Ignoring or cherry-picking prior research

• Incorrectly citing literature

#8 Potpourri

GMA

Power distance

Self-efficacy

Variable pay

#9 Poor writing• Writing must be clear, direct, and precise

• Esoteric & inaccessible writing ≠ complex or important ideas• Write to express, not impress

• Think through your ideas before writing• An outline is your friend

• ‘Friendly’ review by outsider

• Edit! Edit! Edit!

#10 Where’s the organization?!

Some final (random) thoughts

• Your AE is just a call or email away• Use the cover letter to your advantage

• Who would be suitable reviewers?• Are there folks who will dislike your theory? • Who peer reviewed your paper?

• Don’t make enemies with your reviewers • Give 125% when responding to feedback• Revise rejected papers! • Don’t get too low (or high) – it’s not a perfect process…

Thank you!

AMR website: http://aom.org/amr/Theory Building Resources

Articles on crafting and writing theoryEvolution of papers through the review process

http://aom.org/amr/

Documents

What I’ve learned (thus far in my tenure) as an associate ... · What I’ve learned (thus far in my tenure) as an associate editor at Academy of Management Review Russell E. Johnson