Search

We address business schools' need to develop policies and practices informed by researchers' scholarly impact by offering an improved conceptualization and measure that considers contextual and temporal aspects: the Contextualized Scholarly Impact Index (CSII). We also offer software to calculate individual and institutional-level CSII scores. Our measure of scholarly impact (a) considers impact within the context of the management field, (b) relies on quantity and quality dimensions of research impact, (c) incorporates temporal aspects of impact, and (d) yields scholarly impact scores using the latest data from an inclusive set of influential management journals. CSII provides a transparent and multidimensional measure of scholarly impact to informpolicymaking, facilitate benchmarking of research impact, and support researchers in understanding and enhancing their scholarly contributions. Our study contributes to policymaking and practice by improving the theoretical conceptualization of scholarly impact; offering a metric for comparing the impact of individual scholars, research groups (e.g., teams, centers, and institutes), and business schools; aiding funding agencies in making informed decisions; assisting in the training and development of faculty and doctoral students; supporting policies for review, promotion, and tenure; and providing critical information for talent management practices including selection, succession planning, and rewards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methods and data innovations have served as catalysts for theory advancement and policy-making throughout the evolution of management and many other fields. However, new methods take a long time to be diffused and adopted. The most common contemporary methods used in management research are similar to those used decades ago. Drawing upon theories of knowledge diffusion and adoption, we identify four barriers to the slow propagation of methodological innovations: (a) insufficient knowledge or skills, (b) inadequate adoption of technology, (c) outdated norms, and (d) inefficient incentives as well as inapplicable journal and professional organization policies. Then, to show the usefulness of the four-barrier framework for understanding slow diffusion and adoption, we focus on three selective methods and data innovations: Collection of Web-based (aka big) data, utilization of video-based methods, and use of computer-aided text analysis techniques. Our aim is not to create a "gold rush" for new methods or accelerate methodological and theoretical speed for their own sake, but to expand our collective methodological toolkit to develop and test more robust, replicable, accurate, predictive, and credible theory that will result in better-informed and more effective policy-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Academy of Management (AOM) has emerged from the pandemic strongly because we are an engaged, caring, and committed global community of 20,000 members residing in 115 countries—including 5,600 student members. I describe four broad themes considered most critical by AOM members and initiatives addressing each: (a) environmental sustainability, (b) inclusion, (c) research credibility, and (d) research usefulness and impact. Given the accomplishments I describe, we celebrate our success. But, at the same time, we do not interrupt our journey. Rather, we continue to improve and to innovate to realize our vision to (a) remain the premier global community for management and organization researchers and educators and (b) continue advancing the impact of management and organization science on business and society worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HRMJ is a business and management journal: we seek to publish excellent work that deals not simply with people and organisations, but with the management of people and the issues and tensions around the latter. As such, the journal is broadly multidisciplinary, the key focus being on advancing theory through empirical evidence, through consolidations and extensions of conceptual knowledge, through revisiting and extending existing theory, literature reviews, as well as the development of salient research methods. This extended editorial brings together a range of perspectives from and beyond the editorial team to advance understanding around developing work for publication. As such, it is intended not only to guide authors interested in publishing in HRMJ, but all with an interest in advancing their scholarly work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performance is a critical construct across micro and macro management subfields (e.g., organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, strategic management). However, there is little consensus on how performance should be conceptualized. There are parallel and siloed research streams addressing firm- and individual-level performance, and a never-ending search for seemingly novel theories without satisfactory progress toward integrating them. To address these challenges, we systematically integrated performancerelated theories. We reviewed 15,535 journal articles published in 44 journals from 1946 to 2022 and uncovered 239 unique performance-related theories that we integrated through six meta-theoretical constructs: firm-level (1) capabilities, (2) structures, and (3) transactions; and individual-level (4) knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics, (5) roles, and (6) relationships. Moreover, we discovered that these metatheoretical constructs are isomorphic across levels, which resulted in the COREmodel of performance applicable at both levels of analysis: Performance (P) = Capacity (C) + Opportunity (O) + Relevant Exchanges (RE). We describe how the CORE performance modelwill enable researchers to stop working in theoretical silos, aiming for illusory theoretical contributions and thinking dichotomously about performance as processes or outcomes, and to start considering "the big picture" of performance, exploring the performance system, and considering howperformance processes affect performance outcomes (and vice versa). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We address the grossly incorrect inferences that result from using journal impact factor (JIF) as a proxy to assess individual researcher and article scholarly impact. This invalid practice occurs because of confusion about the definition and measurement of impact at different levels of analysis. Specifically, JIF is a journal-level measure of impact, computed by aggregating citations of individual articles (i.e., upward effect), and is therefore inappropriate when measuring impact at lower levels of analysis, such as that of individual researchers, or of individual articles published in a particular journal (i.e., downward effect). We illustrate the severity of the errors that occur when using JIF to evaluate individual scholarly impact, and advocate for an immediate moratorium on the exclusive use of JIF and other journal-level (i.e., higher level of analysis) measures when assessing the impact of individual researchers and individual articles (i.e., lower level of analysis). Given the importance and interest in assessing the scholarly impact of researchers and articles, we delineate level-appropriate and readily available measures. We discuss implications for the careers of researchers and educators, the administration and future of business schools, and provide recommendations regarding the assessment of scholarly impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We identified policy implications of organizational behavior and human resource management (OBHRM) research based on reviewing 4,026 articles in 10 journals (2010–2019). We found that policy implications are underutilized and not part of OBHRM's zeitgeist because only 1.5% of articles (i.e., n = 61) included them, suggesting that OBHRM risks becoming societally irrelevant. Societal irrelevance may result in lower perceived value-added, less prestige and status compared to other fields that do offer implications for policy, and less support regarding research funding. However, we see potential for OBHRM research to make meaningful contributions to policy-making in the future because we uncovered several areas that do offer some policy implications, such as labor relations, leadership, training and development, justice and fairness, and diversity and inclusion. We offer a dual theory–policy research agenda focused on (a) designing empirical studies with policy-making goals in mind; (b) converting existing exploratory and explanatory research to prescriptive and normative research; (c) deriving policies from bodies of research rather than individual studies; and (d) creating policies based on integrating theories, fields, and levels of analysis. We hope our article will be a catalyst for the creation and implementation of research-based policies in OBHRM and other management subfields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]