User Rating: / 6
PoorBest 

Each year, the OMT Division acknowledges the efforts of the best reviewers by presenting the ABCD (Above and Beyond Call of Duty) Awards. Of the several hundred volunteer reviewers who provide their services to the division, these are the individuals who were deemed worthy of special recognition for the helpfulness, civility, extensiveness and insight of their reviews.  To help you in reviewing for OMT, we have sought advice from the 2015 ABCD Award winners. In particular, ABCD Award winners share their thoughts on reviewing for AOM.

Congratulations with your decision to review for AOM! I think this is a great way of joining the AOM community and the best to benefit from your membership. Of course, there is no one best approach for first-time AOM reviewers. Here are three things I would not do again, if I had the wonderful opportunity you have now. One, today I would not create long lists pointing out everything I thought was wrong or worth commenting on. This takes a lot of time and effort on your side and it asks for too much resilience from the author. Two, I would avoid writing the review in chronological order. Doing so forces the reader to find what really matters. Three, I would not only criticize. Sure, cultures differ and you may want to help writers to become perfect. However, a highly critical review that deconstructs a paper completely will not help an author to (re)build something better. Constructive reviews can do this. A review that is balanced accomplishes more than one that looks like bashing. Here is the one thing that I try to write: friendly reviews (Patrick Reinmoeller, Cranfield University)

First, I would recommend AOM reviewers to read the excellent papers that talk about reviewing and that are available on the AOM website at: http://aom.org/annualmeeting/reviewerresources/. Something that I took away from Romanelli’s paper in particular and that I try to do whenever I write a review is to remind myself to focus on the rough diamond in the paper: what is the nugget of insight that deserves to be presented at the conference? While it’s important to identify the issues or problems in a paper, it’s equally important to identify the main contribution(s) and to tell the author(s) how to develop them and enhance the potential impact of their paper. Another thing I try to do is to sleep at least one night on the review before submitting it. I usually read the paper once, making notes throughout; then I go back to the paper and write my review. I reread my review a day later and adjust it if needed before sending it off. I have found that having a second look at my review a day later helped me ensure that it was as helpful and constructive as it should be (Jean-Baptiste Litrico, Queen’s Univeristy).

I would think that reviewing for the Annual Meeting should consider the potential discussion that a submission can stimulate. In this sense, I would hope that you allow novel and provocative thoughts to compensate for some rigor in analysis. There are papers which are clearly very far away from being publishable, but the exciting data or eye-opening thought they present deserves a forum for discussion. Dare to recommend that authors use the Annual Meeting to ask their audience questions and to discuss phenomena that are surprising but are lacking an explanation. Help to ensure that the AOM Annual Meeting remains what it should be: A forum of academic debate for the latest research and the most interesting ideas (Dirk C. Moosmayer, Nottingham Univesity Business School China).

One thing I always remind myself when reviewing for the Academy (or other conferences) is that the papers are typically at (much) earlier stage of development. At such stage, authors need feedback on issues like what is most interesting/exciting about their paper, what potential contributions they can conceivably make, clarity of exposition, importance of research question, etc. Being “developmental” as a reviewer is much appreciated by authors, so I try to provide suggestions on strengthening the paper, rather than criticizing its weaknesses (Antoaneta Petkova, San Francisco State University).

First, treat review seriously. It starts with the selection of theoretical and methodological keywords in the registration. It helps to assign the best suited papers to you, which match your interest and expertise. This is particularly important because you will have an intellectual conversation with your colleagues using the same language in the same framework. That will maximize your contribution and the gains of authors. Second, be constructive. Although it seems that this point does not need any particular mention, it is often forgot. Reviewing consists of not only critiques, but more importantly feedbacks and suggestion that help authors to improve their papers in their own theoretical framework (if possible). Last, but not least, be respectful. Conference papers are different from journal submissions in terms of purpose and maturity. In addition, AOM is a melting pot with papers from all over the worlds. When encountering papers of different origins and degrees of maturity, it is reviewers’ job and responsibility to respect them and be polite and dutiful (Tao Wang, Grenoble School of Management).

When writing AOM reviews, it’s important to consider that they benefit three groups: the authors, the track chairs, and the reviewer. You should evaluate if you are addressing each person at each step of the review. First, rather than consider the authors first, I recommend considering yourself first. AOM reviews are an opportunity for you to take a fresh look at someone’s work. This is a time to reflect on the paper based on what you know, but also a great time to look at the field more generally and see how reviewing the paper can be an opportunity to for you to expand what you know. Read the citations you aren’t familiar with. Do your own brief literature review. This helps you and it helps the authors as you are able to provide a more thorough review. Second, you should focus on the authors. Write the review you wish you would get. Focus on your strengths in the review. If you are strong at methods, give a great methodological review. If you’re strong at theory, focus there. The authors are going to get several reviews back and they’ll benefit from a few focused reviews rather than a few broad reviews. Be sure to include citations you think are missing. Finally, your review should assist the track chairs in developing the program. A good review is a great start, but don’t forget that it’s important to write a quick summary in the comments to the track chair. They have a lot of work to do to select papers to include in the program and that is a very efficient way for them to know your undiluted opinion (Tim Hubbard, University of Georgia).

User Rating: / 7
PoorBest 

Each year, the OMT Division acknowledges the efforts of the best reviewers by presenting the ABCD (Above and Beyond Call of Duty) Awards. Of the several hundred volunteer reviewers who provide their services to the division, these are the individuals who were deemed worthy of special recognition for the helpfulness, civility, extensiveness and insight of their reviews. To help you in reviewing for OMT, we have sought advice from the 2015 ABCD Award winners. In particular, ABCD Award winners share their thoughts on the nuts and bolts of crafting good reviews.

Take reviewing seriously. It is an anonymous process, but you are actually building a reputation among the representatives of the division and good reviewing will also be noticed by journal editors. First, don’t be shy about naming a large number of concerns, but very clearly prioritize these issues: Name those two or three areas that require most improvement because they leave the paper’s conceptual contribution unclear, limit the validity of the findings, or make the paper inaccessible to potential readers. Second, think and write like a co-author. Write the review like an email to a co-author who sent you a first paper draft and whom you will call later on: (a) Thanks for sending this over; (b) I feel we have a real challenge with areas x and y, and we need to work on them, (c) I think area x can be solved by doing q; y is tricky and I think p and o could be ways to address this, but I am not sure yet. You are not a co-author (at least most AOM members erroneously believe you are not), but the approach above ensures (a) you have a constructive tone, (b) you fulfill the vetting task that reviewers also have, and (c) your review is developmental (Dirk C. Moosmayer, Nottingham University Business School China).

When I review, I imagine myself talking directly to the author(s) in my office and what I would tell them about how to improve the paper. You’re often reviewing for your friends, even if you do not know it at the moment. This technique not only sets a very positive tone for the review, but also gives you a perspective on how difficult it is to make the changes you so desire in the paper (David Maslach, Florida State University).

First, Build the paper up, rather than just tear it down. Let’s face it, we all work very hard on our research throughout the year. Getting a reviewer who picks apart every single aspect they don’t like – without acknowledging any of its redeeming qualities – can be frustrating and demoralizing. What I appreciate most about AOM is that it gives us all an opportunity to present work-in-progress, often before we submit to a journal. So when I review papers for AOM, I’m particularly sensitive to highlight elements of the paper I like and hope the author will continue to pursue. While reading the paper, I jot down several positive and then try to incorporate as many of them into my review. Of course, I also highlight areas where I think the paper could be stronger, but always with the mindset of trying to offer up possible solutions. Second, don’t write too much, but don’t write too little. We’ve all been there. We open up a set of AOM reviews and see one that goes on-and-on for pages… then we scroll down to the next and find the reviewer only wrote one or two pithy comments. Try not to create a laundry list of every single issue you have with the paper. I typically read the paper and write notes in the margin (e.g., what I like, what confuses me, how a construct or method might be strengthened). Before writing my review, I then try to group these comments into 4-5 main categories. I always appreciate reviewers who take the time to highlight a few critical areas for focus, with a few sub-points to help clarify their point. Last but not least, remember that the review is not about me or my research agenda. One of the things I appreciate most about reviewing for AOM is that I get to read papers that often extend a bit outside my typical areas of research. However, I have to be careful not to apply the theories I care most about to these papers. There is nothing worse than getting feedback from a reviewer who wants you to write their paper, rather than helping you develop yours. I consistently have to remind myself to avoid this trap. (Ryan Raffaelli, Harvard University)

First, I would suggest setting aside time for reviewing work. I try to treat reviewing time as “Money in the Bank” that not only helps other scholars see their work through a new set of (hopefully helpful) eyes, but plays a huge role for me in reflecting upon my own research. Specifically in my own work, do I practice what I preach? Am I holding myself to the standards that I propose? Second, I would encourage reviewers to be kind. Reviewing for AOM often comes in the middle of teaching, research, and service. I would just put out the notion that patience and the “softening of critical language” can be as valuable for AOM’s submitters as the actual input that you provide (Wesley Helms, Brock University).

I normally approach as reading a good story. Besides great concepts, data, and contributions, it is extremely important that the story makes sense, that the pieces fit, and there is a clear sequence between what is been promised, how the person says he/she will accomplish and the final results. In my experience, differently from journals, AOM meeting papers tend to have more richness in data, really interesting data, but a lack of focus in how to exploit these treasures. A good reviewer should help make sense of the stories they are trying to tell, how to best frame their work and what potential and important contributions they are not necessarily exploring (Marcos Barros, Grenoble School of Management).

There is one thing that makes reviewing naturally easy for me, something I also addressed in my research using the term “provisional role switching”. The essence of this idea is that a task can be best completed not by drawing on one’s knowledge and expertise to assess an external object but by putting oneself –at least for a short period of time- into the other’s shoes in order to understand how he or she might benefit from it. While the first method makes the object (in this case, the work under review) “assessable” by aligning it with familiar frames and institutionalized standards, it also denies its right to speak for its own. Thus trying to put oneself into an author’s shoes while reviewing his/her work means becoming part of a conversation that goes beyond the textual level. It entails making hypothesis about the author’s intentions, trying to understand why they made the choices they did, and especially, where they are heading to, with what purposes, and with what means at hand. Above all, it implies putting yourself to the service of their journey in any way you can, by asking a challenging question (and some foolish ones, as well), by suggesting  new paths, or by helping them orient differently on a map that neither of us knows perfectly but that we can all help (re)build (Paula Ungureanu, University of Modena).

In terms of content, my best advice is to be developmental. Every time I approach a manuscript, I ask myself what type of review would be the most helpful to me if I was the author. Two points are the most important in my opinion: first, try not to over impose the reviewer’s view on the paper (instead support the authors to develop the best argument given their genuine research interests); secondly, ensure that you provide a rational and carefully executed analysis of the manuscript. I have found it useful to invest time and energy to develop my ‘own’ review protocol that addresses the fundamental quality criteria for manuscripts; I then apply systematically this protocol to multiple reviews. On the process side, manage your time wisely. You will be frequently asked to review multiple submissions within the same period of time, and it is important to demonstrate an equal level of commitment to each review. Delivering a wonderful review of one manuscript at the expense of two other submissions is not a service to the community! Furthermore, take the time to ‘digest’ your writing. I always find it useful to finalize reviews in multiple—at least two—waves: a first wave in which I read the study and annotate the manuscript with my major comments, and a second wave in which I structure carefully the arguments and finalize the comments (Giulia Cappellaro, Bocconi University).

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

Each year, the OMT Division acknowledges the efforts of the best reviewers by presenting the ABCD (Above and Beyond Call of Duty) Awards. Of the several hundred volunteer reviewers who provide their services to the division, these are the individuals who were deemed worthy of special recognition for the helpfulness, civility, extensiveness and insight of their reviews.  To help you in reviewing for OMT, we have sought advice from the 2015 ABCD Award winners. In particular, ABCD Award winners share their thoughts on how reviewing for AOM, and OMT in particular, has helped them. 

You can stay current and be part of the academic conversation! 

• Reviewing may be an unconventional but potentially effective way to build a community that also helps you to be a productive researcher (Dirk Moosmayer, University of Nottingham).
• Reviewing for AOM (and especially for OMT) is a great way for me to keep up to date with the newest research in my area.  (Antoaneta Petkova, San Francisco State University).
• Reviewing helps you to be part of the ‘academic conversation.’ Especially when I first started reviewing, I didn't know the literature that well, so reviewing really helped me get up to speed on what I should think about as an author. Now, it has really helped me think about what are interesting phenomenon in the world to study (David Maslach, Florida State University).
• Reviewing for AOM, especially when I was doctoral student, was one of the first ways I was able to engage with scholars outside my own department.  It was the first time I felt like I was contributing to the Academy and my profession in a meaningful way (Ryan Raffaelli, Harvard University).
• Reviewing for AOM has benefited me immensely and in different ways according to the stages of my professional career. Over the years, reviewing for AOM has constituted a first and crucial step to developing and strengthening ties with my community of peers. Today, reviewing is much more than a required service; it has become an essential component of my professional identity, and one that has strongly reinforced my sense of belonging to the AOM professional community (Giulia Cappellaro, Bocconi University).
• First, reviewing allows me to see cutting edge ideas years in advance. On several occasions I’ve reviewed AOM papers in nascent forms that turn into amazing papers that eventually landed in the top journals in the field. This provides insights into how others successfully frame and reframe their work. Second, reviewing for AOM provides me with the opportunity to support other scholars in their work. In my work, reviewers and their input frequently serve as the invisible hand that helps me to clarify, communicate, and bring my ideas to fruition. Reviewing for AOM is an opportunity to serve the community that has guided me (Wesley Helms, Brock University).
• It is a great opportunity to be updated with the current flows and discussions in our academic community. Fresh ideas and new developments in theories and methods are presented in submissions. It provides a unique platform to learn from your fellows. (Wang Tao, Grenoble School of Management).

It's a great opportunity to learn and become better at your own research!

• Reviewing enables researchers to better identify topics that are worthy of publication and to anticipate reviewer critique (Dirk Moosmayer, University of Nottingham).
• Noticing repeatedly the same gaps or issues in other papers helps a lot when working on my own research (Antoaneta Petkova, San Francisco State University).
• Reviewing for AOM has benefited me immensely and in different ways according to the stages of my professional career. During my time as an early PhD student it proved to be an extremely important learning experience. By reading and evaluating others’ work, I gradually developed the skills to critically assess my own thinking and ultimately improve my own analytical and writing abilities (Giulia Cappellaro, Bocconi University).
• AOM reviews are a great way for me to block off a period of time and immerse myself in several papers I’ve never seen. Most of the time they are relevant to my research and allow me to consider things that I normally wouldn’t. Sometimes I read a great introduction, sometimes there’s a new method, or sometimes there’s a theory I hadn’t considered in a particular context. Even the act of writing a concise review helps me as it helps me focus my own writing. They’re always a lot of work—it takes time to write a good review, but, it’s necessary to give back to the scholarly community. In my opinion, reviewing for AOM should be a requirement, especially if you’ve submitted a paper to the conference. If we all write good reviews, we all benefit from good reviews and the field will progress faster as a result (Tim Hubbard, University of Georgia).
• Reviewing was one of the first things that my PhD recommended as a way of honing your skills by learning from great and not-so-great papers. You see yourself in many of the errors and appreciate some of the fine techniques that many used to tell their story. Since most major journals were unattainable to me as a PhD student (at least I thought they were, which proved to be a misconception in many cases), the AOM meetings were a great opportunity to learn but also to contribute to the community and I’m happy to, after 10 years, to still contribute (Marcos Barros, Grenoble School of Management).
• Reading others’ papers is a nice way to reflect on one’s own research and writing. We can learn from the strengths, but also weaknesses of papers reviewed. It is an ongoing internal conversation which is enabled by the AOM community (Wang Tao, Grenoble School of Management).
• Reviewing for AOM basically taught me how to write a review! I think that reviewing for conferences is an excellent way to learn how to critically assess a paper and formulate some feedback. Over the years, reviewing for AOM has helped me to develop some routines and experience at reviewing papers, thus it has certainly made my reviewing more efficient (Jean-Baptiste Litrico, Queen’s Univeristy).
• Reviewing at the AOM opened my eyes to different levels of writing abilities, common mistakes, and expected standards. Clearly, reading and reviewing others` work helped me understand problems with my own. Most insightful are friendly reviews that peers wrote, they often provide a range of different perspectives on the same paper, which further enrich learning (Patrick Reinmoeller, Cranfield University).

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

Dear OMTers,

I hope you have all had a terrific fall and are well on your way with your preparations for the upcoming holiday season. I would like to begin by thanking the entire OMT community for all of your enthusiastic help and support over the last year. The willingness of OMT members to volunteer their time as reviewers, session chairs, discussants, and volunteers of all kinds is the key to our success as a division and I want to thank each and every one of you for all your efforts. In addition, I want to celebrate your collegiality and friendliness. After more than twenty years as an OMT member, I continue to be amazed and energized by the level of camaraderie, intellectual energy, and just plain fun that I witness at every AoM meeting. You all continue to prove that OMT is the place to be!!!

The second really important thing I would like to do is say a huge thank you to Candy Jones for her hard work as Division Chair this past year, as well as for her many contributions over the past five years as a member of the Executive Committee. Candy has been a source of energy, innovation and good council that has kept the Executive Committee highly engaged and working smoothly. In Candy’s Division Chair report at the AOM business meeting, she highlighted three areas of continued health of the OMT Division that I would like to repeat here: (1) our continued growth as a division indicated both by the continued growth in members (now 4,097) and the doubling of submissions from 300 to over 600 in the last decade; (2) the high standard that members of our division set for scholarship as indicated by the number of awards they have won including the last three years (yes, the last three consecutive years!) of the Terry Book Award, 65% of the AoM Career Scholar Awards, 54% of the ASQ Five Year Awards, and so on; and (3) the success of our students who go on to jobs in a number of areas beyond OT including strategy, entrepreneurship and OB.

As part of her Division Chair Report, Candy presented the results of the Five Year Review. The Five Year Review is an audit of members conducted by the Academy to ensure that members are being well served by their divisions. The results of the review of OMT showed that members were, by and large, happy with the Division. Members clearly indicated that they most valued high quality scholarship followed at some distance by the possibility to make social connections. This fits well with the direction and emphasis of the division and we are going to keep on track with providing a range of opportunities for sharing excellent scholarship and developing as scholars, as well as ensure plenty of opportunities exist for networking with like-minded scholars.

The main concerns that the membership expressed lie in the growing size and stratification of the Division. This is a challenge, but we are doing a number of things to respond to this. In order to respond to the concerns about size, we have created a communication committee and a communication chair charged with the responsibility to leverage social media and streamline communications between the Executive Committee and members as well as facilitating communication among members (you can read the Communication Chair’s report here). In addition, we continue to sponsor a number of small paper development workshops in international locations (including China, Poland, and Scotland this year) in order to provide international members with a more accessible context in which to meet with senior scholars and receive feedback on their papers. We have also created a Global Representative at Large whose responsibility includes engages with international members and encouraging their participation in Division activities. We hope that this combination of initiatives will keep OMT feeling like a real community despite the ever increasing size and geographic scope of the division.

Looking back to Vancouver, the conference was a tremendous success. Vancouver was a wonderful host city and conference venue situated on the Vancouver waterfront was truly breathtaking. For a more complete recap of the Academy Meetings in Vancouver, check out Anne Langley’s Program Chair Report, Marc-David Seidel’s PDW Report, Mark Ebers and Patricia Thornton’s Doctoral Consortium Report, Brayden King and Anne-Claire Pache’s Junior Faculty Report, Chris Quinn Trank and Bill Foster’s Teaching Roundtable Report, and Candy Jones’ Dissertation Proposal Workshop Report. If after all that you still want more, have a look at the OMT Business Meeting presentation.

True to form, Marc-David came up with a fun and original (as well as digital!) OMT artifact—the OMT photo booth. The idea of a photo booth combined with a range of props was absolutely inspired (our new PDW Chair Davide Ravasi looked particularly fetching in the pink sequined cowboy hat!). This new virtual artefact proved to be extremely popular and also made for some very special memories that continue to be a source of amusement and will undoubtedly reappear in future OMT Business Meeting slide decks. Marc-David is now the OMT Program Chair for Anaheim. Please help him by signing up to review for OMT and by submitting your very best papers and symposia by January 12, 2016.

The vibrancy of OMT is also reflected in the continuing growth of paper, symposia and PDW submissions for our annual Academy Meetings. Thanks to Anne Langley for skillfully managing the ever growing program. Mark-David Seidel organized a very successful PDW program that attracted large audiences and offered developmental opportunities across a range of theories, topics and methods. He also introduced a number of extremely successful new initiatives including OMT Café and OMT Bike Rides which added a wonderful opportunity for more personal interaction to the PDW program. We welcome aboard David Ravasi to the executive leadership team. You will have heard from him already as he has been hard at work eliciting your ideas and participation to create an exciting PDW program next year in Anaheim.

OMT really shines when it comes to the success of our scholarship. Please read Jo-Ellen Posner’s Research Report that summarizes our many achievements. Our 2015 Distinguished Educator award went to Henry Mintzberg for his extensive writings that have deeply informed teaching in OT and strategy as well as his work challenging taken for granted ideas about management education and the MBA. The Best Published Paper award this year went to Joep P. Cornelissen, Saku Mantere and Eero Vaara and you can read an interview with them about the paper here. In addition, you can read an interview with Valentina Assenova and Olav Sorenson, winners of the Best International Paper award, here.

We also want to thank our many sponsors. Given the escalation of meeting costs, the OMT executive team has aggressively sought out sponsorship over the past few years. This year we were grateful for the support of the Boston College and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, Cass Business School, Desautels Faculty of Management-McGill University, Emerald Publishing, HEC Montreal, INSEAD, Kellogg School of Management-Northwestern, MIT-Sloan, Organization Studies, Radboud University-Nijmegan, Said Business School-University of Oxford, and the Sauder School of Business-UBC.

In closing, I want to extend a huge thanks to Joe Broshak, Joel Gehman, Forrest Brisco, Chris Marquis, and Michael Lounsbury for their service to the Division. As we move toward 2016, keep an eye out for the formal call for applications for OMT workshops and consortia. If you have questions, Mark Ebers, Pat Thornton, and new rep-at-large Nina Gandqvist will be organizing the Doctoral Consortium; Brayden King, Anne-Claire Pache and new rep-at-large Wendy Smith will be organizing the Junior Faculty Consortium; and I will be organizing the Dissertation Proposal Workshop. Stay tuned for details.

That is it for now. Please feel free to get in touch with me anytime with questions, comments, or ideas. I am your Division Chair and would love to hear from as many of you as possible. My e-mail is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Drop me a line anytime.

Oh, and see you all in Anaheim!

Nelson Phillips

User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 

Editor's note: First awarded in 2015, the Best OMT Entrepreneurship Paper Award recognizes a paper in the scholarly program at AOM that advances understanding of entrepreneurship drawing on organization and management theory. The 2015 winners were: Itziar Castello (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) and David Barbera (Institute of Innovation and Knowledge Management INGENIO), for their paper "Cultural Entrepreneurship and the Role of Visuals in Interactive Frame Alignment Process."

Congratulations on being the first to win the Best OMT Entrepreneurship Paper Award that was introduced at this years’ Academy of Management Meeting in Vancouver! Can you briefly highlight what your paper is about?

Our paper is about how social entrepreneurs use cultural tools as online visual resources to gain legitimacy. In our case, the entrepreneurs are the leaders of a new social movement devoted to fight the plastic pollution that is contaminating every ocean and continent on earth. We show how these entrepreneurs use the powerful images of dead baby albatrosses in the Facebook page of the movement when trying to align potential activists with the movement’s innovative frame for the problem of plastic pollution. Through the analysis of Facebook posts and comments about that specific visual we describe three new frame alignment strategies: shock, iconological, and heroic alignment.

What inspired this paper? Can you talk a little bit about the genesis of the paper and how you became engaged in this fascinating project?

In 2010, we spent seven months of research at Silicon Valley, California, affiliated to the Hass School of Business, UC Berkeley. Silicon Valley is the birthplace of the Internet and we wanted to analyze how the leading companies in the world use the internet to communicate their messages of sustainability. We interviewed Yahoo, eBay, Google, IBM, etc. and the best social media managers in the region. We observed that businesses had a very advanced technology for diffusing messages and analyzing social media responses but were not able to convey transformative ideas about their environmental projects.

One afternoon, we went to a conference at a cultural center in Berkeley where Chris Jordan, photographer, and Manuel Maqueda, entrepreneur, talked about a project on plastic pollution. In their presentation, Chris and Manuel showed the pictures of baby birds that had exploded after being fed with bits of plastic. With these pictures Chris and Manuel represented the effect of plastic in our society:  adults are feeding their babies with lethal food. The bits of plastic appearing in the pictures were familiar to us; they were similar to the lighter we carried in our pocket and the cap of the plastic bottle we were drinking from. It was shocking; our daily activities such as drinking from a plastic bottle were killing thousands of birds.

We were lucky enough to have a chat with Chris and Manuel after the conference. They talked about how they were creating a social movement against plastic pollution. They had already involved in their activities more than 2 million people and their actions together with other activists was influencing the regulation in more than 47 cities and counties in California. All this, mostly organized through social media. This was undoubtedly the best example of the impact of social networks on environmental issues we had seen. We had to learn more about it.

Thanks for sharing this enthusiasm for your research setting with us! You also used an intriguing new research methodology: “Netnography.” Can you tell us about the research process you went through for this paper? Any anecdotes you can share with us?

Netnography is an ethnographic research method adapted to the study of online communities. Its objective is to understand the patterns of relations between actors in a society that interacts online. Through netnography we observed the interaction between the entrepreneurs and the rest of the online participants and we identified the cultural tools, such as the pictures of the baby albatross, which helped the entrepreneurs to convince people on their new frame. We started observing the Facebook walls, blogs and twitter accounts of 8 social entrepreneurs including a collective one named as Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC). Then we systematized the data collection by downloading all of the Facebook Wall of PPC and analyzed what we called full interactions. We manually analyzed 802 full interactions. A typical sequence of a single full interaction is: PPC writes a “post” in the Facebook Wall, an activist responds writing a “comment” and PPC responds by writing another “comment.”

The quantity and the richness of this online interaction data allowed us to observe in detail a high amount of conversations between PPC entrepreneurs and the people supporting them. This direct and unobtrusive data is not easy to have in off-line communities where the data compilation is very dependent on the researcher’s ability to document the interactions. Netnography uses the data directly taken from the source, reducing researcher bias. However, we believe it is important to complement the netnographic data with other methods such as interviews. We conducted 34 interviews with members of the movement, which provided invaluable insights to help us understand what was going on.  

What were the most surprising insights to you in this inductive research process and important lessons to take away? If you had to offer a tagline for your paper, what would it be?

Extant literature on framing in cultural entrepreneurship research highlights how entrepreneurs negotiate, adapt and change their original frames in their attempt to resonate more with their stakeholders and resource providers. Instead, our cultural entrepreneurs maintain their frame tight, without any change, and use visual tools to emotionally activate activists and align them with the originally proposed frame. The practical implications of this finding could be also broad, and include the possibility that nowadays online instigators have more persuasive (visual and interactive) tools than their predecessors of the off-line age, which could allow them to align potential activists to their collective action frames without negotiating their original propositions.

When you describe this research to entrepreneurs, what kind of responses do you get?

We believe this research can be applied to every kind of entrepreneurial venture, as visuals are very powerful tools to gain legitimacy and overcome the “liability of newness.” People spontaneously relate our research with online media sharing of visuals and its consequences, like for example the picture of a dead Syrian child in the recent refugee crisis in Europe.

Again, congratulations for being the first to win this prize! Do you have specific hopes for how having this award in OMT now will influence entrepreneurship research within OMT or the exchange with the ENT division? What does this prize mean to you personally?

We really appreciate that OMT has given this award to an inquiry which apparently is difficult to fit into traditional entrepreneurship research. We believe that the idea that culture can constitute a toolkit of resources available for entrepreneurial agency is indeed very relevant. We also believe that this approach naturally fits with many trends present in the OMT division, and could constitute a fruitful bridge with the ENT division. Finally, this prize means a great honor for us. There are not many Spanish universities in the list of AOM prizes and our departments are delighted also with the prize!

Finally, do you have any advice for people who aspire to win this prize in the future?

We hope this award inspires other researchers to experiment with new topics and new methods but also to consider other forms of entrepreneurs with social and environmental goals. The entrepreneurs of our study are environmental crusaders that want to transform the word. Observing them is inspiring. 

User Rating: / 5
PoorBest 

Since 2010, the OMT has formally recognized an award for the Best International Paper. This year, Valentina Assenova and Olav Sorenson (Yale School of Management) received this award for their paper “Gray Matters in the Growth of Markets.” It was an honour to speak to one of the authors, Valentina Assenova, about the process leading up to this great accomplishment.

If you had to explain to the readers of our OMT blog what your paper is about, what would be your one sentence to describe it?

The paper examines the role of organizational formalization in the long-run growth of small and medium enterprises in sub-Saharan Africa.

What was your inspiration for the paper?

This paper was a long time coming. The idea for it and the inspiration came when I was a student at Cambridge. I had spoken with one of my friends there who was researching Chinese investment in sub-Saharan Africa and she encouraged me to explore questions related to private sector development. I looked for data on small and medium enterprises, actually for close to two years, that could enable interesting insights into what creates differential growth among enterprises and what levers managers can pull to enable greater economic growth in the region.

My co-author and I came across this dataset and thought of a simple question, “How does informality affect long-term entrepreneurial growth?” This appeared to be an important question because in many of the countries that we studied, informal firms contribute between 50% and 70% of non-agricultural employment and economic output; they have a very substantive presence and present challenges for formal sector organizations. In themselves, they also present an interesting puzzle of why entrepreneurs enter the informal sector and how informality at founding affects the growth trajectories of firms.

I also grew up in Bulgaria, a country that has witnessed quite substantial economic transformation over the last 15 years, and seeing the course of development there piqued my interest in unequal growth. The bimodal distribution of firm size, for example – with many very small businesses and few very large corporations – isn’t unique to Bulgaria, but occurs across many emerging economies. Economic growth in many countries is highly unequal. For this reason, small businesses are seen as part of a dual-sector economy. This is the prevalent view in economics, that there is a bifurcation in the growth trajectories of firms, but few people have tried to explain the managerial factors that keep domestic firms on the smaller end of the size distribution.

Were there any surprises that you encountered during the writing process? Any new ideas that emerged as you wrote the paper?

Yes, we were very surprised to see the consistency of the results across countries. We thought that we would end up with some countries where informality had a positive effect – largely through tax savings – on the growth of the firm and some countries where informality would exert negative effects, related to differences in the legal environments. But instead what we saw was that the majority of our cases – 17 of the 18 countries – had overwhelmingly positive effects of formalization on the subsequent growth of firms. This was surprising because the countries that we examined differed substantially in their institutional environments, in their colonial histories, and in their current political situations. And yet, the direction of our results was consistent across countries. We found that surprising and quite interesting.

What were the empirical and theoretical challenges you faced and how did you overcome them?

The empirical challenges were many, but the first and foremost was finding reliable, firm-level data from sub-Saharan Africa. A major hurdle was gathering data on informal enterprises, which are by definition part of a shadow economy that is hard to quantify and receives little attention from national statistical bureaus.

The challenge on the theoretical side was the paucity of theory about informal enterprises. Of course, plenty of research has examined informal social networks, and how these networks affect communication and performance. But informality, in the sense that we meant it as the lack of registration among enterprises with their governments, hasn’t figured prominently in management research. The 2012 annual meeting of the Academy of Management (on “The Informal Economy”) called attention to this need for research on informal organizations.

And how did you overcome these challenges? Especially on the theory side?

We had to be creative and work with what was there. On the theory side, there is substantial research on informality in development economics and political economy, but this research tends to focus more on higher levels of analysis. Scholars working in this tradition tend to examine the antecedents to informality on a macro-economic scale, such as bribery and corruption, and their effects on the prevalence of informality and the overall rate of economic growth. We pointed to some the limitations of these insights because they adopt the perspective of national governments and provide policy recommendations about tax collection, but say little about what informality implies for the entrepreneur. For example, how do the informal origins of a firm affect its sales and employment growth? We saw the limitations in prior research as opportunities for bringing organizational theory to bear on these important questions.

Are there any other comments or thoughts about the paper you would like to share with the readers of our OMT blog?

We would like to express sincere gratitude to all the people who helped us along this journey of discovery. Success is always a team effort. We also hope that this research inspires further scholarship and exploration of organizational questions in developing economies, especially questions regarding market growth, innovation, and development. There is such a wide spectrum of issues that are relevant to both management theory and management practice in developing countries, where scholars can shed light and provide greater insights. We hope that this is just the beginning of more inter-disciplinary collaboration regarding these questions.

Thank you so much for your time and congratulations again!

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

First awarded in 2010, the Best Published Paper Award recognizes a journal paper published in the previous year that advances our theoretical understanding of organizations, organizing, and management. The 2015 winner was: Joep P. Cornelissen, Saku Mantere and Eero Vaara, for the paper “The Contraction of Meaning: The Combined Effect of Communication, Emotions, and Materiality on Sensemaking in the Stockwell Shooting” published in Journal of Management Studies 51(5).

First, congratulations on winning the OMT Best Published Paper Award! Could you share with us in short the “punchline” of your paper?

Eero Vara: For me, it’s really about understanding why this innocent man got killed – not because of one mistake or misunderstanding but through building up of commitment in a long chain communication.

Joep Cornelissen: It is that but also the link with materiality and emotions that really stands out in this case, as well as the interactions between these aspects. If anything, the case shows the importance of attending to these elements together as part of studies into individual and collective sensemaking.

Could you tell us a bit about the initial development of the (empirical/theoretical) idea?

Eero Vara: Credit must go to Joep who had followed the case. We all shared an interest in sensemaking, and I was particularly keen to study sensemaking failure.

Joep Cornelissen: the Guardian serialized the inquest into the shooting, and it very quickly became clear that a number of the mistakes, such as the misidentification of the suspect, were down to poor communication. That was really the trigger to study the case in a much more in-depth manner.

Would you like to share any challenges related with the theoretical part of the paper?

Eero Vara: There were a lot of challenges, and we rewrote the whole paper several times! To me, the challenge – positive one – was to develop this more micro-level interactionist understanding of sensemaking that could include not only discursive, but also emotional and sociomaterial elements.

Joep Cornelissen: That is right, and the other challenge was the difficulty of being given the space by editors and reviewers to write a thick description and a complex explanation of the case, as opposed to what going for a rather simple and formulaic storyline. JMS really gave us the space to that, and we are grateful for their thoughtful and open stance towards what we tried to do with this study.

Are there any interesting anecdotes about the data gathering process that you find particularly noteworthy?

Eero Vara: This is an unusual paper because we draw on the publicly available data from the hearings.

Joep Cornelissen: It is ultimately a very tragic case for everyone involved, and the data are quite harrowing and frustrating at times to work with, as the shooting could have been avoided.

Is there any aspect of the paper your peers have found particularly surprising or interesting? What about the non-academic audience?

Eero Vara: Many people have liked it and said that we should have more of these kinds of papers that connect with important real life phenomena. In my view, this is the kind of practical relevance that we should strive for. This is the only paper of mine that my kids understand J Otherwise they don’t always see any point in what they dad is doing.

Joep Cornelissen: I think the interesting thing is also that a management theory (sensemaking) is able to explain this real-life case, and in a way that combines various strands of analysis (emotions, materiality, communication) into a compelling explanation.

Did you develop further ideas of papers from this one? Which ones?

Eero Vara: We all share a huge interest in sensemaking and communication. So it’s happening, even if not based on this case.

Were you surprised by the critical acclaim for the paper? What does this prize mean for you?

Eero Vara: Yes, the prize was a big surprise, and the recognition means a lot to me. Especially because it is a different kind of paper and published in JMS.

Joep Cornelissen: It is great to get this kind of recognition from our peers. It took us a lot of effort to write it, but it proved to be well worth it in the end!

We were extremely proud to organize the first ever “OMT New and Returning Member Networking and Research Forum” in Vancouver this year.  We all know that OMT is the place to be, but for new members and those who have been away for awhile, becoming integrated into such a large division can feel daunting. We organized this forum to help members to feel “at home” in the OMT division; network with other new, returning, and regular members; and discuss challenging and interesting topics with some of the leading scholars in our field.

Through this PDW, we successfully brought together more than 20 senior faculty members and over 75 new and returning members. Following the session, we all rolled into the Meet OMT Social Hour, another rollicking event.  We feel the session was so successful that we hope to make in an annual event. Please let us know if you would like to be involved in 2016 (Jo-Ellen: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Emily: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )!

A special thank you to our esteemed table anchors (with apologies if we have accidentally left you out!):

William Ocasio; Northwestern U.;

Mark Thomas Kennedy; Imperial College Business School;

Robert J David; McGill U.;

Anne-Claire Pache; ESSEC Business School;

Joe Broschak; U. of Arizona;

Joel Gehman; U. of Alberta;

Michael Lounsbury; U. of Alberta;

Thomas P. Moliterno; U. of Massachusetts, Amherst;

Kimberly D. Elsbach; U. of California, Davis;

Shon R Hiatt; U. of Southern California;

Brandon H. Lee; Melbourne Business School;

Lisa Ellen Cohen; McGill U.;

Jared D. Harris; U. of Virginia;

Brandy Aven; Carnegie Mellon U.

Chris Rider; Georgetown U.;

Diane Burton; Cornell U.;

Gerald F Davis; U. of Michigan;

Michael Jensen; U. of Michigan;

Joseph Porac; New York U.;

Giuseppe Labianca; U. of Kentucky;

Michelle Rogan; INSEAD;

Tina Dacin; Queen's U.;

The OMT Division has been working on keeping members engaged with a variety of topics and events throughout the year. Reaching over 500 likes/followers for Facebook and Twitter, we look forward to having exciting new initiatives to stay connected with our members. For important announcements, upcoming events, and interviews with OMT members, please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

The OMT Division continued to have a strong social media presence at this year’s AOM conference. With the help of almost a dozen OMT member volunteers, the OMT Social Media Team attended and broadcasted information/photos about a wide variety of OMT events: Doctoral Consortium, Junior Faculty Workshop, Distinguished Scholar Breakfast, Business Meeting, Meet OMT social, over ten PDWs, and over fifteen sessions or symposia! This great effort demonstrates just one way the OMT Division keeps members virtually engaged during the conference.

If you have any suggestions regarding the OMT division’s social media efforts or are interested in being part of the OMT Social Media Team for the AOM 2016 conference, please contact Eunice Rhee ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).

Created in August 2012, the communications committee has been busy this past year keeping our website up to date, announcing events and posting pictures on our Facebook page, connecting OMTers through our Twitter feed and LinkedIn Group page, sharing knowledge on our SlideShare page, publishing our newsletters, and keeping the listserv humming along.

In addition, a number of individual committee members have helped provide unique content for our OMT membership. For instance, Saralara Marquez-Gallardo interviewed our winners of the best published paper award, Laura Claus interviewed our winners of the best international paper award, and Bjoern Mitzinneck interviewed our winners of the best entrepreneurship paper award. In addition, Eunice Rhee helped recruit and organize our Social Media Team at AOM.

If you are interested in being a part of the OMT communications committee, have ideas for content, or have announcements that you’d like us to publicize, please email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

A Special Note: This past year also brought with it a changing of the guard. Joel Gehman (University of Alberta) stepped down as the Communications Committee Chair. Joel made the communications committee what it is today, building and maintaining the infrastructure that we all have come to take for granted as the way us OMTers stay up to date and informed. Joel has been a great mentor to me and I am honored to take his place on this committee so that I can continue his work in serving our OMT membership.

Derek Harmon
Communications Committee Chair
University of Southern California

Current committee members include:

Pablo Martin de Holan
EM Lyon, Professor
Listserv moderator since 1994

Evelyn Micelotta
Alberta School of Business, PhD Student
Former member of the blogging committee since 2010

Mia Raynard
Alberta School of Business, PhD Student
Former member of the blogging committee since 2010

Vern Glaser
Alberta School of Business, Assistant Professor
Former member of the blogging committee since 2011

Diane-Laure Arjaliès
HEC Paris, Assistant Professor
Committee member since 2012

Marco Clemente
Aalto University, Postdoc
Committee member since 2012

Shilo Hills
Alberta School of Business, PhD Student
Committee member since 2013

Jochem Kroezen
Cambridge University, Assistant Professor
Committee member since 2013

Michael Mauskapf
Northwestern Kellogg, PhD Student
Committee member since 2013

Madeline Toubiana
York University, PhD Student
Committee member since 2013

Dahlia Mani
HEC Paris, Assistant Professor
Committee member since 2014

Eunice Rhee
Seattle University, Assistant Professor
Committee member since 2014; Social Media Liason

Laura Klaus
Cambridge University, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Christopher Corbishley
Imperial, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Teddy DeWitt
University of Michigan, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Tracey Dodd

University of South Australia, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Saralara Marquez-Gallardo

Cass, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Bjoern Mitzinneck

Cornell, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Chris Morin

Calgary, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Georg Reischauer

TU Wien, Associate
Committee member since 2015

Julie Ricard

Concordia, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

Sonia Siraz

IE, PhD Student
Committee member since 2015

The teaching roundtables at the 2015 annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Vancouver brought some of the very best teaching mentors together with junior faculty and graduate students participating in the doctoral and junior faculty consortia.  We were able to expand the list of topics at the tables to include teaching leadership, supervising service learning in the context of studying abroad and teaching large lecture courses.  Jerry Davis and co-author Christopher White gave copies their book, “Changing Your Company from the Inside Out:  A Guide for Social Intrapreneurs” to consortium attendees and shared ideas on how to teach social intrapreneurship at a roundtable.

The variety of topics covered at the roundtables truly demonstrates the diverse teaching repertoire possible—perhaps uniquely so—with a background in Organization and Management Theory.  Yet, even though we have been successful in demonstrating our division members’ ability to cover a range of electives, the teaching committee would like to begin strong advocacy for making Organization and Management Theory a more central part of the curriculum in universities, and business schools in particular.  The reality of increasingly strained budgets means that faculty lines most often must be linked to student enrollments in courses. That means that curriculum centrality may be key to securing opportunities for our members in the future. If you are interested in joining us in this effort, or if you have ideas about driving this agenda, please let us know!

We are currently making plans for the 2016 OMT Teaching Roundtables.  We’ve had about 100 participants each year, and we welcome ideas for new table topics and mentors.  If you’ve participated in the roundtables in the past, let us know what topics were most useful to you as well as your ideas for what we might cover.  What have been your biggest challenges in teaching, and how can we help?

We’d also like to ask for your help for the TeachOMT website. We are currently working on a re-launch of the site and need materials.  If you are teaching an organization theory course at the undergraduate or Masters level, this would be especially useful, but we also need syllabi dealing with change, strategy, general management, leadership, conflict, labor relations, and specific organization theory at every level of instruction.  Materials for any course that our division members teach would be valuable to new members or to those doing new preps and would like some ideas.  We also would like to use the site to share teaching materials such as cases, articles and videos (especially those in the public domain).  Please send us links to your favorite teaching resources and describe some successful classroom activities.

Once again we want to encourage everyone in the OMT division to consider developing research, conceptual papers, essays, and book and resource reviews for Academy of Management Learning and Education. Let’s not forget that some of the most important work in the OMT domain came from studies of education.

Chris Quinn Trank, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Bill Foster, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This year’s OMT Junior Faculty Consortium was co-organized by Brayden King (Northwestern) and Anne-Claire Pache (ESSEC), and included 40 junior faculty from the following parts of the world: Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. In addition, 23 senior faculty participated as mentors and panelists.

The event began Thursday night with a cocktail hour, dinner, and an evening of socializing at the Medina Café in Vancouver. We began the consortium’s official program on Friday morning. The program included two Research Roundtables, where senior faculty mentors engaged with two or three junior faculty and discussed a research idea each of them was currently developing. The program included a workshop led by Ezra Zuckerman (MIT), in which he introduced various genres of paper writing and discussed as a group various ways to sharpen our writing within these genres. The morning closed with a panel on “Early Career Success,” that included advice from Sarah Kaplan (Toronto), Teppo Felin (Oxford), and Scott Sonenshein (Rice).

We had a working lunch in which participants and senior faculty mentors discussed early career issues. Following the working lunch the final consortium activity was a panel discussion on “What’s Interesting about Organization and Management Theory?” The speakers on the panel were Pam Tolbert (Cornell), Damon Phillips (Columbia), and Steve Barley (UCSB).

In the mid-afternoon, many of the participants in the consortium joined the OMT Teaching Roundtables. We look forward to the junior faculty consortium and hope that you will consider applying if you are an early career faculty member.  Keep your eyes open in the spring for an announcement about how to apply!