OMT WebOrganization and Management Theory Division of the Academy of Management
We are pleased to announce that Martha Feldman has been named the OMT Distinguished Scholar for 2015.
Martha is the Johnson Chair for Civic Governance and Public Management at the University of California, Irvine.
Please join us on Monday morning at the Academy meetings in Vancouver to congratulate Martha and hear her distinguished talk!
OMT Distinguished Scholar Breakfast
Monday, August 10, 2015, 8:00AM - 9:30AM
Vancouver Convention Centre in East Ballroom C
Since 1980, the Organization and Management Theory Division has been presenting the Distinguished Scholar Award to scholars whose contributions have been central to the intellectual development of the field of organization studies.
Welcome to the Spring 2015 edition of the OMT Newsletter.
In the newsletter we highlight and summarize all the news and announcements that have been posted to our blog since our last newsletter.
It's hard to believe but we're already preparing for the meetings in Vancouver this summer. It will be a fantastic conference. OMT is the place to be!
Mike Lounsbury led the initiative (with myself and Nelson Phillips) on the OMT Five Year Review Report. OMT is in great shape!
Program Chair Ann Langley has created a fantastic program and here is an overview of OMT's program.
PDW Chair Marc-David Seidel previews the pre-conference program. Marc-David has initiated wonderfully engaging PDW sessions to meet new and reconnect with established acquaintances. We hope you will join in the regular PDW sessions as well as the cafes and bike rides!
Research Committee Chair Joe Broshak announces our paper and symposia award winners for this year.
Be sure to join us Monday morning to congratulate the 2015 OMT Distinguished Scholar Martha Feldman and hear her distinguished talk.
Follow these links for details of the OMT Doctoral Consortium, Junior Faculty Consortium, or Dissertation Proposal Workshop.
For those of you attending EGOS in Athens, please join us Thursday July 2nd at 5:30-7:00 at Meet OMT @ EGOS, which is jointly sponsored with Cass School of Business! Please join us for vibrant conversation, drinks and appetizers in a beautiful setting. OMT and Cass School of Business look forward to mingling and seeing you in Athens!
We look forward to seeing everyone in Vancouver and elsewhere this summer!
Sincerely,Candace JonesOMT Division Chair
Are you looking to get more involved in the OMT division at the 2015 Academy of Management annual meeting? We have two opportunities for you!
First, sign up to be a Membership Community Ambassador for the OMT division. This role provides a great new opportunity for members who want to get involved, but may not have the time to commit to a long-term volunteer role or leadership position. This role involves committing just a few hours at the annual meeting to be the OMT representative at the AOM Communities Quad, which is a space where we are promoting our 2015 OMT sessions and social hours to new and existing members. If interested or have any questions, please email Derek Harmon (
Second, sign up to be a member of our social media team. Our team members attend key OMT sessions and provide real-time content to post on Facebook and Twitter so OMTers can stay involved even when not at every event! This is a great opportunity to meet and build strong relationships with fellow division members. If interested or have any questions, please email Eunice Rhee (
Do you want to stay up to date with the latest OMT news and activities? Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to get important announcements and get up-to-date information from fellow OMTers. Or join our LinkedIn group to discuss hot research topics and emerging interests in organization and management theory.
Are you also looking to get more involved? Join our social media team at AOM 2015. Our team members attend key OMT sessions and provide real-time content to post on Facebook and Twitter so OMTers can stay involved even when not at every event! This is a great opportunity to meet and build strong relationships with fellow division members. If you’re interested, please email Eunice Rhee (
In the afternoon of the PhD workshop (June 12), Nelson Philips, Tina Dacin, Tammar Zilber, and Kathy Eisenhardt offered some words of wisdom for young academics.
Posted on behalf of Christine Quinn Trank
TeachOMT: The OMT Teaching RoundtablesTeachOMT: OMT Teaching
Program Session #: 166 | Submission: 10155 | Sponsor(s): (OMT) Scheduled: Friday, Aug 7 2015 3:00PM - 5:00PM at Vancouver Convention Centre in Room 011
The OMT Teaching Roundtables provide a forum for doctoral students and junior faculty to interact with experienced faculty mentors around the subject of teaching. Roundtable discussions center upon particular course topics (e.g., Strategy, Social Networks, Organization Theory, Entrepreneurship) and teaching methods (e.g., case discussions, simulations), and contexts (e.g., large lectures, service learning), thereby providing a foundation for faculty mentors to not only share their experience in, but also their methods for effective course design and classroom interaction. For a complete list of Faculty Facilitators and further information about the OMT Teaching Roundtables, head to: http://TeachOMT.com/teaching-roundtables/
For a complete list of Faculty Facilitators and further information about the OMT Teaching Roundtables, head to: http://TeachOMT.com/teaching-roundtables/Pre-registration is required for this workshop. To register online, please visit https://secure.aom.org/PDWReg. The deadline to register online is August 7, 2015.
OMT has an exciting and diverse program for the upcoming meeting in Vancouver. In total, the program includes 77 paper sessions, 8 discussion paper sessions and 81 symposia – a truly rich and interesting program! In addition, there are a number of social events and other activities not to be missed:
OMT had 651 paper submissions for 2015 AOM program. This is an all-time record. Of these, 308 papers were accepted for the main program on Monday and Tuesday and 30 papers were accepted for discussion paper sessions that will be held on Sunday (a 52% acceptance rate overall). We have tried to ensure a pleasant conference experience by placing related topics in the same or adjacent rooms. For example, in the West Convention Centre, catch the latest on institutional theory in rooms 101, 110, 120 and 121, networks in room 103, learning in rooms 108 and 109, social issues, status and reputation in rooms 110 and 116, governance in room 102, careers and professions in room 205. In the East Convention Centre, we have sessions on categories, markets and technology in rooms 1 and 8 and practice and process perspectives in room 15. Here is a sampling of the many interesting sessions to choose from:
Also, don’t forget to consider the discussion paper sessions on Sunday. For a real treat, join presenters and discussants Bob Hinings and Pat Thornton for a session “Rethinking the Foundations of Institutions and Institutional Logics” (Sunday 11:15 am-12:45 pm). This session promises to be very stimulating.
OMT had 99 symposia submitted to the division for solo or co-sponsorship. In total, 81 symposia were accepted with the great majority co-sponsored with other division. OMT’s co-sponsorships reflect its boundary-spanning role in AOM. The primary divisions with which OMT is co-sponsoring symposia are in order: BPS, OB, MOC, TIM, and ENT. Here is a small sample of the variety of symposia that we have included in this year’s program:
Finally, let me thank the 952 reviewers who volunteered to review for OMT and who made selecting the papers and symposia for the program possible. We were able to provide three reviews for almost all of the papers and symposia (averaging 3.24 reviews per submission). OMT does pride itself on being able to provide good quality feedback to submitters whatever the final decision… we are not perfect, but I do believe that OMT reviewers are among the best at the Academy and I am most grateful for your efforts to sustain this quality under severe time pressure. I particularly want to thank the reviewers who helped with last minute emergency reviewing. Your efforts are very much appreciated!
OMT is clearly the place to be in Vancouver in 2015. I hope to see you there!
Ann LangleyOMT Program Chair
January 13-14, 2016 Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Co-Sponsors: Academy of Management Review, OMT and Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM)
This developmental workshop offers the opportunity for Ph.D. students and faculty members at an early stage of their career to develop their papers for publication in quality outlets. The workshop will be led by editors from the Academy of Management Review and senior scholars from the Organization and Management Theory Division.
The workshop is open to both theory and empirical papers on micro and macro topics within management research, and we particularly encourage for this workshop papers focused on questions of framing, identity, image and impression management at different levels of analysis.
Within the workshop, emphasis will be placed on developing and writing strong theory, as this relates to theory papers as well as the theoretical contribution and theoretical implications for empirical papers. Authors will receive feedback from AMR editors, OMT senior scholars and peers with similar research interests. Mentors who have confirmed participation are: Belle Rose Ragins (AMR editor), Jean Bartunek (AMR editor), Russ Johnson (AMR editor), Gary Ballinger (AMR editor), Don Lange (AMR editor), Joep Cornelissen (AMR editor) and Candace Jones (OMT Div Chair). f
Participation in the workshop is limited to 50 participants. OMT will provide $2500 worthof competitive travel stipends. ranging from $250 to $500 and depending on need, to aid PhD students with their travel expenses and encourage them to attend the workshop. If you are a PhD student who wishes to apply for these stipends, please indicate this in your submission.
To apply please submit a title an abstract and a CV to Joep Cornelissen (
) before September 30, 2015. Full papers will have to be submitted before the 1st of December, 2015.
Distrust and Conflict Escalation in Organizations and Societies
Groningen, Netherlands, January 11-12, 2016
Please take note of a call for papers for the international workshop on “Distrust and Conflict Escalation in Organizations and Societies,” which will take place in the Netherlands on January 11-12, 2016.
The workshop is organized by Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema and Sim Sitkin, and will involve a great set of speakers and track chairs such as Roy Lewicki, Steven Currall, Karen Cook, Nelson Repenning, and Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca. For more details about the workshop, please visit: http://www.eiasm.org/frontoffice/event_announcement.asp?event_id=1157.Authors intending to participate are requested to submit an 800-1000 word abstract by June 30, 2015.
Succeeding in Emerging and Developing Markets
Understanding How Institutions Impact Firms and Managers
Faculty Development Workshop
June 9-12, 2015 at the George Washington University, Washington, DC
Offered by: The George Washington University Center for International Business Education & Research (GW-CIBER)
Join us for a workshop designed to equip international business educators with an in-depth understanding of how institutions shape the strategies of firms and managers in developing and emerging countries. In these markets, international institutions play a prominent role, and local institutions are often informal, in transition, or non-existent. Explore how weak institutions create particular challenges, such as corruption, political risk, regulatory obstacles, social divisions, and civil strife – and the ways firms and managers can cope with these issues. Examine how non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social entrepreneurs, diaspora communities, and multilateral organizations strive to strengthen institutions in these markets and how these new institutional forms affect firms and managers. Past topics have included: what are institutions and why are the important for development; interactive case discussions: “Chinese Business in Africa," "The Untouchable Watercarrier," and "BRAC and Arrong Brands"; using the World Bank’s “Doing Business In” indicators in the classroom; financial capital challenges in developing countries; coping with corrupt business environments.
Teaching & Research Resource Materials
Articles; Cases; Syllabi; In-class exercises; Videos; Internet exercises; PowerPoint Slides
Past workshops have included representatives from: USAID; IFC; Transparency International; IMF; Emerging and developing countries governments; Businesses with experience in emerging markets and developing countries; Universities and research institutes specializing in a number of functional areas and disciplines.
The Workshop Leader
Dr. Liesl Riddle is an Associate Professor of International Business and International Affairs at the GW School of Business, and a faculty advisor for GW-CIBER in the area of diaspora investment and entrepreneurship. She has written extensively about diasporas and development, international entrepreneurship, and trade and investment promotion, and has served as a consultant for several organizations, embassies, and private-sector clients. Dr. Riddle’s regions of expertise include the Middle East and North and West Africa. She is a frequent guest speaker at the U.S. Foreign Service Institute in the Near East North Africa Area Studies Program. Dr. Riddle has received numerous teaching awards, including the GWSB Teaching Excellence Award. She teaches courses at the undergraduate, graduate, and executive levels, including courses on Migration, Identity & International Business; Global Perspectives; International Management; and Managing in Developing Countries. She previously served as Associate Dean for Graduate Programs in the School of Business, where she oversaw fourteen graduate programs. Dr. Riddle holds a BA and MA in Middle Eastern Studies, an MBA in Marketing/International Business, and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to her appointment at GW in 2001, she worked in the field of market research and held the position of the Director of Research for an international market research firm.
Housing is provided by the GW-CIBER and is offered from June 9 to June 13 in one of GW’s scholar residences. Breakfast, lunch, and some dinners are also provided. Register early to ensure your spot is reserved! For full pricing information and to register please visit: http://business.gwu.edu/CIBER/FDIB.
Co-sponsors: The CIBERs at: Georgia State University; Indiana University; Michigan State University; San Diego State University; University of Colorado; University of Maryland; University of Washington
Contact us: GW-CIBER; Duquès Hall, Suite 450, 2201 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052; Phone: 202-994-3098; Email:
Laszlo Bruszt and Gerry McDermott have published a new book:
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD: TRANSNATIONAL REGULATORY INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Oxford University Press, 2014
Emerging market countries are currently facing a dual challenge. How do they incorporate transnational regulations into their societies, while building their own versions of regulatory capitalism? This book offers a fresh perspective in reconciling the seemingly incompatible goals of transnational integration and development. With a unique synthesis of approaches from organizational theory, political economy and economic sociology, it offers a new analytical framework and a set of case studies that help forge a comparative analysis of integration and institutional change. It offers both the identification of the mechanisms that can foster lasting transnational integration settlements and broad based domestic institutional and economic upgrading. Plus, the book reveals concrete lessons for scholars and practitioners alike, around the different roles and strategies that governments, the multilaterals, firms, and NGOs can take, to facilitate the integration of international standards, improve domestic institutions, and expand the benefits to a great variety of local groups.
Click here for a flyer offering a 30% discount on the volume: http://tinyurl.com/mxd56pv
Judith Clair is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management and Organization at Boston College. Dr. Clair’s research interests are variegated and have taken her down a variety of paths. She has written about a number of topics – including professional identity development processes, identity change and career intentions, and the management of invisible stigmatized identities – and her work has been published in many Academy of Management outlets such as AMJ, AMR, and AMLE.
In a recent article, Dr. Clair offers her reflections about the peer-review process and the governance of academic journals in the organization studies field. The paper is titled “Toward a Bill of Rights for Manuscript Submitters” and is published in the 2015 March issue of the Academy of Management Learning & Education. In this paper, she claims that little attention has been paid to the rights of manuscript submitters during the peer-review process. After proposing to formally recognize a set of basic rights, the article addresses a critical question: Where do we go from here?
Dr. Clair has been so kind to accept our invitation to answer a few questions, in the spirit of stimulating a conversation and encouraging positive change.
About the motivation for the paper
Your manuscript echoes the call for a bill of rights that David Harrison made in 2002 in the Academy of Management Journal. As you note at the incipit of the paper “Harrison’s ideas remain relevant and important, but little has been done to recognize his call” (p.112). Could you please share your thoughts about why this idea has been overlooked for so long? How did you reach the decision that it was time to reopen the conversation?
Dr. Clair: My interest in reopening the conversation was originally driven by the many behind-the-doors conversations I’d had with Ph.D. students and colleagues about the problems we collectively had faced during peer-review in publishing our own work. I had simply gotten to a point where I felt that we, as a field, needed to bring the conversation that was already happening into a public forum from behind closed doors. I must admit, taking this step felt a bit like jumping off a cliff. I had more than one colleague ask me if I was intending to commit career suicide by writing this article. This was indeed viewed as a taboo topic! So, I actually don’t think this idea has been overlooked because people talk about it all the time in private – but it certainly hasn’t been brought out into the open for a public conversation as much as it could be.
As any researcher would do, my first step was to investigate what other scholars had already written about the peer-review system. Once I started digging, I was surprised that, in fact, so much had been published on the peer review system across many disciplines! There is quite a bit of material telling us about all of the problems in the system; there is a lot of material that aims to help manuscript submitters navigate the process; and there is much advice provided to current and future reviewers to improve the quality of manuscript reviews. It wasn’t too long before I ran across David Harrison’s article, and it struck me right away that he had hit on something exceedingly important. We almost never attend to the question of our own rights, as manuscript submitters, even as we participate in the peer-review system and grumble about our experience of having our rights trumped! This was an important issue that should be re-visited, and that was my intention in this article.
About improving the peer-review process
In addition to discussing the rights of manuscript submitters you propose “some ideas to fix the problems”. Some of the measures are corrective and aim at improving existing practices. For example, raise editor and reviewer awareness about implicit biases would help guarantee the submitters’ right to an objective evaluation. Two of the proposed ideas particularly attracted my attention because they suggest changing existing peer-review practices in a more substantial way. The first one is to “cloak manuscript-submitters’ identities to all parties” and the second one is to “allow manuscript submitters to shop their papers” (p. 123-124). Could you tell us more about the origin of – and the rationale behind – these two ideas? In your view, is the peer-review process more in need of corrections or innovations in order to continue to effectively guarantee submitters’ rights?
Dr. Clair: I think any corrections we make need to be innovative. As discussed in the paper, these are highly complicated problems and there are many good reasons why we, as scholar-leaders and journal editors, have had such a hard time tackling them.
The first recommendation – to cloak manuscript-submitters’ identities to all parties – came from my knowledge of the implicit bias literature, which tells us that even well-meaning people who are consciously committed to evaluating others in an unbiased fashion have a hard time doing so. We are biased by a variety of factors that elude us because the biases operate below consciousness. Therefore, the information that an editor is given – such as the names of a scholar or their school affiliation – are likely to have an unconscious effect on evaluation and decision making, even when the editor has made an explicit commitment to objectively evaluate a manuscript. In editorial roles, most people have had to evaluate a scholar-friend or acquaintance, and certainly can appreciate how difficult it is to keep the relationship out of the evaluation. While cloaking all identities seems to be an obvious fix, there are some reasons why editors may not want to make this change. For instance, it creates and extra administrative step. Or, an editor might want to be extra-developmental for new entrants to the field, such as Ph.D. students, who are just starting out. However, if we are truly committed to the notion of meritocratic functioning in our peer-review system – that all manuscript submitters have equality of opportunity in the evaluation of their work and treatment during peer-review – we should do what it takes to ensure our commitment to treat all submitters equally.
The idea to shop around one’s paper is not a new one, as I noted in the paper. It essentially levels the playing field a bit for manuscript submitters, who can send their manuscript to several journals at once to see which journals might be interested. I actually have a hard time imaging our field taking up this idea – this would certainly be a radical change. The point I am trying to raise is that there are innovative ideas in other fields that might be worth considering. For instance, some journals in the medical fields are experimenting with getting rid of blind reviews all together, and publishing the reviews along with a paper so that the process is much more transparent, at least for those papers that make it into publication.
About power relationships in the peer-review process
Your paper points attention to the power relationship that exists between manuscript submitters and editors/reviewers. As you discuss, “journal editors and reviewers typically have much greater power than do manuscript submitters because they act as gatekeepers to the publication of one’s work” (p. 113). If we look at the other side of the coin, there are also power relationships that favor submitters over editors. As you noted earlier, editors may have personal and/or professional relationships with submitters. These relationships may create “conflicts of duties”, so to speak. Do you think of these situations as problematic? Could your suggestion of “cloaking manuscript-submitters’ identities to all parties” also help editors in those extreme cases?
Dr. Clair: I addressed some aspects of this issue in my earlier response. However, you raise a provocative question. When does the power relationship shift toward the manuscript submitter? In most cases, I can state with good certainty that editors and reviewers hold great power – after all, they are the gatekeepers to publishing one’s work! On the other hand, it is evident that manuscript submitters who have collegial or friendship ties with editors do certainly have a less power-down experience compared to those who lack these ties. I know that I’ve certainly sighed in relief when I know the editor assigned to my own submissions. To be clear, I don’t think that the editor will give me a pass or be purposely easy on me just because we know each other. My colleagues are highly professional people, and I don’t think that they’d abuse the system like that. The effects are much more indirect, in that the relationship subtly greases the peer review process. As a submitter, I feel more able to reach out and ask questions, I feel that I can predict the editors’ interests with greater certainty, and so on. I think we’d be fooling ourselves to deny the effect of such social ties on smoothing the peer-review experience.
About experiments in the peer-review process
You mentioned earlier that other disciplines are re-evaluating and potentially re-designing peer-review practices. Science publishing seems to be inclined to experiment with different forms of peer-review. The journal Nature, for instance, conducted in 2006 an experiment with “crowd-reviewing”, a participatory approach in which an open an interactive peer-review is conducted and comments were required to be signed. These experiments are seemingly rarer in the social sciences. Do you think that experimenting with alternative (e.g. open) peer-review may be useful in management research?
Dr. Clair: As I mentioned above, I know that the sciences have been experimenting with these ideas. There is an interesting study I read that looked at scholars perceptions of the different cloaking practices (from no cloaking to double-blind peer-review) called “To Blind or Not To Blind: What Editors and Authors Prefer” by Glenn Regehr and Georges Bordage (2006). The results of the research showed a good deal of resistance to the elimination of blinded peer-review. Scholars expressed concerns that revealing information would lead to more unfairness, and that doing so would foster conflicts and rivalries among the parties. Conversely, revealing identities of all parties provided more transparency and accountability, and gave more insight into reviewer’s credentials for evaluating the work.
About continuing the conversation
Dr. Clair, thank you very much for this informative and insightful conversation. Any suggestions for those OMTers who would like to learn more and continue the dialogue?
Dr. Clair: I want to quickly note that I was urged by several colleagues to do more than just publish an article. Therefore, I organized a PDW for the 2015 AoM Conference which takes place on Saturday, August 8th called Recognizing Rights and Opening Governance in Our Peer-Reviewed Journals (12:45 PM - 2:45 PM at UBC Robson Square - Room C130). This PDW gathers scholarly leaders who can and do have the most impact on the peer-review system – editors and former editors of major journals in the organization studies field – to engage with PDW participants in an examination of the peer review system to (a) help build insight into how to improve fair and just functioning of peer-review processes followed by journals and (b) to enhance participants’ knowledge and insight into how to navigate through the system in light of its strengths and weaknesses. The session requires pre-enrollment. I can be emailed at
to give those interested participants a code to register. There are a limited number of seats available, so plan to register soon if you are interested!
OMTers, we would love to hear from you! If you have ideas and comments you would like to share, please reach out -
Page 7 of 31
+ All tags