David R. Hannah

Counting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it:

In this essay we discuss the issue of counting: the process of assigning numbers to data that are in nonnumerical form. We review why counting is a controversial issue in qualitative research, and explain how this controversy creates what we call the “multiple audience problem” for qualitative researchers. We then identify the purposes that can be served by four different types of counting, explore when counting should be avoided entirely, and discuss when the results of counting should be concealed, or as Sutton put it, kept in the closet.

Putting “Organizations” into an Organization Theory Course: A Hybrid CAO Model For Teaching Organization Theory

In this article, the authors present a retrospective analysis of an instructor’s multiyear redesign of a course on organization theory into what is called a hybrid Classroom-as-Organization model. It is suggested that this new course design served to apprentice students to function in quasi-real organizational structures. The authors further argue that the quality of students’ apprenticeship experiences was influenced by three factors: (a) the relevance of the course content, (b) the authenticity of classroom exercises and activities, and (c) the physical context of the course. The authors substantiate their arguments by incorporating quantitative and qualitative data from eight rounds of course evaluations in their analyses. It is believed that the ideas discussed herein will be particularly interesting to instructors of organization theory and to other instructors who use Classroom-as-Organization models.

A Retrospective Examination of a Successful Developmental Reviewing Process

In this essay, we describe a retrospective examination of a review process for a manuscript that was published in the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) in 2015 (Hannah & Robertson, 2015). The two authors of the essay are (a) the first author of the JMS manuscript, David Hannah, and (2) the JMS editor of that manuscript, Dries Faems. We originally engaged in this examination to prepare for a presentation at the Strategy Process Interest Group workshop on “The Process of Publishing Process Research” during the 2015 Strategic Management Society meeting in Denver, Colorado. We have written this essay with a goal of sharing our observations about this review process. Although we share some of the content of the original manuscript herein, we focus most of our attention on describing each step in the review process from the perspective of the author as well as the editor. We conclude by offering what we hope are useful and generalizable lessons about the challenges that authors and editors face in the review process, how to navigate them, and how to systematically improve the overall review process. We begin in July 2013, with JMS submission P0431, titled, “Why do Employees put Confidential Information at Risk? CI Protection and Confidentiality Tension in HighTech Employees.” The paper reported the findings of a qualitative, theory-elaborating study involving 55 semistructured interviews with the employees of two high-tech companies.

Generative Curiosity Introducing JMI’s Newest Section

All research starts with an idea. Yet contemporary management journals tend to privilege a certain type of idea: one grounded in theory that fills a gap. This focus on gap-driven research is what currently keeps so many professors from doing the research that would matter to them, personally and professionally (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013). As a result, many of the ideas that would give rise to improved management theory and practice never make it from the minds of scholars into the view of readers. Generative Curiosity, the newest section in the Journal of Management Inquiry (JMI), is envisioned to serve as an outlet for ideas. As Bernard Baruch said, “The ability to express an idea is well nigh as important as the idea itself.” The primacy of the “idea” is the focus of Generative Curiosity. By focusing on ideas, we believe we can unlock the curiosity of management scholars. In many cases, the “genuine” scholar has been lost in favor of the journal publication technician (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013), toiling away on piecework publications that emphasize quantity over quality (Bedeian, 1996). Given the pressure to publish (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Bedeian, 1996; Macdonald, 2014), researchers’ curiosity is dampened by the absence of incentives for generating knowledge (Beyer, 1992). Generative Curiosity provides a venue that welcomes and rewards curiosity so that scholars can present ideas that stimulate future scholarly activities in expansive, not reductionist, ways. In keeping with the section’s title, we are particularly interested in ideas that stimulate management scholarship. We invite scholars and practitioners to identify a new or ignored fact, phenomenon, pattern, event, or other issue of interest, and to draw it to the attention of others. In doing so, we hope to stimulate inquiries that (a) improve our understanding of how organizations work and how they can be made more effective (Ashforth, 2005); (b) develop and disseminate knowledge that matters to organizations and society (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013); and (c) address the human condition (van Aken & Romme, 2009). Ultimately, we wish to generate management inquiries that are not just about “what is,” but also “what can be” (Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014, p. 581). Why a New Section? And Why JMI?

Escape From Abilene: The Developmental Opportunity of the Review Process:

Building on the small group Abilene Paradox metaphor, we introduce the concept of a large scale “Institutional Abilene Paradox” — a state of widespread dissatisfaction with the unintended features of an institution. We illustrate the construct through the current state of our field’s institutionalized review process and broader research culture. We briefly highlight the current issues and introduce six essays intended to encourage the leaders of the field — mentors, conference chairs, journal editors, and academic administrators — to unite and do the heavy lifting required to institute fieldwide change, demonstrating the work that has begun to overcome our collective Institutional Abilene Paradox.

Human-Animal Work A Massive, Understudied Domain of Human Activity

Millions of people around the world are engaged in work that is substantially focused on non-human animals, with enormous economic impacts on companies, industries, and even nations. However, little is known about how the presence of animals affects human beings at work and, therefore, we do not know how to modify or extend our theories of management to better understand this understudied domain.

Jarvis Manufacturing: An Experiential Exercise for Teaching the Fundamentals of Teamwork

The authors created the experiential and team-based Jarvis Manufacturing exercise to help students learn about the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that are fundamental to effective teamwork. In the exercise, students are asked to assume the role of the CEO of Jarvis Manufacturing, a fictional manufacturer and retailer of skis and snowboards. They are tasked with choosing the members of a team that will decide the new strategy for the company’s snowboarding business. Students choose their team from a core management group of 12 employees, for whom descriptions are provided in the case. They first make their choices as individuals, then in teams. We provide a description of the exercise and suggestions for how to debrief it. The exercise provides an opportunity for students to reflect on the KSAs that they should consider in choosing and managing a team and to develop these KSAs in themselves.