Richard W. Stackman

An exploratory study of gender in project management: Interrelationships with role, location, technology, and project cost

This study explores whether gender differences in project managers are related to gender differences in their team members. Gender differences are explored in the context of project managers’ and team members’ location to one another, the project teams use of technology, and the cost and size of the project teams. Using log-linear analysis of 563 project team members’ responses, several significant findings are reported-including the likelihood of same-gender project manager and team member dyads as well as gender differences in project contextual factors. Implications for organizational and project management researchers and decision makers conclude the article.

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?

Emergence of a Social Inquiry Group: A Story of Fractals and Networks

This article relates the emergence of a group of faculty researchers utilizing complexity science approaches. The narrative emerges from three projects combining research into complexity, communities, and technologies. Details of how the research was initiated, and the nature and quality of the conversational method, are provided. In addition, theoretical concepts that were consciously applied and others that arose through insights from the data as it was collected are discussed. Although this is like most real narratives, a never-ending story, it concludes with a presentation of some of the ideas that separate complexity-informed research from other paradigms.

Away From Abilene and Toward a Community of Practice Ecosystem: Developmental Peer Reviews Realized

—Ernest Hemingway I first saw this exchange between a reviewer and an author some 20 years ago at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., on display near the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Hemingway had sent a copy of A Farewell to Arms to Fitzgerald who sent back 10 pages of edits and comments capped off with the positive conclusion. Although initially irked, as evidenced by his reaction, Hemingway did incorporate some of Fitzgerald’s advice in later drafts. Journal of Management Inquiry (JMI) has published its fair share of articles that focus on the peer review process. Bedeian (2003) and Miner (2003) have outlined the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. In assessing the value of peer reviews, Starbuck (2003) notes reviewers’ comments should not be merely seen as judgments on one’s work but instead good data about potential readers’ reactions. Similarly, Abrahamson (2008) adds, contrary to the belief of some authors, most reviewers aren’t really stupid. Finally, others have considered the darker side of the peer review process: reviewer feedback as discourse of the other and the inevitable experience of alienation (Driver, 2007), the challenges of identifying true peers to serve as reviewers (Tsang, 2013), the long delays associated with the peer review process (Tosi, 2009), and the stress and coping with manuscript rejection (Horn, 2016). Macdonald (2015) best captures the peer review process as one “deeply flawed, capable of much improvement in all manner of ways, but better than the alternatives” (p. 264). Although the peer review process is problematic in many ways, the Hemingway–Fitzgerald vignette reflects how the process can result in better manuscripts. In my own experience as author, reviewer, and editor, I have found shepherding a manuscript toward publication at times can be frustrating. Still, regardless of attempts to improve the peer review process, it will remain a frustrating experience for everyone involved—the authors, the editors, and the reviewers. When isn’t the creation of good work not exasperating? Although our scholarship may be personal, its development is not solitary (Oliver, 2010). Although I prefer to think out loud in the presence of others, sharing and developing ideas initially, I write in solitude only sharing written drafts with colleagues when ready. Given my background in journalism, I am accustomed to having my writing reviewed by at least one editor. Perhaps, because of journalism’s reliance on editorial treatment, I have come to value the contribution from peer review to my writing. Sitting next to an editor as she worked her way through the text asking me questions and suggesting improvements is an experience I still value today. I continue to marvel at how journal peer reviews improve my work when I compare the draft I initially submitted with the version ultimately printed. Much of the field’s discussion of developmental peer reviewing focuses on the discourse that unfolds after a paper has been submitted for publication consideration. For me that focus is limiting. Developmental peer reviewing starts when an author shares an idea with a colleague in the hallway, in the office, or over lunch. It continues when colleagues give feedback on drafts. Peer reviews for conference papers can provide developmental feedback (Seidel, 2018). Linking peer review only to developmental comments once a manuscript is submitted dismisses the value of those early idea-generating conversations as well as inappropriately anchors attention on the final accept–reject decision. Furthermore, it distinguishes developmental peer review from a perceived process “ . . . where authors are ‘forced’ to develop their manuscripts along the lines dictated by editors and referees if they want their manuscripts” accepted for publication (Tsang & Frey, 2007, p. 129). Developmental 726274 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492617726274Journal of Management InquiryStackman research-article2017

Further Thoughts on Kerr’s “Folly” and Repeat Offenses: Where We Are, Have Been, and Are Going

Steve Kerr’s seminal “Folly” article astutely noted that all too many organizations—and the individuals who populate them—invariably violate a fundamental law of social nature by rewarding the very behaviors that they are supposedly trying to discourage, while failing to reward the behaviors they desire to reinforce. But as Kerr notes in his interview, it is simply more than a faulty reward system that has allowed these malfunctions to continue. Building upon Kerr’s insights, we offer two proposed “Folly” updates regarding how we can create better functioning organizations. First, we discuss the provocative option that there are only two, not four, causes to the “Folly.” Second, we offer the context of character as one explanation (and possible solution) for the fact that even after more than 40 years too many organizations remain frequent repeat “Folly” offenders.

40 Years (and Counting): Steve Kerr Reflections on the “Folly”:

It has been more than 40 years since Steve Kerr first noted that organizations invariably violate a fundamental law of social nature by rewarding the very behaviors which they are supposedly trying to discourage, while failing to reward the behaviors they desire to reinforce. But it is simply more than a faulty reward system that has allowed these malfunctions to continue. In an engaging and thought-provoking interview reflection (and extension) on his classic management masterpiece and more, Steve Kerr provides his insights on both why the “Folly” remains as prevalent today and, equally relevant and important, provides valuable suggestions for what we can do to create better functioning organizations.