AOM Main Site
MOC Division Newsletter
The Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division Newsletter is published twice yearly in spring and fall. The Newsletter is a publication of the Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division. The Editor is Sucheta Nadkarni.
For questions and comments, contact:
Submission deadlines are September 31 for the Fall Newsletter, and March 31 for the Spring Newsletter.
If you have any problems viewing or printing the newsletter, please contact the Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division Webmaster Andac Arikan at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Featured Interview with 2009 MOC Distinguished Scholar: Marlena Fiol
The MOC Division
recognized Marlena Fiol, Professor of Strategic Management at University
of Colorado-Denver, as the MOC Distinguished Scholar for her
outstanding contributions to the field. Previous recipients of this
award are Karl Weick, Bill Starbuck, Anne Huff, Denise Rousseau, and
James March. The following interview is a revival of the tradition by
the MOC Division: An interview
of the Division’s Distinguished Scholar by an emerging scholar (the
winner of the Best Student Paper Award). The interviewer is Drew Carton
Drew: You consistently emphasize that research is about the “re” as much as (or more than) the “search.” Further, across different settings (e.g., your teaching statement, publications, presentations), you often use terms such as “revitalization,” “reclaiming,” and “renewal.” Can you speak a bit more about how you arrived at your process-oriented personal philosophy that prescribes a constant mix of self-reflection and evolution?
Marlena: I certainly do deeply believe that we are all on a path that asks us to re-think, re-do, and re-search who we are and what we’re doing. But I don’t know how I arrived at it. To be honest, I don’t know if any of us really knows how we got to where we are. If I were to retrace the building of my philosophy, I would imagine that I would be very vulnerable to retroactively imposing a logic that isn’t necessarily representative of how I established the way I currently think.
Drew: Can you detail how this philosophy guides your approach to research?
Marlena: I think that the key to how it affects my approach to research is that it makes me very aware that my research is always incomplete and often wrong—and how that’s not necessarily a bad thing. When we can acknowledge that we’ve made mistakes and that our research is incomplete, it means that we’re progressing. Of course, simply being wrong a lot of the time is not sufficient. We need to always be willing to look again, newly, through a new set of lenses. That represents growth, progress.
Drew: How does your philosophy affect your approach to mentoring?
Marlena: I’ll answer this with an example. Cognition in the Rough has been my favorite activity at AOM since it began about 12 years ago. I love the program and I love being a part of it! People who submit their work to CIR don’t come there needing to be right or claiming to have the truth. They come there to re-search and to learn.
Drew: How does your philosophy affect your teaching?
Marlena: If my students over the course of my 30+ years of teaching remember one thing, that’s good enough for me: And that one thing is that if there appears to be an easy and convenient answer to questions about strategic decision making, look again, because it’s always incomplete and it’s probably wrong.
Drew: You talk about learning from “positive deviants.” In your article, “Acting as if We Were New,” you write that “the world’s greatest expert on how to solve a problem in a particular situation is the person who is already solving it within that situation.” Can you speak more about this?
Marlena: Yes, the original proponents of Positive Deviance, in particular the late Jerry Sternin, talk about amplifying and celebrating positive outliers and identifying the factors that have enabled them to overcome a problem. I have always been fascinated by this approach. Interestingly, it arises largely outside of academe. For example, it was originally used by social workers to treat real world problems, such as malnutrition and the example of female circumcision that I mentioned in my MOC talk. I find the approach to be a potentially powerful way to get us as a field unstuck from our stagnant and mostly irrelevant publication game, and to find a more useful way to spend our lives.
Drew: Which two scholars do you most admire for being positive deviants? To which “problem” do you feel that they have found an effective solution?
Marlena: As far as examples of people who I think are positive deviants, it really depends on the problem that needs to be solved. If the problem is complacency and stagnation in our field, then Bill Starbuck comes to mind. For many years, he has been scolding us to move beyond results that are statistically significant but amount to little more than meaningless noise. Although some people have excelled at identifying the problem, I don’t think that many academics have a good solution to the problem. So I tend to look to people outside of academe. Jack Welch comes to mind because he re-wrote the way that management should be done. Or Lou Gerstner, who moved IBM from a stodgy, inward-looking company to one that was obsessed with its customers. So I would look for deviants outside of academe to teach us how we can breathe new life into what we do.
Drew: When you talk about stagnation—do you see it as a problem that has always existed in our field, or something that has emerged more recently?
Marlena: It has probably always been a problem. But as our field has attained more legitimacy, I believe it has become more stifling. Our norms and incentives are not set up to motivate us to do research that will make a difference in the world. Now there is this obsession with citing each other and ourselves. Almost as if arguments are not legitimate unless you’ve cited the right people and enough of them. It’s as if we’ve become embedded in a cycle of self-perpetuating irrelevance. Finding and locating a research conversation is very important for triggering good research, but if you’re trained to only ask questions reflective of what’s already been done, then you’re creating a perpetuation of the deadness that exists. As opposed to allowing people to break out of some of the nonsense that we’ve created and, in some ways, start over.
I think that a provocative
article is Heath’s and Sitkin’s (2001), “Big-B
versus Big-O: What Is Organizational about Organizational Behavior?” The
article suggests that our field does not focus on what makes it
distinctive (i.e., research on organizing) and instead largely works
through the core disciplines, such as psychology and economics, to study
issues that may or may not be unique to organizing (i.e., fundamental
characteristics of human behavior). For example, a majority of my
colleagues now favor publishing in psychology journals as opposed to
management journals. As a researcher of identity, do you feel that our
collective identity as a field is slowly being “outsourced” to the core
disciplines? If so, what do you think the implications are for future
Marlena: The question we should ask is what is it that defines our collective identity? Is it the theories we draw from? The journals we publish in? If those are the defining roots of who we are as scholars, then yes, I suppose one might say that we are becoming “outsourced.”
But I don’t believe that those should be the defining attributes of our identity as management researchers. If our collective identity were instead rooted in a belief that we have a set of tools – regardless of the disciplines they come from – that can be used to make this a better world, then the only way we can become “outsourced” is if others have figured out a way to do this more effectively than we have. If that is the case, then we should be outsourced, even phased out.
Drew: I certainly see the point you are making. But just so that readers and I can get a clearer picture of what you’re saying, perhaps you can give a more concrete example. For example, how would you compare management to some other core discipline, such as psychology?
Marlena: I think the key is that I don’t think that we should be defined by the inputs, but by the outputs. Regardless of where we find our ideas, we should look to the outputs and the solutions. We should pay more attention to the relevance and applications of our work instead of the journals in which it is published.
Drew: Young scholars hear certain bits of advice quite often concerning what makes “good” theory. For example, we often hear that the topic has to be important, premises must be rendered explicit and should never be drawn arbitrarily, and conclusions have to make readers go “a-ha!” Moving beyond these more well-known and widely shared sentiments, what do you think are some less obvious criteria for good theory? By “less obvious,” I am referring to ideas that not only have worked very well for you, but you believe are idiosyncratic and not well-known or widely shared by other colleagues.
Marlena: As opposed to identifying new criteria of good theory, I’m going to push back on something that you mentioned. You mentioned that a “well-known” criterion for good theory is that it needs to be important. But what is less well-known is this: What criteria do we use to decide that a topic is important? I think my answer to this question is perhaps not widely shared. From my perspective, the only thing that makes a theory important is its potential influence on real phenomena in the real world.
Drew: Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of research that has made an impact versus that which has not? In particular, it would be great if you had examples of your own work that you felt was well-received yet wasn’t very useful versus other work that might be currently flying under the academic radar but that can be of use.
Marlena: In 1989 ASQ, I wrote a “brilliant” piece of work based on my dissertation that is pretty useless. Or perhaps even completely useless [laughs]. It was elegant, an elegant theory with an elegant study design that I was very much in love with at the time.
Drew: What is the title of this article? I am not familiar with it.
Marlena: You don’t want to be familiar with it! [laughs] I’m mostly joking. It was a semiotic analysis of how leaders in the forest products industry think about their organizational boundaries. I think the study is actually very interesting—but it doesn’t matter in the least when it comes to doing anything useful for the real world. In contrast, some of the recent work that Ed O’Connor and I have been doing in health care is something that I believe is having an impact. In particular, I think that our work on managing physician-administrator relations addresses what is a major problem right now in this country and elsewhere in the world. Though some of this work is finding a home in what academics refer to as A-level journals, much of it is also being published in practitioner journals, journals that seem to not “count” in our field, but that actually “count” quite a bit when it comes to practical relevance and usefulness.
Drew: Do you think that being a woman has presented any obstacles to your career?
Marlena: Personally, I have never felt any barrier because I was a woman. I should say that I have never experienced inequality—but I’m not sure if it’s happened or not. I have just never been focused on that issue throughout my career.
Drew: From your perspective, what are three criteria of “meaningful” research?
Marlena: There are only two from my perspective. Research is meaningful only if it’s theoretically interesting and practically significant.
Drew: In what domain is the biggest gap between where you think our field is now and where you think it should be? For example, do you think that we put too much emphasis on research and not enough on teaching? That certain research topics or approaches to research are favored too much at the expense of others? That there is too much emphasis on impact factors and not enough emphasis on impacting the world of work?
Marlena: Our field now promotes and rewards the production of largely meaningless articles that most often have little to do with what managers are really struggling with in the world around us. The gap is between what we currently do and work that might actually matter. But the thing is, if we did do this and attempted to close that gap, it wouldn’t mesh well with current reward and incentive structures in our field. So do we continue to hide behind these structures? Or do we do what I believe is the right thing to do, and begin to change them? And now I’m pointing mostly at myself and my peers. I think the real responsibility lies with those of us who are older and have less to lose.
Drew: But is changing institutional structures too lofty of a goal? What do you think can be done to make these changes in your lifetime?
Marlena: It is a difficult thing to do. At the very least, I think that older folks (like me) should show younger folks how very much grounding one’s work in the real world really enriches basic theory and that the two can go hand in hand.
Drew: I’ve heard two keynote
speakers at the
Marlena: I identify with both positions. I think the publication process is highly random. And I think that persistence pays off. If you have something important to say, and you say it enough times and in enough different ways—it will eventually stick.
Drew: Has your position on this issue changed as your career has progressed and as you have witnessed the success or failure of other promising scholars?
Marlena: I don’t believe that my position has changed much over the course of my career. All things being equal, I think that the process becomes somewhat less random as we get older. Not because we have anything better to say mind you, but because we learn how to say things and learn some of the unspoken rules of the game. But it continues to be a random process—no doubt about that—and perseverance is critical.
Drew: Do you truly believe that older scholars have nothing better to say than younger scholars? As I get older, I hope that my accumulated wisdom will be worth something!
Marlena: I would say that it can go both ways. We can become more tired, less inspired, and have fewer fresh ideas – saying the same things over and over. Or we can keep growing, work with new people to develop fresh ideas, and re-invent ourselves.
Drew: I noticed you used the word “re-invent” in your last response.
Marlena [laughs]: Yes, I never venture far from my philosophy of “re’s”!
If you are interested in hearing Marlena’s 2009 MOC Distinguished Scholar presentation it is available at this URL: http://www.softconference.com/aom/sessionDetail.asp?SID=170630
* For questions/comments/concerns, please email Sucheta Nadkarni (MOC Newsletter Editor) at email@example.com.
COMMENTS FROM THE MOC
It is hard to believe that half a year has passed since the last MOC Newsletter, but how time flies when you are having fun. The past six months have brought many interesting developments for the MOC Division. On the Academy of Management National Meeting front, Mark Martinko, our 2010 Program Chair, has put together an outstanding program for the August meetings in Montreal. He outlines the program elsewhere in the Newsletter. Similarly, Rhonda Reger, our PDW Chair has also assembled an outstanding pre-Meeting set of sessions. She also expands on this aspect of the Meetings elsewhere in the Newsletter.
The other three activities are scheduled for
Monday, August 9th.
Monday morning at 9:45 at the
Delta Centre-Ville in
Les Courants is the MOC
Welcome Session featuring a presentation by Prof. Dennis Gioia, our 2010
MOC Distinguished Scholar.
Monday evening from 6:30PM to 7:30PM at Delta Centre-Ville in Cartier B
is the MOC Business Meeting.
Hear a summary of the Division’s activities for the year as well
as prospects for the future.
More importantly, we will recognize the winner’s of this year’s
Best Paper Awards as well as our Outstanding Faculty and Student
reviewers. We will also
recognize and honor those individuals who brought the MOC Division from
its infancy as an interest group to full Division status as well as past
MOC Distinguished Scholars.
And last, but not least, we will present the inaugural Best Boundary
Spanning Paper Award. Never
has so much MOC talent been on display in one place at one time.
Finally, the Business Meeting is also where you can get free
drink tickets to be used at the MOC Social Hour immediately following
from 7:30PM to 9:00PM at Delta Centre-Ville in Regence B.
Great news from Sally Maitlis, Chair of our
Outreach and Integration Committee, regarding an Academy Enterprise
Award application made earlier in the year.
Jacob Eisenberg’s entry entitled “Knowledge Transfer Project:
From Academy to Africa with Care” was awarded $1350 to develop a model
that would allow US and African scholars to interact more easily.
In addition, as noted above, the MOC Division will be awarding
our first MOC Best Boundary Spanning Paper Award this year.
Spearheaded by a taskforce composed of members from the OIC,
Sally will have has more to say about both of these developments in her
comments elsewhere in the Newsletter.
Looking in the rear-view mirror, the MOC Executive Committee was scheduled to hold its annual mid-winter meeting in Tallahassee, FL the weekend of February 13/14. That happened to be the weekend of one of the many blizzards to ravage the eastern part of the country this past winter, forcing our face-to-face meeting to become a virtual gathering. As a result of that meeting, the Executive Committee is considering a revision of the MOC by-laws that could include the addition of a new member-at-large position. The demands on our current members-at-large to coordinate MOC participation in the OMT-MOC Doctoral Student Consortium and Cognition-in-the-Rough suggests that spreading those responsibilities among three members-at-large might be desirable. Stay tuned, as any by-law changes will require member approval.
So here’s to an enjoyable and productive summer for all MOC members, and I look forward to renewing ties with many of you virtually or in Montreal. If you have any suggestions and/or concerns about the MOC Division please do not hesitate to contact me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.And as I suggested six months ago, pensez-y!
COMMENTS FROM THE MOC
Among the many interesting topics that will be addressed in paper and roundtable sessions are organizational cognition; transactive memory systems; emotions; the antecedents and consequences of organizational identity; the dimensions and consequences of trust; the role of mindfulness and intuition in creativity; and social construction, meaning and symbolism.
Our symposia will address a number of thought-provoking issues including bridging the micro and macro levels in the study of identity (our showcase symposium), workplace entitlement, the power of small interpersonal moments in organizational life, the study of the perception of social networks, and the workings of hope in organizations. More details about these and other papers and symposia are now available at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting website (http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=4).
I hope all of you will attend the Welcome Session
at on Monday, August 9 at the
Delta Centre-Ville, Les Courants Room.
Dennis A. Gioia of
To everyone who participated in putting the program together, to all who submitted papers and symposia, to the reviewers who voluntarily contributed their time, and to all who agreed to serve as session chairs and facilitators, I offer my heartfelt thanks. I am particularly grateful to Jeremy Brees who provided considerable assistance in putting your program together.
I look forward to seeing
COMMENTS FROM THE
MOC PDW CHAIR
2010 MOC Division program opens with what many call “the most valuable
part” –a full roster of professional development workshops beginning
early on Friday August 6th and continuing all day on Saturday
August 7th. I
encourage everyone to plan to arrive in
We are very pleased to sponsor or co-sponsor thirteen professional development workshops—some old favorites, some new opportunities—all designed to help increase your expertise, enhance the value of your human capital, and deepen your connection to the community of Managerial and Organizational Cognition scholars who collectively are our division.
New this year is a session with our divisional leadership, “Think About It. . .Over a Beer or a Glass of Wine with the MOC Division Officers” (Saturday, Aug 7; 4:00 - 5:30: Delta Centre-Ville, Regence B). The session is in response to requests from our members to seek out ways to reconnect with each other and to make new connections. In short, to keep the tight-knit community feel that is a major attraction of our division. Please join Dick Blackburn, Gerard Hodgkinson, Mark Martinko, Morela Hernandez, Kevin Corley, Sally Maitlis, Sucheta Nadkarni, Frank Schultz, Luis Martins, Jeffrey Bednar, Timothy Vogus, Andac Arikan, Charles Watson, and Rhonda Reger in informal fellowship and conversation.
As in previous years, our signature event is the
Cognition in the Rough (CIR)
workshop. Now in its 13th year, this highly interactive
workshop is designed for both new and experienced scholars and
offers an invaluable
opportunity to receive detailed feedback on work in progress from
published cognition scholars. We are very pleased that the
following scholars have agreed to participate: Blake Ashforth, Neal
Ashkanasy, Stuart Bunderson, Andrea Casey, Janet Dukerich, Dov Eden,
Marlena Fiol, Peer Fiss, Raghu Garud, Elizabeth George, Tor Hernes,
Gerard Hodgkinson, Susan Houghton, George Huber, Lynn Isabella, Glen
Kreiner, Theresa Lant, Steve Mezias, Chet Miller, Sucheta Nadkarni, Mike
Reger, Jenny Rudolph, David Schwandt, Sim Sitkin, and Dave Whetten.
workshop organizers are: Morela
David M. Wasieleski (Duquesne) and Jeffrey Bednar (
For doctoral students, we once again co-sponsor one of the most sought after doctoral consortia, the OMT/MOC Doctoral Consortium. In addition to conference co-organizers, Kevin Corley (Arizona State), and Nelson Phillips (Imperial College, London) and Bill McEvily (Toronto), the following scholars have generously agreed to contribute their time and effort to the professional development of OMT/MOC doctoral consortium participants: Woody Powell (Stanford), Mary Ann Glynn (Boston College), Danny Miller (HEC), Don Palmer (UC Davis), David Oliver (HEC Montreal), Davide Ravasi (Boconni), George Huber (Texas-Austin), Michael Lounsbury (Alberta), Roy Suddaby (Alberta), Pablo Martin de Holan (Instituto de Empresa), Anne Langley (HEC Montreal), Don Lange (Arizona State), Anne Fleischer (Toronto), Andrew Shipilov (INSEAD), and Morela Hernandez (Washington). Registration is required and further information is available at http://division.aomonline.org/moc. (Saturday, Aug 7, 8:00AM - noon; Delta Centre-Ville in Cartier B)
We are the primary sponsor of two PDW’s focusing on the theme of this year’s meeting: Dare to Care: Passion and Compassion in Management Practice and Research. The first, on Friday afternoon, “Cognitive Conversations about Caring”, considers the nature of conversations in caring organizations such as charities and other organizations which rely on significant voluntary input. The workshop will consider the potential tensions between the importance of caring and compassion and strategic priorities. The PDW is based around a 'live' case study of the UK charity the Samaritans, and will involve a discussion of the challenges facing the organization by a member of the Strategy Development Sub-Committee, supported by a case study of the strategy process. Participants will be invited to contribute their experiences in working for and with organizations where caring is central to their mission. This PDW, led by Mark Jenkins (Cranfield) and former Academy President Anne Huff (Technical U. München) is for those interested in exploring the nature of strategic conversations in caring organizations. (Friday, Aug 6, 12:15 - 2:45; Delta Centre-Ville in St-Charles)
thematic PDW, “Keeping the Passion Alive: Maintaining Passion over
Your Academic Career” is scheduled for Saturday afternoon.
This PDW focuses on passion for
academia, looking at how senior scholars maintain their enthusiasm and
excitement for scholarly research, teaching, and service. We have
selected 4 highly respected panelists who have made significant
contributions to academia throughout their careers. These individuals
could have easily retired given their numerous significant
accomplishments to date – yet they continue to be productive and active
members in the academic community. Their passion for academia and levels
of achievement are beyond what we would normally expect in later stages
of most people’s careers. Each panelist will discuss how they personally
maintain their enthusiasm for academia, and will address issues and
questions posed by the PDW participants in the audience. The PDW is
designed to be collegial, informal, and highly interactive, giving
participants the opportunity to ask questions of the panelists as they
arise. This PDW is designed to illustrate how and why individuals
participate in the scholarly community and remain passionate about their
participants attending the PDW session will come to understand and
appreciate their own unique sources of passion, and be inspired to
embrace this passion as a driving force in their own scholarly careers.
This PDW is facilitated by Marie T. Dasborough (
MOC is also pleased to co-sponsor a number of workshops on topics of interest to our membership: Unleashing Generativity: Moments of Aliveness, Inspiration and Imagination in Qualitative Research; Studying Sensemaking: A Methodological Toolkit; New Perspectives on Organization Science; Content Analysis in Organizational Research: Techniques and Applications; The “Gioia Methodology” for conducting inductive qualitative analysis: Development and application; Flashpoints, Crossroads, and Fateful Choices: Towards an Event-Based View of Strategizing; The Power of Representations: From Visualization, Maps and Categories to Dynamic Tools; and Bringing Emotions (Back) Into Institutional Theory. I encourage you to attend as many of these sessions as your schedule allows. Please see the complete program for more details.I look forward to seeing everyone in
COMMENTS FROM THE MOC
PAST DIVISION CHAIR
2010 MOC DIVISION ELECTION
THE 2010 MOC DIVISION ELECTION
One of the most important tasks in any social group is the selection of its leaders. We had an excellent slate of candidates who ran for two positions this year: Division Program Chair-Elect and Division Representative at Large (General). As you must surely have noticed from their bios on the ballot, they represented a dream team of established and rising stars in our field. They also were a diverse group along many different dimensions, which is consistent with the strategic goal of the Division to increase outreach and integration.
The results are in, and by all measures our Division had a great election. In all, 33.22% of MOC members participated in the election, which is 23% higher than the 27.09% participation rate for the Academy as a whole. That is one of the highest participation rates among the divisions of the AOM this year. It is also the highest difference between the MOC participation rate and the AOM participation rate in the last five years. The overall voter participation rate at the AOM level has been dropping steadily over the last few years, but it looks like MOC continues to contribute more than its fair share of voters to the overall total. That says great things about the MOC community, and the MOC Executive Committee thanks you for your dedication to the Division.
AND THE WINNERS ARE …
Program Chair-Elect: Dr. Kyle Lewis, University of Texas at Austin
Kyle Lewis is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Texas at Austin. Kyle’s research focuses on learning and knowledge exchange in groups and organizations. Her recent work examines the factors that foster transactive memory system development, the mechanisms through which transactive memory systems influence learning and performance, and the benefits and detriments of socially shared cognition when tasks or group membership changes. She is currently a Senior Editor for Organization Science. A long-time member of the MOC division, she has participated in doctoral and junior faculty consortia and won the MOC Division’s Best Paper award in 2003.
Division Representative at Large (General): Dr. Shelley Brickson, University of Illinois at Chicago
Shelley Brickson received her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from Harvard University and is an Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Before coming to UIC, she was an Assistant Professor at London Business School. Shelley studies individual and organizational identity, organizational identification, diversity, and relationships. Her work has been featured in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Positive Psychology, and edited volumes on identity. She has served on the Editorial Board of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Shelley is highly invested in the MOC community. She has organized numerous symposia and professional development workshops, served as session moderator, and facilitated the Doctoral Consortium.
Congratulations to the winners, and our deepest thanks to our other colleagues who ran in the elections as well as to all our MOC colleagues who voted!
COMMENTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL REP-AT-LARGE
The MOC’s Outreach and Integration Committee has been busy! I am delighted to share news of two new initiatives developed by members of the committee.
Our new Knowledge Transfer Project: From Academy to Africa with Care will be a wonderful contribution to our goal of building bridges across regions. This project, led by Jacob Eisenberg of University College Dublin, seeks to transfer research knowledge resources within the MOC Division to early-stage scholars in developing countries who do not have access to such resources. Specifically, we will connect doctoral students in African business schools to established scholars within the MOC community who can provide mentorship in the form of feedback on selected early-stage African management scholars’ work. The goal will be to improve the quality of these new scholars’ work-in-progress, enabling them to increase their exposure within international management research venues.
This initiative was successful in winning an AOM Enterprise Award, which will provide valuable seed money to get it going. The committee adjudicating the award was very enthusiastic about the proposal, calling it “extremely innovative” and “perhaps a model that could be extended toward the rest of AOM eventually.” It was also seen as very well-aligned with the theme of the 2010 annual meeting, and the value of “allow[ing] the Academy to extend its reach into an area of the world that desperately needs help.”
We are delighted to have AOM’s support for this important venture, and thank Jacob for initiating and driving the project. A caucus, “Knowledge Transfer Project: From Academy to Africa with Care” is scheduled for this year’s annual meeting: Tuesday Aug 10, 9.45-11.15, Le Palais Des Congres, 523B. If you are interested in being part of this project, please come to the caucus in Montreal and/or contact Jacob to let him know of your interest in contributing to the project (email@example.com).
Another wonderful initiative, this time aimed at building bridges across Academy divisions, is MOC’s new Best Boundary Spanning Paper Award. This award, initiated by Rajiv Nag (Georgia State University), with several members of the Outreach and Integration Committee, is for the MOC paper submission that best spans boundaries normally demarcated by Academy divisions, and especially that uses MOC concepts and literatures to enable this bridging. Our hope is that this award, as it becomes institutionalized over the years, will encourage research that connects MOC with other important fields of management, and lead to more interdisciplinary contributions. The adjudication process this year was carried out by a wonderful panel of distinguished MOC scholars: Pamela Barr, Jean Bartunek, Denny Gioia and Bill Starbuck, and the winning paper for 2010 is:
“The Change Moment: Emotive Markers Predicting the Onset of Social Movements” by David H. Tobey; New Mexico State U., Michael R. Manning; New Mexico State U., & Mary M. Nash; The Nash Group.
Congratulations to David, Michal and Mary, and many thanks to the MOC Scholar Panel who picked the winning paper. The award will be made at the MOC’s Business Meeting in Montreal.As you see, the Outreach and Integration Committee is an action-oriented group. If you would like to join us, please write and let me know (maitlis at sauder.ubc.ca). We welcome thoughtful and energetic members!
COMMENTS FROM THE
I wanted to give you a brief update on some doctoral student initiatives that you might be interested in learning about.
First, our division received 78 submissions from students this year and also greatly benefited from those of you who voluntarily signed up to review submissions. For the past two years, Prentice Hall and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. have provided generous donations to fund our Outstanding Student Reviewer Awards. Last year, we recognized six students for their outstanding reviews with a certificate of recognition and a $50 reward to help subsidize portions of a hotel room, meals, etc. We are excited to continue this award at our upcoming Business Meeting in Montreal. Palgrave Macmillan has also agreed to continue donating several copies of the book “Authoring a PhD” to be raffled off at the MOC Social Hour – we hope to see you there!
At this year’s New Doctoral Student Consortium (NDSC), I will be joining several members of the executive committee for the “Meet the Division” roundtable. Please encourage your doctoral student colleagues and/or incoming students who are attending the NDSC to stop by our table so they can learn about some of the exciting things going on in our division. We will also distribute, “The ABCs of MOC for the NDSC”, which has been well-received by previous attendees. This session is scheduled for
I am also working to create and coordinate a Student Services Committee to work on the existing student initiatives (e.g., student reviewer awards) and to come up with new ideas to serve our student members. If you are interested in becoming a member of this committee, please email me and let me know. It will be a great opportunity to have an impact on our division, and the student experience at Academy overall. We will also be recruiting students to join this committee in Montreal, so if you are interested in joining the committee, please come to our new PDW session “Think About It. . .Over a Beer or a Glass of Wine with the MOC Division Officers” (Saturday, Aug 7; 4:00 - 5:30: Delta Centre-Ville, Regence B).
Finally, if you had a paper that wasn’t accepted at Academy, or if you have a paper you are struggling to move forward, I want to remind you of the Cognition in the Rough workshop. This PDW provides a great opportunity for you to receive feedback on your research and to interact with more experienced MOC scholars. Proposals are due by June 15th to firstname.lastname@example.org, and more details are available in the CIR Call for Papers in this newsletter.
That is all for now. Please email me at email@example.com if you ever have comments or suggestions about ways we can help our student members. I look forward to seeing many of you in August.
Are you working on cognition-related research? Would you like to discuss your work with major scholars in the field?
Now is the time
to prepare for the 13th annual "COGNITION IN THE ROUGH" workshop to be
held at the
The Cognition in the Rough workshop (CIR) provides an excellent opportunity to discuss your research in an informal, collegial roundtable setting. Each roundtable will have 2-3 scholars and 2-3 researchers, allowing plenty of time for discussion. Regardless of whether you are a more senior or a more junior researcher, this workshop offers you an invaluable opportunity to receive detailed feedback from scholars who are often editors or on the editorial board of top journals.
In particular, many past CIR participants have emphasized how much they have benefited from their participation in the workshop in terms of developing their theoretical models and their planned methodology. This feedback has been instrumental in helping them further develop and polish their research for publication in top academic journals.
Whether this is your first major research project or your fiftieth, this is a chance you won't want to miss!
We are very pleased that the following scholars have agreed to participate:
Blake Ashforth, Neal
Ashkanasy, Stuart Bunderson, Andrea Casey, Janet Dukerich, Dov Eden,
Marlena Fiol, Peer Fiss, Raghu Garud, Elizabeth George, Tor Hernes,
Gerard Hodgkinson, Susan Houghton, George Huber, Lynn Isabella, Glen
Kreiner, Theresa Lant, Kyle Lewis, Luis Martins, Steve Mezias, Chet
Miller, Frances Milliken,
Sponsored by the
Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division at the annual
We look forward
to seeing you in
"COGNITION IN THE ROUGH"
Scheduled for Saturday, August 7th from 8:00 AM - 12 PM.
WHO: This roundtable workshop is open to junior and senior scholars who are doing research related to managerial and organizational cognition.
WHAT: Your submission should include the following four sections:
I. Brief abstract (not to exceed 150 words) and up to four keywords
II. Overview of research (not to exceed 1500 words)
III. Challenges (the area on which you would like to focus discussion) (not to exceed 250 words)
KEY DATES & LOCATIONS:
June 15, 2010
The Management and Organizational Cognition (MOC) division is pleased to announce its joint Doctoral Student Consortium with the Organization and Management Theory (OMT) division will once again be part of the pre-conference activities at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. The goal of this consortium is to help doctoral students who are broadly interested in organizations, management, and cognition to organize their thoughts about the final phase of their doctoral programs, advance their research, publish their dissertation or parts thereof, find a job in the academic or professional world, and, perhaps most importantly, establish professional networks with colleagues who share similar research interests.
The consortium will include a variety of presentations, interactive discussion sessions, and workshops aimed at these goals. It has been designed to allow for high levels of interaction between faculty and students. Faculty participating in this year’s Consortium are:
Additional information about the OMT/MOC Doctoral Consortium is available on the MOC Website. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact Kevin Corley (MOC Rep-at-Large) at firstname.lastname@example.org
PAST DIVISION CHAIR
LISTSERVE (COGNET) MANAGER
George Washington University
Tel: (703) 983-9642
© Copyright 2003, Academy of Management, MOC Division. All rights Reserved.
Comments or suggestions? Contact us.