Temporary organizing is introduced as process, form and perspective. Then key challenges and opportunities in the study of temporary organizing are discussed, including methodological issues, how to theorize time, and how to relate the temporary to the more permanent. This introductory article concludes with an overview of the special issue.
N ull-hypothesis significance tests (NHSTs) have received much criticism, especially during the last two decades. Yet many behavioral and social scientists are unaware that NHSTs have drawn increasing criticism, so this essay summarizes key criticisms. The essay also recommends alternative ways of assessing research findings. Although these recommendations are not complex, they do involve ways of thinking that many behavioral and social scientists find novel. Instead of making NHSTs, researchers should adapt their research assessments to specific contexts and specific research goals, and then explain their rationales for selecting assessment indicators. Researchers should show the substantive importance of findings by reporting effect sizes and should acknowledge uncertainty by stating confidence intervals. By comparing data with naïve hypotheses rather than with null hypotheses, researchers can challenge themselves to develop better theories. Parsimonious models are easier to understand, and they generalize more reliably. Robust statistical methods tolerate deviations from assumptions about samples.
This study examines the relationship between managerial gender diversity and firm performance. It outlines how extremely low and extremely high levels of managerial gender diversity can trigger group processes that can impede the attainment of the performance benefits associated with moderate levels of managerial gender diversity. Findings from a longitudinal panel data from financial service firms in Portugal suggest the effects of managerial gender diversity on firm performance are best captured by a nonlinear function with two breaking points. This study introduces a framework that combines different theoretical perspectives focused on tokenism, subgroup formation, divergent thinking, and other group processes linked to positive and negative gender-diversity consequences. Corresponding overall firm-performance outcomes are contingent upon the level of managerial gender diversity.
Research articles often give inaccurate information about how researchers developed hypotheses, analyzed data, and drew conclusions. Published articles sometimes report only some of the hypotheses that researchers tested, or some of the statistical analyses that researchers made. Articles often imply that researchers formulated all hypotheses before they examined their data when in fact they added or deleted hypotheses after they made some data analyses.Indeed, such covert practices are so common that new entrants into management research may think they are correct behavior. Yet, these practices create false impressions about the validity of research and they undermine the openness that ought to create trust among researchers.Researchers have tried to halt these practices by labeling them "unethical" but their continued prevalence questions the effectiveness of wholly critical approaches. This article proposes a constructive path toward reform: advocating honesty about actual research processes by adding discussions of inferences drawn after data analyses. Post-hoc data analyses can stimulate important theoretical ideas; running alternative statistical models can deepen understanding of empirical patterns; lack of support for hypotheses can identify incorrect or incomplete theories. The management research culture should encourage these practices. The negative effects result from the lack of explicit reporting about them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.