Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia

Books

Edited by: Peter J. Frost & M. Susan Taylor

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Part I: Career Rhythms: Five Exemplars

    Part II: Early Rhythms

    Part III: Middle Rhythms: Traditional Paths

    Part IV: Middle Rhythms: Nontraditional Paths

    Part V: Rhythms of Renewal

    Part VI: Rhythms of the Field

  • Foundations for Organizational Science: A Sage Publications Series

    Series Editor

    David Whetten, Brigham Young University

    Editors

    Peter J. Frost, University of British Columbia

    Anne S. Huff, University of Colorado

    Benjamin Schneider, University of Maryland

    M. Susan Taylor, University of Maryland

    Andrew Van de Ven, University of Minnesota

    The Foundationsfor Organizational Science series supports the development of students, faculty, and prospective organizational science professionals through the publication of texts authored by leading organizational scientists. Each volume provides a highly personal, hands-on introduction to a core topic or theory and challenges the reader to explore promising avenues for future theory development and empirical application.

    Books in This Series

    PUBLISHING IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES, 2nd Edition

    Edited by L. L. Cummings and Peter J. Frost

    SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS

    Karl E. Weick

    INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

    W. Richard Scott

    RHYTHMS OF ACADEMIC LIFE

    Peter J. Frost and M. Susan Taylor

    RESEARCHERS HOOKED ON TEACHING: Noted Scholars Discuss the Synergies of Teaching and Research

    Rae André and Peter J. Frost

    THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DECISION MAKING: People in Organizations

    Lee Roy Beach

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Dedication

    To Nola McMorran Frost, who has been my partner, my confidante, my friend, through all the rhythms of my academic life

    Peter J.Frost

    To my parents, whose lives have touched mine far more than they know; and to Dan and Cassie, who “keep me from falling”

    M. SusanTaylor

    Introduction to the Series

    The title of this series, Foundations for Organizational Science (FOS), denotes a distinctive focus. FOS books are educational aids for mastering the core theories, essential tools, and emerging perspectives that constitute the field of organizational science (broadly defined to include organizational behavior, organizational theory, human resource management, and business strategy). The primary objective of this series is to support ongoing professional development among established scholars.

    The series was born out of many long conversations among several colleagues, including Peter Frost, Anne Huff, Rick Mowday, Ben Schneider, Susan Taylor, and Andy Van de Ven, over a number of years. From those discussions, we concluded that there has been a major gap in our professional literature, as characterized by the following comment: “If I, or one of my students, want to learn about population ecology, diversification strategies, group dynamics, or personnel selection, we are pretty much limited to academic journal articles or books that are written either for content experts or practitioners. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have access to the teaching notes from a course taught by a master teacher of this topic?”

    The plans for compiling a set of learning materials focusing on professional development emerged from our extended discussions of common experiences and observations, including the following:

    • While serving as editors of journals, program organizers for professional association meetings, and mentors for new faculty members, we have observed wide variance in theoretical knowledge and tool proficiency in our field. To the extent that this outcome reflects available learning opportunities, we hope that this series will help “level the playing field.”
    • We have all “taught” in doctoral and junior faculty consortia prior to our professional meetings and have been struck by how often the participants comment, “I wish that the rest of the meetings [paper sessions and symposia] were as informative.” Such observations got us thinking—Are our doctoral courses more like paper sessions or doctoral consortia? What type of course would constitute a learning experience analogous to attending a doctoral consortium? What materials would we need to teach such a course? We hope that the books in this series have the “touch and feel” of a doctoral consortium workshop.
    • We all have had some exposure to the emerging “virtual university” in which faculty and students in major doctoral programs share their distinctive competencies, either through periodic jointly sponsored seminars or through distance learning technology, and we would like to see these opportunities diffused more broadly. We hope that reading our authors' accounts will be the next best thing to observing them in action.
    • We see some of the master scholars in our field reaching the later stages of their careers, and we would like to “bottle” their experience and insight for future generations. Therefore, this series is an attempt to disseminate “best practices” across space and time.

    To address these objectives, we ask authors in this series to pass along their “craft knowledge” to students and faculty beyond the boundaries of their local institutions by writing from the perspective of seasoned teachers and mentors. Specifically, we encourage them to invite readers into their classrooms (to gain an understanding of the past, present, and future of scholarship in particular areas from the perspective of their firsthand experience), as well as into their offices and hallway conversations (to gain insights into the subtleties and nuances of exemplary professional practice).

    By explicitly focusing on an introductory doctoral seminar setting, we encourage our authors to address the interests and needs of nonexpert students and colleagues who are looking for answers to questions such as the following: Why is this topic important? How did it originate and how has it evolved? How is it different from related topics? What do we actually know about this topic? How does one effectively communicate this information to students and practitioners? What are the methodological pitfalls and conceptual dead ends that should be avoided? What are the most/least promising opportunities for theory development and empirical study in this area? What questions/situations/phenomena are not well suited for this theory or tool? What is the most interesting work in progress? What are the most critical gaps in our current understanding that need to be addressed during the next 5 years?

    We are pleased to share our dream with you, and we encourage your suggestions for how these books can better satisfy your learning needs—as a newcomer to the field preparing for prelims or developing a research proposal, or as an established scholar seeking to broaden your knowledge and proficiency.

    David A.Whetten Series Editor

    Acknowledgments

    The original impetus for this book was the creation of the Foundations for Organizational Science series by David Whetten and his sense that there was a need for a handbook in the series that dealt with faculty development. We jumped at the chance to do something with this concept, and this book is the result. We owe Dave a great debt of thanks for creating the opportunity for this to happen and for his continued encouragement through the several years that it has taken to bring it to fruition. We thank also other members of the FOS Board, Anne Huff, Rick Mowday and Andy Van de Ven, for their suggestions and critiques in the early days of the project, and we are very appreciative of the support we have received from Harry Briggs and Marquita Flemming at Sage. Several individuals have provided administrative and secretarial assistance for the project, and we have benefited enormously from their competence: Thank you to Stacie Chappell, Vivien Clark, and Cynthia Ree. The final product was influenced by the many constructive comments made by faculty and doctoral students at two presentations of the commentary of the book, one at the University of British Columbia and the other at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. We are most grateful for those contributions. Finally, we thank our authors, who have shared their stories and reports and who provide the heart and soul of the book. We have more to say about their contributions in our introduction. We have shared equally in the shaping and editing of this volume, and take full responsibility for any errors and omissions. Creating this book has been a most interesting and rewarding experience for us. It has affirmed our enthusiasm for the academic life.

    Peter J.Frost
    M. SusanTaylor

    Introduction

    Storytelling is fundamental to the human search for meaning, whether we tell stories of the creation of the earth or of our own early choices. … The past empowers the present and the groping footsteps leading to this present mark the pathways to the future.

    Mary Catherine Bateson, Composing a Life, 1990

    Perhaps the greatest impetus for our undertaking this volume was our surprise and disappointment when we realized how little information, conceptual or anecdotal, existed about the paths that academics choose to follow across the course of their careers. At the time of its beginning, we were both either experiencing or approaching forks in our own careers. Peter had just become an associate dean at a time when his faculty was entering a period of significant and rapid change; he frequently thought about what he had done in accepting his new position and wondered how he might better prepare himself to cope with the challenges that loomed on the horizon. Susan, fast approaching her promotion review for full professor, was surprised at strong feelings of having “been there, done that,” in practice, if not in title. In thinking about the upcoming review, she seemed to hear the lyrics of the 1970s pop tune “Is That All There Is?” playing in her head. Thus both of us had our own set of career questions and were strongly motivated to discover some insights about various roles and activities that exist within the academic enterprise.

    In the past, when concerns or questions about career issues arose, we had frequently relied on the experiences and insights of colleagues we knew and trusted. We generally chose as our advisers academics who not only had already faced similar transition points but were open and sharing enough to provide fairly objective assessments of the pros and cons of their choices. Further, we each recalled having assumed the adviser role when other colleagues called with their own sets of career questions. However, recognizing that the academic career path, never what one could describe as “a straight shot down Interstate Highway X,” becomes even more convoluted after midcareer, we could easily envision our questions about career possibilities far outdistancing the experience base of our trusted advisers. Further, we suspected we were not alone in this respect. In short, we felt that much might be gained from the creation of a sourcebook describing the experiences of scholars in different roles and at different transition points and providing sets of guidelines that they felt might inform the choices of others; thus the vision for this book was born. In hindsight, we are quite pleased with how the book compares with its initial vision.

    That being said, however, it is important to address early in this introduction a concern about the methodology used by the contributors who provide their accounts of their personal experiences. This issue was brought to our attention by James Walsh in the essay that appears here as Chapter 21. In that narrative, he urges us to view others' prescriptions about how to live our lives with caution, for, as he puts it, “A prescribed life is not a lived life” (p. 204). We think this is a useful caution. Each person needs to make his or her own decisions about life choices. Furthermore, those who have grown up in homes where the academic life has been lived may have little need for a book like this. Conversely, many of us had only brief, rather superficial exposure to the academic career before entering it, and found that it remained something of a black box even afterward. As Joan Gallos observes in Chapter 2: “I had no idea how that [the academic life] translated into day-to-day behavior. I was the first member of my family to attend college, let alone the first with any thoughts of teaching in one” (p. 12).

    One the other hand, this is not just a prescriptive book; it is a very descriptive, quasiexperiential one. Even experienced and knowledgeable professionals sometimes find themselves in unfamiliar territory, having to tackle new tasks for which there is little lore on what to expect from the assignment. Anne Huff has likened the seeking out of assistance from others as equivalent to “making cement” for the first time. At a 1995 Academy of Management doctoral consortium, she observed:

    When my husband and I wanted to make an addition to our house some time ago, we realized that one of the first tasks we faced was to prepare the foundations, and this was going to entail having to make cement. Since we had not done this before, we read as many books as we could about the process and began to understand what needed to be done. We were stuck, however, with knowing how to deal with the statement: “You will know when it is ready to pour when it has the right consistency, just like porridge”! No amount of reading could convey this desired quality. We needed to call on a friend who had done this before. Once he had shown us the “right consistency” in a batch of cement, we were able to grasp the instruction. It was now up to us to do the job, to mix the cement and to pour the foundations according to our own judgment.

    We intend the advice in this book to have the quality that Anne describes. We agree with James Walsh that each of us must live his or her own life, without becoming a carbon copy of someone else's admonitions about how to do this. At the same time, we agree with Anne Huff that reading about how tasks can be done and having others with expertise “show” us something about the more ephemeral qualities of the process (“the right consistency”) may help to demystify what we need to do, thus inspiring and empowering us to move forward to put our own imprint on the task.

    The title Rhythms of Academic Life originated from the input of our Foundations of Organizational Science coeditors—Anne Huff, Rich Mowday, David Whetten, and Andy Van de Ven—at our first staff meeting in 1992. They observed that the academic career is one characterized by recurrence more than by a progressive flow of seasons from spring to winter. Thus the seeds of this volume were sown.

    In planning the book, we spent approximately 6 months identifying a group of contributors who could and would speak personally and informally about their experiences with particular paths that academics might take during the course of their careers. We strove for diversity in contributors along many dimensions other than their career choices—field of study, gender, career seniority, nationality, size and mission of employer, and so forth—because of the diversity within the academic population. Our invitations to authors urged them to tell the stories of their journeys along particular paths: how they came about, the people they consulted for guidance and support (before leaving as well as on the way), and the nature of the trips themselves. We asked them also to provide any advice they might have for those contemplating similar journeys.

    The contributors' responses to our invitation were generally quite gratifying. Most expressed considerably more concern about when we needed their stories than about why we would ask them too undertake such a task. Further, their enthusiasm seemed to heighten as the first drafts began to reach us, with several reporting that initial doubts about the value of the project of their contribution vanished in the process of recalling and, sometimes, reanalyzing the personal meanings of their journeys. The results of their efforts proved to be quite extraordinary in the reading, and perhaps even in the telling.

    As a collection, these essays provide rich, personal, sometimes poignant and often quite humorous accounts of common and unique journeys that may be taken during the course of an academic career, and of the “pause points” needed to reflect on the meaningfulness of life along the way. Often, while acknowledging favorable biases about their own experiences, contributors readily conclude that such journeys are not the best choices for everyone, and they explain why. Their willingness to share their experiences with others who know them only as colleagues, rather than confidants or even acquaintances, has greatly enhanced our understanding of career options; and yes, they have already informed, albeit not predetermined, some of our own career choices. We hope that reading this book will provide you with some insights, some affirmations, even some redefinitions of the way you choose to live your academic life. Should you wish to share your thoughts and reactions with us or any of the authors, that would be most welcome. Now we invite you to read on.

  • Commentary

    Peter J.FrostM. SusanTaylor

    Becoming a productive scholar is a developmental journey. It involves understanding the research terrain, comparing alternative routes, choosing a personal path, recognizing critical crossroads, navigating roadblocks, sustaining personal commitment, and celebrating the joys of the expedition.

    Joan V. Gallos (p. 16)

    In my salad days, I could routinely spend 14–16 hours a day locked in my study revising a textbook. The burnout that ultimately resulted, and the death of a well-known contemporary, actually found dead at his desk, occasioned a simple question: Did I want to spend the rest of my life writing textbooks? My answer was no.

    Looking back, I now see how I cheated not only my family but myself of irretrievable time together. Would I have achieved in my career as I have without such sacrifice? Who knows? Was it worth it? I honestly can't say.

    Arthur G. Bedeian (p. 8)

    We think that the sentiments expressed in both these quotes have relevance to the rhythms of academic life. It is a privileged life but also a challenging one, requiring at times high levels of focus, self-absorption, and isolation. The reports in this book have addressed a number of different roles and activities within the academic enterprise. Each set of roles and activities has its own rhythms, each provides paradoxes to the scholar who takes it on. Inherent within each role and set of activities are opportunities to learn, to make mistakes, to create new knowledge, to make a difference to others, to see the academic world from a different vantage point. There are decisions to be made about what to do within a role, how long to stay in or to attend to it, and when and how best to move on to another one.

    The nature of early rhythms in an academic career, when one is relatively unknown and busy establishing oneself as a teacher and as a researcher, are different from those of an established scholar, when there are additional pressures to serve in administrative or professional association roles; when one is in demand as an adviser, a reviewer, perhaps even as an editor; when one is more likely to be doing consulting and in other ways interacting with various external communities. Of course, there are other possible pressures on scholars in their early years, including starting a family (especially demanding on women academics) and representing actively, through service and teaching, some category that has taken on a high political profile in the profession or in the community. Such demands on junior faculty do not replace the primary requirement to establish a presence in their fields and institutions through research and/or teaching.

    We expect that readers will focus on different roles, on different rhythms represented in the book. They will likely draw different inferences about academic practice based on their own perspectives, needs, and expectations as well as on the circumstances and stages of their current professional lives.

    The contributors to this volume have been shaped by the events and conditions of the past 30 or so years. In some sense, the lessons learned and the suggestions and prescriptions offered are based on a world that is changing rather quickly. This may bound the lessons of this book in a time that is passing. Doubtless we will need to reexamine the rhythms of academic life anew in the future. Having said this, we think there are some themes within this book that seem to be fairly persistent and important; we discuss these in the pages that follow.

    Early Rhythms
    Choosing a Job

    Choosing the “right” school or university to join requires attention to the fit between one's own intended career path and that of the hiring institution. As Marilyn Gist points out, it is important to clarify what the real priorities of the organization are: Is it rewarding performances that build research portfolios and thus emphasize national visibility for the academic and the institution? Or are the important goals focused on local accomplishments that may be assessed according to teaching performance or service contributions? Typically, the goals and the criteria are intermingled; academic institutions often want to meet both local and cosmopolitan objectives, and beginning academics must investigate carefully to sort out the mix and to assess what the true criteria are for success in the institution. The alternative is to find out the hard way that what is expected of a junior scholar on a day-to-day basis may not be either what that scholar is trained for or what he or she prefers to do to develop a career, as Toni King found out. Or the discovery may be that what is encouraged as professional behavior in the short run is not what really counts when tenure decisions are made.

    Finally, as Arthur Bedeian points out, and other contributors implicitly corroborate, it is important that one seek out settings where one can encounter other colleagues who can support and extend the interests and skills one brings to the first job. It is invaluable to have colleagues who can provide advice and guidance on teaching and on getting research projects going. Junior faculty need the help of seasoned colleagues to interpret the meanings of editorial reviews of their work, to learn the ropes of publishing. They need mentoring on the politics of the institution.

    Teaching and Research

    In the early years of an academic career, emphases are on learning one's craft, learning the ropes in one's institution and profession, and adjusting one's professional and personal lives to the complex demands of being a scholar. The primary career stress in these years tends to be to get tenure, particularly in North America, and within most institutions the assessment of worth as a scholar lies in producing an exemplary research portfolio, teaching competently, and, to an extent, being seen as a “good colleague.” This usually means, in these early years, that one does what one is asked to do in accepting teaching assignments and fulfilling service duties. In a growing number of schools, the expectation of pretenure academics, from students and from administrators, is that they perform very well in the classroom. It is becoming less acceptable that they be simply competent teachers. Christina Shalley's initial mantra going into her academic career—“Publish, plain and simple, and be competent at teaching so they don't have to get rid of you” (p. 64)—is becoming increasingly untenable in light of the expectations of students, parents, legislators, and the media. The performance bar is being raised for teaching performance. However, it has not simultaneously been lowered on the research dimension. Academics need to do well on both dimensions.

    It seems likely that at some point in the not-too-distant future, business faculties and the profession will have to examine the implications of this shift for new faculty, for institutions, and for the field. Providing training in doctoral programs in teaching as is done for research is one strategic response to the change in the game. However, in one sense, this simply intensifies the pressure on junior scholars. Once they have been trained to teach and can, presumably, perform better in the classroom sooner, they will be expected to do more as teachers. Although this provides a benefit to the institution and to students, the need for academics to do first-rate research to get tenure remains. Doing research requires long blocks of uninterrupted time, as several authors in this book have pointed out. Adding to teaching responsibilities can conflict with this need. We think that, on balance, greater contributions will be made by academics who are both teachers and researchers. Jointly, these roles require scholars to contribute to a continuously developing knowledge base and to communicate their contributions to others, perhaps in less technical or sophisticated forms than originally stated. However, working in and across both activities will better preserve the spirit and the substance of the ideas and findings while conveying them in ways useful to practitioners and other potential users.

    It is going to take a conscious and concerted effort by academics, administrators, and the profession to figure out how this new equation translates into assessment of academic performance and how it keeps vital the quality of scholarship, the creation and dissemination of knowledge. It may require a lengthening of the tenure clock. It may require educating a smaller cadre of doctoral students but providing them a richer experience that produces strong teachers and competent researchers. Unquestionably, it will require that we find creative ways to facilitate for junior faculty the development of their crafts, so that they can make effective use of them more quickly when they start their first jobs.

    Tensions between Creativity and Instrumentality

    A common theme throughout this book is the trade-off between choices, about research emphases and teaching efforts that draw primarily on the creative and passionate aspects of one's abilities versus those that are more instrumental or political, that stress “playing the game” to get ahead. This issue is likely to be highly salient for individuals on the tenure trail. One hears all kinds of advice offered to junior scholars on this matter, ranging from encouragement to “keep your nose clean and do the work that is needed to get tenure” and “save your creativity for the time after you have tenure” to those that urge scholars to “follow their bliss” and to do the things that they consider important and intellectually satisfactory, no matter what the politics of the situation are. This latter strategy rests in part on an assumption that following one's creative instincts and one's passion will lead to high-quality work that will reflect well on the scholar. It is also based, implicitly at least, on the view that the success of one's career does not rest exclusively on whether one's work is judged favorably or as acceptable by one's initial colleagues or by the institution.

    As will become evident in our discussion below on finding and developing one's voice, we do not side with those who advise suppression of an individual's creativity and passion until after tenure is secured. We believe that new scholars are ill-advised to avoid or abandon research endeavors that are interesting and creative until it is “safe” or “convenient” for them to undertake such pursuits. There is considerable evidence that in the physical sciences, at least, the greatest discoveries are more often made by researchers in their early career stages (see Gladwell, 1990). It is worth noting also that three of the seven exemplary research publications reported in Doing Exemplary Research (Frost & Stablein, 1992) were based on pioneering work done by doctoral students and junior faculty. Although we do not believe that only new scholars do pathbreaking work as researchers or teachers, we suspect that creativity is at least partly determined by a strong and broad familiarity with the current literature in the field, by a weak commitment to established paradigms and ways of viewing research questions, and by a healthy desire to prove oneself as a serious scholar. All these characteristics are likely to be found in greater abundance in new scholars than in their more established counterparts. It seems likely to us that those who postpone their creative interests for 7 years or more are placing a precious quality at serious risk. (We do agree with Anne Huff, having made this pitch for attention to creativity among junior scholars, that ours is a field that also facilitates the doing of breakthrough work by senior scholars, given the human nature of many of the phenomena we study and the value of personal experiences as stimuli for creative insights.)

    In Chapter 12, Susan Ashford captures this issue rather poignantly:

    Doing research that “they” seem to want, doing the types of studies that seem to be all that the journals are publishing (as opposed to what will best answer the question), and choosing a topic based on what is hot or accepted rather than because you are passionate about it are all examples of letting the instrumental dominate. Making such choices amounts to choosing death. These are small deaths, to be sure, and may go many years without detection, but it seems to me that they are death all the same. (p. 127)

    We suspect that the passion versus politics dilemma does not yield to a simple all-or-none response. Whereas we argue against a postponement of passion and creativity in the service of one's intellectual and professional career, we believe it is prudent for junior scholars to learn the political ropes of their institutions and profession and then to make informed choices about how to manage their careers. One needs to keep in mind that at least some of one's research must reach publication in acceptable outlets, that others may have ideas and understanding about research and about teaching from which one can learn, and that, as Kevin Murphy and Keith Murnighan note, we need to understand our various audiences and be able to communicate with them so that our work can be understood.

    Other Demands

    Other pressures on early academic life include time needed to nurture a personal life and the service demands placed on some new faculty by administrators and professional associations. Miriam Erez points out in Chapter 3 that having a child soon after completing her PhD slowed down her productivity as a researcher. The demands on Toni King in her first job to be active in student and other communities thwarted her efforts to produce a strong research record. These and other major events that occur in people's lives in this testing period may make their emergence as scholars slower than is the current norm for progress. Of course, we expect that individuals faced with, or choosing to have, experiences that draw them away from a single-minded pursuit of attaining tenure will want to take responsibility for the way they manage their research and teaching agendas. Further, we believe that it is important for junior scholars to be active, selectively, in service of their academic community. The alternative is isolation of these scholars from this life, which, for several years, robs them and their institution of valuable contributions and understanding about the way academic life proceeds.

    Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom on publishing in the pretenure period, epitomized by Art Bedeian's dictum to “hit the ground running” as a researcher, may not always apply to starting scholars. The expectations of tenure committees and of deans about sustained productivity levels of junior scholars will need some recalibration to accommodate a more diverse pool of scholars and a greater variation in life experiences and responsibilities of current junior academics than was the case in this cohort a decade ago. These demands on junior faculty may also require senior faculty to take on more responsibility for teaching courses than is currently the norm. This charge is unlikely to be accepted unless thoughtfully implemented, as the demands and pressures of later rhythms of academic life may change somewhat in nature, but they do not lessen. If anything, the pace of scholarship quickens. We turn now to a discussion of these later rhythms.

    Middle Rhythms … and Later

    In the early days of a career, the scholar may have a somewhat limited range of research projects to manage and a relatively preordained set of courses to teach. (Personally, we recall having relatively empty bookshelves, the excitement and expectation of publishing our doctoral dissertations, and not much more. There was a touch of awe in our observations of the multitude of ongoing and planned research projects being undertaken by our more experienced colleagues!)

    The tenor of life begins to change as one becomes established as a scholar. This can and does happen even before one gets tenure, so that although the rite of passage that is tenure is a distinctive marker, and should be treated as such, it is also, as Marilyn Gist observes, but one point on the continuum of an academic career. The academic experience, initially largely focused on teaching and research, begins to include opportunities to work with and to supervise doctoral students, to serve as occasional and eventually as a regular reviewer of manuscripts for scholarly journals, later perhaps to become a journal editor, to serve in an administrative role for one's school or profession. Participating as an instructor in executive education becomes more likely. Increased visibility and mobility enhance opportunities for the scholar to do collaborative work, as a researcher, as a teacher. It becomes more plausible at this stage to contemplate programmatic research, as Mats Alvesson points out, and to link with others on more ambitious and potentially risky projects. If anything, one faces an overabundance of choices. The heavy press to produce published products relatively quickly, as is often the case in the start-up time of a career, diminishes with the development of assurance and visibility. One may need, in fact, to attend to the trap of “publishing and perishing,” as Keith Murnighan notes.

    The late middle years also offer opportunities for more institutional nurturance and building activities. There is a chance to “give something back to the field.” Art Bedeian, Jan Beyer, Larry Cummings, and Mary Ann Von Glinow all made this contribution through their terms leading up to and during periods as president of the Academy of Management, for example. Stewart Clegg describes establishing the Australian Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies. Most of the contributors to this book have given considerable amounts of time to community service within their institutions and the profession.

    Overenrichment can also be a feature of an academic's career as it moves through the middle and later years. There are so many arenas in which to perform, and within each, as we grow in experience and visibility, there are many possibilities to explore. This is the period when scholars are being invited to do this, that, or the other by their institutions, the profession, and other communities. Learning to say no, learning to decide what to do and what to avoid or to let go, becomes a necessary skill, as Susan Jackson and Anne Huff, among others, underscore in their chapters.

    Finally, there are more opportunities in the middle and later years for individuals to differentiate themselves, to develop along dimensions that reflect their strengths. They may begin to “specialize” as teachers rather than as researchers, as administrators rather than teachers. Given the increasing demands and diversity of the environments facing academic institutions, we will need to develop attitudes and reward systems that encourage the desires and the needs for different contributions to the common good of the enterprise. In the current system, we are likely to find those who emphasize teaching or administration consigned to second-class status, seeing few extrinsic rewards for their endeavors. This is not to deny the importance of a vital research spirit in our institutions; rather, it is a plea for a more even-handed acknowledgment of portfolios of skills and interests as a basis for an effective academic enterprise.

    Developing One's Voice

    An important aspect of the distinctive contribution that each scholar strives to make seems to hinge on the ability to find and define his or her voice, as a researcher, a teacher, an administrator, an editor, and so forth, and to continue to refine and redefine that voice throughout a career. Joan Gallos makes the point eloquently:

    Having a clear scholarly voice involves the willingness and ability to speak out, but it is more than just taking a stand. It entails a personal commitment to your own research agenda and a push to explore multiple facets of that agenda before moving on to something else. It requires identifying a passion for some set of issues and setting out to explore that deep interest, even in the face of opposition and critique. It means believing you have a worthwhile contribution to make. It involves finding a style of writing and expression that is uniquely and comfortably yours. (p. 15)

    This sense of voice occurs in the contributions of many of our authors. Susan Ashford deals with the development of voice when she describes her interactions with adviser Larry Cummings, who believed in her, saw something in her that she had not yet discovered in herself, and challenged and stretched her to realize her potential as a scholar. She also addresses voice when she notes the importance of standing up to an adviser so that one does not become a clone of someone else. Walter Nord captures some of the self-initiated aspects of this process when he describes his experiences as a doctoral student and as a junior faculty member. It is also evident in his tendency to teach graduate students topics that he needs to learn. It becomes part of the practice of developing his own voice as a teacher and a scholar. Roderick Kramer and Joanne Martin identify the need to “let go” of their desire to emulate the styles of their own mentors as they became advisers of doctoral students. Stewart Clegg's story contains many similar themes of exploration and inquiry that helped him become an authority on organizational power.

    Finding and shaping one's voice may be enhanced by one's locating in a context that is supportive as well as challenging, that can provide resources and opportunities to practice one's crafts and to discover and/or to express one's voice. This is in part Art Bedeian's message when he emphasizes “location, location, location” as a basis for choosing a job.

    Doctoral training and the tempering and shaping influences of the pretenure years in academia help socialize junior faculty into the profession, and provide the means for developing the skills of the scholarly crafts of research and teaching. They are perhaps a necessary but not sufficient basis for developing the distinctiveness of each scholar's impact in the field. It seems necessary that an academic have opportunities to wrestle with challenging, even perverse, situations within the task and or in the context. Coming to terms with such conditions and with the consequences of acting on or in these conditions seems to facilitate the development and expression of the scholar's voice. Individuals may have to make stands in the face of resistance to their innovations, as did both Dave Whetten and Bob Marx when developing their distinctive new teaching texts, or to their theories, as did Ed Locke in the early days of his goal-setting theory, when cognitive approaches to behavior were ignored or discounted in the field. Individuals may need to respond assertively to the insights they get from feedback concerning their own actions or those of others, as John Miller did when he recognized from the teaching critique of a student what direction he needed to take his teaching and what focus was needed in his university's management program. Kramer and Martin report how the influence of a persevering doctoral student changed the direction of the research of one of them in a significant way. Although one's voice seems to need to come from within, as Gallos notes, it is also influenced by situations and people in one's environment.

    Sometimes feedback from others comes in the form of messages or actions designed to deter one from a particular course of action, or a career move can have the opposite voice-defining or -strengthening effect, as happened in Joan Gallos's case. She relates how apparently well-meaning advice to stay away from gender research seemed to be the spark that helped her decide who she wanted to be as a researcher and confirmed her desire to do gender-related research. Vance Mitchell seemed to have been strengthened in his resolve to complete a PhD in his middle years when he was told by an academic that he was too old to undertake the program.

    We have focused thus far on voice development and expression in research and teaching, but it seems to apply to other areas of academic life as well. Allan Cohen suggests that it is difficult to sustain the pace and loneliness of the academic role, particularly at strategic levels, unless one has a strong personal vision of what one wants to accomplish in the role. Jan Beyer and Bob Sutton's stories reveal their commitment to visions and practices that shape their influences as editors. Alan Meyer has a very distinctive approach to reviewing, as do others who do this work well.

    The development of one's voice as an academic entails the development of integrity and distinctiveness in one's work. Treated unreflectively, over time, a vibrant voice may lose its flexibility, may become stilted, uninteresting—even shrill. Openness to change and to growth seems to be an essential orientation if the academic is to continue to contribute to the creation and communication of new ideas and knowledge, to have a voice worth listening to. Suggestions from several authors seem applicable to this challenge. Bedeian suggests that we keep upgrading our skills by taking new courses that stretch us and add new dimensions to our repertoire. Nord teaches “without a net” when working with graduate students. Erez transports herself to new situations and new scholars to help her see new challenges. Ashford uses a particular strategy for getting feedback from reviewers so that she can “hear” the critiques and respond constructively. Locke advocates idea champions rather than idea defenders who are interested in keeping change out of their work. Clegg and others seek new and different coauthors to work with who stretch and challenge them. These and other strategies may help redefine the academic's voice when this is warranted.

    Managing One's Academic Portfolio: Keeping the Plates Spinning

    The story Susan Ashford attributes to Lyman Porter about carnival plate spinners is worth repeating here:

    At carnivals … there is a man who spins plates on top of various poles. … The plate spinner gives one plate a vigorous spin and moves on to the second. As he walks back and forth across the stage, he amazes the audience with the number of plates he is able to keep up and spinning. (p. 121)

    This story evokes one of the central challenges faced by academics as they pursue their work. They typically have many projects, committees, assignments, classes, and so forth to keep “spinning.” Keeping everything moving satisfactorily takes large investments of energy and uses up the nonrenewable resource called time. It takes time to prepare and to teach classes, to counsel students, to evaluate performance. It takes time to initiate, conduct, analyze, interpret, report, and publish research. Reviewing the work of others takes time, large blocks if one is a member of an editorial board of a journal and even more if one is an editor. We write research proposals and conference proposals, prepare consulting proposals. We present our ideas at workshops, in conferences, to administrators, to the business community. We supervise graduate students, write letters of assessment on colleagues for tenure and promotion, serve on faculty and university committees, as administrators, as officers in our professional associations. All these activities contribute to the academic enterprise, all consume hours and hours of time. Not specified in this list are the things we might do or wish to do that constitute personal lives, away from the academy.

    The simultaneity of many of our various tasks compounds the busyness of our lives. We are not arguing that this condition is necessarily wrong—it can be a very exciting way to live. Most of us do live very productive and happy lives under these conditions, and there are many benefits to our institutions and our clients that stem from these large commitments of time, talent, and energy. We are suggesting, however, that we can get stuck in the rhythms of our work and that this can have detrimental effects on our creativity and the quality of our own lives and those around us.

    Most of the time, adjustments we might make when things are not working out are a matter of “retuning on the run.” Many of the insights of our authors are geared to on-line adjustments. At other times we need to “stop the action” and take an extended period of time to refresh ourselves and perhaps to reorient what it is that we know and do. Sabbaticals provide a useful means to look at our lives with this intensity. When we do this, we are in effect reducing the number of plates we choose or have to keep spinning, or we hand them to someone else or we put them in storage, at least for a while. We will discuss the use of extended time-outs to manage our careers and ourselves later.

    Retuning on the Run

    We are struck by the many useful ideas and suggestions our contributors offer for managing time, for creating ways to keep a focus on priorities and to get things done. These include Marilyn Gist's suggestion that one ought to have clear strategies for choosing a school when starting out in one's career as an academic and for getting done what needs to be done to get tenure. She acknowledges the difficulties faced in this era where one has to learn “to balance what's urgent with all of what's important” (p. 191). Christina Shalley suggests that junior faculty keep down the number and types of course preparations they do at the beginning of their careers. She further argues that one should spend enough time in preparation to be a very good teacher, but that it may be a poor use of one's energies and time to try to be an excellent teacher when one's research also requires serious attention. Susan Ashford's practice of making appointments with herself to ensure time to think and to tackle extended projects makes sense for all scholars. Learning to do this early on is likely to be a useful tactic.

    Distinguishing one's roles as clearly as one can and discerning accurately what they entail can be a useful way to manage time. One needs to have some evocative ways to differentiate the requirements of one's various roles and to make the appropriate kind of time and space for each of them. In addition, recognizing what one has accomplished through successfully completing the tenure process can provide a useful context for making the next steps as an academic. Although this probably is most beneficial if one can take an extended period of time to evaluate the lessons of the pretenure years, even acknowledgment of the rite of passage may help prepare the scholar for the next round of plate spinning.

    Managing one's time as a more visible and accomplished academic requires additional tools. Susan Jackson's suggestions are appropriate here. She identifies many of the techniques used by others to get us to say yes to projects and commitments in which we cannot afford to involve ourselves. These include flattery; offering flexible, even distant deadlines; offering control over the shape and content of the assignment; and more. Of course, once we all know the game, can any of us really successfully deflect the advances made on us by well-meaning others?

    Learning to say no is likely to be an important way to keep one's priorities clear and effective. Clarifying the relationship between one's work and nonwork responsibilities may be another facet of the process. Marcy Crary provides an example of this when she responds to her sense of discomfort with the small amount of time she is devoting to her young daughter and renegotiates with a sympathetic dean the terms of her academic contract.

    Strategic leadership roles are among the more demanding arenas in which academics can find themselves. These tend to be at the rank of assistant or associate dean or above, though many department chairs will attest to the complexity of their roles. As Allan Cohen points out, the turbulence stems from having to deal with so many different stakeholders—faculty, administrators, students, parents, the business community, the legislature, other faculties on campus. The combinations are demanding and often require contradictory responses. Not only are academics rarely trained for these jobs, but the work they do is usually not understood or particularly appreciated by those in the ranks from which the incumbents have come and to which they will likely return. Coping with such complex and multiple demands as an associate dean with two portfolios felt often, to Peter Frost, like operating simultaneously in five or six Harvard Business School cases without having any of the teaching notes to assist in the journey. One might be ahead in one situation, behind in several others, and unaware of yet others and their relationship to those that are visible. Having a personal vision of what might be accomplished and the support and buffering of competent executive assistance can make such roles more manageable.

    One other important ingredient for keeping the plates spinning may be, as André Delbecq found while serving as a dean, consciously to let something go, to take one of the plates out of circulation, to ask oneself, What are you willing to give up to lead a healthier life? That is a question one might build into any academic life, given the multiple demands of the profession. (It may also form a macro question to the institution, as it tries to balance the many demands and priorities of its existence.)

    While one is retuning on the run, it may also make sense to take note of the findings of Bob Quinn, Regina O'Neill, and Gelaye Debebe, who surveyed academics in the administrative sciences. Doing activities that are consistent with one's central values and that require continuous learning seems to energize us and keep us vital. Doing things we do not wish to do because of social and/or political pressures tends to demotivate us and burn us out. It may not be possible always to do the things we most want to do, and there are times when the institution requires us to make “sacrifices.” However, knowing what we value and spending most of our time in those arenas is probably healthy for us and for our organizations.

    Perhaps as valuable as any strategies and tactics for retuning, for staying vital, is our orientation to the meaning of our activities as academics. We can too easily and too quickly shift our attention from what we are doing to what needs to be done next, “looking beyond” the present to anticipate what is next on the horizon. It is built into the nature of our work, perhaps. However, this can blind us to the enjoyment and the lessons to be found in what we are doing. The following comment from Nathaniel Branden (1995) captures the sense of this point:

    Many years ago, in the ′60s, I was writing a book called The Psychology of Self-Esteem. … I was a young man at the time, in my thirties, and one day I was sitting at my typewriter, impatient for the book to be finished, thinking that my life would really begin to unfold only when this book was finished. Yet I knew something was instinctively wrong with this line of thought. So I asked myself what I thought I would be doing when the book was finished, and I immediately answered: Planning the next book. And when that book was finished? Planning the book after that. I saw that my life, first and foremost, was about writing; that was and is my passion. So in the middle of writing The Psychology of Self-Esteem, I finally realized: This is it. This is my life. If I can't enjoy it now every day, there is no reason to believe I'll be better able to enjoy it in the future, after the seventh, eighth or ninth book. That realization was a turning point for me. (p. 81)

    Stopping the Action: Refocusing One's Journey

    At other times, we need to pause for more extended periods of time, to take stock more extensively of our efforts and our intentions. Anne Huff describes many of the issues academics face in trying to energize and sustain both their professional and personal lives. Her advice is cogent and insightful. Her personal aim to try to “balance ‘doing the work’ with being still” is one eloquent representation of the challenge. Getting in touch with our values and preferences as academics and as human beings may take more time than we have available when we are in the trenches of our work. We may feel a need to change and not have time to do anything about it. We may not even be consciously aware that it is time to change except for some feelings of discontent or burnout that are not being attended to. We may need to look at our priorities and our path because change is mandated by the end of a period in a particular role. We may need to take a more leisurely, though not passive, journey to clarify our preferences to discover what we need to do next. One important feature of a journey of renewal appears to be the availability of plenty of open space, to allow experiences and events simply to unfold. Meryl Reis Louis describes her experience as being about “discerning a path to follow rather than designing it, of following rather than pursuing a path, and of the faith and insecurity, trust, and self-consciousness that characterized my following that path” (p. 452). André Delbecq, describing his actions on stepping down as dean, notes: “For 60 days I rested, read, exercised, and meditated. It was the first real rest I had had in a decade without the obligatory daily check with the office. … At the end of these 2 months that I had allocated just for myself before serious exploration of my ‘next career,’ I felt 10 years younger” (p. 438).

    Coupled with a willingness to stop, slow down, or alter daily routines and pursuits, there seems to be a need to listen to oneself, particularly when external events emerge and require decisions or responses that may affect what one does next along the journey:

    Coming to listen to what the voice within had to offer was part of the ongoing learning. In addition to sentences and images that arose as powerful messages from within me, I found the upwelling of strong feelings of unease or peacefulness served as a guide for me during my sabbatical journey. (Meryl Reis Louis, p. 445)

    I remember the day I made the choice very well. It was a gray day and I took my 212-pound mastiff with me for a walk along the San Francisco Bay. I couldn't clearly articulate my rationale for saying no to the new deanship, but I decided to say no. I wasn't happy in my stomach saying yes. Every time I had said yes in my career when my stomach said no, I had regretted it. I sat down on a rock, looked at the bay and at my dog, Bonaparte, and said, “I am going to be a professor again.” Bonaparte was the only friend who seemed to approve of my decision. (André Delbecq, p. 440)

    The journeys of Louis and Delbecq also involved careful attention to analysis of themselves and others to identify some of the content of their exploration. Louis conducted a “life audit” on herself. Her sensitizing question was: “When have I had a sense of completeness or deep satisfaction?” Delbecq asked himself Tannenbaum's question, “What are you willing to give up to lead a healthier life?” (He asked this question at an earlier reflective period of his deanship.) Both authors examined the experiences of others. Louis “searched my friends' lives for relevant situations.” Delbecq talked with other deans who had made transitions from initial deanships. They made different decisions from one another, but “the words of each informant would return to me later when I was closer to a personal decision” (p. 438).

    Both Louis and Delbecq sought out structured experiences to enhance their renewal. They invested time and money in themselves. Louis spent time at an NTL lab and joined different interest groups that widened her experience base. Delbecq traveled to and attended executive programs taught by outstanding teachers presenting topics he would later be teaching. He also spent time visiting colleagues whom he judged to be working on the cutting edge of their subject matter. Both attended professional conferences and used them for renewal and to talk through thorny issues.

    The journey Louis describes deals with an attempt to reorient herself spiritually, personally, and professionally. Her candor and her descriptions are instructive for those who are embarking on a similar process. Delbecq, on the other hand, is most concerned with his decision about whether to stay an administrator or return to the professorial ranks. Having decided on the latter role, he focuses in his report on the strategies he used for getting his research and teaching performance back on track. His ideas are valuable for academics who are contemplating ways to upgrade their skills. He also attests to the magnitude of the challenge that faces individuals who have been out of this game for a long while: “During the 10 years I served as dean I felt I had been writing checks on my intellectual capital, but not renewing the account” (p. 441). Discussing his return as a teacher (formerly a master teacher), he says: “The course was not well organized. My jokes were too intellectual and out-of-date. … Gradually, though painfully, the “course” did emerge. It was hard work” (p. 441).

    During a time of major personal exploration and change, it seems to be particularly important to “protect the integrity” of the journey, as Louis describes it. Those outside the process are unlikely to appreciate or to understand the actions and attitudes that accompany deep change. Others tend to look for cues to confirm the previous identity of the person they have known. Their well-meaning efforts to affirm their perceptions can put an often fragile experiment at risk. Louis indicates that, in retrospect, it would probably have been more helpful to everyone if she had constructed a cover story, “that is, a clear, more complete statement of what I was up to and why I therefore needed to maintain boundaries” (p. 449).

    Returning on the Run

    Ending a sabbatical and returning to one's institution are important transition points, whatever has been the purpose of the leave. This is particularly true if one has traveled a long distance psychologically from that community. Although neither Delbecq nor Louis deals with this matter in detail, it seems likely that there is a need to acknowledge and manage the transition. This includes providing time for returnees and others to digest the lessons of the experience. Research from the expatriate training literature has some relevance here. At repatriation, most managers experience unexpected difficulties for several reasons—a sense of being left out of the loop of information while they have been gone; a feeling of having undergone many changes during the assignment, changes that sometimes generate disapproval and suspicion in colleagues; and finally, a feeling of having acquired significant new knowledge and skills that are not being used by the organization after repatriation. Many readers may recall similar feelings on returning from sabbaticals spent separated from their home universities. We suspect that both academics and their institutions would benefit from better management of the “sabbatical repatriation,” yielding scholars who are better prepared to “return on the run” after their time away.

    Again, it is possible to use the expatriate literature as a guide for the design of a functional reorientation process, including regular communications from the department during the sabbatical to keep those away in touch with the department (some academics may choose to ignore them, but at least the information would be available); verbal reminders to the individual not to underestimate the transition difficulties of the return home; flexibility in teaching assignments that allow the returnee to introduce new knowledge or methodologies acquired while away; “front-stage” opportunities, such as colloquia or brown-bag invitations to share sabbatical experiences with colleagues; and service assignments that confirm the individual's value to the department or school. We believe that judicious use of activities such as these would maximize the benefits of a return from sabbatical for both the individual and the institution.

    Future Rhythms of the Academic Enterprise

    Our final theme reflects the discussions in the last section of the book, on rhythms of the future. We highlight the following points from those discussions, although there is much more that is significant in the section that is available as readers draw their own maps of the future. It is likely that the rate of change experienced by academics and their professions and institutions will accelerate as it has for every other industry. As Janet Near points out, the demographics of business schools are changing. There is a large cohort of scholars who will retire in the next decade, and most of them are white males. It is likely that some will not be replaced, and that replacements that occur will increase the representation of women and of ethnic minorities in schools and the profession. There may be a larger proportion of part-time faculty in business schools than is currently the case. These changes will undoubtedly alter some of the emphases on what is valued in academia and how institutions are managed. There will be a greater variety of different distinctive voices in the community.

    The power shift that Near suggests from faculty members and their departments to programs and to students is already happening in many schools. It may continue. It is unlikely that we will easily return to the power arrangements of the earlier era, and academics and administrators will need to devote more time and attention to these constituents if resources are to continue to flow to scholarly agendas. As a general challenge, we need to figure out how we respond to our various and many stakeholders. As Marcia Miceli points out cogently, we need to establish what it means to have “customers” for our products and to learn how to educate customers about how our responses to them may differ from those encountered in business settings.

    We have already noted the increased visibility of teaching as an academic craft. What remains to be addressed is how this shift (and others like it) away from an exclusive focus on research is going to be managed and rewarded. It is not clear that we have a good handle on how to assess teaching and service contributions for purposes of tenuring and promoting individuals. We expect that more explicit and public processes for rewarding and training academics will be needed to meet the demands of legislators and other resource givers in the system.

    The dramatic changes in technology that continue to take place will have strong impacts on research and teaching practices. It is now much less necessary to be attached to one location in order to conduct research. Bedeian's belief in the importance of location must be refined to include virtual locations that are linked by email, fax, and teleconferencing. It is possible to build a network of colleagues that meets physically mainly at conferences. For better and worse, scholars can pursue research with the support of colleagues who are not at their home institutions. We expect, however, that proximity to mentors and colleagues who are “just down the hall” will remain an important contribution to the research environment.

    Distance education will surely challenge, likely supplement, and perhaps supplant conventional teaching methods. Just as we begin to teach doctoral students how to teach in classrooms, that task is evolving. The classroom, like the research network, may not be in the same building as the teacher. The attractiveness of connecting someone like Karl Weick or Jim March or Rosabeth Moss Kanter to a national or international audience of students is appealing and potentially lucrative to hosting institutions. It would also change or at least complement in very vital ways what and how we teach the subject matter of our field to our students. We see the electronic component of teaching as an inevitable feature of the classroom of the future. We may also need fewer people to teach, given these changes. We do not see a diminishing of importance of the academic-as-teacher, however. It is likely that the roles of teachers as facilitators and interpreters of learning to those who watch on monitors or search for knowledge electronically and as developers of learning situations will become increasingly important. Teaching the skills of investigation and assessment of the meaning of new knowledge will assume even higher importance, in our opinion.

    We think there will be competition from other institutions to educate students in business and other disciplines. We will need increasingly able administrators to manage increasingly flexible organizations. In a world of tenure, where faculty can with some impunity refuse to participate in changes that they may not perceive as important, it is and will be a challenge to move our institutions in appropriate new directions. Deans, department chairs, and other administrators will need to exhibit effective leadership skills to persuade faculty and influence commitment to new visions and practices. As academics, we are typically buffered from what deans and other boundary spanners see and experience, and we are understandably reluctant to give up hard-won freedoms and privileges. Nevertheless, the need to innovate, to think about new ways of accomplishing good research and all the other requirements of a business school of the next century, will not go away. If we do not adjust our rhythms to the needs and demands of the times, if we do not become more proactive in responding to change, others will do it for us. At the very least, we need to attract and keep active in our institutions and in the profession individuals who have the will and the skills to administer and to lead.

    References
    Branden, N. (1995, August). Nurturing the soul. New Age Journal, p. 81.
    Frost, P. J., & Stablein, R. (Eds.). (1992). Doing exemplary research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Gladwell, M. (1990, April 16). Why, in some fields, do early achievers seem to be the only kind?Washington Post, p. A3.

    Conclusion

    There is so much richness in the reports from our authors that it is difficult to do justice to all the insights they have generated. We have attended to many of these in the preceding commentary. In addition, however, we would like to note some of the “truths” that we have taken away from our reading of the essays in this book. In no particular order of importance, they are as follows:

    • As many of our contributors note, the discovery of their own voices has served as a source of great creativity, high productivity, and continuing renewal as they have moved through their careers.
    • Several contributors reference the opportunity to engage in new learning as perhaps the most critical source of their motivation. In this time of diminished resources, it seems important to remind university administrators and academics themselves of the power of this resource.
    • Academics, like most other people, have a tendency to overlook and undernourish their “nonwork” responsibilities. Many of our contributors point to the importance, although frequently retrospectively, of periodically setting aside time to put “first things first.”
    • Perhaps, not surprisingly, given the continuing expansion of role demands throughout the academic career, several contributors offer tips for dealing with the demands of an overenriched work life. Somewhat contrary to the job design literature, some note the importance of breaking tasks down to fairly small components in order to get something done each day and allow one to keep up with the workload. Such strategies clearly place the rewards for a task in its completion rather than in its process—in finishing, rather than in doing. We can't help but wonder, however, if the effectiveness of such strategies does not also explain why many incredibly productive people report deriving so little enjoyment from their work. This suggests the need to maintain a proportionality in the academic workload between those tasks that are enjoyed most because they have been completed and those that are enjoyed most simply through the process of doing them.
    • For some academics, synergies between teaching and research are frequent and direct. Not surprisingly, such individuals seem to have little trouble accepting the importance of teaching in the academic role. However, for others, perhaps because of their research areas or the level of students taught, such synergies are generally more indirect, often resulting more from the psychic energy that teaching generates, with its requirement for intense student-professor interactions, than from its intellectual requirements. Yet the current external environment makes it clear that teaching will continue to be an important, and even growing, part of the academic role. Thus it is important that synergies between teaching and research, particularly indirect ones, not be overlooked. We concur with author and professor Mary Catherine Bateson (1990), who notes, “Most of us run out of [psychic] ‘energy’ before we run out of energy. … An activity that affects vitality is not directly competitive or subtractive from other activities—on the contrary, it may enhance them” (pp. 169–170). The challenge for us as academics is to find novel ways of increasing the frequency and the directness of synergies between our teaching and research activities.
    • The very nature of an academic career requires considerable focus, self-absorption, and isolation. Thus it is not surprising to find mature and productive researchers reporting a different excitement and renewed commitment to their craft after the discovery of a collaborator or collaborators who bring new synergies at both the intellectual and affiliative levels.
    • Another unanticipated truth emerging from this volume is derived from the experiences of academics who have taken on the role of administrator for a period of time. Our authors found parts of that role onerous and demanding, and most were pleased to leave it behind after a period of time. More surprising, however, are their reports of profound changes in the ways they view the faculty role and its relationship to the institution. Even the most reluctant administrators generally argued the importance of faculty assuming the roles of administrator for a period of time.
    • The publishing process is frequently criticized for its inconsistent and political nature. Yet, as many of us have noted, criticisms of the process spring more readily from our lips when we wear our author hats than when we wear our reviewer or editor ones. Several contributions to this volume serve as reminders of the critical but largely unrecognized contributions that editors and reviewers make to the development of the organizational sciences. Journal editors comment in this volume about the thought and effort devoted to developing and implementing their own agendas to improve the publication process. They strive to minimize instances of political behavior in the process. Their actions provide a reaffirmation of the constructive aspects of the publication process. Similarly, reviewers' portrayals of the careful, conscientious manner in which they approach their tasks encourages authors to look beyond the “black box” of the publication process. These accounts challenge us to push the boundaries of our work, sharpening our methodologies, logic, and conclusions.
    • Many authors in this volume comment on the importance of renewal times in the academic career, when obsessive and career-driven academics turn off their achievement striving for a period of time and listen to their inner voices concerning what future directions they should move in with respect to career and life. We suspect that renewal periods will become even more important for academics in the future, given the pace and continuous nature of change now affecting our institutions of learning.
    • Perhaps the greatest tribute to the quality of the academic life lies in the large numbers of scholars who return to it time and time again after enjoyable sabbaticals, after demanding periods as administrators, “heady” periods as consultants, and even after retirement.

    We believe that much of the hard-won wisdom shared by our authors will prove to be a resource for those who join the community of scholars and who must deal with the challenges in the rhythms they encounter and initiate. We think there will always be a mix of creativity and instrumentality, of passion and the prosaic, in the work we do in the institutions we inhabit. The reports of our authors lead us to conclude that the field has imbued its members strong norms of initiative and integrity. We think that those among us (and we believe there will be many) who take up the challenge to reshape our forums and our practices will be encouraged, perhaps even inspired, by the energy, the capacities, and the humanity of the authors who grace these pages with their ideas, experiences, and reflections.

    We close with a quote from one of the academics interviewed by Bob Quinn and his coauthors. It reflects our own sense of academic life, from living it but also from having experienced it vicariously through this book: I think academic life is a privileged life, and I am either amused or outraged, depending on my mood, at my colleagues who have somehow persuaded themselves, and intend to persuade others, that this is a burdened, difficult kind of career. Few people can earn a living doing things that are so close to their major life interests. Instead, they end up pouring their time and their energy into tasks defined by others. As academics, we have a high degree of choice. We ought to be profoundly grateful. (p. 427)

    Reference
    Bateson, M. C. (1990). Composing a life. New York: Penguin.

    About the Editors

    Peter J. Frost is in the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration at the University of British Columbia. He holds the Edgar F. Kaiser Chair in Organizational Behavior and is a former Associate Dean of the Faculty. He is currently a senior editor for Organization Science and served for several years as Executive Director of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. He has published books on organizational culture, most recently Reframing Organizational Culture, with Larry Moore, Meryl Louis, Craig Lundberg, and Joanne Martin (1992), and on management, including Managerial Reality: Balancing Technique, Practice and Values, with Vance Mitchell and Walter Nord (1995). He has coedited a special issue of the Leadership Quarterly titled “Leadership for Environment and Social Exchange” with Carolyn Egri (October 1994) and published with Carolyn several papers on the politics of innovation. He is working with Rae Andre on the final stages of a book that showcases the reports of noted researchers on their teaching experiences, titled Hooked on Teaching. He received a 3M Teaching Excellence Fellowship in 1988, the CASE Canada Professor of the Year Award in 1989, and the David L. Bradford Outstanding Educator Award in 1993. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Management. Dr. Frost has a keen interest in the politics and processes of leadership and will shortly begin work on a project about leading in times of crisis and ambiguity. He is an avid movie fan, enjoys birding, hiking, meditating, and Scottish country dancing.

    M. Susan Taylor is Professor and Chair of the Department of Management and Organization at the College of Business and Management, University of Maryland, College Park. She received her doctorate in industrial/organizational psychology from Purdue University, was once a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, and has been a visiting faculty member at the Amos Tuck School, Dartmouth College, SDA Boconni University in Milan, Italy, and the University of Washington, Seattle. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of Management Journal, and is a past Chair (1994) of the Human Resources Division within the National Academy of Management. Her current research focuses on the effects of procedurally just human resource systems on the reactions of employees and managers and on the determinants of managers' career mobility. With the editing of this volume completed, she looks forward to taking more frequent outdoor romps with her cocker spaniel, Cassandra; to relocating her tennis serve; and to searching for her Scottish-Irish ancestors in their homelands.

    About the Contributors

    Mats Alvesson works in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Lund, Sweden. He is engaged in the areas of organizational culture and symbolism, critical theory, communication, power, and gender. He has also written (with Kaj Sköldberg) on philosophy of science and qualitative method, and tries to relate these two themes through pragmatizing the former and intellectualizing (detechnifying) the latter. He is currently writing a book on organization and gender (with Yvonne Billing) and another on method in critical management research (with Stan Deetz). He lives in Copenhagen, Denmark, and commutes to his workplace. He and his wife, Yvonne Billing, have recently adopted Miha, a little girl from Vietnam.

    Susan J. Ashford received her PhD degree in organizational behavior from Northwestern University and currently serves as Professor on the Business School faculty at the University of Michigan. She joined the Michigan faculty in 1991, after spending 8 years at Dartmouth College's Amos Tuck School of Business Administration. Her research focuses on the ways that individuals are proactive in their organizational lives, whether in assessing their own performance by seeking feedback, enhancing their managerial effectiveness by staying “tuned in” to various constituents, facilitating their own socialization during organizational entry, or attempting to sell particular issues to top management from the middle ranks of organizations. Her work has been published in a variety of outlets, including the Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Research in Organizational Behavior. A member of the Academy of Management Journal editorial board since 1984, she served as a consulting editor for AMJ from 1990 to 1993 and has reviewed for several other journals.

    Jean M. Bartunek is Professor and Chairperson of the Organizational Studies Department at Boston College. Her substantive research interests concern the varieties of ways social cognition, conflict, and organizational change and transformation might intersect. Currently she is particularly interested in ways external researchers and insider members of a particular setting can collaborate in carrying out research there, and she has been involved in a number of joint insider-outsider research projects. She and Meryl Louis are currently completing a book on insider-outsider joint research teams to be published in Sage's Qualitative Research Methods series. She is a true midwesterner—she grew up in Cleveland and went to high school in Cincinnati, college in St. Louis, and graduate school in Chicago—but she has worked in the Northeast, at Boston College, since 1977. She is a member of the Society of the Sacred Heart, an international Catholic religious congregation. Prior to her graduate training in social and organizational psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, she was an elementary and high school teacher.

    Arthur G. Bedeian (DBA, 1973, Mississippi State University) is the Ralph and Kacoo Olinde Distinguished Professor of Management, and Chairman, Department of Management, at Louisiana State University, where he specializes in the study of organization design and employee behavior. A Past President of the Academy of Management, he has also been President of the Allied Southern Business Association, the Southern Management Association, the Southeastern Institute for Decision Sciences, and the Foundation for Administrative Research. He was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Management in 1979 and of the International Academy of Management in 1992. In 1987 he received the Distinguished Scholar Award from the Southern Management Association. He is a former editor of the Journal of Management, and his work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Academy of Management Review, Applied Psychological Measurement, Personnel Psychology, Strategic Management Journal, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. In addition to being author of a text on the principles of management, he is coauthor of Organization Design: Structure, Strategy, and Environment. Both texts have appeared in numerous international and foreign-language editions. Dr. Bedeian has received numerous teaching awards as well as the 1991 LSU Alumni Association Distinguished Faculty Award. He has been involved in management development and consulting for the Veterans Administration, CBS College Publishing, the U.S. Air Force, and the LSU Executive Program. He currently serves as a member of the Fulbright Scholar Advisory Committee in Business Administration. Taking his own advice about “having fun,” he is an avid golfer, a 1950s rock ‘n’ roll aficionado, and a long-time jogger. He still, however, feels guilty watching television.

    Janice M. Beyer is Rebecca L. Gale Professor in Business, Professor of Sociology, and Director of the Center for Organizations Research at the University of Texas at Austin. She earned a Bachelor of Music degree at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, and MS and PhD degrees in organizational behavior from Cornell University. She is currently Past President of the International Federation of Scholarly Associations in Management. Previously, she has served as President of the Academy of Management and as editor of the Academy of Management Journal. She has also held a variety of editorial positions on other journals and administrative positions in other professional associations. She is especially interested in exploring the effects of people's individual and shared cognitions. In this vein, her early research investigated the effects of paradigm development in scientific fields, scientific journals, and universities. Her later work has looked at how managerial ideologies and values influence decision making. Her current research centers on organizational cultures, how individuals' self-concepts are shaped during organizational socialization, and the social values reflected in imagery about child care for working parents. She has two beautiful daughters—Claire, a veterinarian, and Andrea, a lawyer—and five delightful grandchildren.

    Stewart R. Clegg studied behavioral science (sociology) at Aston University, graduating in 1971. He received his PhD from Bradford in 1974, after which he received a postdoctoral research fellowship from the European Group for Organization Studies. He moved to Australia for a job in 1976 and has been there ever since, apart from an interregnum in Scotland in the early 1990s. He has held chairs at the University of New England in sociology, 1985–1989; the University of St. Andrews in organization studies, 1990–1993; and the Foundation Chair in Management at the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, 1993-, as well as having been Reader at Griffith University, where he worked from 1976 to 1984. He was a founder of Asian and Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies in the early 1980s, and has been the coeditor of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology as well as editor of a leading European journal, Organization Studies. He serves on the editorial boards of many other leading journals. Among the 15 books he has published are Power, Rule and Domination (1975), Organization, Class and Control (1980, with David Dunkerley), Frameworks of Power (1989), Organization Theory and Class Analysis (1989), Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World (1990), and Capitalism in Contrasting Cultures (1990). He has published widely in the journals, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Studies, Organization, Organization Science, Sociological Review, Theory and Society, and British Journal of Management He researched “the leadership and management needs of embryonic industries” for the Taskforce on Leadership and Management in the Twenty-First Century, commissioned by the Australian federal government, which reported in 1995, and has been Head of the Department of Management and Marketing since his appointment at the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, in 1993.

    Allan R. Cohen is Academic Vice President and Dean of Faculty at Babson College, where he is responsible for academic activities including undergraduate and MBA programs, the School of Executive Education, and the development of 120 full-time faculty. Previously, he was gainfully employed as chaired Professor of Management, at Babson and the University of New Hampshire, teaching organizational behavior, negotiations, and other courses aimed at helping aspiring and current managers learn skills required by those in positions such as academic vice president. In the spirit of continuous learning, he persists in conceptualizing about management. His books include Managing for Excellence and Influence Without Authority (both coauthored with David Bradford); The Portable MBA in Management (editor); Alternative Work Schedules (coauthored with Herman Gadon), winner of the 1978 ASPA best book prize; and six editions of a textbook, Effective Behavior in Organizations (written with Fink, Gadon, and Willits), that introduced the classroom-as-organization to teaching organizational behavior. His consulting clients have included General Electric, Digital Equipment, Polaroid, and Lafarge Coppee, few of which seem to have suffered permanent damage. His education includes an AB in English literature from Amherst College, MBA and DBA from Harvard, and an applied behavioral science internship from National Training Labs.

    Marcy Crary is an Associate Professor of Management at Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts. She in involved in an institutional diversity change project at Bentley and team teaches a course called Managing Diversity in the Workplace with three other colleagues. Her personal and professional development is tied to the challenges of making the classroom and workplace more inclusive environments. She admires an elder who, when describing her life, said, “I never tried to have a ‘career’—I just worked on what interested me.” Dr. Crary is 43, married, and has an 8-year-old at home and two stepchildren in their 20s. She lives in Newton, Massachusetts, where she is currently involved in holding it all together. She is enjoying this challenge and all it is teaching her.

    Larry L. Cummings is Professor of Management and Organization at the University of Minnesota. Formerly, he served as the J. L. Kellogg Professor of Organizational Behavior at Northwestern University and as the Slichter Research Professor, H. I. Romnes Faculty Fellow, and Director of the Center for the Study of Organizational Performance in the Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin—Madison. He also has served as an Associate Dean of the Graduate School there. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of organizational behavior, organizational theory, and management. He is author, coauthor, or coeditor of 24 books and has published more than 120 journal articles, which have appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Psychological Bulletin, and other scholarly journals. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, a Charter Fellow of the American Psychological Society, and a Fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute and has served as President (1980–1981) of the Academy of Management as well as Dean (1990–1993) of the Fellows of the Academy. He is a founding member and past Chair (1992) of the Society of Organizational Behavior. In 1995 he was awarded the Distinguished Educator Award by the Academy of Management.

    Gelaye Debebe is a doctoral student in the Department of Organizational Behavior at the University of Michigan Business School. She received her BS in political science from the University of Maryland and her MS in human resources development from the American University. Her major research interest is in the organizational dimensions of economic development activities in both domestic and international contexts. Her experiences living in Ethiopia, Liberia, and the United States have led her to become increasingly interested in the ways in which cultural differences pose some interesting issues for how we think about the organizing problems inherent in the economic development process, where organizations embedded in different cultural and technological contexts attempt to cooperate.

    André L. Delbecq is Professor of Management in the Leavey School of Business and Administration at Santa Clara University, where he served as Dean from 1979 to 1989. During his career his research interests have focused on three topics: executive decision-making processes, organization structure and design, and managing innovation in science-driven organizations. Recently he has conducted extensive research with CEOs in technology firms, which has included both professional challenges and a study of role impact on personal and family life. He has also done research on the business culture of Silicon Valley and the reasons for its innovative character. He has served on the Board of Governors and as chair of three divisions of the Academy of Management, and as President of the Midwest and Western Divisions. In 1975 he was elected Fellow of the Academy of Management and is currently the eighth Dean of Fellows. He is an avid sailor and lives at the water's edge in Alameda, where he and his wife, Mili, welcome their four children and six grandchildren to summer boating adventures on the San Francisco Bay.

    Robert B. Duncan is currently the J. L. Kellogg Distinguished Professor of Strategy and Organizations and Chair of the Organization Behavior Department at Northwestern University. From 1987 to 1992, he served as the Provost of Northwestern, the chief operating officer of the university, responsible for the operating budget, educational policy, academic planning, and faculty personnel. All 10 of Northwestern's schools and their associated academic programs report through the Provost, who also serves as acting president in the absence of the president. Dr. Duncan teaches extensively in Kellogg's executive programs, where his courses include strategy implementation and the management of strategic change. He is also a Faculty Director of the Advanced Executive Program, which is Kellogg's 4-week program for senior managers. He is the author of numerous journal articles and two books: Innovations and Organizations (with G. Zaltman and J. Holbeck, 1977). His research deals with strategy formulation and implementing strategic change. His most recent research focuses on how top management shapes corporate strategy, with a specific emphasis on how CEOs develop and implement corporate strategic visions. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Management and served as its President in 1983. He has been on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Executive, Administrative Science Quarterly, and the Strategic Management Journal. He is a frequent consultant to senior management and chief executive officers on strategy formulation, managing corporate culture, organizational design, and implementing strategic change.

    Jane E. Dutton is Professor of Organization Behavior and Corporate Strategy at the University of Michigan Business School. Her major research interest is in the area of organizational change, an interest sparked 20 years ago when she worked as a research assistant on an NSF-funded study of innovation adoption in the footwear industry. Her experience as a research assistant hooked her and prompted her to travel to Evanston, Illinois, to attend Northwestern's PhD program. Today she looks at organizational change through a lens that sits at the intersection of micro organization behavior and strategic management. She is fascinated by the question of how organizational strategy affects the everyday behaviors of organizational members, and how members contribute to changes in organizational strategy. In her role as coeditor of Advances in Strategic Management (with Paul Shrivastava and Anne Huff), she is committed to opening up the conversation about theories relevant to strategic management. She is currently adjusting to her new role as Chair of the Organization Behavior and Human Resource Management Department. She is married to Lance Sandelands and they have two wonderful daughters, ages 8 and 11.

    Miriam Erez is Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, where she also serves as Dean of the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management. Her research focuses on two major areas: work motivation, with an emphasis on participation in goal setting; and cross-cultural organizational behavior, with an emphasis on the differential effects of motivational techniques across cultures. Her research in the first area examines the mediating processes between the motivational technique and performance quantity and quality, as well as the boundary conditions of the goal-setting method; this line of research has been expanded from the individual to the group level of analysis. She is the coauthor of two books and coeditor of two others on culture and organizational behavior, and has published more than 50 articles and book chapters. She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. She serves on the editorial boards of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Human Performance and is associate editor of Applied Psychology: An International Review. She is President-Elect of the Division of Organizational Psychology of the International Association of Applied Psychology.

    Päivi Eriksson is Senior Research Fellow and Docent in Management and Marketing at the School of Business Administration, University of Tampere, Finland. She completed her doctoral degree at the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration in 1991. She has worked at the Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research at Stanford University, at the University of Tampere, and at the Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change at the Warwick Business School in the United Kingdom. She has published on management of change and organizational aspects of professional expertise and has presented papers at numerous European and international conferences and workshops, including the meetings of the British Academy of Management. Central themes in her research include the logics of action and the interaction of different management groups as well as the historical development of the confectionery industry. She is currently leading a 3-year research project on management and professional expertise funded by the Academy of Finland, and is also working on several comparative research projects in cooperation with researchers from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.

    Cynthia V. Fukami is Associate Professor and Chair in the Department of Management in the College of Business Administration, University of Denver. She teaches organizational behavior and human resources management and has conducted research in the areas of employee commitment, turnover, absenteeism, employee discipline, and total quality management. She was awarded the 1992 Willemssen Distinguished Research Professorship by US WEST and the University of Denver, and was the recipient of the University of Denver's 1992 Distinguished Teaching Award. She is a member of the Academy of Management, the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society, the Industrial Relations Research Association, and the Society of Industrial Psychologists. She received her PhD from Northwestern University.

    Joan V. Gallos is Associate Professor in the Division of Urban Leadership and Policy Studies in Education, School of Education, University of Missouri, Kansas City, where she teaches courses in organizations, power and influence, leadership, and gender. Raised in a tight-knit Slovak community in New Jersey, she was educated in parochial schools and at Princeton (BA in English, cum laude) and Harvard (EdM and EdD, with a concentration in organizational theory and behavior). She is currently editor of the Journal of Management Education, a dedicated wife and the mother of two sons, a member of the board of directors of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society, an avid dog lover and dalmatian owner, and a member of the national steering committee for the joint AACSB-GMAC New Models of Management Education project. When she is not teaching, reading books with her children, or fantasizing about her comeback as a cabaret singer, she can be found at her computer, writing. She has published widely on management education, performance and learning, gender, and individual development; has just completed a book on teaching workplace diversity (with V. Jean Ramsey) and is currently hard at work on another book about the art and craft of good teaching.

    Connie J. G. Gersick is Associate Professor at the Anderson Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her first profession, as a college administrator, reflected her interest in women's career development. She was on the staffs of Radcliffe's Offices of Admissions and Women's Education, and she directed Yale's Office on the Education of Women before earning her PhD there, in organizational behavior. Her research and writing have centered on theories of punctuated equilibrium at multiple levels of analysis and on growth, change, creative adaptation, and timing in human systems from project groups to start-up companies. She has used both field and laboratory methods. Most recently, she has edited an anthology of articles on groups in the workplace. Her collaboration with Jane Dutton and Jean Bartunek addresses her long-standing fascination with adult development and returns to her particular interest in women's issues. She and her husband, an organizational psychologist, have a son in college and a daughter in high school.

    Marilyn E. Gist is Professor at the University of Washington, where she teaches at all levels, including executive degree and nondegree programs. She earned a bachelor's degree in education from Howard University and an MBA and PhD in business administration from the University of Maryland. Her research interests center on the study of self-regulatory factors in motivation and training. Her background includes several years' experience as a manager in both the public and private sectors. In addition, she has served as a consultant or trainer in the areas of performance motivation, career development, managing cultural diversity, and managerial assessment and development. She is a widely published scholar; in recent years her articles have appeared in Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Management.

    Royston Greenwood is the AGT Professor of Strategic Management in the Department of Organizational Analysis, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta. He is a cofounder of the Centre for Professional Service Firm Management. His research is concentrated on the management of professional service firms, and recently he has been particularly concerned with the development of new organizational forms at the global level. He is very involved with local business in Edmonton. He spends his time working with Bob Hinings and coaching girls' soccer. His teams have won gold medals at the provincial level and silver and bronze at the national level.

    C. R. Hinings is the Thornton A. Graham Professor of Business in the Department of Organizational Analysis, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Director of the PhD Programme, and Director of the Centre for Professional Service Firm Management. He is on the editorial boards of Administration Science Quarterly and Organization Studies. His research is focused on understanding processes of strategic change in organizations, with special concentration on professional service firms, he spends his time working with Royston Greenwood, interacting with his seven grandchildren, and attending St. Paul's Anglican Church.

    Anne Sigismund Huff is Professor of Strategic Management at the University of Colorado and Cranfield University. She has an MA in sociology and a PhD in management from Northwestern University. Her research interests focus on strategic change. She has used cognitive mapping to understand more about the thinking processes associated with change, has looked at group political processes as an important component of organizational change processes, and has considered industry-level causes and consequences of change. Her publications include articles and chapters on these topics as well as a book, Mapping Strategic Thought (1990). She is currently on the editorial boards of the Strategic Management Journal and the British Journal of Management, and is a senior editor for Organization Science. She also helps to edit two book series: Advances in Strategic Management and Foundations for Organizational Science.

    James G. (Jerry) Hunt is Paul Whitfield Horn Professor of Management, Professor of Health Organization Management, Management Department Chair, and Director of the Program in Leadership Studies in the Institute for Management and Leadership Research at Texas Tech University, where he has been since 1981. He received his doctorate from the University of Illinois in 1966, back when the “new look” business administration programs that have so strongly affected the field were first being put in place. The systematic study of organizational behavior and organization theory in business schools was barely more than a glimmer in scholars' eyes, and work crossing cultural borders was not even that. By the late 1970s, however, developments were such that he first seriously considered working across national, if not cultural, borders, and in 1980 visited for a semester at the University of Aston in Birmingham, England. That led to his co-organizing leadership symposia in 1983 and 1985, emphasizing international work. Since the late 1980s, his international work has involved the Finnish connection described in his essay in this volume, where he has worked closely with coauthor Arja Ropo and more recently with Päivi Eriksson and has had professional and personal contacts with several other Finns. His career journey discussions have been strongly influenced by international collaborations such as they describe.

    Susan E. Jackson is currently Professor of Management at New York University. She received her MA and PhD degrees from the University of California at Berkeley and her undergraduate degree from the University of Minnesota at Morris. Since beginning her academic career, she has moved back and forth between holding faculty positions in psychology (first at the University of Maryland and most recently at New York University) and in management/organizational behavior/human resources management (at New York University, then at the University of Michigan, and now again at New York University). Her research interests and publications mirror this dual orientation and span a variety of topics, including strategic human resources management and its relationship to firm performance, group processes within diverse work teams, job stress and burnout, as well as a few other topics. Recently, her energies have been split between service activities for the Academy of Management (these have included serving as editor of the Academy of Management Review and holding various offices in the OB Division), writing and editing several books, and relearning the unique skill of teaching organizational behavior to MBAs. Unconfirmed rumors indicate that she has a variety of interests that keep her busy outside the office as well.

    John M. Jermier is Professor of Organizational Behavior in the College of Business at the University of South Florida. His PhD is from the Ohio State University. Much of his work has focused on the development of a critical science of organizations, with a particular interest in research philosophy and methodology. Currently, he serves on the editorial review boards of Administrative Science Quarterly, Leadership Quarterly, and Organization Science, and he is coeditor of Organization & Environment. He looks forward to the day when the dolphins once again dominate the sea at Indian Shores, to the day when basketball replaces baseball as the American national pastime, and to the day when a complete anthology of Bob Marley's music is released on compact disc. He also looks forward to the day when the majority of the people of the state of Florida begin to value education, when a genuine third party emerges in the United States to represent the interests of the exploited, and when a global consciousness replaces provincialism in the minds of the many.

    Toni C. King is an educator whose focus is human relationships and interaction. She has a PhD in organizational behavior from Case Western Reserve University, a master of arts degree in guidance and counseling from The Ohio State University, and a bachelor of arts degree in psychology from Oklahoma State University. Her research on African American female bonding relationships and on cross-race relationships among women has led to the development of numerous presentations, workshops, and curriculum design. She is currently an Assistant Professor within the Division of Human Development in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at Binghamton. She teaches courses at the graduate and undergraduate levels in group dynamics, multicultural diversity, and gender in organizations. In these courses she utilizes an interdisciplinary approach, drawing upon counseling competencies, group process skills, and systems analysis to explore race, class, and gender in society. Her work is based on the philosophy that relational bonds have high potential to promote personal growth and to motivate behaviors that contradict forms of oppression based on differences (race, class, gender, sexuality). Her work as an educator and researcher seeks to further understanding and enhancement of human relationships.

    Roderick M. Kramer is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. He received his PhD in social psychology from UCLA in 1985. His research focuses on decision making in conflict situations, such as social dilemmas, negotiations, and international disputes. Most recently, his research has explored the role of cognitive illusions in conflicts and the dynamics of trust and distrust in organizations. His work has appeared in journals such as the Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Journal of Conflict Resolution, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. He is coeditor, with David Messick, of Negotiation as a Social Process (1995) and, with Tom Tyler, of Trust in Organizations (1995). He teaches courses on organizational conflict, negotiation, group decision making, and power and politics, as well as an introductory course on organizational behavior.

    Huseyin Leblebici is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He received his MBA and PhD from the same institution. After receiving his PhD, he went back to his native Turkey to teach at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, with no idea that he would be back to the University of Illinois. He has been an editorial board member of Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, and Organizational Science. For the past 7 years he has been working on projects that attempt to understand the essence of organizing. He has focused on questions of how our collective rules and resources come together and generate organized patterns of activities, and how this process can be described within a grammar of organizing. He is married and has two daughters.

    Edwin A. Locke is Professor of Business and Management and of Psychology at the University of Maryland. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University in 1960 and his MA and PhD degrees in industrial psychology from Cornell University in 1962 and 1964, respectively. He is the author of A Guide to Effective Study (1975), Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works (with G. Latham, 1984), Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings (1986), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance (with G. Latham, 1990), and The Essence of Leadership (with others, 1991). He is an internationally known behavioral scientist whose work is included in leading textbooks and acknowledged in books on the history of management. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, of the American Psychological Society, and of the Academy of Management, and is a member of the Society of Organizational Behavior. He is on the editorial boards of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and the Journal of Applied Psychology. In 1993 he received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

    Meryl Reis Louis is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Boston University's School of Management. For 5 years, she was also a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Applied Social Science at Boston University. Prior to returning to UCLA for a PhD in the organizational sciences, she served on the management consulting staff of Arthur Andersen & Co. and worked as a paraprofessional counselor at a community mental health center in Los Angeles. Her research has focused on workplace cultures, career transitions, organizational entry and socialization, and cognitive processes of people in work settings. For 10 years, she studied “life after MBA school” with a panel of graduates from four major MBA programs. She has long advocated supplementing traditional positivist approaches with interpretive approaches to organizational research. Most recently, she has been exploring issues of community and spirituality as they may be relevant to the workplace and her life. She serves as a member of the leader corps of the Foundation for Community Encouragement, an organization that provides community-building workshops and related assistance to the public and to intact groups.

    Joanne Martin is the Fred H. Merrill Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business and, by courtesy, in the Department of Sociology, Stanford University. She has been at Stanford since 1977. She recently served as Director of the Graduate School of Business's seven doctoral programs. Her PhD in social psychology is from the Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University. Her current research interests include organizational culture, with particular emphasis on subcultural identities and ambiguities; judgments about the justice of unequal pay levels; and gender and race in organizations as subtle barriers to acceptance and advancement. Her most recent books are Reframing Organizational Culture, coedited and cowritten with Peter Frost, Larry Moore, Meryl Louis, and Craig Lundberg (1991), and Cultures in Organizations (1992).

    Robert D. Marx is Associate Professor of Management at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is the coauthor of Management Live! The Video Book and the 1991 recipient of the Bradford Outstanding Educator Award from the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. His research efforts have focused on the problem of skill retention following management development programs. He has published on the topic of relapse prevention in management training in numerous journals, including the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management Development, and the Training and Development Journal. His recent writing has focused on the optimal use of video in management education and the development of classroom activities to teach awareness of race and gender inequities in the workplace. He has recently taught MBA classes in Russia and Greece, and has traveled also to South Africa and China. He consults with many organizations on issues of leadership, communication, teamwork, and improving skill retention in management training.

    Alan D. Meyer is the Cone Professor of Management at the University of Oregon. He received his BA in economics from the University of Washington and his doctorate in organizational behavior and industrial relations from the University of California, Berkeley. He is senior editor of organization theory and design for Organization Science. Previously, he has served as consulting editor for the Academy of Management Journal, and as a member of the editorial boards of AMJ and Administrative Science Quarterly He likes using multiple research methods and collecting data by talking with informants on their own turf. He is interested in organizational behavior away from equilibrium, which leads him to ask questions that cross levels of analysis, address temporal changes, and focus on cognitive events in organizations. His early work focused on reactions to “environmental jolts” when a doctors' strike against San Francisco hospitals set up a natural experiment in organizational change. He is now studying the impacts of quantum changes in the structure and boundaries of the health care, electric utility, and savings and loan industries. Before entering academia, he worked as an industrial engineer, a market researcher, and a ski instructor. He currently is training a new golden retriever puppy to neutralize reviewers' unkind barbs.

    Marcia P. Miceli is Senior Associate Dean for Academic Programs and Professor of Human Resources in the Max M. Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University. Her research interests are currently in the process of transition. She remains interested in learning why whistle-blowing occurs and the consequences it has for individuals and organizations, and in the factors that determine pay satisfaction. Her spending the past 5 years in administrative positions has stimulated interests in many new areas. With Janet Near, she wrote Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies and Employees (1992). She has taught courses in human resources management, compensation, and staffing, and has served on the editorial boards of Academy of Management Review and Journal of Management. Her doctorate of business administration degree was awarded by Indiana University in 1982.

    Raymond E. Miles is Eugene E. and Catherine M. Trefethen Professor of Organizational Behavior and Dean Emeritus in the Walter A. Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. He joined the faculty in 1963, after receiving his PhD in organizational behavior and industrial relations at Stanford University. He served as Dean of the Walter A. Haas School of Business from 1983 to 1990. He has also served as Director of the Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California at Berkeley and as editor of the journal Industrial Relations. He has been a Visiting Professor at the Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College and at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Texas, Austin, and a Visiting Scientist at the Tavistock Institute in London. He has been consultant to numerous private, public, labor, and academic organizations across the United States and throughout the world. For the past 10 years, his research and writing have focused on the interaction of organizational strategy, structure, and managerial processes. The conceptual framework and organizational typology emerging from this research (done in conjunction with Professor Charles C. Snow of Pennsylvania State University and others) are broadly used and have stimulated a continuing research stream. Dr. Miles is a Fellow of the Academy of Management and a regular participant in its programs, including its doctoral consortia. He was a founding member of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society (Berkeley, 1974). He is the author of five books and more than 50 articles and chapters. He has lectured in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Latin America.

    John A. Miller is Professor of Organization and Management at Bucknell University and serves as Executive Director of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. He received his BA with honors in economics and international relations from Stanford, did graduate work in languages and literature at the University of Munich (Germany), and received his MBA from the European Institute of Business Administration (INSEAD, France). His PhD in management is from the University of Rochester. He taught management at INSEAD, Rochester, and Yale prior to going to work at Bucknell. Although he has been active as a researcher and consultant on managerial career development, leadership, organizational politics, organization design, and team management for a number of business and service organizations in the United States, Europe, and Africa, his current scholarly, consulting, and teaching interests are focused on developing active, problem-based, and collaborative pedagogical methods designed to meet the special needs of undergraduate management students. He directed an interdisciplinary “Technologies of Management” curriculum and software development project funded by the General Electric Educational Foundation, and currently directs a collaborative learning laboratory project funded by Johnson & Johnson and Andersen Consulting. He established Management 101, Bucknell's popular undergraduate management project course, in 1979. He has designed and taught versions of MG 101 at various universities in the United States and abroad, including Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, and the École Supérieure de Commerce in Tours, France. He has received teaching and community service prizes, but claims that his greatest rewards, and his own most productive experiential learning, have come from MG 101, from OBTS, and from music. He served as musical director and conductor for a number of Stanford's musical theater productions, and as Director of the Stanford Men's Glee Club and of a choral society in France. He has sung with community chorales in Germany, France, New Haven, and Pennsylvania's Susquehanna Valley.

    Philip H. Mirvis is an organizational psychologist whose research and private practice concern large-scale organizational change and the character of the workforce and workplace. A regular contributor to academic and professional journals, he has authored six books, including Failures in Organization Development and Change, a study of national attitudes, The Cynical Americans, and, most recently, a survey of corporate human resource strategies, Building the Competitive Workforce. He has led seminars all over the United States, addressed many university faculties and professional groups, and lectured throughout Europe and in China, India, Japan, Latvia, and Russia. His consulting work concerns organizational development, the human side of mergers and acquisitions, innovation and technological change, corporate social responsibility, environmental practices, and cultural change. His corporate clients include Ben & Jerry's, Hewlett-Packard, Unisys, Chemical Bank, Caterpillar Tractor, and Graphic Controls. He has also studied organization and human resources issues in government and the nonprofit sector, where his clients include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the National Association of Meal Providers, the National Council on Aging, and U.S. Aid for International Development. He also leads outdoor management education programs, contributes to seminars by the American Management Association and Federal Executive Institute, and is a member of the board of directors of the Foundation for Community Encouragement. He has a BA from Yale University and a PhD in organizational psychology from the University of Michigan. He lives in Sandy Spring, Maryland, with his wife, Katherine Farquhar; three daughters, Alexa, Lucy, and Suzanne; and assorted animals—domestic and wild.

    Vance F. Mitchell entered this world on March 30, 1923, in Baltimore, Maryland, as the caboose fifth child of a Presbyterian minister. His father, like himself, earned his PhD while raising a young family. His nearest brother was 8 years his senior, and the others were already grown and out in the world, so for the latter part of his childhood he was the only nestling. He attended public school through grade 9 and West Nottingham Academy in Maryland for the remainder of his secondary education. The rest of his education and progressions through the U.S. Air Force and academe you already know if you have read his chapter in this volume. His hobbies, until recently, included fishing and boating. Now his recreation is mostly confined to reading, his two sons, his grandson, baking bread in a bread machine, and the many interesting places his position with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University takes him. In June 1995 he and his wife celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary. He has no idea what his fourth career will be, but he hopes that whatever it is, it is as rewarding as the first three have been.

    William H. Mobley is Visiting Professor of Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Professor of Human Resources Management at Texas A&M University. He returned to faculty life in 1994 after serving for more than 14 years in various administrative roles, including department head, dean, vice chancellor, president, and chancellor. He is best known for his research on employee motivation, employee turnover, and human resources management. Most recently, he has been focusing on strategy and human resources management and on international human resources issues. A Fellow of the American Psychological Society and the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, he also is a member of the Academy of Management and the Academy of International Business. He grew up in Ohio and earned his doctorate at the University of Maryland in 1971. He served as head of HR Research and Planning at PPG Industries before starting his faculty career in 1973. He serves on a number of corporate and foundation boards and is President of PDI's International Institute for Research and Applications. He and his wife, Jayne, have two daughters and three grandchildren.

    Ray V. Montagno received his PhD in industrial/organizational psychology in 1980 from Purdue University. He has a master's degree from Western Michigan University and his undergraduate degree is from the University of Dayton. He is currently Professor of Management at Bail State University, where his responsibilities include teaching courses at the graduate and undergraduate levels in the areas of human resources management, organizational behavior, international management, and research methodology. He also serves as Chair of the College of Business Committee on Internationalization, a position focused on improving the level of international activity for students and faculty, as well as outreach to the business community. He has completed more than 40 publications on numerous organizational topics, including manufacturing strategies, fostering innovation within organizations, job design, small business management, and productivity measurement. His publications have appeared in such outlets as Strategic Management Journal Journal of Small Business Management, International Journal of Production Research, Training and Development Journal, and Academy of Management Journal His current research interests include global competitiveness and organizational strategy to improve performance. He has also served as a reviewer for numerous journals, professional organizations, and publishers. He has served as an adviser to state, community, and university boards and committees and has provided consulting services to a broad spectrum of organizations, including hospitals, small businesses, governments, and Fortune 500 companies.

    J. Keith Murnighan is the W. J. Van Dusen Professor at the University of British Columbia. In the fall of 1996, he will become the Harold H. Hines Jr. Distinguished Professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He received his PhD in social psychology from Purdue University, and taught at the University of Illinois for 19 years before moving to UBC. His research focuses on negotiation and interpersonal interaction, and currently addresses altruism, fairness, cooperation, and repentance. His work has appeared in many journals, in organizational behavior, social psychology, and economics. His recent books include Bargaining Games: A New Approach to Strategic Thinking in Negotiations (1992) and an edited volume, Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research (1993). He currently serves as associate editor of the Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Kevin R. Murphy is Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University. He has held regular or visiting positions at Rice University, New York University, the University of Stockholm, and University of California, Berkeley. He received his BA (1974) from Siena College, his MS (1976) from Rensselaer Polytechnic University, and his PhD (1979) from the Pennsylvania State University, all in psychology. He is a Fulbright scholar, has served as a member of two National Academy of Sciences committees, and is a member of the Department of Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing. He serves as associate editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology and as a member of the editorial boards of Personnel Psychology, Human Performance, and International Journal of Selection and Assessment. He is the author of more than 50 articles and book chapters and author or editor of four books: Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications (with C. Davidshofer), Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice (with F. Saal), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective (with J. Cleveland), and Honesty in the Workplace. His research interests include performance appraisal, judgment and decision making, honesty in the workplace, and research methodology. He has collaborated with Jan Cleveland on several books and chapters on performance appraisal, but their most successful collaboration has been their long and happy marriage.

    Nancy K. Napier (PhD, Ohio State University) is currently Professor of Management and International Business at Boise State University, where she also oversees the College of Business and Economics International Business Programs, including the university's Vietnam MBA program. She previously has held the positions of Chairman of the Management Department and Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs at Boise State. Her research interests include international human resources management and women working overseas. Her publications have appeared in such journals as Strategic Management Journal, Sloan Management Review, Journal of International Management, and Journal of Management Inquiry. With Sully Taylor, she recently published Western Women Working in Japan: Breaking Corporate Barriers (1995).

    Janet P. Near is Dow Professor of Management, School of Business, Adjunct Professor, Sociology Department, and Adjunct Professor, Philanthropic Studies Department, Indiana University. Her research focuses on the effects of organization structure on people, most recently in two areas: the effects of whistle-blowing on both the organization and the whistle-blower and the effects of work life on life away from work. She teaches organization theory, design, and development. She has been Chairperson of the Department of Management for the past 5 years, where she has had a chance to participate in organization theory issues on a daily basis. She escaped from teenage experience with family business to academia via undergraduate school at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in an independent major (psychology of power) and graduate school at the State University of New York, Buffalo, in sociology. Her husband is a faculty member in pharmacology who teaches medical students about drugs. They have two sons, ages 7 and 11.

    Stella M. Nkomo in Professor in the Department of Management in the Belk College of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on race and gender in organizations. With Ella Bell, she is completing a book, Our Separate Ways: Life Journeys of Black and White Women in Corporate America. In her fifth year of teaching at the University of North Carolina, she received the University's Teaching Excellence Award. She offers this reflection on that experience: “When I was told that I would be receiving the award, I experienced a range of feelings from extreme joy to extreme anxiety. My feelings of anxiety seemed strange until I realized that my anxiety stemmed from two things. First, those who are fortunate to get teaching awards are usually expected to have profound and illuminating insights into the art of teaching. I had nightmares about what I would say when the time came to answer that dreaded question. Second, I realized that receiving the award placed a tremendous burden upon me for repeat performances. I had to sustain the level of performance that led to the award or otherwise risk the utterances of disbelieving new students—Is she really the one who received the teaching award?”

    Walter R. Nord is Professor of Management at the University of South Florida. Previously, he was affiliated with Washington University-St. Louis (1967–1989). His current interests center on developing a critical political economic perspective of organizations, organizational innovation, and organizational conflict. He has published widely in scholarly journals and has edited/authored a number of books. His recent books include The Meanings of Occupational Work (with A. Brief), Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations (with S. Tucker), Organizational Reality: Reports From the Firing Line (with P. Frost and V. Mitchell), and Resistance and Power in Organizations (with J. Jermier and D. Knights). He is currently coeditor of Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal and a recent past book review editor for the Academy of Management Review. He has served as consultant on organizational development and change for a variety of groups and organizations. He is currently coediting the Handbook of Organization Studies (with S. Clegg and C. Hardy).

    Judy D. Olian is Professor of Management and Organization and Associate Dean at the Maryland Business School, University of Maryland. In this role she is responsible for all faculty issues, academic programs, technology support, and administrative oversight of the college. Her research interests include strategic human resources management and especially the alignment of organizational systems with business strategies. She has published widely in these areas. She is a member of the board of editors of the Academy of Management Review and Journal of Quality Management Between 1990 and 1992, she was Assistant to the President of the University of Maryland at College Park to support the design and implementation of the university's continuous improvement strategy, the delivery of training, and the establishment of corporate partnerships to support TQ. She works with executives to implement total quality management in private sector organizations and in higher education. She has written on total quality concepts and implementation, and has conducted numerous executive and professional workshops on management and total quality principles and tools. She has been the recipient of an American Council on Education Fellowship and was the team leader for the University of Maryland's submission to the IBM-TQ Competition for Higher Education, which culminated in a multimillion-dollar award to the university. In addition to her faculty appointment, she was the first director of the IBM-TQ program.

    Regina M. O'Neill is earning her doctorate in organizational behavior and human resources management at the University of Michigan Business School. She is currently completing her dissertation, which is a conceptual and empirical integration of mentoring and social support in the workplace. Her research interests also include organizational context, empowerment, integration of work and family, and issue selling in organizations. Before coming to Michigan, she earned her MBA at the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration in Dartmouth College, and her undergraduate degree from the University of Massachusetts. She also worked as a CPA in a large international accounting firm.

    Robert E. Quinn is Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at the University of Michigan Business School. His central interest is in organizational change, and he particularly focuses on culture, leadership, and management. He has recently completed work on three book manuscripts: Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within; Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture; and Becoming a Master Manager (second edition). All three are scheduled to be published in the fall of 1996. He has extensive experience in the field of organizational development and has been involved in the design of many large-scale organizational interventions.

    Elaine Romanelli is Associate Professor of Management and Director of the Global Entrepreneurship Studies Program at the Georgetown University School of Business, where she teaches courses in the areas of strategic management, organization design, and entrepreneurship. Her research focuses on processes and patterns in organizational transformation as well as the role of organizational foundings in influencing the transformation of industries. Her current research projects focus on the strategic and entrepreneurial development of two industries, international biotechnology and U.S. motion picture production. She has published articles in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, and Research in Organizational Behavior, among other outlets. She has served on numerous editorial review boards for academic journals and has been an officer of the Organization and Management Theory Division of the Academy of Management. She received her AB degree in English literature from the University of California, Berkeley, and her MBA and PhD degrees in marketing and management from Columbia University.

    Arja Ropo is Associate Professor in the School of Business Administration at the University of Tampere in Finland. She received both her master's and doctoral degrees in Tampere; her dissertation, Leadership and Organization Change, was published in 1989. Her interests involve leadership in and of organizations and organizational competence development. She prefers studying organizational processes across time: how things evolve; what forces support, hinder, delay, or accelerate organizational life; how individual and organizational competencies are configured. Her research most often involves different types of service organizations, such as banks, cultural organizations, and university departments. She has published recently in such international outlets as Leadership Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Personnel Review. She served as the Director of the Business School in Tampere from 1992 to 1994, as well as serving on several university- and national-level task forces covering different assignments over the past 10 years. She has also taken responsible roles in the Tampere Business School's Management Development Program as well as in other continuing education programs and in-house training for companies across Finland.

    Sara L. Rynes is the John F. Murray Professor of Management & Organizations at the College of Business, University of Iowa. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of human resource strategy, compensation, total quality management, recruitment and selection, and career management. She has served as consultant to a wide range of private and public sector organizations, and is on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, and Journal of Applied Psychology. She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Prior to joining the University of Iowa faculty, she was on the faculties of the University of Minnesota and Cornell University.

    Paul R. Sackett holds the Carlson Professorship in Industrial Relations at the University of Minnesota. He received his PhD in industrial and organizational psychology at the Ohio State University, and has served on the faculties of the University of Kansas and the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research interests include the assessment of managerial potential, honesty in the workplace, psychological testing in workplace settings, and methodological issues in employee selection. He served as the editor of Personnel Psychology from 1984 to 1990, and coauthored the text Perspectives on Employee Staffing and Selection. He served in 1993–1994 as President of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Division 14 of the American Psychological Association. When not working, he and his wife, Pat, run marathons (40 to date), build harpsichords, read widely on topics having nothing to do with business or psychology, strive to get their passports stamped in as many countries as possible, build character by enduring Minnesota winters, and enjoy the company of three charming and lovely cats.

    Christina E. Shalley is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management in the School of Management at Georgia Institute of Technology. Her MA in labor and industrial relations and PhD in business administration are from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Prior to joining Georgia Tech, she was an Assistant Professor of Management and Policy at the University of Arizona. Her research interests include examining the effects of social and contextual factors on creative performance. She is also involved in exploring the boundaries of traditional goal-setting programs, such as the effects of multiple goals and competing goals on resource allocation and performance outcomes. Her research has appeared in such places as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. She has been the recipient of a number of teaching awards, including Outstanding Undergraduate Teacher and Business Teacher of the Year.

    Robert I. Sutton is Professor of Organizational Behavior in Stanford University's Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. He received his PhD degree in organizational psychology from the University of Michigan in 1984 and has been at Stanford since he left graduate school, except for 2 years (1986–1987, 1994–1995) spent at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Most of his research uses psychological theory, alone or in combination with sociological perspectives, to help understand how people influence and are influenced by their organizational contexts. His research style emphasizes the development of theory on the basis of direct observation of organizational life and interviews with engineers, managers, and other organization members. He also does survey research studies now and then, and is thinking about trying an experiment in the next couple of years. He has done a lot of work on job stress and organizational decline and death in the past, but he is not interested in these areas any longer. He also continues to work on organizational impression management, although he seems to be losing interest in this topic as well. These days, he is interested in felt and expressed emotion in organization, intense public scrutiny, brainstorming, managerial rhetoric, how organizations try to innovate routinely, and performance as a strange and sometimes dysfunctional obsession for organizational researchers. He has served on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Executive, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Organization Science, and recently resigned as associate editor of the Administrative Science Quarterly. He would rather do research than any other part of his job; he finds writing the most fun. He doesn't like being an administrator very much, and he doesn't like tasks where he has to judge other people or their work, but the pressures to do these kinds of tasks keep increasing as he gets older.

    Linn Van Dyne is Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, where she teaches organization behavior. She received her PhD from the University of Minnesota with a concentration in strategic management and organization. She also holds an MBA from the University of Minnesota and has 15 years of work experience, including executive-level responsibility for worldwide human resources in a multinational manufacturing firm. She has published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of Management Journal, and has contributed several book chapters. Her major research interests focus on proactive employee behaviors involving initiative, such as affiliative and challenging extrarole behavior, minority influence, and feedback-seeking behavior. She is also interested in group composition, employee attachment, cross-cultural research, and research on human resources policy issues.

    Mary Ann Von Glinow is Professor of Management and International Business at Florida International University. She was previously on the Business School Faculty at the University of Southern California. She has an MBA, MPA, and PhD in management science from the Ohio State University. She was 1994–1995 President of the Academy of Management, the world's largest association of academicians in management, and is a member of 10 editorial review boards. In the past 8 years she has authored numerous journal articles and six books: The New Professionals: Managing Today's High Technology Employees (1988), Managing Complexity in High Technology Organizations (1990), United States-China Technology Transfer (1990), Technology Transfer in International Business (1991), A Resource Guide for Internationalizing the Business School Curriculum (1993), and International Technology Transfer and Management (1993). She is currently writing a book titled International Management and is heading an international consortium of researchers delving into “best international HRM practices.” She consults to a number of domestic and multinational enterprises and serves as a mayoral appointee to the Shanghai Institute of Human Resources in China. Since 1989, she has been a consultant in General Electric Company's Workout program, and she serves as a lead Workout consultant to Southern California Edison, Kaiser Permanente, First Bank of Chicago, New York Life, and the State of Florida.

    James P. Walsh is Professor of Organizational Behavior and Corporate Strategy in the University of Michigan Business School. His research on corporate governance attempts to blend perspectives from organization theory, corporate strategy, international business, and corporate finance. He currently serves the profession as a consulting editor at the Academy of Management Review, senior editor at Organization Science, board member of the Strategic Management Journal, Chair of the OMT Division of the Academy of Management, and Chair of the College on Organization within INFORMS. On the home front, he is busy raising three daughters and scheming to find more ways to ski beyond the borders of Michigan.

    David A. Whetten is the Jack Wheatley Professor of Organizational Behavior and Director of the Center for the Study of Values in Organizations at Brigham Young University. Before he joined the Marriott School of Management at BYU, he spent 20 years as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, where he supervised the teaching of management skills in a large undergraduate course. He has coauthored several articles on management skills education based on that experience. He has served as an editor of the Academy of Management Review, as a member of the Academy's Board of Governors, and as Chair of the OMT Division. He is the recipient of the Academy of Management's Distinguished Service Award and the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society's Distinguished Educator Award.

Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website