Listen Up! Revitalizing Our Writing to Stir Our Readers and Supercharge Our Thinking
2021; Academy of Management; Volume: 7; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5465/amd.2021.0065
ISSN2168-1007
Autores Tópico(s)Management Theory and Practice
ResumoAcademy of Management DiscoveriesVol. 7, No. 2 From the EditorFree AccessListen Up! Revitalizing Our Writing to Stir Our Readers and Supercharge Our ThinkingErik Dane and Kevin W. RockmannErik DaneWashington University in St. Louis and Kevin W. RockmannGeorge Mason UniversityPublished Online:22 Jun 2021https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2021.0065AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail If you ever bump into us at a conference, consider yourself warned. Certainly, we'll be happy to talk with you about the data you're analyzing, the methodological trends in our field, the pleasure of watching our students land jobs, and the irritation of receiving multiple invitations to review manuscripts on a Monday morning. We'll welcome the chance to chat with you, too, about the Cardinals and the Cubs, the endorphins of running and cycling, and the lure, influence, and scourge of social media. We'll even pretend we know something about Taylor Swift's songs, should you mention her.Know this, though: we might ask you the same question we've been asking people in the Academy for several years:How often do you open the latest issue of one of our leading journals and read each article—or even one article—in its entirety? How frequently do you carve out a Saturday or Sunday morning, brew yourself a pot of coffee or tea, and read the latest research that was rigorous and pioneering enough to beat the odds and leave its stamp on the top outlets in our field?Aren't we fun company?Make no mistake: we're not questioning the quality of management scholarship or the motivation and effort of management scholars. It's remarkably difficult shepherding a project from infancy to publication—and we're continually wowed and humbled by the stream of groundbreaking research articles in Academy of Management outlets.Even so, we're still stuck on that question. How much do you enjoy reading, front-to-back, the articles we produce? And perhaps even more importantly, why does this matter for our scholarship?DATA, PLEASETelling you how people have answered that question would be an insufficient call to arms. So, we decided to collect some data. We were curious to learn—through an approach more systematic than conversations over coffee or cocktails—what scholars in our field tend to read and how much they enjoy reading the work we produce.We sent an online survey to the editorial review board of the Academy of Management Discoveries (AMD). We received 77 complete responses, representing scholars at various ranks (19% assistant professors, 29% associate professors, 52% full professors) and in various locations around the world (66% United States and Canada; 34% Asia, Australia, and Europe). In this survey, the respondents reviewed two lists. The first contained 19 academic outlets from the Financial Times 50 that publish management research (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly). The second contained 25 popular press outlets that report on management research (e.g., The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal). The respondents indicated which publications they read often enough to evaluate. For each publication they chose, the respondents rated, on a scale of 1 to 9, both the informational value they derive from reading articles in that outlet as well as how much enjoyment they receive from reading those same articles. For the popular press outlets, we made it clear that we were focusing on articles related to science. Table A1 in Appendix A contains the complete list of outlets.What did we find? The (depressing) results are contained in Table 1. We conducted two comparisons: one for all of the journals in each list, and one for the top five publications in each list, based on how many people chose to evaluate them. For informational value, participants rated the popular press outlets as more informative than the academic outlets. While surprising, there is some saving grace: this effect disappears when looking at the top five most widely read academic outlets. When considering enjoyableness, the results are striking: Whether we look at the entire lists or the top five most widely read in each list, reading about scientific findings in academic publications is apparently not as enjoyable or engaging as reading about science in popular press outlets. And this is from academics! Imagine what managers might think.TABLE 1 Survey ResultsInformativeEnjoyable to ReadMeanSDMeanSDAll academic outlets (n = 19)6.861.755.901.95All popular press outlets (n = 25)7.261.587.381.44T-test3.47 (p < .001)12.00 (p < .0001)Top five academic outlets in terms of being commonly read (AMJ, AMR, ASQ, JAP, Organization Science)7.171.635.782.00Top five popular press outlets in terms of being commonly read (The Atlantic, CNN, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal)7.171.527.451.38T-test−0.03 (n.s.)9.63 (p < .0001)Notes: n = 77 participants. Participants chose 5.7 academic outlets and 5.0 popular press outlets on average to rate (total of 826 ratings).These results raise an important question: Is there an inherent trade-off between rigor and engaging writing? Perhaps academic articles simply can't be as engaging as other forms of writing. Theoretical arguments and methodological details can only be enjoyable up to some ceiling, one might assume. In our view, this possibility doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Although we would be hard-pressed to write a methods section that reads like a whodunit, virtually any topic, including those linked to facts and figures, can be transformed into a page turner with some thought, effort, and creativity (Cialdini, 2005; Heath & Heath, 2007; Pinker, 2014). And, there's a case to be made that, as academics, we should find fascinating—and, at times, even enthralling—the pages we turn in the journals we read. After all, the work published in our own field is more aligned with our training, interests, and view of the world than virtually any other reading material we could consume.But does this really matter? As a field, we conduct and publish research. When we want to learn more about a particular topic or phenomenon—or when we're seeking to build upon or challenge the literature in some way—we know exactly where to look. It's easy enough to take an interest in published papers when we have a specific objective in mind. And when it comes to writing for managerial audiences, it's easy enough to assume that practitioner outlets are sufficient; that we can take our papers in this direction if we're invited to do so—or that we can simply outsource this work to those who write "translation pieces."We're not backing down so easily, though.EXPLAIN YOURSELVESThere are a number of reasons why it's vital for us to write papers that are flat-out engaging—to the point that we would be keen to share them with academics, students, managers, policy-makers, family, and friends. We focus here on the reasons we find most rousing.Boosting Scholarly ImpactEngaging writing, it turns out, has a material impact on our careers. Research has shown that scientific articles featuring elements such as first-person narration and vivid contextual details, and without an overdose of scientific jargon, receive significantly more citations compared to other articles, when controlling for scholarly discipline and article topic (Freeling, Doubleday, & Connell, 2019; Martínez & Mammola, 2021). This suggests that, as authors, we can draw more attention to our work when we place ourselves in the reader's shoes and write accordingly.This is easier said than done, of course, especially because we must navigate the "curse of knowledge"—the challenge of comprehending what others don't know when we already know our own field of research so well (Pinker, 2014). Even so, there's no shortage of resources on what it takes to command and compel an audience with words alone (e.g., Grant & Pollock, 2011; King, 2000; Pollock, 2021; Pollock & Bono, 2013; Ragins, 2012; Zinsser, 2006). Developing your skills in this regard will serve you well. Style, after all, isn't window dressing. It's a portal to success in the realm of academic publishing.Consider some of the classics in our field. Foundational scholarship merits attention not only for the quality of its theoretical and empirical insights but also for the strength of the writing itself. We frequently observe that the classics are "often cited, rarely read," but the fact is that many of the works garnering scores of citations are delightfully well-crafted. Jim March, for example, was not only a supremely talented management scholar but a poet as well, and his passion and aptitude for the written word are evident throughout his entire body of work (see Gioia et al., 2020).One outstanding hook in a classic management article was penned by Daft and Weick (1984). This article opens as follows:Consider the game of 20 questions. Normally in this game one person leaves the room, the remaining people select a word that the person is to guess when he/she returns, and the only clue given about the word is whether it signifies an animal, vegetable, or mineral. The person trying to guess the word asks up to 20 questions that can be answered yes or no in an effort to guess what the word is. (Daft & Weick, 1984: 284)The authors asserted that organizations, too, play the game of 20 questions, and they unpacked this claim a bit. Soon enough, we find ourselves three paragraphs into this article and we've yet to encounter a single citation. All we have is clear, compelling prose. Provocative observations, certainly, but nothing esoteric.Bill Starbuck merits mention as well. Tourish (2020) applauded Starbuck's (1992) article on knowledge-intensive firms—a piece Tourish (2020: 107) contended "would be desk rejected by [Journal of Management Studies] if it were submitted to the journal today." Starbuck's (1992: 713) article begins:The General Manager of the Garden Company (a pseudonym) invited John Dutton and me to advise him about what he called their "lot-sized problem." He was wondering, he said, whether Garden was making products in economically efficient quantities.We had no idea what a strange but memorable experience this would be!As this article progresses, "like many good stories, there is a twist: Despite all the inefficiencies that were plain to see, it turned out that the company was in fact highly profitable… The narrative has been inverted: The client turns out to be the teacher, and the teacher the client" (Tourish, 2020: 106). In short, Starbuck (1992) wrote with an engaging voice and a narrative arc—elements that seem more the exception than the rule in the work we see today.We can also see in this passage how Starbuck embraced the subjectivity of the research experience to enliven the story. What a refreshingly honest approach! Like it or not, we are people who study people (and the organizations people create). Inevitably, we are going to have personal, emotional reactions to the phenomena we study, no matter what the topic or level of analysis. We can try to suppress our convictions, desires, outrages, yearnings, anxieties, regrets, and hunches as we engage with the objects of our explorations. Or we can accept and even welcome their presence. They are, after all, naturally occurring phenomena as well (see Anteby, 2013).How we ended up in a place in which "artful delights and forms are seen by many if not most writers (and readers) in the field to interfere [emphasis added] with the presentation of what is actually there in a given social world" (Van Maanen, 1995: 134) is a question that might require an entire article (or many articles) to answer. Indeed, some have published insightful pieces along these very lines (e.g., Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Grey & Sinclair, 2006; Tourish, 2020). Whatever the roots of the status quo happen to be, at the moment there's little emphasis on writing as a means to charm and delight. If you're seeking to boost your impact, you might consider bucking the trend—at least to a modest degree if you're concerned about ruffling one feather too many (Dane, 2011).Expanding AudiencesFor quite some time, members of the Academy of Management have discussed the research practice–gap, brainstormed how to reduce it, and lamented our inability to shrink it as much as we might wish (e.g., Banks et al., 2016; Bansal, Bertels, Ewart, MacConnachie, & O'Brien, 2012; Rynes, 2007). On top of this, we're living in a world in which content—in the form of articles, books, podcasts, webinars, documentaries, and so on—seems to be proliferating exponentially. Never mind fake news—when it comes to consuming content that is bona fide, there's a mountain of material for people to navigate and choose from. Where should a manager begin?Envision a world in which the articles we produce rise to the top of the stack not only in ivory-tower corridors but also on the desks of managers and students of management. The primary impediment to this vision isn't a matter of article comprehension. Plenty of people can grasp the meaning and significance of our theories, yet have no patience for how we write as academics.Perhaps you think that Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, and other such outlets are solving the problem of producing engaging writing for practitioner audiences. While such publications are certainly attractive to managers for their brevity and succinct descriptions of research, relying on these gatekeepers to determine what is "worthy" to be consumed by those putting ideas into practice seems to us folly. We don't believe that the insights managers glean from our field of research should be entirely a byproduct of author invitations and curation efforts by practitioner-oriented outlets. These outlets serve a valuable function, but there is much, much more available in the pages populating the peer-reviewed outlets in our field that merits contemplation in corporate boardrooms, office corridors, virtual meeting spaces, and social gatherings than meets the eye in articles explicitly written for managers.To be sure, writing academic articles that resonate with wider audiences isn't easy. A number of years ago, one of our colleagues made the well-intentioned, though misguided, decision to assign a peer-reviewed article to a class of undergraduate students at a university with exacting admission standards. Dutifully, the students read the article in preparation for the class. Then began the class session."So, what did you all think of the article?"{Several beats of silence}"Anyone?"Brave Soul in the classroom: "It was… borrrrring."Ouch. And you know what else? One of us wrote that article."Hey, that's on you for writing such a boring article, Professor."True enough. But would that article really include 288 references (yes, two hundred and eighty-eight!) if it wasn't common in our field to cite everything under the sun—to the point that we have become obsessed with doing so? And would that article include stuffy declarations like "one should note" and opaque constructions like "inherently coupled"—as well as nine separate uses of the word "posited"—if such language wasn't so central to an academic's bag of lexical tricks?Listen. People can understand the core ideas of articles published in management journals. Not everyone is going to understand all aspects of the methodology and data analysis, due to a lack of formal training, but the takeaways of papers published in our field are generally there for the taking. Few nonacademics take the time to read them, though—and we don't blame them. Just as we might take the time to read more articles in the field of management if the experience was a bit more joyous, so too might managers themselves do the same.Supercharging Our ThinkingWhat might happen to us, intellectually, if we wrote differently? Could writing in a more engaging style alter the nature or novelty of the ideas that arise during the writing process? Might it catalyze the process of theorizing itself, perhaps by supercharging the thought experiments that drive theory-building (Byron & Thatcher, 2016; Weick, 1989)?If we experimented with a narrative form of writing, for example, we might find ourselves considering not only the focal phenomenon but also our subjective relationship to it. Doing so might help us identify phenomena or perspectives that have been generally overlooked in our field yet are central to the circumstances described. As Montuori (2003: 253–254) observed in an article published in Human Relations, in reconceiving of writing as an opportunity for artistry and personal discovery, "our work can become an inquiry into the dialogical and recursive relationship between subject and object, self and other, head and heart, an ongoing invitation to, and navigation of, the paradoxical nature of the creative process." Alfonso Montuori should know. In the very same article, he wrote some of the most engaging and memorable passages we've encountered in an academic article. Our favorite prose from this piece is a firsthand description of the author playing Brazilian football after midnight on the beach at Copacabana with some colleagues during a conference.Caught up in the legend of Brazilian football… we can't pass up the opportunity to head for the beach and look for a game. We find two local boys kicking a ball around, and before we know it we are playing football on the sand where so many legendary players enjoyed their first games. We are eager to show off to the boys and to each other, but we soon become aware of the very different conditions the sand creates. The ball reacts quirkily, unpredictably. Our balance is unsteady in the sand, the ground beneath our feet gives way. This is not grass, or any kind of turf we're used to. The skills that worked so well on grass, or on any hard field, somehow do not carry over to the sand of Copacabana. On top of that, our rusty skills are more than weighed down by staggering quantities of Brazilian meat, lubricated by numerous caipirinhas. It's almost as if we are playing a different game. (Montuori, 2003: 240)Doesn't sound much like an article you'd read in an academic journal, does it? We should acknowledge that Montuori wrote this article as an exercise in innovation within the genre. Not every piece published in an academic outlet can, or should, be quite this convivial. Even so, note the jaunty narrative and concrete details. It's easy to recreate this tale: It's late night in Rio… we've had lots of meat and some strong cocktails… here's a beach and a ball and a chance for some competition… The scene is set and the stakes are clear. It feels as though we're there in person, kicking that ball around with the author and his cadre of footballing scholars.What's worth considering is that, by his own account, Montuori gained some novel insights into the phenomenon of interest—improvisation—by writing this way. In adopting this style of writing, he reengaged not only with his own experiences but also with what those experiences meant—what lessons they carried for his life and his understanding of human behavior more broadly. Such is the promise that writing in new ways carries for our thinking and theorizing. Revitalizing our writing can help us do more than communicate more effectively. It can enable us to generate perceptive—and even revelatory (Corley & Gioia, 2011)—insights into the nature of humans and organizations that otherwise might not emerge.While rarely touted in the managerial and social sciences, the benefits of writing in narrative forms have not been entirely overlooked in these fields, either (e.g., Caulley, 2008; Narayan, 2007). More broadly, there is a rich history of articles that fuse the tones and qualities of literary fiction with a focus on factual events. This approach was central to the "New Journalism," developed by authors such as Truman Capote, Joan Didion, Hunter S. Thompson, and Tom Wolfe. Currently, it enjoys prominence in peer-reviewed literary outlets (e.g., Creative Nonfiction, Hippocampus) and girds a number of feature-writing articles, including one of our all-time favorites, "Pearls Before Breakfast" (Weingarten, 2007), a Pulitzer Prize–winning piece.This is not to say that your writing skills must rise to the level of esteemed authors to try your hand at writing creatively. On the contrary, such writing may serve to unfetter our thinking even when the words we produce aren't entirely glistening. Further, we are sensitive to the fact that English is not every author's first language. Linguistic artistry can be difficult enough to achieve in one's native tongue, let alone another language (Boussebaa & Tienari, 2021). This is one more reason, though, that feeling compelled to adopt the convoluted constructions inherent to "academese" is problematic. It requires nonnative speakers to make sense of overblown prose and implies that they too must write in ways that can confound native speakers themselves. In writing, clarity and artistry can work together—and, ideally, each should stand guard against obfuscation.Ultimately, writing to engage carries the potential to electrify—and to elucidate. It's a memorable mode of delivering new ideas and, possibly, a potent driver of them as well. In the social sciences, creation and discovery go hand-in-hand (Weick, 2006). Thus, to change the style of one's writing is, perhaps, to perceive noteworthy phenomena in unlit corners of the social world.ENTER AMDIf you find yourself agreeing with our observations, take note. AMD has invested in presenting compelling translations of research (e.g., animated whiteboards) since its founding—and we are now building on this tradition by actively seeking to publish some of the most engaging writing in our field. We're looking for you to do whatever it takes to engage the reader early and often in your manuscript. While this is true for any submission we receive, this is especially true for submissions to Discoveries-in-Brief—the journal's newest feature. As noted on the AMD website, the primary goal of Discoveries-in-Brief "is to empower authors to craft their manuscripts in nontraditional ways that make for tighter, more engaging narratives." The points we've offered in this piece provide context and motivation for this objective.Does the prospect of writing in a new and unconventional manner make you uncomfortable? If so, this is understandable. What we're advocating here creates vulnerability for authors, in terms of personal disclosure and defiance in the face of established practices. Truth be told, we feel some trepidation ourselves. Who knows how this article—and its call to action—will be received?A scholar we've long admired for the perceptiveness of his insights and the prowess of his writing is Dan Gilbert, Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard. Dan exhibited his irrepressible wit when we shared with him the vision underlying this piece: "I'm delighted to know you've received tenure and are now ready to ruin your academic reputation by writing things people actually want to read."Will members of the Academy pooh-pooh the type of writing we're promoting because it doesn't sound academic enough? Some might. But hopefully not you, dear reader. We hope our appeal lifts your spirits more than it provokes apprehensions for you or strikes you as unseemly.Either way, let's provide some reassurance. We're not expecting you to write as well as Ernest Hemingway. Or Gabriel García Márquez. Or Toni Morrison. We're certainly not asking you to write Fifty Shades of Academia. But we want you to know that we value your voice—and that we'd be delighted to see you put just as much ingenuity into the construction of your paper as you put into the design of your research.At AMD, we'll help you find the words that sharpen your contribution and move your readers. All we ask is that you take our views under consideration, rethink what's possible in the realm of academic writing, and strive to make that paper sing!REFERENCESAlvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. 2013. Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12: 245–263.Link , Google ScholarAnteby, M. 2013. Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: Upholding professional distance and personal involvement. Organization Science, 24: 1277–1290. Google ScholarBanks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., & O'Boyle, E. H. 2016. Management's science–practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2205–2231.Link , Google ScholarBansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O'Brien, J. 2012. Bridging the research–practice gap. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26: 73–92.Link , Google ScholarBoussebaa, M., & Tienari, J. 2021. Englishization and the politics of knowledge production in management studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30: 59–67. Google ScholarByron, K., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2016. Editors' comments: "What I know now that I wish I knew then"—Teaching theory and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 41: 1–8.Link , Google ScholarCaulley, D. N. 2008. Making qualitative research reports less boring: The techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14: 424–449. Google ScholarCialdini, R. B. 2005. What's the best secret for engaging student interest? The answer is in the title. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24: 22–29. Google ScholarCorley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12–32.Link , Google ScholarDaft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9: 284–295.Link , Google ScholarDane, E. 2011. Changing the tune of academic writing: Muting cognitive entrenchment. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 332–336. Google ScholarFreeling, B., Doubleday, Z. A., & Connell, S. D. 2019. How can we boost the impact of publications? Try better writing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116: 341–343. Google ScholarGioia, D., March, J. G., Olsen, J. P., Levinthal, D., Argote, L., Walsh, J. P., Meyer, A. D., Lant, T., Mezias, S., Shapira, Z., & Greve, H. R. 2020. A special "Provocations and Provocateurs" section honoring Jim March. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29: 119–127. Google ScholarGrant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 873–879.Link , Google ScholarGrey, C., & Sinclair, A. 2006. Writing differently. Organization, 13: 443–453. Google ScholarHeath, C., & Heath, D. 2007. Made to stick: Why some ideas thrive and others die. New York, NY: Random House. Google ScholarKing, S. 2000. On writing: A memoir of the craft. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Google ScholarMartínez, A., & Mammola, S. 2021. Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 288: 20202581. Google ScholarMontuori, A. 2003. The complexity of improvisation and the improvisation of complexity: Social science, art and creativity. Human Relations, 56: 237–255. Google ScholarNarayan, K. 2007. Tools to shape texts: What creative nonfiction can offer ethnography. Anthropology and Humanism, 32: 130–144. Google ScholarPinker, S. 2014. The sense of style: The thinking person's guide to writing in the 21st century. New York, NY: Penguin. Google ScholarPollock, T. G. 2021. How to use storytelling in your academic writing. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Google ScholarPollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. 2013. Being Scheherazade: The importance of storytelling in academic writing. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 629–634.Link , Google ScholarRagins, B. R. 2012. Editor's comments: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review, 37: 493–501.Link , Google ScholarRynes, S. 2007. Editor's foreward: Tackling the "great divide" between research production and dissemination in human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 985–986.Link , Google ScholarStarbuck, W. H. 1992. Learning by knowledge‐intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 713–740. Google ScholarTourish, D. 2020. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 99–109.Link , Google ScholarVan Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 133–143. Google ScholarWeick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516–531.Link , Google ScholarWeick, K. E. 2006. Faith, evidence, and action: Better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies, 27: 1723–1736. Google ScholarWeingarten, G. 2007, April 8. Pearls before breakfast: Can one of the nation's great musicians cut through the fog of a DC rush hour? Let's find out. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/pearls-before-breakfast-can-one-of-the-nations-great-musicians-cut-through-the-fog-of-a-dc-rush-hour-lets-find-out/2014/09/23/8a6d46da-4331-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html. Google ScholarZinsser, W. 2006. On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Google ScholarAPPENDIX ATABLE A1 Academic and Popular Press Outlets Included in Editorial Review Board SurveyAcademic OutletsPopular Press OutletsAcademy of Management JournalThe AtlanticAcademy of Management ReviewBBCAdministrative Science QuarterlyBloomberg BusinessweekEntrepreneurship Theory and PracticeCNNHarvard Business ReviewThe EconomistHuman RelationsFinancial TimesJournal of Applied PsychologyThe Guardian WeeklyJournal of Business EthicsHarper's MagazineJournal of Business VenturingMother JonesJournal of International Business StudiesNatureJournal of ManagementNew ScientistJournal of Management StudiesThe New York TimesManagement ScienceThe New York Times MagazineOrganization ScienceNewsweekOrganization StudiesThe New YorkerOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesNPRSloan Management ReviewPsychology TodayStrategic Entrepreneurship JournalScienceStrategic Management JournalScientific AmericanThe Times (United Kingdom)The WeekTimeUS News and World ReportThe Wall Street JournalYour Local Newspaper (if not already listed)FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 7, No. 2 Permissions Metrics Downloaded 848 times in the past 12 months History Published online 22 June 2021 Published in print 1 June 2021 Information© Academy of Management DiscoveriesPDF download
Referência(s)