Greetings from the New Editor: Directions for Group & Organization Management

Some New Directions for GOM: Hot Topics and Open Science

We continue to welcome empirical (both qualitative and quantitative), review, and conceptual papers that extend management/organization science with a focus on individual behavior, teams and groups, strategy/organizational theory, human resource management, and business strategy. These papers should either make a strong theoretical (e.g., Watson, Kistler, Graham, & Sinclair, 2021 - winner of the 2021 best conceptual paper; Shoss, Horan, DiStaso, LeNoble, & Naranjo, 2021 – winner of the 2021 best quantitative paper) or a strong empirical contribution (e.g., Bernerth & Walker, 2020; Feldman & Greenway, 2021 – winner of the 2021 best qualitative paper; Junker van Dick, Häusser, Ellwart, & Zyphur, 2022) or some balance of both (e.g., Flynn, Bliese, Korsgaard, & Cannon, 2021; Wiese, Burke, Tang, Hernandez, & Howell, 2022). We are particularly excited in publishing papers that deal with pressing issues in the field of management, work and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and strategy such as (1) how the increased usage of hybrid work may impact our understanding of traditional management principles such as leadership, communication, organizational change, etc., (2) the importance of AI, robots, co-bots in the global context of management and work, (3) the rise in platform workers and the affective, attitudinal and behavioral consequences of platform work, (4) increased focus on minoritized and stigmatized workers, and (5) focus on the growing juxtaposition of sustainability, inclusion and diversity claims within organizations and a growing number of “working poor” employees.

Moreover, we would also like to increase our focus on emerging methodological trends in the field and aim to attract manuscripts that draw on these new or trending methods—such as intensive longitudinal designs, Bayesian statistics, computational or formal modelling, and social network analyses—for two main reasons: (1) the popularity of some of these methods is still in its infancy, meaning that attracting manuscripts which demonstrate their usefulness and application, may further our community of GOMmers, and (2) articles drawing on these approaches may have the potential to attract researchers from other disciplines to GOM. For example, the usage of computational or formal modelling is more established in the field of decision-making, economics, evolutionary biology, and developmental psychology; this in turn expectedly increases cross-disciplinary collaborations.

Finally, I would like to mention two initiatives (and more will be forthcoming) to further our field’s need for more Open Science Initiatives. First, GOM supports and is an advocate for Hybrid Registered Reports (for more information please visit https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/pb-assets/cmscontent/GOM/HRR_guide-1470411420643.pdf). Initial submissions can be made through the GOM Manuscript Central submission website by selecting “Hybrid Registered Report” as the Manuscript Type. Initial submissions will be reviewed by myself using standard screening criteria (e.g., comprehensiveness, fit and clarity). Those that pass this review will then be sent for in-depth blind peer review (Stage 1). Following review, the manuscript will then be either rejected, receive an R&R, or accepted in principle for publication. Following said in-principle acceptance, the author(s) will then produce a more traditionally formatted manuscript that includes Results and Discussion sections (Stage 2). Assuming that the Stage 2 submission is consistent with what was committed to in Stage 1, and a sensible interpretation and discussion of the findings, the manuscript will be published regardless of the results. We would like to encourage you to make use of this wonderful Open Science Initiative. Second, to further transparency and replicability of the work we publish in GOM, we would like to strongly encourage you—when possible—to deposit your anonymized data in a repository (e.g., Open Science Framework, Mendeley, etc) and include a data availability statement on your title page outlining where the data used in your manuscript can be found. Making your data publicly available is a fantastic way to describe supplementary data and associated metadata or full raw datasets which are otherwise unnoticed; making your data and work easier to find, reproduce, and cite. We hope you will join us in these Open Science Initiatives!

Reintroducing GOM Now and GOM Usings!

In addition to your regular paper submissions, GOM introduced two new and exciting categories of submission under the leadership of Tom Zagenczyk: GOM Now and GOMusings. The GOM Now category is pioneered by Stacey Kessler (for her original editorial see Kessler, 2021). These short peer-reviewed papers (up until about ∼2500 words, including references, notes, and captions) have the objective of disseminating business expertise in a compact and timely manner. Much like “white papers” (think your traditional McKinsey consulting reports), these short papers are not expected to make a theoretical contribution, but rather, to provide insights about how to best resolve organizational issues from a practical perspective. When submitting a GOM Now short paper, we ask you to do the following: (1) clearly state the problem/question of interest and why that topic is important from a practical point of view, (2) provide some background information on what we already know about the topic and what new information the research provides, (3) provide sufficient information in the method and results section so that readers can understand and evaluate the approach and results, akin to a layman interpretation of the key findings (try to explain your findings in such a way that it is very clear what they mean and how they can be used by organizations), and (4) center you discussion around the practical implications of your findings. For more information on this exciting initiative please see Stacey’s editorial (Kessler, 2021) and keep your eyes open for our first accepted GOM Now paper which should appear online soon.

Second, Kevin Cruz introduced GOMusings last year (for his inaugural article see Cruz, 2021) and is now joined by Thomas Zagenczyk in running point on GOMusings. Unlike your traditional paper submissions, these short peer-reviewed papers (up 2000 words or less of main text, no abstract required) are short rants or commentaries written in your own (non-academic, and this is important!) voice. Although, we use the term “rants” here, it is important to note that you cannot just go around whining or complaining; it is important that you provide logical reasoning backed by evidence from science, media, or other reputable outlets, to support your reasoning. GOMusings should accomplish at least one of four goals: (1) “refresh” readers minds about a particular topic (e.g., Cruz’s, 2021 musing about external validity; Mackey & McAllister’s, 2022 musing about interdisciplinary research), or (2) cause readers to re-think their old and often outdated assumptions or opinions (e.g., Kessler & Shoss, 2022 musing about the usage of archival data in micro research; Cruz’s, 2022 musing about the use of self- vs. other-reports; Rudolph & Zacher’s, 2022 musing about the death of generational research), or (3) spark a needed debate about a particular topic (e.g., Bergeron & Rochford’s, 2022 musing about the gendered and sexiest nature of OCB scales), or (4) shape thinking about a new topic, and doing so in an Andy Rooney 60 min style of rant that allows authors’ personalities to shine (e.g., Rice’s, 2022 musing about how publishing is advocacy).

We will soon publish a Special Section devoted to GOMusings that have met one or more of the above-mentioned goals and have been accepted for publication. We hope this Special Section will give readers and potential GOMusings authors a better idea of what we hope to accomplish with GOMusings. Let the ranting commence!

Conceptual and Special Issues

I already mentioned that we welcome conceptual papers all year around as submissions to GOM and what better way to continue to push for high-impact conceptual work than to have an Annual Conceptual Issue led and edited by Lucy Gilson (U. of New Hampshire), Walter Davis (U. of Mississippi), Tammy Rapp (Ohio U.), and Melissa Carsten (Winthrop U.). Our Annual Conceptual Issue helps support GOM’s goals of publishing theoretically grounded research that addresses a wide range of issues within organizations with the objective of providing new ideas and fresh perspectives that are needed to stay current in the field of management/organization science and to solve the most challenging problems facing today’s organizations by publishing articles that bridge existing theories in interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide multilevel insights, and broaden the scope of our thinking about organizations (Rapp et al., 2022). We continue to expect our Annual Conceptual Issue to generate high-impact scholarly conceptual pieces based on extant development in research literatures, which push the field, and our journal, forward.

Furthermore, we also continue to welcome Special Issue proposals (for some examples of recent special issues please see Buljac-Samardzic, Dekker-van Doorn, & Maynard, 2018; Lohrke & Landström, 2016; Nishii & Leroy, 2022; Raetze, Duchek, Maynard, & Kirkman, 2021); we currently have an open call for Special Issue proposals posted on the GOM website. If you are interested in submitting a Special Issue proposal, please note that we require three things from you by October 15, 2022 (we will have an annual call for Special Issue proposals). First, we need a two to three-page call-for-papers that describes (1) the focus and purpose of the Special Issue; (2) possible research questions; (3) deadlines, submission, and review processes; and (4) contact information for the Special Issue Editors. Next, we ask you to include a list of individuals the Special Issue proposal authors intend to invite to serve as reviewers. Finally, we would like you to include a plan for promoting the Special Issue (e.g., distributing the call-for-papers through relevant listservs, recruiting authors at professional conferences, using the GOM’s website to announce the Special Issue).

In addition to our call for Special Issue proposals, we also have one new Special Issue in the process (now welcoming papers!) on the challenges, value, and path forward for “small” sample organizational team research by Deanna Kennedy (U. of Washington), Lauren Blackwell Landon (KBR, NASA), and Travis Maynard (Colorado State U.). Their Special Issue aims to (1) shed light on the ability of small sample size team research to contribute effectively to team theories, group research, and organizational phenomena, (2) demonstrate or discuss methods that apply to small sample size team research, (3) highlight the need for team research in contexts where only small sample sizes are available, and (4) discuss the research design and methodological choices when working with small size teams. We are excited to receive your Special Issue proposals and/or submissions to our Special Issue on small size teams.

Updates to the Editorial Board

Building on the amazing work Tom Zagenczyk has done with our Editorial Board (see Zagenczyk, 2021), we further expanded our Senior Associate Editor team in an effort to have the best possible people running point on several aspects of GOM, and provide high-quality and timely feedback. As previously mentioned, we have an amazing team of Senior Associate Editors who are championing our Annual Conceptual Issue: Lucy Gilson (U. of New Hampshire), Walter Davis (U. of Mississippi), Tammy Rapp (Ohio U.), and Melissa Carsten (Winthrop U.). Moreover, Thomas Zagenczyk (North Carolina State U.) has decided that he wants to stay married to GOM for another few years as Senior Associate Editor. Together with Kevin Cruz (Georgia Southern U.), they will captain GOMusings; a match made in heaven if you ask me! Next, Stacey Kessler (Kennesaw State U.) will continue to be in charge of all GOM Now submissions. Finally, Devaki Rau (Northern Illinois U.) and Jonathan Pinto (Imperial College London) will continue to handle the review process of strategy and conceptual articles, respectively.

In addition to our team of Senior Associate Editors, we have also expanded our team to 41 Associate Editors. While I will continue to read and assess the quality and fit of all manuscripts upon submission, our team of Associate Editors makes the final decision on all manuscripts assigned to them and will provide constructive, actionable, and timely feedback, whether a manuscript is offered a revision or is rejected. Our Associate Editors are committed to write exemplary editorial letters to help authors navigate reviewer comments and facilitate the review process, even when the manuscript gets rejected (I am not just mentioning this as the Incoming Editor-in-Chief but I have experienced this firsthand as an author at GOM; probably my most constructive rejection letters came from GOM). Our Associate Editors include: Andrew Bennet (Old Dominion U.), Richard Benton (U. of Illinois at Urban-Champaign), Dane Blevins (U. of Central Florida), Neva Bojovic (KEDGE Business School), Layla Branicki (Bath U.), Tine Buyl (Tilburg U.), Jeewon Cho (Oregon State U.), Rich Dejordy (California State U.), Emilija Djurdjevic (U. of Rhode Island), Roberta Fida (U of East Anglia), Kayla Follmer (West Virginia U.), Yvonne Garbers (Kiel U.), Patrick Garcia (Macquarie U.), Peter Gianiodis (Duquesne U.), Ray Gibney (PSU-Harrisburg), Hannes Guenter (Maastricht U.), Dana Haggard (Missouri State U.), Paul Harvey (U. of New Hampshire), Anya Johnson (U. of Sydney), Dustin Jundt (Saint Louis U.), Maria Kakarika (EM Normandie Business School), Deanna Kennedy (U. of Washington), Christian Kiewitz (U. of Dayton), Johannes Kraak (KEDGE Business School), James Lemoine (U. of Buffalo), Marcie LePine (Arizona State U.), Jaclyn Margolis (U. of Pepperdine), Curt Moore (Oklahoma State U.), Amanda Peticcaharris (Grenoble Management School), Cort Rudolph (Saint Louis U.), Rosalind Searle (U. of Glasgow), Maria Simosi (U. of London), Amanual Tekleab (Wayne State U.), Christian Vandenberghe (HEC Montreal), Ivana Vranjes (Tilburg U.), Gang Wang (U. of Alabama in Huntsville), Marvin Washington (Portland State U.), Hannes Zacher (Leipzig U.), Luke Zhu (York U.).

At this point, I would also like to thank some of our (Senior) Associate Editors, who have decided to step down, for their hard work and service to GOM. Thank you, Ted Baker (Rutgers U.), Sarah Bankins (Macquarie U.), Jianhong Chen (U. of New Hampshire), Donald Kluemper (U. of Illinois at Chicago), Michael Kukenberger (U. of New Hampshire), Jeremy Meuser (U. of Illinois at Urban-Champaign), Simon Restubog (U. of Illinois at Urban-Champaign), Mindy Shoss (U. of Central Florida), Kristin Scott (Clemson U.), Yuhyung Shin (Hanyang U.), James Vardaman (Mississippi State U.), and Christopher Woodrow (U. of Reading).

In light of my plea for more transparency and replicability of the work we publish in GOM, our Associate Editor Board also includes five Method Associate Editors who can be consulted by our Associate Editors prior to, or during, the review process with all your methodological and statistical questions. These Method Associate Editors are Achiel Fenneman (Radboud U.), Jesse Fenneman (Radboud U.) ² , Stacey Kessler (Kennesaw State U.), Hettie Richardson (Texas Christian U.), Ziqing Zhou (City U. of New York).

Finally, we have continued to grow our Editorial Board from 238 members in 2021 to 281 members from over 20 different countries. Our Editorial Board members represent some of the best scholars from organizational behavior, organizational theory, strategic management, entrepreneurship, human resource management, supply chain management, and other related disciplines with experience and expertise in qualitative, quantitative, and experimental methods, akin to meta-analytical and conceptual methods. This group of Editorial Board members will continue to uphold and leverage our reputation as a rigorous and high-quality outlet for your work in management/organization science.

Some Final Words

In closing, I am surrounded by a stellar team of (senior) Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members, and an ever-growing community of GOMmers; all of who share the same objective of upholding and extending our reputation as a high-quality management/organization science journal. I am confident that our combined efforts will continue to increase worldwide visibility for GOM! Our team is very excited to read your work, GOMusings, GOM Now short papers, and special issue proposals.

At this point, there is little left for me to talk about but to give thanks to everybody who is willing to go on this journey with me and support me along the way. First of all, I would like to thank Tom Zagenczyk for first of all, I would like to thank Tom Zagenczyk for all of his guidance, stellar humor, and support to guide me through the process of being the Editor-in-Chief of GOM. I would also like to thank the team at SAGE—Isabella Austin (Publishing Editor), Karuna Rana (Content Manager), Jayapriya Balasubramani (Production Editor), and Bhavini Vashistha (Peer Review Associate)—for their support. Next, every email you ever got from GOM will close with “follow us on Twitter at @GroupOrgMgmt”; this is made possible by Olivia Porcello; a very big thank you given that I have no idea how to make the blue bird twit. I would also like to thank Toon Cillissen, Rob Holland, Debby Beckers, Sabine Geurts, Wolter Pieters, and the Behavioural Science Institute at Radboud University for supporting me in this role. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to extent a heartfelt thank you to all of you—readers, reviewers, and authors of GOM—without you there would not even be a journal. Thank you for continuing to join us on our exciting upward trajectory to make GOM even stronger than before!