Journal of Management Inquiry

The objective of this article is to formulate the concept of organizational identity in such a way that it can be distinguished analytically from related concepts, such as organizational culture and image, and can be used operationally to identify bona fide organizational identity claims referents and associated identity-referencing discourse. The proposal amounts to a stronger version of Albert and Whetten (1985), in that the implicit links between the elements of their composite, tripartite, formulation are made explicit and their treatment of organizational identity as a defined construct is emphasized. Although the proposal eschews conceptions of organizational identity formulated from the perspective of individuals, it treats organizational identity as an analogue of individual identity, drawing attention to the parallel functions identity plays for both individual and collective social actors, as well as the parallel distinguishing structural features of individual and organizational identity referents. The principle recommendation is to conduct the study of member-agents' answers to the question, “Who are we as an organization?” within the parameters of a defined identity-claim conceptual domain (what) and associated phenomenological markers of identity-referencing discourse (how, when, why).

We know little about the impact of prior scholarly work. Focusing on citation frequency, studies have overlooked the question of how prior work is used. The authors argue for the development of a richer empirical foundation on which to base discussions of impact; its creation requires a situated and relational methodological approach incorporating an assumption of citation heterogeneity and comparative analyses of citation content in context with that of the referenced focal article. Conceiving focal articles as architectures of knowledge claims, the authors examine how knowledge from three award-winning articles is subsequently used during a 6-year period in 489 citations. Analyses generate a typology of prior knowledge use in citing and also disclose differences in prior knowledge use in each focal article. This situated and relational examination provides a more nuanced understanding of how prior work shapes ongoing knowledge development.

In this article, the authors trace how meanings of the construct empowerment evolved between 1966 and 2000 across six disciplines: religion, psychology, sociology, education, social work, and management. Meanings of empowerment expanded considerably during this time period, as the construct waxed, waned, and then waxed again in popularity. Empowerment was introduced in religion in the 1960s and expanded by sociology in the early 1970s, and in these disciplines it focused primarily on sharing real power. As empowerment was introduced into education, psychology and social work in the next several years, it added a focus on fostering human welfare. Its introduction in management led to a new emphasis on fostering productivity, something very different from the original use of the term. The authors’ findings have important implications for the understanding of the evolution of constructs and issues associated with their meanings in management scholarship.

An enriched view of mindfulness, jointly informed by Eastern and Western thinking, suggests that attentional processes in organizing have been underspecified. Respecification of attention in the context of classical views of mindfulness results in a perspective that features diminished dependence on concepts, increased focus on sources of distraction, and greater reliance on acts with meditative properties. Enriched mindfulness reveals the reality of impermanence and the necessity for continuous organizing to produce wise action.

Professional sports teams have become big business in North America, but sport management has received little academic attention. This interview with Scott Howson, the assistant general manager of the National Hockey League Edmonton Oilers, reveals what it is like to be a manager in professional sports. It explores strategy, human resources decision making, and innovation from the perspective of a manager.

Evaluating the research contributions of faculty members is an important task in the tenure and promotion processes for many departments in a variety of colleges and universities. A few years ago, on behalf of their Department of Management—which is part of the College of Business in a large, Midwestern university—the authors embarked on an effort to create a procedure for rating and ranking academic publication outlets to supplement a recently revised set of tenure and promotion standards. This article describes the process the authors undertook and some of the issues they had to resolve during the effort. They also reflect on the implications of ranking publications for our department and the potential effects of journal ranking on scholarship in the academic community as a whole.

During the past 30 years, the European management scholars' community, traditionally characterized only by national association, has witnessed the birth of two European associations: the European Group for Organizational Studies and, later on, the European Academy of Management. There is a wide ongoing interest on how these two actors are playing the game of international academia, traditionally represented by the Academy of Management. Analyzing the evolution of the international network of scholars we focus on European Academy of Management and we argue that to increase its reputation within the academia there are two choices: a generalist and a specialist approach. We discuss the risk and opportunities of the two alternatives.

In a densely filled space of professional associations EURAM emerged as a new European Challenger. Professors Marafioti and Perretti claim in their article that EURAM is at a crossroads and must decide to be either a generalist or a specialist association. They also claim that in both cases EURAM will face powerful competitors. However, in this brief article I would like to claim that EURAM has successfully chosen a third way, a more difficult but challenging way that emerged from European diversity. The current strategy of EURAM has been developed by many different contributions without centralized planning, giving EURAM a very distinctive and unique position.