On making a career in the field of organization science: concluding the debate

Abstract

Since the publication of the invited essay by Glick, Miller, and Cardinal (2007), there has been ongoing debate concerning the vagaries or otherwise of a career in the organization sciences. As readers will recall, in my editorial introducing that piece (Ashkanasy, 2007), I foreshadowed that JOB would be publishing a series of follow-up articles. The first of these comprised the three commentaries published along with the Glick essay (Pfeffer, 2007; Rousseau, 2007; Sitkin, 2007). Subsequently, Hollenbeck and Mannor (2007) penned a reply critical of the method Glick and his colleagues used to draw their conclusions. In the present issue, the series continues with a reply to Hollenbeck andMannor (2007) by Glick, Miller, and Cardinal (2008) and a closing retort by Hollenbeck and Mannor (2008). Also, and as I foreshadowed in my earlier editorial, the series would conclude with a point–counterpoint debate, edited by Paul Spector, and presented in this issue. Responses to the original essay by Glick et al. (2007) and the subsequent criticism by Hollenbeck and Mannor (2007) have been overwhelming. I hear from colleagues that these articles have become de rigueur in graduate programs, and that they are generating debates in doctoral consortia and other similar forums. That is exactly the kind of impact former JOB Editor Denise Rousseau was looking for when she invited the original essay. I hope that the final series of articles in the present issue will add additional depth to readers’ understanding of the pressures aspiring scholars face in our disciplines. Glick and his associates argue that this is precipitated by inherent weaknesses in the underlying paradigms in the organization sciences, and that difficult and sometimes hard-line approaches are needed to deal with this. Hollenbeck and Mannor maintain that, while it is certainly not easy to make a career in our disciplines, Glick et al. have overstated the capriciousness of the career decision-making process. As readers could see in the original commentaries, however, and now even more clearly in the point–counterpoint articles in this issue, the issue is in fact more complicated than that, and extends across other scholarly disciplines as well. This is the last word on the topic in JOB, but I am sure the debate will continue outside of these pages for some time to come. I would like to close by expressing my sincere thanks to all the authors who have contributed to this series.