Celebrating 25 Years of ORM

It is important to stop every now and again to celebrate successes, and to take stock of where we are to inform our focus for the future. Twenty-five years ago, in 1998, Organizational Research Methods (ORM) published its first papers. The journal was founded by Larry Williams because methodologists in management and the organizational sciences were developing a body of work but had no publishing outlet for their papers (Williams, 2008). We owe much thanks to Larry, Sage, and to the Research Methods Division (RMD) of the Academy of Management, supporters of the journal, editors, associate editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and most importantly, thanks to the authors and readers of the journal.

To acknowledge, in a small way, how ORM contributes to our shared research endeavors, we asked the six prior editors of ORM to select their favorite ORM publications and to expound a bit on their choices. Understanding how editors think about the contributions of papers can inform the rest of us as we strive to write our own methodological papers. To read the full text of how these editors made their selections, click here.

Larry Williams selected several articles from his first year as editor for special attention, noting that these authors did not have models for how to write ORM papers. These papers have not only been influential and well cited but have provided templates for authors who came later. Larry chose Aguinis and Pierce (1998) for explaining the negative consequences of violating the assumption of homogeneity of error variance, reviewing alternative approaches, and presenting an example for dealing with this problem that has been widely used since then. The second paper Larry selected, by Gist et al. (1998), addressed the usefulness of behavioral simulations providing guidance on when and how to effectively use this design. Finally, Larry selected Hinkin's (1998) step-by-step tutorial on measurement development because it collected and synthesized a large and disparate literature into a single source.

Herman Aguinis, ORM's second editor, examined citation counts for ORM papers and selected three highly cited papers. Gioia et al. (2013) provide a systematized approach to showing data coding steps in qualitative research to facilitate theory building, Vandenberg and Lance (2000) synthesized work on testing the invariance of constructs measured over time or in multiple groups, and Zupic and Čater (2015) developed a single source for conducting bibliometric methods for evaluating management and organizational studies research. Herman argues that advances in measurement are foundational to making scientific progress.

Bob Vandenberg selected three papers that challenged and clarified his own thinking. His first choice is James’s (1998) paper on a conditional reasoning approach to measuring personality which he described as “truly innovative” stating that it “shaped a lot of my thinking on measuring individual level constructs.” Cortina et al. (2001) examined procedures for testing interactions in LISREL, and Bob noted that this was not only a thorough review but clearly explained the advantages and disadvantages of the various ways of understanding latent interactions. Finally, Bob chose Breitsohl (2019) because it clearly explained how structural equation modeling (SEM) can be used to analyze experimental data—an application Bob had thought about but had never seen tackled in a paper.

José Cortina, ORM's fourth editor, chose Hinkin’s (1998) paper on measurement, commenting that while it discussed principles that were relevant 60 years before it was published, the paper remains as fresh and relevant as when it was published. As José described how our field would be better if we collectively followed Hinkin's advice he noted other papers that address aspects of measurement development including James (1998, 2005), Köhler and Cortina (2021) on replication, and Vandenberg and Lance (2000) on measurement invariance. In his second paper, José chose Volk and Köhler (2012) as an example of the benefits of introducing research methods from other disciplines into management and the organization sciences. Specifically, Volk and Köhler examined the utility of economic games in combination with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) when addressing research questions related to decision making.

James LeBreton applied four criteria, stating that a paper should (1) address a real problem faced by researchers, (2) use a nontechnical presentation that can be understood by typical readers, (3) offer prescriptive guidance, and (4) be motivated by a shared interest in improving research. James chose Vandenberg and Lance (2000) because it offered prescriptive advice for an integrated and sequenced set of steps for evaluating invariance. Newman's (2014) paper on how to address missing data was selected for its clear recommendations for dealing with a problem faced by nearly all researchers. James also chose Podsakoff et al. (2016) for their work on recommendations for how to define constructs and concepts in a rigorous and clear manner.

Paul Bliese, noting that choosing favorite ORM articles is akin to picking your favorite beer, opted to select papers that he has returned to many times over the years, likening each of his choices to the qualities of a specific type of beer. Paul characterized Zhang et al.’s (2009) paper on multilievel mediation as a Belgium Ale because it integrated issues regarding causality, properly estimating nested data, and how mediation models may vary at different levels of the model. Spector and Brannick’s (2011) paper on how indiscriminant use of statistical controls can mask relationships among variables was deemed a sour because the authors highlighted “something that went wrong in the brewing process and transform it into something wonderful.” For Paul's final choice of a simple and refreshing hazy IPA, he named Certo et al.’s (2020) paper which explained why using ratios in equations misrepresents relationships and offers alternatives.

The papers selected by the previous ORM editors are highly personal sets of selections. It may not be surprising, given their respective research interests and areas of expertise as well as the publication history of ORM, that the majority of selected papers are quantitative, microlevel methods papers. Yet, there is no denying that these choices are a great set of papers. Given ORM's increased interest in publishing papers on qualitative and macrolevel methods, philosophy of science pieces, as well as other as of yet underrepresented methods topics, it is likely that different types of papers will be selected as favorite papers by the future group of editors spanning the next 25 years. We are certainly excited about our own ever-growing lists of ORM favorites.

Apart from the papers featured here, we would also like to call attention to the many other papers published in ORM. We believe that there are papers for every researcher in the organizational sciences and encourage you to read them, improve your own research, and inspire you to craft your own methodological contributions for the rest of us.

Every prior editorial team has contributed to what the journal is today, and ORM's current success is due to their contributions. Going forward, we hope to do our part to continue to serve ORM's readership of practicing researchers and methodologists.

Supplemental Material