process studies of change in organization and management …

® Academy of Management fournal2013, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1-13.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001

PROCESS STUDIES OF CHANGE IN ORGANIZATION ANDMANAGEMENT: UNVEILING TEMPORALITY, ACTIVITY,

AND ELOW

ANN LANGLEYHEC Montréal

CLIVE SMALLMANUniversity of Western Sydney

HARIDIMOS TSOUKASUniversity of Cyprus and University of Warwick

ANDREW H. VAN DE VENUniversity of Minnesota

Process studies focus attention on how itnd why things emerge, develop, grow, orterminate over time. We identify various ontological assumptions underl)ring processresearch, explore its methods and challenges, and draw out some of its substantivecontributions revealed in this Special Research Forum on Process Studies of Change inOrganization and Management. Process studies take time seriously, illuminate the roleof tensions and contradictions in driving patterns of change, and show how interac-tions across levels contribute to change. They may also reveal the dynamic activityunderlying the maintenance and reproduction of stability.

This Special Research Forum on Process Studiesof Change in Organization and Management invitesreaders to plunge into the world of process andexamine questions about how managerial and or-ganizational phenomena emerge, change, and un-fold over time. Our initial premise in proposingthis ventiu'e was that understanding process ques-tions is important and valuable for advancing man-agement knowledge. Moreover, a growing nimiberof management scholars have been researching pro-cess questions. However, process studies have his-torically been underrepresented in premier man-agement journals.

Our call for contributions was clearly timely. Wereceived over 100 submissions, out of which 13articles appear in this issue. Table 1 provides asummary of the research questions, methods, andcontributions represented in this collection. Thearticles address a wide range of topics and draw on

We thank the authors of the articles included in thisspecial research forum as well as all those who submittedpapers for their interest in and engagement with thetopic. We are deeply grateful to the large number ofreviewers who helped us out in the selection process.Note that the ordering of authors on this editorial isalphabetical, reflecting equal involvement in editing thepapers in this collection.

diverse conceptual and epistemological roots toempirically examine organization and managementprocesses. In this editorial, we draw inspirationfrom the contributions in this forum to (1) focusattention on ontological and epistemological issuesconcerning the nature of process research, (2) illus-trate effective methodological strategies for imder-taking empirical process studies, and (3) revealsome of the distinctive forms of insight that processresearch may offer. We discuss each of thesethemes in turn, drawing on the work in the issue toenrich and illustrate our discussion. We concludeby reflecting on the future of process studies.

THE NATURE OF PROCESS RESEARCH

Process Questions: The Centrality of Time

As indicated in o^3I initial call for papers, processstudies address questions about how and whythings emerge, develop, grow, or terminate overtime, as distinct from variance questions dealingwith covariation among dependent and indepen-dent variables (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Vande Ven, 2009; Mohr, 1982). Process research, thus,focuses empirically on evolving phenomena, and itdraws on theorizing that explicitly incorporatestemporal progressions of activities as elements ofexplanation and understanding. For example, in

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not he copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Academy of Management Journal February

TABLE 1Research Questions, Methods, and Contributions of the Studies in the Special Research Forum on Process Studies of

Change in Organization and Management

Authors' Last Namesand Article's Title Research Question(s) Methods Findings and Contribution

Bingham & KahlThe process of schema

emergence:Assimilation,deconstruction,unitizatíon, and theplurality ofanalogies

BresmanChanging routines: A

process model ofvicarious grouplearning inpharmaceutical R&D

BrunsWorking alone

together:Coordinationchangesexpertpractice incross-domaincollaboration

Cehman, Trevino,&Garud

Values work: Aprocess study of theemergence andperformance of organ-izational valuespractices

Howard-Grenville,Metzger, & Meyer

Rekindling the flame:Processes of identityresurrection

JayNavigating paradox as

a mechanism ofchange andinnovation in hybridorganizations

Klarner & RaischMove to the beat:

Rhythms of changeand firmperformance

How does a new collectiveschema emerge overtime?

How do groups changetheir routines viavicarious learning?

How does coordinationoccur in collaborationacross expert domains?How do scientists applyspecialized knowledgeand make it compatiblewith that from anotherdiscipline?

How do moral values thatare situated in practiceemerge, and how arethey performed overtime?

How do actors resurrect acollective identity thathas atrophied or becomedormant?

How do change processesunfold in hybridorganizations?

How do regular andirregular (focused,punctuated, andtemporally switching)change rhythmsinfluence firmperformance?

Archival study of 399 articles andbooks from 1945 through 1975showing insurance industrygroups' evolving schémas forcomputers.

Two-year real-time study of 8drug development teams in twosites, involving interviews,observations of meetings,hallway conversations, organiza-tional records, and site visitnotes.

18-month ethnographic fieldstudy of systems biology by 12cancer research projects in twoU.S. universities.

Longitudinal study of archivaldocuments, stakeholderinterviews, and real-timeparticipant observations of thedevelopment of an honor codeat a university business school.

Longitudinal study of Eugene,Oregon's, dormant "TrackTown U.S.A." identity,combining primary data frominterviews and participantobservations with archival data

Longitudinal two-yearethnographic study of theCambridge Energy Alliance,drawing on managementmeetings, interviews, andEirchival data.

Quantitative analysis of corporatereports of 67 Europeaninsurance companies between1995 and 2004 using multiplesequence alignment.

Schemas emerge through three processes:(1) assimilation of familiar analogy, (2)deconstruction of an assimilatedschema to create a differentiated newone, and (3) unidzation to create adistinct stand-alone cognitive unit.

Vicarious learning follows a process ofidentification, translation, adoption,and continuation. Identificationinvolves anticipatory search.Translation involves the transmissioncapacities of the source as much as therecipient. Adoption is not just copying,but also adaptation to local context.Continuation is based not only onrecipients' outcomes but also those ofothers.

A model of coordination in cross-domaincollaboration consisting of cycles ofcollaborative shared assessment andconsultation followed by expertcoordination through counterprojectionand alignment within disciplines. Themodel includes both teleological anddialectical forces.

Values appear to be endvu:ing and stable,yet they change all the time throughinteractions and relationships amongmany people expressing concerns andtaking emergent actions. Values workis a distributed, relational, interactiveand ongoing process.

A process model of identity resurrectionconsisting of recurrent cycles oforchestrated experiences andauthentications that are produced byleveraging tangible and intangibleresources and experiences by leadersand members.

Innovative organizational changes emergethrough sensemaking and synthesis ofdifferent logics. Multiple logics createlatent performance paradoxes thatrequire navigation. Unaware of aparadox, people get stuck; aware of it,they find creative routes.

Corporate strategic changes occur in fourdistinct rhythms: focused, punctuated,temporarily switching, and regular.Companies that change regularlyoutperform those that changeirregularly according to any of theother rhythms.

(Continued)

2013 Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de Ven

TABLE 1(Continued)

Authors' Last Namesand Article's Title Research Question(s) Methods Findings and Contribution

Lok & de RondOn the plasticity of

institutions:Containing andrestoring practicebreakdowns at theCambridgeUniversityBoat Club

MacKay & ChiaChoice, chance, and

unintendedconsequences instrategic change: Aprocessunderstanding of therise and fall ofNorthco Automotive

Maguire & HardyOrganizing processes

and the constructionof risk: A discursiveapproach

Monin, Noorderhaven,Vaara, & Kroon

Giving sense to andmaking sense ofjustice inpostmergerintegration

Van Oorschot,Akkermans,Sengupta, & vanWassenhove

Anatomy of a decisiontrap in complex newproductdevelopmentprojects

Wright & ZammutoWielding the willow:

Processes ofinstitutional changein English countycricket

How do microprocessesmaintain institutionalbreakdowns?

How do strategic choice,environmental pressureand random chancecontribute to organiza-tional change?

How do products becomerisky or safe?

How does the sensemakingprocess of fairness andjustice unfold duringpostmerger integration?

How do decision trapsunfold over time?

How does the process ofchange unfold acrossvertical and horizontallevels of matiureinstitutions?

Longitudinal ethnographic(participant observation) studyof the 2007 CambridgeUniversity Boat Club season.

Longitudined inductive case studyof large automotive company,2005-09, drawing oninterviews, participantobservation, and archival data.

Comparative longitudinaldiscourse analysis of riskassessments for two chemicalproducts based on archivaldata.

Longitudinal study of thepostmerger integration of twolarge European firms by atransnational team usingmultiple waves of interviews.

Systems dynamics analysis ofreal-time data following eventsin a product developmentprocess for 61 weeks.

Longitudinal archival study ofFirst-Class Cricket in England.

Small breakdowns are contained (byignoring, tolerating, and reinforcing).Crisis-like breakdowns involverestoration (excepting and coopting,reversing, self-correcting, and formaldisciplining), depending on the degreeof institutional threat.

Decisions have vmintended consequencesto which managers are blind but thatmay not be random. Events arenegotiated outcomes of unownedprocesses constituted by manyinterdependent activities that no singleactor controls.

Meaning is socially constructed throughnegotiation and conflict resolution.Two bundles of practices (normalizingand problematizing) order thediscursive work of actors, leading todifferent outcomes.

The focus of sensegiving andsensemaking moves from equality toequity, and the role of fairness declinesover time. Dialectical tensions betweensociopolitical and value creationconcerns as well as dialogicalinteraction between levels drive thisprocess.

A decision trap of stretching currentproject stages at the expense of futurestages unfolds when chronic problems(staffing, time, and budget) encounterinformation filters: the "mixedsignals," "waterbed," and"understaffing" filters.

Theory of institutional change in whichsociety-level change creates organiza-tion-level resource pressures. Deviationfi'om field values by peripheral actorstriggers work by midstatus actors tobring societal, field, and organizationallevels into alignment.

their article in this issue, Bingham and Kahl (2013)explain the emergence and development of a newschema for "the business computer" as unfoldingin three distinct processes whose temporal order iscentral to the explanation. Similarly, Gehman,Treviño, and Garud (2013) show how integratedvalues practices build from the "knotting together"of more localized earlier ones over time.

Indeed, all the articles in this issue focus ontemporally evolving phenomena, whether they bethe transformation, reproduction, and emergenceof institutions (Lok and De Rond; Wright and Zam-muto), organizational practices (Gehman, Treviño,and Garud) or identities (Howard-Grenville, Metz-ger and Meyer; Jay), the social construction of cog-nitive schémas and norms (Bingham and Kahl;


Maguire and Hardy; Monin, Noorderhaven, Vaara,and Kroon), changing interactions between organi-zations and their environments (Klarner andRaisch; MacKay and Chia), or the project-level dy-namics of innovation and learning (Bresman;Bruns; Van Oorschot, Akkermans, Sengupta, andvan Wassenhove).

Given the critical importance and inescapabilityof time and timing in human affairs in general andin the lives of organizations in particular, it isironic that a large part of management scholarshipin the field's journals tends to exclude time. Byrecognizing the centrality of time, process concep-tualizations offer an essential contribution to organ-ization and management knowledge that is notavailable from most variance-based generaliza-tions. This is because the latter tend to ignoretime, reduce it to a lag effect, compress it intovariables (e.g., describing decision making as fast orslow, or environments as dynamic or stable), orreduce its role to what Pettigrew, Woodman, andCameron (2001: 697) called "comparative statics"(reevaluating variance-based relationships at suc-cessive times).

By removing time from theoretical accounts,variance theorizing abstracts away from the tempo-ral flow of much of organizational life. The tempo-ral structure of social practices and the uncertaintyand urgencies that are inherently involved in themare passed over in the search for empirical regular-ities and contingency models of explanation. Theparticulars that make knowledge actionable—whatto do, at what point in time, in what context—arenot included in the timeless propositional state-ments typically generated in variance theorizing(Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011: 342).

Yet as many of the studies in this issue reveal,temporality hugely matters in organizational life.For example, time is central to Van Oorschot, Ak-kermans, Sengupta, and van Wassenhove's (2013)theory of a "decision trap" in which managersstretch current temporal activities at the expense ofreducing and eliminating the time available for fu-ture activities. MacKay and Chia (2013) show howdecisions that looked good at one time turn cata-strophic at another as other events intervene. Fi-nally, Monin, Noorderhaven, Vaara, and Kroon(2013) show how in the context of a merger, thebalance between political and economic concernsshifts over time, evoking entirely different manage-ment strategies.

Indeed, as these examples suggest, process ques-tions are clearly not just of academic interest. Fol-lowing continuing calls for "evidence-based" man-agement (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006), itis interesting to note that most of the evidence

presented in the literature as sufficiently robust towarrant transfer to practice is exclusively of thevariance kind; specifically, it concerns knowledgeof "what works," usually based on comparisons ofperformance in large samples or on controlled labexperiments. However, when considered morecarefully, it is clear that something important ismissing, yet needed to make this kind of knowledgetruly actionable: knowledge about how to producethe changes that the evidence suggests are desir-able. As Langley and Tsoukas (2010) pointed out,knowing that organizational practice B is gener-ally more effective than organizational practice Areveals almost nothing about how to move overtime from A to B. Moreover, depending on thenature of the practices concerned and the contextof their application, it could be that the veryprocess of moving between A and B itself engagesresources, political dynamics, and organizationalupheaval that could place the original evidencesupporting the need for change in an entirelydifferent light.

For example, we know that larger firms tend tobe more profitable than smaller ones both be-cause of scale economies and market power.However, this knowledge provides little ofpractical use to the managers of firms who aretrying to work out the sequence of moves re-quired to capture the benefits of increased sizefollowing a merger. Achieving this without de-stroying the social bonds that hold members ofthe participating organizations together or irrevo-cably alienating the people on whom success de-pends is exactly the dilemma revealed in Moninet al.'s (2013) study here. In sum, if variancetheorizing generates know-that type of knowl-edge, process theorizing produces know-howknowledge.

Process Ontology: Change and Becoming

Although process and temporality are central toall the studies in this issue, they can be viewedfrom different ontologies of the social world: one aworld made of things in which processes representchange in things (grounded in a substantive meta-physics) and the other a world of processes, inwhich things are reifications of processes (Tsoukas& Chia, 2002) (grounded in process metaphysics).Rescher (1996) traced this distinction back in an-tiquity to the differing philosophies of Democritusand Heraclitus. Democritus pictured all of nature ascomposed of stable material substances thatchanged only in their positioning in space andtime. From this view, substances exist indepen-dently of other substances, and their underlying


nature does not change although their qualitiesmay change. As Mesle (2008: 44) noted, the sub-stance-cum-quality view of reality and the subject-predicate structure of language are closely con-nected. When one says, for example, "3MCorporation is an innovative firm" (Garud, Geh-man, & Kumaraswamy, 2011), "3M Corporation" isthe subject and "innovative" is the quality or pred-icate. Even if qualities do change, the subject mayremain unchanged—for example, 3M may cease tobe "innovative," but it will not stop being "3M." Incontrast, Heraclitus viewed reality, not as a constel-lation of things but as one of processes. He arguedthat substantializing nature into enduring things(substances) is a fallacy because these are consti-tuted by varied and fluctuating activities: "Processis fundamental: The river is not an object but anever-changing flow; the sun is not a thing, but aflaming fire. Everything in nature is a matter ofprocess, of activity, of change" (Rescher, 1996: 10).

Different studies in this issue exemplify thesedifferent ontological views. For example, Klarnerand Raisch (2013) examine the relative perfor-mance of different temporal patterns of organiza-tional change, reflecting a substantive metaphysicswherein change patterns are seen as something thathappens to organizations viewed as fixed identifi-able entities. Similarly, Bingham and Kahl (2013)track schémas for imderstanding computers by fo-cusing on shifts in the language surrounding "thecomputer," assumed to refer to the same basic en-tity over time. Such a perspective lies at the foun-dation of much of the previous literature on organ-izational change and has indeed given rise to manyimportant insights. The focus of this type of re-search is on how and why such changes occvir,whereby change is seen as a succession of move-ments of a recognizable entity over time.

In contrast, other studies presented here attemptto reach explicitly or implicitly toward a processontologyhased in process metaphysics (Whitehead,1929) in which the world itself is viewed funda-mentally as made up of processes rather thanthings. In this view, entities (such as organizationsand structures) are no more than temporary instan-tiations of ongoing processes, continually in a stateof becoming (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Changing inthis view is not something that happens to things,but the way in which reality is brought into beingin every instant. Such a perspective underlies, forexample, Maguire and Hardy's treatment of risk notas an objective attribute but as constituted overtime through social practices: "Objects 'become'risky or safe in different ways as a result of thepractices to which they are subjected" (2013: 232).Similarly, Gehman et al. (2013) reach beyond the

previous literature on organizational values, byconsidering them not as cognitive or cultural enti-ties that may shift from (say) value set A to value setB between two fixed points in time, but as a form ofpractice continually constituted and adaptedthrough ongoing "values work" enacted by organi-zation members. MacKay and Chia (2013) attemptto push a process ontology still further by "prob-lematizing" the boundaries separating organiza-tional actors from their context and insisting on theall-encompassing "unowned" nature of processes.In such a view, context is not something that is heldconstant and outside the changes being analyzedbut is itself continually reconstituted within and byprocesses of interaction over time (see also Meyer,Gaba, & Colwell, 2005), generating unexpected andlargely uncontrollable chains of activity and eventsin which actors, environments, and organizationsare all in constant and mutually interacting flux.

From this perspective, the, world is composed ofevents and experiences rather than substantial en-tities. Each event arises out of, and is constitutedthrough, its relations to other events. Each eventcan be further analyzed in terms of smaller events(Cobb, 2007: 572). Thus, organizational meetingssuch as those described by Gehman et al. (2013)and incidents of breakdown during the prepara-tions for the annual University Boat Race studiedby Lok and de Rond (2013) are examples of events.These events become subject to further analysis interms of smaller events; researchers may carry outsuch analysis by, for example, focusing on partic-ular individuals over particular periods of time andstudying how their focal experiences grow out ofearlier experiences, interactions, and anticipations.From a process ontological perspective, an organi-zation is a dynamic bundle of qualities. Some qual-ities persist more than others, but there is no sub-stance that endures unchanged. Moreover, this isthe point at which "process" meets "practice,"since how the past is drawn upon and made rele-vant to the present is not an atomistic or randomexercise but crucially depends on the social prac-tices in which actors are embedded (Feldman &Orlikowski, 2011; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011). Forexample, Gehman et al. (2013) describe how a pro-fessionally trained accountant, immersed in theparticular social practices of the accounting profes-sion, had become through these practices sensitiveenough to issues of integrity that she wanted to seeit as a key part of the value set of an MBA graduate.

As the articles in this issue illustrate, processescan be studied in a variety of ways, depending onthe particular process ontology one espouses:change may be modeled on motion and, thus,viewed as change in the qualities of substantive


things over time, or as enacted through a matrix ofinterwoven processes. Thus, research questions fo-cusing on how the qualities of an entity (e.g., anindividual, group, organization, institution) changeover time may be studied from the perspective of asubstantive metaphysics in which processes repre-sent changes in things. Other research questionsthat focus on how processes themselves ("sense-making," decision making, performing, identifying,etc.) emerge, develop, grow, and decline are com-patible with a process metaphysics in which thefocus is on how processes (rather than things) un-fold over time.

Empirical studies of changes in processes versusin things may be more challenging to operational-ize. The language humans use to talk about ouieveryday world is naturally dominated by noims,with verbs associated with action and change tak-ing a secondary role. This may be one reason whyso many process studies retain, to some degree, thelanguage and ontology of substance even as theyexplore activity, event sequences, the unfolding ofpractices, enactment, and the dynamics of change.The undifferentiated fluidity brought to the fore-ground by the idea of a world in a perpetual state ofbecoming renders phenomena hard to capture andpin down for systematic analysis. This brings us tothe second major theme: process research methods.

PROCESS RESEARCH METHODS

Process Data: Longitudinal, Rich, and Varied

Some works in this issue rely on quantitative andothers on qualitative methods of analysis, yet allfeatiure longitudinal data. Longitudinal data(whether obtained with archival, historical, or real-time field observations) are necessary to observehow processes unfold over time. Archival data, themain soiurce for several studies here (Bingham andKahl; Klarner and Raisch; Maguire and Hardy;Wright and Zammuto), are particularly suitable fortracing event chronologies, meanings, and dis-coiurses over long or very long periods of time.Mixed methods combining interviews, archivaldata, and observations underlie several studies thatexamine contemporary processes in depth (Bres-man; Gehman et al.; Howard-Grenville et al.; Mac-Kay and Chia; Monin et al.; Van Oorschot et al.),and three studies rely on real-time ethnographicdata (Bruns; Jay; Lok and De Rond). Such qualita-tive research methods correspond well to a per-spective emphasizing process questions and an on-tology where processes rather than things are theprimary focus of attention (Rasche & Chia, 2009).

To study people, subject matter, and their con-text in meaningful ways, Collins (2004) argues, re-searchers need to acquire "interactional expertise,"the kind of knowledge required for one to commu-nicate about a domain without necessarily beingable to practice in that domain (see also Collins &Evans, 2007). Researchers who have honed theirinteractional expertise know how to relate to spe-cialists (be they scientists, rowers, or risk analysts)in ways that engage them in sharing what theyknow, its technical content, and what is going on inthe setting. This involvement provides researchersnot only access to, but also an appreciation of,specialists' views, activities, and interests. Bruns(2013) provides a nice example of developing in-teractional expertise in her work: She studied can-cer biology lab practices for 6 months before start-ing her 18-month ethnographic field study of 12cancer research projects, pointing out that directwork exposure is important for understanding howscientists apply specialized knowledge from otherdisciplines.

Indeed, many of the studies in this issue illus-trate prolonged involvement of researchers in theprocesses studied, enabling them to build inter-actional expertise and providing close access toevents and practices (Jay, Bruns; Gehman et al.;Howard-Grenville et al.; Lok and de Rond). Jay(2013) emphasizes the importance of reflexivityin managing such deep and ongoing interactionswith a research context. In some cases, the in-volvement of both insider and outsider authorsoffers a means to balance differing perspectives,combining intimacy with local settings and thepotential for distancing (e.g., Gehman et al., How-ard-Grenville et al., Lok & de Rond). Researchcapable of developing fine-grained understand-ing of processes at the micro level requires thiskind of prolonged and deep engagement, com-bined with attention to reflexivity, analyticalrigor, and peer review, to ensure credibility andtrustworthiness (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013;Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

With their building on varied sources of longitu-dinal data, it is not surprising that many of thearticles in this special research forum recount richand interesting stories: we readers learn how thesport of cricket evolved over time from a concep-tualization as an artistic activity to a much morebusiness-like orientation (Wright & Zammuto,2013); we trace the struggles, ups, and downs of anewly formed public-private-third sector energy al-liance (Jay, 2013); and we follow the CambridgeUniversity Boat Club team as it prepares for itsannual race with Oxford (Lok & de Rond, 2013).However, it is important to note that the authors


represented in this issue are not just telling idio-syncratic tales; their stories carry important theo-retical messages. In addition, their research de-signs, though sometimes deceptively simple, areconstructed in ways that add depth and weight totheir theoretical ideas. How is this done?

Process Comparisons: Cross-Case Replication

Knowledge advances with the comparativemethod across cases, time, and models. For sev-eral studies in this special forum, the authorsexamine not just one process story, but several,allowing theoretical ideas to be tested and deep-ened in different settings. For example, in theirquantitative study, Klarner and Raisch (2013) ob-tain their data from annual corporate reports of67 European insurance companies between 1995and 2004. They code these data into six differenttemporal patterns of change using an innovativemultiple sequence alignment method derivedfrom the biological sciences and then show howregularity in ongoing organizational changes isassociated with performance using statisticalmethods. Although Klarner and Raisch had alarge enough sample of cases to use statisticalmethods of comparison, various forms of analyt-ical replication can also be embedded in qualita-tive research designs and analyses.

For example, Bresman (2013) uses an interest-ing embedded multiple case design, focusing ontwo units in a pharmaceutical company, and ex-amining learning transferred among four succes-sive projects occurring in each unit (for a total ofeight units of analysis). His inductively derivedfour-phase process model of vicarious learning isreplicated across all his cases. This design re-flects Eisenhardt's (1989), Eisenhardt and Graeb-ner's (2007), and Yin's (2009) recommendationsfor building theory from case studies. Similarly,Bruns (2013) replicates her model of collabora-tive research in two different settings involvingmultiple groups. Maguire and Hardy (2013) alsocompare two different cases of risk assessmentprocesses, showing how both incorporated simi-lar bundles of normalizing and problematizingpractices, but how the differential ordering ofthese practices led to different consequences forthe construction of risk.

Process Decomposition: Longitudinal Replication

Comparing distinct cases is not however the onlyway to achieve replication. It is a common miscon-ception that longitudinal case studies represent"samples of one." However, it is important to note

that the sample size for a process study is not thenumber of cases, but the number of temporal ob-servations. Depending on how researchers struc-ture their analysis, the number of temporal obser-vations in a longitudinal study can be substantial.For example, van Oorschot et al. (2013) focus on344 individually coded events in their case historyof a failing project to develop an explanatory modelthat explains their observations. In their archivalstudy, Bingham and Kahl (2013) observed 399 arti-cles and books from 1945-75 showing develop-ment of a business computer schema in the insur-ance industry.

Commonly however, qualitative process re-searchers rely on more integrative forms of "tem-poral bracketing" or decomposition (Langley, 1999)to identify comparative units of analysis within astream of longitudinal data. These temporalbrackets (which generally unfold sequentiallyover time) are constructed as progressions ofevents and activities separated by identifiablediscontinuities in the temporal flow. They enableresearchers to examine the recurrence and accu-mulation of progressions. This permits replicat-ing theoretical ideas in successive time periodsand also to analyzing how the changing contextfrom previous periods impacts subsequent eventsin current periods. Thus for example. Jay (2013)considers three successive time periods in thelife of the energy alliance he studied that werepunctuated by changing definitions of success.Monin et al. (2013) examine the dynamics ofsensemaking and sensegiving about norms of jus-tice in three periods involving eight different is-sues associated with a major merger. Lok and deRond (2013) examine and compare five succes-sive incidents in which institutional rules wereviolated and repaired, and Wright and Zammuto(2013) compare two successive incidences of rulechange in the game of cricket.

Note that although analyses based on temporalbracketing may lead to propositions about patternsof progression over time in the form of well-defined phases or stages (as in the articles byMonin et al., Bingham and Kahl, and Gehman etal.), this is not always the case. The power oftemporal bracketing actually lies principally inits capacity to enable the identification of spe-cific theoretical mechanisms recurring over time(Tsoukas, 1989; Van de Ven, 1992). Thus, forexample, Howard-Grenville et al. (2013) use tem-poral bracketing over three periods to show howidentity reproduction and resurrection dependon an interactive process of resource mobiliza-tion and authentications of experience.


Process Representations: RethinkingBoxes and Arrows

A notable feature of many of the articles in thisissue is also how the authors draw on visual mapsor diagrams to represent processes and their itera-tive dynamics. The conventional boxes and arrowsof variance studies (representing concepts andcausal linkages respectively) return in new forms,wherein boxes tend to represent states and arrowsrelations of precedence or distinctive processualelements or flows. It is also common for researchersto represent processes as "strange loops" (Hofstad-ter, 2008)—that is, processes that depart ever fur-ther from their origin, but wind up, curiously, ex-actly where they started out, as paradoxical level-crossing feedback loops. The interacting causalloop diagrams of Von Oorschot et al. (2013) areillustrative of this approach, which draws on thewell-known process modeling algorithm of systemsdynamics (see also Azoulay, Repenning, & Zucker-man, 2010), but. diagrams of some kind are omni-present analytical and communicational tools inthe work in this issue.

For example, Gehman et al. (2013) provide avisual map of the emergence and practice of organ-izational values practices. The map offers a richpicture of events, with events synopsized in boxes,linked by unlabeled directional arrows demonstrat-ing the passage of time and categorized in broadthemes. Wright and Zammuto (2013) present uswith an elegant depiction of the process of institu-tional change in county cricket. The model showsstates of society, the field of cricket, and organiza-tions (placed in boxes) transformed by various pro-cesses represented by labeled arrows. Lok and deRond (2013) present a model in which strangeloops link institutional practices, but they makesome progress in resolving the vexed issue of set-ting complex processes in the context of time. Inanalyzing complex processes of change in anorganization, MacKay and Chia (2013) employ acreative juxtaposition of concresced organizationalstates (in boxes) transformed by processes of man-agerial coping and adaptation (labeled arrows). Thepassage of time is well-represented. Similarly,Howard-Grenville et al. (2013) use diagrams to rep-resent the iterative nature of identity dynamicsover time.

The art of representing process diagrammati-cally stilHacks the conventions of variance stud-ies and clearly presents researchers with chal-lenges and trade-offs. The convenience ofunlabeled arrows and feedback loops may some-times obscure the causal complexity that processtheorizations are intended to explain. Yet at-

tempts to faithfully capture the complexities ofprocess can result in diagrams that are busy andequally opaque. As the papers in this issuemoved through the stages of review to their finalversions, we often saw authors struggling to cre-atively but accurately project the dynamics ofliving processes onto the static two-dimensionalpage. These diagrammatic representations arenevertheless often crucial in describing and com-municating dynamic process theorizations.

Process Generalization: Abstractingfrom the Particular

Many of the articles in this issue show how richnarratives that enable the representation of nuanceand ambiguity can be combined with more struc-tured analytical approaches that favor the articula-tion and replication of more abstract theoreticalideas. At least two forms of inference from theparticular to the general can be seen in the researchdesigns represented in this forum. They provide auseful heuristic for extending research on pro-cesses of change beyond idiosyncratic stories.

First, the authors identify and make analyticalgeneralizations to the general case of which theirstudy is an instance. This is perhaps the most crit-ical move in theory building—to climb the ladderof abstraction by inferring the general theoreticalphenomenon of which the observed particular is apart (Van de Ven, 2007). This move is nicely illus-trated by van Oorschot et al. (2013), who generalizetheir specific study of new product terminations tothe more general and abstract problem of how de-cision traps unfold.

Yet making this inference to an insightful generalcase requires concrete and penetrating understand-ing of the particular. Tsoukas (2009) noted that thevalue of small-N studies is profoundly embeddedin the ability to capture situated specificity—to an-swer the question "What is going on here?" whilebuilding on this to answer the broader question,"What is this a case of?" (Tsoukas, 2009: 298). AsMerton emphasized, a first step in science is "es-tablishing the phenomenon," because "oftentimesin science as in everyday life, explanations areprovided of matters that are not and never were"(Merton, 1987: 21). Maguire and Hardy (2013) ex-emplify the importance of grounding researchproblems. They ground the concept of risk in nor-mal everyday use as being "objective" and "calcu-lable." Their act of insight comes with the processdescription of how the risk of two chemical prod-ucts comes to be socially constructed and foreverchanging through normalizing and problematizingprocesses. We would add that providing access to


the rich details of particular stories, as many of theauthors in this special research forum do despitespace constraints, is a prerequisite for reader judg-ments concerning the potential transferability oftheir theoretical ideas (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

As one moves from concrete surface observationsto more abstract process theory, one moves fromdescription to explanation. Explanation requires ageneric story, and such stories can be understood asprocess theories (Pentland, 1999). Hence, a secondway to generalize from the findings of a processstudy is to create such a process story. In narrativetheory, the story is an abstract conceptual model; itidentifies the plot or generative mechanism atwork. At a minimum, this story must describe aprogression or sequence of events. In narrative the-ory, however, the "story" includes a great dealmore than just an event sequence. Pentland (1999)argued that a process theory should include fivefeatures in the story: (1) a clear sequence of begin-ning, middle, and end in time, (2) focal actors whomay play the protagonists or antagonists, (3) anidentifiable voice reflecting some actor's view-point, (4) an evaluative frame of reference of whatis right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, and(5) other indicators of context over time and place.The theoretical narratives of the articles in thisspecial forum may not fit this model exactly, buteach has a strong underlying plot. The next sectionreviews some of the substantive process patternsemerging from these studies.

SUBSTANTIVE ADVANCES TOPROCESS THEORIES

The Prevalence of Paradox and Dialectics

In a review of the literature on process concep-tualizations of organizational change and develop-ment. Van de Ven (1992) noted that most represen-tations of organizational processes (e.g., processesof decision making, change, or organizationalgrowth and development over time) seem to drawon either life cycle metaphors predicting linear pro-gressions or on teleological models establishingnormative step-by-step guides. He critiqued thisliterature for its atheoretical character and its lim-ited rigor and urged consideration of a broader setof process theories, including dialectical and evo-lutionary process models. The articles in this spe-cial research forum clearly reflect more sophisti-cated process conceptualizations than much of thisearlier work.

In particular, the central role of tension, contra-diction, paradox, and dialectics in driving patternsof change emerges strongly throughout these stud-

ies. Paradox is a central concern in Jay's (2013)study of a hybrid organization as it struggled todefine a viable mission among competing forces.Dialectic tensions are implicit in several other arti-cles as well. For example, Klarner and Raisch's(2013) study focuses on the dialectic tension be-tween change and stability—both of which areneed to achieve effective organizational adaptation.They ask which patterns of oscillation betweenthese phenomena are likely to be most productiveand theorize that regular rhythms are likely to bemore effective. Similarly, Monin et al. (2013) showhow the progression of norms of justice in mergersis constituted through a dialectic process in whicheconomic and sociopolitical concerns evolve in dy-namic tension.

Emergence and Evolution throughMultilevel Interaction

Process research questions that focus on howthings unfold and change over time tend to associ-ate with a dynamic social constructivist view. Inthis view, ongoing interactions among different in-dividuals, between individuals and organizations,and between multiple levels across organizationsand contexts permeate and orient change pro-cesses. For example, patterns of identity reproduc-tion are seen to depend on interactions betweenleaders and identity custodians (Howard-Grenvilleet al., 2013); interactions among different organiza-tions in an organizational field contribute in differ-ent ways to institutional change (Wright & Zam-muto, 2013); and the dialogical interaction betweenmanagerial sensegiving and member sensemakingconstitutes enacted norms in the context of merger(Monin et al., 2013). The articles by Bresman andBruns also show how interaction among peoplemay take unexpected forms that can be crucial formoving processes forward effectively. For example,Bresman's (2013) study shows that vicarious learn-ing among project participants is not simply theresult of individuals noticing specific needs, but isalso anticipatory and encouraged by active partici-pation of knowledge sources as well as learners.Similarly, Bruns (2013) shows how people collab-orating across disciplinary boundaries engage inactivities productive of mutual learning separatelyas well as together.

The studies also reveal interesting theoretical dy-namics surrounding emergence, in which local andseparate forms of interaction gradually becomeconnected to create more integrated and institu-tionalized forms. This dynamic underlies Binghamand Kahl's (2013) study of how conceptualizationsof computers became increasingly integrated, re-

10 Academy of Management journal February

fined, and institutionalized over time. A conceptu-ally similar dynamic underlies Gehman et al.'s(2013) interpretation of how local and discon-nected efforts at introducing values practices grad-ually coalesced to generate knotted action networksand more integrated organizational practices.

The Processual Dynamics of Stability

A final important theme emerging from severalforum articles is that seemingly enduring and ob-jective managerial concepts and structures are un-derpinned by dynamic activity and processes.These concepts and structures are able to endureover time only through ongoing repair and recon-struction. Much more active work is required tomaintain practices, organizations, and institutionsthan most management scholars would admit.Gehman et al.'s (2013) study of the emergence ofvalues practices in a university does not end witha clear outcome in which practices had been es-tablished once and for all. There is no clearlydefined endpoint. Practices are continually ques-tioned and reinterpreted, even as they are per-formed. Similarly, Lok and de Rond (2013) showhow the 175-year-old institution of the UniversityBoat Race has to be continually sustained and re-paired as rules or principles are violated. Indeed,each incident of rule violation brings these rulesand principles to conscious awareness and pro-vides opportunities to reaffirm them: in a veryreal sense, exceptions confirm the rule. Thesearticles, as well as that by Howard-Grenville et al.(2013) on community identity, illustrate how dy-namic processes underlie stability as well aschange, much as a river is constituted by an ever-changing flow (Rescher, 1996).

This kind of process conceptualization leads usto question the overwhelming emphasis that mostmanagement research tends to place on the im-portance of outcomes. Certain processes, ofcourse, do have final stopping points where dis-tinct outcomes can be traced to particular pro-cesses (e.g., in the case of the catastrophic projectoutcome described in Van Oorschot et al.'sstudy). However, a process perspective wouldgenerally view outcomes such as organizationalperformance measured at particular points intime as ephemeral way stations in the ongoingflow of activity. Indeed, from a process perspec-tive, outcomes are probably better understood asinputs that are made sense of in determiningfurther activity (as in Jay's study, for example),rather than as static termination points. This doesnot mean that performance is not important (in-deed, it is reflected in several of the studies), but

it does lead to a less simplistic, less static, andless linear understanding of what performanceimplies.

LOOKING AHEAD

As the response to our call for papers and thepublished contributions in this issue show, a grow-ing community of scholars is studying processquestions of how things and processes change overtime. Process questions take a researcher into aconceptual terrain of events, episodes, activity,temporal ordering, fluidity, and change. We seethat process conceptualizations offer ways to un-derstand emergence and change as well as stability,and they incorporate imderstandings of causality asconstituted through chains of events rather thanthrough abstract correlations. They also admit thattime and process flow on beyond an arbitrary stop-ping of the clock to assess the state of the world atany particular time. Process research enables re-searchers to address important questions that lie atthe heart of management and organizational life.Doing process research does, however, have itschallenges, and there is ample room for substan-tive, methodological, and theoretical development.

These special forum articles cover a broad rangeof methodologies and theories and address issues atthe group level, organization level, institutionallevel, and indeed very often at multiple levels si-multaneously. However, although individuals cer-tainly play a crucial role as key actors in many ofthe studies, none of the articles takes as its centralfocus the individual level of analysis, and indeedvery few such studies were submitted to the forum.This is both unfortunate and somewhat puzzling.We believQ^ that there are important opportunitiesto address management and organizational con-cerns at the individual level of analysis and wouldencourage such research that might deal with suchtemporally evolving issues as careers, work-familybalance, identity, work practices, and socializationfrom a process perspective.

Methodologically, there are also opportunities. Agood deal of process research adopts qualitative orethnographic methodologies to capture the nu-ances of processes in and around organizations,and this will no doubt continue. However, there isroom for further development and application ofquantitative methods for event and sequence anal-ysis in elaborating process understandings. Klarnerand Raisch (2013) illustrate one such method, andBingham and Kahl (2013) draw on textual linguis-tics to trace in detail shifts in meanings withintextual representations over time. Yet these arequite rare examples. Although methodologists have

2013 Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de Ven 11

described quantitative analytical methods applica-ble to sequence analysis (Abbott, 1990; Poole, Vande Ven, Dooley, & Holmes, 2000), their uptake inmanagement studies seems so far to have been lim-ited and could be further developed.

In parallel with this, those adopting a more con-structivist perspective and a process ontology arelikely to require different kinds of tools. Processthinking of this kind requires researchers to askthemselves what activities and doings are impli-cated in the maintenance and disruption of every-day organizing (Gehman et al., 2013; Howard-Gren-ville et al., 2013; Lok & de Rond, 2013), to think interms of verbs rather than nouns (Maguire & Hardy,2013; Weick, 1979), and to problematize the bound-aries separating organization from context (MacKay& Ghia, 2013). The challenges here are to unravelprocesses as they happen so as to develop an un-derstanding of their underlying logic while provid-ing a theoretical interpretation that reaches beyonddescription and can speak to other situations. Thisis a skill that is hard to program systematically. It islargely a process of "abduction" (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008; Peirce, 1958) in whichempirical observations and surprises are connectedto extant theoretical ideas to generate novel con-ceptual insight and distinctions. Klag and Langley(2013) argued that to achieve this requires research-ers to bridge a series of dialectic tensions inherentto the research process: between deliberation andserendipity; between engagement with data and de-tachment from it; hetween knowing and not know-ing (Locke et al., 2008); and between social connec-tion and self-expression. Nevertheless, though themeans by which insight emerges always remainmysterious, exemplars and methodological sourcesthat can provide some guidance are increasing(Gioia et al., 2012; Pratt, 2009).

In closing, we note that this Special ResearchForum on Process Studies of Change in Organiza-tion and Management represents a way station ofits own in the development of a thriving commu-nity of scholars interested in and knowledgeableabout process research. Through activities such asthe Academy of Management's professional devel-opment workshops on process research (informa-tion at processresearchmethods.org) and the annualSymposium on Process Organization Studies(www.process-symposium.com), researchers havebeen encouraged to hone their skills and ideas witha view to generating more rigorous and more in-sightful contributions on the processes of change inorganization and management, worthy of publica-tion in the field's premier journals. We hope thatthis collection of articles will serve as inspirationfor others.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. 1990. A primer on sequence methods. Organ-ization Science, 1: 375-392.

Azoulay, P., Repenning, N. P., & Zuckermann, E. W.2010. Nasty, brutish and short: Embeddedness fail-ure in the pharmaceutical industry. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 55: 472-507.

Bingham, C. B., & Kahl, S. J. 2013. The process of schemaemergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitiza-tion, and the plurality of analogies. Academy ofManagement Journal 56: 14-34.

Bresman, H. 2013. Changing routines: A process model ofvicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D.Academy of Management Journal, 56: 35-61.

Bruns, H. C. 2013. Working alone together: Coordina-tion changes expert practice in cross-domain col-laboration. Academy of Management Journal, 56:62-83.

Cobb, J. B., Jr. 2007. Person-in-community: Whiteheadianinsights into community and institution. Organ-ization Studies, 28: 567-588.

Collins, H. 2004. Interactional expertise as a third kind ofknowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sci-ences, 3: 125-143.

Collins, H., & Evans, R. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from casestudy research. Academy of Management Review,14: 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Craebner, M. E. 2007. Theory build-ing from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 50: 25-32.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizingpractice and practicing theory. Organization Sci-ence, 25: 1240-1253.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2011. Com-plexity arrangements for sustained irmovation: Les-sons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies,32: 737-767.

Gehman, J., Treviño, L. K., & Garud, R. 2013. Valueswork: A process study of the emergence and perfor-mance of organizational values practices. Academyof Management Journal, 56: 84-112.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. 2012. Seekingqualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on theGioia methodology. Organizational ResearchMethods, http://orm.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/20/1094428112452151.abstract.

Hofstadter, D. R. 2008. I am a strange loop. New York:Basic Books.

Howard-Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., & Meyer, A. D.2013. Rekindling the flame: Processes of identity

12 Academy of Management Journal February

resurrection. Academy of Management Journal, 56:113-136.

Klag, M., & Lauagley, A. 2013. Approaching the concep-tual leap in qualitative research. International Jour-nal of Management Reviews, In press.

Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. 2013. Move to the beat: Rhythmsof change and firm performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 56: 160-184.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from processdata. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691-710.

Langley, A., Smallman, C, Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A.2009. Call for papers: Special Research Forum onProcess Studies of Change in Organization and Man-agement. Academy of Management Journal, 52:629-630.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2010. Introducing perspec-tives on process organization studies. In T. Hernes &S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organ-izing: 1-26. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic enquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Locke, K. D., Colden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. 2008.Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role ofdoubt in the research process. Organization Sci-ence, 19: 907-918.

Lok, J., & de Rond, M. J. 2013. On the plasticity of insti-tutions: Containing eind restoring practice break-downs at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 56: 185-207.

MacKay, R. B., & Chia, R. 2013. Choice, chance andunintended consequences in strategic change: A pro-cess imderstanding of the rise and fall of NorüicoAutomotive. Academy of Management Journal, 56:208-230.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2013. Organizing processes andthe construction of risk: A discursive approach.Academy of Management Journal, 56: 231-255.

Merton, R. K. 1987. Three fragments from a sociologist'snotebook: Establishing the phenomenon, specifiedignorance, and strategic research materials. In W. R.Short & J. F. Scott (Eds.), Annual review of sociol-ogy, 13: 1-28. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Mesle, C. R. 2008. Process-relational philosophy: Anintroduction to Alfred North Whitehead. West Con-shohocken, PA: Templeton Foimdation Press.

Meyer, A., Caba, V., & Colwell, K. A. 2005. Organizing farfrom equilibrium: Non-linear change in organiza-tional fields. Organization Science, 16: 456-473.

Mohr, L. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. 2013.

Giving sense to and making sense of justice in post-merger integration. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 56: 256-284.

Peirce, C. S. 1958. The collected papers of CharlesSanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with nar-rative: From description to explanation. Academy ofManagement Review, 24: 711-724.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S.2001. Studying organizational change and develop-ment: Challenges for future research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44: 697-713.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006. Hard facts, dangeroushalf-truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evi-dence-based management Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Business School Press.

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes,M. E. 2000. Organizational change and innovationprocesses: Theory and methods for research. Ox-ford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Pratt, M. G. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips onwriting up (and reviewing) qualitative research.Academy of Management Journal, 52: 856-862.

Rasche, A., & Chia, R. 2009. Researching strategy prac-tices: A genealogical social theory perspective. Or-ganization Studies, 30: 713-734.

Rescher, N. 1996. Process metaphysics: An introductionto process philosophy. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Rousseau, D. M. 2006. Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Re-view, 31: 256-269.

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic ofpractice: Theorizing through practical activity.Academy of Management Review, 36: 338-360.

Tsoukas, H. 1989. The validity of idiographic researchexplanations. Academy of Management Review,14: 551-561.

Tsoukas, H. 2009. Craving for generality and small-Nstudies: A Wittgensteinian approach towards theepistemology of the particular in organization andmanagement studies. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman(Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational researchmethods: 285-301. London: Sage.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becom-ing: Rethinking organizational change. Organiza-tion Science, 13: 567-582.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategyprocess: A research note. Strategic ManagementJournal, 13: 169-188.

2013 Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de Ven 13

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guidefor organizational and social research. Oxford,U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Van Oorschot, K., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K., & vanWassenhove, L. N. 2013. Anatomy of a decision trapin complex new product development projects.Academy of Management Journal, 56: 285-307.

Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Whitehead, A. N. 1929. Process and reality: An essay incosmology. New York: Macmillan.

Wright, A. L., & Zammuto, R. F. 2013. Wielding thewillow: Processes of institutional change in Englishcounty cricket. Academy of Management Journal,56: 308-330.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and meth-ods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ann Langley ([email protected]) is professor of man-agement and Canada Research Chair in Strategic Manage-ment in Pluralistic Settings at HEC Montréal. She re-ceived her Ph.D. from HEC Montréal. Her researchfocuses on strategic change, leadership, identity, inter-professional collaboration, and the use of managementtools in complex organizations, with an emphasis onqualitative and process research methods.

Clive Smallman ([email protected]) is professorof management and dean. School of Business, Universityof Western Sydney, Australia. He received his Ph.D. fromBradford University School of Management. His researchinterests include the representation of managerial andorganizational processes, organizational learning, agent-based modeling of organizational and managerial pro-cesses, decision making for sustainable new product de-velopment, operational risk management, and decisionmaking in tourism management.

Haridimos Tsoukas ([email protected]) holds the Co-lumbia Ship Management Chair in Strategic Managementat the Department of Public and Business Administra-tion, University of Cyprus, and is a professor of organi-zation studies at the Warwick Business School, Univer-sity of Warwick. He received his Ph.D. from theManchester Business School. His reseeirch interests in-clude knowledge-based perspectives on organizations,organizational becoming, processes of organizing andsensemaking, practical reason in nianagement, and phil-osophical issues in organizational and managementresearch.

Andrew H. Van de Ven ([email protected]) is VernonH. Heath Professor of Organizational Innovation andChange in the Carlson School of the University of Min-nesota. He received his Ph.D. from the University ofWisconsin at Madison. His books and journal articlesover the years have dealt with Nominal Group brain-storming, organization theory, innovation and chemge,and engaged scholarship.

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

process studies of change in organization and management …

Documents