In this first issue of JMO for 2020 (and my last as EIC), we present a series of papers that intentionally set out to promote discussion and debate on a range of important management issues.

Management has long been seen as something that should rarely be questioned. This series of papers have been selected as they suggest that this may not be the best policy. The authors do not hold back from dealing with ‘contentious’ issues in management, and aim to pave the way for further discussions. Differing views and even disagreement are encouraged, which is really what academia should be about: respectful discussions based on evidence that advance understanding and practice.

The first paper of the series is by UK-based author Simon Bridge who asks ‘Are We Ignorant About Enterprise: Questioning Assumptions?’ Bridge challenges just how much we truly know about organisations (which he terms enterprises).

Continuing on the theme of questioning assumptions is the second paper: ‘Older boards are better boards, so beware of diversity targets’. Prior Jonson, McGuire, Rasel & Cooper look into the effects of age organisational board membership upon financial performance.

The third paper is from Scheuer and Loughlin: ‘Could the Aging Workforce Reduce the Agency Penalty for Female Leaders? Re-examining the Think Manager-Think Male Stereotype’. This approaches the effect of age and gender in a different direction. While having a communal view in the workplace is important, being older than your staff is generally perceived as a positive.

Chang deals with the benefits of being uncomfortable, and how this can actually be good for us in our fourth paper. ‘Can intergroup conflict aid the growth of within- and between-group social capital?’ explores the effects of interdepartmental conflict on bridging social capital between groups within an organisation.

In the fifth paper ‘Entitlement at work: Linking positive behaviours to employee entitlement’ Langerud and Jordan guide us toward an examination of perceptions of employee entitlement. These are generally seen to be increasing in organizations and are often associated with negative work outcomes.

‘Same words, different worlds: Exploring differences in researcher and participant understandings of promise and obligation in the psychological contract’ is our sixth paper. Ma, Blenkinsopp & Armstrong return us to our earlier unresolved questions and unquestioned assumptions, discussing how promise and obligation are both conceptualized and operationalized.

Lastly, in our final paper ‘Looking Backward through the Looking Glass: Reference Groups and Social Comparison’ Lee, Rhee and Park place under the microscope the assumption that reference groups are industry-wide, homogeneous, and stable.

I hope you find this selection of papers for our opening edition of 2020 an engaging and interesting read. In a fast paced and rapidly changing world, it is too easy to look for and find ‘convenient’ and ‘easy’ answers. As academics, this is not the place or world we inhabit. Acknowledging the role and the need for tension, answering questions with evidence and respectful debate seems more in need now than ever.

Read the full issue here.