Page 40 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Gehman et al. 289

Eisenhardt (2012), Pache and Santos (2013), and Powell and A final reason why process thinking is important is con-
Baker (2014). cerned with the multiple and flowing nature of outcomes.
The usual variance study has a single outcome: Usually, this
Ann Langley is organizational performance, but that is a static one-time
thing. Yet, we all know that everything we do has multiple
Overview. I do not have a specific method. I also believe that rippling consequences that spread out over time. There are
trying to reduce our options to a single methodology is really short-term effects and there are long-term effects. One of the
not a good idea. However, I do have a position about research, studies that I did with Jean-Louis Denis and Lise Lamothe on
and it is about the importance of looking at processes. I am organizational change (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001)
interested in any kinds of methods that can help us under- brought this home to me rather starkly. We identified cases
stand them. I originally wrote my 1999 paper about process where CEOs and their management teams were very suc-
research methods (Langley, 1999) because I was puzzling cessful in achieving change in the shorter term. However, the
over how on earth to analyze complex data dealing with tem- things that they did in the process upset so many people that
porally evolving processes that might be persuasive and the- the top management teams broke down and people were
oretically insightful. The starting point for that paper was forced to leave and the organizations involved had to start all
that there are two different kinds of thinking that underlie over again. Process research resists stopping the clock to
most of our research: variance thinking and process thinking. focus on unique outcomes. Time and process always go on.
Variance thinking is what most of us actually do as social In fact, one of the questions that Joel [Gehman] and Vern
scientists, which is looking at the relationships between vari- [Glaser] asked us to address in this symposium is, “When do
ables. However, I am interested in a different kind of under- you stop collecting data?” I find that a difficult question
standing of the world where we think about how things because I know that any stopping point is arbitrary. Classic
evolve over time. This form of understanding is very much variance studies seem to overlook this.
based on flows of activities and events. It turns out that vari-
ables and events are really quite different entities, so you do Some basic steps. There is no one best way to perform pro-
very often need quite different methods to deal with them. cess research, and I think that this is an important message
For example, you might explain innovation in two different that I want to convey here. In my 1999 paper (Langley,
ways: either by looking at the factors that might be correlated 1999), I described several approaches to data collection and
with it (the variance approach) or by asking what are the analysis that can be used to study processes. Moreover, these
activities you actually have to engage in over time to produce approaches are not necessarily better or worse than each
it (the process approach). A fascinating example of how other; they just produce different though often equally inter-
these two forms of thinking might apply to the same qualita- esting ways of understanding of the world. I believe that it is
tive data on innovation is illustrated by two papers by Alan important to know about some of the options that are
Meyer and colleagues from the 1980s (Meyer, 1984—a pro- available.
cess study; Meyer & Goes, 1988—a variance study). That said, I do have a few principles and suggestions
Why is studying processes over time important? First of about how one might try to generate convincing and theoreti-
all, it is important because time is the only thing we cannot cally insightful process studies. These are based on my own
escape. Time is a very central part of the world we live in, research and also on that of others. Notably, if you are inter-
and it is very surprising that a lot of our research still does ested in process research, I suggest reading the recent AMJ
not take it seriously into account. A second reason is that Special Forum on Process Studies of Change in Organization
process is extremely important from the perspective of prac- and Management I coedited with Clive Smallman, Hari
titioners. We may know, for example, that bigger organiza- Tsoukas, and Andy Van de Ven, which came out in 2013
tions tend to have economies of scale, and because of that (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013). This is
they may be able to be more profitable, generally speaking. a really nice collection of 13 articles that illustrate different
But if you are a small organization, that does not tell you facets of process research (e.g., Bruns, 2013; Gehman,
what to do. You cannot get bigger instantaneously. Using a Treviño, & Garud, 2013; Howard-Grenville, Metzger, &
variance understanding (i.e., A is better than B) does not cap- Meyer, 2013; Jay, 2013; Lok & de Rond, 2013; Monin,
ture the movement over time to move from A to B. The pro- Noorderhaven, Vaara, & Kroon, 2013; Wright & Zammuto,
cess of becoming bigger can make all the difference, and it is 2013).
this that an organization will need to understand if it wants to One of the first principles of process research is that you
grow. A third reason for studying processes is that we often have to actually study things over time. This is a prerequisite,
forget the huge amount of work and activity that is required and it requires rich longitudinal data. Interviews and obser-
to stay in the same place. The world has to sustain itself, and vations are typical sources for qualitative data, but other
so the process (i.e., the activities and effort involved) is very kinds of data can be used as well. There is, for example, a
important. lovely paper by April Wright and Ray Zammuto (Wright &