This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1094428108317204v1 12/2/239    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Klimoski, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Begin the Journey With the End in Mind

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rklimosk{at}gmu.edu.

	Abstract

This commentary critically examines the issues raised in the article by Bedeian, Van Fleet, and Hyman from a functional perspective, one that might be used in decisions about who should be a member of a prototypic work group. It takes the position that, like a work group, a journal editorial board exists for a purpose, and that purpose (or function) should play a major role in determining the criteria to be used when staffing the board’s membership. When contemporary thinking about the staffing of work groups is applied, the current practices of the journals of interest are found to be appropriate and defensible.

First published on April 8, 2008, doi:10.1177/1094428108317204

Organizational Research Methods 2009;12:239.

A more recent version of this article appeared on April 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. G. Bedeian, D. D. Van Fleet, and H. H. Hyman III ``Circle the Wagons and Defend the Faith'': Slicing and Dicing the Data Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2009; 12(2): 276 - 295. [Abstract] [PDF]