Novice researchers face challenges in applying grounded theory and choosing between its two historical approaches—Glaserian and Straussian. Although much has been discussed regarding the differences between the Glaserian and Straussian approaches, these differences can confuse early researchers, leading to the flawed use of grounded theory in management and organizational research. Using three case studies (a PhD graduate, a PhD candidate, and a PhD supervisor) in a management and organizational research context, this article illustrates these key differences and provides guidance for researchers in choosing between them. By providing examples and commentary, this article aims to help researchers to choose and apply the most appropriate form of grounded theory within the field of management and organizational research.

This paper reports on an exploratory investigation into the concept of managerial wisdom. Six senior managers from diverse and large organisations in New Zealand were interviewed about their conception of managerial wisdom. The findings show that senior managers have a practical and positive conception of wisdom consisting of four factors: experience and knowledge, emotional intelligence, mentorship, and deliberation and consultation. The findings show that concepts of ‘spirituality’, ‘religiosity’, and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, ‘ethics’, are all absent from the participants’ descriptions of wise managers. A tentative definition of managerial wisdom is proposed based on these findings as well as an explanation for the absence of ethics. As interest in wisdom and management continues to grow, this exploratory empirical research serves as a base for further research on the understanding and place of wisdom in management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract