Journal of Operations Management 24 (2006) 735–736

Editorial

Incorporating behavioral theory in OM empirical models

www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

In the 1980 inaugural issue of the Journal of

Operations Management, Powell and Johnson (1980)

stressed the need to introduce behavioral factors into

research models of operational processes and perfor-

mance. More recently, Hopp’s (2004) article on the 50th

anniversary of Management Science has issued a

similar call, emphasizing that understanding the nature

of a firm’s operations ‘‘does not just require a theory of

human motivation and a theory of material flow; it also

requires a means for describing the interaction between

the two.’’ In recent years, there has been a growing

interest in the introduction of behavioral theory as a key

element of empirical models of operational dynamics

and performance. The implications suspected through

the joint consideration of such theories lay not only in

the evaluation of new models designed to capture a

changing global economy, but also in reassessing the

validity of existing models that have come to be

recognized as foundations and sources of fundamental

assumptions in operations management.

While academic research on operations topics has

long accepted the role of human factors in ensuring the

effectiveness of prescribed operational policy, the field

has had a tendency to defer these issues to other

disciplines, focusing instead on ones that might at first

appear simpler to codify and objectively address. Sadly,

this has resulted in a natural discounting of the intimacy

of operational and human-behavioral dynamics, and a

natural barrier to the practicality of much research in

operations. Fortunately, there has been a recent

resurgence in the interest of incorporating these

‘‘softer’’ issues in OM, as demonstrated by events such

as the 2006–2007 Harvard series on Behavioral

Operations, the 2006 Penn State conference on

Behavioral Research in OM, the expansion of the

Behavioral Dynamics in OM network of scholars (along

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.09.003

with its affiliated conference arms), and moves by other

journals to recognize the relevance of human behavior

in operational policy. Since these events took place

largely following the placement of this special issue

call, we must thank Rob Handfield for having the

foresight to sponsor this special issue. Its timeliness is

only reinforced by this wave of new activity.

In total, 49 papers were submitted for review to this

special issue. The decision, to reject specific papers at

the desk level or pass them on to full review, was based

largely on a clear and meaningful reliance on existing

behavioral theory in revealing insights into operations

practice. Furthermore, as required by the call, all

papers undergoing full review had to demonstrate an

empirical orientation. Along with the special issue

submissions, an additional two manuscripts under

later stages of general review at JOM were transferred

into this special issue on the basis of fit, and an

additional review article was developed by the

special issue editors to emphasize the critical role of

behavioral laboratory research in clarifying funda-

mental assumptions, often taken for granted by

operations modelers.

As always, the rigor and quality of the review process

is largely the artifact of reviewers. In each case of full

review, we made efforts to assign reviewers knowl-

edgeable of the context being studied, as well as the

theory and methodology applied. In each of these cases,

we also ensured that at least one reviewer was either

from a top 20 business school or a recognized content

expert. In each case at least three reviewers were

assigned, at least two of which were tenured faculty

members. In summary, the seven articles that success-

fully passed through the review process, therefore,

represented a 14% acceptance rate. We believe that a

number of ideas presented by papers rejected in this

Editorial / Journal of Operations Management 24 (2006) 735–736736

process hold a great deal of merit if pursued, and

strongly encourage authors to continue their work along

related lines. The final set published in this special issue

are highly characteristic of the breadth of topics covered

by the original 49, and to that extent provide a rich and

broad ground for future research at the interface of OM

and OB/HR research.

References

Hopp, W.J., 2004. Fifty years of management science. Management

Science Linthicum 50 (1), 1–8.

Powell, G.N., Johnson, G.A., 1980. An expectancy-equity model of

productive system performance. Journal of Operations Manage-

ment 1 (1), 47–56.

Elliot Bendoly*

Emory University,

Decision and Information Analysis,

1300 Clifton Road, Atlanta,

GA 30322-2710, USA

*Tel.: +1 404 727 7138

E-mail address: elliot_bendoly@bus.emory.edu

Available online 30 October 2006