Making a life in the field of organization science WILLIAM H. GLICK 1 * , C. CHET MILLER 2 AND LAURA B. CARDINAL 3 1 Rice University, Houston, Texas, U.S.A. 2 Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A. 3 Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A. Summary In a provocative address and article, Jeff Pfeffer called for greater consensus and stronger paradigm development in organization science. John Van Maanen and others responded with encouragement for the existing order where a thousand flowers can bloom. More than 10 years after this debate, it appears that many flowers are still blooming. Lost in the original and current discourse, however, is the story of individuals struggling to make a life in a field characterized by weak paradigm development. In this essay, we tell their story, a story of wasted efforts and uncertain outcomes. The degree of dissensus and weak paradigm develop- ment in our field has significant implications for junior scholars. These implications will not be ameliorated by calling for stronger paradigm development. Wishing for consensus does not appear to have any impact on our field or on individual outcomes. Rather than despair over the plight of the field and the tremendous costs to individuals, we conclude with a simple proposal designed to aid aspiring scholars. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction In the mid 1990s, Jeff Pfeffer, John Van Maanen, and others entertained the organizations community with their now infamous debate on the future direction of organizational scholarship. Pfeffer (1993) argued that a meaningful field could exist only if a unified paradigm were to appear. In theory, such unification would yield consensus on key research questions and methodologies, and would lead to a host of positive outcomes including the ability to have a cumulative science and the likelihood of greater respect outside the field. Van Maanen (1995) took exception to this position, arguing in essence that our field functions best as a garden with many flowers, and more than a few weeds. Cannella and Paetzold (1994: 336) took a similar but more tempered position, arguing for a ‘spirit of openness to other views’. For Van Maanen, Canella, and Paetzold, the key was diversity in perspectives, questions, and methods, as a way to match the diversity of organizational phenomena, and as recognition that we do not yet know enough to choose a single paradigm. Those with more than a few years in the field will recall the occasional ferociousness of the debate, with Pfeffer (1995: 682) accusing Van Maanen of political speech designed to dull rather than awaken Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 817–835 (2007) Published online 4 June 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.455 * Correspondence to: William H. Glick, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management, MS 531, Rice University, Houston, TX 77252-2932, U.S.A. E-mail: bill.glick@rice.edu Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 1 February 2007 Accepted 1 March 2007