Leadership in the Academic Field of Business and Management and the Question of Country of Origin: A Commentary on Burgess and Shaw (2010)

With globalization in business academia expanding and deepening, it is timely to question the validity and utility of the concept of country of origin as a base category for comparative cross‐cultural research and theory development. In their contribution in the British Journal of Management, Burgess and Shaw (2010) rank the most productive institutions and countries contributing to board membership of top ranked journals on the basis of their country of origin. Taking their findings as a starting point for our discourse, we re‐analyse their database, in addition to our own investigations. We contend that while country of origin may be an appropriate category for between‐countries comparison of multinational entities, it is of little use when comparing meta‐national institutions, such as top tier refereed journal boards and the globalized business/management schools from which they are drawn. Our findings point towards the need for finer differentiation of what constitutes the concept country of origin, but also that its relevance should be questioned in, at least, globalized contexts. The question we pose extends to any pertinent ‘globalized’ topic within and without business and management.     

Research Constituents and Authorship Patterns in the Production and Operations Management Journal

The Production and Operations Management Society is the largest professional society dedicated to creating and disseminating knowledge in product and process design, operations, and supply chains for the management of manufacturing and services. Its research journal, Production and Operations Management (POM), covers all topics in the discipline and all research paradigms to serve the entire community. Since its inception in 1992, POM has become recognized as a top tier outlet for operations management research. We identify research institutions in the operations management community that have played major roles in developing the journal based on the research of their faculty members and doctoral graduates. Our findings show that the constituency of the journal reflects the constituency of the society.     

Journal of International Management: A 25-year review using bibliometric analysis

The Journal of International Management (JIM) is a leading international academic journal in the field of international business. This study presents a retrospect of the publications in JIM for the last 25 years (as JIM was founded in 1995) through a bibliometric methodology using the Scopus database and Web of Science. The study graphically maps the bibliographic material using VOS viewer software and applies co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of author keywords. We identify that the journal has expanded consistently and steadily in terms of both number of publications and citations. The collaboration network has expanded over the years, and the geographical focus is more global, encompassing Asia and Oceania. Bibliographic coupling of JIM publications reveals several distinct, major themes in the international management/business domain. Conventional international management themes that have emerged include market entry modes, globalization, international human resource management, cross-cultural management/leadership, and expatriate management. New emerging themes include emerging markets, global sourcing, innovation performance, digital firms, diversity of global teams, internationalization in uncertain environments, and virtual teams. A summary of the shifting research trends and themes in the discipline and their development is presented in this review, culminating in future directions for prospective publishers of JIM.     

Extending the Foundations and Reach of Design Science: Further Reflections on the Role of Critical Realism

In his commentary on our proposal to reframe the relevance of business and management research by combining design science with critical realism (Hodgkinson and Starkey, British Journal of Management, 22 (2011), pp. 355–369), Willmott (British Journal of Management, 23 (2012), pp. 598–604) commends us for our advocacy of a social science as opposed to professional school agenda, while admonishing us for seeking to underpin the commended design science ethos with critical realism, on the grounds of ontological inconsistency and the risk of diminishing the emancipatory elements of our social usefulness agenda. In reply, we demonstrate how, in highlighting the interplay of multiple generative mechanisms within and between levels of analysis, critical realism is entirely commensurate with the design science approach advocated, and enriches rather than diminishes our overarching agenda to humanize the workplace.     

Reframing Relevance as ‘Social Usefulness’: A Comment on Hodgkinson and Starkey's ‘Not Simply Returning to the Same Answer Over and Over Again’

This is a commentary on Hodgkinson and Starkey's (British Journal of Management, 22 (2011), pp. 355–369) proposal to reframe the relevance of business and management research by combining design science with critical realism. Their proposal is welcomed for its advocacy of a ‘social usefulness’ agenda and for commending the insights of the social sciences, rather than emulating a professional (e.g. medical school) model. However, the advocacy of critical realism is not consistent with the commended conception of design science; and it also risks devaluing the contribution of other progressive, emancipation‐oriented approaches to research. Despite substituting ‘social usefulness’ for ‘relevance’, Hodgkinson and Starkey's proposal does not challenge the established, comparatively narrow, research agenda. The counterproposal prioritizes a conception of relevance/social usefulness that broadens what is studied by business school researchers as well as changing how established topics are researched.     

Forty years of European Management Journal: A bibliometric overview

The European Management Journal (EMJ) is a renowned peer-reviewed journal of international reputation in the fields of business and management research since 1982. EMJ publishes original and high-quality conceptual, empirical, and review research papers that contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge and its application in the field. Until the time of this overview, 2164 papers (including 2004 articles, 96 editorials, 28 conference papers, 27 notes, and 3 short surveys) have been published in the journal between 1982 and 2020. We analyzed all these articles using bibliometric techniques to examine the impact of the journal’s publications, most productive and influential authors, and their contributions in the field of business and management research. Co-authorship among the top authors, co-occurrences of the topics, co-citations of the journals, bibliographic coupling of the authors, affiliating institutes, and countries were analyzed by applying network analysis techniques using VOSviewer software. The advancement of research in the field of management during the last decade is also critically discussed in order to understand recent developments in the field of business and management research.     

INTRODUCTION: SHAPING THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE OPERATIONS

The challenges and opportunities in production and operations management (POM) are almost unlimited because in the world economy, manufacturing andservice operations account for more than 10 trillion dollars per year and in any single industry, the performance varies widely from country to country and from organization to organization. The goal of Production and Operations Management is to contribute to improving the management of manufacturing and service operations all over the world. The editors and reviewers judge the papers published in the journal for their contribution to improving of business practices and to further closeness between research and practice. The journal will publish high quality papers on a broad range of topics in POM, and it encourages all paradigms, old and new. We also invite managers from around the world to describe specific POM problems that provide challenging opportunities for academic research.     

Reflections on the distinctiveness of European management scholarship

Management scholarship and the journal publication process has been increasingly criticised for being overly elitist and largely irrelevant to the needs of business. There is some justification for such criticisms. Yet, paradoxically, university business schools must resist the urge to be superficially relevant in order to be genuinely useful. I argue here that the very best of management research scholarship relies on a ‘scholarship of common sense’ that actively mirrors the very best of business and management practices. Artistic rigour, much more than technical rigour is needed. Openness, empirical sensitivity and the capacity for achieving ‘flying leaps’ of imagination, are to be preferred to procedural adherence in the research process. This alternative understanding of academic rigour and the intellectual richness and diversity of perspectives associated with it is clearly more evident in the British and European intellectual traditions. Such a European-styled management scholarship can help in actively reshaping the intellectual landscape, priorities and parameters of management research by encouraging the kind of scholarly contributions that is not simply technically rigorous, but imaginatively interesting and often counterintuitive.     

The relevance and impact of business schools: In search of a holistic view

The degree to which business schools are relevant and impactful for society has been disputed. Critics that engage in the so-called ‘relevance problem’ have argued that business schools are preoccupied with academic rigour at the expense of practical relevance, resulting in a lack of societal impact. This systematic literature review synthesizes the fragmented body of knowledge pertaining to the relevance and impact of business schools. Appreciating the contributions of both research and education, this review offers a holistic view that acknowledges the multidimensional nature of business schools. Based on an analysis of 266 journal articles, we present the four main literature streams in this domain. We find limited evidence of cross-fertilisation between discussions of research and education. However, by acknowledging the contribution of applying a multidimensional lens to the study of business schools, we develop a holistic thematic framework that provides theoretical directions for the future. Using this, we demonstrate four avenues for advancing the business school literature. First, we emphasise the potential of an institutional logics perspective to viewing business schools. Second, we offer a novel proposal for understanding the bridge between research and education. Third, we emphasise the application of a value co-creation theoretical lens when considering how business schools engage with stakeholders in research and education. Finally, we propose an all-encompassing stakeholder-centric definition of relevant and impactful knowledge and advocate for this inclusive definition to conceptually bridge the fragmented discussions of research and education.     

What Influences Business Academics’ Use of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) List? Evidence From a Survey of UK Academics

The development of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) list in 2007 and its rapid adoption by UK business schools has had a profound effect on the nature of business and management academics’ ways of working. Using a large‐scale survey of UK business academics, we assess the extent to which individuals use the Academic Journal Guide (AJG/ABS) list in their day‐to‐day professional activities. In particular, we explore how their perceptions of the list, the academic influence of their research, academic rank and organizational context drive the varied use. Building on prior research on the importance of univalent attitudes in predicting behaviour, we find those who have either strong positive or negative views of the list are more extensive users than those who are ambivalent. We also find that the extent of use of the AJG/ABS list is greatest among those academics who have lower academic influence, in the middle or junior ranks within business schools and in middle and low‐status universities. We explore the implications of these findings for the value of journal rankings and for the management of business schools.     

Rerum Novarum and the modern corporation

This paper argues that Rerum Novarumis a classic text. The classic character of Rerum Novarumis evident in relation to contemporary business ethics, particularly when Pope Leo addresses questions concerning the moral workplace and the moral economic order. The paper is in three parts. The first section explores Rerum Novarumand Pope Leo's model for creating the moral workplace. The second section argues that Rerum Novarumanticipates, both conceptually and normatively, the thrust of much contemporary work in business ethics. Conceptually the encyclical responds to issues on the micro and macro arenas as does contemporary business ethics. Normatively the encyclical argues that moral reasoning ought to be a part of management decisions. Rerum Novarumappeals to personal forces and calls upon the conscience of managers. The third section suggests that the decisions of some modern corporations are consistent with the insights of Leo XIII. Three cases are used to illustrate themes in Rerum Novarumthat are morally significant today.     

The Assessment of Research Quality in UK Universities: Peer Review or Metrics?

This paper investigates the extent to which the outcomes of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, determined by peer review, can be explained by a set of quantitative indicators. Three cognate units of assessment are examined in detail: business and management, economics and econometrics, and accounting and finance. The main finding is that each of the three components of research activity (namely, research output, esteem and research environment) is highly correlated with various quantitative indicators. A further finding is that the judgement of the Research Assessment Exercise panels was biased in favour of Russell Group universities. There is also evidence of bias by the economics and econometrics panel. The results support the use of quantitative indicators in the research assessment process, particularly a journal quality index. Requiring the panels to take bibliometric indicators into account should help not only to reduce the workload of panels but also to mitigate the problem of implicit bias.     

Revisiting management innovation and change programmes: strategic vision or tunnel vision?

The information systems (IS) and management literature, broadly conceived, is replete with management innovation and change programmes. All are designed to enhance business performance and competitive advantage. This paper examines five approaches which have been developed in the post-war period to improve business performance. They are Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-In-Time production management (JIT), Activity Based Costing (ABC), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), and Process Innovation. By comparing and contrasting these approaches, it is found that considerable overlap exists in their scope, style, content, aims and objectives. In view of this, the paper argues that instead of re-inventing the wheel every few years with a new management innovation and change panacea or fad, a broader, inter-disciplinary perspective should be adopted which seeks to understand the wider ideological, historical and empirical perspective which underpins these ideas. This is instead of the tunnel vision approach which seeks only to place these ideas in a narrow organisational or managerial context.     

Mapping the changes in management science: A review of ‘soft’ OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973–2008)

The paper proposes a framework to map the development of management science (MS) and uses it to survey the MS literature published in Omega, the International Journal of Management Science. The management science discourse over the last 35 years is mapped in four paradigms: (1) optimisation/normative; (2) interpretative/learning; (3) critical; and (4) a post-modern management science approach. Using a set of keywords and authors’ names associated with the main features of each MS discourse, articles published between 1973 and 2008 are grouped. Results seem to suggest that Omega, a US-based journal, has been mainly developing publications under the optimisation paradigm; only very few papers adhering to the interpretative/learning and critical paradigms have been given space in Omega. The handful of papers from the interpretative paradigm are seen as attempts of UK-based academics to open some space for ‘soft’ operational research (OR) or ‘problem structuring methods’ in a positivistic outlook that seems to pervade US management science practice. Results of the survey and features of MS literature published in Omega are discussed. The paper aims to raise awareness amongst management scientist, systems and operational researchers of the differences between the MS/OR practice in both countries.     

Corporate Citizenship and Managerial Motivation: Implications for Business Legitimacy

In 2000, Business and Society Review published a Special Issue of the journal to explore scholars’ ideas about how the practice of corporate citizenship would evolve in the 21st century. Contributors to the volume predicted a change in business motives for engaging in social initiatives, suggesting that managers would begin to see corporate citizenship as a strategic necessity to preserve organizational legitimacy in the face of changing social values. This article uses data from a study of corporate citizenship practices in over 500 Norwegian companies to explore the validity of the Special Issue predictions. We begin by reviewing the foundations of organizational legitimacy theory and examine recent research documenting the growing importance of corporate citizenship for assessments of business legitimacy. We describe our study methods, present our results, and discuss the implications of our findings in this context.     

Developing management capability within a horizontal supply chain in performance measurement deployment and evolution: a Dynamic Capabilities and Goal Theory perspective

Abstract

Complex collaboration in rapidly changing business environments create challenges for management capability in Utility Horizontal Supply Chains (UHSCs) involving the deploying and evolving of performance measures. The aim of the study is twofold. First, there is a need to explore how management capability can be developed and used to deploy and evolve Performance Measurement (PM), both across a UHSC and within its constituent organisations, drawing upon a theoretical nexus of Dynamic Capability (DC) theory and complementary Goal Theory. Second, to make a contribution to knowledge by empirically building theory using these constructs to show the management motivations and behaviours within PM-based DCs. The methodology uses an interpretive theory building, multiple case-based approach (n = 3) as part of a USHC. The data collection methods include, interviews (n = 54), focus groups (n = 10), document analysis and participant observation (reflective learning logs) over a five-year period giving longitudinal data. The empirical findings lead to the development of a conceptual framework showing that management capabilities in driving PM deployment and evolution can be represented as multilevel renewal and incremental Dynamic Capabilities, which can be further understood in terms of motivation and behaviour by Goal-Theoretic constructs. In addition, three interrelated cross-cutting themes of management capabilities in consensus building, goal setting and resource change were identified. These management capabilities require carefully planned development and nurturing within the UHSC.     

A data envelopment analysis approach for ranking journals

We create a data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to rank business journals, using data from the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports^® (JCR). As opposed to previous models that ranked journals in only one field and mostly relied on survey data, this model is used to rank 358 business journals from five different JCR categories according to such citation-based factors as the number of articles, the number of citations, impact factor, five-year impact factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. We compute relative efficiencies of the journals and thereby create plausible journal rankings that largely, but not completely, corroborate three widely used business publication journal ranking lists. In addition, we show how the different characteristics of the JCR data impact the DEA ranking model. Finally, we identify journals that are not on the business publication lists but consistently perform very well relative to those benchmark journals, and should possibly be included in the business publication ranking lists. We also identify journals whose inclusion in widely used business publication rankings cannot be justified by our methodology.