Problematizing ‘Relevance’ in the Business School: The Case of Leadership Studies

In recent years, the discourse of ‘relevance’ has risen to prominence in the university‐based business school. At the heart of this discourse is the suggestion that management researchers should align their research practices more closely with the needs of practitioners in external organizations. One important but under‐researched strand of this debate focuses on the way in which ‘relevance’ is pursued by business scholars via forms of practitioner engagement such as management consulting, corporate presentations, executive education and personal coaching. Drawing on extensive semi‐structured interviews, this paper explores the motivations, rewards and tensions experienced by leadership scholars in the process of engaging with practitioners. This study suggests that the pursuit of ‘relevance’ may come into conflict with norms of scholarly conduct, which in turn gives rise to a series of trade‐offs and compromises. Ultimately, the authors argue that the prevailing discourse of relevance provides an alibi for scholars to orient themselves towards practitioners in ways that contravene their academic identity and research ethos (whether post‐positivist, interpretivist or critical).     

管理信息系统(MIS) :背景、核心课程、学术流派及 主要国际学术会议与刊物评介

管理信息系统(management information system , MIS) 是一门新兴的交叉学科. 简介了这一 学科创立的背景, 国际MIS 学科核心课程, 当今世界MIS 学科领域的主要学术流派及主要的 国际学术会议及刊物,以期中国MIS 领域的专家学者更好地知已知彼,为在国际MIS 学术刊物 上发表更多的学术论文提供一些参考建议.     

管理信息系统(MIS) :背景、核心课程、学术流派及 主要国际学术会议与刊物评介

管理信息系统(management information system, MIS)是一门新兴的交叉学科.简介了这一学科创立的背景, 国际MIS 学科核心课程, 当今世界MIS学科领域的主要学术流派及主要的国际学术会议及刊物,以期中国MIS领域的专家学者更好地知已知彼,为在国际MIS学术刊物上发表更多的学术论文提供一些参考建议.     

Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach

Despite ambitious efforts in various fields of research over multiple decades, the goal of making academic research relevant to the practitioner remains elusive: theoretical and academic research interests do not seem to coincide with the interests of managerial practice. This challenge is more fundamental than knowledge transfer, it is one of diverging knowledge interests and means of knowledge production. In this article, we look at this fundamental challenge through the lens of design science, which is an approach aimed primarily at discovery and problem solving as opposed to accumulation of theoretical knowledge. We explore in particular the ways in which problem‐solving research and theory‐oriented academic research can complement one another. In operations management (OM) research, recognizing and building on this complementarity is especially crucial, because problem‐solving–oriented research produces the very artifacts (e.g., technologies) that empirical OM research subsequently evaluates in an attempt to build explanatory theory. It is indeed the practitioner—not the academic scientist—who engages in basic research in OM. This idiosyncrasy prompts the question: how can we enhance the cross‐fertilization between academic research and research practice to make novel theoretical insights and practical relevance complementary? This article proposes a design science approach to bridge practice to theory rather than theory to practice.     

The Conventions of Management Research and their Relevance to Management Practice

This paper recognizes the failure of management research to communicate with practitioners, and speculates over the reasons why this may be the case. It is possible that the researchers’ interests may not always coincide with management practitioners’; however, even when such interests are congruent, it seems that relatively little management research is published in practitioner journals. We suggest that this is because academic research is written in a style that tends to alienate most practitioners. This paper isolates the stylistic conventions associated with research targeted to academics (typically published in academic journals) and research targeted to practitioners (typically published in practitioner‐oriented journals). Such stylistic differences are illustrated through a study of organizational change whose findings have been published in both academic and practitioner format, namely in the Administrative Science Quarterly and the Harvard Business Review. We suggest that the gap between these two types of research could be narrowed through processes of translation (i.e. academic jargon could be translated in practitioner language). In addition we might consider greater use of Mode 2 research over Mode 1 research (academic). Mode 2 research presupposes that teams of academics and practitioners assemble to define the research problem and methodology in terms appropriate to a particular context and in a way that accounts for all existing interests so that translation processes are seamless. However, Mode 2 creates its own gap in that the knowledge is more contextual and may not reach a wide audience.     

Operations Management Opportunities in Technology Commercialization and Entrepreneurship

The field of Production and Operations Management (POM) is increasingly perceived as a rigorous but narrow field, antiquated and not very relevant to the current challenges and concerns of managers in job‐creating growth companies vital to our economies. I argue that a narrower positioning of POM in the past is responsible for its perceived limited utility to growth firms and global economies. POM at its core is about “doing more with less,” which is very well aligned with the context and needs of resource‐constrained entrepreneurial companies. My discussion is focused on how the research paradigm of POM is and can be relevant to meeting the emerging challenges of growth companies of tomorrow. Specifically, I examine how POM can help meet the needs of these organizations to become scalable and sustainable. The objective is to stimulate thought and discussion and encourage early‐stage POM scholars to seriously consider the contexts of technology commercialization, entrepreneurship, and growth companies as avenues for future research.     

Practitioner research for the professionalization of human resources practice: empirical data from the Netherlands

Despite the growing interest in and literature regarding practitioner research in human resources (HR), not much is known about the factors that play a role in the actual practice by HR practitioners. This article describes an explorative study to gain empirical insight into the use and quality of practitioner research in HR practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 Dutch HR practitioners from diverse backgrounds, posing questions about (1) their definitions of practitioner research, (2) the characteristics of the research they perform, (3) the quality and usability of the research projects in which they have taken part, and (4) the forces that drive or hinder practitioner research. We constructed theory-based coding schemes to analyse the data. To assess the quality and usability of the research performed by participants, we constructed a quality framework. Our findings show that all participants were more or less involved in HR-related practitioner research, but the quality and usability of that research could be improved. We report several causes and influencing factors. Our findings complement previous research on evidence-based HR and other practitioner research approaches and provide new insights. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for further research and practice.     

Authentic leadership theory: The case for and against

Scholarly and practitioner interest in the topic of authentic leadership has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Running parallel to this interest, however, have been a number of concerns regarding the conceptual and methodological underpinnings for research on the construct. In this exchange of letters, the cases for and against the current authentic leadership theory are made. Through a dialogue, several areas of common ground are identified, as well as focal areas where the cases for and against the utility of authentic leadership theory for scholars and practitioners sharply diverge. Suggestions for future theorizing and research that reflect areas of common ground are advanced, along with divergent perspectives on how research on authenticity and leadership should proceed. Despite their differences, both author teams found the dialogue in itself to be a healthy process for theory development and encourage constructive future dialogue on other areas where theoretical perspectives diverge.     

Putting the First Audience First: Conducting Useful Evaluation for a Risk-Related Government Agency

The risk communication practitioner in a government agency has two essential, interdependent tasks. One is to help develop and monitor effective communication programs with various external public audiences. The other task is to do the same thing for the senior government managers whose support is a prerequisite to addressing the first audience. Hence, the second audience–the manager–is really the first. This paper addresses ways in which communication practitioners can satisfy this crucial audience. A profile of these managers suggests that they would find it highly beneficial to have more control over the public problems they encounter, especially in view of the growing pressures to do more with less and demonstrate "customer satisfaction." They would rather avoid crises than manage them. And they would rather have their bosses praise their successes than challenge their budgets or punish their perceived difficulties or failures. Communication practitioners who can help them attain such benefits will find their efforts in great demand. They would be helpful team members who provide timely insights that can make and show agency success. We offer ten ways for communication practitioners to be more useful which focus their current strengths on satisfying senior managers'needs by becoming more valuable members of the program team. By becoming more useful to the senior manager they serve both the agency and its publics.     

The COVID‐19 Pandemic: What can we learn from past research in organizations and management?

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic is having a profound impact on organizations across the world, as businesses and societies face their greatest challenges for many decades. Over the past 20 years, the International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) has published many reviews of research that bring together the key findings across important bodies of research relevant to understanding how organizations might confront grand challenges such as these. Reflecting on this work, we have chosen a number of recent reviews published in the journal which have relevance both for practitioners and scholars in the current crisis. We invited the authors of these papers to offer some comments, which we have drawn from in the discussion below.     

Longitudinal Tracer Studies: Research Methodology of the Middle Range

This article reviews the longitudinal tracer study in the context of the researcher–practitioner relevance gap. It proposes the tracer as a methodological middle-range approach that takes account of relevancy and which involves practitioners in the research process. An ESRC research project about hoshin kanri (policy deployment) is used as an example to explain the longitudinal tracer study approach. The methodological approach is consistent with middle range theory and thinking, and involves skeletal prior theory, tags, a practitioner network, and continuous reflexivity. It is concluded that the longitudinal tracer study can be a useful middle-range solution to help close the researcher–practitioner gap.     

Better know a Human Resource Development (HRD) scholar: a conversation with Robert (Bob) G. Hamlin

This article contains a conversation with Robert (Bob) G. Hamlin and is part of aseries that focuses on different human resource development (HRD) scholars. Theaim is to better understand the people behind the names we see in print and at HRD scholarly conferences. Bob is professor emeritus and chair of HRD at the University of Wolverhampton Business School, UK and a management and organization development consultant at Oaken Consultancy. Bob has spoken at many HRD conferences in Europe and the United States and was one of the founding members of the University Forum for HRD. The conversation explores Bob's career in HRD practice, research, teaching and management. Among the topics covered are the significance of practical experience and the influence it can then have on research, the power of evidence-based practice, and the need for HRD research to be seen as relevant and having utility within the world of practice.     

Better know an HRD scholar: a conversation with John Bing

This paper contains a conversation with John Bing, and is part of a series that focuses on different human resource development (HRD) scholars – the aim being to better understand the people behind the names we see in print and at HRD scholarly conferences. John is Chairman of the Board at ITAP International, is a well-known scholar-practitioner, was a recipient of the ASTD International Practitioner of the Year Award, and received the AHRD Service Award in 2010. The conversation explores John's background, how he got into HRD, his time in the Peace Corps, his work with Geert Hofstede, and his wide range of experience in cross-cultural HRD. The conversation also considers how world experiences improve research and practice, the benefits and challenges of applying research in practice, and the importance of practitioners having a sound education in research and statistics.     

The Consolations of Organization Theory

The call for greater relevance in management research leads us to examine the remedies offered by organization theory to organizational problems. In contrast to Starkey and Madan (2001), we argue that research engagement with other academic disciplines helps produce broadly useful knowledge. Installing practitioners in central places in the research process may focus research on short-run rather than deep-seated processes. We illustrate the relevance of organization theory through two examples of how apparently esoteric knowledge (produced through cross-disciplinary collaboration) can have surprising application. First we show how the social network perspective proved useful in rescuing a manager from the perils of unpopularity. Second, we show how deconstruction can uncover the institutionalized routines that disempower managers and workers. Neither the management training centers nor the web-based learning initiatives admired by Starkey and Madan are likely to deliver insights that address deep-seated processes of change within society. Collaboration with academics across the university can further our goals of research relevant to practitioners.     

Researchers' Perspectives on Supply Chain Risk Management

Supply chain risk management (SCRM) is a nascent area emerging from a growing appreciation for supply chain risk by practitioners and by researchers. However, there is diverse perception of research in supply chain risk because these researchers have approached this area from different domains. This paper presents our study of this diversity from the perspectives of operations and supply chain management scholars: First, we reviewed the researchers' output, i.e., the recent research literature. Next, we surveyed two focus groups (members of Supply Chain Thought Leaders and International SCRM groups) with open‐ended questions. Finally, we surveyed operations and supply chain management researchers during the 2009 INFORMS meeting in San Diego. Our findings characterize the diversity in terms of three “gaps”: a definition gap in how researchers define SCRM, a process gap in terms of inadequate coverage of response to risk incidents, and a methodology gap in terms of inadequate use of empirical methods. We also list ways to close these gaps as suggested by the researchers.     

Knowledge dissemination in operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality

The channels for knowledge generation and dissemination in the business disciplines are many: presenting research at conferences, writing books, distributing working papers, offering insights in society newsletters, giving invited talks, publishing studies in academic journals, and many other venues, including even blogs and perhaps Facebook^®. But the most important venue is probably published research in “top-level” academic journals. In the discipline of Operations Management, many studies and lists have been published that attempt to determine which of these journals are supposedly the “top” according to either citation analyses, the opinion of recognized experts, author affiliations, bibliometric studies, and other approaches. These lists may then, in turn, be used in different degrees to evaluate research. However, what really counts is what the academic institutions actually use for guidance in evaluating faculty research. Based on a new source of ranking data from AACSB-accredited schools, we compare published journal-ranking studies against that of academe to determine the degree to which the studies reflect academic “reality”. We present rankings of OM journals based on this new source of data and on an aggregate of the stream of published studies, and evaluate their consistency.     

How Independent,Competent and Incentivized Should Non‐executive Directors Be? An Empirical Investigation of Good Governance Codes

There is a commonly held conviction among governance scholars and practitioners that increasing the number of non‐executive directors may have beneficial effects on board practices. This view has gained momentum after each wave of scandals. Given the relevance of the issue in governance studies and practices, the aim of this paper is to investigate how independent, competent and incentivized non‐executive directors should be according to governance scholars and board best practices. To answer this question, we conducted a review of the literature on non‐executive directors. We then collected corporate governance codes developed worldwide at the end of 2005, and made a comparative analysis of their recommendations about the independence, the competencies and the incentives of non‐executive directors. Our results show that (i) non‐executive directors' independence is a commonly recommended governance practice, the meaning of which differs widely among countries; (ii) non‐executive directors' competencies and incentives are not considered a governance issue to be regulated in detail; (iii) agency theory and the search for appropriate board demography tend to dominate the recommendations of governance literature and codes. Our findings have implications for both research and practice.     

Knowledge generation and governance in management research

We consider how historical developments led to an emphasis on positivistic research approaches in business schools, and we explain how alternative assumptions could be the basis for academic management knowledge. We then discuss the governance structures journals use to determine which articles to publish and how reviewer motivations may influence these processes. Given this academic research and publishing context, we argue that it is not surprising that management research relevant for management practice receives little support. We propose changes to encourage more innovative research that offers stronger ties between management research and practice.     

Intermediaries in the relevance-gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

A highly contested issue in management science is its relevance to practice. Despite third parties’ potentially significant role in changing the interaction between divided parties, the long-standing literature on the relevance gap has paid third parties little systematic attention. Drawing on a boundary-spanning perspective, and the concept of brokerage in particular, we review how the consultant role is discussed as an intermediary third party between management science and management practice. Based on a systematic literature review of 133 articles, we identify different intermediary consultant roles linking management science to management practice. Our findings detail how the practices associated with intermediary consultant roles performed by academics or practitioners relate to several key relevance criteria, how management knowledge flows when including intermediaries and how intermediaries in different roles relate to different audiences. Based on the findings, we develop a third-party model of intermediary consultant roles and knowledge flows. The model indicates the theoretical significance of third parties in shaping the interaction and knowledge flows between management science and management practice and has theoretical implications for understanding the persistence of the relevance gap. Regarding practical implications, we suggest how management scientists could target third parties as new key practitioner audiences. Considering third parties, and thus moving away from a two-party view, opens up promising directions for further research on the roles and role shifts of various intermediary actors and on how different intermediary audiences may appreciate different types of academic knowledge.