e Academy of Management Journal 2007,Vol.50.Na.6,1379-1383. AFTERWORD: TO THE NEXT 50 YEARS SARA L RYNES University of lowa Reviewing the research and commentaries in this WHERE WE ARE NOW orum clearly shows that management research has come a long way. In the first of the two empirical At least three themes repeatedly surface in each pieces, Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan(2007)docu of the essays analyzing the current situation.These mented that research has made strides in both the- include concerns about: (1) whether we have struck ory testing and theory building and that, on aver an appropriate balance in several regards, (2) whether the various boundaries we have con- age, papers that focus on both aspects of theory structed have become more dysfunctional than have the greatest influence on subsequent research functional, and (3 whether our quest for status and In the second empirical piece, Agarwal and Hoet- legitimacy inside academia is impeding our ability ker(2007)documented the tremendous growth in to make a difference in the broader world within management research over the past half century each of these themes, at least three different ten both in absolute terms and relative to the related sions are discernible: (a)tensions among competing disciplines of economics, psychology, and sociol criteria for judging research quality (e. g, theoreti- ogy. In addition, they show that management is cal versus empirical, novelty versus replication gradually becoming less dependent on other disci quantitative versus qualitative, practicality versus plines for its research base and is now impacting on theoretical relevance); (b) tensions between re other disciplines as well. Similarly, in one of the search and other activities(e. g, teaching, consult editorial pieces, McGrath(2007) outlined the dra ing, service to the broader community); and(c) matic growth that has occurred in management ed- tensions between management and source disci ucation, management consulting, and sales of man- plines such as economics, psychology, and agement books over the past 30 years sociology. Although the forward-looking commentators Turning first to the issue of balance, several of who wrote the editorials for this forum are all e commentators questioned whether manage- proud of management's many accomplishments ment scholarship currently has the right balance every one of them expressed a strong desire for between theoretical and empirical contributions academics and academic research to make more of For example, despite the many benefits of strong a difference in the world beyond academia. Indeed theory (as illuminated in Colquitt and Zapata several feel a sense of real urgency about reexam- Phelan's analysis), both Hambrick(2007)and Ts ining our current trajectory at the 50-year mark. For (2007)argued that top-tier journals should place example, McGrath said, Although the current state relatively greater value on strong data sets and in- of the academic business school appears to be quite teresting and important findings, even if the theo healthy, there are ample warning signs that the retical contribution is not immediately apparent or pre-1988, pre-rankings, Ford Foundation concept the findings cannot be fit into existing theoretical of discipline-based scholarship driving the legit frameworks. Bartunek(2007), Pfeffer(2007), and macy of the business school model is at risk.... If McGrath expressed the view that we need to estab we believe our own theories of innovation the time lish a different balance between theory and practice to begin his shift is while the enterprise is still in our research, with practical and policy concerns enjoying good performance, not after its denizens becoming a larger part of our research mix. Ham- become locked in a struggle over scarce resources brick also suggested shifting the current balance McGrath,2007:1371) away from an emphasis on novel ideas toward knowledge building through theory testing and rep lication. Alternatively, Pfeffer argues that top-tier publications should be more open to novelty, citing Many thanks to Jean Bartunek, Terry Boles, Amy Hill the well-documented tendencies toward conserva man, Laura Empson, Nancy Hauserman, Duane Ireland tism in the review process(Daft Lewin, in press Rita mcgrath and chet miller for comments on drafts of Rynes, 2006). In any case, the commentators sug this commentary. gested that we rethink the balance between what 1379 y not be copied, emailed. posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles
AFTERWORD: TO THE NEXT 50 YEARS SARA L. RYNES University of Iowa Reviewing the research and commentaries in this forum clearly shows that management research has come a long way. In the first of the two empirical pieces, Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) documented that research has made strides in both theory testing and theory building and that, on average, papers that focus on both aspects of theory have the greatest influence on subsequent research. In the second empirical piece, Agarwal and Hoetker (2007) documented the tremendous growth in management research over the past half century, both in absolute terms and relative to the related disciplines of economics, psychology, and sociology. In addition, they show that management is gradually becoming less dependent on other disciplines for its research base and is now impacting on other disciplines as well. Similarly, in one of the editorial pieces, McGrath (2007) outlined the dramatic growth that has occurred in management education, management consulting, and sales of management books over the past 30 years. Although the forward-looking commentators who wrote the editorials for this forum are all proud of management’s many accomplishments, every one of them expressed a strong desire for academics and academic research to make more of a difference in the world beyond academia. Indeed, several feel a sense of real urgency about reexamining our current trajectory at the 50-year mark. For example, McGrath said, “Although the current state of the academic business school appears to be quite healthy, there are ample warning signs that the pre-1988, pre-rankings, Ford Foundation concept of discipline-based scholarship driving the legitimacy of the business school model is at risk. . . . If we believe our own theories of innovation, the time to begin his shift is while the enterprise is still enjoying good performance, not after its denizens become locked in a struggle over scarce resources” (McGrath, 2007: 1371). WHERE WE ARE NOW At least three themes repeatedly surface in each of the essays analyzing the current situation. These include concerns about: (1) whether we have struck an appropriate balance in several regards, (2) whether the various boundaries we have constructed have become more dysfunctional than functional, and (3) whether our quest for status and legitimacy inside academia is impeding our ability to make a difference in the broader world. Within each of these themes, at least three different tensions are discernible: (a) tensions among competing criteria for judging research quality (e.g., theoretical versus empirical, novelty versus replication, quantitative versus qualitative, practicality versus theoretical relevance); (b) tensions between research and other activities (e.g., teaching, consulting, service to the broader community); and (c) tensions between management and source disciplines such as economics, psychology, and sociology. Turning first to the issue of balance, several of the commentators questioned whether management scholarship currently has the right balance between theoretical and empirical contributions. For example, despite the many benefits of strong theory (as illuminated in Colquitt and ZapataPhelan’s analysis), both Hambrick (2007) and Tsui (2007) argued that top-tier journals should place relatively greater value on strong data sets and interesting and important findings, even if the theoretical contribution is not immediately apparent or the findings cannot be fit into existing theoretical frameworks. Bartunek (2007), Pfeffer (2007), and McGrath expressed the view that we need to establish a different balance between theory and practice in our research, with practical and policy concerns becoming a larger part of our research mix. Hambrick also suggested shifting the current balance away from an emphasis on novel ideas toward knowledge building through theory testing and replication. Alternatively, Pfeffer argues that top-tier publications should be more open to novelty, citing the well-documented tendencies toward conservatism in the review process (Daft & Lewin, in press; Rynes, 2006). In any case, the commentators suggested that we rethink the balance between what Many thanks to Jean Bartunek, Terry Boles, Amy Hillman, Laura Empson, Nancy Hauserman, Duane Ireland, Rita McGrath, and Chet Miller for comments on drafts of this commentary. Academy of Management Journal 2007, Vol. 50, No. 6, 1379–1383. 1379 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only
1380 demy of Management Journal December currently exists and what is optimal in terms of our HOW TO MOVE FORWARD In addition, they argued for reconsideration of In the face of these challenges, the commentators the balance between research and activities such as offered a variety of solutions tailored to their diag- teaching, consulting, and other types of interac noses of the problem. Many of their suggestions tions with managers of public and private-sector have to do with publication processes and criteria organizations. Tsui also argued for less reverence for publication. Some of the suggestions reflect ar for existing North American-dominated paradigms eas in which AM has made considerable progress as a way of capturing truly new and insightful in recent years(Rynes, 2007), such as these: con knowledge from other parts of the world tinual acceleration of the review process(Pfeffer) A second theme involves boundaries. Several of broadening the criteria for what constitutes a con- the researchers and commentators focused on the tribution(Hambrick; McGrath; Pfeffer); omitting insularity of management academics and manage- strict page limits as a way of encouraging more ment research. For example, Agarwal and Hoetker important research(Pfeffer); increasing the interna- showed that while management researchers often tionalization of management research(Tsui); using draw on other disciplines, they almost always con- careful selection and monitoring to enhance re- fine themselves to a single source discipline (e. g viewer quality and responsiveness (Pfeffer; see also either economics or psychology, but not both). This Rynes, 2006); and encouraging more important and may not be optimal because management is a phe- interesting papers(Pfeffer; McGrath; see also Bar nomenon-a set of practices and activities that do tunek, Rynes, Ireland, 2006). not lend themselves to being understood through Despite this acknowledged progress, th 1e coIm the narrow focus of a disciplinary lens mentators would still like to see more openness In addition. Bartunek. McGrath, and Pfeffer and flexibility in the research paradigms champi focused on other boundaries, such as self-imposed oned by AMJ and other top management journals. A distinctions between rigor and relevance, lack of plea for greater openness is perhaps to be expected connection between the research questions that we Ince ere is an inherent tendency for journals to ask and the problems of real managers, and the lack become more homogeneous over time unless strong of social interaction among academics from differ countervailing forces are put in play (e.g, Daft ent disciplines (as well as between academics and Lewin, in press; March, 2005; Rynes, 2006).As- practitioners). Together, these scholars caution us suming one agrees that more openness and variety about defining our boundaries too narrowly be are appropriate outcomes to seek, the question then cause of the likely (negative) implications for the becomes one of operationalization. For example future of management scholarship would it be more effective to: (1) have all journals A third theme is management's (and business adopt a broader range of criteria for acceptance chools )emphasis on status and legitimacy and (while holding their quality standards constant),or how this focus may be limiting our ability to have (2) create new journals to fill the niches identified an impact on the world around us. Both Agarwal oy commentators like Pfeffer or Hambrick (e.g and Hoetker(2007) and McGrath(2007 )argued that journals for replications, or Web-based journals excessive reverence for disciplines other than our with interactive reader commentaries) own is likely to impede management from becom- As both mcgrath and Pfeffer noted. the second ing a truly mature discipline with the integrated adaptation is already under way and is likely to vision necessary to understand the“ whole”of continue. As for the first option, my own term as an management problems and issues. Hambrick(2007) editor is over. Nevertheless, I join with March argued that the field' s growing emphasis on theory (2005), Daft and Lewin (in press), and several of the reflects a lack of self-confidence that is impeding our ability to understand real-world issues and en- tities by reducing incentives for researchers to 1 Indeed, whether or not we even have a problem study important or emerging phenomena that can- depends on one's point of view. For example, there are not be linked to current theoretical frameworks those believe that the purpose of academic research is to Similar sentiments were expressed by Tsui(2007) create knowledge--period-and that it is not our job to with respect to the current hegemony of North convey, commercialize, or communicate it. At the other American theories and research paradigms. There- extreme are those(e. g, some deans) who talk about our need to compete in the marketplace for ideas and who fore, our commentators suggested not only a need believe that business schools should be run largely like for rebalancing our priorities and broadening our businesses. People who hold the former view are likely to boundaries, but also a need for greater confidence be far less concerned about the present situation than in our own scholarship those holding the latter perspective
currently exists and what is optimal in terms of our research. In addition, they argued for reconsideration of the balance between research and activities such as teaching, consulting, and other types of interactions with managers of public and private-sector organizations. Tsui also argued for less reverence for existing North American–dominated paradigms as a way of capturing truly new and insightful knowledge from other parts of the world. A second theme involves boundaries. Several of the researchers and commentators focused on the insularity of management academics and management research. For example, Agarwal and Hoetker showed that while management researchers often draw on other disciplines, they almost always confine themselves to a single source discipline (e.g., either economics or psychology, but not both). This may not be optimal because management is a phenomenon—a set of practices and activities that do not lend themselves to being understood through the narrow focus of a disciplinary lens. In addition, Bartunek, McGrath, and Pfeffer all focused on other boundaries, such as self-imposed distinctions between rigor and relevance, lack of connection between the research questions that we ask and the problems of real managers, and the lack of social interaction among academics from different disciplines (as well as between academics and practitioners). Together, these scholars caution us about defining our boundaries too narrowly because of the likely (negative) implications for the future of management scholarship. A third theme is management’s (and business schools’) emphasis on status and legitimacy and how this focus may be limiting our ability to have an impact on the world around us. Both Agarwal and Hoetker (2007) and McGrath (2007) argued that excessive reverence for disciplines other than our own is likely to impede management from becoming a truly mature discipline with the integrated vision necessary to understand the “whole” of management problems and issues. Hambrick (2007) argued that the field’s growing emphasis on theory reflects a lack of self-confidence that is impeding our ability to understand real-world issues and entities by reducing incentives for researchers to study important or emerging phenomena that cannot be linked to current theoretical frameworks. Similar sentiments were expressed by Tsui (2007) with respect to the current hegemony of North American theories and research paradigms. Therefore, our commentators suggested not only a need for rebalancing our priorities and broadening our boundaries, but also a need for greater confidence in our own scholarship. HOW TO MOVE FORWARD In the face of these challenges, the commentators offered a variety of solutions tailored to their diagnoses of the problem.1 Many of their suggestions have to do with publication processes and criteria for publication. Some of the suggestions reflect areas in which AMJ has made considerable progress in recent years (Rynes, 2007), such as these: continual acceleration of the review process (Pfeffer); broadening the criteria for what constitutes a contribution (Hambrick; McGrath; Pfeffer); omitting strict page limits as a way of encouraging more important research (Pfeffer); increasing the internationalization of management research (Tsui); using careful selection and monitoring to enhance reviewer quality and responsiveness (Pfeffer; see also Rynes, 2006); and encouraging more important and interesting papers (Pfeffer; McGrath; see also Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006). Despite this acknowledged progress, the commentators would still like to see more openness and flexibility in the research paradigms championed by AMJ and other top management journals. A plea for greater openness is perhaps to be expected, since there is an inherent tendency for journals to become more homogeneous over time unless strong countervailing forces are put in play (e.g., Daft & Lewin, in press; March, 2005; Rynes, 2006). Assuming one agrees that more openness and variety are appropriate outcomes to seek, the question then becomes one of operationalization. For example, would it be more effective to: (1) have all journals adopt a broader range of criteria for acceptance (while holding their quality standards constant), or (2) create new journals to fill the niches identified by commentators like Pfeffer or Hambrick (e.g., journals for replications, or Web-based journals with interactive reader commentaries). As both McGrath and Pfeffer noted, the second adaptation is already under way and is likely to continue. As for the first option, my own term as an editor is over. Nevertheless, I join with March (2005), Daft and Lewin (in press), and several of the 1 Indeed, whether or not we even have a problem depends on one’s point of view. For example, there are those believe that the purpose of academic research is to create knowledge—period—and that it is not our job to convey, commercialize, or communicate it. At the other extreme are those (e.g., some deans) who talk about our need to compete in the marketplace for ideas and who believe that business schools should be run largely like businesses. People who hold the former view are likely to be far less concerned about the present situation than those holding the latter perspective. 1380 Academy of Management Journal December
2007 1381 current commentators in urging future editorial to meaningfully interact across disciplinary bound teams to frequently revisit the mission and prac aries. At present, where cross-disciplinary"inter tices of their journals to make sure that impactful actions"occur at all, they are more likely to be in useful research is being encouraged rather than dis- the form of each discipline presenting its"side"in couraged by their policies. As Hambrick said, "The a debate-type format (see, e.g., Hauser, 2007: Le, greatest acclaim will always go to those who de- Oh, Shaffer, Schmidt, 2007: Ostrander, 2007) relop breakthrough theories. So there is plenty of Such forums, although perhaps interesting or pro- incentive to keep working on theory. But it takes vocative, are not likely to encourage collaboration much more than theory for an academic field to (or even good will)across disciplinary boundaries advance. Indeed, various types of atheoretical or Perhaps more could be gained by forums in pretheoretical work can be instrumental in allow- which each participant first presents a disciplinary ing theory to emerge or develop"(2007: 1351). In perspective on an issue, with the ultimate goal be- other words, there is often a built-in complementa ing that the participants find what is common in rity between theoretical and empirical contribu their positions, beliefs, or evidence. Illumination of tions, rather than a superior to/inferior to common interests, even in the presence of diverg situation ing evidence or foundational assumptions, is likely Beyond research per se, the commentators would to prove more motivational than formats that en like to see academics having more social and non courage sharpening differences(Bartunek, 2007) research-based contact with practitioners (e. g Given the difficulties that most academics face in teaching, consulting, and joint forums). Bartunek trying to keep up with even a single discipline said,"Joint research fosters academic-practitioner such forums would seem more likely to prove en collaboration in some instances but it is not a lightening and stimulating in terms of generating necessary or sufficient means for developing joint new research. In contrast, debates are more likely to relationships in which academics and practitioners entrench each side in its initial position, with little truly learn from each other and share elements of learning (and certainly no collaboration or integra pathos (i.e, emotion). Rather, it is important to tion)occurring as a result extend understandings of academic-practitioner re- lationships more broadly"(2007: 1328) Thus, Bartunek, Pfeffer, and McGrath all sug APPLYING OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE TO OUR OWN SITUATION gested a variety of formats through which academ ics and practitioners might get to know each other Perhaps the most optimistic piece of analysis better as the first step toward creating more d ffered by the commentators is that our accumu- namic research that will have more impact on prac lated research knowledge gives us the tools to deal tice. Pfeffer drew on medicine and medical re- with these challenges, assuming we have the will to search as a model do so. For example, we know a fair amount about how industries and organizations evolve and ma One cannot observe the advance of medical science ture(Agarwal Hoetker; Tsui), the requirement nd knowledge and its implementation in practice for working successfully across boundaries(Bar over the past several decades, including the almost tunek), environmental designs and coworker ar- 50 percent reduction in death rates from heart dis- ease,and not be impressed. The thrust of the evi rangements that facilitate learning(Pfeffer), and dence-based medicine movement was to bring the how to respond to threats of deinstitutionalization best scientific knowledge to the bedside(e. g, Rosen- (McGrath). Thus, the commentators urge us to berg Anna, 1995). As evidence-based medicine shake off our complacency with respect to the cur has grown, the practical issues of treatment, diagno rent state of affairs and put what we know into sis, and the understanding of disease processes have practice within our own discipline. Pfeffer said influenced the research-even the basic science, in some instances-that gets done .. The link be- We know a lot about innovation about the design of tween science and practice is closer [in medicine social and physical environments, about working in as it seems to be in engineering and computer sci teams,about building communities of practice, and ence as well, but I don't see any less academic about a lot of other things that are relevant to doing legitimacy for these fields. If anything, their science research that is both scientifically and profession ally significant. My vision is that we finally use that has advanced at least as vigorously (if not more so) than has ours.(2007: 1343) knowledge--turning our knowing into doing design our own systems, environments, and work Similarly, Agarwal and Hoetker (2007)and practices. (2007: 1343) McGrath(2007)suggested that we become more In order to move forward with this agenda. some creative at finding ways for management scholars of the commentators argue, the leaders and more
current commentators in urging future editorial teams to frequently revisit the mission and practices of their journals to make sure that impactful, useful research is being encouraged rather than discouraged by their policies. As Hambrick said, “The greatest acclaim will always go to those who develop breakthrough theories. So there is plenty of incentive to keep working on theory. But it takes much more than theory for an academic field to advance. Indeed, various types of atheoretical or pretheoretical work can be instrumental in allowing theory to emerge or develop” (2007: 1351). In other words, there is often a built-in complementarity between theoretical and empirical contributions, rather than a “superior to/inferior to” situation. Beyond research per se, the commentators would like to see academics having more social and nonresearch-based contact with practitioners (e.g., teaching, consulting, and joint forums). Bartunek said, “Joint research fosters academic-practitioner collaboration in some instances, but it is not a necessary or sufficient means for developing joint relationships in which academics and practitioners truly learn from each other and share elements of pathos (i.e., emotion). Rather, it is important to extend understandings of academic-practitioner relationships more broadly” (2007: 1328). Thus, Bartunek, Pfeffer, and McGrath all suggested a variety of formats through which academics and practitioners might get to know each other better as the first step toward creating more dynamic research that will have more impact on practice. Pfeffer drew on medicine and medical research as a model: One cannot observe the advance of medical science and knowledge and its implementation in practice over the past several decades, including the almost 50 percent reduction in death rates from heart disease, and not be impressed. The thrust of the evidence-based medicine movement was to bring the best scientific knowledge to the bedside (e.g., Rosenberg & Anna, 1995). As evidence-based medicine has grown, the practical issues of treatment, diagnosis, and the understanding of disease processes have influenced the research— even the basic science, in some instances—that gets done. . . . The link between science and practice is closer [in medicine], as it seems to be in engineering and computer science as well, but I don’t see any less academic legitimacy for these fields. If anything, their science has advanced at least as vigorously (if not more so) than has ours. (2007: 1343) Similarly, Agarwal and Hoetker (2007) and McGrath (2007) suggested that we become more creative at finding ways for management scholars to meaningfully interact across disciplinary boundaries. At present, where cross-disciplinary “interactions” occur at all, they are more likely to be in the form of each discipline presenting its “side” in a debate-type format (see, e.g., Hauser, 2007; Le, Oh, Shaffer, & Schmidt, 2007; Ostrander, 2007). Such forums, although perhaps interesting or provocative, are not likely to encourage collaboration (or even good will) across disciplinary boundaries. Perhaps more could be gained by forums in which each participant first presents a disciplinary perspective on an issue, with the ultimate goal being that the participants find what is common in their positions, beliefs, or evidence. Illumination of common interests, even in the presence of diverging evidence or foundational assumptions, is likely to prove more motivational than formats that encourage sharpening differences (Bartunek, 2007). Given the difficulties that most academics face in trying to keep up with even a single discipline, such forums would seem more likely to prove enlightening and stimulating in terms of generating new research. In contrast, debates are more likely to entrench each side in its initial position, with little learning (and certainly no collaboration or integration) occurring as a result. APPLYING OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE TO OUR OWN SITUATION Perhaps the most optimistic piece of analysis offered by the commentators is that our accumulated research knowledge gives us the tools to deal with these challenges, assuming we have the will to do so. For example, we know a fair amount about how industries and organizations evolve and mature (Agarwal & Hoetker; Tsui), the requirements for working successfully across boundaries (Bartunek), environmental designs and coworker arrangements that facilitate learning (Pfeffer), and how to respond to threats of deinstitutionalization (McGrath). Thus, the commentators urge us to shake off our complacency with respect to the current state of affairs and put what we know into practice within our own discipline. Pfeffer said: We know a lot about innovation, about the design of social and physical environments, about working in teams, about building communities of practice, and about a lot of other things that are relevant to doing research that is both scientifically and professionally significant. My vision is that we finally use that knowledge—turning our knowing into doing—to design our own systems, environments, and work practices. (2007: 1343) In order to move forward with this agenda, some of the commentators argue, the leaders and more 2007 Rynes 1381
1382 demy of Management Journal December senior people in our field must contribute the most Similarly, Freek Vermeulen has reminisced to the cause. McGrath said, "I would not persuade junior people] to be the first to fall on their swords I remember (my early)days with fondness.. I was in the name of institutional reform -leave that to Ding to be a poor yet noble academic, not driven by money, job status, or security, but dedicated to a the more senior people and journal editors who can quest for knowledge and understanding that would better afford it"(2007: 1376). Hambrick and Pfeffer nable me to help others understand and improve suggested that journal editors take the lead in en he workings of their organizations. I think many hancing research impact and usefulness but cau- management scholars start out with this feeling tioned the leaders of professional societies, deans Over time, however, the system and culture in senior scholars, and editorial boards must support which we are placed starts to turn us toward these editors. Pfeffer and McGrath both argued that thoughts of getting a job, getting tenure, getting a senior faculty must stand up for junior colleagues chair, getting recognition from others in the field, who do good but unconventional research and and so on.. And there is nothing wrong with that, must lobby for promotion and career standards that unless these goals have completely replaced our desire and quest for true knowledge and under support more than just theory-laden (or purely ab- standing(Vermeulen, 2007: 754; emphasis added stract and/or mathematical) research contributions Now, all this(the idea of senior academics doing In order to change our own behavior-or to sup- the sword falling) made perfect sense to me until I port change by our younger colleagues-we senior showed the first draft of this essay to a colleague scholars must be comfortable enough in our skins Laura Empson. She said (via e-mail to place the goals of meaningfulness and long-term real-world impact over those of intra-academic sta- McGrath's advice to juniors about not being the first tus and legitimacy. We should not underestimate to fall on their swords and your subsequent exor the difficulty of this task, as our research enterprise tations to senior academics got me thinking about s embedded in a much larger system of universi sources of innovation in firms. We would not expect ties, business schools, and media rankings that nnovation to come from the people at the top, those who had succeeded within the current system and tend to focus attention squarely on improving had nothing to gain from the change. We would look short-term measures of status and legitimacy to the younger people and encourage the senior Oddly enough, in the short-term quest for annual execs to give them the time and money they need to rankings of legitimacy and status, we may be threat novate. Why do we assume the opposite in aca- ening our longer-term legitimacy in the broader demia? Remember [our colleague] at the [annual] environment. Some of us might think that a certain meeting talking about her horror at the way the roung ph. Ds struggle so hard to conform? Think of all the junior faculty consortia where everyone is McGrath read these comments and responded, "This truggling so hard to learn the rules of the game so is an interesting and important issue. If you were to ask that they can abide by them. Why, if we have been younger people j the field what motivated them to socialized to conform to such rigid rules should we do so, I seriously doubt that you would be told, I want to suddenly, in our fifties, develop the capacity for spend 2-7 years writing highly stylized papers that will truly original thought? What more can be done to be read by three people on average. I know that for me encourage the young? the attraction of academia was the thought of having the time and resources to think about pressing problems and Laura' s e-mail reminded me of two other excel the interaction with really smart people in classrooms. I lent scholars-one senior, one more junior-who actually think(gut feel, no hard evidence)that we may be have also bemoaned the constraints we place on running into a talent attraction problem-are really young, idealistic scholars. Jane Dutton has said: smart, talented folks finding our careers attractive? If not thats a further problem in terms of future impact. I believe our scholarly training and experiences as 3 Another reviewer asked whether I was equating graduate students often put us on research paths "meaningfulness"with"real-world impact. "I am not. I that take us away from the questions that we find think about meaning terms of having a higher deeply interesting and meaningful. There is path purpose for our research beyond simply getting another dependence in our research trajectories that keeps hit"in a top-tier journal-being committed to the cause us capitalizing on economies and reputation advan- of "spreading the word "about ideas we care about rather tages that are associated with early research suc than focusing on what our publications will do for our cesses. If you did not begin with research questions image, our compensation, or our careers. An alternative that tapped into your passion and abiding interest in way to think about meaningfulness is to ask Dutton's a phenomenon, then it is likely you traveled away question of whether we are ardently pursuing questions from your own center of interest and curiosity. (Dut that"resonate with some core puzzle relevant to [our- on,2003:6) elves and lour lives"(Dutton, 2003: 6)
senior people in our field must contribute the most to the cause. McGrath said, “I would not persuade [junior people] to be the first to fall on their swords in the name of institutional reform—leave that to the more senior people and journal editors who can better afford it” (2007: 1376). Hambrick and Pfeffer suggested that journal editors take the lead in enhancing research impact and usefulness but cautioned the leaders of professional societies, deans, senior scholars, and editorial boards must support these editors. Pfeffer and McGrath both argued that senior faculty must stand up for junior colleagues who do good but unconventional research and must lobby for promotion and career standards that support more than just theory-laden (or purely abstract and/or mathematical) research contributions. Now, all this (the idea of senior academics doing the sword falling) made perfect sense to me until I showed the first draft of this essay to a colleague, Laura Empson. She said (via e-mail): McGrath’s advice to juniors about not being the first to fall on their swords and your subsequent exhortations to senior academics got me thinking about sources of innovation in firms. We would not expect innovation to come from the people at the top, those who had succeeded within the current system and had nothing to gain from the change. We would look to the younger people and encourage the senior execs to give them the time and money they need to innovate. Why do we assume the opposite in academia? Remember [our colleague] at the [annual] meeting talking about her horror at the way the young Ph.D.s struggle so hard to conform? Think of all the junior faculty consortia where everyone is struggling so hard to learn the rules of the game so that they can abide by them. Why, if we have been socialized to conform to such rigid rules should we suddenly, in our fifties, develop the capacity for truly original thought? What more can be done to encourage the young? Laura’s e-mail reminded me of two other excellent scholars— one senior, one more junior—who have also bemoaned the constraints we place on young, idealistic scholars. Jane Dutton has said: I believe our scholarly training and experiences as graduate students often put us on research paths that take us away from the questions that we find deeply interesting and meaningful. There is path dependence in our research trajectories that keeps us capitalizing on economies and reputation advantages that are associated with early research successes. If you did not begin with research questions that tapped into your passion and abiding interest in a phenomenon, then it is likely you traveled away from your own center of interest and curiosity. (Dutton, 2003: 6) Similarly, Freek Vermeulen has reminisced: I remember (my early) days with fondness. . . . I was going to be a poor yet noble academic, not driven by money, job status, or security, but dedicated to a quest for knowledge and understanding that would enable me to help others understand and improve the workings of their organizations. I think many management scholars start out with this feeling. Over time, however, the system and culture in which we are placed starts to turn us toward thoughts of getting a job, getting tenure, getting a chair, getting recognition from others in the field, and so on. . . . And there is nothing wrong with that, unless these goals have completely replaced our desire and quest for true knowledge and understanding. (Vermeulen, 2007: 754; emphasis added)2 In order to change our own behavior— or to support change by our younger colleagues—we senior scholars must be comfortable enough in our skins to place the goals of meaningfulness3 and long-term real-world impact over those of intra-academic status and legitimacy. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this task, as our research enterprise is embedded in a much larger system of universities, business schools, and media rankings that tend to focus attention squarely on improving short-term measures of status and legitimacy. Oddly enough, in the short-term quest for annual rankings of legitimacy and status, we may be threatening our longer-term legitimacy in the broader environment. Some of us might think that a certain 2 McGrath read these comments and responded, “This is an interesting and important issue. If you were to ask younger people joining the field what motivated them to do so, I seriously doubt that you would be told, I want to spend 2-7 years writing highly stylized papers that will be read by three people on average. I know that for me, the attraction of academia was the thought of having the time and resources to think about pressing problems and the interaction with really smart people in classrooms. I actually think (gut feel, no hard evidence) that we may be running into a talent attraction problem—are really smart, talented folks finding our careers attractive? If not, that’s a further problem in terms of future impact.” 3 Another reviewer asked whether I was equating “meaningfulness” with “real-world impact.” I am not. I think about meaningfulness in terms of having a higher purpose for our research beyond simply getting another “hit” in a top-tier journal—being committed to the cause of “spreading the word” about ideas we care about rather than focusing on what our publications will do for our image, our compensation, or our careers. An alternative way to think about meaningfulness is to ask Dutton’s question of whether we are ardently pursuing questions that “resonate with some core puzzle relevant to [ourselves] and [our] lives” (Dutton, 2003: 6). 1382 Academy of Management Journal December
2007 1383 amount of"deinstitutionalization, "as predicted by practice of personnel selection: How practitioners McGrath, is no bad thing. But almost none of us benefit from recent development in meta-analysis will benefit if the entire system of business schools Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3) as the center of business education becomes deinstitutionalized March, J. G. 2005. Parochialism in the evolution of a As we celebrate AMrs first 50 years, I can think research community: The case of organization stud- of no better mission for this and other management ies. Management and Organization Review, 1 journals than continually exploring what can be done to enhance the signific cance. rea McGrath, R. G. 2007. No longer a stepchild: How the pact of management research. As the relatively new management field can come into its own Academy discipline of positive psychology has demon- of Management Journal, 50: 1365-137 strated, there is far richer and more lasting satisfac Osterman, P. 2007. Comment on Le. Oh, Shaffer, and tion to be gained from having a positive impact on Schmidt. Academy of Management Perspectives, peoples'lives than from merely attaining fame or 21(3):16-18. status(Seligman, 2002). Please join with our com Pfeffer, J. 2007. A modest proposal: How we might mentators in"becoming the change you want to change the process and product of managerial re see. "In so doing, you will help to insure a brighter search. Academy of Management Journal, 50 and more satisfying future for management aca- 1334-1345 demics, real-world managers, and management re- Rosenberg, W,& Anna, D. 1995. Evidence-based medi- search. Here's to the next 50 years ne: An approach to clinical problem-solving. Brit- ish Medical Journal, 310: 1122-1126 REFERENCES Rynes, S L. 2006. Getting on board with AM: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Acad- Agarwal, R,& Hoetker, G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The emy of Management Journal, 49: 1097-1102 rowth of management and its relationship with re- Rynes, S. L. 2007. Time flies when you're having fun lated disciplines. Academy of Management Jour- AMJ2005-2007. Academy of Management Journal, nal,50:1304-1322 0:1273-1276 Bartunek, J. M. 2007. Academic-practitioner collabora- Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness. New tion need not require joint or relevant research: To- York: Simon shute ward a relational scholarship of integration. Acad emy of Management Journal, 50: 1323-1333 Tsui, A.S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism International management research in the Academy Bartunek, J M, Rynes, S L, Ireland, R D. 2006. What makes management research interesting, and and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50 1353-1364. does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49:9-15 Vermeulen, F. 2007."I shall not remain insignificant dding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Daft, R L.& Lewin, A. Y. In press. Academic journal evolution, idea migration, and relevance: Implica- Management Journal,50: 754-761 tions for OS. Organization Science. Dutton, J. E. 2003. Breathing life into organizational stud- es. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 5-19 Sara L. Rynes (sara-rynes @uiowa. edu) is the John F. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management's devo- Murray Professor of Management and Organizations at tion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy the Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa. Her of Management Journal, 50: 1346-1350 research interests are in the areas of staffing Hauser, R. M. 2007. Will practitioners benefit from meta tion and reward. management education, and the re alysis? Academy of Management Perspectives, search-practice gap. She received her doctorate in indus- 21(3):24-28 trial relations from the University of wisconsin- Le, H, Oh, I, Shaffer, J. A,& Schmidt, F. L. 2007. Implications of methodological advances for the
amount of “deinstitutionalization,” as predicted by McGrath, is no bad thing. But almost none of us will benefit if the entire system of business schools as the center of business education becomes deinstitutionalized. As we celebrate AMJ’s first 50 years, I can think of no better mission for this and other management journals than continually exploring what can be done to enhance the significance, reach, and impact of management research. As the relatively new discipline of positive psychology has demonstrated, there is far richer and more lasting satisfaction to be gained from having a positive impact on peoples’ lives than from merely attaining fame or status (Seligman, 2002). Please join with our commentators in “becoming the change you want to see.” In so doing, you will help to insure a brighter and more satisfying future for management academics, real-world managers, and management research. Here’s to the next 50 years! REFERENCES Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1304 –1322. Bartunek, J. M. 2007. Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1323–1333. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9 –15. Daft, R. L. & Lewin, A. Y. In press. Academic journal evolution, idea migration, and relevance: Implications for OS. Organization Science. Dutton, J. E. 2003. Breathing life into organizational studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 5–19. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346 –1350. Hauser, R. M. 2007. Will practitioners benefit from metaanalysis? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3): 24 –28. Le, H., Oh, I., Shaffer, J. A., & Schmidt, F. L. 2007. Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from recent development in meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3): 6 –15. March, J. G. 2005. Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organization studies. Management and Organization Review, 1: 5–22. McGrath, R. G. 2007. No longer a stepchild: How the management field can come into its own. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1365–1378. Osterman, P. 2007. Comment on Le, Oh, Shaffer, and Schmidt. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3): 16 –18. Pfeffer, J. 2007. A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1334 –1345. Rosenberg, W., & Anna, D. 1995. Evidence-based medicine: An approach to clinical problem-solving. British Medical Journal, 310: 1122–1126. Rynes, S. L. 2006. Getting on board with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1097–1102 Rynes, S. L. 2007. Time flies when you’re having fun: AMJ 2005–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1273–1276. Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness. New York: Simon & Shuster. Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1353–1364. Vermeulen, F. 2007. “I shall not remain insignificant”: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 754 –761. Sara L. Rynes (sara-rynes@uiowa.edu) is the John F. Murray Professor of Management and Organizations at the Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa. Her research interests are in the areas of staffing, compensation and reward, management education, and the research-practice gap. She received her doctorate in industrial relations from the University of Wisconsin– Madison. 2007 Rynes 1383
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use
