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 perspectivecurrently 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 interac￾tions 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 manage￾ment research. For example, Agarwal and Hoetker showed that while management researchers often draw on other disciplines, they almost always con￾fine themselves to a single source discipline (e.g., either economics or psychology, but not both). This may not be optimal because management is a phe￾nomenon—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 differ￾ent disciplines (as well as between academics and practitioners). Together, these scholars caution us about defining our boundaries too narrowly be￾cause 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 becom￾ing 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 en￾tities by reducing incentives for researchers to study important or emerging phenomena that can￾not 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. There￾fore, 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 diag￾noses of the problem.1 Many of their suggestions have to do with publication processes and criteria for publication. Some of the suggestions reflect ar￾eas in which AMJ has made considerable progress in recent years (Rynes, 2007), such as these: con￾tinual acceleration of the review process (Pfeffer); broadening the criteria for what constitutes a con￾tribution (Hambrick; McGrath; Pfeffer); omitting strict page limits as a way of encouraging more important research (Pfeffer); increasing the interna￾tionalization of management research (Tsui); using careful selection and monitoring to enhance re￾viewer quality and responsiveness (Pfeffer; see also Rynes, 2006); and encouraging more important and interesting papers (Pfeffer; McGrath; see also Bar￾tunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006). Despite this acknowledged progress, the com￾mentators would still like to see more openness and flexibility in the research paradigms champi￾oned 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). As￾suming 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