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 articlesAFTERWORD: 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) docu￾mented that research has made strides in both the￾ory testing and theory building and that, on aver￾age, papers that focus on both aspects of theory have the greatest influence on subsequent research. In the second empirical piece, Agarwal and Hoet￾ker (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 sociol￾ogy. In addition, they show that management is gradually becoming less dependent on other disci￾plines for its research base and is now impacting on other disciplines as well. Similarly, in one of the editorial pieces, McGrath (2007) outlined the dra￾matic growth that has occurred in management ed￾ucation, management consulting, and sales of man￾agement 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 reexam￾ining 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 legiti￾macy 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 con￾structed 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 ten￾sions are discernible: (a) tensions among competing criteria for judging research quality (e.g., theoreti￾cal versus empirical, novelty versus replication, quantitative versus qualitative, practicality versus theoretical relevance); (b) tensions between re￾search and other activities (e.g., teaching, consult￾ing, service to the broader community); and (c) tensions between management and source disci￾plines such as economics, psychology, and sociology. Turning first to the issue of balance, several of the commentators questioned whether manage￾ment 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 Zapata￾Phelan’s analysis), both Hambrick (2007) and Tsui (2007) argued that top-tier journals should place relatively greater value on strong data sets and in￾teresting and important findings, even if the theo￾retical 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 estab￾lish a different balance between theory and practice in our research, with practical and policy concerns becoming a larger part of our research mix. Ham￾brick also suggested shifting the current balance 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 the well-documented tendencies toward conserva￾tism in the review process (Daft & Lewin, in press; Rynes, 2006). In any case, the commentators sug￾gested that we rethink the balance between what Many thanks to Jean Bartunek, Terry Boles, Amy Hill￾man, 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