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 en￾hancing research impact and usefulness but cau￾tioned 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 ab￾stract 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 exhor￾tations 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 aca￾demia? 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 excel￾lent 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 advan￾tages that are associated with early research suc￾cesses. 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. (Dut￾ton, 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 under￾standing. (Vermeulen, 2007: 754; emphasis added)2 In order to change our own behavior— or to sup￾port 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 sta￾tus and legitimacy. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this task, as our research enterprise is embedded in a much larger system of universi￾ties, 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 threat￾ening 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 [our￾selves] and [our] lives” (Dutton, 2003: 6). 1382 Academy of Management Journal December