Regaining Lost Relevance

Abstract

How has the study of organizations evolved since its inception before and after World War II, and how should its trajectory be changed? These are the central questions the author raises in this article. His basic argument is that the founders of this field of inquiry and their immediate disciples are concerned with building knowledge that was relevant to managers and leaders, in fact, to anyone concerned with improving organizations. However, in the intervening years, in spite of, or maybe because of the growing number of scholars involved, their research has lost its relevance to practice. The author lays out his view of why this has transpired and provides some thoughts of how this probably can be rectified. At the heart of his argument is the fundamental belief that we can have both rigorous and relevant research. One does not have to occur at the expense of the other.

“We Don’t Need No Education”—Or Do We? Management Education and Alumni Adoption of Strategy Tools

“…The relevance of management education to management practice has been widely discussed in the literature (Currie et al, 2010;Kelemen & Bansal, 2002;Lorsch, 2009;Starkey & Madan, 2001). Kelemen and Bansal (2002) openly recognized the failure of management education and research to address practitioners' needs and have urged for new approaches that forge better integration between academia and practice.…”

“…In summary, these debates about the relevance of management education and teaching have highlighted the need to gather empirical evidence about the extent to which education provides business school graduates with tools and concepts relevant to their practice (Riggio, Mayes, & Schleicher, 2003). Ultimately, the main aim of the participants in this debate is to achieve the dual goal of academic rigour and practical relevance (Lorsch, 2009). This objective is increasingly important given the growing challenges the business world faces in today's global economy (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011).…”

End-of-term editorial: On (Scandinavian) management studies: What works, what doesn’t, and what can we do better?

“…Such worries have been articulated regarding the university (Bok, 2002;Washburn, 2005) or academic research work per se (Lorenz, 2012;Mirowski, 2011). More specifically, for many scholars contributing to management studies and working in business schools and similar institutions, there is an additional set of concerns pertaining to for instance the role and position of the business school within the education system and vis-à-vis industry and society (Adler, 2002;Bennis & ÓToole, 2005;Khurana, 2007;Pfeffer & Fong, 2002;Starkey & Tempest, 2005), the practical relevance of the research conducted and reported in business schools (Baldridge, Floyd, & Markóczy, 2004;Gulati, 2007;Hitt & Greer, 2012;Kieser & Leiner, 2009;Lorsch, 2009), or the discipline of management studies' ability to get recognition and gain influence in policy-making quarters (Pfeffer, 1993). More specifically, there are worried commentaries published addressing the inability to produce new and challenging theory (Hillman, 2011;Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011;The Editors, 2013) or how credit and recognition in the field are increasingly dependent on potentially faulty bibliometric methods (Baum, 2011).…”

My Affair With the “Other”

“…Academics may spend many years crafting an elegant theoretical or empirical study; practitioners have limited understanding of (or interest in) academic rules of evidence and research methods (Gulati, 2007;Lorsch, 2009;Shapiro et al, 2007). So, in addition to having fundamentally different views about the nature and purpose of management knowledge (Beyer & Trice, 1982;Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001), management academics and practitioners also differ in terms of their self-definitions, goals, values, and abilities.…”

“…Scholars who are concerned about the research-practice divide advocate a range of institutional strategies to encourage research that is both relevant and rigorous (Lorsch, 2009;Pfeffer, 2007;Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006;Rynes, 2007;Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2009;Tushman & O'Reilly, 2007). These scholars focus on those institutional agents who, they argue, have greatest impact on how we frame, conduct, and articulate our research: our professional associations (e.g.…”