Discussion: View Thread

Miguel,

I will not be attending the AOM conference, but I would like to explore the following issues:

1.- Since I don't believe one can give what one does not have, I am convinced that our professors who have never had any actual business experience should try to get some.  Would Internships for faculty do the job?

2.- Peter Drucker said long time ago that we should not be teaching the theories of the past.  W. Edwards Deming, the quality guru, agreed with this too.  If we were to teach OB for instance, and have never seen the traditional textbook, what would we teach?  (The textbook I used last semester has not changed too much from the textbook I used in 1981).

3.- In research, when we will do actual research that can be applicable in business in the same way medicine research applies to the practice of medicine?  We have talked about for a very long time that most of the research we do does not go beyond the session presentations in conferences, or the pages of highly reputable journal that only a few individuals from the academic world read.  This conversation has been around since I entered the academic world, but what have we done about it?  For as long as we continue to apply the approach to research that we have always used -included what is rewarded, we will continue to obtain the same results.

Thanks a lot,

Ivan



Dr. R. Ivan Blanco
Department of Management
McCoy College of Business Administration
Texas State Univeristy - San Marcos
San Marcos, TX 78666
Voice (512) 245-1842  -  Fax (512) 245-2850
E-mail  rb39@txstate.edu

"Las naciones marchan hacia el término de su grandeza, con el mismo paso que camina su educación."
"Nations march toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational systems evolve." -- Simon Bolivar
________________________________________
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Miguel Olivas-Lujan [molivas@CLARION.EDU]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:40 PM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: How relevant is our work?

Does our work matter?  Has your research made an impact?  What about your
teaching?  Are you confident that your classes are providing your students
with relevant, evidence-based tools for their professional careers?  What
do businesses expect of us to consider our work more relevant?

(With apologies for cross-postings.)

If you are willing to give some serious thought to these questions, please
join us in "Questioning for Relevance, A Dialogue of Scholarship and
Practice;" a PDW that will take place on Sunday, August 10 from 9:00AM to
12:00PM at Anaheim Convention Center in the 210B room (pre-registration is
NOT required but strongly encouraged; please email drolivaslujan@gmail.com
to pre-register).

We will critically reflect on the recent initiatives to bridge the
research-practice gap, and to inspire extensions of current efforts to
increase the relevance of academic work. Presenters have volunteered based
on their work, recent experience and research interests. We approach the
research-practice gap from several perspectives, including those of the
CEO of NSHMBA (a non-profit that has recently sponsored a journal and
increased its focus on business research), researcher, teacher, and
practitioner perspectives. We seek to interactively explore with
participants how each role contributes to the creation, translation, and
dissemination of research that achieves relevance.  Reports from founding
participants in the Evidence Based Management Collaborative will be
included.  The panelists include the following:

Lourdes Hassler, Chief Executive Officer of the National Society of
Hispanic MBAs (NSHMBA).  The organization is increasingly focusing on
business research partly as a reaction to the dearth of research on
Hispanics and businesses.  Since 2007, the Business Journal of Hispanic
Research has been sponsored by NSHMBA in response to this gap.  Lourdes
will share her perspective on relevant research for the business community.

David Denyer (Cranfield U, School of Management) is also a Scholar of the
Advanced Institute for Management (AIM); he will discuss the ways that
evidence-informed management bridges the gap.  He is an associate of the
Research Methods Group of the Evidence Network (funded by ESRC and based
at Queen Mary College, University of London), a multi-disciplinary
community of senior scholars from the natural sciences (medicine) and
social sciences to promote and investigate Evidence-based policy and
practice in the UK.  David was one of only two management scholars invited
to attend a series of seminars funded by the health development agency
(HDA) and delivered under the auspices of the Evidence Network Research
Methods Group.

Melanie P. Cohen spans the boundary of the academic and practitioner
worlds, in her roles as the Information Technology Strategist for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and as an adjunct
Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland (University College
Graduate School of Management and Technology).  Previously, she was the
Chief of the Strategic Planning Unit at the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).  Her experience includes organizational
restructuring, change, and culture and her research focuses on public
management and the 21st century organization.  She will share her
observations on the connection between theory and practice, specifically
how theory informs practice and practice implements theory.

Joy Beatty (U of Michigan – Dearborn) reflects on the relationship between
our research questions and teaching. If we are looking at having direct
impact on practice, how does teaching serve that in relation to discipline-
based research? Are we there to translate or transmit the "real" work from
other areas into plain English? Or are we preparing the students to
receive new ideas by opening their minds and teaching topics like critical
thinking? And whose needs do we serve when we form our research questions?

Chad Smith (Clarion U of Pennsylvania) sold his manufacturing company –a
firm in ten industries with annual sales of ten million dollars that
employed eighty individuals within three different internal divisions and
two distributorships in Florida and Texas. Chad has been in the
manufacturing industry for the past fourteen years and owned his business
throughout the latter twelve years. Simultaneously, he earned his
Doctorate of Science in Information Systems and Communications and entered
academia as a member of the Business Faculty at Clarion's College of
Business Administration.  His presentation will highlight differences that
these worlds present.

Josetta Mclaughlin (Roosevelt U) addresses the problem of translating
research, based on her work with journalists. She has studied how psycho-
metricians are presenting the data associated with standardized testing
and the problems the journalists face in interpreting the numbers.  Her
perspective about these professionals will encourage the audience to ask
the questions that make their work more translatable for non-specialists.

Miguel R Olivas-Luján (Clarion U of Pennsylvania and Tecnológico de
Monterrey –Mexico) is Liaison to Practice for the MED division in 2007-08
and organizer of this session. He represents MED in the Evidence-Based
Management Collaborative (EBMC) convened by Denise Rousseau since 2007.
Miguel's contribution is twofold: report on the progress of the EBMC and
make a presentation on "Holographic writing," a writing style suitable for
reporting research to non-technical audiences in layers of gradual and
increasing complexity.

After a first set of presentations, a 45-min discussion period has been
scheduled to allow exercises facilitated by the presenters to engage the
audience through discussions in round tables.  The second set of
presentations is scheduled to think about concrete ways in which our
research can be made more accessible and relevant to practitioners.

This Professional Development Workshop was organized on behalf of the MED
division and is sponsored by PTC, OB, TIM, MOC, PNP, MEN, and CM.

For more information and to pre-register, contact Miguel R. Olivas-Luján
(drolivaslujan@gmail.com).

From: <st1:personname w:st="on">Organizational Behavior Division Listserv</st1:personname> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Ben Schneider
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:43 PM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?

With regards to this very interesting thread, it suprises me that the discussion has revolved around the efficacy of our theories for furthering managers' goals, and not of the importance of our science in terms of its own practice.  To make an analogy, political science is surely relevent for educating political leaders, but political scientists can also be vociferous critics of the goals of political regimes, for reasons very different than simply the inefficacy of these regimes methods.  The importance of practicing scholarship is not measured by the use of that scholarship by non-scientists. Scholarship is already a practice, with its own yardsticks for success.
 
To illustrate, it may be that managers, from within their organizational mandates, are not in a position to pose fundamental questions about the role of business organizations in human society, to play a Socratic "gadfly" role. As organizational scientists, we may be in a unique position to pose foundational questions like "how are human relationships shaped by business" and "What is the role of business in promoting the kind of world where people flourish".  It would be ingenuous to assume these questions are only important because they help businesses reach their missions. I think it would not be too exaggerated to say that in contemporary society, organizations largely define our human condition, so that it is certainly worth reflecting on OB topics in order to understand ourselves and our world.  Shouldn't that be considered valuable independently of its bottom line value to businesses?
 
Ok, sorry about the bombastic prose - wonderful discussion!
Gazi Islam
Ibmec São Paulo 
 
 

> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:46:18 -0400
> From: ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU

> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>
> I'm not sure how this thread got started, but it's a very interesting
> one. I observe extremes on both ends of the theoretical/practical
> continuum. There are esoteric academics who lock onto a bone and then
> teach that narrow view as "fact" and become increasingly irrelevant.
> There are forty year industry veterans who believe they "know" the way
> things are in the real world and teach their personal experiences
> without an interest in or inclusion of the latest research. My
> experience of two years in industry pre-doctorate and then eight years
> as CEO of a 3,000 person non-profit lead me to conclude that there is
> much good in both worlds, and much fluff/chaff in both. The
> Knowing-Doing Gap is a real thing, too, as what we know collectively and
> try to pass on to the next generation grows exponentially. But each new
> child is born with a blank slate, so the learning challenge is enormous.
> Our MBA students (average age 30, w/ five years of work experience) have
> little tolerance for reading primary sources, but they do engage
> discussions of what works and what won't. And they have enough
> experience to do significant chaff sifting. In my experience, we have
> to deal with the "Those who can't do, do research, and those who can't
> do research, teach" pablum assumptive base that some students come in
> with. It turns out that Ted Williams was a great hitter, but not a
> great coach--and the reverse for Casey Stengel. John Wooden did both
> application and teaching. And having been a CEO is no guarantee in my
> experience of having been a good one or an effective one--or of having
> clarity around what one did.
>
> The bigger issue for me is that so many seem to teach what they want to
> teach (whether academics or adjuncts from industry) and pay less
> attention to what the students will need to function in their early
> jobs. This common intellectual narcissism is dangerous, I believe, and
> my hope is that we will all, academics and converted practitioners
> alike, try to teach what budding managers can use and apply over the
> next ten-twenty years of their careers and not just our pet topic.
>
> What a great profession teaching is, a stewardship, a privilege, a high
> risk endeavor. Like medical doctors, the first step is that we try to
> do no harm.
>
> Jim
> James G. S. Clawson
> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
> Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
> 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
> Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Perrewe, Pamela
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
>
> I agree with Paul Spector. I think that, although there is much to
> learn and experience in industry, the general principles we learn and
> study in academics can be applied very well. This debate is very
> similar to the debates I have had in my MBA classes (which I enjoy). My
> industry experiences (albeit mostly blue collar) serve as wonderful
> examples in my teaching.
>
> On the other hand, I have found it challenging (not impossible) to teach
> theory and research to my doctoral students who want to study problems
> they encountered in their previous occupations. It takes quite a long
> time for them to understand the underlying principles of theory and
> research and that these general principles really can help them to
> better understand their work experiences.
>
> Finally, I agree with the previous writers that "new" approaches can
> often be traced back to "older" approaches to studying work behaviors.
> I do not think this is a statement that our field has not advanced. I
> think it is a statement that good theories are lasting.
>
>
> Pamela L. Perrewe
> The Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business Administration
> The College of Business
> Florida State University
> Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv on behalf of Paul
> Spector (PSY)
> Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:39 AM
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
>
>
>
> When I first graduated I took a faculty job at a business school. Some
> of
> the old timers would argue that we couldn't really teach management if
> we'd never managed anyone. For a variety of reasons I decided to do just
> that and spent 5 years in 2 nonacademic managerial jobs, and then I
> returned to academia. Did the experience show me that I was teaching the
> wrong stuff to my students? Actually it was the opposite. What I
> discovered is that the principles I learned in school and was teaching
> worked beyond my expectations. What I learned/taught was exactly right
> and
> it prepared me very well for my nonacademic experiences. Of course, it
> was
> up to me to apply what I learned. No one could know the exact
> circumstances I would encounter, so I was taught principles that I could
> generalize to my current situation. The five years didn't really have
> much
> impact on my teaching, however, other than providing some examples and
> perhaps giving me confidence that what I was teaching was important. I
> am
> glad I had my nonacademic experiences, but I would not say that this is
> going to fix what some see as a divide between the academic and
> nonacademic worlds. Maybe because I've been on both sides I don't really
> see such a big gulf between them.
>
> Paul E. Spector
> Department of Psychology
> University of South Florida
> Tampa, FL 33620
> (813) 974-0357 Voice
> (813) 974-4617 Fax
> spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
> website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

---

Discutez gratuitement avec vos amis en vidéo ! Téléchargez Messenger, c'est gratuit !

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Behrens
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:28 PM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?

Gazi and all OBneters,

Very nicely put Gazi !  That business management studies does not yet voice much from withing may be because  business management is still straddled by its vocational mandate. After all, the field is relatively new, compared to the yardstick you used: Political Science; and it is only half a century ago that business schools were harassed (by Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation) for not venturing much beyond trade schools, where practitioners would extoll over "war stories."

But it is true, despite the riveting exchange, too few have focused on the relevance of what we are teaching to improve the world, which after the sequence of Enron-type scandals would seem urgent. But it should not surprise us that the exchange is so lacking in self-appraisal if at the 50 top US business  schools courses dealing with soft skills hover around 30% of the required courses. Business management is still not an inquisitive field, it is still one where instrumentalization and certification of students takes most of the effort.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the main focus of this thread has been on the relevance of business schools to business; suggesting that the status quo is not even satisfactorily fulfilling its most basic mandate.

What makes this particularly worrying is that most business schools in Latin America are following the same course without much reflection either; though the Latin American people would not even respond as well to the American  management credo, as certified by the American business school system, even it were fully satisfactory to American business!

Thanks, Gazi and all.

Alfredo Behrens
www.alfredobehrens.com

 

--
_______________________
Alfredo Behrens
www.alfredobehrens.com
+55 11 38280554

Melhor livro brasileiro de negócios, confira:
http://www.alfredobehrens.com/recomendacoesdolivro2

It is interesting to me that, at no point in the discussion, have we had any definitive rationale provided that supports the depreciation of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, as supported by the Path-Goal theory of human motivation.  I wish that those of you who have challenged the validity of the either the Path-Goal of Leadership or the Path-Goal theory of human motivation would let us in on the basis/rationale for your argument(s).  I think that would be a meaningful contribution to this whole discussion!   Thanks.   Karl Strandberg California State University Dominguez Hills    -------Original Message-------   From: Gazi Islam Date: 07/28/08 13:00:37 To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?   With regards to this very interesting thread, it suprises me that the discussion has revolved around the efficacy of our theories for furthering managers' goals, and not of the importance of our science in terms of its own practice.  To make an analogy, political science is surely relevent for educating political leaders, but political scientists can also be vociferous critics of the goals of political regimes, for reasons very different than simply the inefficacy of these regimes methods.  The importance of practicing scholarship is not measured by the use of that scholarship by non-scientists. Scholarship is already a practice, with its own yardsticks for success.   To illustrate, it may be that managers, from within their organizational mandates, are not in a position to pose fundamental questions about the role of business organizations in human society, to play a Socratic "gadfly" role. As organizational scientists, we may be in a unique position to pose foundational questions like "how are human relationships shaped by business" and "What is the role of business in promoting the kind of world where people flourish".  It would be ingenuous to assume these questions are only important because they help businesses reach their missions. I think it would not be too exaggerated to say that in contemporary society, organizations largely define our human condition, so that it is certainly worth reflecting on OB topics in order to understand ourselves and our world.  Shouldn't that be considered valuable independently of its bottom line value to businesses?   Ok, sorry about the bombastic prose - wonderful discussion! Gazi Islam Ibmec São Paulo      > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:46:18 -0400 > From: ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU > Subject: Re: How relevant is our work? > To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu > > I'm not sure how this thread got started, but it's a very interesting > one. I observe extremes on both ends of the theoretical/practical > continuum. There are esoteric academics who lock onto a bone and then > teach that narrow view as "fact" and become increasingly irrelevant. > There are forty year industry veterans who believe they "know" the way > things are in the real world and teach their personal experiences > without an interest in or inclusion of the latest research. My > experience of two years in industry pre-doctorate and then eight years > as CEO of a 3,000 person non-profit lead me to conclude that there is > much good in both worlds, and much fluff/chaff in both. The > Knowing-Doing Gap is a real thing, too, as what we know collectively and > try to pass on to the next generation grows exponentially. But each new > child is born with a blank slate, so the learning challenge is enormous. > Our MBA students (average age 30, w/ five years of work experience) have > little tolerance for reading primary sources, but they do engage > discussions of what works and what won't. And they have enough > experience to do significant chaff sifting. In my experience, we have > to deal with the "Those who can't do, do research, and those who can't > do research, teach" pablum assumptive base that some students come in > with. It turns out that Ted Williams was a great hitter, but not a > great coach--and the reverse for Casey Stengel. John Wooden did both > application and teaching. And having been a CEO is no guarantee in my > experience of having been a good one or an effective one--or of having > clarity around what one did. > > The bigger issue for me is that so many seem to teach what they want to > teach (whether academics or adjuncts from industry) and pay less > attention to what the students will need to function in their early > jobs. This common intellectual narcissism is dangerous, I believe, and > my hope is that we will all, academics and converted practitioners > alike, try to teach what budding managers can use and apply over the > next ten-twenty years of their careers and not just our pet topic. > > What a great profession teaching is, a stewardship, a privilege, a high > risk endeavor. Like medical doctors, the first step is that we try to > do no harm. > > Jim > James G. S. Clawson > Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration > Darden GSB, University of Virginia > Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906 > 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA > Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680 > Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv > [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Perrewe, Pamela > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:41 AM > To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu > Subject: Re: How relevant is our work? > > I agree with Paul Spector. I think that, although there is much to > learn and experience in industry, the general principles we learn and > study in academics can be applied very well. This debate is very > similar to the debates I have had in my MBA classes (which I enjoy). My > industry experiences (albeit mostly blue collar) serve as wonderful > examples in my teaching. > > On the other hand, I have found it challenging (not impossible) to teach > theory and research to my doctoral students who want to study problems > they encountered in their previous occupations. It takes quite a long > time for them to understand the underlying principles of theory and > research and that these general principles really can help them to > better understand their work experiences. > > Finally, I agree with the previous writers that "new" approaches can > often be traced back to "older" approaches to studying work behaviors. > I do not think this is a statement that our field has not advanced. I > think it is a statement that good theories are lasting. > > > Pamela L. Perrewe > The Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business Administration > The College of Business > Florida State University > Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 > > > ________________________________ > > From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv on behalf of Paul > Spector (PSY) > Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:39 AM > To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu > Subject: Re: How relevant is our work? > > > > When I first graduated I took a faculty job at a business school. Some > of > the old timers would argue that we couldn't really teach management if > we'd never managed anyone. For a variety of reasons I decided to do just > that and spent 5 years in 2 nonacademic managerial jobs, and then I > returned to academia. Did the experience show me that I was teaching the > wrong stuff to my students? Actually it was the opposite. What I > discovered is that the principles I learned in school and was teaching > worked beyond my expectations. What I learned/taught was exactly right > and > it prepared me very well for my nonacademic experiences. Of course, it > was > up to me to apply what I learned. No one could know the exact > circumstances I would encounter, so I was taught principles that I could > generalize to my current situation. The five years didn't really have > much > impact on my teaching, however, other than providing some examples and > perhaps giving me confidence that what I was teaching was important. I > am > glad I had my nonacademic experiences, but I would not say that this is > going to fix what some see as a divide between the academic and > nonacademic worlds. Maybe because I've been on both sides I don't really > see such a big gulf between them. > > Paul E. Spector > Department of Psychology > University of South Florida > Tampa, FL 33620 > (813) 974-0357 Voice > (813) 974-4617 Fax > spector@shell.cas.usf.edu > website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector Discutez gratuitement avec vos amis en vidéo ! Téléchargez Messenger, c'est gratuit ! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1577 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 6:55 AM

Dear Colleagues,

 

I acknowledge the value of science for science's sake-just to know the answers to some fundamental questions.  And I place myself on the other end of the spectrum.  If Political Science doesn't help us govern better, if management science doesn't help us manage better, it is, for me, not a lot of use.  It may be interesting in the way that art or music is interesting, and some very important principles may come out of it, but in the end, for me, the application is where the rubber meets the road.  And then we must ask, I guess, the question why do students come to business school?  Is it to admire the esoteric relationships that thread themselves through human behavior collectively?  Or is it, in the end, in order to learn how to run an organization effectively and efficiently?  In my experience there's a big difference between MBA students and doctoral students.  The latter perhaps are much more interested in the nuances. 

 

Was the original question, what's the value of our work?  Surely there's a basic research answer that says something like "to understand the way things work" or even "just to satisfy my human curiosity."  Just as surely, there's an application answer that says "to inform those who are the thing itself how to do it better."  My psychological needs lie more with the latter.  Where I would have concern was if we confused those various (I'm sure it's a continuum) perspectives on research in the MBA or BA classroom.  Or any introductory classroom on any topic.  How many high school and college kids come out of school and are turned off by the kind of instruction they received.  I remember a calculus teacher at Stanford who spent his whole time facing the board, mumbling, and then at the end of a 30 minute monologue turned to us and said, "it ought to be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that ...."  My fear is that because we may be intensely interested in a topic we may try to teach that topic to students who are looking to learn how to run something and we inadvertently turn them off. 

 

On the Latin leadership issue, my experience conducting sessions and consulting in Japan, Thailand, Costa Rico, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Egypt, Greece, France, England, Turkey, Australia, and Canada would be that if anything we are far more similar than we are dissimilar.  There is a universally human set of issues around leading others that we often obscure with cultural differences.  And the cultural difference are real.  But whether I show my business card, or don't show the bottom of my shoe, or don't speak this language or that one, the underlying issues, in my experience, are more common than they are different.  When we focus on those, again in my experience, good things begin to happen. 

 

What's the value of our work?  I think in the end each person must make that decision for themselves and decide, what's the value of my work?  And I'd offer some criteria:  is it stimulating to me or am I doing it because I have to?  Am I eager to go in in the morning because I want to find the answers to questions that are important to me-and to others?  And being on the application end of the spectrum, I'd also ask, Is anything I'm doing of value to others in the sense that they are using it or it has changed for the better the way they think or believe or act?  If one could answer yes to all three of those questions, wow... what's the value of my work wouldn't be an issue.  What worries me is that there are some/many who have this nagging question deep inside and have lost their way.  This is an "inside-out" question not an "outside-in" question in the sense that "their" answers won't suffice.  One has to find one's own.  And in the end, if it doesn't make you feel good inside, something's amiss.

 

I find this kind of honest open discussion very refreshing and wish we did more of it whether by email or F2F.  

 

Respectfully,

   Jim

James G. S. Clawson

Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

Darden GSB, University of Virginia

Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

 

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Behrens
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 4:28 PM

To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?

 

Gazi and all OBneters,

Very nicely put Gazi !  That business management studies does not yet voice much from withing may be because  business management is still straddled by its vocational mandate. After all, the field is relatively new, compared to the yardstick you used: Political Science; and it is only half a century ago that business schools were harassed (by Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation) for not venturing much beyond trade schools, where practitioners would extoll over "war stories."

But it is true, despite the riveting exchange, too few have focused on the relevance of what we are teaching to improve the world, which after the sequence of Enron-type scandals would seem urgent. But it should not surprise us that the exchange is so lacking in self-appraisal if at the 50 top US business  schools courses dealing with soft skills hover around 30% of the required courses. Business management is still not an inquisitive field, it is still one where instrumentalization and certification of students takes most of the effort.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the main focus of this thread has been on the relevance of business schools to business; suggesting that the status quo is not even satisfactorily fulfilling its most basic mandate.

What makes this particularly worrying is that most business schools in Latin America are following the same course without much reflection either; though the Latin American people would not even respond as well to the American  management credo, as certified by the American business school system, even it were fully satisfactory to American business!

Thanks, Gazi and all.

Alfredo Behrens
www.alfredobehrens.com

 

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gazi Islam <gazifunk@hotmail.com> wrote:

With regards to this very interesting thread, it suprises me that the discussion has revolved around the efficacy of our theories for furthering managers' goals, and not of the importance of our science in terms of its own practice.  To make an analogy, political science is surely relevent for educating political leaders, but political scientists can also be vociferous critics of the goals of political regimes, for reasons very different than simply the inefficacy of these regimes methods.  The importance of practicing scholarship is not measured by the use of that scholarship by non-scientists. Scholarship is already a practice, with its own yardsticks for success.
 
To illustrate, it may be that managers, from within their organizational mandates, are not in a position to pose fundamental questions about the role of business organizations in human society, to play a Socratic "gadfly" role. As organizational scientists, we may be in a unique position to pose foundational questions like "how are human relationships shaped by business" and "What is the role of business in promoting the kind of world where people flourish".  It would be ingenuous to assume these questions are only important because they help businesses reach their missions. I think it would not be too exaggerated to say that in contemporary society, organizations largely define our human condition, so that it is certainly worth reflecting on OB topics in order to understand ourselves and our world.  Shouldn't that be considered valuable independently of its bottom line value to businesses?
 
Ok, sorry about the bombastic prose - wonderful discussion!
Gazi Islam
Ibmec São Paulo 
 
 

> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:46:18 -0400
> From: ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU

> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>
> I'm not sure how this thread got started, but it's a very interesting
> one. I observe extremes on both ends of the theoretical/practical
> continuum. There are esoteric academics who lock onto a bone and then
> teach that narrow view as "fact" and become increasingly irrelevant.
> There are forty year industry veterans who believe they "know" the way
> things are in the real world and teach their personal experiences
> without an interest in or inclusion of the latest research. My
> experience of two years in industry pre-doctorate and then eight years
> as CEO of a 3,000 person non-profit lead me to conclude that there is
> much good in both worlds, and much fluff/chaff in both. The
> Knowing-Doing Gap is a real thing, too, as what we know collectively and
> try to pass on to the next generation grows exponentially. But each new
> child is born with a blank slate, so the learning challenge is enormous.
> Our MBA students (average age 30, w/ five years of work experience) have
> little tolerance for reading primary sources, but they do engage
> discussions of what works and what won't. And they have enough
> experience to do significant chaff sifting. In my experience, we have
> to deal with the "Those who can't do, do research, and those who can't
> do research, teach" pablum assumptive base that some students come in
> with. It turns out that Ted Williams was a great hitter, but not a
> great coach--and the reverse for Casey Stengel. John Wooden did both
> application and teaching. And having been a CEO is no guarantee in my
> experience of having been a good one or an effective one--or of having
> clarity around what one did.
>
> The bigger issue for me is that so many seem to teach what they want to
> teach (whether academics or adjuncts from industry) and pay less
> attention to what the students will need to function in their early
> jobs. This common intellectual narcissism is dangerous, I believe, and
> my hope is that we will all, academics and converted practitioners
> alike, try to teach what budding managers can use and apply over the
> next ten-twenty years of their careers and not just our pet topic.
>
> What a great profession teaching is, a stewardship, a privilege, a high
> risk endeavor. Like medical doctors, the first step is that we try to
> do no harm.
>
> Jim
> James G. S. Clawson
> Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
> Darden GSB, University of Virginia
> Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
> 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
> Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
> Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
> [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Perrewe, Pamela
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
>
> I agree with Paul Spector. I think that, although there is much to
> learn and experience in industry, the general principles we learn and
> study in academics can be applied very well. This debate is very
> similar to the debates I have had in my MBA classes (which I enjoy). My
> industry experiences (albeit mostly blue collar) serve as wonderful
> examples in my teaching.
>
> On the other hand, I have found it challenging (not impossible) to teach
> theory and research to my doctoral students who want to study problems
> they encountered in their previous occupations. It takes quite a long
> time for them to understand the underlying principles of theory and
> research and that these general principles really can help them to
> better understand their work experiences.
>
> Finally, I agree with the previous writers that "new" approaches can
> often be traced back to "older" approaches to studying work behaviors.
> I do not think this is a statement that our field has not advanced. I
> think it is a statement that good theories are lasting.
>
>
> Pamela L. Perrewe
> The Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business Administration
> The College of Business
> Florida State University
> Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv on behalf of Paul
> Spector (PSY)
> Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:39 AM
> To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: How relevant is our work?
>
>
>
> When I first graduated I took a faculty job at a business school. Some
> of
> the old timers would argue that we couldn't really teach management if
> we'd never managed anyone. For a variety of reasons I decided to do just
> that and spent 5 years in 2 nonacademic managerial jobs, and then I
> returned to academia. Did the experience show me that I was teaching the
> wrong stuff to my students? Actually it was the opposite. What I
> discovered is that the principles I learned in school and was teaching
> worked beyond my expectations. What I learned/taught was exactly right
> and
> it prepared me very well for my nonacademic experiences. Of course, it
> was
> up to me to apply what I learned. No one could know the exact
> circumstances I would encounter, so I was taught principles that I could
> generalize to my current situation. The five years didn't really have
> much
> impact on my teaching, however, other than providing some examples and
> perhaps giving me confidence that what I was teaching was important. I
> am
> glad I had my nonacademic experiences, but I would not say that this is
> going to fix what some see as a divide between the academic and
> nonacademic worlds. Maybe because I've been on both sides I don't really
> see such a big gulf between them.
>
> Paul E. Spector
> Department of Psychology
> University of South Florida
> Tampa, FL 33620
> (813) 974-0357 Voice
> (813) 974-4617 Fax
> spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
> website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

---

Discutez gratuitement avec vos amis en vidéo ! Téléchargez Messenger, c'est gratuit !

--
_______________________
Alfredo Behrens
www.alfredobehrens.com
+55 11 38280554

Melhor livro brasileiro de negócios, confira:
http://www.alfredobehrens.com/recomendacoesdolivro2