Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-09-2002 12:12
    Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:40:55 -0400
    From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
    Subject: RE: [MG-ED-DV] Axelrod's Essay
    To: 'Kim Boal' <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
    Reply-to: wankelc@optonline.net
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
    Importance: Normal
    X-MSMail-priority: Normal
    Original-recipient: rfc822;KimBoal@TTU.EDU



    Dear Friends,

    As a "pointy headed academic" who also happens to Co-Edit (with Paul
    Hirsch, Northwestern) a scholarly journal (Journal of Management Inquiry)
    that often publishes pieces by "practitioners", I am curious about what
    "impractical" theories you were taught? Were they theories about
    strategy, leadership, motivation, job attitudes, conflict and power, or
    what? I
    find that most academics are usually prudent about making claims about the
    internal validity (i.e., that X "causes" Y) and generalizability (i.e.,
    that the relationship between X & Y holds in all versus only some
    situations). In fact, much research is done to examine the boundary
    conditions under which any observed relationship holds. Conversely, I
    often find that "popular press" books on management make universal and
    absolute claims about the relationship (often poorly specified) between
    X & Y based upon anecdotal evidence. "Academics," tend to be cautious
    about "truth" claims. This unwillingness to make absolute truth claims often
    leaves our students uncomfortable.

    Academics are also likely to shy away from "grand theories" that attempt to
    explain everything or solve every problem. We aim to develop theories of
    the "middle range" whose scope is much more limited. Perhaps some are
    unhappy when we only have theories they can "partially" respond to any
    particular problem. Many organizational problems are so complex that no
    one theory is adequate to solving the situation. Developing the
    discernment to pick and chose those theories, or parts of those theories,
    that help frame relevant questions, or provide partial answers to problems
    requires an appreciation of both the theory and its boundaries.

    I find Paul Hersey admonition that Management Educators (I do not assume
    that Business Educators are necessarily Academics) become business
    executives before they become academic theorists/ researchers curious.
    The
    KSAs necessary to be a good business executive are different from the
    KSAs
    necessary to be a good researcher. Being good at one does not
    necessarily
    mean that you will be good at the other. Hersey and Blanchard are well
    known for their theory of "situational leadership." Perhaps this was
    one
    of the "useless theories" some have commented on. I say useless,
    because
    despite the popularity of their theory among practitioners, there is
    little
    to no research support for their theory. Perhaps if Hersey had been a
    better "academic" than "practitioner" he would not continually "push" his
    theory in training programs, and "practitioners" would not have such a
    jaundiced view of academics.

    Regards,

    Kim Boal



    At 08:06 PM 4/8/2002 -0400, you wrote:
    >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
    >
    >I have to speak as one who was educated in a program designed for and
    >about
    >being a practitioner; and who now teaches in the same environment.
    >
    >I earned my Masters back in 1979 - and only one of our courses had a
    >pure
    >academic for an instructor ... we laughed the guy out of the classroom.
    >His
    >academic theories had nothing to do with our corporate realities and I
    >think
    >he learned more from us than we did from him.
    >
    >My grad school has had private sessions for us with both Peter Drucker
    >and
    >Paul Hersey during AOM meetings. From both of them we heard the
    >importance
    >of management educators becoming experienced business executives before
    >they
    >became academic theorists, researchers, and/or teachers.
    >
    >For years in business hiring other executives and I had a consensus of
    >what
    >a college degree in business meant: 1) they had shown they could show
    >up on
    >a regular basis. 2) they could listen to instructions and act upon
    them
    >to
    >at least a satisficing level. 3) they were teachable. We also
    >counted on
    >having to wash the academic baloney out of them and teaching them the
    >real
    >world.
    >
    >Education will become useful when it isn't full of impractical theory
    or
    >"sage from the stage" pontificators.
    >
    >Just my humble experience
    >
    >Conna Condon
    >DBA candidate
    >
    --------------------------------
    Kim Boal
    College of Business Administration
    Texas Tech University
    Lubbock, TX 79409
    (806) 742-2150
    KimBoal@ttu.edu



    --------------------------------
    Kim Boal
    College of Business Administration
    Texas Tech University
    Lubbock, TX 79409
    (806) 742-2150
    KimBoal@ttu.edu


  • 2.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-09-2002 12:44
    Kim Boal writes,

    "I find that most academics are usually prudent about making claims about
    the internal validity (i.e., that X "causes" Y) and generalizability (i.e.,
    that the relationship between X & Y holds in all versus only some
    situations)."

    To me, this point illustrates why there may be disconnects between academia
    and management practice. Academic research is bound by rules that attempt to
    translate a problem into quantifiable, statistically acceptable terms
    (recognizing, of course, that other forms of research also exist).
    Management practice isn't bound by statistical rules: it happens whether a
    correlation, etc. makes sense or even exists. Therefore trying to teach
    effective management based on statically verifiable theory risks completely
    missing the underlying fabric of chaos that often exists in business and
    industry. Nevertheless, that chaos is just as fundamental and important as
    anything else. If we could translate conditions and circumstances into
    numbers, we probably wouldn't have to worry so much about "hard" and "soft"
    skills.


    "I find Paul Hersey admonition that Management Educators (I do not assume
    that Business Educators are necessarily Academics) become business
    executives before they become academic theorists/ researchers curious. The
    KSAs necessary to be a good business executive are different from the
    KSAs necessary to be a good researcher. Being good at one does not
    necessarily mean that you will be good at the other."

    I very much agree that there are fundamental differences in the K&S of
    researchers, teachers and managers. But aren't we therefore saying that
    researchers may not be the best teachers, or managers? When a medical
    student becomes an intern, don't we want him/her to gain practical
    experience under the guidance of a qualified physician rather than a
    researcher? Wouldn't this also apply to management education?

    I guess what I'm saying is that I support the need for faculty to include
    experienced managers.

    Jean-Marc Guillemette


  • 3.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-09-2002 13:05
    From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

    Such a perfect example. Situational Leadership validation studies.

    My research course used some of the studies as examples. My problem
    with
    the studies they used is that the researchers clearly did not understand
    the
    fundamental constructs of situational leadership or they would not have
    performed their non-situational studies as attempts to validate the
    constructs.

    This is exactly the occasion when the practitioners question the common
    sense
    of researchers. Practitioners are quite capable of understanding that
    "common sense" requires validation. However, when research results do
    not
    stand up to the light of common sense we really wonder about the
    researcher.

    I had an excellent statistics instructor that made us do all our work
    without electronic aids. He had a grading standard that: We should be
    able
    to recognize an answer that is not reasonable.

    IMHO, researchers should be able to do the same: recognize a research
    result that doesn't make sense. Situational leadership does make sense,
    although it might not be reasonable to expect an individual to be able
    to
    interpret each situation and adjust their leadership style to each
    situation
    all the time. Some of the empirical studies of it have not.

    It would make an interesting paper to write a full review of some of the
    research done that has never questioned the reasonableness of their
    results.

    As to the limitation disclaimers researchers use, to a practitioner they
    are
    like saying "I am about to blow hot air" and I am disclaiming the fact
    that
    you can punch major holes in it, cause I am only looking at this single
    brick of the building of knowledge on the topic, not at the building...
    my
    brick doesn't really have to fit.

    Conna Condon


  • 4.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-09-2002 14:35
    An "impractical" theory is one which does not confirm and support what I want.
    :)

    Cheers,
    Jay

    Kim Boal wrote:

    > Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:40:55 -0400
    > From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
    > Subject: RE: [MG-ED-DV] Axelrod's Essay
    > To: 'Kim Boal' <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
    > Reply-to: wankelc@optonline.net
    > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
    > Importance: Normal
    > X-MSMail-priority: Normal
    > Original-recipient: rfc822;KimBoal@TTU.EDU
    >
    > Dear Friends,
    >
    > As a "pointy headed academic" who also happens to Co-Edit (with Paul
    > Hirsch, Northwestern) a scholarly journal (Journal of Management Inquiry)
    > that often publishes pieces by "practitioners", I am curious about what
    > "impractical" theories you were taught? Were they theories about
    > strategy, leadership, motivation, job attitudes, conflict and power, or
    > what? I
    > [snip]
    >
    > --------------------------------
    > Kim Boal
    > College of Business Administration
    > Texas Tech University
    > Lubbock, TX 79409
    > (806) 742-2150
    > KimBoal@ttu.edu

    --
    Jay Warner
    Principal Scientist
    Warner Consulting, Inc.
    4444 North Green Bay Road
    Racine, WI 53404-1216
    USA

    Ph: (262) 634-9100
    FAX: (262) 681-1133
    email: quality@a2q.com
    web: http://www.a2q.com

    The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?


  • 5.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-09-2002 20:21
    One source of the academic/practitioner difference in valuing is
    similar to the issue of probability and gambling

    If you are running a casino, careful attention to the
    probabilities will make you rich, and let you know where you are
    getting cheated

    but if you are making only one bet, like choosing a lottery
    ticket, or a job, or a spouse ...
    ... different logic and processes may often be more useful.

    Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
    Stuart Graduate School of Business
    (630) 221-9456
    barlow@stuart.iit.edu
    http://www.stuart.iit.edu/faculty/barlow



    ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
    From: Jay Warner <quality@a2q.com>
    Reply-To: quality@a2q.com
    Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:35:04 -0500

    >An "impractical" theory is one which does not confirm and support

    what I want.
    >:)
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Jay
    >
    >Kim Boal wrote:
    >
    >> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:40:55 -0400
    >> From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
    >> Subject: RE: [MG-ED-DV] Axelrod's Essay
    >> To: 'Kim Boal' <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
    >> Reply-to: wankelc@optonline.net
    >> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
    >> Importance: Normal
    >> X-MSMail-priority: Normal
    >> Original-recipient: rfc822;KimBoal@TTU.EDU
    >>
    >> Dear Friends,
    >>
    >> As a "pointy headed academic" who also happens to Co-Edit (with

    Paul
    >> Hirsch, Northwestern) a scholarly journal (Journal of

    Management Inquiry)
    >> that often publishes pieces by "practitioners", I am curious

    about what
    >> "impractical" theories you were taught? Were they theories

    about
    >> strategy, leadership, motivation, job attitudes, conflict and

    power, or
    >> what? I
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> --------------------------------
    >> Kim Boal
    >> College of Business Administration
    >> Texas Tech University
    >> Lubbock, TX 79409
    >> (806) 742-2150
    >> KimBoal@ttu.edu
    >
    >--
    >Jay Warner
    >Principal Scientist
    >Warner Consulting, Inc.
    >4444 North Green Bay Road
    >Racine, WI 53404-1216
    >USA
    >
    >Ph: (262) 634-9100
    >FAX: (262) 681-1133
    >email: quality@a2q.com
    >web: http://www.a2q.com
    >
    >The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
    >


  • 6.  Management Edexverythingcation

    Posted 04-11-2002 16:46
    From: Rusty Rae [mailto:thegraduate@centurytel.net]

    Kim wrote:
    I guess I am among those who tend to treat the human and social capital
    embedded in people as a source, if not the prime source, of comptitive
    advantage, and thus treat people as a resource/capability. I don't know
    if
    looking at them as "sources of enthusiasm" is that much different.


    Right on Kim!