What Happened to Management Research? A Commentary

18 October, 2021

Image Credit: Sezeryadigar at istockphoto

The essence of research lies in questioning established facts, proposing new arguments and attempting to validate those arguments. The dictionary meaning of research is “systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions” (Oxford, 2016). It is futile to conduct a research which is not read by anyone and is wastage of resources- money, material, manpower, time and so on. The author in the paper- “Out of Focus or Inappropriate Paradigm Choice: What Happened to Management Research?” highlights a very pertinent, widely-known but an under-recognised issue about the usefulness and relevance of management research, particularly in the Indian context. He laments, “…the body of knowledge published in academic journals has practically no audience in business or government” and “research on organizations has not typically focused on problems relevant to business and government organizations.” The author is critical of the way industry and academia in management institutes in India are working in silos and, provides an insight into the key reasons that led the discipline of management and the people associated with it into this situation.

When formal management education was introduced in the United States of America (USA) in the early twentieth century,3 it faced criticism from everyone- prospective students, university teachers, business community and the society in general (Mahajan, 2014). The programs gradually picked up after the absorption of first few batches in the industry and were replicated in different parts of the world including India. If we look at numbers- in 1955-56, only 3200 Master of Business Administration (MBA) degrees were awarded in the USA (Zimmerman, 2001). By 2008, American institutions were enrolling more than 250,000 MBA students in a year (Murray, 2011). In India, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, on an average, four management institutes were set up every year (Dayal, 2002). By 2011, this 3 number became 283, meaning thereby that average annual addition increased more than 40 times in 35 years (Mahajan, 2014). It is ironic as well as fascinating that although there has been a remarkable increase in the number of management programs across the world, yet the relevance of formal management education has always been questioned and is still a topic of debate and discussion (Cheit, 1985; Leavitt 1989; Hasan, 1993; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002, 2004; Bennis and O’Toole, 2005; Rubin and Dierdorff, 2009; Datar et al., 2010). The fundamental argument is that management is only common sense that cannot be taught in classrooms. However, proving or disproving the need of management education is not the intention. The intention is retrospection and introspection. The initial intent with which management education was started has deviated- company form of organisation has become synonymous to the term organisation, business to management, and MBA degree to luxury and career progression. In this deviation, management research has been immensely harmed. In the paper on questioning the focus and paradigm choice of management research, the author highlights how management research in India is far from real problems of the industry and for that matter, far from any audience. One cannot agree more when he writes that our research methods have refined, but these methods have failed to produce useful results.

One of the most important issues discussed in the paper is industry-academia interface. The author explains the relationship between industry and academia in management institutes India by writing- “….no one seems to be very clear about what one can, or should, learn from the other.” Four pillars which define the purpose of management education are teaching, research, consulting and training, and every institution must strive for a balanced mix of all. Research, whether thought-based, empirical or basic, helps in the creation of knowledge. It improves one’s ability to communicate with stakeholders, sharpens one’s intellect and broadens one’s horizon. But it should be relevant and useful to be acceptable. This requires faculty members to have an insight into the way the industry operates. Only then, it would reinforce the faith of industry in management education while bringing a rich learning experience for faculty members. It is, thus, mutually beneficial. Unfortunately, not many institutions in the country follow this model. In terms of proposing new ideas, critiquing the existing ones, or even developing cases, most of us still depend on foreign authors. Only recently, attempts in this direction are increasing.

The author writes, ‘executives typically do not turn to academics or academic research findings in developing management strategies and practices.” One of the reasons could also be that some faculty members delegate their research work to their doctoral students without any hand-holding. The implications mentioned in their papers for managers or policy makers are never shared with any of the stakeholders. In the conferences organised, certificates are a priority for the participants and learning comes last on the list. The institutes also have a part to play here as they may not be paying adequate attention to issues like appraisal, development, compensation, and recognition when it comes to research. Sometimes, bureaucratic restrictions discourage faculty members to interact with the industry.

The fundamental problem is that most of the institutes focus on numbers; on quantity and not quality. The motive could be different- from bagging a position in a ranking list to fulfilling a criterion mandated by a regulatory body. Utility, readership, and even authenticity, are secondary concerns or absolutely no concerns at all. The author’s statement- “…people tend to dance to the tune of performance measures rather than focusing on the real needs, the institutions and individual academics are no exception to that” is disappointing but truthful. Faculty members are forced to publish, sometimes by institutional mechanisms and sometimes by their own fear of being left out or losing the rat-race with their peers. This also leads to the problem of plagiarism and an increase in the number of such cases even in the top institutions of the country. Some consider impact factor as the sole criterion of the quality of a publication. Impact factor is important, but not necessarily the only criterion to judge the effectiveness of research. The rules of publishing, some written and some unwritten, contribute in the selection of a paper in a journal. Many a times, research not published in an A category journal can also be extremely useful but it is disappointing how we are foregoing the value of quality amid the madness of ranks, ratings and other numbers.

In most of the well-known western institutions, management education raises a multidimensional view. In the Indian context, what is also harming the research tradition is specialization. The author rightfully explains- “specialization has now become the signal of academic rigor” and “given the prevailing mindset in our academia in general, and the BSchools in particular, that ‘something plus’ is getting lost.” Two fundamental characteristics of management as a discipline are its interdisciplinary nature and an application oriented approach. Only the research that blends these characteristics can have any implications for stakeholders.

At present, the intent of management research in India largely remains either fulfilment of regulatory requirements or institutional norms. In the past, there have been instances where highly capable people even without a doctoral degree were absorbed in the IIM system. The degree is no doubt an indicator of one’s intellectual achievement but it provides no guarantee of the person being a good researcher. The examples that exist are both good and bad. It is an irony that even with an adequate research experience; one cannot be allowed to teach in an educational institution without this qualification. This could be seen as over-regulation and instances where people find ways to circumvent the regulatory mechanism are common. We do not need restrictions. What we need is a strong research tradition to learn from real life situations. Our faculty members and students need to visit organisations regularly for assignments, field studies and joint research. A certain level of openness and a keen desire is important. The institutions must also appreciate the idea that money spent on connecting with the industry is well-spent because this way, faculty members learn how managers manage and that knowledge is transferred to the class.

The author by questioning the focus of management research has done a commendable job of showing the turbulence in management research. It paves way for deliberations at not only institution, department or program level, but also at an individual level for self-introspection. The joy of being able to make a difference and bring a change in reality is remarkable but we must convince our institutions and, first and foremost, ourselves as faculty members about its value. The question asked by the author in the concluding paragraph - “Do we want to change?” is the question that we must ask ourselves every time we write a research paper.

References

Bennis, W. G., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How Business Schools Lost Their Way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96-104.

Cheit, E. F. (1985). Business Schools and Their Critics. California Management Review, 27(3), 43-62.

Datar, S. M., Garvin, D.A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a Crossroads. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.