Year: 2007
Type: article
Abstract: sustained.So, too, do organizations and disciplines have distinctive strengths, weaknesses, and styles.When people and organizations 'match', the likely outcomes are far more pleasant (and likely to be more effective as well) than when they do not.While Glick et al. focus on the 'the field' and publication and promotion processes as a key culprit in mismatches, another reasonable interpretation is that it is our screening, training, and socialization processes (and not our publication and promotion processes) that are the core problem.Put simply, we act as though the traditional scholar track is not only the modal reality but also the singular core need.In a field where uncertainty and serendipity are so prevalent, why do we delude ourselves by stressing such certainty and singularity of career models and of staffing needs?I would like to frame this problem in what may be a radical alternative view.Namely, the problem is that we produce too many basic research-focused PhDs.My suggestion is that it may not be the journals or the qualities of the individuals that are at the root of the problem, it is the type of output we choose to produce and that PhD programs at top business schools are, as a result, designed to produce.Specifically, we have a system and a set of norms for singularly producing and promoting clones.In training doctoral students, faculty want and are rewarded for producing future scholars.At most toprated schools (and an increasing number of lower-ranked schools around the world), anything but A-level journal articles simply do not 'count'.Similarly, our system rewards the production of PhD students who singularly emphasize becoming serious contributing scholars, and other graduates do not 'count'.Yet our science and the world need a much greater variety in our star products than such a singular view implies.We need outstanding teachers.We need leaders and analysts in corporations and government and non-profit organizations who are outstanding consumers and practitioners (and supporters!) of cutting-edge organizational research.But this is not currently part of our self-defined mission.We do not systematically recruit or prepare some of the brightest PhD students with such roles in mind, nor do we design our programs to produce them.Our model is of the 'best athlete' who is singularly outstanding at traditional scholarly research.In nearly all business schools today, these individuals must also be very good at teaching, although true excellence in teaching is far from required (or rewarded).Service and recognized impact on society is also valued more in some schools than others, but is generally not central to stature in the field or tenure-track promotions.Such concerns are also relevant to a discussion of the 'life' of organizational scholars for several reasons.First, it seduces individuals with the aptitude to obtain and utilize a PhD into believing they must go the traditional research route to be recognized and rewarded, when their talents may lie in translational research, teaching, or practice.Second, it leads us to reject from PhD programs and faculty positions those individuals who have much organizational insight and knowledge and know-how to leverage it, but have little interest in conducting basic research as a career.Third, it leads us to design PhD programs in a way that at best minimizes systematic training in knowledge translation, applied research, effective pedagogy, and practice.I once had an excellent PhD student (who was quite capable and well-trained in basic research) break down in tears in my office when I suggested that the traditional top school research route might not be that person's dream job.The tears emanated more from a sense of relief than disappointment, as this individual had worked hard to avoid thinking about alternatives to the traditional model of academic success and was about to embark on a scholarly life they truly did not want.Now this person is very successfully employed in industry, and our field has a very knowledgeable advocate and consumer of organizational research, rather than someone who suffered from 'making a life' that was not their true objective but a falsely acquired one.I suggest that this story is far from isolated, but it is not part of our identity as a field.I would argue that the problems that Glick et al. observe are in part due to this problem.This singularity creates pressure for individuals to focus on volume of research production at non-top tier
DOI: 10.1002/job.458
Author: Sim B. Sitkin
Institution: Duke University
Language: English
Subfield: General Health Professions
Field: Health Professions
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2051728406