Comments on: On Managerial Relevance http://blog.robertsalomon.com/2007/05/14/on-managerial-relevance/ Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:47:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mike Barnett http://blog.robertsalomon.com/2007/05/14/on-managerial-relevance/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Mike Barnett Tue, 15 May 2007 16:27:37 +0000 http://blog.robertsalomon.biz/?p=12#comment-15 I don't think there's anything "hasty" about the conclusions being drawn -- we've been drawing conclusions that we should "matter" for decades, and yet we seem to be rewarding it less and less in academia. At "Billfest," a conference in honor of Bill Starbuck's retirement that was held at NYU a few years ago, we also debated this issue, and I wound up on a side that had to argue that the ivory tower shouldn't be "tainted" by concern about relevance -- a position I thought I opposed, yet came around to respecting; the basic issue is that we don't want to be corporate "whores" whereby we research anything that has money behind it or is the current hot topic. Instead, we should be leading, and doing "basic" research. Bill Starbuck, though, is pretty convincingly concerned that we must matter, and soon. Here's an interview with him that spells out his concerns: <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=859705" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=859705</a> In reality, I think there's a nice middle ground between rigor and relevance. I just started getting involved with a journal, run out of London by a former LBS faculty member oddly enough, called Long Range Planning that seems to strike this balance: <a href="http://www.lrp.ac/" rel="nofollow">http://www.lrp.ac/</a> Beyond research, and on to teaching, one of our leading scholars, Henry Mintzberg, questions whether we even teach the "soft" practice / art of management in current MBA programs. <a href="http://www.henrymintzberg.com/mangnotmba.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.henrymintzberg.com/mangnotmba.htm</a> I think he misfires on a lot of points, though: <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880446" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880446</a> Bottom line -- it's complicated, and there is no one best answer, no optimality. Oddly enough, that's the case with strategy in general. I don’t think there’s anything “hasty” about the conclusions being drawn — we’ve been drawing conclusions that we should “matter” for decades, and yet we seem to be rewarding it less and less in academia. At “Billfest,” a conference in honor of Bill Starbuck’s retirement that was held at NYU a few years ago, we also debated this issue, and I wound up on a side that had to argue that the ivory tower shouldn’t be “tainted” by concern about relevance — a position I thought I opposed, yet came around to respecting; the basic issue is that we don’t want to be corporate “whores” whereby we research anything that has money behind it or is the current hot topic. Instead, we should be leading, and doing “basic” research. Bill Starbuck, though, is pretty convincingly concerned that we must matter, and soon. Here’s an interview with him that spells out his concerns:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=859705

In reality, I think there’s a nice middle ground between rigor and relevance. I just started getting involved with a journal, run out of London by a former LBS faculty member oddly enough, called Long Range Planning that seems to strike this balance:

http://www.lrp.ac/

Beyond research, and on to teaching, one of our leading scholars, Henry Mintzberg, questions whether we even teach the “soft” practice / art of management in current MBA programs.

http://www.henrymintzberg.com/mangnotmba.htm

I think he misfires on a lot of points, though:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880446

Bottom line — it’s complicated, and there is no one best answer, no optimality. Oddly enough, that’s the case with strategy in general.

]]>