SIXTEEN
Commentary
Observations Concerning Pathways for Doing “Useful Research”
THE SPECIFIC HIGH GOALS of the workshop on which this book is based were, in my opinion, threefold: (1) Determine whether there is consensus among the presenters and discussants as to whether the interrelated academic fields of human resource management (HRM), industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology, and organizational behavior (OB) are in serious trouble from the standpoint of widening the scientist-practitioner gap. (2) Identify the causes for the gap if the gap is getting larger rather than smaller. (3) Provide prescriptive solutions on ways to at least minimize, if not eliminate, the gap between these two groups.
The Problem
The workshop participants were predominately senior scholars whose academic careers exemplify the practice of science for the purpose of improving organizational behavior. Although his name was not invoked during the workshop, all of the participants have had careers that exemplify Kurt Lewin’s credo (1945) of no research without action, no action without research . “Useful research” was implicitly defined by some, and explicitly defined by others, as research that significantly influences and is influenced by practice in organizational settings. The desired reciprocal influence of these two domains has been discussed elsewhere (Latham, 2001a, 2001b), as have disagreements with this viewpoint (Hulin, 2001).
There was strong, if not unanimous, consensus among the workshop participants that the three interrelated fields—HRM, I-O, and OB—currently are in trouble. The problem is the ongoing widening rather than narrowing of the gap between science and practice. As an example, Rousseau and Boudreau (Chapter 14, Sticky Findings) point out that behavioral scientists have known for decades (e.g., Wagner, 1949; Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965) that an unstructured interview is unreliable and hence lacks validity for hiring employees. Despite this well-known fact, unstructured interviews continue to be widely used for selection around the globe. This practice results in both Type I and Type II errors. That is, applicants who are not qualified for the job are hired while qualified applicants are rejected. Consequently, many organizations suffer needlessly low productivity and high employee turnover.
The narrowing of the scientist-practitioner gap through research that is used by the public warrants attention because we are citizens of this globe first and foremost, and secondarily scientists, practitioners, or scientist-practitioners. It is arguably unethical for behavioral scientists to restrict their findings to scholarly journals when they have answers to so many organizational ills. Imagine the outcry of the public if the medical profession remained silent regarding their knowledge of action steps for preventing cholera, measles, mumps, or polio.
As I noted in my first presidential column in The Industrial Psychologist (Latham, 2008), when the public perceives a problem, they are likely to turn to economists, engineers, legislators, physicians, theologians, and the like. They are even likely to turn to weather forecasters before they consider turning to behavioral scientists for answers. This is because, for the most part, we have not made ourselves known. Yet we in the behavioral sciences have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge that can be beneficial to the public. What discipline or profession knows as much as HRM, I-O, or OB about the productivity of individuals and teams, job satisfaction, leadership, motivation, quality of work life, work-life balance, performance management, reward systems, and decision making, let alone reliable and valid methods for hiring people? What right do we have, as citizens of this world, to take little or no action to promulgating this knowledge to people who are in need of it?
Causes of the Problem
The reasons for the science-practitioner gap are exposed in the chapters throughout this book. In no particular order of importance, the causes include the following:
1. Research findings are seldom shared with practitioners. They appear in, and are written in a style appropriate for, scholarly journals only. Hence, as Rousseau and Boudreau (Chapter 14, Sticky Findings) point out, the research results rarely grab the attention of or gain credibility with the public.
2. As Cummings points out (Chapter 18, How Business Schools Shape (Misshape) Management Research), the values entrenched in business schools and departments of psychology make explicit the necessity for conducting research that is publishable in scholarly journals. In most universities, there is little, if any, appreciation by deans and department chairs for presentations to or publications for the public. The extent to which the findings of a behavioral scientist are put into practice is deemed irrelevant in most academic institutions. Consequently, most behavioral scientists are far more comfortable with description than they are prescription.
3. As Benson notes (Chapter 15, Popular and Influential Management Books), the books that do influence organizational behavior are, for the most part, written by CEOs (e.g., Jack Welch), professional consultants (e.g., McKinsey), or by professional writers who lucratively reframe research findings in ways understandable to the public (e.g., Gladwell). These books sell well despite the fact they are widely criticized by behavioral scientists for being incorrect in the prescriptions offered. For example, Dan Pink, a professional writer, has repackaged Deci’s (1975) research for consumption by the public. Pink’s (2009) book erroneously propagates the view that people cannot motivate others and that they can only motivate themselves. Worse, the book argues incorrectly that giving employees a monetary incentive for a job well done typically decreases rather than increases their job performance. The fault for creating the void in the marketplace that allows these people to provide misinformation to the public is largely, if not solely, our own.
4. Collaboration between researchers and practitioners can sometimes be difficult, as shown in Chapter 10, Academic-Consultant Collaboration. As noted elsewhere in an article co-authored with my spouse, a former VP of HRM for J. P. Morgan Chase, Canada (Latham & Latham, 2003), behavioral scientists and HR managers often view one another as pursuing self-serving interests. The HR, I-O, or OB researcher is often perceived by managers to be pursuing narrowly defined interests that will likely affect an easily measured dependent variable and hence lead to a journal publication. HR managers and other organizational decision makers are often perceived by behavioral scientists as wanting to pursue fuzzily defined goals that will somehow affect the “bottom line” and hence lead to a salary increase, if not a promotion. Working together could jeopardize the attainment of their respective goals—a rational reason perceived by both parties for maintaining the two solitudes.
5. Most practitioners are unaware of the benefits that can be derived from using behavioral science theories in the workforce (see Chapter 11, Integrating Theory to Inform Practice), for philosophical concerns underlying this issue). This is unfortunate because behavioral science theories provide highly useful frameworks that enable managers to predict, explain, and influence the behavior of subordinates, peers, and supervisors. For example, few things can kill the effectiveness of a team faster than perceptions by team members of an in-group versus an out-group, and the feeling that some people on the team are getting a better deal than others. Graen’s (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) theory of leader-member exchange and Folger and Cropanzano’s (1998) theory of organizational justice provide useful checklists for preventing the occurrence of these phenomena.
Prescriptions
If medical doctors can write prescriptions based on science for the public, so can we. Cascio (Chapter 13, Professional Associations) describes institutions that can minimize the science-practice gap in the absence of assistance from most universities. One institution that he described is the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, known as SIOP by most behavioral scientists. SIOP is unique in that nearly half of its 7,000 or so members are academics from either HRM or OB departments in business schools or departments of psychology. The other half are practitioners who work full-time as external or internal consultants. McHenry, an organizational psychologist employed full-time by Microsoft served as SIOP’s president from 2006 to 2007. I served as president from 2008 to 2009. To increase the probability that research findings are used by the public, SIOP is currently doing the following:
1. At SIOP’s instigation, the Alliance for Organizational Psychology has been formed consisting of three societies: European Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Division 1 (Work and Organizational Psychology) of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), where I am currently president elect, and SIOP. Among the Alliance’s primary goals is to conduct research useful for global organizations (e.g., the Red Cross, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization). White papers will soon be issued by the Alliance for use by policy makers on such topics as dealing with an aging workforce. Division 1 of IAAP has a representative to the UN; SIOP also has applied for nongovernmental organization (NGO) status.
2. SIOP has become the source for evidence-informed practice for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). SHRM’s members include over 250,000 human resource professionals in over 150 countries. SIOP will produce four articles a year that are relevant to and understandable by human resource professionals.
3. SIOP will soon be publishing an annual review of “Science You Can Use: Evidence-Based Principles and Management.” This annual book series will consist of chapters written exclusively for practitioners. It will be showcased by SHRM.
4. As a result of the workshop on which this book is based, a web link will be set up for informing practitioners of significant findings by behavioral scientists. This site will also provide easy access for sharing best practices among practitioners.
5. A menu for accessing up-to-date reviews and critiques of mainstream HR-relevant books will be available on the SIOP webpage.
6. Practitioners are SIOP’s face to the public. It is they who apply research-based findings to the real world on an ongoing basis. It is they who distinguish SIOP from other scholarly societies such as the Academy of Management. Consequently, SIOP has formed an Awards Committee to develop an early career professional award to be given annually. A mentoring program for practitioners is already in place, as is an annual award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology as a Profession. An annual award is also given for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology as a Science.
7. SIOP’s annual Leading Edge Consortium targets a topic of interest to practitioners that is co-chaired by a scientist and a practitioner.
8. A wiki site has been established from which practitioners can access and download practice-based presentations, papers, and tutorials presented at the SIOP annual meeting.
I close this section by stressing what I believe are pathways leading to useful research for organizational leaders and their employees. These comments are based on recommendations I have made elsewhere (Latham, 2007a, 2007b; Latham & Latham, 2003).
1. Margaret Mead, a sociologist, was fond of saying: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful people can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” The majority of the thoughtful authors of the chapters in this book began their careers in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Our generation played a major role in the implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, America’s exit from Vietnam, and the decision by President Johnson not to seek reelection. In short, that generation embraced the need for change in the mores of society.
As Rousseau commented at the workshop, the impediments to useful research that confront us today are merely ones of change management. Academic deans and department chairs serve at the pleasure of the faculty. If we want them to change the values by which scientists are rewarded, we can readily do so at the time of their selection and again when their term as dean or department chair is to be renewed. The hurdles to overcome in bringing about this change in university values are relatively small in comparison to the change interventions we fought for implementation in the 1960s. The risk in doing so is especially small relative to riding on the “freedom trains” from the northern to the southern United States. This is especially true in light of the fact that there already are deans of business schools who embrace the need for disseminating research findings in useful ways to the public and rewarding their senior faculty members for doing so (e.g., Roger Martin, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto). These deans can be helpful in getting the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) to see the necessity for valuing and rewarding academic activity that benefits organizational behavior and human resource management.
2. Set mutually interdependent goals for scientists and practitioners by focusing on the dependent rather than the independent variable. A solution for fostering collaboration between scientists and practitioners is to focus on specifying the issue of concern to organizational decision makers, then setting interdependent goals for improving the dependent variable. For example, I have never approached a manager with a request to do research on goal setting, an independent variable. However, I have worked with lots of managers on ways to improve productivity, a dependent variable.
3. Be proactively reactive. “Are we doing this for Gary or for Weyerhaeuser?” I heard this question on numerous occasions soon after becoming Weyerhaeuser’s first staff psychologist. Their suspicions were the result of me taking the initiative to attack a company issue that I believed needed to be resolved. Not until I stopped, looked, and listened before speaking was I seen as a valuable resource to a team. I learned to listen intently to concerns of organizational decision makers before I offered suggestions. This ability to listen led to an invitation to join ad hoc teams that were formed to problem solve an issue of concern to one or more members of senior management. In short, my expertise was soon seen as useful.
4. Become bilingual. Many behavioral scientists are perceived by the public as having mastered the language of obfuscation. We are often viewed as making straightforward explanations complex. Consequently, we make it easy for us to be ignored by the public. Many of us add to our lack of credibility with the public by hedging the most straightforward conclusions with contingencies followed by whining for more research.
In learning to become bilingual as a staff psychologist and later as an external consultant, I stopped doing “research” and I started doing “projects” and interventions for managers. I stopped showing the results of statistical analyses, and instead I showed documentations of the effectiveness of an intervention through the presentation of graphs. I consciously worked on ways to phrase and present material in memorable ways for clients. I chose language that I believed would capture the attention and imagination of decision makers with little concern for the precision in language required by a scholarly audience. In time, I became bilingual.
5. Educate the other solitude. I seldom if ever pass up the opportunity to teach an Executive MBA class or a module in our business school’s executive education programs. I pose questions to the managers (e.g., Do you think bias can be minimized if not eliminated in a performance appraisal?), encourage strong debate, and then immediately involve them in an experiment to obtain an answer. The participants love the suspense, and I do too. The result is invariably knowledge useful to them and to fellow behavioral scientists. The result is often an invitation from one or more class participants to collaborate on a project of interest to them and to me in their respective organizations (e.g., increasing job attendance, building trust between the manager and a team, developing leaders), as well as a journal publication for behavioral scientists (e.g., Latham & Seijts, 1997).
6. We should remember that gaining entry to an organization for the purpose of doing useful research is not difficult. In fact, it is all but a fait accompli for behavioral scientists employed in an academic setting. A university is an organization like any other organization in that there are typically unions, machinists, maintenance workers, electricians, and professionals. There are usually recruitment and selection problems as well as negotiation and conflict resolution issues; there are labor-management disputes and the need for minimizing grievances. There are a multitude of training opportunities, not to mention opportunities for leadership development. There is almost always an HR department that is overworked and understaffed, a department that would welcome the assistance of experts in the behavioral sciences. The opportunities for conducting research that will be truly useful for, and hence appreciated by, clients employed at a university are virtually endless.
For example, Collette Frayne’s doctoral dissertation not only won an award from SIOP and the OB Division of the Academy of Management, it was subsequently published in a top-tier journal (Frayne & Latham, 1987). Her dissertation topic was on training in self-management for unionized hourly workers for the purpose of increasing their job attendance. Her research was perceived to be highly useful by the employees, their respective bosses, and the Union Executive Committee, all of whom were employed at the University of Washington. Similarly, Nina Cole’s dissertation on the application of procedural justice principles when taking disciplinary action had the support of management and labor at the University of Toronto because it was seen as highly useful for both parties. And as was the case with Frayne’s dissertation, it too was appreciated by behavioral scientists as evidenced by its publication in a top-tier journal (Cole & Latham, 1997).
Conclusion
That the public does not see the behavioral sciences as useful is no one’s fault but our own. That they would value what we do if we took the time to explain the results of our research to them is readily apparent by the huge success of professional writers, such as Gladwell and Pink, who have stepped up to fill the void in information that we have created. It is more than ironic, it is sheer chutzpah for us to subsequently carp among ourselves that these professional writers, who are not behavioral scientists, misrepresent our findings in one or more ways.
To hide behind the entrenched values of misguided deans and department chairs as an excuse for not taking the action needed to disseminate findings from the behavioral sciences that are useful for the public is disingenuous for a generation of scholars who are masters of change management. This generation of scholars, who emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, was unafraid of entrenched authority figures in that era. What credibility can we now have with one another, let alone subsequent generations of scholars, in expressing our helplessness today, 40 to 50 years later, in bringing about change in academic reward systems?
Not mentioned directly at the workshop, but nevertheless hinted at by several speakers, was a perception among senior scholars that the present generation is doing research less useful than ours. If that is true, where does the fault lie? If that is true, who trained the present generation of scholars? The answer is rarely a dean or department chair. The answer in most instances is us.
The superordinate goal of this book is to serve as a beacon of light for the next generation of behavioral scientists to see ways of, and the necessity for, conducting “useful research.” It is up to our generation to remove the impediments to them doing so.
REFERENCES
Cole, N., & Latham, G. P. (1997). The effects of training in procedural justice on perceptions of disciplinary fairness by unionized employees and disciplinary subject matter experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 699–705.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). The application of social learning theory to employee self management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 387–392.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Hulin, C. (2001). Applied psychology and science: Differences between research and practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 225–234.
Latham, G. P. (2001a). The reciprocal effects of science on practice: Insights for the practice and science of goal setting. Canadian Psychology, 42, 1–11.
Latham, G. P. (2001b). The reciprocal transfer of learning from journals to practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 201–211.
Latham, G. P. (2007a). Work motivation: History theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Latham, G. P. (2007b). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science to the workplace: “The times they are a changin.” Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1027–1032.
Latham, G. P. (2008, July). Message from your president. The Industrial Psychologist.
Latham, G. P., & Latham, S. D. (2003). Facilitators and inhibitors of the transfer of knowledge between scientists and practitioners in human resource management: Leveraging cultural, individual and institutional variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 245–256.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1997). The effect of appraisal instrument on managerial perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with appraisals from peers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 275–282.
Lewin, K. (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Sociomety, 8, 126–135.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverside.
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 100–116.
Wagner, R. (1949). The employment interview: A critical summary. Personnel Psychology, 2, 17–46.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gary P. Latham is the Secretary of State Professor of Organizational Effectiveness in the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, a Past President of the Canadian Psychological Association and the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP), and the President Elect of Work and Organizational Psychology, a Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology. In addition to being awarded the status of Fellow in each of those three scholarly societies, he is a Fellow in the Association for Psychological Science, the National Academy of Human Resources, the Royal Society of Canada, and the Deputy Dean of Fellows in the Academy of Management (AOM). He is the recipient of the Scholar-Practitioner Award from AOM, and the only person to receive both awards for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology as a Science as well as a Profession from SIOP. His 2009 book, On Becoming the Evidence-Based Manager, copublished by Davies Black and SHRM, received the science to practice award from the AOM.