TWENTY-TWO
What We Have Learned
IN THIS BOOK We revisit the key learnings from Lawler and others’ 1985 book, Doing Research That Is Useful to Theory and Practice, and chronicle what has been learned since then about how to conduct research that helps organizations be more effective and advances theoretical understanding. Our intent was not to assess whether useful research has become the standard; indeed, we know that it has not. Still, during the last quarter century, many scholars have conducted research that is useful to both practice and theory, and there is growing interest and knowledge about how to do useful research. There is also a growing concern about why the usefulness of research to practice is not a more salient purpose nor an outcome that is frequently pursued in today’s academic institutions. We feel this book makes an important “twenty-five years later” contribution because it establishes what is known about how to do useful research and provides an important guide to scholars who want to do it.
As was true with the 1985 book, authors brought their chapters to a workshop where we shared and discussed one another’s ideas and honed the content of the book. Researchers were invited to be part of this project because their work relates to useful research. During their careers, they have conducted rigorous research that is useful to practice, and have systematically examined the gap between academic research and practice and tried to understand how it can be narrowed. In several cases, they are dedicating significant professional time to influencing the field to do more useful research. Again, as during the 1983 workshop, we were gratified by the passion that the participants hold for the topic. The thoughtful chapters they have written and their willingness to share their profound understandings of useful research is truly impressive. Most of the authors have made significant contributions to practice while holding positions in traditional academic institutions. They are proof that it can be done.
Looking back, we are struck by how key changes in the landscape of management and organizational research have made it more difficult to do work that is both rigorous, as viewed by prevailing academic standards, and relevant, as viewed by practitioners. Narrow academic specialties have proliferated, and academic career prestige and business school ratings have become tightly connected to success in theory-driven subfields that are often largely disconnected from practice. At the same time, the organizational world has been fundamentally altered by new technologies that have enabled new ways of organizing; by globalization and the emergence of strong competitors in new markets; and by the acceleration of societal, governmental, and ecological change. Organizations are continually being started, designed, and redesigned as a result of the decisions and actions of their members, who often have little knowledge of the research on organizational effectiveness. Organizational practices have largely evolved independently of academic knowledge. A disconnected academia has failed to keep up and as a consequence has had little influence on management practice.
As organizations have struggled to adapt and succeed in dynamic and challenging markets and economies, their need for useful knowledge has become stronger. Consultants, professional societies, commercial bundlers of knowledge, and many types of bridging organizations such as consortia and networks have become major providers of expertise. However, the knowledge they provide only sometimes builds on academically generated theory and research. Their typical approach to research is to survey practices and to quickly sense and provide feedback about current issues and “best practices.” They create and provide “actionable” knowledge products and services that have become integral to the way many organizations seek knowledge and try to become more effective.
Despite the changing landscape, the value stream of academia has remained relatively static and simple. Researchers operate in discipline silos exploring increasingly esoteric aspects of elegant theoretical frameworks. They publish in outlets read by like-minded academics. Contact with the world of practice occurs primarily through the one-way communication that occurs in the classroom, with the assumption that teaching tomorrow’s managers will eventually influence practice. Even there it is questionable whether academically produced knowledge is conveyed in a manner that impacts practice.
The chapters in this book provide a rich picture of the landscape that must be navigated by researchers if their work is to make a difference to practice. They do an excellent job of specifying the kinds of research approaches and professional activities required in order to do useful research. In Chapter 1, Research for Theory and Practice, we presented two frameworks for how academic researchers contribute to practice. The first retains the traditionally held view that knowledge flows from academic research to practice. Unlike the prevailing academic model, this model explicitly makes practice the ultimate “customer” of the knowledge that is generated and broadens the view of the value stream to include the many pathways through which academic knowledge generation can link to practice. In this framework, the task facing researchers who aspire to relevance is to determine how they will position their work in this value stream, so that the knowledge gained through their research will reach practice.
In the second framework, the value stream is reconceptualized as a complex network of actors who play different roles in advancing and applying knowledge, rather than as a linear flow from academia to practice. This network is characterized by multistakeholder and cross-boundary collaborations that enable the combination of knowledge from different actors and the co-exploration of problems and co-development of knowledge. This network model entails a complex communication system with many feedback loops and reciprocal linkages. In this framework theoretical knowledge and practice co-evolve. The challenge for academics who aspire to make a difference is determining how to engage across boundaries so that research yields knowledge that contributes to more effective organizational decisions and actions.
It is evident from the chapters in this book that researchers make many important choices about what impact they want their research to have, about how to carry out their research, and about their portfolio of professional activities. In this chapter, we briefly discuss the implications of the major themes from the chapters to help guide the choices made by scholars who want to impact practice. We have organized this discussion according to the two frameworks because we believe the key choices relate to positioning oneself in the value stream and building the network of relationships that enable the conduct of impactful research.
Connecting to the Value Stream of Organizational Knowledge
The complex organizational knowledge landscape and changing value stream that exists in organizational knowledge have emerged during the last decades as organizations have sought the knowledge they need in order to be effective. They include academic research as well as the work of other actors who generate and apply knowledge to improve organizations, and who develop intermediate products and services that make knowledge accessible to practitioners. Impacting practice is not a simple one-step influence process that consists of publishing research results that will be acted on by practitioners because they are valid. Academics must find ways for their work to move down this value stream in order for it to affect practice. The following are ways that are suggested by one or more of the chapters in the book.
Connect Directly to Practice in Doing Research
Most of the authors in this book have spent a large amount of their professional time conducting research and testing their theories in organizations. They have developed a deep understanding of the challenges that practitioners face and of the issues that are important to building effective organizations. Because they have spent time in organizations, their work has a rich sense of context. Having this sense is important because it leads to a theoretical understanding of complex issues, and it is required in order to do work that is compelling to practitioners. Sara Rynes points out that the amount of time spent in field settings is also associated with effective scholarship because it is related to greater self-reported personal learning by researchers, as well as to a greater citation rate for journal articles that result from it (Rynes, Chapter 19, Counterpoint, this book; Rynes, McNatt, & Bretz, 1999).
Utilize Nonacademic Pathways to Disseminate Research Findings to Practitioners
Many of the authors in this book regularly test the relevance of their work by writing it in a manner suitable for practitioner-oriented publications, and by presenting it to practitioner audiences in companies, professional associations and consortia, workshops, and consulting projects. In Chapter 15, Popular and Influential Management Books, George S. Benson points out that many academics who have influenced practice have used practitioner-oriented books as a way to periodically take stock of the implications of their research programs and to convey this in a practice-friendly way.
Michael Beer’s career, described in Chapter 8, Making a Difference and Contributing Useful Knowledge, has mixed facilitating organizational development interventions that apply existing academic organizational knowledge with conducting research to discover effective intervention methodologies that improve organizational performance. His books describe change interventions and provide models of high performance systems in a manner that can be applied by practitioners. Researchers can translate the knowledge from their research into tools that can be used by practitioners. For example, in Chapter 3, Collaborative Organization Design Research at the Center for Effective Organizations, Mohrman and Mohrman recount being requested by several companies that participated in their team-based organization design research to go beyond the book that they wrote that recounted findings (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). The practitioners wanted an organizational design workbook that they could use to guide them through the process of designing and implementing a laterally focused organization (Mohrman & Mohrman, 1997).
Connect to Service Organizations That Are Situated in the Organizational Knowledge Value Stream
Many service organizations are much more closely linked to organizational practice than are most academics. For example, in Chapter 13, Professional Associations, Wayne F. Cascio discusses the opportunities for academics to be active in professional societies where they can secure funding for research on topics that practitioners view as useful and contribute to practitioner-oriented reports of research-based knowledge. Ruth Wageman (Chapter 10, Academic-Consultant Collaboration) points to the opportunities and challenges that exist when academics work in partnership with consulting firms. She points out that combining an academic’s deep theoretically based knowledge with a consultant’s broad experience-based knowledge of the world of organizations can result in important learning. Scholar-practitioners such as organization development consultants (Chapter 12, Organization Development Scholar-Practitioners) and executive PhDs (Chapter 11, Integrating Theory to Inform Practice) can carry knowledge from academia into organizations. Ideally, these scholar practitioners are good translators of theory into practice and practical interventions. By connecting with them, academic researchers can move their knowledge into organizations.
Develop an Ambidextrous Communication Capability
Repeatedly in this book authors point out that achieving downstream impact requires academics to break out of the internally focused communication system of academia. It requires new communication competencies, new language skills, and the establishment of deeper relationships with practitioners. While valuing research that advances theoretical understanding and provides powerful frameworks for understanding organizations, the authors in this book and the practitioners in the panel discussion agree that standard jargon-filled academic publications are aimed at other academics, are not read by practitioners, and are simply not a way to connect to practice.
To build a connection with practitioners, researchers need to communicate differently—framing knowledge using language and examples that are compelling to practitioners and that connect with their world. They need to find “sticky” concepts (Chapter 14, Sticky Findings) that are memorable and useful to practitioners. Some advocate publishing special versions of research results for practitioners, others stress the power of speeches and presentations.
Developing Relationships with Practitioners
It takes face time with practitioners to learn the language that connects with practice and the organizational logics and challenges that are embedded in practice, and to discern the key research questions that are relevant to effective practice. The relationships that are established through experiences with practitioners provide the foundation for such learning and the legitimacy to gain the access needed to explore critical issues, gather data, and garner the needed resources and attention from the organization.
The centrality of relationships to doing useful research is a theme that emerges continually. Tushman (Chapter 9, On Knowing and Doing) talks about the importance of the relationships that are developed with line managers during executive education programs that are based on action projects. These relationships lead to a two-way exchange of knowledge that allows for crafting more meaningful research questions and educational content. They also contribute to the willingness of participants to act based on academic knowledge and to support the ongoing generation of knowledge by participating in academic research.
In Chapter 12, Organization Development Scholar-Practitioners, Bartunek and Schein point out that participation in organizations and networks that bridge academia and practice is valuable. It provides an opportunity to develop relationships with practitioners and enables researchers to understand why much academic knowledge is not compelling in practice and what kind of knowledge is seen as useful.
Doctoral programs in management and organization provide little formal training in how to connect to the practice value stream. Indeed, little attention is paid to the question of whether and how researchers should relate to practice. The assumption that rigorous research must be objective and hands-off prevails.
The measures just described—particularly the development of close relationships to practice—are a departure from academic norms. Yet these measures are precisely what is mentioned when researchers describe their strategies and methodologies for doing relevant and rigorous research.
Knowledge-Combining Networks to Address Relevant Research Questions
Organizations are dynamic artifacts created by human beings to accomplish purposes. Relevance to practice is necessarily defined relative to the challenges faced by practitioners, the contexts in which they exist, the purposes they are trying to achieve, the work they must carry out and the decisions and choices they must make to accomplish their purposes. Pragmatically, this means that researchers who aspire to do relevant research must develop a deep and broad appreciation of the systems they are studying. The knowledge of a single researcher or from a single narrow discipline is unlikely to capture the complexity faced by managers (O’Toole, Chapter 20, On the Verge of Extinction). The alternative depiction in Chapter 1, Research for Theory and Practice, is of the knowledge system as a network in which many contributors to knowledge and forms of knowledge can be combined to advance organizational knowledge. Not the least of the contributors to knowledge is practice itself. This network depiction reflects the combination of knowledge from organizational practice, from intermediary knowledge providers, and from multiple theoretical and applied domains. Such a combination is necessary in order to conduct research that adequately addresses the complexity of practice and the knowledge required to advance it.
The researchers who wrote about their research programs and careers in Part I, Exemplars of Useful Research, and Part II, Bodies of Work That Have Influenced Theory and Practice, of this book without exception conducted research in a manner that takes into account the complexity of practice. They built on and combined the knowledge of multiple stakeholders. They created a network of collegial relationships that extended beyond academia and their discipline boundaries to do so. A number of themes emerge from the chapters describing their research approaches.
Conduct Problem-Focused Research
Doing research that addresses the problems that are experienced by practitioners not only leads to greater relevance, it is also likely to address important theoretical issues. This perspective is compellingly described in the engaged research framework recapped by Van de Ven (Chapter 21, Reflections on Research for Theory and Practice). It argues that problems can be identified and addressed by multiple stakeholders. New aspects of complex problems often emerge in the course of carrying out engaged research projects because close connection to the field brings to light dynamics and nuances that were not originally apparent. Edmondson describes this vividly in Chapter 2, Crossing Boundaries to Investigate Problems in the Field, where she recounts her research program investigating drug errors and other quality issues in healthcare settings. In each investigation, new aspects of the quality dynamics of teams surfaced and raised interesting theoretical and critical practical issues.
Utilize Research Methodologies That Fit the Complexity of the Systems and Issues Being Studied
This book is full of examples where multiple disciplines, multiple-level analyses, and multiple research approaches have been used to yield useful knowledge. For example, both Gratton (Chapter 4, A Ten-Year Journey of Cooperation) and Mohrman and Mohrman (Chapter 3, Collaborative Organization Design Research at the Center for Effective Organizations) found that they could not fully investigate and describe the dynamics of building effective teams without examining individual-, team-, and organization-level phenomena using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
The concept of adaptive research developed by Lawler for the Quality of Worklife studies anchors the high end of the continuum of complexity (Lawler, Nadler, & Cammann, 1980; Mirvis & Lawler, Chapter 6, Rigor and Relevance in Organizational Research, this book). This research program utilized many different theoretical and empirical approaches at multiple levels of analysis and from different disciplines to understand the factors that lead to high levels of performance and to satisfying and motivating work. It combined longitudinal and collaborative research methodologies linking together a complex set of stakeholders with multiple agendas to execute and evaluate interventions intended to impact system performance. It employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches from multiple-discipline perspectives to understand the dynamics in the systems and the impact of various aspects of the work systems on outcomes. Mirvis and Lawler (Chapter 6, Rigor and Relevence in Organizational Research) point out that research projects that examine complex organizational dynamics and interesting issues in the field may sacrifice some rigor, as defined from a positivistic science perspective, in the interest of relevance and the ability to shed light on complex system performance issues.
Combine Knowledge from Different Disciplines
Innovations and knowledge breakthroughs often occur at the intersection of multiple disciplines. The generation of knowledge to address complex problems often requires multiple perspectives (Van de Ven, 2007). Organizational practice is guided in large part by the experientially based knowledge and practical frameworks utilized by practitioners. It is also shaped by formal knowledge systems such as the engineering and science knowledge that guide technical organizations, and the economic knowledge and financial and accounting frameworks that underpin business decision making. To avoid being disconnected from practice, the process of generating knowledge to inform practice development requires that the frameworks of organizational practices and those of multiple academic practice be combined.
Ram Tenkasi (Chapter 11, Integrating Theory to Inform Practice) documented the strategies that are used by scholar practitioners trained in research and academic theories through executive PhD programs. They combine academic theory and research with the knowledge of practice in order to contribute to successful knowledge application to advance practice in their organizations. They find approaches to help practitioners broaden their frameworks to include academic organizational knowledge, and they find ways to frame academic knowledge to make it more context appropriate. Knowledge combination processes are foundational to useful research—both to the generation of useful knowledge and to its actionability.
Research Usefulness Is Related to the Actionability of the Knowledge That Is Created
Useful research is actionable research (Argyris, 1970). When this precept is combined with Lewin’s (1948) notion that the best way to understand an organization is to try to change it, the needs of practice and scholarship become aligned. This orientation toward actionable knowledge underpins much of the research described in this book. The path from research findings to organizational action and change often entails one or more fundamental interventions into the dynamics of an organization. Interventions are not possible without internal sponsors and champions and a willingness to go through a redesign or transition process (Chapter 12, Organization Development Scholar-Practitioners; Chapter 8, Making a Difference and Contributing Useful Knowledge).
Awareness of the frameworks that practitioners apply, the business and design challenges they face, and the dynamics of organizational change and learning is critical. It helps the researchers craft useful research and communicate research findings in a manner that connects to practitioners’ frames of reference so that it can inform action and change. Many academic researchers may not have the intervention skills and knowledge to couch their knowledge within effective interventions in practice, but instead may want to team with others who do have deep knowledge of intervention and change.
Build Teams That Have the Knowledge, Capabilities, and Resources Necessary to Conduct Useful Research
Often the complexity of useful research studies requires a range of knowledge and skills that individuals do not have. Teams can be an effective way to solve this problem. The appropriate composition of a research team depends on the nature of the problem being investigated and the methodologies that are appropriate to generate the knowledge being sought. For example, the focus and methodology of the Quality of Worklife studies at the University of Michigan required that organizational development interventionists, practitioners from multiple stakeholder groups, and academics from different disciplines be on the team in order to enact the adaptive research methodology and to introduce change.
Gratton (Chapter 4, A Ten-Year Journey of Cooperation) describes the importance of having experts in visualization of research findings and models in order to investigate how organizations can use virtual technologies to accelerate the learning process and create high-impact teams. Edmondson (Chapter 2, Crossing Boundaries to Investigate Problems in the Field) describes how her research team’s combination of management and economics knowledge yielded a rich theoretical and practical set of findings about the learning curves in surgery settings.
A number of authors describe the usefulness of having interventionists on the research team in order to develop methodologies for introducing the resulting knowledge into organizational practice. As Mirvis and Lawler (Chapter 6, Rigor and Relevance in Organizational Research) point out, the organization of a complex research team requires researchers to become good team leaders, and, we might add, good team members.
The Importance of Rigor and Expertise
Doing research that is useful for theory and practice does not free a researcher from the tenets of good research—in fact, in our view it requires a more nuanced view of rigor. Research expertise matters and is the sine qua non of doing useful research. As Van de Ven (2007) made clear in his book Engaged Scholarship, and the researchers in this book have reiterated, crafting and executing research that is actionable and that addresses important practice issues requires a strong base of research skills and knowledge of the literature. These are the competencies that academics must bring to knowledge-producing collaborations. Doing research that influences practice should never be done by anyone who does not have the right skills; it is too important; it impacts people’s lives and well-being! The importance of expertise is why it is critical that academics find ways to be important players in the organizational effectiveness knowledge generation landscape.
Wageman (Chapter 10, Academic-Consultant Collaboration) points out that even though the consultants who were members of the collaborative research team investigating top leadership team effectiveness were academically trained, they relied on the academic researchers to provide deep and current knowledge of the literature so that the research team was not rediscovering the wheel. Edmondson (Chapter 2, Crossing Boundaries to Investigate Problems in the Field) also sees knowledge of the literature as a source of hypotheses and a check on the interpretation of data and results. Van de Ven (2007) clearly sees academic researchers as being responsible for ensuring that appropriate methodologies are used to investigate the questions at hand and to apply and develop useful theory in the course of investigating important issues.
Doing research that is designed to contribute to practice and theory is particularly demanding because it must yield knowledge that speaks to two very different constituencies. The researcher must find the overlap between interesting theory and the challenge of practice. It is clear that researchers who make a difference to practice operate effectively across boundaries and have the creativity to craft and execute research that addresses the complexity of the real world in a valid manner. As pointed out by Mirvis and Lawler in Chapter 6, Rigor and Relevance in Organizational Research, addressing real world problems may require backing off some of the elements of “rigor” as traditionally defined in positivistic research, but it should not be nonrigorous or oblivious to the areas where rigor is lacking.
Conclusion
In this book we chose not to deal with paradigm wars and with conflicting, strongly held views concerning what constitutes rigorous research. The focus of this book is on providing insight about how research can be conducted in a manner that connects with and generates knowledge useful to practice while advancing the fundamental understanding of organizations.
Young scholars who aspire to do research that makes a difference to practice must purposefully craft their educations and experiences toward this end. This means pushing back on pressures to continually narrow their focus to the self-referential world of academic disciplines. It means connecting to practice and practitioners and crafting research that takes into account the contexts in which organizations and their employees operate. It requires being aware of the pressures and challenges facing organizations, understanding them as dynamic phenomena that are continually being shaped through the practices within them, and anticipating how knowledge may be applied by them. It means crossing boundaries, working collaboratively, and continually learning new aspects of the world of organizations and of the disciplines that are required to comprehend the full complexity of organizations. It requires developing the skills to operate effectively as part of a complex network of actors in the value stream.
Many of the capabilities needed to do useful research are best learned gradually and through experience. A number of the authors in this book entered academia after spending time working in other organizations, having developed an appreciation for practice. Others developed a deep sense of organizations through doing field research and working across organizational boundaries. In Chapter 21, Reflections on Research for Theory and Practice, Van de Ven offers sage advice to young scholars: Do not try to tackle all of the aspects of dealing with complex, ambiguous problems at once. Rather, he advises start by mastering research methodologies and learning to operate in the field through small projects. He also advises them to partner with colleagues who are experienced at working in the field. We might also advise them to consider crossing boundaries regularly, both in the course of doing research and in the course of disseminating and working with organizations in applying research findings.
New researchers who aspire to do useful research should develop a plan for their own development and gradually build a program of research that generates knowledge that is valued by the field. Experienced researchers who care about bridging the gap between theory and practice should pave the way for new scholars to do so, both by example and by creating opportunities for young scholars. Last but not least, they need to send the right messages by establishing reward criteria that speak loudly and clearly about the importance of doing useful research.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Lawler, E., Mohrman, A., Mohrman, S., Cummings, T., & Ledford, G. (Eds.). (1985). Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E., Nadler, D., & Cammann, C. (Eds.) (1980). Organizational assessment. New York: Wiley.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: HarperCollins.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1995). Designing team-based organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohrman, S. A., & Mohrman, A. M. (1997). Designing and leading team-based organizations: A workbook for organizational self-design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rynes, S. L., McNatt, D. B., & Bretz, R. D. (1999). Academic research inside organizations: Inputs, processes and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 869–898.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.