No abstract

Publication in the list of 50 journals endorsed by the Financial Times (i.e., the FT50) has become ‘institutionalized’ as a primary measure of research quality and prestige by business schools and faculty. This study investigated the extent to which this closed publication system is (mis)aligned with societal imperatives, in particular the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Research methods included both inductive and deductive analysis. Undergraduate and graduate student research assistants, enrolled in business-related programs, read all 4522 articles published by FT50 journals in 2019 and assessed their relevance to explicit and implicit concepts in the SDG framework. Additionally, potential biases that might stifle research innovation in support of the SDGs were explored. Findings included that 90% of articles were found to have no ‘explicit’ relationship to the SDGs, while only 17% were interpreted as having an implicit relationship. SDG-related articles were disproportionately from one journal-the Journal of Business Ethics (48.1%). There was also an over-representation of observed white male primary authors, who used North American (NA) data sets from NA institutions. A logistic regression model determined that the predicted probability of an SDG-related article increased with observed female primary authors, who used non-NA data sets and institutions. The next steps include comparing this methodological approach with machine learning techniques to find a more efficient and robust method for analyzing an article’s SDG content. Business Schools with sustainability as a core value are encouraged to move beyond FT50 publications for assessing research quality, including for tenure and promotion purposes, and place more focus on assessing research relevance and impact.

Purpose Despite the importance of accountability for the oversight of projects, few studies have directly examined accountability mechanisms at the project level. While the literature already provides descriptions of governance and mechanisms of accountability, the purpose of this paper is to examine how project managers view their accountability relationships within their organizational context. Design/methodology/approach The study is guided by critical realism as a philosophy of science. The authors interviewed 15 project managers from 12 organizations and analyzed the transcripts in the light of existing project management accountability literature. Findings The authors observe the practice of socializing accountability through face-to-face negotiation and symmetries of power due to interdependencies happen to some extent in management of projects. This suggests ambidexterity in accountability in project-based organizations. Therefore, the current models of project accountability and governance that are solely based on the agency theory are not sufficient to explain the accountability relationships in such organizations. Practical implications Accountability arrangements happen within a system for steering projects. Managers should be aware of how project managers view their accountability and how socializing practices of accountability can help the project’s management and the organization’s management interact in order to transform organizational systems by regulating issues of project concern and defining the process and direction of how project deliverables are produced, introduced, absorbed and used within the organization. Originality/value “Theory driven” interviews and analysis are used to confirm or refine conceptualization of accountability in management of projects. Most models of project governance are based on the agency theory or governability theory. The authors have demonstrated that socializing practices of accountability should be included in investigating project governance. The authors observe that project managers are often concerned with the interdependence with their principals and the socializing processes of accountability that arise from this interdependence.