We (Still) Need a World of Scholar-Leaders

Abstract

In this article, the authors argue that management education has been corrupted by a "down loading" metaphor of learning that has created a culture of mediocrity. They argue that students should become scholars; that learning has inherent value, that discovery and critical thinking are essential for the leaders of tomorrow. The authors argue that students acting as scholars should not rely on organizations for direction, but should assume responsibility for making organizations havens for self-responsibility. This article is widely used to launch a discussion about student responsibility.

Conflicts of Interest as Corrupting the Checks and Balances in the Postpublication Oversight of Academic Business Journals

“…There are several possible solutions available to address the issues. These include (a) making explicit the policies regarding conflicts of interest and, more importantly, enforcing them; (b) retracting work that violated such policies when authors were aware of them; (c) replacing NOPE, and any similar oversight, endorsing or accrediting organizations, with organizations capable of independently investigating allegations of violations of publishing ethics in a timely manner and then enforcing those outcomes at journals; (d) holding editors, association leadership, publishers, and any other relevant responsible stakeholders accountable for their advertised ethical standards; (e) creating and supporting credible outlets for the anonymous-but-validated reporting of academic frauds, including web-based and peerreviewed journal-based outlets, to initiate investigations into such cases, and then publishing the outcomes; (f) ceasing the publication of rankings articles, and of any other type of article that provides a debatable basis for rewards in our profession and, if that is not possible, then ensuring that the article is peer-reviewed and has at least one counter-point piece published alongside; (g) guaranteeing, through a top accreditation agency, that all doctoral programs have a publication ethics module included that covers issues like conflicts of interest, that all faculty are reminded about what the standards are regarding scientific integrity in the field, and that there are severe repercussions from being involved in it or even being found to tolerate it, and that it causes great harms (Ritchie & Hammond, 2005); (h) providing protections to whistle-blowers throughout any investigation process (Maechling, 1992); (i) adhering to the highest standards of due process in any investigation regarding research integrity; (j) rejecting excuses for bad behavior, such as unverifiable miscommunications, or laziness in checking the meaning of language; and (h) conducting case studies, as we did here, to understand how various forms of culture can affect corruptive activity to address it (Torsello & Venard, 2016). These solutions should address escalating conflicts of interest by stopping the underlying chaining effect through the use of independent investigators in the oversight process, and by addressing the noncredibility of the retraction threat by altering the payoffs to editors, journals, and publishers for allowing bad articles to remain in print.…”

Challenging Organizational Change Research

“…Miner, 1984;Pfeffer, 1993;Ritchie and Hammond, 2005;Starbuck, 2006). By association, it could be inferred that their comments pertain to organizational change research as well.…”

“…Well-regarded scholars have criticized the lack of progress in the organizational science field as a whole (cf. Miner, 1984;Pfeffer, 1993;Ritchie and Hammond, 2005;Starbuck, 2006). By association, it could be inferred that their comments pertain to organizational change research as well.…”

Thinking systems need systems thinking

“…The creative capacity of a thinking system offers unique opportunities but also poses special challenges: how to direct and organize the learning of self-directed and self-organizing system parts (called people); how to produce the desired outcomes (when system parts may prefer a different outcome) and how to diffuse innovations that are proven to be effective (Coleman et al, 1957;Rogers, 1983;Ritchie and Hammond, 2005).…”