Introduction
There is a plethora of organizational theories and researches which have been and are still being conducted. An extensive number of academic research and theories are being published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals year after year. But there is evidence through these scholarly researches which shows that increasingly managers choose not to turn to academic work for referencing in a real-life crisis (Potter & McKibbon, 1988; Mowdey, 1997). The gap has been increasing due to the academicians are increasingly alienating their researchers (who are becoming more and more sophisticated) do not turn to the practitioners while framing their research questions not are they consulted while interpreting the results. Given this situation, it is evident that there remains an immense gap in the normative suggestions made by management academicians and management practitioners (Miller et al, 1997; Pfeffer, 1998; Rynes et al, 2001; Hofstede, 1993; Ghoshal, 2005; Kelemen & Bansal, 2002).
The gap in the academic theories and practices is not a new observation and is also not restricted to management science. There are many reasons which have been pointed out as to the basic reasons for such a gap one of which states that the gap is embedded in the very basic assumptions and belief system of the academicians and practitioners (Shrivastava & Mintroff, 1984). According to this view, academicians and practitioners have a different frame of reference as far as the kind of information to be believed to constitute a valid base of reference for ‘sense-making. Others have found a gap in the goals the two try to seek to influence, the social systems in which they are operating, and the time frame when to address a problem (Johns, 1993).
This paper aims to critically review the gap in management practices and academic theories and the potent ways in which the gap can be bridged. For this, the paper will try to understand under what circumstances the gap arises trying to ascertain the root cause of the gap.
Divide in theory and practice
Given this background of an existing gap in theory and practice of management literature, it seems apparent to understand the reasons behind the exiting gap. The reasons lie in the changing political, economic, and social conditions where the academic theories are aimed to be applied and the increasing geographic dispersion of the practitioners due to increasing globalization. And the second reason is the need to ascertain under what circumstances such an existent gap can be lessened. In this section, we try to ascertain why the gap in the academic and practices of management exist and the means to prevent it.
Management, as it is used today, is quintessentially an American invention. It first appeared in the famous work of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations in 1776. The theories related to the subjects are mostly formulated in the west, alienating the practices from the rest of the world. So the theories of management and their applicability differ with the part of the world where they are being tried to make effective (Hofstede, 1993). This is something that academicians need to understand. According to this theory, the gap between management theory and practices lies due to the emergent divergence due to the global applicability of the science. This has been accepted by many theorists who believe that the validity of a theory stops at the national borders. Research has shown that management theories by Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland, Vroom, McGregor, Likert, Blake, and Mouton have very little applicability in countries beyond those of their origin (Hofstede, 1980). This line of argument shows that the theories lose their validity once they cross into another country and they are no less playing the part of Alice in Wonderland. So organizations operating in one country usually do not face this problem. The worst affected due to this cultural insensitivity of management theories to cultural differences are the giant multinationals who comprise the majority of the corporate world today. Further, even expatriate managers are trained in home-country theories; their applicability in foreign countries is very limited, constricting the applicability of the theories. This is one potent reason for the increasing gap between management theories and their practice.
Another line of argument is against the management researchers who fail to make meaningful research for the practitioners. The limiting effect is due to the targeting of the management journals like the Harvard Business Review of Academy of Management Journal are towards academicians rather than practitioners. Another possible explanation might be the difference in interest – the interest of management researchers does not coincide with that of the managers reducing the application of the research findings into reality. The researchers are more interested to understand why the problem happened rather than finding what can solve the problem or how it can be used. This is the reason these researchers do not coincide with the real problems faced by the practitioners and the solutions provided by academicians are thought to be irrelevant and esoteric. Another possible reason for the gap is the poor dissemination process of the academic findings to the managers. There is a lack of communication between managers and academicians. There is no doubt that researchers communicate with the managers during the research process in pursuit of empirical research. But the researchers are expected to publish their findings in academic journals and follow academic writing conventions, which makes it extremely difficult to grasp the practical implications of the theoretical insights. So management theoretical jargon becomes a great barrier inapplicability of management theories in practice. So the managers and academicians differ in perception and outlook mostly in style and not substance – the research topic even after being of interest to the academician as well as the manager, the style in which the papers are published in academic journals hold little attraction for practitioners (Kelemen & Bansal, 2002). What is the solution to this problem? Management academicians must work more closely with the practitioners to target their work in such a way that they provide a theoretical solution to practical problems. Further, the mode of dissemination of these theories should be directed towards the managers written in simple, de-jargoned language to make it simple for managers to understand.
Another line of argument says that academic theories had a very ill effect on business practices (Ghoshal, 2005). Here the potent is that managers do apply academic theories, but the adoption is constricted to the incorporation of a handful of assumptions and ideas which have dominated management research and theories for ages. To a great extent, the theories are ideological and amoral which is primarily due to the lack of complete analysis and unbalanced assumptions. The reason for less adoption of management theories lies in their ineffective built: “management theories at present are overwhelmingly causal or functional in their modes of explanation” (Ghoshal, 2005, p.79). This leads to a problem in adopting the theories. So it can be argued that the management theories which are being made devoid of any solid empirical underpinning and moral value are a reason for their lack of applicability. Management has become a science losing its roots in social sciences which seek much other consideration other than scientific research. These considerations must be incorporated in the management studies and theories to increase their adaptability by managers. To make the theories more practical-oriented, theorists are increasing the scientific underpinning of the studies but decreasing their applicability using absurd assumptions in support of theories that originate from social sciences, thus reducing their applicability.
Due to the paucity of empirical work, there has declined in the coordination between practitioners and academicians. There is evidence through research that shows that practitioners view the increased collaboration between the practitioners and academicians have decreased the advancement of science. This collaboration has resulted in the formation of narrow, short-term profit-making researches are being conducted which are of little academic value, and the generalizability of such theory is limited. Another problem that arises is the effect that research faces due to corporate restrictions on empirical data collecting which constricts the theory-building process. Further, management science is full of conflicting theories. The question is which one to choose? Further, the present management theories are suboptimal even when viewed from a purely academic perspective. Here the academicians and managers lack in process of socialization, externalization, and internalization (Rynes et al, 2001).
Given these problems, how do we bridge the gap between academicians and managers? Should the practitioner and academician interaction be increased to increase the effectiveness of the researches? Or should the theory transmission process be improved? Here we present a few recommendations to bridge this gap. First scholars must be a recipient of any ideas from the real world while framing their study. There must be an interaction between academicians and managers. This will help in advanced knowledge creation. Second, management associations such as the Academy of Management must increase their association with the practitioners which will increase the acceptability of the managers of such academically-oriented journals. Third, the style of writing must be altered. Academic theories must not be decorated with jargon which eludes the managers who fail to derive any meaning in the theory. Further interaction between managers and academicians should not be limited only to researches and consultation as knowledge creation and sharing is a social process. Further, academic journals derive their pool of knowledge solely from academic papers. This must be extended to writings of practitioners which will increase their appeal to the real world.
Conclusion
The essay shows that there exists a gap in the academic theories and real application. The reasons are embedded in the system and process of knowledge creation and dissemination. Academic theories fail to be applied practically due to their inability to be related to the real world. Further, the writings are too academic to be deciphered by the practitioners in a meaningful way. There are easy of removing this gap as has been described in the above paragraph. Nut the main thing that is required is to prepare theories that do not just have empirical underpinning, as management is not just a science it is a social science. So the ‘social aspect of the theory must be examined and presented for successful real-life adoption.
Reference
Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad Management Theories are destroying good management practices., Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1), p. 75-92.
Hofstede, G., 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories., Academy of Managemetn Executive 7(1), p. 81-95.
Hofstede, G., 1980. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American theories apply abroad? In Association, A.M. ed. Organizational Dynamics. Michigan: American Management Association. p. 42-64.
Johns, G., 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational innovation., Personal Psychology 46, p. 569-92.
Kelemen, M. & Bansal, P., 2002. The conventions of management research and their relevance to managemetn practice., British Journal of Management 13, p. 97-108.
Miller, D., Greenwood, R. & Hinings, B., 1997. Creative chaos versus munificent momentum: The schism between normative and academic views of organizational change., Journal of Management Inquiry 6, p. 71-8.
Mowdey, R., 1997. Presidential Address: Reaffirming our scholarly values., Academy of Management Review 22, p. 335-345.
Pfeffer, J., 1998. The Human Equation. Boston: harvard Business School Press.
Potter, W. & McKibbon, L., 1988. Management Education adn development: Drift on thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw Hill.
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. & Daft, R.L., 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation adn transfer between practioners and academicians., Academy of Management Journal 44(2), p. 340-55.
Shrivastava, P. & Mintroff, I., 1984. Enhancing organizational research utilization: The role of decision maker’s assumptions., Academy of Management Review 9, p. 18-26.