Perplexities

Citation

Lundberg, C. (2008), "Perplexities", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa.2008.34516daf.001

Perplexities

Article Type: Perplexities From: International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Volume 16, Issue 4

Thinking about organizational studies and writing about perplexities that surprise, puzzle and bother, is an energizing activity for me. Since beginning this column, “perplexitizing” has almost become addictive. I know this not only because it occupies my thoughts and I talk about perplexities a lot, but also because my spouse frequently says, with feeling, “Give it a rest.” This is easier said than done. I wish that I would have become a perplexitizer long ago – I fantasize having done more and more interesting work and most certainly I would have had a lot more stimulating conversations with my colleagues. Perhaps I should be perplexed at becoming a perplexitizer, but I am not.

Lately, the “problem” of creating more “relevant” organizational/managerial knowledge is once again getting attention. The twin assumptions behind this seem to remain in place, namely, that scientifically generated knowledge should be practitioner relevant and the responsibility for this rests on the shoulders of organizational scholars. We hear and read about the usual quartet of “solutions”: organizational scholars should provide manager-friendly translations of their work; scholars should better educate practitioners so that they can read and appreciate scholarly research; scholars and practitioners should join together to devise and conduct mutually meaningful research projects; and scholars should shift their research efforts toward so-called evidence-based and/or positive organizational research. We have heard these solutions several times, but they are seldom acted upon. Why? A little thought surfaces a number of points that undermine these solutions because of what they ignore or blur. For example, the reward systems of academe would have to be changed (unlikely); that manager-friendly research projects can actually contribute to basic knowledge; that managers and organizational scholars belong to subcultures worlds apart ontologically and epistemologically; that scholars are interested in basic research which is theoretical while managers desire applied research about value-infused effectiveness; that general, descriptive knowledge can be translated without distortion into context specific prescriptive knowledge; and so on. None of these points appears to be trivial. Collectively, they suggest that the energy devoted to becoming more relevant would subtly undercut the mission of organizational studies – to explicate ever more accurate and valid descriptions and explanations of organizational phenomena. So I am perplexed. Am I alone in thinking that theoretically relevant knowledge, in time, becomes managerially relevant, and if so, is our “concern” with relevance misplaced?

The note in the mail informed me that my old friend Bud had died. I had met him many years ago when I spent ten months doing field work in his division. His passing saddened me for Bud was one of a very small handful of managers whom I unequivocally admired. I was not alone in this view as everyone in the division liked, trusted and respected him. Bud intuitively behaved with all of those skills and managerial practices that organizational scholars eventually found names for, e.g. empathetic listening, empowering others, delegation, mentoring, giving stretch assignments, obsessive fairness, and the like. My most vivid memory of Bud was when, twice each day, he circulated slowly throughout the division responding to technical inquiries, clarifying assignments, joking, listening to bragging and to personal problems. I used to “shadow” him on these rounds, following quietly a step or two behind making a note every 15 seconds. Today I found my shadowing records from so long ago and read many of them reliving Bud’s prowess. I now see a couple of patterns unappreciated until now. One is that in the vast majority of his interactions during his rounds, Bud was “helping.” The other pattern is that nearly all helping was requested of him. However we might characterize Bud’s “style” of relating, somehow people felt free to ask for his help. This observation feels significant for most adults, at least in the USA, seldom ask others for help, especially from authorities or hierarchical superiors. Isn’t it perplexing that something as obviously functional for persons and for organizations as asking for help is neither investigated nor taught?

I was pleasantly surprised to bump into “Gracie” on the street downtown recently. She had been my waitperson at the diner where I had coffee and read the paper before going to my office. After exchanging greetings I mentioned missing her at the diner. She told me she was now waitressing evenings at a mid-scale restaurant out of town, happy to be there and making lots of tips by following what we discovered in our “research projects.” This somewhat grandiose label was what we had called a series of micro-studies designed to increase her tips. Each went like this: I would observe Gracie closely, and with an idea for an intervention would ask her to gather a couple of weeks of baseline data (tips record), then specified a behavioral change on her part which she enacted for a couple of weeks, after which we would admire the new level of tips and I would explain why they had increased. For example, good service is typically defined as meeting or exceeding a customer’s service expectations, restaurant managers believe good service is obtained by training waitstaff to carefully follow a set routine specified by management. In one of our projects to’d Oracle to do what her manager wanted but to also look at the faces of her customers as she went tip and down the counter and do whatever seemed needed. The model here is very simple – looking at faces let Gracie see that they want something, inquire what it is, and supply it. This attention to their wants often prompts customers to leave larger tips. Amount of tips is, of course, a tough outcome criterion in a diner on an early shift where most customers are regulars like me. So, after several micro-studies Gracie made more money and found the confidence to work out of town. As you can see these studies were not rocket science but cheap, fun and informative. Unfortunately, they were also unpublishable – editors cannot seem to accept even a series of studies based on an N of I without control(s). What’s my point? Service related research is thin and service theory even thinner. Yet, the service sector of our economy is large and growing. As organizations grow in complexity, as they seem to be doing, internal service becomes ever more important. So, I am perplexed that organizational scholars have mostly ignored what has to be an arena of practical usefulness and theoretic opportunity.

I am perplexed at the virtual disappearance of paper discussants at our professional meetings. For paper sessions, there occasionally is a “discussion facilitator” to bring some order to audience comments. But I have not seen/heard a thorough public critique of a conference paper in years. Submit a paper to a journal and you will receive two or three tough blind written reviews – even on your revisions. Submit a paper to a conference and, while no doubt reviewed, you will hear that it is either accepted or rejected but typically without comment. My hunch is that most conference papers are an early version of a hoped for journal submission. If so, how are scholars to receive the sort of feedback that strengthens their work?

Craig LundbergCornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA