In their article, The Disconnect Between the Science and Practice of Management, the authors discuss the great gulf between knowledge and application. Researchers can spend years, some even a lifetime, carefully examining, analyzing, and conjecturing patterns of behavior; they are correct in their conclusions most of the time. People in the corporate world are desperately looking for ways to improve behavior in the workplace; however, they avoid responses from the very people who can help them. This article presents a number of reasons why this phenomenon occurs.
Arguments and explanations
Professionals in the business world do not dispute the validity of the scientific results presented by the researchers; And it’s not because business people aren’t smart enough to understand the complexities of statistics, research, and application. What is being argued here is that, in all their brilliance, many researchers cannot communicate their findings in such a way that the general population can assimilate thoughts into action.
Another reason that professionals may be suspicious of research results is that most believe that the research is being conducted under a conflict of interest. For example, a company often pays a research lab to conduct a survey to prove its point … in other words, look for certain results.
Academic researchers are also believed to be out of touch with the “real” business world or not committed to solving real problems as much as they are published or headline (in other words ulterior motives).
Academics tend to withdraw from business, they don’t communicate well with the average working manager. Although your findings could be very helpful in improving workplace behavior (productivity, absenteeism, turnover, etc.), they are not written in a way that is easy to understand or attractive to those who need the answers. Most of the time, the research findings are deeply buried amid psychological jargon that does not interest working managers or contribute to the time constraints they experience. If the information was presented in a clear and concise manner, perhaps using bulleted items to point out steps that can be taken immediately would ease the burden of reading and applying the findings.
Furthermore, the goals of the academic are different from those of “non-academic colleagues.” Non-academics want logical, solid, and pragmatic information. Researchers seek academic-oriented theoretical, data-driven, and scientific information that may not necessarily contribute to real-world applications.
Integration solutions
The authors then proceed to suggest solutions that could restore the relationship between business and research and reintegrate the disciplines.
Business-university partnerships: combine business executives with researchers to help develop effective surveys that cover current business concerns or problems.
Information accessibility: Research results should be written and presented in a more inclusive way, eliminating jargon and subcultural language that creates barriers.
Business experience for teachers: Use of sabbaticals or summer vacations to carry out internships in a business environment.
Corporate sabbaticals:The opposite of the previous suggestion … corporate executives using sabbaticals for teaching internships (to educate teachers about what is currently happening in the corporate culture).
Overall, the authors suggest that the two worlds (business and academic) need to be intertwined more effectively to bring purpose and meaning to each other.