Delivery in day(s): 3
Organization and Management Research Assignment Help
Organization and management research helps in enhancing management knowledge and by helping in solving the problems of the business (Starkey & Madan, 2001). Efficient management is extremely important for any organization; it can be the reason for the success or failure of the firm (Lefley, 2006). Several universities, that include a business school, conduct a research on management and how to improve it (Sandberg, & Alvesson, 2011).However, there has been a constant debate about management research being relevant for quite some time now. The relevance of organization and management research has been discussed in this paper(Starkey & Madan, 2001).
'Organization and management research is in danger of becoming irrelevant.'
Management operates in a very stressful environment which leads to certain complex decision, complications and flaws that hampers the business operations to a huge extent. In this business competitive world, the organizations are unable to perform adequately since there are many factors that the organization has to look forward. Business or management research is considered to be a crucial factor for the organization towards developing appropriate strategies for market improvement and product development. Managers and leaders play a crucial role in the development of the organization. Research helps the organization in exploring the new areas of business opportunities that can help them to increase business profit. Additionally, every year, more than 20,000 articles are published by various universities and most of them focus on criticizing the other research papers that have been published (Lefley, 2006). The research is not being conducted with keeping the manager's requirements in mind and neither are they featured on the famous journals read by them; this has become a closed system, which is self-referential and unrelated to the performance of the corporate world (Starkey & Madan, 2001). However, the entire business process in terms of research has changed entirely. Articles publish in the last few years have completely degraded and there is a lack of information which affects the quality of the research. Hence, the authenticity of the information has changed entirely which indirectly is also affecting the education system since they are being fed wrong or manipulated data and information to a huge extent (Koskela, 2011). They do it so that they can progress in their careers. It can be determined by looking at these similar researchers that either nothing has changed and everything is stagnant or the scholar community is helpless and cannot rectify the situation. The former means that the existing research can be used and there is no need to spend the resources on new repetitive research and the latter means that the researchers are unable to delve deeper into the situation to provide proper remedies (Lefley, 2006). The above-motioned two articles do not form any exception. One of the first reviews on the basic perspectives on the pertinence of management was the paper by Thomas and Tymon that alluded to criticism from 1972 onwards. Organisation and management research are slowly losing the authenticity of information as organisations are now completely focusing on the market to generate and attract more business instead of quality. Organisation requires focusing on various prospects that helps them to design the information in a critical manner and prepare information that can help them to provide proper information on the subject (Tranfield, 2002). According to the American observations, Tranfield found out that most of the research on management was not reliable for the academic community and the currently practicing managers, as it does not provide thebasis for their actions and decision-making process (Starkey & Madan, 2001). The emergence of management science and research were influenced by two reports of 1959, which was funded by the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation. In the early twentieth century, the definition of management implied processing plant administration (Lefley, 2006). Thus, in the first few decades of the century, the general management emerged as an activity just through the extension of profitable activities and alongside the developing firm sizes (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012).
The development of organization has run as an inseparable unit with the expanding force of the managers. A huge managerial foundation has developed to manage the growing numbers of authoritative staff (Koskela, 2011). There has been a growth of academics chiefly doing administrative work. In the Organizational Theory (OT), the network research is considered as active as thenetwork is an academic lens and practical tool that can function at different levels of analysis (Starkey & Madan, 2001). The network research has established the factors that have an influence on the individual ties and on the overall network structure's origin. The theory of network research was established decades ago (Koskela, 2011). Some of the theories (Washburn & Bromiley, 2012) states how systems encourage coordination and participation, and how monetary conduct is established in a social setting (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). In spite of the fact that it is broadly acknowledged that embeddedness encourages economic trade, embeddedness may likewise bring about one-sided choices as opposed to better coordination that advantages both sides (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). Although this extensive research has some of the issues, hypothetical improvements are empowering (Starkey & Madan, 2001). We realize that the casual and formal systems cooperate to impact activity, and modern work is evaluating how numerous sorts of network interface in ways that exercise control over hierarchical choices, encourage the support of interorganizational ties (Rogan, 2014), and impact the development of different sorts of ties (Shipilov and Li, 2012). Despite the fragmented outline of this examination, we have highlighted a portion of the essential and appealing hypothetical thoughts in this research space (Lefley, 2006). It appears implausible to propose this work is not hypothetical or is not significant to our comprehension of the world.
The growing importance of administration and its impact on universities are affecting the growth of scholastic works (Collini, 2012). Academics have ended up working in expert organizations, which guarantee upward movement through consistency with positioning frameworks (Magala, 2009). Universities are currently packed with a significant number of the comparative "management advancements", which are familiar in vast organizations: they have quality control frameworks, performance estimation, branding activities, visionary pioneers, marketing and communication units and supporting systems (Lefley, 2006). This solid confidence in and across the board utilization of frameworks, methodology, and initiatives driven by the managers is the thing that we refer to as managerialism (Koskela, 2011). For some, this is a stage in the correct path. All these managerial activities address the incompetence and carelessness of a field, which has been lethargic for a long time (McKinley, 2010). As indicated by enthusiasts, by embracing present day management practices, universities can start to all the more successfully convey their mission. The government has formulated quality activities like the UK's REF (Research Excellence Framework) and RAE, to publish high-end journals and more articles (Lefley, 2006). This lead to the pressure on the writers, they could not conduct proper research and because of this the articles were monotonous, uninteresting and did not contain any interesting theories (Donaldson, Qiu& Luo, 2013).
The foremost subject is that the majority of the editors of these leading journals do not concede the crisis and are not prone to solve it. As an alternative, they point out the success, strength and progress of their journals. Apart from that, the impact of journals has been contributing radically in the field of organisation and management research. In view of the fact that the problem is not being acknowledged by them and instead the editors are promoting the meaningless articles; there has not been any improvement in the content of these research papers (Koskela, 2011). Additionally, because of the support of these journals, research papers with similar or meaningless content are being published successively, resulting in minuscule contribution to the discipline. There are hardly any influential and interesting writings coming up, as was seen in the late 1970s, where the institutional theory and the idea of root metaphor (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). They believe that going through these research papers would require a lot of time to understand the complex figures and it would not be productive to go through the same theory every time (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). This had led to a problem in the management research, which can be termed as gap spotting. Scientific inquiries include scrutinizing the hidden assumptions of the current research and manage accord-testing assumptions, whereas gap spotting includes agreement seeking (Starkey & Madan, 2001). This has turned out to be amazingly well known and the authors recognize gaps in the reviews that have been done beforehand with the idea of 'extending the literature' (Verma, 2014). The researchers utilize the past research studies to develop them and base their own review and hypotheses on these works (Lefley, 2006). The contemporary writers and analysts utilize this as a reason in the greater part of the cases, with the goal that they can get their articles included in leading journals (Schrank & Whitford, 2011). This additionally has its advantages, as a few articles really should be enhanced and tested, however, this has turned into a pattern and the association and administration research are becoming insignificant because of this (Koskela, 2011). There are several reasons behind the gap spotting, one of which is professional norms dedicated by the reviewers and journals (Starkey & Madan, 2001). As the authors want to publish their articles in the journals, they have adopted the trend of gap spotting and they also follow the rules and guidelines to remove to make sure there is no meaningless content in the article (Wright, 2015). In addition, each one of these progressions must be done according to the work count stipulated by them and the specialists need to listen to countless requests (Lefley, 2006). This has turned into an issue as the individuals who have composed great journals having pertinent speculations and discoveries, do not get their work included (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
In order to challenge the previous assumptions, the method of problematization can be used along with empirical procedure, which would help in getting more innovative and influential hypothesis(Lefley, 2006). The problematization method includes inquiring the hypothesis underlying one's possessed meta-theoretical arrangement (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). One has to identify the domain of literature and the assumptions underlying them. After this, the person has to evaluate them and then develop an alternative assumption basis(Starkey & Madan, 2001). This method is amatter of perception, imagination and it gives confidence the researcher to use adifferent standard to inquire one another (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). On the other hand, the use of theempirical material is another way to challenge the previous assumptions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). It involves exploring the problems and weak points of the established framework and theories. Both procedures call for drawing upon a more extensive arrangement of hypotheses and vocabularies as possessions for testing predominant hypothesis and constructions of exact material and some strength in checking consensus(Koskela, 2011).
Numerous people are enjoying the benefit due to this factor; therefore individuals are hesitant for a change. Principals are benefitting as the colleges are receiving better rankings. The journal are accomplish greater than before number of submission, as of which their eminence is also recuperating. The researchers are getting an enhancement in their profession. It can be distorted if the supervision, journal, periodical houses together work towards recovering the content of the research. The focal point has to be shifted from compromise seeking theories to consensus exigent theories. The governments need to widen their criterion for assessing the performance of educational research (Donaldson, Qiu & Luo, 2013). The journal commentator and editors need to change their conservative ‘adding-to-the-literature’ standard and support narrative and ground-breaking ideas. The chief transformation has to come from the researchers; they need to carry out their investigation systematically as an alternative of just fissure spotting. In this way, the most critical issue for getting management studies on track is to move far from the present focus on paper generation to the creation of more inventive and persuasive thoughts and speculations that can have a huge effect on both hypothesis and organizational practice (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). Empowering such work requires a significant re-evaluating and adjusting of institutional conditions, proficient standards, researchers' character developments and the right approach to the development of theory (Grey, 2010).
Organizational and management research was important at one point of time when proper solutions were provided to the managers (Lefley, 2006). However, in the present scenario, repetitions are being made by the researchers instead of analyzing the problems properly. They are busy in competing with each other and advancing in their careers, than actually researching on how to improve management in the organization (Koskela, 2011). Additionally, the research is more quantitative in nature, due to which the real world managers are not able to understand it accurately (Koskela, 2011). These important areas have made the organisational research ineffective today which is indirectly hampering the education and the skills of a researcher. It is essential for the researchers to focus upon the content and quality rather than quantity (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012).Management is considered as an important phenomenon, which is required in every organization irrespective of their function and size (Koskela, 2011). It is important to understand how things work in an organization and to what extent does the theories affect the activities of the organization (Starkey & Madan, 2001). Both practical and theoretical knowledge has immense value, which should be considered by the managers (Lefley, 2006). Although the theories, which are already established, are not being used, the improvement in these theories should be considered by the researchers and also the organizations (Cornelissen & Durand, 2012). This would help them develop the different types of research question and provide them with the appropriate understanding of data (Lefley, 2006).
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of management review, 36(2), 247-271.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2012). Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research. Journal Of Management Studies, 50(1), 128-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.x
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for?. Penguin UK.
Cornelissen, J., & Durand, R. (2012). More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 152-154.
Davis, G. (2014). Celebrating Organization Theory: The After-Party. Journal Of Management Studies, 52(2), 309-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12094
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., & Luo, B. N. (2013). For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 153-172.
Grey, C. (2010). Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies, 31(6), 677-694.
Koskela, L. J. (2011). Fifty years of irrelevance: the wild goose chase of management science. Proceedings IGLC-19 (International Group for Lean Construction), 85-96.
Lefley, F. (2006). A pragmatic approach to management accounting research: a research path. Management Research News, 29(6), 358-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170610683879
Magala, S. (2009). The management of meaning in organizations. Springer.
McKinley, W. (2010). Organizational theory development: Displacement of ends?. Organization Studies, 31(1), 47-68.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of management review, 35(3), 455-476.
Rogan, M. (2014). Executive departures without client losses: The role of multiplex ties in exchange partner retention. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 563-584.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization?. Organization, 18(1), 23-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151
Schrank, A., & Whitford, J. (2011). The anatomy of network failure. Sociological Theory, 29(3), 151-177.
Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2012). The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of relationships among producers in the multiplex triads. Organization Science, 23(2), 472-491.
Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of management, 12(s1).
Tranfield, D. (2002). Formulating the nature of management research. European Management Journal, 20(4), 378-382.
Verma, R. (2014). Management research (1st ed.). New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
Washburn, M., & Bromiley, P. (2012). Comparing aspiration models: the role of selective attention. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 896-917.
Wright, P. M. (2015). Rethinking “contribution”.