look who’s afraid of management
Omar
In the recent Jerehmiad…er article by Bruno Frey on “Publishing as Prostitution” which was the focus of a recent exchange at orgtheory, there was an interesting passage that I thought was kind of funny at the time, but which got me thinking. On page 213 Frey notes that big bad reviewers with all of their bad advice are making economics less and less relevant:
Non-economists are using the results produced in modern economics and its publication system less and less, because they judge them to be far from relevant. There is substantial evidence that economists have gradually been losing their position as important advisors to governments. The Economist (1997: 13; 2000: 90), for example, wonders about the “Puzzling Failure of Economics”, and asks “in the long run, is the subject dead?”, or the New Yorker (Cassidy, 1996: 50-1) remarks: “. . . a good deal of modern economic theory, even the kind that wins Nobel Prizes, simply does not matter much”. This apparent failure has been reflected on the market for students. In most countries, economists have lost much ground to other disciplines, in particular to management (italics mine).
This complaint is somewhat amusing not only because it mirrors the perennial grousing among more “scientific” minded sociologists about the growing (practical) irrelevance of the discipline (which we don’t blame on reviewers by the way just on our own ineptitude), but also because my first thought was: so people are listening to management scholars more and to economists less? And what’s wrong with that?
Hmmm, we have quite a few people crying wolf - Ferraro, Pfeffer and Sutton (and Ghoshal and Moran and numerous others) essentially argue that economics is far too powerful, and, Frey argues that management is too influential (with economics losing ground). I have my own 2+ cents, but will save them for a later
tiradepost.Teppo
September 2, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I wonder if Frey means that management scholarship is influential or if management (as a profession) is increasingly influential? I think the two are very different. Management theory and analysis tends to be an eclectic mix of sociology, economics, and psychology, without a dominant paradigm. Professional management, on the other hand, plays by its own rules and, I think, considers much of what goes on in academia as irrelevant.
brayden
September 2, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I like Frey for his unconventional way to approach social phenomena on the ground of economic theory. He captured my mind (and that of the audience) at a conference on transnational terrorism in Düsseldorf in may 06 with his ideas on how modern societies deal with terrorism what the effects are and how we should at least think of alternative approaches to get it under control. In the same lecture, he also mentioned his new paper on evaluation in science he calls “evaluitis” (see short summary on sozlog http://www.y-design.de/cms/tguenther.de/wordpress/?p=239).
The approach is pretty much the same in both cases: What are the uses and costs of a given way how society (or science or a specific institution) deals with a problem? Are there alternatives which may prove to be more effective (use) and have lower costs?
And management has no dominant paradigm? Hard to believe. A blogging Max Weber would probably comment that management is knowledge deeply devoted to rational domination in organizations, clearly following a leading paradigm such as rational accounting.
Tina
September 6, 2006 at 10:53 am
[...] After Michael Burawoy’s considerations in favor of Public Sociology have made quite a stir, though, as it seems, much more in the American context of sociology than in the German context, and some sociology weblogs decisively say they are Public sociology while others remain in clear distance and opposition (see save sociology on Mathieu Deflem’s page) and Omar at org theory has brought up once again the topic of perennial grousing of theory and practice referring to an article by Jonathan Turner, I take the opportunity to introduce a new category “theory and practice”. [...]
sozlog » Blog Archive » Theory and practice
September 6, 2006 at 12:36 pm
[...] Here is one more entry in another O&M feuilleton, namely our “Jerehmiads” on publication in management and related fields (e.g., here and here) (the term was introduced by Omar at Orgtheory.net, who in spite of being a brand new assistant professor is also a specialist in the publication game; see his comments here). [...]
Tacky Editors « Organizations and Markets
September 11, 2006 at 4:34 pm
[...] Omar at orgtheory.net dismisses critical discussions of the institutions of publishing social science research as “jeremiads” (see here), that is, “moralistic texts that denounce a society for its wickedness” (Wikipedia), typically written — but by no means always — by old, grumpy men. In contrast, Omar has great faith in the efficiency of these institutions (see the exchanges between my co-blogger and Omar here). [...]
Bill Starbuck’s New Book « Organizations and Markets
October 7, 2006 at 7:13 pm
[...] A feuilleton here at O&M is what Omar at Orgtheory.net (see here) has christened our “jerehmiads” (aka “jeremiads”) concerning journals, the implication being that we are grumpy old men who moralistically denounce the rationality of our journal institutions (e.g., here, here, here, and here). Whatever that may be here is another, errr, observation on our journals: [...]
Another Journal Jere(h)miad « Organizations and Markets
November 20, 2006 at 1:16 pm