collaboration and the production of management knowledge

93

5Collaboration and the Productionof Management Knowledge inResearch, Consulting, andManagement Practice

ANDREAS WERR

LARRY GREINER

The world of managers is increasinglyknowledge intensive. Competition isgrowing and large organizations are

becoming more global and complex, resulting

in a proliferation of new management mod-els and tools. This makes it difficult for man-agers to keep up with the latest developments(Huczynski, 1993). Although the main source

C H A P T E R

ABSTRACT

For managers looking for management knowledge beyond their own experience, aca-demics and consultants are two main resources. In this chapter, we focus on academicresearchers and management consultants as producers of management knowledge andask what the two can learn from each other. We suggest that there is a strong potentialfor collaboration in the triad manager–researcher–consultant, but we also acknowledgethe institutional forces that make it difficult and discuss how they may be overcome. Thechapter begins with an investigation into the knowledge-creating systems of academiaand consulting, goes on to successful examples of knowledge creation in collaboration,and ends with a discussion of the tensions to be overcome, especially in the collabora-tion between academics on the one hand and practitioner-managers and consultants onthe other.

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 93

PART I: FRAMING THE ISSUES94

of managers’ learning is their own experi-ence, this is becoming increasingly insuffi-cient. Today’s managers must search widelybeyond their own experience for manage-ment knowledge that is relevant to theirunique situations. They hire consultants,study for MBAs, attend executive educationprograms, and buy management books. Asthe demand for and debate about manage-ment knowledge has grown, so too have thesupply and the number of actors involved inproducing knowledge about management.

Management consultants and academicresearchers from business schools are themain sources of management knowledgeavailable to managers who want to obtainexternal knowledge input. Traditionally,management consulting and academicresearch have been depicted as distinct butcomplementary knowledge systems, withbusiness schools and other disciplines actingas producers of knowledge that is turnedover to consultancies, who then serve as dis-seminators to managers as the final cus-tomers. However, the past decade has seenthis role division alter dramatically with aca-demics and consultants now going separateways to generate their own knowledge.Mainstream academics are now pursuingempirical research and publishing in their ownjournals for their own reading. The larger con-sultancies are also engaged in the creation ofmanagement knowledge (Davenport &Prusak, 2005) to enhance their marketingand provide solutions for clients. Managers,too, have occasionally become engaged inpublishing knowledge from their experiencein the form of books (Bossidy, Charan, &Burck, 2002; Welch, 2001). The popularityof these books indicates that many managersprefer the often simplified and unambiguous“practical” advice and knowledge presentedin such books from consultancies and theirmanagerial peers to the more ambiguous and complex knowledge disseminated fromuniversities and business schools (Pfeffer &Fong, 2002). Many channels for disseminating

management knowledge are currently domi-nated by management consultants and practi-tioners. In a study of the German managementmagazine Manager Magazin, for example,practicing managers and management con-sultants were more often referred to asexperts than were academics (Kieser, 2002b).Also, many consultancies publish journalscontaining informative articles written bytheir consultants based on research and con-sulting experience, which are widely sub-scribed to by executives and even academics.Examples include McKinsey Quarterly andStrategy and Business, published by BoozAllen Hamilton.

This chapter focuses on academics andconsultants as producers of managementknowledge. We acknowledge that in anincreasingly complex world, professions andorganizations need to specialize. But special-ization also creates a need for integration.We consider the relative strengths and limi-tations of academics and consultants as cur-rent knowledge creators, and the potentialvalue of collaboration between them andwith managers in the conduct of futureresearch. While the focus of our argumentabove has been on the drifting apart of con-sulting, research, and practice, there areexamples of successful integrations of thesesystems, which have inspired our currentargument. Influential researchers, such asMichael Porter, Michael Beer, and SusanMohrman, have set up their own researchinstitutes in which they integrate researchand practice, and which increasingly (andsuccessfully) compete with large consultingorganizations. Also, some of the most influ-ential developments in management researchhave been generated through consultingwork, and breakthroughs in consultingorganizations’ knowledge have been createdin collaboration with researchers. Thesecollaborative activities will be exemplifiedby testimonials from Edward E. Lawler,Chris Argyris, and Edgar Schein later in thischapter.

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 94

It is useful to compare academics with con-sultants because each party has different con-cepts of the nature of knowledge and the bestways to produce it. We also recognize thethird party to collaboration, the manager-practitioner, who holds the keys to access anddata and is the ultimate judge of the useful-ness and validity of the knowledge producedby consultants and researchers. Managers arethe prime experimenters who put researchers’and consultants’ knowledge to the test.

Our argument is structured as follows:After a brief discussion of how we view rele-vant knowledge in management research, weturn to the academic and consulting systems,respectively, in trying to understand their dif-fering approaches to knowledge creation andcollaboration. We then turn to a discussionabout how collaboration between consul-tants, academics, and practitioners may beenhanced and provide testimonials of threesuccessful cases, carried out by well-reputedacademics. We conclude with a discussion ofsome of the tensions inherent in collabora-tion and how they may be overcome.

Our view throughout is that research col-laboration involving all parties, given propersafeguards, is a highly useful way to producenew knowledge. Business school academicshave much to give from their scientific theoriesand research methods, and consultants canprovide their advantage of extensive experi-ence with real-world issues, while practitioner-managers can offer access to their complexreality. Collaboration is the only way toexpose researchers to (1) richer data about thetotal situation, (2) observation of the underly-ing dynamics at hand, (3) the uniqueness andspecificity of each situation, and (4) the abilityto test one’s findings and conclusions throughfeedback from the subjects of study.

Unfortunately, as we shall see, many aca-demics have withdrawn from collaborationwith consultants and practitioners in theirresearch efforts; furthermore, as a result, thelatter two parties have avoided contactwith academics for their perceived lack of

relevance. Perceived relevance is key to mak-ing one’s knowledge heard among practition-ers, and both researchers and consultantshave to compete with the hard school ofbusiness life from which managers derivemost of their management knowledge.

Multiple Meanings ofRelevant Knowledge

The question of what is and is not knowl-edge often provokes debate among the differ-ent producers; they each have differentcriteria for what passes as “real” knowledge.In academia, knowledge is usually defined bythe theories and methods used to produce it.In consulting, the focus is on the practicalresults that knowledge produces. For the pur-poses of this chapter, we view knowledge interms of its perceived relevance (not alwaysimmediately apparent) to various consumers,who include not only managers but consul-tants and academics as well. This does not meanthat knowledge must be stated in “how to do it”terms, but its consequences should enlightenand cause other reactions. This knowledge canappear in a variety of forms:

• Research findings from using scientificmethods, usually conducted by academics

• New theories and concepts about the man-agerial world, generated by academics andconsultants from their research and experi-ence (e.g., Drucker, 1955; Porter, 1980)

• Applied techniques, tools, and methodscreated through experience, usually by con-sultants and managers (e.g., BPR fromHammer & Champy, 1993)

• Best practices developed from lookingacross several organizations to see whatactions are associated with effective results,often by consultants and packaged aspopular management books (e.g., Peters &Waterman, 1982)

• Personal accounts from experience, usuallyby CEOs (e.g., Bossidy et al., 2002; Welch,2001)

• Case histories derived from a firm’s expe-rience, usually incorporated within the

Collaboration and Management Knowledge 95

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 95

knowledge management system of consult-ing firms or in teaching cases

• Project reports prepared by consulting com-panies based on client-specific data andgeneral knowledge to solve a specific orga-nization’s problems

• Critical reviews and commentaries based oncritiques of the literature and its research,largely done by academics such as in thisbook

No doubt some skeptics will claim thatmany of the above examples do not qualify asknowledge. Business schools have been fre-quently questioned about the usefulness oftheir research (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Starkey& Tempest, 2004), and consultants are oftencriticized for the standardization and fad-dishness of their knowledge. Negative assess-ments range from failure to adhere to thescientific method to publishing meaninglessstatistics to succumbing to personal bias andplacing fashion over objectivity. Despite thesecriticisms, our preference is to regard all ofthe above examples as forms of relevantknowledge because each depicts and informsa slice of reality. Different forms of knowl-edge are often created by different producers,each having unique strengths and limits, andeven different methods for creating knowl-edge. In the following we will look moreclosely at the different knowledge standardsof academics, consultants, and researchers, asinherent tensions between these standardslimit the opportunities for collaboration.Backing off the standards in one system toadapt to the standards in another involvesconsiderable risk for the actors involved.

ACADEMIC PRODUCERS

Management research began as an appliedscience in which the worlds of academicsand practitioners were closely interwoven,with each informing the other. The academiccommunity developed through generating

new concepts from field research in organi-zations, the first classic exemplar beingManagement and the Worker (Roethlisberger& Dickson, 1934). Later came Peter Drucker(e.g., 1955) in his long career and series ofpopular books on management. These schol-ars were interested in helping both managersand themselves to understand better such top-ics as leadership, organizations, and marketsby creating new frames of reference with manypractical implications. Their research methodsconsisted largely of observations, interviews,and discussions with practitioners as theywent out into organizations, spent consider-able time, conducted field experiments, andeven consulted with them. A few managersalso made notable intellectual contributionsthrough reflecting on their experience (e.g.,Barnard, 1938; Fayol, 1917). Much of thisearly work was published in books, not jour-nals, to be read by scholars, consultants, andmanagers. Authors were inclined to viewknowledge as part of a systemic whole, whichrequired the full length of a book to describeand document the realities of organizationallife (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Bennis, Benne, &Chin, 1970; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Miles& Snow, 1978). Many disciplines, from psy-chology to economics, adopted this approachto knowledge generation and distribution(Blau, 1963; Galbraith, 1958; Gouldner, 1954;Homans, 1951; Selznick, 1949), and it washighly influential on practice. The Hawthornestudies reported in Management and the Worker(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1934), for example,led to a whole new era in management—the human relations movement—that trans-formed the way management was perceived(Perrow, 1986).

However, beginning in the late 1960s, theacademic community in business schoolsbecame increasingly concerned with gainingmore respect as “scientists.” In the UnitedStates, Gordon and Howell (1959) criticizedbusiness schools for their lack of rigor andacademic legitimacy. This made management


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 96

researchers look for more “scientific”approaches. Some turned to a field of researchthat had long been operating in the back-ground with roots traceable to FrederickTaylor’s management engineering (Taylor,1911). In this field, researchers were occu-pied with finding the optimal way to orga-nize work, based on the scientific principlesof the natural sciences.

This quest for the “scientification” of man-agement was driven by a desire to legitimatethe managerial occupation by providing itwith a “rigorous” knowledge base. In mim-icking the “big (natural and physical) sci-ences,” the professional status of managementwas to be established. The manager was to bemade an “expert” who would use his or herown scientific knowledge base for takingaction. A hierarchy of knowledge productionwas therefore established (or assumed), withthe academic acting as provider and the man-ager as the consumer-technician (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2005). At the same time, those in otherscholarly disciplines, notably economists andbehaviorists, similarly began to organizethemselves into professional associations withtheir own in-house journals.

Academic research, in its drive to becomea “real science,” has increasingly pursued thevalues of the natural and physical sciences,including universality (the “truth” of acertain knowledge should be establishedthrough universal criteria—irrespective ofparticular interests), commonality (results ofresearch are a common good/property),unselfishness (the altruistic search for knowl-edge), and organized skepticism (refrainingfrom premature judgments; reliance on scien-tific method and data) (Kieser, 2002b). Formany scholars, the truth is to be foundthrough adhering to the orthodoxy (theoriesand vocabulary) of a chosen discipline, whichserves as one’s professional identity.

Our informal survey of the leading aca-demic journals suggests that well over 90% ofthe articles are concerned with establishing

basic causality behind certain phenomena,such as what factors lead to greater commit-ment or motivation. Very few studies investi-gate whether a certain method or interventionused by management is effective or not, suchas the introduction of a new goal-setting orreward system. This is in contrast to the med-ical field, where there is extensive investiga-tion of the efficacy of experimental drugs.

While contemporary mainstream manage-ment research thus may have little to say tomanagement practitioners, it is unfair to claimthat the past 30 years of management researchhave passed unnoticed by management practi-tioners. Some instances of management researchhave been instrumental in shaping the man-agerial world by introducing new ways ofunderstanding practice. Examples includemodern finance theory, which has enabled thecreation of a whole new financial industry,and the view of business as socially con-structed, which has enabled new approachesto the challenge of innovation.

Collaboration and Academics

In striving for scientific ideals importedfrom the basic sciences, a set of criteria for“good management research” was createdthat has gradually moved academia awayfrom practice, making it difficult forresearchers to engage in such practice-ori-ented activities as consulting (Engwall,Furusten, & Wallerstedt, 2002; Stymne,2004). This search for “objective” knowl-edge has created distance between academicsand those being studied. Scholars are todaypursuing large samples generated fromarchival or survey data, which are analyzedusing sophisticated statistical methods. Theadvantage of this type of research is its abil-ity to identify and describe certain patternsacross large populations of people and/ororganizations, which can be portrayed andcompared at single or longitudinal points intime. Disadvantages, however, include the


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 97

inability to pinpoint causality behind surfacenumbers, and statistical levels of significancethat become too easy to obtain in large sam-ples, without representing practically mean-ingful relations. Studies of this kind alsomake it difficult to find applications to a par-ticular organization.

Another “distancing” approach is the useof laboratory experiments under artificial con-ditions, especially when involving studentswith no prior relationship established. Whilethese studies may reveal important aspectsof interaction within a limited range ofresearcher-defined variables, they often over-look the more complex and systemic aspectsof business reality (e.g., real managers andorganizations) that may in fact explain moreof the variance in real-world settings than dothe experimental variables.

Engagement with practice through con-sulting is today viewed negatively by manyacademics. Collaboration with the subjectof research is to be avoided because it pro-duces bias and wastes time in data gathering.Academics are rewarded for staying awayfrom managers. Prior to the 1960s, academicevaluations for tenure in Sweden, took intoaccount engagement with practice, but there-after only the scientific merits were consid-ered (Engwall et al., 2002). As one mightexpect, managers have added to the distancegap because they attribute lack of relevanceto academic research.

Kieser (2002b) identifies several charac-teristics that have shaped knowledge creationin the academic world, resulting in barriersbetween theory and practice. First, the aca-demic system is to a large extent a self-referential system, where relevance andquality criteria are internally created andcontrolled by one’s scholarly peers. Onlyknowledge certified from within the system isregarded as “real” knowledge. The mainvehicle for knowledge diffusion in academiais the scientific article, which is published formembers of the academic system rather than

for practitioners, who rarely read these articles. Second, success in the world of man-agement research is closely linked to publica-tion and citations in a limited number ofhighly reputed “A” journals, as ranked byother academics. The success of a researcherin addressing the practical needs of managersis generally not regarded as a source of schol-arly reputation. Instead, extensive engage-ment and popularity among practitionersmight be a threat to one’s academic reputa-tion. Consulting is typically treated nega-tively as an “income-earning activity” and adiversion from serious research. Third, agrowing degree of specialization in manage-ment research, based on (most often) refinedstatistical methods, has resulted in a level ofcomplexity that makes management knowl-edge increasingly hard to access and under-stand for outsiders to the academic system.The journal system rewards rhetoric that isabstract and full of technical terms.Academics, acting out of a need to demon-strate technical competence, impersonality,and systematic skepticism, make communi-cation with practicing managers especiallydifficult. Finally, the dynamics of the scien-tific system and the protocol of many of its“A”-rated journals prohibit researchers fromdiscussing applied implications and recom-mendations. Expressing disdain for the prac-tical world, while not explicitly encouraged,is tolerated by editors of the academy’s publications.

These characteristics further isolate theacademic world from practice, preventingcollaboration with consultants and man-agers. As a result, the latter assume a reverserelationship between practical relevanceand academic value (Kieser, 2002a). Thisin turn makes it hard for researchers togain access to organizations where theymight otherwise obtain rich data, much ofit qualitative, for explaining the dynamicslying behind their statistical findings(Schein, 2001, 2004).


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 98

Another negative consequence of thisingrown academic system occurs subtly in thequality of research revealed in statisticallybased articles. On close inspection of statisti-cal tables in most articles, one finds that thehypothesized predictions of the researcherfrequently explain less than 10% of the rela-tionship between causal variables and pre-dicted outcomes such as productivity andmotivation. All of this unexplained varianceraises further questions about the relevance ofresearch engaged in by academics. Distancefrom management phenomena is clearlyinhibiting the development of more completeand enlightening academic knowledge.

CONSULTANT PRODUCERS

The second major group of producers ofknowledge, management consultants, areoften depicted by academics as downstreamactors in the supply chain of managementknowledge. Presumably, consultants take theknowledge produced by academic researchand apply it to the practice of management(Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2005; Suddaby &Greenwood, 2001). Like the management sci-ences, consulting has its roots in Taylorism,with the central idea of designing more effi-cient work. In the early 20th century, the firstconsulting companies grew out of industrialengineering to make recommendations basedon time-and-motion studies (Kipping, 2002).Ironically, for many decades that followed,consulting research closely resembled today’sacademic research, which is engaged in stand-off studies that rely on extensive data gather-ing and analyses presented in written reports.

However, in the 1990s the large consultan-cies became increasingly involved in the pro-duction of their own knowledge for widerdistribution and public consumption. Continu-ing today, consultants publish books andtheir own journals under a rubric they call“thought leadership” (Davenport & Prusak,

2005; Pasternack & Viscio, 1998). Theseconsultancies have exploited their vast basesof experience gained from client projectsto offer “brandable” models, such asMcKinsey’s “7S,” Porter’s “Five Forces,” andthe BCG “Growth Matrix.” Many popularbooks advocating models and methods forsolving managerial problems have resultedfrom these efforts (Maister, 1997; Nadler &Nadler, 1998; Slywotzky, 2002). These pub-lications not only serve as useful marketingand branding tools for the consulting firms,but also function as a learning mechanism forconsultants and clients (Werr, 1999). In onenotable and highly popular book, In Searchof Excellence, the collaborating authors werea consultant and an academic (Peters &Waterman, 1982). Interestingly, academicresearch has been stimulated by these models,which, ironically, are frequently taught byacademic researchers in MBA classrooms.

Knowledge production within manage-ment consulting takes place within a dif-ferent context than the academic world. Inconsulting firms, two types of knowledge areemphasized (Greiner & Poulfelt, 2005):(1) functional knowledge about topics andissues (e.g., strategic planning and compensa-tion systems), and (2) specific industryknowledge (e.g., financial services andbiotechnology). While functional knowledgeoverlaps with traditional academic disci-plines, specific industry knowledge is to alarge extent lacking in academic research. Inaddition to the production of management the-ories and concepts, consultants are involved indeveloping detailed methods, tools, andapproaches to solving contemporary prob-lems, representing a different kind of knowl-edge, such as BPR and Six Sigma (e.g., Werr &Stjernberg, 2003). These practical accomplish-ments have often gone unrecognized or criti-cized by the academic world (Salaman, 2002).

Consulting projects and the resulting knowl-edge are generally aimed at implementingsystems and “inducing action” by clients


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 99

(Kieser, 2002b). “Inducing action” means thatknowledge may be used for a number of differ-ent ends, even including less legitimate endssuch as focusing only on data that justifies a priori decisions made by management (Kieser,1998). The focus of consultants on action caneasily lead to oversimplification by portrayingan organizational world that is formally struc-tured with clear roles and controls (Huczynski,1993). Although this knowledge may attractpopular attention, its methodological underpin-nings in scientific terms are frequently regardedas weak, and its conclusions dubious (e.g.,Alvesson, 1993; Furusten, 1995). Consultingknowledge is seldom subjected to formal evalu-ation and scientific critique. Critics explain thatmanagers, under pressure to succeed, embracepopular and simplified solutions from consul-tants that are anxiety reducing (Abrahamson,1991; Huczynski, 1993). In uncertain situa-tions, managers seek “quick fixes” (e.g.,Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1996; O’Shea &Madigan, 1997). Beyond simplification, therhetoric of consulting knowledge is character-ized by a certain level of mystification and per-sonalization that underpins the consultant’sreputation of having superior expert knowl-edge and enhances his ability to extract fees(Clark, 1995; Clark & Salaman, 1996, 1998).This codification of consultant knowledge haseven been criticized by clients for being toostandardized and ill adapted to their needs(Greiner & Malernee, 2005).

Collaboration and Consultants

As the consulting industry has matured, ithas developed a unique set of values thathave pulled it closer to management practice,clearly distinguishing it from academic val-ues. In the 1990s, with a strong focus on“client service,” the work of consultants hasshifted from writing reports toward imple-menting solutions (Nanda & Morrell, 2002).Creating measurable value for clients isnow an overarching goal of managementconsulting (Maister, 1993). Academics, on

the other hand, are governed more by thetwin goals of creating what they regard as“true” knowledge and enhancing their repu-tations among academic colleagues.

Knowledge creation and learning in con-sulting are to a large extent based on collabo-ration between consultants and organizationswhere they consult. It is a customer-drivenbusiness, with client questions serving as a trig-ger for knowledge development. In dealingwith short-term deliverables, consultants fre-quently use cross-functional teams composedof consultants and client employees to shareand leverage their knowledge and expertise(Fosstenlökken, Löwendahl, & Revang, 2003).Besides being a source of consultant learning,collaboration is used to bring about learningfor the client, an added example of value cre-ation (Kubr, 2002; Schein, 1988, 1999).

Much of the consulting literature isdevoted to understanding the characteristicsof the consultant-client relationship, whichfacilitates results and applied learning. Kubr(2002) identifies three dimensions to thisrelationship: First, he emphasizes that “with-out client-consultant collaboration there is defacto no effective consulting” (p. 66). The sec-ond is knowledge transfer from consultant toclient and vice versa. This leads to trust, thethird ingredient, which is needed for achievingan open relationship that allows for knowledgeexchange and mutual learning.

Table 5.1 summarizes and makes clearthat academics and consultants indeed liveand work in very different worlds, withunique task demands and goals that producedifferent kinds of knowledge (Kubr, 2002,p. 58). The comparison indicates that aca-demics are scientific yet removed from thephenomena being studied, and that consul-tants are overly close to the action but lack-ing in scientific rigor. We next address thisquestion: Can collaboration between theseproducers and with practicing managers helpto build on their different strengths and cor-rect for their deficiencies in the production ofrelevant knowledge?


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 100

MANAGEMENT CONTEXTFOR RESEARCH

To better assess the conditions that are likelyto facilitate or obstruct collaborative researchbetween consultants, academics, and practi-tioners, we need to understand the natureand context of the management environ-ment, its required skills, and its working processes. Whitley (1989) identifies five com-mon characteristics of managerial tasks,which he defines as (1) highly interde-pendent, contextual, and systemic; (2) rela-tively unstandardized; (3) changeable anddeveloping; (4) combining maintenance ofadministrative structures with their develop-ment; and (5) rarely generating visibleand separate outputs that can be directlyconnected to individual inputs.

The above view of management as alocal and idiosyncratic practice is furtherelaborated upon by Kotter (1982) in hisstudy of general managers, where hefound that most successful leaders hadsubstantial experience in a specific organi-zation or industry sector. This implies thatgeneral management knowledge needs tobe adapted to the specific situation for itto prove valuable (Clegg & Palmer, 1996;Whitley, 1989). In addition, the reviewersof management practice point out thatmanagerial skills are about dealing with aseries of interconnected problems in a sin-gle system, where solutions to one prob-lem may create new and unanticipatedproblems and solutions. Under these con-ditions, the situational validity of generalmanagement theories and models becomes


Main values

Structuring of knowledge

Problem

Time scale

End product

Ownership of information

Academic rigor

Evaluation

Research

Universality, communality,unselfishness, organizedskepticism

Disciplines

Mainly fashioned byresearcher, formulated andbased in the scientificcommunity

Usually flexible

New theories and models,new knowledge, publications,and citations (and bettermanagement practice?)

Usually publicly available

Methodology tight

External, by peers in scientificcommunity, policy makers

Consulting

Client service, profitability

Functions and industries

Mainly fashioned by client,sometimes on joint basis

Tighter and more rigid

Organizational action, happyclients, and repeat business(and better managementpractice?)

Often confidential

Minimum level appropriate toproblem

Internal, by company

Table 5.1 The Different Logics of Research and Consulting

SOURCE: Adapted from Kubr (2002, p. 58).

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 101

problematic, resulting in a lack of applica-bility in solving management problems.Generalized findings and theories, if theyare to be useful, require inductive adjust-ment to account for local and systemic data.

Against this background of work charac-teristics, Schön (1983) severely criticizes thescientific/rationalistic model underlyingmost current academic research. Two centralassumptions of this model are identified,which fit awkwardly with managerial prac-tice: First, the model separates knowledgefrom action, implying that knowledgeneeded for competent action can be unam-biguously stipulated by academic experts andthen directly transferred to practitionersfor implementation. The local and systemiccharacter of management expertise makesthis assumption highly questionable. A sec-ond criticism is the model’s purported divi-sion between means and ends, which impliesthat a specific situation can be unambigu-ously identified as a specific problem to besolved (end) by the application of generalknowledge (means). This assumptionappears to be unrealistic, given the complex-ity and ambiguous character of today’s management challenges. Instead, Schönemphasizes the constructive and interactivenature of the problem-solving processadapted to the situation. Scientific modelsand theories can play a role in this processthrough acting as a source of inspiration andinsight for a manager’s sensemaking. In thisvein, Stymne (2004) argues for the condi-tional utility of academic research:

The management researcher, who has theambition to contribute to the competence ofmanagers, has to produce theories thatare not necessarily fully based on empiricalfacts. Instead they should be suggestions topractitioners about suitable ways of reason-ing on which to base their actions. (p. 51)

Both academics and consultants will findsome comfort in the above observation.

Consultants can resonate with the impor-tance of local knowledge, since they arerequired to operate in close proximity tomanagers and organizations. Academics,too, will find support in the notion that for-mal management knowledge and manage-ment research are needed to help consultantsand practitioners to make better sense ofthe reality facing them (Czarniawska, 2001;Stymne, 2004).

TOWARD COLLABORATIVEKNOWLEDGE

These various descriptions of the managerialworld suggest that complete and valid manage-ment knowledge cannot by itself be developedat a distance, but rather must be integratedwith insights from more intensive exposureto organizational life (Schein, 1987; Schön,1987; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). In ouropinion, this means that collaboration inresearch must be moved to the forefront ofthe producers’ mindset and approaches toknowledge creation. Schein (1987, 2001,2004), in this vein, talks about “clinicalresearch/process consultation,” and Van deVen and Johnson (2006), about “engagedscholarship.” But this won’t be easy, giventhe institutional barriers and personal limitsmentioned earlier. We now turn to a discus-sion of what the various parties might do tolearn and benefit from each other as theymove toward collaborative research. Inparticular, we consider alternative ways inwhich the strengths of each can be combinedto produce new knowledge.

Collaboration is composed of both an indi-vidual’s attitude and his or her behaviorintended to produce a “win-win” outcome forall parties. But this ideal condition is not easily achieved. For collaborative research toadvance, the various collaborators must recognize their own personal limits andknow their strengths; they also need torespect each other and value the others’


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM 2

strengths; and they must be skillful in actingto bring synergy to the relationship (Amabileet al., 2001). This makes it important to care-fully negotiate objectives and identities, rolesof participants, rules of engagement and dis-engagement, and the dissemination and useof the findings of the collaborative researchendeavor (Hatchuel, 2001). Figure 5.1depicts the key parties involved in collabora-tion for knowledge creation, along with theirpotential contributions and gains.

While each of these collaborators clearlyexperiences a different reality, they all havesomething important to give to the othersand share a common interest, around whichthey may unite, in better understanding theworld of business. If one can satisfy both hisor her own and the others’ needs, it shouldadvance the cause of collaborative research.We explore now what each party wants and

has to give back through interaction. Table 5.2gives a summary of the various needs andstrategies to satisfy the different needs ofeach party.

Alternative Forms ofCollaborative Research

Personal and institutional limits oftenprevent full and complete collaboration. Wepreviously have noted that academics arelimited by university reward systems andjournal requirements. Consultants are con-strained by the client situation and pressurefor immediate results, and practitioners bytheir involvement in a complex and demand-ing reality. So it helps to keep in mind aset of alternative approaches and sometimesmore modest arrangements for achievingcollaboration.


(Repeat) business

Consultant Academic

Practitioner

Access to clients

Learning opportunities

Scientificpublications

andreputation

Collaborativesearch for

understanding

New ideas,understanding,and inspiration

Successfulaction

Problems andexperience

Economicprosperity and

businessreputation

Rich researchdata

Methodologicalexpertise and

theoreticalknowledge

Experience of businessproblems and the

helping relationship

Figure 5.1 Profiles of Three Potential Collaborators

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 103


What the academic needs from the practitioner:

• Access to rich (real-world, dynamic) data • Time with practitioners to review and

validate the data (inductive + deductive)

What the practitioner needs fromthe academic:

• Collaboration must be relevant to theissues facing the practitioner

• Approach and methods must be made clearto the practitioner

What the academic needs fromthe consultant:

• Invitation to participate in a researchproject

• Access to consultant and client data

What the consultant needs fromthe academic:

• Provide rigor to the datacollection/methods

• Write up or extend findings/insights from aportfolio of consulting projects

What the consultant needs from thepractitioner:

• Project with revenue• Interesting problem • Willingness to cooperate

What the practitioner needs from theconsultant:

• Insights into the problem at hand• Inclusion in the project• Specific recommendations leading to

positive results

What the academic can do to furthercollaboration:

• Involve the practitioner in designingresearch questions to ensure a relevantresult

• Respect the confidentiality and timeconstraints of the practitioner

What the practitioner can do to furthercollaboration:

• Willingness to consider a long-termrelationship with the academic, especiallywhere problems are systemic or couldbenefit from the broader perspective thatthe academic has

What the academic can do to furthercollaboration:

• Help with research on the client’s problem• Engage in joint publications that are

intended for a practitioner audience (andnot solely an academic one)

• Follow the consultant’s lead and respecthis or her sensitivities

What the consultant can do to furthercollaboration:

• Invite the academic to work on a project• Provide data from consultant files and the

client• Be open to academic topics and research

methods

What the consultant can do to furthercollaboration:

• Include the practitioner on consultant team• Seek mutual agreement on problem

definition and recommendations

What the practitioner can do to furthercollaboration:

• Participate on consultant team andprovide guidance

• Provide sensitive data to the consultant• Arrange for frequent feedback from the

consultant

The Academic and the Practitioner

The Academic and the Consultant

The Consultant and the Practitioner

Table 5.2 Needs and Strategies for Collaboration

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 104

Central to making collaboration of anykind happen is the practitioner-manager, whocontrols access and is concerned about solvinga problem. Nothing will happen unless he orshe is willing to invite academics and consul-tants into the setting. Many practitioners areskeptical about consultants who have a partlydeserved reputation for high fees and question-able value. Managers are also likely to be skep-tical of academics, whom they are inclined toperceive as wasting their time by asking theo-retical questions and requesting certain kindsof data not easily available. This skepticism hasto be overcome by helping practitioners to seethe potential benefits of collaboration in termsof new ideas, new ways of understanding thesituation, and inspiration to act.

For a research project to be perceived asrelevant by managers, collaboration must pos-sess a number of characteristics, several ofwhich are often overlooked by academics,though rarely by consultants. First, any col-laborative attempt needs to be perceived asaddressing the reality of the issues facingthe manager-practitioner. Van de Ven andJohnson (2006) advise us to focus on the “bigquestions” that “have no easy answers andseldom provide immediate payoffs to practi-tioners or academics” (p. 810). Second, theapproach and methods of the collaborationmust be understandable and workable fromthe manager’s point of view. Third, the col-laboration must add to the manager’s knowl-edge base, that is, question or confirm some ofthe manager’s “taken for granted” assump-tions (Weick, 1979). This may be achieved by formulating different versions of the prob-lem and examining them from different perspectives (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006).Mohrman, Gibson, and Mohrman (2001)note that practitioners are more inclined toview the results of research as useful whenthey are involved in discussing and interpret-ing the findings. Taken together, researchersand consultants alike must demonstrate to thepractitioner that their efforts can yield greaterinsight and more successful action.

For the needs of the consultant, who ulti-mately struggles for economic prosperityand business reputation, the practitioner canoffer the revenue from a sale, a problem to besolved, and a willingness to cooperate in astudy. From this collaborative process, theconsulting firm can add to its revenue and itsknowledge base—and, if the client is satisfied,to its reputation. The consultant may bring toboth practitioner-managers and academicresearch a rich experience of business problemsand knowledge and skills of how to realize thehelping relationship. Consultants are generallyhighly skilled in how to interact with theirclients in order to create perceptions of value(Clark & Salaman, 1996).

As for the academics, who are driven bya quest for scientific publication and con-sequential reputation, the practitioner canopen the door to the “real world,” whichincludes rich data from observations andinterviews about the dynamics of eventsthat are taking place. This may providematerial with good publishing potential.The academic might be easily satisfied bysimply gaining access to an organizationwith its data. However, to get even closerto the phenomena in ways that earn trustfrom the manager, the academic mustbecome more involved; he or she has to bewilling to listen and to give and receivefeedback in a spirit of reflective learning.Research projects should be designed ascollaborative learning communities inwhich the diverse knowledge of practition-ers and academics, possibly from differentdisciplines, may interact to form an under-standing of the problem (Van de Ven &Johnson, 2006). This exchange requiresacademics to use terminology that resem-bles the practitioner’s lexicon in helping tosolve a client’s problem. The academic willnot gain much cooperation if he or she isperceived as lacking respect for the practi-tioner. Instead, academics can add value toknowledge creation with their method-ological skills as well as their knowledge


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 105

from research findings in areas of concernto the practitioner.

Academics can further collaborate inresearch with the consultant without evenhaving to become involved with managers.They can incorporate their research questionsinto a data-gathering process that is being con-ducted by a consultant for a client. Further,although the fact is often unrecognized by academics, consultants possess a reservoir ofuntapped knowledge about management,which because of their project demands theydon’t find much time to write up and publish.Academics can therefore work with consul-tants to draw out their knowledge and jointlypublish it, potentially adding to the reputationof both the consultant and the academic. Theycan also ask consultants to suggest research-able problems and solicit their feedback andalternative explanations to those they haveproposed in journal drafts they are preparingfor scientific publication.

A more complete form of collaborationinvolving all knowledge producers is advo-cated by Schein (1987, 2001, 2004) with amodel he calls “clinical research/processconsultation.” According to Schein, manage-ment knowledge cannot be produced formanagers; rather, it needs to be producedwith them. In this truly collaborative model,the elements of knowledge production,research, consulting, and practice are inte-grated into a joint effort to better understandand deal with issues of concern to all parties.The nexus of this relationship is a practi-tioner’s problem and the consultant’s andresearcher’s genuine willingness to help thepractitioner understand and solve the prob-lem (see also Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006).

Paramount to Schein’s mode of full collab-oration is a genuine search by all parties formutual understanding about what is “really”going on in the situation; this objective is inline with the basic academic value of searchingfor truth, with the consultants’ striving to earnreputation by demonstrating true commit-ment to solving the client’s problem, and with

the practitioners’ search for more successfulaction. However, unlike in positivistic aca-demic research, practitioners (consultants andmanagers) become involved in the process asboth providers and interpreters of data. Datain this process comes voluntarily as all partic-ipants gain by revealing more about them-selves as they seek to understand their reality.Even though academic involvement in theresearch site violates the values of “objective”research, we all remember Lewin’s famousaxiom that by trying to change a system onelearns more about it. This knowledge is pro-duced from richer and deeper data than is typ-ically available in surface statistical data (seealso Schein, 1987, for a more thorough dis-cussion of the “quality” of knowledge pro-duced through a clinical approach). Anotherscholar, Donald Schön (1983), calls this pro-cess “reflection in action,” which emphasizesopenness, spirit of inquiry, and authenticity ofcommunication. Client anxieties related torevealing more about themselves are over-come by establishing an open and trustfulrelationship. Van de Ven and Johnson (2006),in their discussion of collaboration betweenresearchers and practitioners, further empha-size the potential of having actors with differ-ent perspectives look into the same problem inthe collaborative research process. This mayrequire collaboration not only between aca-demics, practitioners, and consultants but alsobetween academics from different disciplines.Such a process may create conflict, but this islikely a prerequisite for more productive inquiry.

To conclude, there are multiple advantagesfor academics to engage in high levels of col-laboration, including the identification ofresearch questions, access to organizations,and availability of a test site to interpret find-ings (Amabile et al., 2001). Prior researchsuggests that academics who spend more timein organizations report greater personallearning and a higher frequency of citationsfor their publications (Rynes, McNatt, &Bretz, 1999). They also find that academics’involvement in organizations increases the


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 106

likelihood that their findings will be imple-mented by manager- practitioners. The aca-demics’ theoretical and methodological skillsbecome valuable by ensuring the quality ofmanagement knowledge produced, althoughthe quantitatively oriented managementresearcher may need to add some qualitativetools (see also Schein, 2001, 2004). Clinicalresearchers can still engage in surveys, performinterviews, or act as participant-observers. Thedifference from mainstream research is that“total collaboration” is accomplished with afocus on a problem defined by the practitionerand with a mindset to help the client deal withthat problem.

EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATION:ACTING AS BOTH CONSULTANTAND ACADEMIC

The overarching implication of this chapteris for academics and consultants to reevalu-ate their roles and identities as participantsin the research process. So far we have dis-cussed each party as if they are separatepeople, which is usually the case. But there isevidence that the two roles can be integratedwithin a single person and that such a com-bination may be a powerful enabler of acollaborative knowledge creation process.Many well-known management scholarshave produced some of their most influentialfindings through acting at the same time asboth consultant and researcher; examplesinclude Chris Argyris, Michael Beer, WarnerBurke, Thomas Cummings, Edward Lawler,Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch, Henry Mintzberg,Susan Mohrman, David Nadler, JeffreyPfeffer, Michael Porter, Robert Quinn, EdgarSchein, Noel Tichy, and Dave Ulrich in theUnited States and Andrew Pettigrew,Richard Normann, and Eric Rhenman inEurope. We have asked three of these—Edgar Schein, Chris Argyris, and EdwardLawler—all highly regarded in academic andconsulting circles, to provide personal

examples of how they have used the com-bined role to create collaborative processestoward creating new knowledge. While theirexperiences are different, they all take advan-tage of gaining access to field situations, andthey use collaboration to create not only localsolutions but also broader knowledge.

LIVING WITH LIMITS ANDBRIDGING TENSIONS

The above comments by three successfulresearcher-consultants illustrate the potentialfor collaboration in producing new knowl-edge. They illustrate that collaboration maysimultaneously contribute to the creation ofmore valid and more useful managementknowledge. The cases illustrate how collabo-ration with practice may alert academics tonew and important research areas (such asHR business process outsourcing), and how itcreates a more complex (but probably alsomore valid) understanding of organizationalphenomena. Both in the case of Exult and HRBPO and in the case of the bank and its resis-tance to technological innovation, a complexset of systemic and cultural factors, such asskills, role perceptions, occupational identity,and assumptions of authority and careerdevelopment, were found to interact in creat-ing barriers to change. These factors, and theirinteraction, were identified based on a thor-ough and longitudinal engagement with theresearch sites and would have been difficult toidentify through a more distanced researchapproach. As illustrated in the story told byEdgar Schein, other kinds of explanations,covering up the underlying cause, would havebeen readily available to a more distancedresearcher. Furthermore, the collaborativeprocess gave researchers such as Chris Argyristhe opportunity to test and refine research-based tools and techniques to help consultantsin Monitor become more efficient, both inter-nally, as a learning organization, and exter-nally, in providing value to their clients.


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 107

EExxaammppllee 11EEddwwaarrdd EE.. LLaawwlleerr IIIIII——

UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg BBuussiinneessssPPrroocceessss OOuuttssoouurrcciinngg iinn HHRR

When the Exult Corporation was founded in 1998, therewere no companies focused on human resources businessprocess outsourcing (HR BPO). HR then, as it is now, was fre-quently criticized for its failure to become a strategic partnerwith line management, and for being mired in administrivia.Exult saw an opportunity to change this situation and builta business model based on their taking over the adminis-trative parts of the HR function for major corporations.

I heard about Exult in 2000 from a number of HRexecutives who were intrigued by their business model.I made contact with them and was invited to join theiradvisory board. It was a distinguished group, includingDave Ulrich and Jac Fitz-enz.

At the time I joined the board, I had already done anumber of studies on the role of the HR function in U.S.corporations. These studies consistently showed that HRwas not transforming itself from an administrativefunction to a strategic function.1 The Exult approachappeared to me to offer an opportunity to reposition theHR function in major corporations as a high value-addedstrategic partner. My initial role with Exult was to meetwith clients, consult with Exult on the design of their HRsystems, and give talks about HR outsourcing.

As I learned more about HR BPO, it became apparentto me that there was an opportunity to do a research studythat evaluated the effect of utilizing HR BPO in major cor-porations. After some discussions with me, Jim Madden,the president of Exult, was eager to support a research pro-ject. Discussions with Dave Ulrich and Jac Fitz-enz led toan agreement that the four of us would do research andwrite a book on the impact of Exult’s HR BPO system infour of their major corporations: BP, Prudential, Inter-national Paper, and Bank of America. We got a financialgrant from Exult to fund our work and hired a case writerto do in-depth reports on each of the four cases. In addi-tion, I used the Center for Effective Organizations at theUniversity of Southern California to collect survey datafrom HR executives in each of the four companies.

We were able to collect enough change data to justifypublishing a research-based book on business processoutsourcing.2 It was the first book to focus on the impactof HR BPO and to make a significant contribution to ourunderstanding of its impact on the HR function.

There is no doubt in my mind that if I hadn’t had aconsulting relationship with Exult, the opportunity to dothis piece of research would never have appeared. Theconsulting relationship helped build trust with the man-agement of Exult and made them more receptive to ourneeds for financial support in order to do the research.

On the personal side, I learned a great deal aboutHR BPO from my consulting work with Exult thatgreatly enriched the book. There were a number ofunexpected findings that I most likely would not haveidentified if I had not had a good working relationshipwith Exult. Just to mention one, we found a type of co-dependency between HR managers and line manage-ment in the companies we studied. Both decried thetraditional relationship between HR and the line asmired in administrative trivia and, at times, even con-flict, but when freed of this, both parties were unableto abandon the old. In many cases, they simply did nothave the skills or the concepts needed to redefine theirrelationship to one where HR was more of a strategicsupport function for the line.

EExxaammppllee 22::CChhrriiss AArrggyyrriiss——UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinnggtthhee LLeeaarrnniinngg OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonn33

About two decades ago, the top board members of theMonitor Group, a consulting firm, invited me to assist themin becoming a first-class learning organization. I asked,and they agreed that we should begin with the board.

The major research procedures that were used wereobserving and tape-recording their meetings. We were ableto map the board members’ interactions to show how theyinhibited the kind of double-loop learning they sought.

We also used this knowledge to create an intervention,at the top, to strengthen their productive interactions aswell as to create new ones. As the success of this interven-tion was documented (through the tape recordings andobservations), it was used throughout the company, begin-ning with the immediate reports to the board members.The intervention, changed through our learning, continuesto be used in the hiring and training procedures.

A second result was the development of diagnosticand change instruments and procedures that would beoffered to clients. I believe that it is fair to say that theseprocedures created a quality of services that benefitedthe effective implementation of the recommendations inthe client organization.

I believe that the foundation of my two decades withthe firm as well as the continued deepening and expan-sion of our relationship after I became less active wasdue to the fact that the research was based upon amodel of consulting. This made it necessarily acceptablefor Monitor to continually confront us on the advice thatthey were receiving. It also made it possible for us tomake demands to collect data (e.g., through tape record-ings) and to design interventions that, in additionto helping them, could be used to test out theories ofeffective action and learning.


�

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 108

EExxaammppllee 33::EEddggaarr SScchheeiinn44—DDeecciipphheerriinngg

aa FFaaiilluurree ttoo IImmpplleemmeenntt aaNNeeww TTeecchhnnoollooggyy

For several years, I was a process consultant to a seniormanager in a bank operations department, helping himwith a variety of projects. One of his main goals wasto introduce an effective new information technologysystem for handling various financial transactions.Several years had already been spent on developing thetechnology, and contract research had been done todetermine the feasibility of introducing the technologyto the clerical workforce. The essence of the new tech-nology was to have fewer clerks handling many moretasks rather than having specialists for each task.

As the new technology was being installed, it becameevident that many fewer clerks would be needed, and itwas then discovered that the bank had an unbreakablenorm that nobody would be laid off. Everyone was to beretrained and given other jobs in the bank. At the sametime, it was discovered that my client would not be ableto relocate or retrain the many persons who would be dis-placed by the new technology because either the retrain-ing would not suit given clerks or there were no alternatejobs available. The existence of the “no-layoffs” norm waswell known, but no one had any idea of how powerfullyheld it was until the technological change was attempted.No one realized how overstaffed all the other depart-ments of the bank were. The new technology was at thispoint abandoned as impractical.

In the traditional research model the existence of thisnorm would be a sufficient “explanation” of the observedphenomenon that a potentially useful technology failed tobe adopted. But what I learned as a consultant to the headof this unit “deepens” our understanding considerably. Oncewe discovered that the no-layoffs norm was operating, Ibegan inquiries about the source of the norm and learnedthat it was strongly associated with my client’s boss. He hadbeen in his job for a long time, and for him “no layoffs” wasa central management principle that he had made into asacred cow. I had assumed from prior knowledge of socialpsychology that norms are upheld primarily by groupmembers themselves. I found, instead, that in this situationit was the boss’s fanaticism that was really the driving force,an insight that was confirmed three years later when heretired. All the attitudes about layoffs changed rapidly, thedepartment was now ready to lay off people, but, surpris-ingly, the new technology was still not introduced. My previ-ous two explanations had both been wrong.

It should also be noted that, as a traditionalresearcher, I would not have been allowed to hangaround for so long, so I would not even have discoveredthat the constraint on the new technology was somethingother than the no-layoffs norm and the presence of its

powerful originator. To explain further what was happen-ing, I had to draw on some other knowledge I had gainedas a member of the design team for the initial change. Iremembered that the group had had great difficulty invisualizing what the role of the new operator of such acomputer program would be and especially what the roleof that person’s boss would be. The group could not visu-alize the career path of such an operator and could notimagine a kind of professional organization where suchoperators would be essentially on their own. I asked anumber of people about the new technology and con-firmed that people did not see how it could work, giventhe kinds of people who were hired into the bank andgiven the whole career and authority structure of thebank. Low-level clerk specialists were easy to manage andtheir careers were well understood. Superclerks of the kindthat would be created by this technology would have tobe better educated, would want more pay, and would beautonomous operators operating essentially from a prin-ciple of “self-control” instead of managerial control.

So what was really in the way of introducing the newtechnology was not only the norm of no layoffs, but somedeeper conceptual problems with the entire sociotechni-cal system, specifically an inability to visualize a less hier-archical system in which bosses might play more of aconsultant role to highly paid professional operators who,like airline pilots, might spend their whole career in someversion of this new role. In fact, the no-layoffs norm mighthave been a convenient rationalization to avoid having tochange deeper cultural assumptions about the nature ofwork and hierarchy in this bank.

What the clinical process revealed was that thephenomenon was “overdetermined,” multiply caused, anddeeply embedded in a set of cultural assumptions aboutwork, authority, and career development. We were dealingwith a complex system of forces, and once this system wasunderstood as a system, it became obvious why the bankdid not introduce the new technology. Attributing it to theboss with his norm of no layoffs would have been a mis-diagnosis even though all the surface data indicated thatthis was a sufficient explanation.

The clinical process also revealed the interaction offorces across hierarchical boundaries, the operation ofpower and authority, the role of perceptual defenses, thelinkages of forces across various other organizationalboundaries, and the changing nature of those forces as thesituation changed. Human systems are complex forcefields, and many of the active forces are psychologicaldefenses and cultural assumptions that will not revealthemselves easily to uninvolved observers, surveyors, testers,or experimenters. It is too much to ask of the traditionalresearch process to reveal this level of dynamics, yet with-out understanding organizations at this level, how can wepossibly make any sense of what we observe around us?5


�

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 109

The cases also illustrate what practitionersand consultants may have to gain from adeeper collaboration with academics. In allcases, the actions by the researchers wereinformed by academic thinking and method-ology, pushing practitioners to search forsolutions to their problems beyond the obvi-ous. In the cases of both Exult and the bank,the collaborative process created an under-standing of the causes of observed problems,which went beyond what the organizationsthemselves would have been able to achieveon their own. In the case of Monitor, theresearch-based interventions by Chris Argyrisdirectly helped the organization become moreefficient, internally as well as externally.

Finally, the cases illustrate some of theenabling factors of successful collaboration.In all three cases, the academic researcher’sprimary goal is to be helpful to the manager-practitioner and the organization. In the caseof Exult, it was about helping to design andsell the product; in the case of Monitor, tocreate a learning organization and moreeffective procedures for creating client value;and in the case of the bank, to help seniormanagement with the implementation of anew IT system. This initial focus on beinghelpful created trust between academics andthe organization, which opened up an oppor-tunity for the academics to address more oftheir research agenda—and gain both accessand financing for pursuing it.

While the above cases illustrate successfulexamples of knowledge development in col-laboration, achieving this is not always easy.Both the amount of time needed to realizesuch collaboration and the focus on a singleor a few organizations may be importantbarriers. Research universities and “A” jour-nals today are unlikely to accept articlesbased on exclusive use of such a researchmodel, unless the sample of firms is largerand the patterns in findings across themappears profound. Nor are skeptical consult-ing firms and practitioners likely to open

their doors wide to academics for conductingextensive collaboration. Interestingly, theauthors above are all senior professors whohave attained tenure and successful reputa-tions, which allows them to take risks byengaging in collaboration.

Still, some modest movement toward pro-moting collaboration can be made, thoughit takes political will and a sense of personalsecurity. On the institutional front, editors of top-rated journals can insist on acceptingonly studies that support and interpret thedynamics behind the reported statistics, whichwould likely cause more field researchinvolving collaboration. These editors couldalso ask for more articles that evaluate inter-ventions by management or consultants,using methodologies like field experiments.They should require a section at the end ofeach article that discusses and speculatesabout the practical implications of an arti-cle’s findings—presently, only passing andrather superficial references are made towhat managers might do with the findings.In addition, the reward and promotionsystems of universities could be adjustedslightly to elevate the status of books withtheoretical significance, as well as accordingarticles in highly regarded publications suchas Harvard Business Review (HBR) the samestatus as articles in “A” journals. The accep-tance ratio for HBR is likely more rigorousthan for most “A”-level journals. Businessschools can also act to remove “faculty con-sulting” from their “dirty word” list, makingthese schools more congruent with the warmwelcome they typically extend to consultingfirms during recruiting season.

As for consulting firms and their consul-tants, they can reach out to receptive aca-demics to encourage books and articles to bewritten jointly with them. They might alsoinvite academics to serve in residence duringsabbaticals while performing research on thefirm’s knowledge system. They could askacademics to join them as part-time research


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 110

advisers to their projects on relevant methodsand theory, as was illustrated by the role ofChris Argyris in relation to Monitor above.They could further evaluate a project’s results,since consultants rarely ask for an assessmentof their work. In reaching out to clients, as inaction research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001),consultants can include client members onthe consulting team to conduct interviewsand provide and interpret data. They canalso give lectures of practical significance andorganize retreats with intensive discussionand problem solving.

Even these minor changes are likely tothreaten the status quo now producing resis-tance, so consultants and academics willneed to make up their own minds about howfar they are willing to proceed. No doubtsome small steps are possible for many ofus, which can lead to major results. Forexample, one of the authors of this chapter,Larry Greiner, had an MBA student, whobecame a consultant and then a CEO, whoinvited him in to help in a collaborative wayto solve some strategic problems. Greinerand his colleague Arvind Bhambri keptdetailed notes on what happened, leadingeventually to an academic paper that wonthe McKinsey prize at an SMS (StrategicManagement Society) conference, and to apublication in Strategic Management Journal(Greiner & Bhambri, 1989). Another exampleis provided by the other author of this chap-ter, Andreas Werr, who was involved throughan executive Ph.D. student in an insider/outsider action research project (Bartunek &Louis, 1996) in the student’s organization.While helping the organization deal with theissue at hand, the project also resulted in sev-eral academic papers, one of which was even-tually published in MIT Sloan ManagementReview (Sandberg & Werr, 2003). Othersmall steps for academics to take includeoccasional uses of collaboration with consul-tant friends to explore what’s behind sta-tistical findings. Also, going out to write a

teaching case can lead indirectly to inter-esting research ideas for follow-up. Acade-mics might also initiate a larger study of“consultant knowledge” about management,industries, and implementation, since con-sultant experiences are much closer to thesephenomena.

In all these efforts at collaboration, theinvolved parties will likely encounter andconfront tensions that are not easily resolved.Everyone will have to find his or her own res-olutions. Academics and consultants who fallat the extreme ends of these tensions mightoccasionally consider moving more towardthe middle, which would be beneficial forboth research quality and knowledge cre-ation. Some of the major tensions facing thesevarious producers of management knowledgeare presented in Figure 5.2.

Involvement Versus Distance. At one extremeis the academic value of assuring objectivitythrough distance from the subject being stud-ied. In order to gain “true” knowledge, thesystem must be studied “unobtrusively” (as ifthe act of studying has no effect) so as not toinfluence its “real” workings. For resolution,academics need to recognize that involvementmay be not only unavoidable but also a sourceof important questions (Van de Ven &Johnson, 2006) and rich data (Schein, 2001,2004). At the other extreme, consultants arenot always conscious of how their involvementand desire to please the client can bias theirobjectivity. To overcome this problem, consul-tants can invite academics to advise them onresearch methods, such as triangulating inter-views with numerical data. Weick (1979)argues for diversity in research approaches andperspectives to match the diversity and com-plexity in the phenomena being studied (seealso Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006).

Academic Versus Practical Relevance.Academic reputation is currently derivedfrom contributions to intellectual discourse


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 111

rather than to practice. Academics purposelyavoid normative conclusions in theirresearch, which makes it hard for them to beperceived as relevant to practitioners.Ironically, academics teaching cases in theclassroom typically ask students for their“action plans” and are not reluctant to givetheir own remedies to problems. This sug-gests that academics are not immune to aninterest in practical consequences. So, ifinterested, academics might approach con-sultants to indicate their willingness to workwith them in framing research projects todeal with both practical and theoreticalproblems simultaneously. On the other hand,consultants can improve their analyses ofclient problems by gaining additional insightfrom academics drawing on the latestresearch.

Openness Versus Confidentiality. Practitionersunderstandably want to protect information,either positive or negative, from leaking outwithin the firm or to the public. This causesproblems for both academics and consultantswho may be interested in publishing researchbased on client data. Academics must respectthe confidentiality concerns of both consul-tants and practitioners. This responsibility canbe dealt with by aggregating data over severalcases while making the sources anonymous.

Generalization Versus In Situ Studies.Universality is a strong value in the academiccommunity that causes academics to shyaway from generating deep knowledge from asingle case. However, several cases can becompared in order to identify patterns thatyield more generalizable insights (Eisenhardt,


PractitionerConsultant

Academic

Scientificpublications

and reputation

Collaborativesearch for

understanding

Economicprosperity and

businessreputation

Academic vs.practical relevance

Distance vs.involvement

Successfulaction

Openness vs.confidentiality

Generalization vs.in situ studies

Figure 5.2 Tensions Challenging the Collaborative Search for Understanding

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 112

1989). Single cases can be used to refine the-ories and conceptual models. Turning to con-sultants, they too have a mutual interest indiscovering generalizable knowledge, such as“best practices,” which they can brand, pub-lish, and use in other engagements. Both par-ties should be open to the opportunity forjoint publication.

MOVING AHEAD

As we have seen, collaborative research mayinvolve three distinct professions—academia,consultation, and management—all operat-ing from different thought worlds (see alsoAmabile et al., 2001). We have argued forthe potential benefits of knowledge creationthrough collaboration across these worldswhile working singly or in pairs or triads.However, as we have observed, there areserious institutional obstacles to making col-laborative research happen. Recognizingthese limits, individuals must decide how farthey personally wish to go. As one venturesforward, it is important to realize that col-laboration involves additional responsibili-ties such as understanding the other party’sframe of reference in searching for a “win-win” outcome.

It is an advantage that all the knowledgeproducers are united by their common focuson knowing better the managerial world,which still remains a combination of scienceand art. For practitioner-managers, individ-ual success is linked to their organization’sgrowth and success (Whitley, 1989). Theyare judged by the results they produce,which, it is hoped, will stimulate a search forbetter understanding of the messy realitybeing faced. The problems encountered bypractitioners become the motor and enablerfor collaborative research. In addition, aca-demics and consultants must carefully selectamong practitioners for those who have akeen appreciation for the importance of

research, and who enjoy working with andlearning from people different from them-selves (Amabile et al., 2001). The kinds ofprocesses we have discussed above bringtogether different perspectives and thus makeconflict an unavoidable but potentially reward-ing part of the inquiry process (Van de Ven& Johnson, 2006).

The consultant’s world is dominated byan overall need to secure an inflow of newassignments, which means keeping clientssatisfied while building the firm’s reputationand brand image in the business world. Intheir relationships with clients, consultantsderive knowledge from their experience withnumerous cases, which is sometimes formal-ized into books, tools, and methodologies.They hope for satisfied clients who will pur-chase their services again and refer them tonew clients. However, not all attempts atcollaboration by consultants live up to being“helpful” because the pressure to sellbecomes a barrier to achieving a truly helpfulrelationship (Schaffer, 2000; Schein, 1988,1999). Consultants who engage in a collabo-rative relationship will have to give up someof their need for control and make them-selves more open and vulnerable to influencefrom academics and manager-practitioners.Engaging in collaborative processes withacademics can also help consultants to vali-date their models and experience, allowingthem to improve their concepts and methods(Suddaby & Greenwood, 2001). Bothacademics and consultants are likely to gainthrough joint publications, a commonlyshared goal that enhances both their reputa-tions (Davenport & Prusak, 2005).

This nexus and spirit of helpfulness andrisk taking in bringing together academics,practitioners, and consultants in collabora-tive research relationships promises, webelieve, to open up new opportunities forfurther learning and the production of valu-able and useful knowledge that will benefitall involved.


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 113

NOTES

1. Lawler, Boudreau, and Mohrman (2006).2. Lawler, Ulrich, Fitz-enz, and Madden (2004).3. Argyris (1993, 2004) and Edmonson and Moigeon (1996).4. Schein (1999, 2001).5. See also Schein (2003) for another illustration of how one extensive longitu-

dinal case study may produce genuine new theory.


REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejectionof innovations. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 586–612.

Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and thestruggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997–1015.

Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., &Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in managementresearch: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 418–431.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action per-

spective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Bartunek, J. M., & Louis, M. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (Eds.). (1970). The planning of change.

London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Blau, P. (1963). Dynamics of bureaucracy (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting

things done. London: Random House Business Books.Clark, T. (1995). Managing consultants. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1996). Telling tales: Management consultancy as the art

of story telling. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations(pp. 167–184). London: Sage.

Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1998). Creating the “right” impression: Towards a dra-maturgy of management consultancy. Services Industries Journal, 18(1), 18–38.

Clegg, S. R., & Palmer, G. (1996). Introduction: Producing management knowl-edge. In S. R. Clegg & G. Palmer (Eds.), The politics of management knowl-edge (pp. 1–18). London: Sage.

Czarniawska, B. (2001). Is it possible to be a constructionist consultant?Management Learning, 32(2), 253–266.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2005). Knowledge management in consulting. InL. Greiner & F. Poulfelt (Eds.), The contemporary consultant (pp. 305–326).Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Drucker, P. (1955). The practice of management. London: Heinemann.

05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 114

Edmonson, A., & Moigeon, B. (1996). When to learn how and when to learn why.In B. Moigeon & A. Edmonson (Eds.), Organizational learning and competi-tive advantage (pp. 17–37). London: Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy ofManagement Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Engwall, L., Furusten, S., & Wallerstedt, E. (2002). The changing relationship betweenmanagement consulting and academia: Evidence from Sweden. In M. Kipping &L. Engwall (Eds.), Management consulting: Emergence and dynamics of a knowl-edge industry (pp. 167–183). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fayol, H. (1917). Administration industrielle et générale. Paris: Dunot et Pinat.Fosstenlökken, S. M., Löwendahl, B. R., & Revang, Ö. (2003). Knowledge devel-

opment through client interaction: A comparative study. Organization Studies,24(6), 859–879.

Furusten, S. (1995). The managerial discourse: A study of the creation and diffusionof popular management knowledge. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of BusinessStudies, Uppsala University.

Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The affluent society. London: Hamish Hamilton.Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York:

Columbia University Press.Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Greiner, L., & Bhambri, A. (1989). New CEO intervention and dynamics of delib-

erate strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 10(Summer), 67–86.Greiner, L., & Malernee, J. K. (2005). Managing growth stages in consulting firms.

In L. Greiner & F. Poulfelt (Eds.), The contemporary consultant (pp. 271–291).Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Greiner, L., & Poulfelt, F. (Eds.). (2005). The contemporary consultant. Mason,OH: Thomson South-Western.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifestofor business revolution. New York: HarperCollins.

Hatchuel, A. (2001). The two pillars of new management research. British Journalof Management, 12(Suppl.1), S33–S40.

Homans, G. C. (1951). The human group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Huczynski, A. (1993). Management gurus. London: Routledge.Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. (2005). Toward a scholarship of engagement: A dialogue

between Andy Van de Ven and Edward Zlotkowski. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 4(3), 355–362.

Kieser, A. (1998). Unternehmensberater: Händler in problemen, praktiken und sinn.In H. Glaser, E. F. Schröder, & A. v. Werder (Eds.), Organisation im wandelder märkte (pp. 191–226). Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr. Th. Gabler Verlag.

Kieser, A. (2002a). On communication barriers between management science, con-sultancies and business organizations. In T. Clark & R. Fincham (Eds.), Criticalconsulting (pp. 206–227). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Kieser, A. (2002b). Wissenschaft und beratung. Heidelberg, Germany: UniversitätsverlagC. Winter.

Kipping, M. (2002). Trapped in their wave: The evolution of management consul-tancies. In T. Clark & R. Fincham (Eds.), Critical consulting (pp. 21–27).Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.Kubr, M. (2002). Management consulting: A guide to the profession (4th ed.).

Geneva: International Labour Office.


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 115

Lawler, E. E., Boudreau, J. W., & Mohrman, S. A. (2006). Achieving strategicexcellence: An assessment of human resource organizations. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Lawler, E. E., Ulrich, D., Fitz-enz, J., & Madden, J. C. (2004) Human resourcesbusiness process outsourcing: Transforming how HR gets its work done. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawrence, P. L., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing dif-ferentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University.

Maister, D. (1993). Managing the professional service firm. New York: Free Press.Maister, D. (1997). True professionalism. New York: Free Press.Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors: What the manage-

ment gurus are saying, why it matters and how to make sense of it. London:Heinemann.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (2001). Doing research thatis useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 357–376.

Nadler, D., & Nadler, M. B. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and theircompanies are mastering the skills of radical change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nanda, A., & Morrell, K. (2002). McKinsey & Company: An institution at a cross-roads. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

O’Shea, J., & Madigan, C. (1997). Dangerous company. London: Nicholas Brealey.Pasternack, B. A., & Viscio, A. J. (1998). The centerless corporation: A new model

for transforming your organization for growth and prosperity. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons fromAmerica’s best-run companies. New York: Warner Books.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success thanmeets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries andcompetitors. New York: Free Press.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research:Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1934). Management and the worker:Technical vs. social organization in an industrial plant. Boston: Graduate Schoolof Business Administration, Harvard University.

Rynes, S. L., McNatt, B. D., & Bretz, R. D. (1999). Academic research inside organi-zations: Inputs, processes, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 869–899.

Salaman, G. (2002). Understanding advice: Towards a sociology of managementconsultancy. In T. Clark & R. Fincham (Eds.), Critical consulting: New per-spectives on the management advice industry (pp. 347–360). Oxford, UK:Blackwell.

Sandberg, R., & Werr, A. (2003). The three challenges of corporate consulting. MITSloan Management Review, 44(3), 59–66.

Schaffer, R. H. (2000). Rapid-cycle successes versus the Titanics: Ensuring that con-sulting produces benefits. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code ofchange (pp. 361–380). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 116

Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Schein, E. H. (2001). Clinical inquiry/research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),

Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 228–237).London: Sage.

Schein, E. H. (2003). DEC is dead, long live DEC: The lasting legacy of DigitalEquipment Corporation. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Slywotzky, A. J. (2002). The art of profitability. New York: Warner.Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2004). Researching our way to economic decline. In

N. Adler, A. B. (Rami) Shani, & A. Styhre (Eds.), Collaborative research inorganizations: Foundations for learning, change and theoretical development(pp. 23–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stymne, B. (2004). Travelling in the borderland of academy and industry. InN. Adler, A. B. (Rami) Shani, & A. Styhre (Eds.), Collaborative research inorganizations: Foundations for learning, change and theoretical development(pp. 37–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing knowledge: Commodificationas a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. HumanRelations, 54(7), 933–953.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.

Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.Welch, J. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Books.Werr, A. (1999). The language of change: The roles of methods in the work of man-

agement consultants. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics,Stockholm.

Werr, A., & Stjernberg, T. (2003). Exploring management consulting firms asknowledge systems. Organization Studies, 24(6), 881–908.

Whitley, R. (1989). On the nature of managerial tasks and skills: Their distinguishingcharacteristics and organization. Journal of Management Studies, 26(3), 209–224.


05-Shani-45330.qxd 7/23/2007 11:23 AM Page 117

collaboration and the production of management knowledge

Documents