Oh, okay, okay. All right. What's it called time to research and performance activity we're called scientists in reality however, they were builders who constructed edifices. Called explanations or laws when assembling bricks called facts. The brickmakers became obsessed with the making of bricks were reminded that the ultimate goal was edifices, not bricks that required that if enough bricks were available, the builders would be able to select what was necessary and still continue to construct edifice. And so what happened that the land became flooded with breaks, it became necessary to organize more and more storage places called journals and more and more elaborate systems of bookkeeping to record the inventory. It became difficult to find proper breaks for a task this one had to hunt among so many, it became difficult to find a suitable plot for construction of an edifice. Because the ground was covered with loose bricks, it became difficult to complete the useful evidence because as soon as the foundations were dishonorable, they were buried under an avalanche of random bricks. And saddest of all sometimes no effort was made to even maintain the distinction between a pile of bricks and a true edifice. I know many of you read this, this is what we started the paper on programmatic theory with but it speaks to a much bigger problem. And it's not just about the production of knowledge. It also relates to the dissemination. For lo and behold, sometime sometimes things take a while to get out. Often spring storms are a waste of time. That was discovered in May 18 2023. That is a 70 year old finding. So clearly something is wrong with the system. I also wanted to show you something funny about power poses some kind of mean make fun of them or whatever. No such thing exists. They are still alive and well on the internet and thought to be credible science, right. All right. And this problem seems to be getting worse. Now, luckily, this is not about us, per se, or maybe not. Luckily, this is actually about medical journals. Because in some places where it's publisher, Paris, and we only count that has given rise to paper mills that produce papers that you can pay for and contaminate our actual knowledge with fake knowledge. Similarly, what is our value? enrollments are dropping. So this is a situation that to me is a crisis that needs to be dealt with and it's not one that is just at the level of any particular thing. So what do I mean by that? Well, look, our field does four things. If we're going to do our job. We have to generate original knowledge that's going to be synthesized into frameworks that are sensible and usable. That's the production side. And that's what we do my little Aom guy, and I just say Aom, because that's my discipline of choice, but I really mean anyone doing any social science. We use those frameworks to educate people about the situations they're going to face so that they know what to do in a particular situation, which is the dissemination side of this. Problem is, we want one thing to do all of it. So we write our A and J, which has the theoretical contribution and the practical applications and makes it advancement and leads to some counterintuitive findings and as the most up to date, novel useful and crazy statistics in it. And of course no one reads it. So we go Darn it. No one read that we better do something else, like give people like little snippets or like other outlets like Harvard Business Review, so our insights for that matter. Right Can you imagine insights distill things down? Of course, we forget that these people also hear these other people on the internet. The blowhards the people who have got a lot to say and I want to back it up and they're listening as well and between who is credible and who is not. It's hard to tell and we go oh, what they're saying seems to be capturing more attention. We better do something. So we make this stuff. Drunk people are better at Creative Problem Solving. By the way, you may read what that is, but it's HBr. Just in case you were wondering. So why would they write something like this? Well, I'm good size, it's scientifically valid. Apparently, if you're drunk, your inhibitions are lowered. And so it means you're more categorically inclusive and more likely to see connections. But what I want to say that's just some executives. I'm not sure I would, right. So meanwhile, a I love this. This is the classic on the folly of rewarding a while hoping for B. Right. Dean's are telling us all to produce more and more and more, which of course, no one reads and we're not solving that problem. And as we're producing more and more and more, we're producing newer and newer and newer, which leads to this. Very few studies replicated. These are studies published in Science and Nature by the way. And when they do replicate their effect size is 50% of what was there before. You'll notice that these are all connected problems, right? What is being demanded here, here and here is being influenced by this and also relating to that. So we are going to need something that is more systemic to fix it. And the problem I'm going to tell you starts Oh yeah, by the way it makes us unhappy because most of us don't, don't didn't get into this field. For fun, we got into it to actually make things better. Alright, so the problem is, I think we have the wrong idea about our profession. We have the marketplace for ideas, right? Come on in the Home Depot of management, and you can get a tool and use that tool to do stuff and build stuff. Now look. Markets are alright. In certain conditions, right. And Home Depot has a lot of useful tools, but there's a lot what I'm going to tell you is it there's a lot about the market that can't be fixed, because markets don't build substantive things. Organization stuff that was wrong. Kosis Nobel Prize winning insight. So this is going to require changing our perspective, right? Meaning that right now we sort of do single loop learning, we say, Hey, we got to realize you got to stop focusing on bricks or do something with the bricks because no one's mind, and maybe we should focus on the edifice. But that raises the question what makes an edifice what isn't it? It's who uses it? Why don't we have it? This is an artifice for us scientists. Is it for the people who are going to inhabit it. Alright, it's the same. This is why it's a it's a bigger problem. And the other problem is double boring means this parts included. The way our brains work is we see this, we don't see that. That's why perspective change is so hard. So I'm going to talk to you in this give this presentation about how we should change our perspective and what we might do to get this started. This is a very long process. I'll just warn you, right? But first of all, we need to do it because if you think about our profession, a profession is defined by these things. I'm going to thank Amy Hellman for giving me this right it's all theoretical foundation authority connects to a broader community, a code of ethics and a positive culture. And I asked you to reflect for just a second. How are we doing on these things? I am not trying to say we suck. I really right. I'm saying we could be much better. So how are we going to do that? It's going to take something more than the well. You know, let's make our work more interesting and more relevant. We've been saying that a long time. It hasn't worked out so well. And we can say we need to change the incentives. That is true. However, to what right. We need some kind of a model to understand how we should change them. And I can't stress this enough, right? Organization science matters. Right? And I mean, the science part, scientists slow it's careful, it's cumulative, and it's collaborative. It is difficult to do because we are the easiest to fool ourselves and the consumers. Not only are they easy to fall, they have desires about what they want. Right. So there's a huge incentive to give the people what they want, but that is antithetical to what we're trying to do. And as Jim Walsh said, he said, you know, there are three professions that Dawn robes, clergy, judges, and academics. That was his point about the sacred trust that they understand they have and that we should understand as well.
The fact that it's organizational science organizations affect everything in society. Societies run well or poorly based on organizations. People get what they need based on organizations, right? I'm often when I talk about doing our research, I often will hear Yeah, you know, your research is gonna get rejected or whatever, don't get upset, you're not curing cancer. That's a terrible way to think. Because if a cure to cancer is to be found in organization is going to be the thing that finds it in a different organization is going to be the thing that produces it, yet another organization is going to be what distributes it. And yet a fourth organization, probably organizations will be what pays for it. So what we're doing is of the utmost importance, but you know, despite that big thing, you know, I'd like fewer meetings would be nice to figure out how to do that as well. So it's a worthwhile goal, right? And I'm going to talk about how I want to start doing it. Okay, or we should start doing it. So I'm going to start with the wrong model the marketplace for ideas. This is the root of the problem. So before our job is to tell people what it's best to do in a situation. What to do depends on how you think, right? How you think about what the situation you're in is, how you think about the situation depends on what's justified. So if I come in to a performance review with someone who has a difficult employee, what is that? Is that an opportunity for punishment? Is that an opportunity to correct the problem? Is it an opportunity for me to sort of cover make sure my bases are covered to that person gets fired? Right? If you have a abusive supervisor, should that people be punished that person be punished or rehabilitated? It matters to understand what to do in a specific context, which even as you're thinking of these things, there's a lot of particulars that matter at that time. We have to sort of know what what's a useful way to think about this common problem. Right? What do I do when a specific situation depends on what do I know in general, which depends on what seems to be true because of accumulated evidence, which we only know as we are doing new research. That is how knowledge builds upon itself and then of course, as we try stuff we discover new things that comes from this, these four functions, right? So talked about them before, but let's reconsider. The solid theoretical foundation comes when we've done very solid research and put it together into coherent structures of knowledge. authority comes from we've tested this a lot of different ways and under a lot of different conditions and know how it works so we can tell you with authority, what you might be doing. The connection to the broader community comes as we speak our truths to the people who need to use our truths, right. And of course, all of this has to requires a code of ethics and a positive culture in how we treat each other in how we work together and how we treat our students. And a code of ethics in a positive culture isn't everybody's happy all the time? It's more sophisticated than that. Right? So we have to make these things work. And they're interconnected. So when we think about how we do them, now we think about them simplistically, right? On the process side, look, I made some bricks so I made a tool, right? Well, you want a house. Let's think about what it takes to get in there. Right. Like bricks do not assemble themselves. Do you even know what that kind of hammer that is? Anyone know? What is it?
I don't know. It's a claw.
It's a fallen cloth. clawfoot coffin. Yeah, and why? What's it used for? Cracking bricks, right. Brick related good. Guys on both, right. That's not a regular hammer. That's brick cap, right? It's used for that particular purpose. And I can tell you, my wife, the stonemason can use it a lot better than we can. Right. We can buy one but she spent a long time learning how to use it. That's this stuff. Right? How do we tell people given what we know how to do? What do they need? Right? Here's here we are explaining what kind of downside is they want to live in and of course, what do they want to pay for? Do we leave that to a book? Do we leave that to some other person or some other non human entity to teach? Is that the right thing to do? All of these things are connected, and they're even more complicated than we think. So let's pull this apart even more. Right? Think about just generation. There's a bunch of processes underneath that. That are in a cycle, right, inventing things validating disconfirmation. And really, there's a lot of different things that make a house not just bricks, lots of different raw materials. So we got to make an advance. We have to put these together. There's a lot of steps to putting them together. And, you know, again, that's Hay House, but there's many different kinds of things that one could build or live in and know how to learn and Bill. What I'm trying to show you here is each of these functions is a lot of other sub functions that need to be specialized and coordinate. And let's not even get into the other side, right? What kind of house do you need? Do you even know what kind of houses you could have? Given a particular kind of house there are subtypes given particular subtypes? What can you afford? This is a way to expand the analogy to say that when we talk about all the things that our science has to do, specializing in coordinating them is a much much bigger job and not one that we've just leave up to a market. Right? In doing that it also expands what we are what we could possibly make. So he doesn't that is the sphere. Right? In Las Vegas. This is an engineering marvel. That's the inside of it. The outside and the inside that have like they can change to all sorts of things. You see concerts there, everyone can hear. It's really comfortable. This thing is an edifice, right, that took five years and $2.3 billion to build by a whole lot of people who are not them. Right, using research and formula likes snapshots and those law bangers equation for things like the heating and the sound and the light these were ancient, right. They were put together long before they ever got to it. Do we in management have anything like this? I don't think so. Because we expect the market to do it. We expect for the people in the buildings to come in get the tools they need and build whatever they need to with a little help from us. But people are limited in what they can do. They're limited in terms of what they know. Right? So the scholar entrepreneur can do some things. Here's the success story, right? Somebody and I'm going to use an analogy. Like somebody said, group brainstorming go back to that doesn't work so well. Let's figure out why. That was a generation. Eventually they worked and worked and worked and they did figure out why social loafing evaluation, apprehension production blocking, that wasn't something that was done in one study that was done over decades, right of discovering a hole and working through a whole lot of different ideas about why brainstorming didn't work so well. And that allowed people to then think about a teachable, usable skill which is the nominal group technique, which is a way to overcome those things. And you know, then you can build this cool brick wall, right? You can help your groups brainstorm more effectively. All right, that's good. It's successful. But now here's the problem. Is that enough? No, it's not to be creative. You neither it's neither necessary nor sufficient to have group group brainstorming. Right? It's an activity but it's far from enough. Right? You are limited in how much you can do and again, this is a real success story for our for our field. Then there's this problem. The market for lemons. In a market for lemons, you can't tell the good from the bad. Now being where we are. I'm sure you all know that's not the that's the nonlinear that's the one. And much to my delight when I went to this popular blog to see what TED talks should I look at for my team? Amy was number one. I was very excited about that. Unfortunately, I was less than twos. That number is through through 17 where the rest of these people, right, go on the rest of these people you ask? I only know one I have no idea who she is. I know these two people went to Santa Clara is when I gave this there. They both said oh, they went here but then they did not give me more information. I've not heard good things about Patrick Lencioni from my fellow teams researchers. But I'm assuming you know who that is. Simon Sinek. Right. That's chief BS artist right. And most popular because compared to Scott Tenenbaum, a real scientist who's probably done more for teams getting teams research out to the world than anybody. He has a mere 9000 views, whereas Simon Sinek has 700,000 views. Even Kevin Cahill has 79,000 views who's he you ask? I don't know. He's the grandson of the CATO Foundation. In a market for lemons. We sort of expect that people are going to be able to know what's good for them. What's bad. Given that this is the one comment from the people, which is barely literate. I'm thinking we don't that's not a well placed trust. All right. So I also want us to consider the mathematicians beg for everybody's interest. This doctors want everybody to say what they like, why are we the only people with this kind of self esteem problem? I don't know. Well, I do know, but I'll get back to this. Scott said something really useful, right? We're here to guide you in form, not surprise and delight. But more and more that becomes the coin of our realm. You know, attention likes, and the problem is, that's the wrong dimension for us to compete on. So people who do design thinking, say, you should think about a product in terms of useful does its job usable, I can actually apply it and desirable. I want to apply it. Right. Arm advantage is useful. We'll try this so we're pretty sure it'll work. Right? But that's not what we're competing on. When we compete in the market for lemons. We're competing on these two things. Is it easy and do you like the problem is the people who work in the field are probably a lot better at making things sound usable, even if they're not. And the people who are the influencers have really no concern with the truth whatsoever. They just want to tell us what we want to hear. Right? So we are undermining our project products and diminishing the parts are trying to build the parts for a weakness. So let me show you what I mean by that. So this is an actual Academy management insight. A debate over whom to hire encourages team members to focus on information that may be inconsistent with how they formed original opinion. Okay, I'm going to submit to you that this is disinformation. Disinformation, postman said, was not false. It was misleading. It's misplaced irrelevant fragments that are superficial and importantly, it creates the illusion of knowing something, but in fact, leads one away from knowing now why would I say that about this? Well, for those of you who study conflict, you might recognize this, this is actually test component, right. But what we know about test conflict is though it was purported to get people to share more information. It doesn't actually do that. It gets them to dig their heels in and it turns into relationship conflict. And if you know about groups, you know that what people share is not unique information, they share common information. So this finding may sound smart and maybe based in a study, but to actually understand how to use it. You need a lot more knowledge than that. You need a lot more background than that. Otherwise, it in fact leads you away from them. By the way, this is true even with this simple concept. So my colleague, Jeff Lowenstein and his graduate student did this excellent thing where they gave people they talked about
conflict of interest. And they gave people a case where they said there's an ethical issue here. They didn't say anything else, and 120 found the conflict of interest. But when they had people read what a conflict of interest was first, well that needed one and 20 So when they had people instead talk about what a conflict of interest was, well, that made it one in 20. And when they gave people two cases, and they said What's similar here? Well, it was one and 20. Right? What's the lesson here? Understanding something is a lot harder than we imagined it to be. Right? To actually get people to be able to use the mouse is not nearly as simple as we wish at work. So our product needs to not be some mass market thing that we put out into Home Depot people come to us and maybe they watch a video and it's great. And other sciences understand this. Now I keep looking for a management example of a good one a good full cycle. Invention. At least I haven't found it yet. I might I got a lead on one but I'll let you know if I can find it. Meanwhile, I have to use this engineering. So long time ago, they discovered that these things which were weird didn't make sense of what we knew about electricity. And this one is that as metals got hotter, they conducted better as silicones get hotter, they conducted less well, right. They didn't know why that was, but it was a regular font. They were regular people regularities they were to make components out of them that were useful, right components that could take a signal and change it reliably, which eventually after they made it so these components led to these theories that explain those anomalies. And then somebody took these theories put them together into this Alright, do you guys know what that is? Last greatest help. Yes. Thank you. You are the first of the million people that many times I've given this. You're the first person to recognize it. Good for you. That was developed in my hometown and by the way home, though. So what is it the transistor which the very first transistor which of course led to the integrated circuit, which led to entirely new fields of education, right, which of course led to new kinds of problems that needed to be regulated, and an infinite number of other things. Which of these are mass market? The answer is not. Right. Which of these would garner attention? Do you think sharply you know, can you imagine if you were to Santa's shop, or Well, yeah, well, how do we use this now? So what what so what can you tell me? Right? The fact is, by the way, between this and that there's 115 years, so there's no so one here either. And when they said well, I think the so what is it? This is better than a vacuum tube, right? It wasn't well, I mean, jeez, it means it assumes you're not going to know whether your students actually wrote their papers. And they I'm hoping or there might be some other monster machine that always predicts correctly. So we have to get out of this cycle. Right? When we do this, we say no one phase two was, and so we try and make it this is what I mean. We're trying to make it easier. We're trying to make snackable knowledge that's an actual term used by emoticon person. And we tried to make it interesting. We tried to make it noble people read it if it's about, you know, justice in the environment, and cool and counterintuitive, and that gets more peace and tension. But we do that. You get specious practices that get misapplied. Because you don't understand things when it comes in one tiny little nugget. And when people try those, it doesn't work. So the public says why are we paying attention to these people? And we go, man, this whole system's messed up. Right? Okay. So this is the systemic problem that we are in the midst of, and I can already hear you thinking, well, in centers, I go, I gotta do this. I gotta do that. All right. Well, you're right. So we got to start by creating the enterprise now want to call it an enterprise. Again, an enterprise is a difficult undertaking. And it is a problem. That is an enterprise is also an organization. And that's what I'm saying. We need to move from this confederation of scholar entrepreneurs, to an enterprise, a specialized and coordinated enterprise where we're all doing different things in the production value chain. So what does that look like? Well, first, let's be clear, we have to not mislead This is a moral imperative. We should never do this. We should never say this one study says you should do X or maybe not never, almost never under rare circumstances because one finding could be wrong unless it's been replicated and so far they are one finding requires that you know, a lot of other findings to make accurate sense of it and one study the meaning of it may not be the same if you're trying to synthesize the information versus trying to use the information. This is a Hippocratic Oath. This is like look, as Hippocrates says, First do not do not do no harm. We're saying for us to not mislead. That's a good compass. Then we can start to think about how do the products across these four quadrants fit together? How do people working here help people here? How can people here help the people here? Right? Because the products are changing, right? People doing original research have findings? What's true under what conditions right there, the bricks, bricks are important. Absolutely important. You don't build a building without breaks, right? Well, you know, so, but they have to be put together into sensible ways. And that's the knowledge or maybe we could call it expertise. Right? What do we know? Not just about how this thing, you know, I mean, this kind of gets back to what you were saying. It's not just about how a affects B. It's how a affects B amidst all the other forces that are concurrently operating in a context. From that giant mess. We got to figure out what people need to learn, right? Because everything we know is not everything we need to teach. We need to teach people how to think about the problems that they are going to use, and the thinking framework, like what is a negotiation? How should we think about it? It's not the same as what do you do in a particular situation? Right, that's training these things all have to fit together. And we have to think about that. And we also have to think about the people who are making and using them. Users are coming across this whole thing. So these are the end users. The end user wants to use the product for whatever its function is right? So we all have phones. We want to use them to call people use apps, find where we're going. Probably we don't know that 200 patents that are in it, or how they work together. When we built the phone did, those are the enterprise members so we're the people making knowledge and we have a lot of different kinds of jobs and a lot of different kinds of expertise. And the invisible hand is not what is going to coordinate. Right. We also have to pay attention to this person because this person is the one who says what do you guys need? What could you guys have? And those I'm going to tell you are the teachers. So let's talk about order. Let's first map one line of products right? to consumers. And this is where we start to pull apart what are the functions within each part of these quadrants. So again, this is sort of generalization of where I started with the with the theory of theory paper, which talks about adaptive findings, feeding empirical verification if you knew the theory, and then that problematic theory tells us what we might teach what people might do or this is just a part of that system that's embedded within those two quadrants, which also has multiple components underneath it. So think about the parents, right? Being an expert in the field is different from being an expert in the lab. What we find in the lab has to have a particular relationship with the field what we find quantitatively should have a relationship we'll be fine qualitatively. These are the things these are not factions that should be war. You know, in medicine, they have mouse models where ours a mouse model is a thing that says okay, you know, this works in a mouse tells us about fundamental process, but we're not gonna expect what it works in the mouse works in the person. You can think about lab studies as being a bit of that, right? These are the fundamentals. They're telling us about processes what what works in the field, right? The idea of the simulation might be a bridge between them when we get you know, to think about how what happens when we put together there are all kinds of things that need to be built here. And underneath each of them is more again, if you think about the explosion of quantitative methods very soon. One is not going to be an expert at all, but they're all things that we need to understand how they fit together. And again, in medicine, the biostatistician does the biostatistics. Right. Okay.
That means we're not doing everything, right. Like it's impossible for everyone. It's very difficult for people to be good at all these things. So I like John Donne Matthew to give us a Connecticut and he's he's quite a he's pretty good way because right and he said, Well, me in Excel Scott Tannenbaum seems close last year, Amy Edmondson event real impact plus the quadrants. I said, Well, yay for you in the Justice League, but for the rest of us mortals. What are we going to do? You know, maybe we can sort of like, find a way to to, to help, right? It's a bit too high to condition on those guys. Right? So if we just think about this, right, we know it's like, all of the things that one may be asked to do. This is just my brainstorm list. There's tons of different skills all of which might take a long, long time to get good. Why not say hey, these are the ones I do. Right? That's really important because if you were evaluating me, don't ask me about my lab studies. asked me about what I've done computationally or my integrative reviews. Don't ask me about my you know, blogging asked me about whether the book cipher, right, all of these things need to get done. But it's also beneficial because people want to do different things, right? I mean, again, first of all, the person mentioned measurement specialization and coordination, right finding that we don't do that we are totally the cobblers children with no shoes. Time is zero sum. So even if you are super genius, that you could spend the amount of time to get good at all those things is very questionable, right. But the other thing is that skills are complementary but not maximize double, and this is the where we get to the zero sum problems that happen. So Joel graph said, you can never have an optimal. You were always somewhere trying to maximize generality or accurate precision measurement and realism of context. You can do too, but the third will suffer. That's always the case that is not solvable. Right? The same is true here. And then of course, this I don't think everyone wants to do everything. Right. I think people have intrinsic motivation. So let's let them and let's figure out how to do that. Right. So this is a speculation. Here's my department. Right? If I would have placed people with what they like to do, this is where they would go Kevin loves to discover I like to integrate sericata bridges. Skip is a totally applied guy who wants to know what is the what is the latest and greatest? Cindy is a consummate educator. You know, a nap is a hardcore experimentalist we could specialize in coordinate we can also think about specializing and coordinating schools, right? We are near the government the seat of sense and reason, right? We could study that. Right? You guys have a particular angle here, right Eric schools, there's so many different topics and things for us to specialize in. There is so much of an abundance if we could distribute, but not do the zero sum mentality. Right? Because when the only thing that matters is here, what happens? It collapses, right? And this is funny, right? Funny. Jim Jim Walsh. As a joke in his Prudential presidential address said we'll be having these things to this competitive thing where we're ranking people against each other. Right? That has no material effect. My rank, relative terms of dollar has no material effect on the quality of what we create. And pitting us against each other only undermines it. Right? It's like again, it's this kind of like market Gone Wild ideology. And the funny thing is, we do this all over the place like our ultimate concern is I think, the ideal the Enlightenment ideal, right the application of reason to improve human made systems for the purpose of human better, right. A computer scientists would said this, to me, scientist is an unstoppable force. We're all working to maintain an ecosystem. It's not King of the Hill to Morris, by the way worked on the outcome of the prototype desktop computer. And I said to him, Well, maybe that's why computer science has made such gains because we're busy doing king of the hill, right. So it's a value chain. And the bottom line mentality says, one of these things matters more than everything else. So and by the way, if you're on this side, don't talk to the people on this side. Yet the problems require going across and Thoreau. Okay. So how do we actually realign our efforts? So where I want to go with this I forget I forgot to tell you in the beginning, what I envision is a book, a book that is somewhere between the product management book of knowledge and Euclid geometry. The project management book of knowledge tells people how the field works and how to manage projects what to do. You will geometry said here's what we know let's put it all together and say what do we generate out of this right? Such a book could be given to anyone coming into our field so they can see how it works. So they can say, where do I fit? Where do I want to fit? It could be given to department heads so they could say I've got to evaluate you. What is it you said you were doing? You said you were doing computational modeling. Okay, how do I evaluate that? Then the National Board of Medical Examiners has procedures for making evaluation for doctors. That's fairly important. I think we could adopt that rather than just saying we're gonna use did you have right? We could also use it for the at the field level to look at are we having the impact and where is our system gummed up? So it starts by looking at the field and thinking about how stuff fits together and we have made some progress. So it'd be so this is one of them. Right? Think about the different scholarly vehicles we have. Right? We have a place for discovery for parents for theory, for integrations on a topic for integrations of topic for ways to think about the education and for what to do in an applied situation and then maybe some insights and that maps very well to that other discovery that I talked to you about earlier. It also says these things feature because when you start try stuff in the real world, you discovered, right. And it's been nice, because when I show that to the other editors, they're like, yeah, yeah, that is what we are doing. Right? It's a language. It's a language with which you can start to talk about now how do we incentivize us to not be in competition with each other? To not say that oh, animals, we have the highest impact factor. So what we need to get more people publishing and discoveries, which is incredibly generative, or to understand perspectives is an application one so as Gideon put it very well, you know, you just did this great theory piece on how x leads to Y. Why not take some of that and tell practitioners what they should be doing. Don't say, hey, go read my EMR, make it change for the audience. All right. So of course, you can also put this in a systems model. I said John's not here. To see this ball, shoulder borrow, right. Each of these things fits a different part of this model. And now we can think about how they work together. Of course, we need to this is the education part. Right? We don't have anything on that or and how we work together. So there's a lot more that we need to do to build this app. But when we know this, we can stop. You know, too much theory. Shut the inflow. Right? No, the tub is so overflowing got to open the outflows. And as I like to say what was the last time you read a paper that said we shouldn't do X anymore? Right? And just probably never there's very few and even when they're there So Barbara Baumeister does a thing on self esteem says lessons constructs no good we tried, but it's no good. Let's stop using it. People still use it. Second event Knippenberg say listen, transformational leadership, nothing there. Nothing there. Stop using it. We still use it. So we got to start changing that. We got to figure out how to promote these things. But we can also start to think about you know, the connections that would allow us to do that. Right. So how does you know I've written we just talked about how unit theory helps programmatic theory, but there's also like a things of discovery, because it varies with what we expect, right? If you want to think about athlos, we don't do any replication or test. That's the rejection. Listen, AMJ is not going to publish that. So let's not pretend that they're going to, but maybe every graduate student, maybe their first paper could be a replication. And that would go into a database that we would all have access to. So there's things to be done. We can also change our thinking about our products, right? We, you know, we talked about who's reading our journals. Well, this is advanced materials, the number one engineering journal, and if you look at it, I'm guessing you're not going to find any of these topics. Are these titles easily digestible? Right. That's the number one journal. I don't think they care right now. You might say, well, that's not fair. That's you know, a technical it's engineering, okay. There's no England Journal of Medicine. Did those things seem easily readable and understandable? Not unless you're a specialist in that.
The article is the break and it's never a sufficient teacher for even if you have something like this, which basically says that with just a few features of your face, I can tell your emotion. The model that allows us to know that is far beyond what the regular person does. Our journals are for us, right? But now this brings us to where the rubber really hits the road, which is education, right? Diems care about butts in seats. Let's take that seriously. Because you know, what if classes were packed, if everyone was coming to learn from us, and they were able to take our knowledge and use it, nobody would have a problem with the fact that no one reads our terms. Not and by the way, if teaching was the thing we were doing and had there was a lot of people in classes which is a high touch point, we would actually be able to help all Academy members, not just the r1 people in the Academy of Management has 19,000 members the percentage who publish in a journals is five. So there's a whole lot of people who have PhDs who can read research who can curate that who are underutilized, right. The other funny thing is teaching is the most impactful way in which we connect people to information. It's provides the emotional connection we all know about the you know the going to a class he thought the subject was gonna suck, but the teacher teaches it with a lot of passion and grave it gets to be interested. That's how that works. It's the least replicable by external competitors like LinkedIn learning, like other AI things. And it reduces misuse in this application. Because most professions have some control over the people who want to go out and use what they've taught. Right? You'd have to some account and you got to pass the test, right, same lawyer. They wish think about that. Teaching is how that happens. And of course, there's nothing to teach without research. Right? That was one of my deeds. Right? So we have to think what kind of topics do students really need to understand, depending on their level of the program, and what can we say with confidence, that's the upper part of this. We don't just go from there to there. And of course, we can't say anything without confidence without this knowing what practices work and under what conditions and we can't really know how to have take students not miss apply their knowledge if we don't know about the intellectual boundaries, which means we got to get rid of this. Like when was the last time anyone on the research side really sat with the teaching faculty and said, okay, don't don't teach storming, forming norming performing anymore. That's not actually a thing. Right. When was the last time they said to us, listen, we don't need another variety of ideas. Like tell us about this other thing. Doesn't make those things less valuable. We just need to know who needs what. And I think what's really important is this will promote faith in our enterprise in our institution, which we need along with courage. So this is a voice of someone who we don't hear much Maria I taught she said I run a government program that helps support people who own their own land, secure funding for building houses. I have to convince my government that my programs have an impact. I really need real science about how to measure impact, not gimmicks or cute stories. That's not what we hear. We say give me the five give me the three things I need to know about creativity made you don't make the one thing right I would like to say back would coach Carter said to his team, he said I cannot teach you the game of basketball until your physical conditioning is at a level that allows me to do so. I would love to say that to our students. I cannot teach you management until your mental conditioning is at a level that allows me to do so. That would be awesome. And we would be able to do it. If we believed in what we taught. Our organization supported us. Okay, so like I said, requires double loop learning. And by the way, we don't need to beg for legitimacy. I just offered this as a point to think about. physicians don't beg for legitimacy despite the existence of alternative medicine, computer science don't beg for legitimacy despite the fact that for all the things we do productivity does not follow. Economics doesn't beg for legitimacy, despite untenable assumptions and mathematics doesn't make for legitimacy despite inscrutable knowledge. So this is about changing our approach and sharing that approach together. Okay. So cultural and socialization. That's the thing we gotta go. And so to finish up, we have the skills to do this right, we can do stakeholder analyses and task analyses. We can build models and then we can think about institutional change and how to analyze performance and how to go first, this is next. But it's not a short thing. It's not an easy thing. There's a lot of inertia there's a lot of questions. There's a lot of ways in which we'll be wrong. We'll have to evolve over time. And unfortunately, we have defenses right? So of course, our Jairus is the sort of pioneer of this, right? We it's not just that we are defensive for no good reason, right? We want to matter but we're afraid we don't. And the more we think we matter, the more we're afraid we might not wait. Those things always exist together. And they and we have a hard time imagining what's what we can't see. Right even if you got rid of all of the emotional stuff cognitively there's a problem. So I'm I envision a better story and here's what it is. The class was packed and the weightless men it would be no matter how things shifted after I had drawn the school needed to hire because the classes were passing through across all universities. there was good reason those who learned about management in organizations, we rely on them and consequentially improve their organizations. societies work through organizations so improved organizations can improve societies and improve lives. Organizational scholars had stopped seeing themselves as a loose confederation of intellectual entrepreneurs. Forced these evermore bombast to fight for intentional market share. They become a specialized and coordinated Federation of scholars whose legitimacy was a matter of faith based in demonstrably consequent truth in science deliver. scholars call it the enterprise to remind everyone that it was a purposeful collaborative far larger in scope than any one person. It's a big job, but somebody's got to do it. And that's us. So I made it with a whole three minutes to spare. Thank you guys very much for listening. Happy to take questions and hang out.
We can also take questions online. If anyone who's online has a question. I want to kind of start off can you go back to the last slide of kind of the vision, the vision so you kind of I, I find the characterizations that I found visually to be inspiring. But I still don't see what that
seems to be about.
I don't see what are the complete steps that have to be taken in order to get into this situation? So for example, you went descriptive and shows like how
can I answer yes, honestly like it like so this is, again to tell you where I am with this. This is like it has now evolved. I'm ready to advance paper because there's more than I can say that I can do it in the allotted amount of time. But the concrete steps right now are to complete that circle. What are all of the functions that need to happen for us to at the end, say in your context, this is what you should do. Right? And then for that person to say back to us, here's what I did. Here's what didn't fit with what you said. So each one of those quadrants has a whole lot of functions. That was where all those models were sort of nested. So we have to map that system. Right, which is a job analysis. That's what I have psychologists do, what does it take to do this job? We also have different stakeholders right. So the teacher has different needs than the researcher the empiricist has different needs than the theorist the qualitative risk, right. So the the the stakeholders actually are roles, different roles, and we have to understand how those are different and they're connected because again, I do not want to go to say to people, I'm gonna teach you negotiation. Here's all the stuff that's about our science when they're like, just like, What do I need to know to do what I need to do? Question changes. So that was a pyramid. Right? So if we start with what are the people we need to teach need to know? And what are all the functions that get us to have credible knowledge that they learn how to apply? Then we can have that model and start to have conversations about is this the right model? What's wrong about it? What isn't? How do we evolve it? How do we start to implement it? What should we be doing so so having a shared object about how we work that that's the concrete first set of steps? That okay, I know you have more I can see it in your eyes.
A lot of examples of guilds that like don't beg for legitimacy. I'm unfamiliar with kind of the history of those fields like scholarly perspective, but it doesn't seem like they had kind of the same conversation about like, guys, you know, what we should invent for legitimacy? We should just do our own thing. It kind of seems like that emerged organically. Assumptions true. And if it is, right, it what are the properties of those fields? And maybe the properties of management were kind of people feel pressed that they need to do it and this is why we've kind of organically worked into the situation. We're in now.
So I will tell you that they have there are like when I look at other fields, those are existence proofs right? Is this possible? If so, how? So you know, if you think about economics, right, there are things that they do like I you know, they are all trained if you've no matter where you go and economics, like the first three years of your PhD training is the same. Right? That's quite different. Right? But it means they're all They're all believers in what it is they're doing right. And I think I do think that's consequential medicine is people's health. Right. So they they believe in what they are doing. Right. Lawyers, it's funny, a lot of jokes about lawyers, but as a collective, I think they believe in what they are doing right I think it might be different. There might be slightly slight changes, but you know, like, how many people if we sample them we said, Okay, you're off the camera now. How much do you really believe this stuff actually helps? Would they be like oh my god, it totally does. Would they be like I get, you know? I'm not sure I think so. I think that whether it's organic or not, we need to find a way to believe in what we're doing. And make it shorter, make it easier oh, I want to I gotta I gotta read this thing. No, and that's okay. You don't have to read this thing. Okay, how did you like the reading was the reading good. Those things? I think they undermine your confidence
it's easier. Yep. Yeah. Right. And but again, I think I go back to, you know, coaches, I wish we could be like coaches, or coaches. I don't want to run a lab. Really. I don't remember asking. Go run.
You know, your students. Yeah,
no, no, no, but like, metaphorically, right. Coaches have you run laps because it builds to build something right? Like or again, the army. Man, how many wars are fought by people marching in formation, yet that has a value that is not immediately apparent. And it's something that they do
that's like the that's the function of that it's like inculcating beliefs or like, you know, connect up to meeting or to some larger purpose, which I think yep, is what we're missing. Yep. So
yeah. But it's, but no, it's a demand. It's not a demand that has to be argued. They don't say listen, we'll tell you all why you need to market information. Right? Because they believe, right, right. That's why I say culture and governance. Right.