Business schools 商學(xué)院

In terms of pure quantity of research and debate, business schools have performed amazingly in promoting management as a distinctive activity. No other discipline has produced as much in such a short period. It is unclear yet how much of it will stand the test of time, but for sheer industry, the business schools deserve credit. Not a day goes by without another wave of research papers, books, articles, and journals.

通過(guò)一定數(shù)量純量研究和討論，作為一個(gè)獨(dú)特的學(xué)科爆捞，商學(xué)院已經(jīng)在促進(jìn)管理方面表現(xiàn)出色唁盏。沒(méi)有另外一個(gè)學(xué)科能在如此短的時(shí)間內(nèi)產(chǎn)出如此多式撼。還不清楚這樣的狀況能否禁得住時(shí)間的考驗(yàn)菜循，但就產(chǎn)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō), 商學(xué)院值得信賴籍铁。另一波的研究論文水评，書(shū)籍堡距，文章甲锡，期刊每天都出版兆蕉。

In these terms, schools have produced a generally accepted theoretical basis for management. When it comes to knowledge creation, however, they find themselves in difficulties. They are caught between the need for academic rigour and for real-world business relevance,which tend to pull in opposite directions. The desire to establish management as a credible discipline leads to research that panders to traditional academic criteria. The problem for business school researchers is that they seek the approval of their academic peers rather than the business community. In the United States this has led to the sort of grand "paper clip counting" exercises that meet demands for academic rigour but fail to add to one iota to the real sum of human knowledge。

通過(guò)這些方式缤沦，學(xué)校已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了可接受的管理的理論基礎(chǔ)虎韵。當(dāng)提到知識(shí)創(chuàng)新時(shí)，然而缸废， 他們發(fā)現(xiàn)他們自己遇到難題了包蓝。他們?cè)诶碚摰膰?yán)謹(jǐn)性和真實(shí)世界的相關(guān)商業(yè)被難倒，這趨向于把彼此推向兩個(gè)相反的方向呆奕。想把建立管理作為一個(gè)值得信賴的學(xué)科的渴望养晋，導(dǎo)致了迎合傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的研究。商學(xué)院的研究員的問(wèn)題是: 他們尋求他們學(xué)術(shù)同行的認(rèn)可梁钾，而不是商業(yè)界的認(rèn)可绳泉。在美國(guó)，這樣已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致了大量的不計(jì)其數(shù)的論文符合理論嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膶W(xué)術(shù)要求姆泻，但是未能添加任何一點(diǎn)微小的對(duì)真實(shí)的人類知識(shí)的貢獻(xiàn)零酪。

Business schools have too often allowed the constraints of the academic world to cloud their view of the real world. Business school researchers seek provable theories- rather than helpful theories. They have championed a prescriptive approach to management based on analysis and, more recently, on fashionable ideas that soon disappear into the ether. The "one best way" approach encourages researchers to mould the idiosyncrasies of managerial reality into their tightly defined models of behaviour. Figures and statistics are fitted into linear equations and tidy models. Economists and other social scientists label this curve smoothing. Meanwhile,reality continually refuses to co-operate.

商學(xué)院經(jīng)常由于學(xué)術(shù)界的限制對(duì)真實(shí)世界的看法模糊不清。商學(xué)院的研究員去尋求理論的證明拇勃，而不是那些實(shí)用的理論四苇。他們已經(jīng)倡導(dǎo)了一種基于分析的管理方法，近期方咆，他們倡導(dǎo)流行的管理方法很快消失月腋。"一個(gè)最好的方法"去鼓勵(lì)研究員把實(shí)際管理的特性套進(jìn)牢牢限制的行為模型中。數(shù)字和統(tǒng)計(jì)的數(shù)字都帶入線性的公式和整潔的模型中瓣赂。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和其他社會(huì)學(xué)者將這些曲線平滑化榆骚。同時(shí)，現(xiàn)實(shí)中不斷的拒絕這種合作煌集。

Central to this is the tension between relevance and rigour. In a perfect world, there would be no need to choose between the two. But in the business school world, the need to satisfy academic criteria and be published in journals often tilts the balance away from relevance. In other words, it is often easier to pursue quantifiable objectives than it is to add anything useful to the debate about management. To a large extent, the entire business schools system works against useful, knowledge-creating research. Academics have five years in which to prove themselves if they are to make the academic grade. It seems long enough. But it can take two or even three years to get into a suitable journal. They therefore have around three years, probably less, to come up with an area of interest and carry out meaningful and original research. This is a demanding timescale. The temptation must be to slice up old data in new ways rather than pursue genuinely ground-breaking, innovative research.

這個(gè)核心問(wèn)題就是實(shí)際和理論之間存在的張力妓肢。在一個(gè)理想的世界里，不需要在兩者之間進(jìn)行選擇苫纤。但是在商學(xué)院中碉钠，這需要滿足理論標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并且在發(fā)表在專業(yè)期刊的文章經(jīng)常需要從現(xiàn)實(shí)的相關(guān)性上偏移。換句話說(shuō)卷拘，通常更容易實(shí)現(xiàn)可量化的目標(biāo)喊废，而不是增加對(duì)管理有用的爭(zhēng)論。學(xué)術(shù)有五年的時(shí)間來(lái)證明自己是否達(dá)到學(xué)術(shù)的級(jí)別恭金。這看上去足夠的時(shí)間操禀。但是這能花兩年甚至三年時(shí)間去在一個(gè)合適的期刊中發(fā)表。他們因此有大概3年時(shí)間横腿，可能會(huì)少一點(diǎn)颓屑，去想出一個(gè)感興趣的領(lǐng)域，進(jìn)行有意義和原始的研究耿焊。這是一個(gè)要求的時(shí)間范圍揪惦。這個(gè)誘因必須用新的方式對(duì)舊的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行切分，而不是追求真正的開(kāi)創(chuàng)性的罗侯，創(chuàng)新性的研究器腋。

It is a criticism also made by some business school insiders." Academic journals tend to find more and more techniques for testing more and more obscure theories. They are asking trivial questions and answering them exactly. There has to be a backlash," says Julian Birkinshaw of London Business School. In large part, the problem goes back to a time when business schools were trying to establish themselves. Up until the 1960s, American business schools were dismissed as pseudo-academic institutions.Other academic institutions, including the universities of which they often formed a part regarded them as little more than vocational colleges. Since then, most of the leading schools have undergone major reassessments and introduced sweeping changes. However, it is questionable whether those changes have gone far enough.

這是一些商學(xué)院內(nèi)部的人員發(fā)出批評(píng)。"學(xué)術(shù)的期刊趨向于發(fā)現(xiàn)更多的技巧钩杰，這些技巧用來(lái)測(cè)試更多的模糊的理論纫塌。他們一直在問(wèn)沒(méi)有價(jià)值的問(wèn)題并且準(zhǔn)確的回答這些問(wèn)題。必須要有一個(gè)抵制這樣的行動(dòng)讲弄。"倫敦商學(xué)院的Julian Birkinshaw說(shuō)措左。在很大程度上，問(wèn)題回到了商學(xué)院試圖自己成立的時(shí)候避除。直到19世紀(jì)60年代怎披，美國(guó)商學(xué)院被作為一個(gè)偽學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)被解散。另一些學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)瓶摆，包括那些商學(xué)院所屬的大學(xué)凉逛，經(jīng)常被看成不及職業(yè)學(xué)院。此后群井，大部分的知名學(xué)校經(jīng)歷了重大的評(píng)估状飞，并引進(jìn)了徹底的改變。然而书斜，是否這些變化能走的更遠(yuǎn)是一個(gè)問(wèn)題诬辈。