guest article by Florian von Wangenheim and Best JSR Reviewer 2015
Many aspects of the review process have been discussed in earlier articles and viewpoints. There is probably no shortage of discussions on how to write papers, how to communicate with reviewers and editors, and so forth. One aspect that is a part of almost all papers, however, is rarely discussed – managerial implications.
In the majority of our paper, we ultimately try to give managerial implications. In the introductions, we usually try to make a case that the phenomenon that we are looking at is managerially interesting, and that knowing more about it would help managers make better decisions. In the discussion or implications section, we write down what we believe that managers can make better based on what we have found.
In a way, I have always found it ironic that researchers communicate to other researchers what they believe managers should do differently. Even more so, it is somewhat funny that the judges on the managerial usefulness of our research are usually academics (the reviewers of the journal). At the same time, we always hope that our research is read, taken up by others, and affects textbooks, executive education and ultimately management practice. So again, other academics (the authors of textbooks or practitioner-related articles) decide on the managerial usefulness of our research.
I am unlikely to be the only researcher to have made some strange experiences in this regard. For example, when I once had worked quite closely with a company, and the managerial implications section was very strongly based on the discussions I had with their managers, a reviewer wrote back to me that “the managerial discussion seems useless and irrelevant. The suggestions for concrete action are unrealistic at best.” In another case, where a publication was coming out of a close collaboration, an editor rejected my paper, among other reasons based on his assessment that “the paper does not lead to relevant insights for marketing managers”. So again, should researchers assess the managerial usefulness of their peers’ work?
In hindsight, I would say that both assessments were probably good ones. The collaboration with the firms was very insightful for me, it resulted in interesting data and a lot of know-how (much of which was irrelevant for the publication process). But, it had blurred my own assessment of what was important in this research not only from an academic, but also from a managerial point of view. I was probably writing very specifically about the meaning of my analysis and results for this particular company. But almost all our findings have a context, and ignoring that context would lead to suboptimal decisions. For an obvious example, consider that company A can make a profitable investment by increasing service quality, whereas for other companies, the same quality level enhancement would be more costly, difficult, time consuming, or less effective because they serve other customer segments.
Does that mean we should refrain from giving managerial implications? One might think so, and remove the ironic twist that academics decide on the managerial relevance of what other academics have found. However, when I am, as a reviewer, undecided about a paper, I typically turn to the managerial implications section, and often base my final judgment of contribution on that part. The trick for authors, I believe, in writing a good managerial implications sections is not to repeat the obvious (when we find that A leads to B, and B is desirable, the manager should do more A) or the details of what they have discussed with the one firm that they have been working with (which is unlikely to base their decisions solely on this research in any case). Instead, when we find that A leads to B, good managerial implications would describe the broader view on the often very specific A and B in our research. What other variables could replace A and B in the context of companies in other industries and contexts? This would make our findings meaningful beyond the context that we have studied. Ironically, this may prove more difficult when we have worked very closely with a partner firm in our research.
Not giving managerial implications is a no-go for an applied discipline, such as service management. But we may have to rethink the kind of implications we want to give.
Note: There is already an active conversation going on about the topic. Let us know your perspective and join the conversation on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/251270684898315/permalink/1174411969250844/
Florian von Wangenheim is
Chair of Dept. of Management, Technology, and Economics
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Yes, I agree with you prof, I think the management area should look for this issue. Indeed, managers affect adoption and use of technology (decision ) from them …top management also they have strategic scope.