Emerald Group Publishing Limited
AACSB standards, Academy of Management and 3000 Citations
Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Management History, Volume 20, Issue 4
Welcome to Volume 20, Issue 4 of the Journal of Management History (JMH). With this issue, we have completed our 20th year of publishing and are now indexed by Scopus. Our 20th anniversary issue shall be the next issue, as we will have just finished our 20th year of publishing. While I write this, I am getting ready to do a TED talk in a few hours and am prepping for a graduate class in international organizational behavior and change dealing with transformational change. I am reminded of the belief that change takes a long time – which is actually not a true statement. We as academics need to remember that with good knowledge and education organizational, individual change CAN be nearly instantaneous. Turning a change in to a habit can take some time. Conventional wisdom seems to be that it takes 21 days to turn a change in to a habit, but some of my own research indicates that it often takes from 56 to > 100 days. With the last issue we had 2,949 citations to JMH papers, and now we are at > 3,000 at 3,236 – an increase of 287. Our h index has changed from 23 to 24, and our g index has moved from 38 to 39. We currently have an Age-Weighted Citation Rate of 386.94. At the beginning of volume 20, we had an acceptance rate of 17.1 per cent. Right now we are at a 9.3 per cent acceptance rate based upon papers with final decisions – which counts editorials – and 7.2 per cent based upon competitive papers. We have seen a large increase in submissions since the journal was reclassified as an A level journal by the Australian Business Dean’s Council. We have had 280 submissions in the past 12 months, with > 200 of them being in the past six months. By the next issue, we should hopefully have heard about our possible re-ranking in the UK journal quality list.
While I generally do not like having special issues for the JMH, I want individuals to start thinking about the centennial of the AACSB, and it would be nice to be able to have an entire issue dealing with the AACSB in 2016. It has been highly influential in Management Education, and I have been doing work examining the value of accreditation since 1998. Most recently, I have been looking at the increase in the annualized 20-, 30- and lifetime return on investment (ROI) of earning a degree from an AACSB-accredited university here in the USA as opposed to a non-AACSB-accredited university – and seeking to explain these differences. The median difference is that receiving a degree from an AACSB-accredited university results in an increase in annualized ROI of about 50 per cent for students. Using annualized data from payscale.com, I have examined data from across the USA, as well as across time, and found that the impact of the AACSB ranged from 0 per cent for many of the Ivy-League universities [please note that this data is for undergraduates and many of these universities do not have undergraduate degrees in business] to a few schools that had over a 300 per cent increase in annualized ROI. I took a look at the changes in ROI over time and found that for longstanding deans, they can have a large impact on the ROI if they introduce AACSB during their terms as dean – however, in some cases, the ROIs continue to increase, while in others, they seem to flatline or even decline. To explain these differences, I looked at a variety of variables including salaries, class size, grant support, teaching experience, etc. and finally came up with publications/research increases or decreases [and impact of those publications] by the faculty. The greater the research productivity of faculty, the greater the annualized ROI. So what type of research should the ideal faculty member be pursuing? I tried comparing different models for determining whether or not someone should be considered to be current. These included the following:
having at least one conference presentation in the past five years;
having two journal articles in the past five years;
having two journal articles and at least three conferences presentations in the past five years;
having one top-tier journal article in the past five years, with top-tier being defined by the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD-24) list;
having one top-tier journal article in the past five years, with top-tier being defined by the Financial Times list;
having five top-tier articles journal articles in the past five years using the Financial Times list;
having five top-tier journal articles in the past five years using the UTD-24 list; or
having five top-tier journal articles in the past five years using the Australian Business Dean’s Council list of A and A* journals.
Nearly no faculty members met the criteria of models 6 or 7, but in terms of ROI, the highest ROIs came from schools with the highest proportions of faculty, meeting criteria 6, 7 or 8. The lowest ROI was from the schools that had the highest proportion of faculty teaching who met only model 1 criteria. The middle criteria had varying ROIs between the two extremes with the best having at least one top-tier article and several other articles followed by having multiple articles. So in terms of overall ROIs, the best models seem to include both the quality and quantity of publications. While it is nice to be able to look at school-wide ROI as a follow-up, I have been working with several Fortune 100 organizations to examine the individual-level ROI’s for students based upon the qualifications of the professors who they had for their Management classes. Using a convergent validation strategy, I looked at the incomes of 1,484 employees and examined what it was that influenced their incomes and ROIs. The higher the high quality publications and the higher the average citations per year since receiving one’s degree for one’s Management professors, the higher the ROI and the higher the income [the Age-Weighted Citation Rate works even better]. This was also true looking at the professors from all business disciplines. Faculty need to be involved in research and publishing so that we can be teaching our students accurate and up-to-date information.
This is also the seventh year of the journal quality survey, and it would be nice if the Management History Division would participate. By the time this comes out, we will be in the eighth year of the survey. In addition to looking at the perceived quality of journals, there is also other useful information being collected, for instance, here is a table looking at several divisions and then dividing up groups of those responding from within the divisions. The three components include research, teaching, and service for seven divisions – BPS, ENT, OD, OMT, OB, HR and TIM. The BPS and ENT divisions are divided up by their areas of interest (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Component plot in rotated space
Looking at the figure, there are really two clusters of BPS faculty who differ according to their levels of service. They are pretty similar in terms of their teaching and research orientation, but one group does a lot of service and the other does not. In terms of the entrepreneurship researchers, they publish a lot less and are much more application orientation.
Having just finished another semester of teaching, I received a couple of comments that I thought were worth repeating. They include the following:
This was my second time to take this course with Dr. Carraher after failing the first time. I have nobody to blame for failing but myself. I was supposed to take this class with a different professor when I retook it, but immediately dropped it when I learned that Dr. Carraher had an opening in one of his classes. His class didn’t even fit my schedule but I was determined to make it work because I knew how great of a teacher he was. To Dr. Carraher, if you show this evaluation to your future classes, I would like to give the students a little advice. Attend class and take it seriously but have fun with it as well. Try the foods and know that everything Dr. Carraher teaches you is meant to help you succeed, whether you realize it or not. And I know, at times, it’s going to seem like what he’s saying has nothing to do with international business, but it really does. He doesn’t just teach the theory of international business; what he teaches you is how to be successful in the field of international business and life in general.
And immediately following it was:
This is by far the most unique professor that I have ever had in my college career. He has so much knowledge over many different things. I like his teaching style, and how he interacts with his students constantly. I like that he wants to get more students involved in research, which is an excellent plan. If there are any other professors out there like Mr. Carraher we need them at UTD!!!
I copy these because they remind me of Daniel Wren and the teaching of Management History. These comments were made about International Business classes within which I also consistently seem to have a student or two who complain that studying cultures and cultural differences has nothing to do with international business. I add this because when addressing issues of Management History and Management History research, we often are confronted with why do we do management history research? I have recently had several individuals – including general historians and management historians say that few historians are “brave” [yes, the word “brave” was used] enough to make predictions, hypotheses or educated guesses about what we can learn from history and how it could influence the future. For the JMH, I would like to think that we are brave enough to make suggestions for future research, for suggestions for society and for suggestions for policy. I mentioned earlier that hopefully with the next issue, we will know about how we did on the ABS journal quality guide. In the 2010 version, they mention business, management and organizational history as one of the areas in which articles/journals tend to have lower citation rates. I would like to see this changed – for us to do more research that really matters and that would be even more widely cited than it currently is. To encourage this, I would like to see more papers that make clear suggestions for future research. I shall also encourage reviewers to take a look at this and to put additional weight on this – so yes this shall influence future publications. It already is an area in the evaluation criteria, but it is something that we need to think of more highly. For instance, looking at the history of management history research, Daniel Wren helped to transform the way that Management research is done – not just Management History research – but research across the areas of Management. Research prior to the publication of his first History of Management Thought book was often case-based and to a great degree, did not really look at prior research and theory in a scientific manner. He – along with Kuhn – helped to change this – and we need to get back to this. I would like to see more research done that shall generate other research and increase our ISI citation rates. For instance, while we have been cited 3,236 times on GoogleScholar, we are at 665 citations within ISI journals.
We begin this issue with an interview of Arthur Bedeian who is a previous Dean of the Academy of Management Fellows group. In the past 43 years, his works have been cited 9,057 times with an AWCR of 527.96, an h-index of 46 and a g-index of 91. This is followed by “Reflections on aspects of executive behaviour in the Early Railway Companies in Britain” by Tony Proctor of the Chester Business School at the University of Chester in the UK. The purpose of the article is to examine aspects of executive behavior relating to social responsibility in the British railway companies from their beginnings in 1830 until 1860. It offers a fruitful contribution to the literature and the understanding of responsibility, noting specifically the impact of the overall business and social culture prevalent at the time. Discussion of the railways touches on various stakeholders. It uses the four responsibilities of corporate social responsibility (economic, legal, ethical and discretionary [philanthropic]) as a framework against which to examine some of the actions taken in the railway companies. Reference is also made to the prevailing business culture of the times and how it may have impacted on management practices of the times. The study considers real-world phenomena, where management is an applied field and where scholarship ties to the real-world phenomena practitioners face.
Next is “K Bistro: A restaurant chooses the future” by Leah Hahn, Melissa Swierenga, Adam Miller, Tim Streets and Phil Millage of Indiana Wesleyan University. Phil Milliage is also one of the top executive coaches in the world. K Bistro is a new restaurant that opened in the spring of 2012. The owner, Chef David Kay, has extensive culinary experience. Originally from Marion, Indiana, he has served as head chef for Marriott and Hilton hotels across the country. Chef Kay recognized that there was a need for an upscale eatery in his hometown, and his passion for combining French cooking techniques with traditional Midwest cuisine has allowed him to introduce a new style of food to the area. While Marion has several fast-food restaurants, it is typical for families to drive to neighboring cities when they want a nice meal to celebrate a special occasion. Chef Kay hoped to change this trend by offering a more convenient option to the Marion community. This is an example of organizational historical or ethnographic paper. This paper is followed by “Neo-Confucianism and Industrial Relations in Meiji Japan” by Stefania Lottanti von Mandach of the Institute of Asian and Oriental Studies at the University of Zurich. Stefania Lottanti von Mandach is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Asian and Oriental Studies at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and she studies Japanese history. In this paper, she sets out to explain the poor nature of industrial relations in Meiji Japan (1868-1911), especially the puzzling lack of Neo-Confucianist values. This is followed by “A comparative study of the evolution of vulnerabilities in IT systems and its relation to the new concept of cloud computing” by Issam Kouatli of the Lebanese American University. The purpose of his paper is to classify and categorize the vulnerability types emerged with time as Information Technology (IT) systems evolved. This comparative study aims to compare the seriousness of the old well-known vulnerabilities that may still exist with lower possibility of happening with that of new technologies like cloud computing with mobility access. Cloud computing is a new structure of IT that is becoming the main part of the new model of business environment. However, issues regarding such a new hype of technology do not come without obstacles. These issues have to be addressed before full acceptability of cloud services in a globalized business environment. Businesses need to be aware of issues of concerns before joining the cloud services. This paper also highlights these issues and shows the comparison table to help businesses with appropriate decision-making when joining the cloud. In future issues of the JMH, I would like to see more research done like this. Finally we have “The USA brewing industry, strategic windows and survival” by Lynn A. Walter of Western New England University, Linda F. Edelman of Bentley University and Kenneth J. Hatten of Boston University. They investigate how dynamic capabilities enabled survival in a select group of brewers during one of the lengthiest and most severe industry consolidations in history. In doing so, they advance Abel‘s 1978the theory of strategic windows through integration with the resource-based view of the firm. Their findings indicate that brewers which had advanced distribution and manufacturing operational capabilities before the strategic window of opportunity closed had higher survival rates.
I trust that you will enjoy these articles and the interview as much as I have and that they will provide you with ideas for future research which you can submit to the JMH. The next issue shall largely be a review of the past 20 years of the journal – and then look forward to the future. Please continue to cite JMH papers and continue to submit your finest papers to the journal.
Abell, D.F. (1978), “Strategic Windows”, Journal of Marketing Vol. 42 p. 21.