View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Operations Management: Is There a Disconnect between Journal Article Content and Employer Needs?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Operations Management: Is There a Disconnect between Journal Article Content and Employer Needs?
Language: English
Authors: Singer, Marc G., Welborn, Cliff A.
Source: Journal of Education for Business. 2014 89(8):396-402.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Operations Research, Organizational Effectiveness, Management Systems, Employers, Job Skills, Ability, Knowledge Level, Correlation, Employment Opportunities, Recruitment, Personnel Needs
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.921592
ISSN: 0883-2323
Abstract: The authors sought to determine whether topics researched by academicians in the field of operations management were aligned with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) employers were seeking from potential employees. Twenty-eight research topics were identified in the operations management literature and were compared to the KSAs derived from 200 online job postings. Ultimately, six research topics were found to be aligned with the KSAs employers were seeking, 10 topics were underrepresented, and 12 topics were overrepresented.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 27
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1044712
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEaNAsf3PIToWnWr7DpmYOIAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIjbiDjFEii6bd5-HgIBEICBmpuEKx5NuDAtTs4bN4QExTSlPz6ZHQsHB4vdpvgJRdM626ESZTWCrjAQCNoqYCcWxlSAGk4Ru4Ygwvfn_lhSSk06uD87eEBQJ1bTrswbiQ4iMhKtqRBmnnnoPJjhmAcT8c9YWMxzwN8ylUa7tyca8cIrWgejW6MpNWyY3GaAR7VOAIZoRER8JXDrpTVINZiFAVEure03DX-yc9M=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0099237161;jeb01nov.14;2019Mar06.14:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0099237161-1">Operations Management: Is There a Disconnect Between Journal Article Content and Employer Needs? </title> <p>The authors sought to determine whether topics researched by academicians in the field of operations management were aligned with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) employers were seeking from potential employees. Twenty-eight research topics were identified in the operations management literature and were compared to the KSAs derived from 200 online job postings. Ultimately, six research topics were found to be aligned with the KSAs employers were seeking, 10 topics were underrepresented, and 12 topics were overrepresented.</p> <p>Keywords: abilities; knowledge; operations management; research topics; skills</p> <p>Prior to the 1950s, research conducted by faculty in traditional academic disciplines (e.g., liberal arts and the sciences) were theoretical in nature, while business discipline investigations tended toward studies whose findings were applicable to the real world. In an attempt to become more accepted as true academicians within the university community and to dispel the criticisms that business schools were tantamount to trade schools lacking a robust scientific foundation and producing weak research, business schools shifted their emphasis from practical based research to large quantities of theoretical and esoteric research, similar to the type published by their arts and sciences colleagues (Dulek & Fielden, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]; Starkey & Tempest, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The shift in emphasis by business faculty to traditional academic research has resulted in a disparity between scholarly research and practice that has prevailed for decades, with academics emphasizing rigor rather than relevance in their research (Mentzer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). There is scant evidence that any of the academic research flowing out of business schools has had any substantial impact on the actual practice of management (Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; Starkey & Tempest, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]). Academicians and consultants alike are being criticized for their failure to adequately research, and subsequently communicate to practitioners, relevant processes and conditions for implementation (Beer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]). Business schools have been criticized for failing to prepare students with a meaningful set of leadership skills and with the tools necessary for the job (Bennis & O'Toole, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]). Furthermore, the behavioral competencies that practitioners indicate as those most crucial for job success appear to be those least represented in master of business administration curriculums (Rubin & Dierdoff, 2009). It seems that the focus on research appears to have resulted in the rise of an academic community that has become disconnected from the world of the practitioner (Bailey & Ford, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regardless of the numerous calls for business school faculty to engage in more empirical field-based research (McCutchen & Meredith, 1993); despite nationwide surveys of high school seniors by online college guidance sites such as WiseChoice indicating that 80% of respondents cite better employment opportunities as their primary reason for attending college (DeVise, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]); and the statement within the preamble of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]) that "in this environment management education must prepare students to contribute to their organizations" (p. 3), business faculty persist in conducting research whose findings have little, if any, positive transference to the real world.</p> <p>At best, the appeals for business schools to change this state of affairs and focus on developing the knowledge and skills that their students need for successful performance in the business environment appears to have resulted in only minor alterations to the education process, primarily through modest course content revision (Ulrich, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). Perhaps one reason for the failure on the part of business schools to refocus their research efforts to more practically oriented studies may be, in part, attributable to the unintentional consequences resulting from the desire by business schools to meet the standards for accreditation established by the AACSB. The preamble of the standards for the AACSB ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]) stated "In this environment, management education must prepare students to contribute to their organizations" (p. 3). Subsequently, standard 2 indicates that a key factor in determining whether the school achieves their goal is by demonstrating that "the school will support management practice through the production of articles" (AACSB, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>], p. 20). Furthermore, the standard maintains that intellectual contributions should be in written form and should be subject to scrutiny by academic peers or practitioners prior to publication. These peer reviewed publications serve as verification that faculty are knowledgeable and current in their respective disciplines and are advancing both management theory and practice.</p> <p>While it can certainly be argued that these two aforementioned statements by the AACSB do not conflict with each other, as research and publication efforts are designed to maintain and enhance faculty members' competence in their disciplines, the type of research faculty engage in, whether they choose theoretical or empirical studies, determines the research findings' applicability to the real world. Because the evaluation of faculty for tenure and promotion consideration within traditional academic disciplines such as liberal arts and the sciences has primarily been centered on scholarship, the intent to be accepted as true academicians has resulted in business faculty and administrators adopting the same scholarly publication evaluation criteria employed by the arts and sciences. It appears that regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary, as long as the reward system focuses primarily on these research endeavors rather than teaching, this state of affairs is likely to remain (Dulek & Fielden, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Elliott, Goodwin, & Goodwin, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]; Linder & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]; Ulrich, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Clearly, the primary responsibility of business education is to prepare students to assume employment in a business environment. Yet, when asked in a recent survey to rank the importance of various factors in terms of criteria used to evaluate the quality and reputation of business education programs, academicians ranked faculty research contributions as the second highest factor. However, when asked the same question, practitioners ranked research contributions last among the eight factors under consideration (Rutner & Fawcett, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]). Moreover, a study by Abraham and Karns (2009) concluded that "business schools were not emphasizing in their undergraduate curricula the competencies that are relevant to business" (p. 350). It appears that the more rigorous, theoretical, and complex the research, the more scholarly the reputation of the journal in which the article appears, and the more akin the research is to that valued by arts and science faculty, the more valued the contribution by academics.</p> <p>There is little debate about the fact that quality research enhances faculty knowledge. There also appears to be agreement within the literature that the subject matter of both business school research and material presented in the classroom has scant applicability to the real-world environment. Much of the criticism regarding academic research is aimed at the perceived overreliance on complex mathematical analysis at the expense of focusing on relevant business issues. Some argue that the quantified models that dominate academic journals imply a degree of precision that is an illusion. This overly quantitative focus is damaging the reputation of the business discipline and making it irrelevant (Tapp, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]). Business schools are hiring faculty members with little real-world experience who are too focused on scientific research. These programs promote the wrong impression that management is largely about decision making through analysis (Mintzberg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Consequently, students are not equipped to handle the complex, nonquantifiable issues they will face in the business community (Bennis & O'Toole, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>The natural question arises as to why in the wake of such overwhelming criticism, business faculty persist in maintaining a research agenda, the findings of which appear to be divorced from applicability to the real-world environment? Perhaps the answer to this dilemma resides in the fact that despite the widespread consensus found in the literature maintaining that the prevailing research is not applicable in the business environment, little, if any, factual evidence exists to support this supposition. Rather, much of the criticism appears to be anecdotal in nature. In an effort to determine whether the degree of alignment between issues of interest to the operations management (OM) business community and the topics being researched and published by OM academic faculty are at dissonance, this study was undertaken. By analyzing the text from job postings to identify key knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) expected of OM professionals and subsequently comparing those KSAs to the topics being researched in OM journal articles we attempted to discern if in fact there is truly a disparity between the topics being researched by academicians and that which is sought by practitioners in the real world.</p> <hd id="AN0099237161-2">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>The initial phase of the study involved the identification of job postings seeking operations managers from the online career search databases Monster.com and CareerBuilder.com. These particular internet recruiting sites were chosen because the postings listed are unedited and appear exactly as submitted by the hiring organization. After winnowing the positions to eliminate any jobs outside of the United States a total of 200 positions (80 from Monster.com and 120 from CareerBuilder.com) were selected.</p> <p>Next, each of the chosen postings was searched for any specific KSAs that the potential employer stated was either required or desired as criteria for successful job performance. Each time a job advertisement contained a reference to a KSA, its frequency count was increased by 1. Subsequently, the frequency counts were converted into percentages indicating the percent of job advertisements that referenced specific operations management KSAs. This method of determining desired or required KSAs, rather than having experts rank a predefined set of KSAs created by the researchers, was employed in order to avoid any unintentional bias by the investigators in the construction of the list. In total, 28 KSAs were identified as being either required or desired applicant characteristics.</p> <p>In order to allow for statistical equivalency, a total of 200 recent academic articles on operations research, published between February 2009 and December 2010, were randomly selected from four journals (50 articles from each) that have been consistently ranked among the top 20 journals in operations management (Olson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]). The journals selected were <emph>Decision Sciences</emph>, <emph>Interfaces</emph>, <emph>European Journal of Operational Research</emph>, and <emph>Management Science</emph> (50 from each). Each article's title, abstract, and key words were subsequently reviewed to determine the researcher's primary operations management topical focus. Using a similar process as described for job postings, the percentage value for each research topic was derived by determining the percent of journal articles focusing on that topic.</p> <p>To evaluate any differences between the percentage of journal articles focusing on a specific topic and the percentage of job postings referencing that topic, Bonferroni confidence intervals based on the job postings were developed. The Bonferroni confidence interval limits were computed as:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <emph>P<subs>i</subs></emph> is the observed mean percentage of job postings; <emph>Z<subs>a/2k</subs></emph> is the adjusted <emph>Z</emph> score; and <emph>n</emph> is the number of observations.</p> <p>If the percentage of journal articles referencing a topic fell within the computed confidence interval, the topic was determined to be not significantly over or underrepresented in the literature compared to the job postings. Consequently, any difference in percentage from the job postings and the journal articles was attributed to chance and indicated that the articles author(s) were researching topics of relevance to hiring organizations. However, if the percent of journal articles referencing a topic was greater than the computed upper limit of the confidence interval, the topic was deemed as being overrepresented in the literature. Similarly, if the percent of journal articles referencing a topic was less than the computed lower limit of the confidence interval, the topic was considered to be underrepresented in the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0099237161-3">RESULTS</hd> <p>Of the 28 KSAs identified in the job postings (see Table 1), only six were found to be appropriately researched throughout the literature. These six KSAs and their respective frequency of appearance in the job postings and in the selected research articles included profit (26%, 19%), inventory (22%, 19%), capacity (13%, 11%), transport (12%, 8%), enterprise resource planning (3%, 0%), and cycle time (2%, 1%).</p> <p>TABLE 1 Appropriately Represented Knowledge Skills and Abilities in Academic Research</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>KSA</td><td>Job posting</td><td>Expected (95% CI)</td><td>Journal articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Profit</td><td>26%</td><td>[18%, 33%]</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Inventory</td><td>22%</td><td>[14%, 29%]</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Capacity</td><td>13%</td><td>[7%, 19%]</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Transport</td><td>12%</td><td>[6%, 18%]</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>ERP</td><td>3%</td><td>[0%, 5%]</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Cycle time</td><td>2%</td><td>[0%, 4%]</td><td>1%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>10001 <emph>Note:</emph> ERP = Enterprise resource planning.</p> <p>Table 2 details the frequency of occurrence of the underrepresented KSAs in the selected job postings and their corresponding frequency of appearance in the research literature. Of the 28 total KSAs identified as necessary or desired characteristics employers sought in job applicants, 10 were identified as underrepresented in the research literature. Of the KSAs identified as underrepresented, four appeared in more than 50% of the job postings, but only the KSA of quality could be found in more than 10% of the research articles scanned. These KSAs and their respective percentages of appearance in the job postings and in the research included: quality (57%, 14%), project (54%, 9%), training (52%, 8%), and leadership (54%, 2%). The remaining six KSAs ranged in their frequency of occurrence within the job postings between 8% and 40%, and their frequency of appearance in the research articles sampled ranged between 0% and 6%. The frequencies for these KSAs were budget (40%, 1%), safety (33%, 5%), maintenance (28%, 2%), lean (20%, 2%), outsource (16%, 6%), and ethics (8%, 0%).</p> <p>TABLE 2 Underrepresented Knowledge Skills and Abilities in Academic Research</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>KSA</td><td>Job posting</td><td>Expected (95% CI)</td><td>Journal articles</td><td>Underrepresented</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Quality</td><td>57%</td><td>[47%, 66%]</td><td>14%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>54%</td><td>[44%, 63%]</td><td>2%</td><td>43%</td></tr><tr><td>Project</td><td>54%</td><td>[44%, 63%]</td><td>9%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td>52%</td><td>[43%, 61%]</td><td>8%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Budgeting</td><td>40%</td><td>[31%, 48%]</td><td>1%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>33%</td><td>[24%, 41%]</td><td>5%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Maintenance</td><td>28%</td><td>[19%, 36%]</td><td>2%</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>Lean</td><td>20%</td><td>[12%, 27%]</td><td>2%</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Outsourcing</td><td>16%</td><td>[9%, 23%]</td><td>6%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics</td><td>8%</td><td>[3%, 12%]</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Last, Table 3 lists the frequencies of KSAs that appeared to be overrepresented, minimized in importance by employers in their job postings but valued highly by researchers. Of the 11 KSAs given emphasis in the literature, only three—supply chain, research, and programming—were mentioned in any job postings. In fact, the other eight KSAs were not mentioned at all, and the frequency of appearance of programming was only 2%. The KSAs and their respective job posting and journal article frequencies were modeling (15%, 55%), supply chain (14%, 23%), research (11%, 29%), programming (2%, 13%), stochastic (0%, 10%), game (0%, 9%), simulation (0%, 9%), algorithm (0%, 9%), equilibrium (0%, 6%), linear program (0%, 3%), regression (0%, 3%), and ANOVA (0%, 1%).</p> <p>TABLE 3 Overrepresented Knowledge Skills and Abilities in Academic Research</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>KSA</td><td>Job posting</td><td>Expected (95% CI)</td><td>Journal articles</td><td>Overrepresented</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Modeling</td><td>15%</td><td>[8%, 21%]</td><td>55%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>Supply chain</td><td>14%</td><td>[8%, 20%]</td><td>23%</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Research</td><td>11%</td><td>[5%, 17%]</td><td>29%</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Programming</td><td>2%</td><td>[–1%, 5%]</td><td>13%</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>Stochastic</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Gaming</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>9%</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Simulation</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>9%</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Algorithm</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>9%</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Equilibrium</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>6%</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Linear program</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Regression</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>ANOVA</td><td>0%</td><td>[0%, 0%]</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>30001 <emph>Note:</emph> ANOVA = analysis of variance.</p> <hd id="AN0099237161-4">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Before discussing the findings of this study it seems prudent to put the purpose of this research into perspective. This study was not designed to determine the quality of the research being conducted by business faculty, the quality of the journals where the studies are being published, nor the perceived relevance of the research conducted by academicians and consultants. Rather, the study was designed to ascertain whether the degree of alignment between issues of interest to the OM business community and the topics being researched and published by OM academic faculty and consultants are similar or at variance with each other. Last, the research merely sought to identify any disparities between the research being conducted and the KSAs sought by practitioners, without regard to why these differences exist.</p> <p>As indicated by Tables 1, 2, and 3, significant disconnects between a majority of the operations management topics researched by academicians and the KSAs sought by potential employers were found. Of the 28 topics identified as being researched, 12 topics were overrepresented when compared with the KSAs sought by potential employers, 10 topics were underrepresented, and only six of the research topics were found to be actually related to the KSAs as listed in the job postings. Furthermore, the frequency of the top seven underrepresented KSAs sought by potential employers; exceeded any of the percentages of any of the overrepresented or statistically consistent KSAs. It seems that those KSAs most valued by practitioners are those topics deemed least worthy of research endeavors by academicians and consultants.</p> <p>In some cases, the disparity in topic coverage may be the result of a subtle difference in emphasis. For example, while supply chain is overrepresented in the academic literature compared to job postings, outsourcing is underrepresented. Arguably, these two topics are so closely related that they could be combined and their job postings and journal article counts summed. We represented each term independently because supply chain is a broad topic consisting of many subtopics, while outsourcing is more narrowly focused. Consequently, if researchers are publishing articles related to supply chain at a higher rate than found in the job postings, it may be that researchers are viewing the details of supply chain in a different context than employers.</p> <p>The finding that many of the overrepresented research topics are highly quantitative mathematical or modeling based concepts is in agreement with the propositions made by authors who indicated that while much of the academic research focuses on advanced quantitative techniques, practitioners rarely find applicability for these findings (Bennis & O'Toole, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]; Mintzberg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]; Tapp, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref27">23</reflink>]). Conversely, many of the underrepresented researched subjects, such as project management, budgeting, safety, and maintenance are application-oriented concepts. Additionally, whereas practitioners tend to view much of the jargon associated with the overrepresented topics as technical and highly specialized argot, discernible only to those versed in the mathematical programming field, they readily understand the vocabulary associated with the underrepresented topics.</p> <p>On the surface it would seem problematic that the topics of leadership, budgeting, safety, training, ethics, quality, lean, outsourcing, maintenance, and project management would be underrepresented in the literature. Even more troubling would be the fact that four of these topics, leadership, training, quality, and project management, appeared in over 50% of the job postings. However, these findings are not totally unexpected. Several of these topics are researched and taught to OM students exclusively by faculty other than those in the OM field. For example, budgeting is usually taught by accounting faculty, leadership is commonly studied and taught by general management, organizational behavior, organizational theory, and industrial or organizational psychologists, and safety and maintenance is usually the domain of engineering departments.</p> <p>Irrespective of the discipline involved, it is apparent from the results of the current investigation that the research conducted by OM academicians suffers from the same criticisms regarding the irrelevancy of their research for practitioners (Beer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]; Bennis & O'Toole, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; McCutchen & Meredith, 1993; Mentzer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]; Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]; Rubin & Dierdoff, 2009). Yet, despite being a discipline that would be naturally associated more with practitioners than academicians, OM faculty have adopted the research agendas and methodologies of their business school colleagues.</p> <p>The logical question arising is why after over five decades of widespread agreement that a gap between the research emanating from business schools and its relevance for practitioners exists, do business school faculty, including those who teach operations management, persist in research endeavors whose relevance to real-world practice is questionable? While there are varying opinions espoused throughout the literature to explain the reasons why the research-practitioner gap exists, we believe that three are paramount. These include the plausible denial of the problems existence, the desire for rewards and prestige, and the lack of uniformity among academicians and practitioners as to exactly what KSAs are necessary for satisfactory job performance.</p> <p>Particularly because there is little, if any, empirical evidence to substantiate the various opinions (Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]), not all authors necessarily agree that the research being conducted by business school faculty is of an esoteric nature or that there is even a problematic gap between academic research and the needs of practitioners. Shapiro, Kirkman, and Courtney ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]), asserted that many members of the Academy of Management either do not perceive that a gap between research and practice exists, or if they do acknowledge the gap, are at variance with each other as to the reasons why it exists, and how to solve the problem. Thus, while Zicklin ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) writing about his experience reading academic literature contended, "I'm lost in a morass of quantitative analysis that is far beyond not only my abilities but those of almost every business person I've ever met" (p. 1), others would agree with Reid's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>]) counter that,</p> <p>[T]he vast majority of business faculty engages in research that is more practical in focus. Instead of focusing on esoteric research, the majority of research done by AACSB accredited business school faculty falls into one of three areas: basic or discovery; applied or integrative/application; or teaching and learning research. (p. 1)</p> <p>A widely held explanation for the lack of motivation on the part of business schools and academicians to change the existing status quo stems from the fact that colleges and universities, despite rhetoric to the contrary about the importance of teaching, have historically provided greater compensation, and afforded status and prestige to those academicians who engage in large amounts of scholarly research (Dulek & Fielden, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]; Elliott et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]; Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]) that is subsequently evaluated by their peers, and ultimately published in highly regarded academic journals. The rankings for these journals are usually derived from surveys of academicians nationwide, and/or internally by the faculty within the individual's own academic department and/or school of business. Typically, the journals with the higher rankings are those whose content consists of research that is more esoteric and mathematical or statistical in nature and whose readership primarily consists of academicians.</p> <p>In addition to financial and status rewards, the quality and quantity of faculty research productivity is a major determinant in tenure and promotion decisions. Traditionally, these decisions are based on the evaluation of a faculty member's performance in three areas: teaching, scholarship, and service. Despite the rhetoric about the importance of teaching in the evaluation process, Zicklin ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]) indicated that a friend serving on a promotion and tenure committee at an Ivy League school once told him that the percentage of scholarship factoring into the tenure equation was 99%, with the other two criteria sharing the remaining 1%.</p> <p>Although academicians would likely argue that the 99% figure cited by Zicklin ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]) is extreme, they probably would agree with the assertion that the percentage based on scholarship at most universities is far greater than the criteria afforded to the other two factors combined. The reason for this unbalanced weighting is apparent. Traditionally, the overall prestige afforded to business schools throughout the academic world has been based on research (Armstrong, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]), and most business school deans' ratings of business schools are based, at least partly, on the prestige afforded by the school's research (Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]). Since business faculty first changed their research agendas they have been rewarded with substantial financial gains and have garnered increased status among their university colleagues. It is only natural that academicians and administrations would be reluctant to make any changes that could potentially jeopardize the benefits they currently enjoy.</p> <p>Adding to the reward-prestige argument is the desire by business schools to obtain and retain AACSB International accreditation thereby garnering the status that accompanies AACSB membership. Ironically, while two outside agencies, the Carnegie Council and Ford Foundation started business schools on their current research tract, it appears that another external agency, the AACSB, may be unintentionally continuing this trajectory. While we acknowledge and support the flexibility that the AACSB affords business schools to establish and to be evaluated based upon their own individual missions we question whether business schools will actually adopt missions that will encourage and reward faculty for engaging in applied research. Rather, because business school missions are typically developed and adopted with significant input from existing faculty, we envision the development of mission statements driven by existing research agendas, rather than the opposite.</p> <hd id="AN0099237161-5">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The results of the present investigation indicated that there are significant differences in the topics studied by academic researchers and the knowledge, skills, and abilities that employers expect from Operations Managers. This finding appears to be consistent with the plethora of condemnation espoused throughout the literature indicating that the findings from academic research is lacking in relevance for real-world practice (Beer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; Bennis & O'Toole, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]; McCutchen & Meredith, 1993; Mentzer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; Pfeffer & Fong, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; Rubin & Dierdoff, 2009). Universities encourage faculty members to continually engage in research to ensure that they impart current and useful knowledge to their students. The measure of whether this endeavor is successful should be based on whether their students obtain meaningful employment and ultimately succeed in their chosen professions. Regrettably, it appears from the present study that while academicians are indeed participating in research activities, and being handsomely rewarded for these efforts by universities, the topics chosen for study appear for the most part to be unrelated to those deemed necessary for success by potential employers.</p> <p>Changing this state of affairs is by no means simple. Published research is a fundamental expectation for most faculty members. It is one of the cornerstones used to maintain and demonstrate academic currency. Research efforts and expectations should not be sacrificed, but the direction of those efforts should be guided in a manner which is of interest and benefit to the business community it serves. It needs to be more focused on its relevance to practitioners. It requires that academicians acknowledge that the research-practitioner gap exists and are willing to engage in activities that will foster close working relationships with corporate partners in their chosen field. Strategies to foster these relationships include conducting research involving samples from the business environment, developing business based consulting and outreach initiatives, participating in professional societies (as differentiated from their professional academic organizations), and placing and monitoring students in practicum and internships.</p> <p>Creating the motivation for academicians to engage in field-based research will initially require the re-evaluation of the criteria currently used to evaluate and reward faculty research. Rather than journal ranking being based primarily on surveys of academicians, or impact factors relating the number of times an academic journal article is cited in another academic journal, the ranking methodology should include recognition for contributions to practice. Practitioner-based journals need to be elevated in the continuum of journal rankings. Peer-reviewed articles should include practitioners from the professional business environment. Traditional academic journals whose review boards consist solely of academicians should consider adding practitioners.</p> <p>Last, we maintain that a key reason why the research-practitioner gap exists is that there is little, if any, agreement between or among researchers and practitioners regarding the topics to study, or what KSAs are essential for satisfactory job performance. There does not appear to be a comprehensive listing anywhere of the essential functions necessary for satisfactorily performing the job duties of an operations manager, or of the KSAs necessary to meet these job responsibilities. Moreover, even if such a list existed or could be developed, because jobs with the exact same title vary across organizations, the job characteristics would need to be weighted differently to suit the needs of the particular enterprise. Consequently, until practitioners can articulate a universal set of needs it seems unlikely that there is any incentive for researchers to change the emphases of their studies. After all, they are being well rewarded for their current endeavors.</p> <ref id="AN0099237161-6"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham, S. E., & Karnes, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the competencies that businesses value? Journal of Education for Business, 84, 350–356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, J. S. (1995). The devil's advocate responds to an MBA student's claim that research harms learning. Journal of Marketing, 59, 101–106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref12" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2010). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/AACSB-standards-2010.pdf">http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/AACSB-standards-2010.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, J., & Ford, C. (1996). Management as science versus management as practice in post graduate business education. Business Strategy Review, 7(4), 7–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beer, M. (2001). Why management research findings are unimplementable: An action science perspective. Reflections, 2, 58–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bennis, W. G., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104, 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> DeVise, D. (2010, April 29). Survey: College applicants want to earn, not learn. The Washington Post. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/04/survey%5fcollege%5fapplicants%5fwant.html">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/04/survey%5fcollege%5fapplicants%5fwant.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dulek, R. E., & Fielden, J. S. (1992). Why fight the system? The non-choice facing beleaguered business faculties. Business Horizon, 35(5), 13–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Elliott, C. J., Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. C. (1994). MBA programs and business needs: Is there a mismatch. Business Horizons, 37(4), 55–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linder, J. C., & Smith, H. J. (1992). The complex case of management education. Harvard Business Review, 70(5), 16–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 11, 239–256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Rigor versus relevance: Why would we choose only one? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44, 72–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mintzberg, H. (2004, June). The MBA menace. Fast Company. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.fastcompany.com/50160/mba-menace">http://www.fastcompany.com/50160/mba-menace</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, J. E. (2005). Top-25-business school professors rate journals in operations management and related fields. Interfaces, 35, 323–338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid, B. (2013, April). The balance between teaching and research: Are B-schools research obsessed? eNewsline. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.aacsb.edu/enewsline/balance-between-teaching-and-research.asp">http://www.aacsb.edu/enewsline/balance-between-teaching-and-research.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, L. D. (2003). A challenge to business education. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18, 5–6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 208–224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutner, S. M., & Fawcett, S. E. (2005). The state of supply chain education. Supply Chain Management Review, 9(6), 55–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340–355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problems in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 249–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2005). The future of the business school: Knowledge challenges and opportunities. Human Relations, 58, 61–82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tapp, A. (2007). Physics envy. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25, 229–231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulrich, T. (2005). The relationship of business major to pedagogical strategies. Journal of Education for Business, 80, 269–274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zicklin, L. (2013, February 13). Why business schools teach transparency but practice ambiguity. Knowledge at Wharton. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-business-schools-teach-transparency-but-practice-ambiguity/">http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-business-schools-teach-transparency-but-practice-ambiguity/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marc G. Singer and Cliff A. Welborn</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1044712
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Operations Management: Is There a Disconnect between Journal Article Content and Employer Needs?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Singer%2C+Marc+G%2E%22">Singer, Marc G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Welborn%2C+Cliff+A%2E%22">Welborn, Cliff A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Business%22"><i>Journal of Education for Business</i></searchLink>. 2014 89(8):396-402.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Operations+Research%22">Operations Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Effectiveness%22">Organizational Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Management+Systems%22">Management Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employers%22">Employers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Skills%22">Job Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ability%22">Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Opportunities%22">Employment Opportunities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recruitment%22">Recruitment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personnel+Needs%22">Personnel Needs</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08832323.2014.921592
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0883-2323
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The authors sought to determine whether topics researched by academicians in the field of operations management were aligned with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) employers were seeking from potential employees. Twenty-eight research topics were identified in the operations management literature and were compared to the KSAs derived from 200 online job postings. Ultimately, six research topics were found to be aligned with the KSAs employers were seeking, 10 topics were underrepresented, and 12 topics were overrepresented.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 27
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1044712
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1044712
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08832323.2014.921592
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 396
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Operations Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Management Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Opportunities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recruitment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personnel Needs
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Operations Management: Is There a Disconnect between Journal Article Content and Employer Needs?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Singer, Marc G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Welborn, Cliff A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0883-2323
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 89
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Business
              Type: main
ResultId 1