Navigating the Study of Executive Leaders’ Spirituality

[Wejmia_26_1-cover’re pleased to welcome Dr. Stuart Allen, Associate Professor at Robert Morris University in Organizational Leadership. Allen recently published an article in Journal of Management Inquiry entitled “Navigating the Study of Executive Leaders’ Spirituality: André Delbecq’s Journey.” From Allen:]

We first began to communicate with André Delbecq in 2014. After reading his articles and hearing him speak at conferences we were eager to include him in an instructional video we were working on that addressed the role of spirituality in leadership and the workplace. André invited us to visit him at his home in San Francisco in early 2015 to video-record an hour long discussion. André is a renowned figure in the Academy of Management, and especially in the Management Spirituality and Religion (MSR) Interest Group, due to his long history of contributions to the management field (over 225 scholarly articles) and his pioneering work on topics such as the Nominal Group Technique. In his late career, in the late 1990s, André began to focus on executive leadership spirituality, publishing various accounts of his approach in delivering seminars on this topic to his graduate management students at Santa Clara University, where he served as senior fellow in the Ignatian Center for Jesuit Education and professor of management in the Leavey School of Business.

In the months following the interview, while editing the video footage, we realized that we had much more content than we could include in our initial video; we also recognized the depth of André’s rich experience and warm approach in sharing his experiences and perspective. After seeing an article about Fred Luthans (Sommer, 2006) in the unique Meet the Person format included in the Journal of Management Inquiry (JMI), we contacted André and JMI’s editors to gauge interest in an article in this format about André. In August 2016 we met with André for a second interview at the Academy of Management’s 2016 Annual Conference in Anaheim and spent another 90 minutes with André. He elaborated on some of the earlier issues we had explored with him while adding a great focus on his career and experiences as a pioneering teaching practitioner and author. By this time, we had come to know André better, and later that same morning we presented a panel with him and Jody Fry.

Wanting to see the interviews published, we finished the manuscript in September 2016 and sent it to André for his review and approval. He responded on October 1 letting us know that we could publish the article, but also letting us know he was experiencing some health challenges and would be heading to hospital. Twelve days later we heard of André’s passing. This was a challenging end to the beginning of great friendship as we were just getting to know André at a new level. We were also awed by his generosity and commitment to scholarship through the detailed comments we received in his review, even when he was ill and about to go to the hospital.

This article reports on the two interviews, providing a broader picture of André’s career and experiences as a pioneering scholar and teacher. André also shared some of his thinking about the current state of the MSR field and opportunities for new research. He has shared his thoughts on how to approach the challenges of researching new topics and the rewards he received for doing so. It is hard to communicate the full essence of the experience of working with André, who was a wise, patient, generous, bold, and joyful person to be with. He exemplified the transformative presence of a great leader and scholar. We were honored with the opportunity to capture his thoughts and experiences at what unexpectedly turned out to be the end of his life. Anyone who knew André, is interested in MSR research, teaching, and scholarship, or those seeking to learn from the example of pioneering scholar might enjoy reading the interview.

 

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts so you can stay up to date with the latest research from Journal of Management Inquiry.

The Brain Basis for the Digital Daze of Millennials

6858063937_1fb1b7685c_z[We’re pleased to welcome Tim Brown of University of California, San Diego. Tim recently published a rejoinder to the article “Digital Technology and Student Cognitive Development: The Neuroscience of the University Classroom” entitled “On the Brain Basis of Digital Daze in Millennial Minds,” published in Journal of Management Education. Tim’s interview for the piece:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

As a neuroscientist who studies child brain development, I strongly support the promotion of public policies that will help edify the minds and brains of our youngest citizens. So I’m quite interested in the recent widespread use of digital media by children and adolescents and the possible cognitive effects this phenomenon might be having on them. Scientifically, it’s a difficult question to pin down, but with our widely available new noninvasive brain imaging and recording tools (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging— fMRI, electroencephalography— EEG, magnetoencephalography— MEG) it should be possible.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

One of the most surprising aspects of this topic to me is how very little peer-reviewed neuroscientific evidence there is (if Current Issue Coverany!) for this “digital daze” phenomenon. This is somewhat surprising in light of the fact that the phenomenon has been well documented behaviorally and because there seems to be a general consensus that the amount of time youngsters spend being “techno-tethered” is worrisome from a psychological health standpoint. It seems that some are taking for granted the idea that these brains are actually being “re-wired” to be shallower processors of information without the scientific evidence required to make this inference.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

I think the issue is certainly an important one and I hope that some of the points I have chosen to emphasize will lead to more and better research on the possible brain effects of purported “screen addiction”. At the same time, as I suggest in the article, I also believe that brain measures are simply neither necessary nor sufficient for making informed decisions about many such public policy issues. Cognitive, behavioral, and academic measures should remain the stalwarts for assessing potential problems like this and for measuring the success of solutions that we put into practice.

An excerpt from the rejoinder:

Given what we know about how brains work, activities performed at such lengths must have some effects on the young brains involved. At all phases of human development and aging, our brains reflect within their structural and functional organization aspects of the activities, both mental and physical, in which we are engaged (Poldrack, Desmond, Glover, & Gabrieli, 1998; Ungerleider, Doyona, & Karnic, 2002). But as Cavanaugh and colleagues articulate, the concern is precisely that these youngsters’ brains are not really engaged during many of these tasks. And one principle that has emerged from developmental cognitive neuroscience research is that the growing brain shows a progressive commitment of resources with increasing age and decreasing plasticity overall (Stiles, Brown, Haist, & Jernigan, 2015; Stiles, Reilly, Levine, Trauner, & Nass, 2012). So in addition to fears that these protracted digital activities might be bad for students, we can also certainly imagine that some of this time might be better spent devoted to any number of activities that we know or suspect are good for developing minds and brains.

You can read the article “Digital Technology and Student Cognitive Development: The Neuroscience of the University Classroom” and Tim Brown’s rejoinder “On the Brain Basis of Digital Daze in Millennial Minds” from Journal of Management Education free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Want to stay up to date with all of the latest research from Journal of Management Education? Click here to sign up for e-alerts! You can also check out the latest podcasts from Journal of Management Education by clicking here!

*Image attributed to Campus Party Brazil (CC)

Read the New Issue of Journal of Management Education!

10740098824_efe1d316b7_zThe October 2016 issue of Journal of Management Education is now available online, and can be accessed free for the next 30 days. The October issue features a new provocative conversation for the article “Isn’t It Time We Did Something About the Lack of Teaching Preparation in Business Doctoral Programs?” by authors Robert D. Marx, Joseph E. Garcia, D. Anthony Butterfield, Jeffrey A. Kappen, and Timothy T. Baldwin. The rejoinders for the article include rejoinders from Roy J. Lewicki, James Bailey, Graham Gibbs, Dianne Minh Le, and Denise M. Rousseau.

In the rejoinder “A Deeper Dig,” Roy J. Lewicki and James Current Issue CoverBailey delve into the supply side, demand side, and throughput process of management doctoral programs to fully understand the lack of teaching preparation. Their rejoinder suggests that institutions would be resistant to the suggested changes, but a shift in the supply and demand for skilled teachers could potentially force the hand of institutions to address this issue.

In the rejoinder “On the Call for Action,” Dianne Le discusses the role of AACSB and hiring institutions in addressing the lack of teaching preparation. Her rejoinder raises the question of when and where teacher training should begin, considering teaching expectations differ quite a bit from one institution to the next.

You can read all of the rejoinders and more from the October 2016 issue of Journal of Management Education free for the next 30 days–click here to view the table of contents! You can also read through past provocative conversations published on the Journal of Management Education website here.

Want to stay current on all of the latest research and rejoinders published by Journal of Management Education? Click here to sign up for e-alerts! 

*Lecture image attributed to University of Liverpool (CC)

Read the August 2016 Issue of Journal of Management Education!

4537055943_82352d7853_zThe August 2016 issue of Journal of Management Education is now available online and can be accessed free for the next 30 days. The August issue features a provocative article from authors J. Michael Cavanaugh, Catherine C. Giapponi, and Timothy D. Golden, entitled “Digital Technology and Student Cognitive Development: The Neuroscience of the University Classroom,” which delves into how digital technology is changing the way students learn on a neurological level, and how management educators should reevaluate their approach to teaching as a result. In particular, the article highlights the negative impact digital technology has on students “deep thinking” capabilities. The authors argue that management education should help students develop multiple literacies across contexts, teaching students reading, comprehension, and complex thinking that may be lost if teachers focus wholly on technology and digital media. The abstract for the article:

Current Issue Cover

Digital technology has proven a beguiling, some even venture addictive, presence in the lives of our 21st century (millennial) students. And while screen technology may offer select cognitive benefits, there is mounting evidence in the cognitive neuroscience literature that digital technology is restructuring the way our students read and think, and not necessarily for the better. Rather, emerging research regarding intensive use of digital devices suggests something more closely resembling a Faustian quandary: Certain cognitive skills are gained while other “deep thinking” capabilities atrophy as a result of alterations in the neural circuitry of millennial brains. This has potentially profound implications for management teaching and practice. In response, some advocate that we “meet students where we find them.” We too acknowledge the need to address student needs, but with the proviso that the academy’s trademark commitment to penetrating, analytical thinking not be compromised given the unprecedented array of existential challenges awaiting this generation of students. These and rising faculty suspicions of a new “digital divide” cropping up in the management classroom represents a timely opportunity for management educators to reflect not only on how today’s students read and learn, but equally, on what and how we teach.

The issue also features a rejoinder from author Caroline Williams-Pierce, who offers an interesting counterargument to Cavanaugh, Giapponi, and Golden’s article, arguing that given their autonomy, students can engage in deep interest-driven learning through digital media.

You can read the August 2016 issue of Journal of Management Education free for the next 30 days by clicking here. Want to stay current on all of the latest research from Journal of Management EducationClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Ipad image attributed to Gustav Holmström (CC)

Protecting Students’ Intellectual Property

14620308240_c746067daf_z[We’re pleased to welcome Sarah Wright of the University of Canterbury. Sarah recently published an article in Journal of Management Education entitled “Protecting Student Intellectual Property in the Entrepreneurial Classroom,” highlighting her interview with Jerome A. Katz of Saint Louis University.]

The interview I conducted with Jerry Katz looks into an important, but overlooked problem in entrepreneurial courses within universities – the ownership of student ideas. Who owns the intellectual property a student creates while enrolled in a course Current Issue Coverat university, using university resources? Jerry and I began talking about this dilemma at the Vancouver AOM meeting. I was puzzled as to why there has been no widespread discussion of this issue – in the literature, within universities, or in general?! It seems like everyone is scrambling for revenue streams for universities created from innovation and commercialisation, and in doing are so making sure the academics and the universities’ interests are protected. But it seems the students, and their families, interests have been forgotten in the process. We think this oversight, purposeful or otherwise, is quite worrisome. Professor Katz’s solution is to put the students’ interests at the heart of any university policy on commercialisation of intellectual property (which is only starting to happen now), and to create strong classroom norms around the protection of ideas.

The abstract for the paper:

While universities are intensely protective of revenue streams related to intellectual property interests for the institution and professors, the financial and legal interests of students in the entrepreneurial process have largely been overlooked. This lack of attention, both in universities and in the literature, is intriguing given the mushrooming growth in entrepreneurial education courses in almost every U.S. university. This article builds and reflects on an original article by Katz, Harshman, and Lund Dean where the authors advocate for establishing classroom norms for promoting and protecting student intellectual property. We present research, insights, and reflections from Professor Katz regarding the controversial ethical and legal issues related to student intellectual property in university settings and provide suggested resources for faculty traversing these issues.

You can read “Protecting Student Intellectual Property in the Entrepreneurial Classroom” from Journal of Management Education free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Journal of Management EducationClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Copyright symbol image attributed to Chris Potter (CC)

Award-Winning Journal of Management Education Article on Business Studios

2016 Roethlisberger Award WinnerWe are pleased to congratulate Stefan Meisiek of University of Sydney and Daved Barry of Jönköping International Business School , who received the Fritz Roethlisberger Memorial Award for 2016 with their article, “Discovering the Business Studio,” published in the February 2015 issue of Journal of Management Education. 

The Fritz Roethlisberger Memorial Award commemorates Fritz Roethlisberger’s devotion to inquiry and learning. Fritz Roethlisberger helped pioneer the Human Relations School of Management as a human-centric alternative to Taylorist management. The Human Relations School has strongly informed the recent global push towards business humanities education. The Fritz Roethlisberger Memorial Award is granted to authors judged to have contributed the best paper on teaching and learning in organizational and management sciences published in the Journal of Management Education during the previous year.

The abstract for the paper:

Over the past decade, numerous business schools have begun experimenting with studio-based inquiry, often drawing inspiration from professional studios used within art and design schools and from business and governmental studios used for problem-solving and innovation. Business school studios vary considerably in form, ranging from temporary “pop up” studios to dedicated facilities with full-time JMEstaff, with the primary purpose of educating managers in craft, art, and design-based approaches to business problems. The jury on the studio phenomenon is out—can they deliver on their educational promise? To address this question, we pull together 25 years of studio experimentation in multiple settings, visits, and observations of studios around the world and interviews with studio makers from various disciplines. We consider the question of “what is a business studio?” in some detail, conjecture about the value that studios might have for management education, provide examples of four different business studio orientations and how these might translate into practice, and highlight what we believe to be some essentials when starting and running a business studio.

You can read the award-winning article “Discovering the Business Studio” free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Journal of Management EducationClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

During the month of April, you can access 1.5 million article across SAGE Publishing’s 940+ journals for free–how? Sign up here for free trial access!

Award-Winning Journal of Management Education Article on Learning-Inhibitory Introductory Textbooks

JME

Robert A. Snyder of Northern Kentucky University recently won the first Ruane National Prize for Innovation in Business Education for his article, “Let’s Burn Them All: Reflections on the Learning-Inhibitory Nature of Introduction to Management and Introduction to Organizational Behavior Textbooks,” which was published in the October 2014 issue of Journal of Management Education. Dr. Snyder also has a forthcoming book, The Social Cognitive Neuroscience of Leading Organizational Change, which will be released on March 12, 2016 by Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

The abstract for the award-winning article:

This essay provides evidence from the neurosciences that standard Introduction to Management and Introduction to Organizational Behavior textbooks may inhibit, rather than facilitate, learning of the basic concepts and the rudimentary knowledge-basis that underlie the complex skills business students should learn in subsequent coursework and that they must hone in practice as future managers. Specific introductory textbook limitations that are addressed include the following: (a) the nearly total absence of neuroscience findings that have important relevance and application to management and organizational behavior; (b) the ineffective manner in which theories are presented; (c) the use of idiosyncratic, academically derived, or simply spot-invented language; (d) the nonengaging manner in which information (generally speaking) is presented; and (e) the question of whether such textbooks are being read, much less studied. Based on my recent, joyous experience in not using such textbooks, I propose, for readers’ possible consideration, an alternative (hyperlink) practice that is (a) fully compatible with recent neuroscience research on management, learning, and information retention/retrieval and (b) likely to dramatically increase student engagement with assigned readings in Introduction to Management and Introduction to Organizational Behavior courses and their ability to retrieve content and apply it during class discussions.

You can read “Let’s Burn Them All: Reflections on the Learning-Inhibitory Nature of Introduction to Management and Introduction to Organizational Behavior Textbooks” from Journal of Management Education free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Journal of Management Education? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!