Reappraising the Brain Drain: Collaboration as a Catalyst for Innovation in Industrial Organizational Research

Transcription

1 Reappraising the brain drain 347 Reappraising the Brain Drain: Collaboration as a Catalyst for Innovation in Industrial Organizational Research LILY D. CUSHENBERY Stony Brook University ALLISON S. GABRIEL Virginia Commonwealth University We agree with Aguinis, Bradley, and Brodersen (2014) that industrial organizational (I O) expansion into business schools is rapidly occurring. In fact, we know this first hand having recently received our I O doctoral degrees and beginning our academic careers in business schools. However, the focus of Aguinis et al. is that this trend is a detriment to I O and business departments alike. For I O, it represents a brain drain and loss of talent to the dark side. The authors cite push factors (e.g., lack of respect from other psychology areas, focus on grant funding) as well as pull factors (e.g., higher compensation, opportunity to teach executive education, access to data collection, more practically oriented research) to help explain the trend. More concerning is that Aguinis et al. presented the possibility that I O psychology will become less valued in business schools, potentially causing new business faculty with I O backgrounds to feel pressure to change their research agendas to get tenure. In other words, changing the reward system based on who Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lily D. Cushenbery. Lily.Cushenbery@stonybrook.edu Address: College of Business, Stony Brook University, 256 Harriman Hall, Stony Brook, NY and Allison S. Gabriel agabriel2@vcu.edu Address: School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, 301 West Main Street P.O. Box , Richmond, VA is doing the rewarding (business vs. I O) will alter the I O psychology topics to be more macro-based and O focused, as opposed to more micro and I -sided. In summary, Aguinis et al. present two possible outcomes for the field: (a) I O will continue to function as I O, but with a stronger practitioner focus; or (b) I O will be folded into the demands of business schools. These conclusions, in our view, are an overly rigid interpretation of the field: We either stay the same or lose ourselves to business schools completely. We argue that although some aspects of training may differ, the overarching goals of individuals trained in psychology or business (e.g., human resources; management; organizational behavior [OB]) paradigms remain largely the same, given that both sides value understanding and improving employees lives in work settings. In this light, we propose a third outcome: By responding to the changing demands and reward systems in our field, I O psychologists should reappraise the situation as an opportunity to promote cross-disciplinary work that can lead to greater innovation. We believe that reappraising this change as an opportunity instead of a threat will have a positive impact on our research. Innovation is the result of a break from the status quo (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003), and there is infinite potential in the combination of our two fields if we can manage the union well. As departments grow

2 348 L.D. Cushenbery and A.S. Gabriel interdisciplinary, they can become more dynamic intellectual environments that may create the perfect storm for innovative research that advances both fields. In order to achieve a positive outcome for this merge in disciplines, we turn to research in innovation and organizational behavior. We suggest three primary goals to promote positive growth: (a) department leaders aligning goals, (b) managing complimentary skills and diverse perspectives, and (c) creating environments conducive to innovation. Department Leaders Aligning Goals I O psychology and business researchers have the same goals: understanding and improving life in work settings. If done well, the possibility for a new and improved integrated identity for I O and business school researchers alike could be more suited for today s realities in organizations. This does not mean that coexisting and identifying with each other will lead to such identity shifts; rather, colleagues in mixed departments need to actively work together to produce innovative outcomes. Leaders who can improve cohesion within their work groups have been shown to improve idea generation and idea implementation (King & Anderson, 1990; Mumford & Licuanan, 2004). Thus, department leaders can play an important role in transforming the work environment. Department leaders, both formal and emergent, should promote the value of cross-disciplinary work and create opportunities to work together. Research suggests that leaders may be particularly important for shaping goals in uncertain environments (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Creating a vision for innovation can help team members become more committed and view their somewhat ambiguous goals as more attainable (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). In research and development organizations specifically, leadership processes such as boundary spanning and championing may be particularly important (Elkins & Keller, 2003). Leaders can also act as role models for innovation by expressing unconventional behaviors and helping maintain an environment that is supportive of creative thinking (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011). Another important way leaders can influence innovation in diverse environments is to show enthusiasm for and reward innovation (Amabile et al., 1986; Tierney et al., 1999). Because of the complex nature of innovation, it may be best for leaders to provide a range of rewards (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). For example, departments can choose to count top-tier journals in other fields for tenure. Conversely, university leaders may consider developing internal grant programs that are specifically geared toward interdisciplinary research. However, creative people tend to be intrinsically motivated, negating the need for heavy extrinsic rewards, and sometimes it is most important for organizations to simply get out of their way (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Hiring psychologists into business schools already shows that department and school leaders value cross-disciplinary work and can help give the perception that they are open to change and new ideas (Hülsheger et al., 2009). By unifying the department and aligning goals and strategy, departments can utilize cross-disciplinary teams to produce more innovative research. Managing Complimentary Skills and Diverse Perspectives As Aguinis et al. noted, the attraction selection attrition (ASA) model (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) suggests that researchers may self-select themselves into business school environments; we believe that a cross-disciplinary approach can be particularly appealing for some researchers. These environments may be similar to the approaches taken by Google, Proctor & Gamble, and other innovative companies that create spaces designed to bring diverse people together. For example,

3 Reappraising the brain drain 349 several notable programs are already highly cross-disciplinary, such as the blended OB programs at Harvard, UC Berkeley, and Stanford. Business schools are also homes for a variety of other related fields such as social psychology and sociology. Universities like Stony Brook University are making cluster-hires, which are tenure track positions that span different departments and bridge them together, with clusters such as behavioral political economy. Creating these environments encourages innovative thinking as people are exposed to new ideas. Moreover, integrating scholars from psychology and business backgrounds can create a tipping point for innovation; as articulated by Malcolm Gladwell and popular press posts from Adam Grant, We normally think about innovation as the result of what you know and who you know, but it s also a function of who you introduce (Grant, 2013). I Os in business schools are not only more likely to meet people outside their discipline but also will have prolonged interactions with them. Work groups that socialize together improve work communication exchanges, break down stereotypes, and encourage minority voice (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Furthermore, team diversity can continue to broaden a network by triggering more communication with outsiders, allowing more diverse information (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Although Aguinis et al. found individuals who said that I O training does not match skills required in business schools, given the evolving nature of work environments, this can be construed as a positive instead of a negative. The unique training that each area receives can bring complimentary areas of expertise, skills, and knowledge. Bringing together people with different expertise can break down traditional hierarchies (Folkestad & Gonzalez, 2010). The variety of methods that I O psychologists use, in combination with the business school s orientation toward theory, may be a particularly well-suited match. For example, experimental work on leadership adds value to the proliferation of survey work in leadership research (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007), but developing theory is also important. In this way, business psychology partnerships may present checks and balances by combining priorities and producing outstanding research. Although collaborations with a number of disciplines can also produce these positive outcomes, we argue that business schools can be one of the many places in which I Os find a good home. Creating Environments Conducive to Innovation Although bringing people together with different expertise can lead to new ideas, it can also lead to conflict. When conflict is targeted at ideas rather than personal attacks, it can trigger greater information exchange and questioning of the status quo (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Thus, as more I Os enter and rise in business departments, there will be a reciprocal influence and a newly negotiated culture that is a better fit for both specialties. Integrating I Os into business schools can help foster bottom-up emergence of new organizational cultures (e.g., Erez & Gati, 2004) that (a) remove the negative stigmas associated with I Os entering business schools and (b) create hybrid blends or best-of collections of what psychology and business have to offer. The resulting culture change will likely yield long-term, successful collaborations. The challenges presented in a new environment can enhance innovation by encouraging researchers to try new research approaches. This point addresses Aguinis et al. s contention that new PhDs may be susceptible to the research agendas of business departments. As business departments become friendlier to I Os, there will be less pressure to adapt research agendas to fit in. In other words, it may be true that there will be greater numbers of I O researchers in business schools in the future, but the cultures of these departments will be different. This is already reflected in business departments as there is an

4 350 L.D. Cushenbery and A.S. Gabriel increased focus (and financial support) of human subjects research in the form of subject pools, lab space, and funding. Paired with business schools having greater access to organizational samples through executive education, networking events, and large corporate alumni bases, this yields the potential for lab- and field-based projects that increase our understanding of complex organizational phenomena. However, innovation is often as much of a social process as it is technical, and creating a supportive environment is essential (Anderson & West, 1998; Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001). But considering our skill sets as I O psychologists, navigating organizational change is a challenge that we are uniquely trained for. Conclusion Although Aguinis et al. paint an uncertain picture of the movement of I Os from psychology to business departments, we argue that the interdisciplinary collaboration can have a positive impact for innovation. In our view, business departments are being progressive and forward thinking with their cross-disciplinary approach, managing surface-level differences in favor of long-term innovative gains that deep-level diversity can bring (Hülsheger et al., 2009). We see this move as an opportunity for I O researchers to broaden their perspectives and the potential impact of their research. Innovation is at the heart of human adaptation (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009) and may also be the pathway for the continued growth of I O psychology as a discipline. References Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(3), Amabile,T.M.,Hennessey,B.A.,&Grossman,B.S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), Anderson, N., & West, M. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), Bain, P., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32(1), doi: / Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, doi: /S (03) Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), Folkestad, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Teamwork for innovation: A content analysis of the highly read and highly cited literature on innovation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(1), doi: / Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), doi: /j.jm Grant, A. (2013). The gift we love to receive but forget to give. Huffington Post. Retrieved from Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), doi: /a Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2011). Leading for innovation: Direct and indirect influences. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3), doi: / Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), doi: /j.leaqua Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp ). Chichester, England: Wiley. Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, doi: /j.leaqua Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships.

5 Differentiation from business schools 351 The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), doi: /S (02) Perry-Smith, J., & Shalley, C. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, doi: /j tb01780.x Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), doi: /j tb00173.x