Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article comments on a paper by Sumantra Ghoshal published in this issue of Academy of Management Learning & Education which argues that academic research related to the conduct of business and management has had some very significant and negative influences on the practice of management. The author notes that the article proves to be one of Ghoshal's most impactful contributions to the scholarship of practice and practice in the field of management. The author wholeheartedly subscribes to some of Ghoshal's points, has doubts about others, and is intellectually piqued by yet others. In this article, the author addresses one major point in each of these three categories. First, he applauds Ghoshal's plea that business scholars allow, and respect, a wider array of scholars at what he calls the academic high table. Second, the author questions Sumantra's assertion that the adoption of the scientific approach by business scholars is somehow at odds with the role of human intentionality and volition. Third, and most significant, the author agrees with Ghoshal's concern about the huge, often insidious influence that agency theory and its underlying gloomy vision of human motives has had on public policy and corporate practice.
Donald C. Hambrick (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: