Page 18 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Wright et al. 317

Kerr’s First Two “Folly” Causes AOM membership asking them to directly contact the FT
Combined and request that the Academy of Management Review (AMR)
be retained on the FT list of prestigious, highly visible jour-
An important interview value-added contribution involves nals. The reason given was AMR’s highly visible impact fac-
Kerr’s suggestion that there are not four “Folly” causes. tor of 7.45. This highly visible impact factor resulted in AMR
Extending Kerr, we begin our discussion proposing that there being ranked No. 1 in the category of Business and No. 2 in
may only be two causes to the “Folly.” Of course, Kerr the category of Management. Another highly visible reason
(1975, 1995) originally listed four main causes of inappro- given was that AMR had close to 5 million downloads to its
priate reward behavior. content in 2015. Irrespective of the purpose or intent of these
The first involves the fascination with various objective downloads, 5 million is a very large number and certainly
criteria. Influenced by B. F. Skinner (1938, 1953, 1972), highly visible. The marketing strategy worked, AMR remains
Kerr accurately noted that an overarching target in many on the FT 50 journal list, although the Academy of
appraisal situations is to establish simple, easily quantifiable Management Perspectives (AMP) was not so lucky, and was
standards to not only evaluate, but also determine one’s dropped.
“market” value. However, as Kerr noted, far too many Citation numbers are both an objective criterion and a
“objective” measures of performance are considered objec- perceived reflection of a highly visible behavior—that is,
tive simply because their subjective aspects were determined quality research. As signaled in the previous example, there
a priori rather than at the time of formal assessment. is a fascination and overemphasis with respect to citation
Putting it in context—and not uncommon to all organiza- numbers. A case in point is the Baron and Kenny (1986) arti-
tions—multiple authors have worked at universities where cle that outlines the four-step procedure for testing mediation
salary adjustments are based upon the ability of an employee hypotheses and which has achieved statistical and method-
to obtain another job offer and bring it back for discussion ological myths and urban legend (SMMUL) status. According
and renegotiation. Thus, faculty worth is supposedly “objec- to Lance (2011),
tively” determined by a competitive market offer. However,
in reality, when the most productive employees go on the SMMULs are those rules of thumb, maxims, truisms, and
market, one could realistically assume that they stand a very guidelines for research conduct . . . taught in undergraduate and
good chance of getting a superior offer, which could result in graduate classes, inferred by gatekeepers (e.g., grant panels,
their decision to voluntarily turnover. reviewers, editors, dissertation committee members), discussed
One business school administrator that the lead author is among colleagues and otherwise passed along among pliers of
familiar with fervently believes in the worth of this practice, the trade far and wide and from generation to generation. (pp.
which has been referred to as the “Big Package Counteroffer.” 280-281)
Not only can this practice lead to dysfunctional consequences
(i.e., the unnecessary loss of your top employees), but it can Although SMMULs often contain a kernel of perceived
also be considered as unethical as it necessitates that one truth, they also are largely built upon myth. And if this isn’t
misrepresents himself or herself to one or more third parties. enough of a concern, over time, these “objective” kernels of
No one should ever interview in bad faith. Unfortunately, the perceived truth become larger than life, and these urban
practice appears to be widespread and apparently works. It myths eventually come to take on the appearance of actual
certainly worked for this particular business school adminis- fact (Lance, 2011). Although seemingly “objective” in
trator, who was able to incorporate this technique in their nature, they are actually highly prescriptive in nature in
“Big Package Counteroffer” renegotiation with their current establishing the framework and specific guidelines for
school to help garner a more than US$300,000 increase in agreed upon normative research conduct and what consti-
their total compensation package over a 2-year evaluation tutes acceptable research. While working on a presentation
period! on Kerr’s “Folly” for the 2015 Western Academy of
The second “Folly” cause involves an overemphasis on Management, we determined that Baron and Kenny had been
highly visible behaviors. As Kerr accurately noted, difficul- cited an incredible 46,336 times (Source: Google Scholar,
ties in evaluation often occur when some aspects of an indi- October 3, 2014). Roughly 30 months later, and amid much
vidual’s job are more easily visible than are others. Consider subsequent discussion and the opportunity for interested
the recent example involving the Academy of Management scholars to investigate some of the fine work by such organi-
(AOM) and the Financial Times (FT) 45 business journal zational methodologists as Lance (2011) and Vandenberg
rankings. The FT 45 (now FT 50) is a highly visible ranking (2006), the number of citations is now an even more incred-
of business journals. It is highly influential in the determina- ible 69,072 (Source: Google Scholar, April 22, 2017).
tion of business school rankings and affects the promotion Collectively, the authors have discussed the “Folly” with
and/or tenure decisions of faculty employed at business thousands of students over the years in their classes.
schools. On June 6, 2016, the AOM sent out an email to the Invariably, students indicate their confusion when called