ChatGPT Undermines Human Reflexivity, Scientific Responsibility and Responsible Management Research

PurposeThis study aims to critically examine talent management practices and strategies from ethical and responsible management perspectives.Design/methodology/approachIt achieves its aim through conceptual analysis by theorising through the lenses of talent philosophies, the organisational justice theory, the stakeholder theory and extant literature.FindingsA responsible talent management construct and mode to guide the practice of talent management in a socially responsible way is developed. It argues that inclusivity; corporate responsibility; and equity and equal employment opportunity are the key underlying principles of a responsible talent management system. This study further argues that responsible talent management practices promote achievement of multilevel sustainable outcomes such as decent work, employee well-being and organisational well-being.Practical implicationsEmphasising responsible management and ethical concerns in organisational talent strategies and practices is non-negotiable, given the current level of interest in sustainable work and employment and in the quest to achieve sustainable human and organisational outcomes through management and organisational practices.Originality/valueThe development of a responsible talent management construct and model is original and novel and is expected to shape thinking and drive new research directions in the field of talent management. It further contributes directly to knowledge and practice by demonstrating how organisations can manage their talents in a responsible way.

The emerging field of responsible management learning is characterized by an urgent need for transdisciplinary practices. We conceptualize constellations of transdisciplinary practices by building up on a social practice perspective. From this perspective, knowledge and learning are ‘done’ in interrelated practices that may span multiple fields like the professional, educational, and research field. Such practices integrate knowledge across disciplines (interdisciplinarity) and sectors (intersectorality) in order to learn to enact, educate, and research complex responsible management. Accordingly, constellations of collaborative transdisciplinary practices span the three layers of the responsible management field: Professional responsible management, responsible management education, and responsible management research. We apply this framework to map both recent responsible management learning publications and contributions to this special issue. We notice that although the responsible management field’s aspiration for transdisciplinarity is high the degree to which it has been realized is low. This results in our proposal for a research agenda, which points out impediments to transdisciplinary, and research directions for the responsible management learning field. We also highlight theoretical implications of our conceptual framework for the larger transdisciplinarity discussion.

Notwithstanding the increasing interest in responsible management research, education and practice, severe acts of irresponsibility happen every day in many business organizations. How can those irresponsible behaviors be detected and prevented? In this conceptual chapter, we explore the similarities and possible synergies between responsible management and whistleblowing. In particular, we show that the practice of whistleblowing is consistent with responsible management principles because it is crucial for detecting and preventing irresponsible management. As a consequence, responsible managers (notably, all managers and not only those holding sustainability or ethics-related roles) can act as both whistleblowers and their supporters. Vice versa, whistleblowing could trigger more responsible management and organizations.

This chapter provides a constructive critique of responsible management. It starts by arguing that responsible management does little but extend managerial power and control over employees in more sophisticated ways. Moreover, in terms of enacting change, we argue that problems of limited agency are often overlooked in responsible management research leading to a naïve optimism in the power of individuals and a dismissal of existing political, organizational and cultural contexts. Subsequently, we suggest, via a discussion of the “third wave” of critical management studies and the idea of agonism, ways in which responsible management research could become more critical and more potent. In doing so, we highlight the need for responsible management research to look more at carefully selected collectives rather than individuals, both in the ways in which researchers try to enact change and engage managers and in the way they conceptualize responsibility in the first place.

The CODATA-RDA Schools for Research Data Science (SRDS) is a network of schools originating in the RDA in 2016. In 2019 it was recognized as an RDA output. To date, over 400 students from 40 countries have been trained in 10 schools. The majority of these students were postgraduates from low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In contrast to many other data science training approaches, the SRDS schools are designed to be 2-week, disciplinarily-agnostic, residential events where students are introduced to a broad range of tools requisite for efficient and responsible data-centric research. This paper presents the results of a survey carried out on alumni from schools held between 2016 and 2019 (45% response). The results of the survey strongly support the SRDS’s long-term goals of facilitating data science training/capacity building within LMICs, and to foster communities of early career researchers (ECRs) conducting responsible and open data science research. The survey results demonstrated that 90% of respondent alumni continued to conduct research and make use of the skills acquired at the SRDS. Modules on open and responsible research and research data management were rated as important for future research. 79% of respondents confirmed that they maintained contact with peers, and 31% had set up academic collaborations with peers and/or instructors. Many had gone on to present content from the schools in their home institutions. The survey results clearly demonstrate the impact of the SRDS, and the value of an expanding network of schools supported by the RDA and CODATA.

This paper conceptualises a Lego Serious Play Wheel framework as a gamification teaching and learning method. It aims to offer a detailed approach from Design and Preparation to Delivery, to engage a broad section of continuing learners and students, which can be easily applied throughout different educational and training contexts. The LSP Wheel refers to the concept of a circular learning journey and draws on a combined autoethnography responsible management research approach. A prominent part of the responsible management literature has hitherto focused on examining whether responsible management modules are inherently considered non-crucial elements of curriculum design. However, there is a paucity of research into applying novel teaching approaches to engage students and promote responsible management education endeavours. This paper therefore contributes to broader pedagogical application and critical responsible management education discourse, by providing educators with an academic gamification framework to support student engagement and co-creation of knowledge, by fostering exploratory learning environments and enriching the practices of active learning communities.

This symposium presents a whitepaper with a vision of a future “Vision 2030&x201D; in which business schools and scholars worldwide have successfully transformed their research toward responsible science – defined as research that produces credible and reliable knowledge with either direct or indirect usefulness for addressing problems important to both business and society. This vision is based on the belief that business is a means for a better world. The White Paper is co-authored by 24 senior scholars across five business disciplines from 23 universities in five countries. The paper outlines possible actions by different stakeholders to help business schools and scholars that wish to realize this vision. The paper further explains the impetus for the proposal by describing the current business research ecosystem and associated problems, drawing on published work and a Delphi survey of scholars who have written about different aspects of the current research challenges. The symposium invites discussion and debate on the possibility and necessity of creating a “responsible research&x201D; ecosystem so that business and management research can become a force of change for a better world at the interface of management science and practice. Positioning of the White Paper by two members Anne Tsui and Thomas Dyllick will be followed by presentations by Gerard George on impact in management research based on the AMJ special issue on Grand Challenges. Costas Markides will discuss how academics can operate successfully at the interface of management science and practice. Bill Glick will conclude with views on accreditation processes and how business schools need to adapt their research by operating on the interface with practice. Open discussion and comments on creating an open source community on responsible management research will be follow-up actions from the symposium.

As a means towards revealing both the strategic and the day to day operational practicalities of managing a ‘responsible business’, this paper reports on research conducted over an extended period in the John Lewis Partnership (JLP). This is a major retail organization based in the UK which operates at scale (90,000 employees and annual sales of £11bn). It has sustained itself as an employee-owned enterprise for nearly a century, and it makes explicit claims to conduct itself in a ‘responsible manner’ which differs markedly from the notions of responsibility maintained by many conventional businesses. But what do these commitments mean in practice and what compromises, if any, do they entail or require, and crucially how are these tensions managed? We find that there are many lessons that conventional organizations could learn from this case, and yet we also show that the process of managing in this responsible way is a practical accomplishment that requires considerable conceptual and applied skills.

Leaders are under increasing pressure to inspire innovative endeavors in responsible ways. However, whether and how responsible leadership can fuel employee innovative behavior remains unknown. Therefore, drawing on social identity theory and social exchange theory, this study aims to investigate the psychological mechanisms underlying the responsible leadership-innovative behavior relationship. Multi-phase data were collected from 280 employees working in Chinese manufacturing firms to test the hypotheses using hierarchical regression analyses and the bootstrap method. The results reveal that responsible leadership is positively related to innovative behavior. Additionally, perceived socially responsible human resource management (HRM) and organizational pride separately and sequentially mediate the responsible leadership-innovative behavior relationship. This study empirically reveals the effectiveness of responsible leadership and sheds new light on the psychological processes through which it facilitates innovative behavior, revealing the generalizability of responsible leadership and innovative behavior in the Chinese context. Moreover, we respond to the call for incorporating leadership theory into HRM research and further advance the existing knowledge on both antecedents and outcomes of socially responsible HRM. For practical guidance, organizations are encouraged to foster innovation through investment in responsible management practices. Research limitations and implications are also discussed.

Business model innovation for sustainability offers responsible managers a practice that enables the (re-)consideration of how they care for and deliver value to stakeholder constituents, and create solutions to key sustainability challenges such as climate change, biodiversity and poverty. In this chapter we seek to provide an overview of key themes within the field of business model innovation for sustainability in relation to responsible management. In particular, we give consideration to conceptualisations of business models for sustainability, identification of patterns of business model components, understanding the innovation process, unpacking the innovation challenges, and providing tools and frameworks. Based on this overview we offer three opportunities for responsible management research to further help responsible managers to innovate business models for sustainability: (1) developing context sensitivity to connect business models to the needs of socio-ecological systems; (2) enhancing approaches to experimentation through new tools and frameworks, and; (3) investigating new ways of innovating business models for sustainability through changing components of value proposition, creation and capture.

‘Responsibilist’ approaches to epistemology link knowledge and justification with epistemically responsible belief management, where responsible management is understood to involve an essential element of guidance by recognized epistemic norms. By contrast, reliabilist approaches stress the de facto reliability of cognitive processes, rendering epistemic self-consciousness as inessential. I argue that, although an adequate understanding of human knowledge must make room for both responsibility and reliability, philosophers have had a hard time putting them together, largely owing to a tendency, on the part of responsibilists, to adopt an overly demanding, hyperintellectualized conception of what epistemic responsibility demands. I trace this tendency towards hyper-intellectualism to a wish to meet scepticism head on, a wish that enforces adherence to a particular model of the structure of epistemic justification. I argue that a more humanly reasonable conception of epistemic justification suggests an alternative model. With this model in hand, we can both deflect sceptical problems and combine responsibility with reliability in a satisfying way.

Managing Product Recalls: The Effects of Time, Responsible vs. Opportunistic Recall Management and Blame on Consumers’ Attitudes

What happens to the wealth of shareholders of firms producing defective products? Our answer-for producers of drugs and autos that were recalled from the market-is that the shareholders bear large losses. They are substantially greater than the costs directly emanating from the recall-for example, costs of destroying or repairing defective products. In fact, they are plausibly larger than all the costs attributable specifically to the recalled product; the losses spill over to the firm's "goodwill." They also spill over to competitors. This negative externality may even be larger in the aggregate than the losses to the producer of the recalled product.

ABSTRACTResearch question: The contribution frames the special issue ‘Social responsibility and the European sport context’. It investigates and aims to inspire the discussion around what constitutes a European approach in social responsibility and sport management research focussing on how the special historical and persisting features of the European (sport) context impact on knowledge creation and diffusion.Research methods: The article reflects on the contributions included in the special issue; is based on reviewing relevant management literature; and is guided by the authors’ rich observations derived from their deep involvement in the international space of social responsibility in and through sport, spanning research and practice.Results and findings: Four anchors are suggested and explored as promising avenues to constitute ‘European-ness’ in social responsibility and sport management research. In short, these are investigations driven by empirical data; a comparative approach; comprehensive literature review; and theoretical/conceptual development. It is argued that the theory anchor is the most critical and challenging, but not fully developed yet.Implications: The article contributes a critical view on the potential for American/English hegemony in sport management scholarly activity, also impacting on one of its popular and growing sub-fields: social responsibility. Enhanced intellectual fertility and diversity of perspectives will produce more accurate understandings of the role and conceptualisation of social responsibility in European sport, impacting on both theoretical richness and relevance for contextually-embedded sport organisations.

Sustainable business development and responsible management are the latest topics in Management Science. For a business entity, sustainable development means incorporating business strategies that meet its needs and its stakeholders of present, while sufficing and sustaining the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future.Sustainable development has three broad goals: environmental stewardship, social accountability and economic affluence for both: the organization and its stakeholders. In a fruitful sustainability oriented business plan, the three goals will be inter-linked with each other.The need for discussion on this topic has cropped up due to increased ecological and social pressures and inculcating sustainable development; as a conception, any entity requires a complete business reengineering.Sustainable development is a difficult subject to pin down since it encompasses so many different things. Due to the complexity of this subject, it is important to look at the importance of sustainable development in a holistic way that approaches the issue rationally.