Abstract

Academics have lamented that practitioners do not always adopt scientific evidence in practice, yet while academics preach evidence-based management (EBM), they do not always practice it. This paper extends prior literature on difficulties to engage in EBM with insights from behavioral integrity (i.e., the study of what makes individuals and collectives walk their talk). We focus on leader development, widely used but often critiqued for lacking evidence. Analyzing 60 interviews with academic directors of leadership centers at top business schools, we find that the selection of programs does not always align with scientific recommendations nor do schools always engage in high-quality program evaluation. Respondents further indicated a wide variety of challenges that help explain the disconnect between business schools claiming A but practicing B. Behavioral Integrity theory would argue these difficulties are rooted in the lack of an individually owned and collectively endorsed identity, an identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD). A closer inspection of our data confirmed that the lack of a clear and salient EBLD identity makes it difficult for academics to walk their evidence-based leader development talk. We discuss how these findings can help facilitate more evidence-based leader development in an academic context.

Highlights

  • Some have questioned whether leader development programs (LDPs) at business schools are truly as evidence-based as would be expected from academic institutions (DeRue et al, 2011; Klimoski & Amos, 2012; Pfeffer, 2015; Vermeulen, 2011)

  • Whereas the science of leadership informs us which approaches to leadership are effective and under which conditions (DeRue et al, 2011; Lord et al, 2017), the science of leader development highlights the methods by which we can effectively develop specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and values, and identities in leaders (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Lacerenza et al, 2017

  • In addition to the importance of academics internalizing the identity of an evidence-based leader developer (EBLD), we found evidence of academics highlighting the need for a more collective identity of “evidence-based leader development.”

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Researchers have highlighted a variety of reasons for why practitioners do not adopt EBM (e.g., not well-trained in evidence-based thinking; Bartunek, 2011; Briner & Walshe, 2013; Giluk & Rynes-Weller, 2012; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), but there is little research exploring the extent to which and the reasons why academics adopt EBM or not. Considering their academic training and academic institutional context, we assume that academics have more ability, motivation, as well as opportunity (Rousseau & Gunia, 2016) to engage in EBM than their practitioner counterparts. As a result, when even academics fail to adopt EBM, it may highlight additional challenges to adopting EBM

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call