Editorial: Entangling the conceptual, disruptive, pragmatic, and relational

Citation

Wall, T. (2023), "Editorial: Entangling the conceptual, disruptive, pragmatic, and relational", Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 2-5. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-05-2023-085

Welcome to issue 15.1 of the Journal of Work Applied Management. This general issue is once again an international collection demonstrating the expanding reach of the journal. Yet, as a general issue (as opposed to a special issue), it is unusual to see strong patterns across the submissions accepted for publication. In this issue, we can observe distinct strands in the papers – conceptual, disruptive, pragmatic and relational. In some ways, this is not surprising given that the nature of applied methods – in scholarly environments at least – should have these dimensions.

Applied research with such dimensions resists the ongoing claims that “Most business school research ‘lacks real-world relevance’” (see https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/most-business-school-research-lacks-real-world-relevance). Indeed, there is increasing literature which intentionally entangles the conceptual, disruptive, pragmatic and relational, and is often described as the scholarship of practice (for example, Crist and Kielhofner, 2005; Van de Ven, 2007; Ramsey, 2014). For example, Anderson, Rigg and colleagues have spent some time articulating how these dimensions interact (or refract) to create impact in organisations (Anderson et al., 2017; Rigg et al., 2022). However, these dimensions are not always present in work-based learning or applied methods as they can fall into the technocratic trap of simply improving efficiency of organisational imperatives over societal benefit (Sun and Kang, 2015). The brute circumstances and imperatives of war are an all too current reminder of how other ideological forces drive human behaviour (also see Stokes and Gabriel, 2010).

The conceptual domain should not be proxied as simply “academic” or “theoretical” only; indeed, Ramsey's (2005, 2011) work reminds us that “theory” can not only direct practice, but inspire it in unpredictable and creative but actionable ways. There are some papers in this issue which can be engaged with in such modes. The first paper is by Nalweyiso et al. (2023), entitled “Theorizing Relational People Management in Micro Enterprises: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective”. Here, the authors pull together some interesting conceptual work which helps to explore creative ideation within the context of micro enterprises. Here, the relational tactics of people within these organisations are paramount to the creative climate that is created and the ways creative solutions emerge. This impacts the friendliness of support and how conflicts are mediated and managed. It is possible to see how such conceptual work could inform interventions in micro enterprises for organisational development and growth.

The second paper is by Priyashantha (2023) and is entitled “Disruptive Technologies for Human Resource Management: a conceptual framework development and research agenda”. The author’s work helps us understand – and potentially predict – the ways in which digital HRM systems might have major changes on an organisation. Conceptually this can include “service quality, organisational effectiveness, employee productivity, and competitive advantage” (Priyashantha, 2023). Such awareness can inform applied intervention strategies. However, the author also highlights contemporary gaps which will hopefully inspire further research and development for practitioners and researchers alike.

Third is Sinnaiah et al.'s paper (2023) entitled “Strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance”. Usefully, the authors’ work combines “strategic thinking enabling factors (systems perspective, focused intent, intelligent opportunism, thinking in time, and hypothesis-driven analysis), organisational performance, and the moderating effect of decision-making styles (intuitive and rational)” (Sinnaiah et al., 2023). This sort of synthesis of ideas could imaginably be used to audit and develop organisational decision-making, perhaps as part of an evidence-based management approach to organisational development.

Chen and Zhang’s (2023) article, entitled “Does shared leadership always work? A state-of-the-art review and future prospect”, is the fourth paper. This paper takes a critical perspective of the contemporary and positive notion of shared leadership, and highlights the possibility and circumstances of it not being so positive. They say “shared leadership may cause negative consequences like power struggle, role stress and knowledge hiding … psychological territorial loss, leadership motivation declines and the dualistic paradox of self and group … team performance inhibition, low decision-making efficiency, team responsibility dispersion and team creativity decline” (Chen and Zhang, 2023). This will be of interest to those working in team-based organisational development and team or group coaching.

Next, Albert and Michaud (2023) give us the provocative “The Autopraxeography: a method to step back from vulnerability”. They combine various ethnographic and reflective traditions to explore vulnerability, as a source of repair and transformation. They say, “Instead of ignoring experiences related to vulnerability, this method makes it possible to transform them into new avenues of knowledge” (Albert and Michaud, 2023). The study of vulnerability within applied settings should be treated carefully, with various scaffolding to support such deep healing and change work.

The sixth paper, drawing again on the power of narrative for change work, is by Stark and Reif (2023), and is entitled “Time to tell a different story? Positive and negative follower perceptions of their leaders' storytelling”. They find that “the better a leader's story [meets] followers' needs (need-supply fit), the more adequate the input load transported by the story (story load), and the more positive followers' appraisal of their leader's story (story appraisal), the more positive followers' affective reactions and effects of storytelling (transformation, leader-member exchange quality, and trust in the leader)” (Stark and Reif, 2023). These concepts are particularly pertinent to wider change efforts in organisational development and the stories used around applied methods.

Then we move from the conceptual realm into the more pragmatic papers. The seventh paper is by Sung et al. (2023) and is entitled “A study of learners' interactive preference on multimedia microlearning”. There are a number of findings by Anna and her team, but the finding that “more participants prefer to have more control in their multiple-choice question's arrangement and open-ended question's arrangement” (Sung et al., 2023) highlights the ongoing importance of agency in learning and development work, from the big change decisions, through to the display of information within an information-intensive environment.

The eighth paper is by Lyons and Bandura (2023) and is entitled “Coaching to Build Commitment for Generating Performance Improvement”. Picking up on the contemporary practice of manager-as-coach, the authors provide a “research results driven practical guide/action plan” which “incorporates manager skills and commitment theory (investment) along with an experiential learning approach aimed at improving employee growth and building commitment” (Lyons and Bandura, 2023). This demonstrates how practitioners can combine theoretical ideas to inform practice, leading to specific action points in practice.

Ninth, we have Doyle and Bradley (2023) with their paper “Disability coaching in a pandemic”. The authors’ research highlighted “large effect sizes” in relation to “memory, time management, organisational skills, stress management, understanding neurodiversity and concentration”. I am sure many will feel resonances with these findings, but the authors’ work will provide more inspiration as to the pragmatics of digital coaching or coaching remotely. We still do not know the longer term effects of the pandemic, but research into coaching (and mentoring) will continue to provide relational insights into the power and opportunities of coaching.

And finally, we have Tinelli et al.'s (2023) paper entitled “Impacts of adopting a new management practice”. The authors’ work shows forms of applied methods which are underpinned by evidence and indicate (to organisations) the types of changes and impacts that theoretically informed interventions can have on their staff and organisations. Not all organisations will have access to such capability, but this is surely one of the strengths and opportunities of working closely with academic partners to understand change in organisations.

When you read through this issue, we invite you to intentionally embrace the conceptual, disruptive, pragmatic and relational as a form of scholarship of practice (for example, Crist and Kielhofner, 2005; Van de Ven, 2007; Ramsey, 2014). Maybe it prompts you to reflect or challenge some of the articles in the issue – we would welcome debates as a form of applied method for learning and organisational development. This of course reflects the hard work of all of the peer reviewers who spend hours to help refine and improve the papers that you now see in publication.