Thought Leaders and Thoughtful Leaders: Advancing Logistics and Supply Chain Management
反思物流与供应链管理学科的发展，探讨如何保持学术研究与实际应用的联系，并建议通过学者与从业者合作来提升研究、教学和实践影响力。
The work of a generation of hardworking academics in our field is paying off. Many of us are breathing sighs of relief to find that our discipline is being recognized as a top academic domain. At least two flagship journals in our field, including the Journal of Business Logistics, are in the top ranges of academic journal rankings. However, our discipline’s emergence as a valued contributor to theory development brings with it certain dilemmas. For example, how do we maintain our academic momentum and also stay true to our practical and applied routes? How do we make sure we are staying grounded in what really matters; that is, a better understanding of our constantly changing managerial environment and thus better decision making? One approach to evaluating the contribution of our research is to ask, “What realistic impact is our work having on practice?” The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is currently considering this question and how it should influence the accreditation process. Of note, impact goes beyond citation counts and impact factors to focus on the dissemination and influence of our work on actual decision makers. Certainly, this type of “impact” will be challenging to measure, but in our resource-constrained environment, we must do a better job of demonstrating our value-added contributions. Another important way of gauging whether we are having the practical impact we would hope is to find out whether research results are being incorporated into classroom teaching. Does the research impact what students bring into the workplace? Table 1 reports the results of a survey that was conducted for the educator’s conference of Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (Van Hoek 2007). Participants were asked if they use their own research in their classes. The findings from this survey of over 200 participants (shown in Table 1) surprised us: very little of our research published in academic journals makes it into the classroom. Our textbooks make it and our business press articles are also found in the classroom, but few academic articles are being used to influence classroom activities and discussion. In addition, the survey revealed that although we talk a lot about supply chain management, we actually only teach selected functional silos, mostly transportation and logistics. Clearly, we need to take stock, and determine what practices can help make our theory, research, and education relevant. Many European researchers might argue we should conduct more case studies. As Barratt et al. (2010) recently pointed out, not all case studies are equally meaningful in terms of accurately studying and capturing practice. The need to stay on point and not float away from our roots calls for thoughtful thought leaders. The founding fathers of our discipline were thought leaders and role models for what we need. They founded and built the discipline and body of knowledge and created the basis for today’s practice. One active ingredient in their methods was that they maintained meaningful and close working relationships with consultants and practitioners who helped implement their thinking and who added to it based upon what they found to work and to not work. Such thoughtful leaders who bridged the gap between academia and industry were scarce then, and they still are. So how do we avoid a divide between practice and research as the academic discipline develops and becomes more theoretically advanced? How do we stay true to our practical roots and continue to develop the profession and science at the same time, in the symbiotic way once envisioned and embodied by our predecessors? Indeed, consider the potential complementary nature of academic-practitioner partnerships. The environment in academia is fundamentally different from the environment in the practitioner’s world. In academia, our mandate and opportunity is to think freely. Hierarchy and politics should not limit what the academic thinks about. Academics have the elbowroom to think with very long time horizons, and not stop, say, with next quarter’s results. Advancing theoretical thought is honored. Practical impact of academics is indirect, teaching future leaders and practitioners, thereby impacting progress of the field with ideas and through students. In industry, practitioners have to learn certain habits and methods to be effective in driving change in thought and practice. Their message needs to be simplified and kept simple to be clear to the mass of the organization. Sticking to the same messages over time helps assure that decision makers across the organization stay on the same page, whereas enabling a consistent pace of change. The goal is to ensure narrow, laser-targeted focus on change that is in line with business ambitions, rather than free thinking without strings attached, as in academia. Functional expertise is a price of entry not a differentiator. Decision making must be clear, but not overly mathematical or model based. Overall, inter personal efforts and stakeholder management and marketing are more important than research and advice. Consulting is often used to externally validate and internally sell decisions already made. On the other hand, industry practitioners have a unique role in enhancing academic theory, research, and teaching. They have the ability to help advance thinking by putting theory to the test. Practice can provide focus based upon business needs and relevance. Practitioners may also be able to allocate substantial resources and funds to practice theory that might advance company performance and competitiveness. Along the same lines, practitioners can enhance research by helping direct the research agenda to business relevant challenges. Practitioners can not only provide funding for research but they can also provide a real-life “laboratory” for field research. Further, teaching can be enhanced by practitioners and academics experiencing practice. Practice advances the docent’s ability to communicate complex messages in simple and concise ways to large audiences. Practice increases the teacher’s patience and teaches the value of repetition and focus on key messages. Finally, practice gives the professor the ability to relate theory to the workings of business in real life. To summarize, academic research and theory, as it becomes more advanced, might have a tendency, or at least carry a risk, of floating away from practice. Similarly, practice may not necessarily be wired for adopting academic advances. However, great opportunities to combine the best of both worlds exist and our within our reach. To bring this discussion to an actionable close we would like to offer a set of diagnostic questions based upon our review and reflections. We hope that these may help in the design of research agendas and projects, the design of our in-class deliverables, and the development of editorial policy of leading journals. Can we articulate actionable recommendations and inspire practitioners with our body of knowledge and use our insights to inform and advance practice? Do we observe the real world or do we only live in a laboratory? Are we calibrating our research agenda against business needs and challenges? Do we teach what we preach? That is, do we teach supply chain or the functional silos of the supply chain? Do we teach what we think? Does research make it into the classroom to help drive insights into future leaders’ course material and knowledge base? Do we teach, or do we preach? Can we “deliver” a message about our body of knowledge that is easy to digest and ready to take into the workplace? How can executives contribute to areas of academic research through invited contributions linked to topics of research focus and the relevant body of literature and knowledge? How can we more effectively take polls from practitioners on relevant focus topics for research to develop the body of knowledge and teaching of future practitioners? How can we more effectively involve practitioners in special issue development and editorial advisory boards? Business practitioners are a valuable resource, with the important role of helping develop questions, and refining the answers to those questions. As academics, we should be pursuing and developing working partnerships with practitioners. Our research, teaching, and overall “impact” will improve—perhaps dramatically—as we thoughtfully integrate the practitioners into our business model. We thank Christopher Vincent for his helpful comments, edits and input, on earlier drafts of this manuscript. His input resulted in a significant improvement to the manuscript.