Comments on: Boosting Engagement http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2009-09/boosting-engagement/ Leadership, followership, and purpose at work Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:54:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Bret L. Simmons http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2009-09/boosting-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-1129 Bret L. Simmons Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:46:09 +0000 http://www.bretlsimmons.com/?p=1173#comment-1129 The peer review process is a very important one, and in general it does a great job. But keep in mind that the people that run the journals understand they have to sell copies. No sales - no journal. There is a strong bias to only publish significant findings - findings that confirm or extend a current theory. Someone will have a much easier time publishing a study that shows a relationship between engagement and performance because that's what the editors are looking for. It will be VERY difficult to publish data that shows a nonsignificant relationship. I know from experience. Thanks! Bret The peer review process is a very important one, and in general it does a great job. But keep in mind that the people that run the journals understand they have to sell copies. No sales – no journal. There is a strong bias to only publish significant findings – findings that confirm or extend a current theory. Someone will have a much easier time publishing a study that shows a relationship between engagement and performance because that’s what the editors are looking for. It will be VERY difficult to publish data that shows a nonsignificant relationship. I know from experience. Thanks! Bret

]]> By: Wally Bock http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2009-09/boosting-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-1128 Wally Bock Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:32:05 +0000 http://www.bretlsimmons.com/?p=1173#comment-1128 Now that's a thought-starter of a post, Bret. What you describe is not unlike what seems, increasingly, to be the case in science and medicine. We have scandals where ghostwriters have prepared articles on research, studies that indicate that physicians are more likely to prescribe medications of the companies to give them significant benefits, and the usual cluster of stories about faked or influenced research. It shouldn't be a surprise that business schools and their latest business fad are similar to other institutions. But that doesn't mean the issue is unimportant. One problem for all academic research is that the peer review process does a good job of assessing procedural validity, but a poor job of supporting research comes to conclusions outside the current norms. Now that’s a thought-starter of a post, Bret. What you describe is not unlike what seems, increasingly, to be the case in science and medicine. We have scandals where ghostwriters have prepared articles on research, studies that indicate that physicians are more likely to prescribe medications of the companies to give them significant benefits, and the usual cluster of stories about faked or influenced research.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that business schools and their latest business fad are similar to other institutions. But that doesn’t mean the issue is unimportant. One problem for all academic research is that the peer review process does a good job of assessing procedural validity, but a poor job of supporting research comes to conclusions outside the current norms.

]]>