Action Research - Zhang Et Al-2015-Human Resource Management

MOVE YOUR RESEARCH
FROMTHE IVY TOWER

TOTHEBOARD ROOM: A PRIMER
ON ACTION RESEARCH
FOR ACADEMICS, CONSULTANTS,
AND BUSINESS EXECUTIVES
WENHONG ZHANG, ALEC LEVENSON,
ANDCRAIGCROSSLEY
Today there is a large divide between the vast majority of management research that is conducted and the opportunities for doing work that is useful
for both research and practice. Action research offers a great opportunity to
bridge the divide, with benets for all involved. For academic researchers, action research can increase access to important research sites that otherwise
would remain off-limits, while simultaneously increasing the relevance and
scope of the research issues addressed. For researchers and practitioners who
work in organizations, and for external consultants, action research offers a
way to scientically evaluate important organizational issues using scientic
methods. These methods provide a type of external validity and support for
actions that otherwise could be dismissed as representing a biased internal agenda. Moreover, internal researchers who engage in action research
enable the sharing of insights that can benet practitioners in other organizations as well as the research community. 2014 Wiley Periodicals,Inc.
Keywords: research methods and design, qualitative research methodology,

quantitative research methodology, organizational change, organizational
development, organizational effectiveness
Correspondence to: Alec R. Levenson, Center for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California, 3670 Trousdale Pkwy., BRI-204, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0806,
Phone: 213.821.1095, Fax: 213.740.4354, E-mail: alevenson@marshall.usc.edu.
Human Resource Management, JanuaryFebruary 2015, Vol. 54, No. 1. Pp. 151174
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21616
152
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2015
Introduction
oday there is a large divide between

the vast majority of management
research that is conducted and the
usefulness of that research for organizations, where the research can
be applied (Argyris, 1996; Bennis & OToole,
2005; Cohen, 2007; Daft & Lewin, 1990;
Ghoshal, 2005; Hambrick, 1994; Kelemen
& Bansal, 2002; Kieser & Leiner, 2009;
Latham, 2007; Lawler, Mohrman, Mohrman,
Ledford, & Cummings, 1985; Mintzberg,
1977; Mohrman, Gibson, & Mohrman,
2001; Mohrman, Lawler, and Associates,
2011; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Rousseau, 2006;
Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008; Rynes,
2007; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; Rynes,
Giluk, & Brown, 2007; Starkey
& Madan, 2001). Action research
Our goal is to bolster
offers a unique opportunity to
bridge the divide. In this article,
the case for doing
we address what action research
action research led
is, the benefits of action research
for different constituencies (reby both external and searchers, organizations, and acainternal researchers, demic institutions), and how to
conduct action research. Our goal
and to provide some is to bolster the case for doing action research led by both external
guidance on how to and internal researchers, and to
provide some guidance on how to
carry it out.
carry it out. The article is based on
content drawn from the literature,
interviews with both researchers and practitioners, and each of our personal experience
conducting action research in organizations.
For our purposes, we define action
research as a research process that collaboratively involves the subjects under study
with an objective of using the research results
to influence organizational outcomes. The
essential thrust of our definition is shared by
the field of organization development (OD),
though OD also focuses on the change process. Our view of action research is that it
more generally focuses on actionable knowledge, and not necessarily the processes that
turn knowledge into action.
This article is not meant to be either a
substitute for or synopsis of the vast literature
on how to use action research as part of an

OD-led change process. For that the reader is
encouraged to look to sources such as Lewin
(1946), Cummings and Worley (2009), Nadler
(1977), Kraut (2006), Church and Waclawski
(2001), and Reason and Bradbury (2006). Here
we focus exclusively on the action research
process and less so the change process.
Two case studies provide good examples
of how action research can be beneficial
to both external researchers and the organizations that host the research. They are
discussed in detail later in the article. Here
we provide a high-level overview of the
benefits to both research and practice that
were generated by taking an action research
approach.
In both Levenson, Van der Stede, and
Cohen (2006) and Crossley, Cooper, and
Wernsing (2013), the researchers matched
individual survey data with both individual
and unit-level performance data. The insights
provided to the organizations that hosted the
research were substantially more than what
their own internal analysts had been able to
produce because of the rigor and comprehensiveness of the research approach. In addition,
by aligning the research objectives with the
organizations business needs, the researchers were able to conduct surveys and access
performance data that typically are hard, if
not impossible, for external researchers to do
without taking an action research approach.
This type of win-win benefit makes action
research equally appealing to both organizations and researchers.
What Is Action Research and How

Is It Different From Other Types
of Research?
There is an extensive literature about the
nature of action research, what it is and how
it should be undertaken (Eden & Huxham,
2006; Foss & Moldens, 2007; Huxham &
Eden, 2007; Huxham & Vangen, 2003; Lawler
et al., 1985; Lewin, 1946; Mohrman et al.,
2011; Reason & Bradbury, 2006; Vickers,
2007). The growth rate of the literaturein
particular, in the areas of the theory and practice of action researchhas accelerated
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AN ACTION RESEARCH PRIMER
recently with the foundation of three dedicated field journals, Systematic Practice and
Action Research in 1987, Action Research in
2002, and the International Journal of Action
Research in 2005, and the publication of two
recent handbooks: Reason and Bradbury
(2006) and Noffke and Somekh (2009). More
recently, the term collaborative research
(Shani, Mohrman, Pasmore, Stymne, & Adler,
2008) has been used to define a broad set of
management research approaches of which
action research is a core approach, though
not the only one.
There are many categories of research
that academics use to distinguish methodologies. For the most part, action research is best
viewed not as something uniquely different
from other methodologies but a way of conducting research that also fits into a number
of different academic research methodology
categories. See Table I for examples of published articles which use an action research
approach. For example, case-study research
typically focuses on a single or small number
of cases of organizations or processes within
an organization using in-depth and often longitudinal evaluation. If case-study research is
conducted with an arms-length approach that
seeks to draw out information for the researchers purpose, but without offering actionable
insights back to the organization(s) under
study, then it is not action research. However,
if the research questions for the case study are
designed in cooperation with the organization with an objective of making the research
results as applicable as possible to issues of organizational effectiveness, that adds an action
research aspect to the case-study research.
As a second example, consider ethnographic research, which focuses on exploring cultural phenomena. Ethnographic
research shares many features with casestudy research, but with a clear emphasis on
observing the phenomena from the point of
view of the subjects under study. If the subjects perspectives are documented with a
goal toward understanding how their experiences integrate with organizational systems
and processes to impact organizational effectiveness, that provides a clear action research
component to the ethnographic approach.
153
If, in contrast, the reporting of the subjects

perspectives and experiences is done in such
a way as to make inferences about organizational effectiveness difficult to discern, then
it is not action research.
Grounded theory is another approach that
makes use of data from organizations (Dunn &
Swiercze, 1977; Fendt & Sachs, 2007; Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Locke, 2001; Martin & Turner,
1986; Strauss & Corbin, 1994; Suddaby, 2006).
Because it operates in reverse fashion from traditional research, starting with data collection,
grounded theory offers a similar approach as
action research: both start with working with
organizations and the data. However, the two
approaches can diverge based on
different objectives. If a grounded
Action research
theory researcher is interested only
in informing theory development
is a subset of field
and not practice, then the results
of grounded theory research
research, with an
likely will not contain actionable
applied focus. If
insights for organizations, and
thus will not be action research.
Finally, field research is very
similar to action research. In fact,
it is hard to conceive of a way of
doing action research that does
not involve collecting data from
people working in their natural
environments (i.e., that does not
involve field work). Viewed this
way, action research is a subset
of field research, with an applied
focus. If the field research produces results that can be used
by the organization to improve
effectiveness, then it is also action
research.
the field research

produces results
that can be used
by the organization
to improve
effectiveness, then
it is also action
research.
Making the Case for Action Research

Benets of Action Research
to Academics
One of the most important benefits of action
research to the researcher is increased access
to organizations that are the subject of management research. Researchers from previous
generations operated in an environment
where competition among organizations was
less intense and the demands on employees
154

TABLE
Examples of Action Research Published in Refereed Academic Journals
Authors
Journal
Topic
Adler and Docherty (1998)
Human Relations
Sociotechnical business
systems
Amabile and Conti (1999)
Academy of Management Journal
Impact of downsizing on
creativity
Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta,

and Kramer (2004)
Leadership Quarterly
Leadership and the creativity

environment
Amabile, Sigal, Barsade,

Mueller, and Staw (2005)
Administrative Science Quarterly
Affect and creativity at work
Bartunek, Walsh, and Lacey

(2000)
Organization Science
Female leadership dynamics
Beer (2003)
Decision Sciences
TQM program persistence

factors
Beer and Eisenstat (1996)
Human Relations
Organizational strategy and

learning
Benson, Finegold, and

Mohrman (2004)
Tuition reimbursement and

turnover
Benson and Pattie (2009)
Human Resource Management
Supervisors and expatriates

experiences
Bradbury and Lichtenstein

(2000)
Relationality in organizational
research
Cohen, Chang, and Ledford

(1997)
Personnel Psychology
Work-life quality and group

effectiveness
Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer

(1996)
Human Relations
Self-managing work team

effectiveness
Drexler and Lawler (1977)
Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science
Union cooperation and quality

of work life
Finegold, Levenson, and Van

Buren (2005)
Human Resource Management

Journal
Temporary worker training
Finegold, Mohrman, and

Spreitzer (2002)
Journal of Organizational Behavior Age and the employment

relationship
George, Levenson, Finegold,

and Chattopadhyay (2010)
International Journal of Human

Resource Management
Gibson (2001)
Journal of Organizational Behavior Goal setting at individual and

team levels
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)
Organizational ambidexterity
Gibson, Cooper, and Conger

(2009)
Journal of Applied Psychology
Distance between leaders and

teams
Temporary workers extra-role

behaviors
Gibson and Gibbs (2006)
Virtuality and team innovation
Gibson and Vermeulen (2003)
Subgroups and team learning
Graham and Welbourne (1999) Journal of Organization Behavior
Gainsharing and pay

satisfaction
Jenkins and Lawler (1981)
Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance
Participatory development of
a pay plan
Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and

Welbourne (1999)
Managerial coping with

organizational change
Judge and Welbourne (1994)
Pay satisfaction

TABLE
Examples of Action Research Published in Refereed Academic Journals (Continued)
Authors
Journal
Topic
Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and

Gibson (2004)
Team empowerment and

performance
Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and

Gibson (2006)
Transfer of training in virtual

teams
Lawler (1985)
Personnel Psychology
Management style and

organizational effectiveness
Ledford and Mohrman (1993b) Human Relations
Self-design and organizational

change
Levenson, Van der Stede, and

Cohen (2006)
Journal of Management
Managerial competencies and

performance
MacLean, MacIntosh, and

Grant (2002)
British Journal of Management
Complex organization
transformation
Mirvis and Lawler (1977)
Financial impact of employee

attitudes
Mohrman, Tenkasi, and

Mohrman (2003)

Science
Networks and organizational

change
Pasmore and Friedlander

(1982)
Employee problem solving
Pasmore and King (1978)

Science
Organization change and

impact
Payne, Benson, and Finegold

(2009)
Journal of Management Studies
Corporate board governance
Pelled, Ledford, and Mohrman Journal of Management Studies

(2002)
Demographics and workplace

inclusion
Prince and Lawler (1986)
Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes
Salary discussion and

performance appraisal
Rico and Cohen (2005)
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Virtual team performance

factors
Romme and Endenburg (2006) Organization Science
Circular organization design
Spreitzer, Cohen, and Ledford

(1999)
Group and Organization

Management
Self-managing work teams
Stebbins and Snow (1982)

Science
Large system organization

development
Tenkasi and Chesmore (2003)

Science
Social networks and

organizational change
Wageman (1995)
Interdependence and group

effectiveness
Wageman and Gordon (2005)
Group task interdependence
Wageman, Hackman, and

Lehman (2005)

Science
Team diagnostic survey
Welbourne, Balkin, and

Gomez-Mejia (1995)
Gainsharing and mutual

monitoring
Welbourne, Johnson, and

Erez(1998)
Role-based performance scale
Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson

(2006)
Team strategic context and

performance
155
156
Companies
that will
participate
only in
traditional
research
Companies
that will
participate in
both
traditional
and
collaborative
action
research
Companies
that will
participate
only in
collaborative
action
research
Companies
that will
not
participate
in any
research
FIGURE 1. Action Research Expands the Population

of Companies Willing to Participate in Research
time were lower. This meant that the cost to

organizations of providing access to employees to participate in a research project was
lower than it is in todays hyper-competitive
environment. Simultaneously, the ubiquity
of the Internet and online survey tools has
increased the ability to conduct surveys
internally.
The downside is that the number of surveys administered within companies has
increased markedly at the same time that the
opportunity cost of employees time to organizations has also increased (Church & Oliver,
2006). As a consequence, organizations today
are very reluctant to allow researchers access
to their employees unless there is a business
need that is addressed. This means that using
an action research approach expands the population of organizations from which data can
be collected, providing a more comprehensive and representative view of organizations
and management issues. Figure 1 illustrates
the point, and our interviews revealed ample
examples of this, including the following
perspectives:
Over the years I have received many

requests from professors to access
the employees where I was working.
A lot of professors have a hard time
because they have never worked with
businesses and have a really hard time
explaining whats in it for the business. We could see that the research
was importantI got that from my
grad school work and working with
researchersbut its hard to get people in corporate America to think like
that if they are not close to people
from a research background. In cases
where I have partnered with outside researchers, the topics addressed
issues that were critical to the agenda
of the organization, not just the
researcher. (Kim Warmbier, executive vice president and chief human
resources ofcer)
There have been a handful of
times in my career when professors approached me to do research
with the employees in the companies where I worked. I just dont pay
attention to them anymore because
I would never say yes. If there was
some cosmic relationship between
something I was working on for the
business and the topic, so I could see
I would get something out of it, then
maybe I would say yes. But what
are the chances of that happening?
They all had their questions geared
around what the professors wanted
to investigate, but no customization.
They would just say give us access
to your people with no intake
around what do you want to know,
what would you want to change to
get value from the research. None of
that was part of the process. (Tracy
Witt, human resources senior vice
president)
Applied research has to meet the
dual criteria of furthering knowledge
and being useful for the eld. There
are people who come to organizations all the time, both those who
know people internally and those

who do not, who want to just survey the employees, and the organizations never let that happen.
Organizations are not willing to
compromise their existing data collection efforts just to give researchers access to their people. When we
do research in an organization there
has to be either a front pocket or
back pocket component. Front
pocket means something the organization is planning on doing, and
the research dovetails with it. Back
pocket means something that is
highly likely to inform future decisions, and the research can support
it. (Allan Church, human resources
vice president)
Thus, the overall quality of results, depth
of meaningful insights, and contributions
to scientific knowledge should be higher on
average for action research over traditional
research because of the greater access to a
wider range of organizations and topics that is
available to people taking an action research
approach. This can lead to better theory
building and testing when action research
principles are applied.
Another benefit of action research is the
ability to make a more direct link between
the research study and outcomes that matter from the organizations perspective. By
engaging organizational stakeholders in the
process of identifying and designing how
the research results will be used to influence
practice, the researcher directly gathers information on the context of the study and the
outcomes the organization wants to achieve
(Liu, 2008). The researcher also creates a business case for getting access to the operational
measures used by the organization to measure the outcomes, so they can be incorporated into the research process.
The greater link between the research
study and outcomes the organization cares
about increases the likelihood of addressing
the so what question that often bedevils traditional research projects. Doing so can help
an author distinguish his or her contributions
157
importance relative to the theoretical and

empirical approaches in the literature that do
not use an action research approach. It also
makes it much easier to conduct multilevel
research projects (Coghlan, 2002) that use
team-, unit-, or organization-level outcome
measures that reflect actual business processes
and objectives, versus group-level attitudinal
measures that are purely survey-based. Two
case studies illustrate this point.
Levenson et al. (2006) matched
By engaging
individual survey responses about
a managerial competency system
organizational
with individual managerial competency ratings and with unit perstakeholders in
formance. The multilevel analysis
the process of
was able to show a causal link
between the characteristics of a
identifying and
managerial competency system
and site-level performance, somedesigning how the
thing that previously had not
been documented in the research research results will
literature. Similarly, Crossley et
al. (2013) matched individual be used to influence
survey responses about trust in
practice, the
leadership with sales performance
to demonstrate a bottom-line researcher directly
link. Whereas previous research
had made a contribution based gathers information
on a simple (direct) relationship
on the context
among a small number (seven)
of first-line managers and their
of the study and
locations, Crossley et al.s action
the outcomes the
research approach established a
more complex (moderated) link
organization wants
among an entire population of 50
off-site district leaders (and their
to achieve.
480 location managers), providing
new insights at a higher level of
organizational analysis. The advances made
by both of these studies would not have been
possible absent an action research approach,
which was required to gain access to the data
that were collected.

to the Company
A benefit of taking a research-based approach
to analyzing problems in organizations is the
rigor, validation, and external support that it
158
provides. Many analyses that are conducted

in organizations, whether in HR, finance,
sales/marketing, operations, or by external
consultants, are not informed by the rigor
that a research-based approach provides. As a
consequence, correlational analyses are typically presented as causal, and often are
defined and tested without an eye toward
refutable hypotheses.
For example, Mark Blankenship, senior
vice president of human resources and
chief administrative officer, finds
that when your hypotheses are
The data
focused on your strategy/strategic objectives, you increase the
systems used by
likelihood of taking action (making business decisions on capital,
organizations for
resources, talent, etc.) that is based
keeping track of
on real versus chance findings.
Business leaders often tend to get
operational and
too excited over some analysts
point of view and then they jump.
HR data almost
The biggest mistake I see is maknever are linked
ing decisions on large data-fishing
expeditions. You should always
and analyzed so
start with fundamental hypothesis testing. At a minimum, a good
systematically as
analyst should at least have a
a researcher does
hold-out sample to cross-validate
the findings, which is easily done
when investigating
with the volumes of information
an issue informed by that organizations have at their
disposal.
One benefit to organizations
research questions
of the action research process is
that test causal
the hard work put into setting
up the data to be analyzed. The
models.
data systems used by organizations for keeping track of operational and HR data almost never are linked
and analyzed so systematically as a researcher
does when investigating an issue informed
by research questions that test causal models.
Organizational data systems take an accounting approach to people and processes, collecting point-in-time data that can be difficult to
match at the individual worker level across
databases; this makes multivariate and longitudinal analysis difficult. Consequently,
when organizations (or consultants working with them) conduct analyses on their
people and processes, the most common statistical approach is univariate (means, ranges,
standard deviation, etc.) or bivariate (correlations). When longitudinal analysis is conducted, it invariably means trending one or
two data series, not building a causal multivariate model.
Researchers, in contrast, often construct
multifaceted databases that combine data
from different sources and reporting systems to lay the foundation for multivariate
analysis. Going through the process of constructing the datasets needed for multivariate modeling means bringing together data
from parts of the organizational data systems
that typically are never matched at the individual level, including annual employee and
one-time surveys, performance and competency ratings, demographic information,
job histories, and more. The production of
the matched data, in and of itself, is often
a value-add because more complete pictures
can be painted of who the people are in the
organization, what their backgrounds and
experiences have been, how they feel about
structures and processes, and ratings of the
competencies and performance.
The larger benefit is realized when the
matched data are used to test competing factors that drive organizational behavior and
performance, using a multivariate modeling
approach that attempts to test for causal factors. Though such approaches are available
to analysts who do not take a research-based
approach, our experience in working with
companies across a broad range of industries
is that such analyses often are conducted only
when there is a dual objective of addressing
a research question. Taking a research-based
approach to analyzing organizational phenomena provides a more robust framework
for finding root causes, and for providing
the validation that often is needed to win
internal arguments about which analytical
approach is most actionable. These benefits
are equally available to internal analysts and
to external consultants working with organizations to diagnose organizational challenges
and derive solutions.
For example, a consumer products company was wrestling with an issue of how to
build competitive advantage in marketing.

The question before the company related to
the link between a particular type of marketing expertise, and whether it had an impact
on the bottom line. A PhD student investigated the link between the marketing activities and a companys market share in specific
product segments, and was able to quantify
the difference the practice made in different
regions and accounts, given different competitor activities (Viswanathan, 2012). The
fact that the research was conducted by an
external person, and had been presented at
scientific seminars, helped win the internal
discussions between those in the company in
favor of hiring people to build the marketing
expertise versus those opposed to doing so.
For the managerial competency system
analyzed by Levenson et al. (2006), the company had used the system for a number of
years and it had become a foundation for both
performance management and career pathing for first-line and middle managers. Yet
despite the institutionalization of the system,
questions had been raised about its efficacy
and whether it should be changed to improve
its contribution to the bottom line. The
analysis performed by the researchers documented a direct link between the competency
system and organizational performance. This
supported the companys decision to keep
the competency system in place and focus
on fine-tuning it, versus doing a large-scale
overhaul.
In the case of the research done by Crossley
et al. (2013), the organization was able to use
data collected for the study, along with data
from other sources, to quantify the potential
impact of training and to determine the focus
of the sales leader training curriculum. The
company was also able to provide sales leaders with the training modules that would benefit them most individually, thereby helping
customize training to the needs of their sales
leaders. Additionally, results of the study were
shared with general leaders from a variety
of functions as part of an internal executive
development program. This created a greater
sense of rigor in the companys leadership
development programs and gave participants
and sponsoring executives a high degree of
159
confidence in the quality of training and a

real sense of the potential impact of leadership development on the bottom line.

to Academic Institutions
Traditional non-action-oriented academic
research methods yield important insights
about organizational behavior, but without
necessarily ensuring a direct link between
those insights and knowledge that organizations can use to improve effectiveness. The
concern about the gap between theory and
practice in academic research is decades-old
(Hambrick, 1994; Huff, 2000; Lawler et al.,
1985; Shani et al., 2008; Starkey &
Madan, 2001; Susman & Evered,
Academic
1978). There is little contention
that the disconnect between the
institutions
knowledge generated by academic
researchers and the knowledge business schools in
that practitioners need to improve
particularface an
organizational effectiveness has
not diminished in recent years
increasing risk of
and, if anything, has increased. As
a consequence, academic institu- looking irrelevant if
tionsbusiness schools in particularface an increasing risk of they shun the action
looking irrelevant if they shun the research approach,
action research approach, which
in turn could hurt student and which in turn could
course enrollments.
hurt student and
If anything, the gap has
increased as both the population of course enrollments.
academic researchers and the number of non-action-oriented journals
grow larger. Many researchers worry that taking an action research approach would distract
from the central research activities of isolating
variables, standardizing measures, and assessing
causal relationships (Gergen & Thatchenkery,
1996). We believe that the conflict is more
perceived than real. In order for research to
be relevant to practice, the researcher needs
to understand how information is interpreted
and implemented by practitioners, which
requires a collaborative approach (Argyris,
1996; Mohrman et al., 2001).
Taking an action research approach is
important for researchers studying complex
160
and dynamic topics such as organizational

design, effectiveness, change, and innovation, as these are among the most complex
phenomena that encompass large parts of
organizations, necessitating the greatest
cooperation from organizational members to
collect the data needed for insightful analysis. Action research is particularly well suited
when the issue under study is large-scale
organizational change (Ledford & Mohrman,
1993b). Such settings are characterized by
highly dynamic and complex environments
in which the number of possible
causal and confounding factors
It is the researcher
are too numerous to specify ahead
of time. It is only through workwho takes the
ing collaboratively with the orgaresponsibility of
nization that the researcher can
most effectively narrow down
ensuring that the
the potential factors to be studied to a manageable set. The same
process of working
holds for innovation, particularly
with the organization for innovation generated within
large organizations that involves
yields scientifically
myriad contributors and stakeholders from a wide number of
useful data, whether
disciplines and functional areas
(Mohrman et al., 2001).
derived from
These are examples of research
interviews, case
areas where academic institutions
would benefit from employing
studies, surveys,
researchers who are perceived as
doing research that is relevant
archival data
for both theory and practice. To
analysis, or some
accomplish this objective, the
researcher needs to meet the praccombination of
titioner at least halfway to determine what the business needs are
these.
and make an earnest attempt to
address those needs in the course
of doing the research. Doing so will yield
insights that can raise the profile of the institution in the business community and among
students, as well as improve the design of
course content that can be applied in actual
work settings.
How to Do Action Research

A defining aspect of action research is that it
is impossible to fully specify ahead of time all
aspects of the research process, data, and

models that will be collected. The research
process directly involves the subjects and
organization being studied in defining the
scope of the work, details of how it will be
carried out, and how the knowledge will be
used in practice (Fricke, 2006). If this sounds
like a consultative process, that is not a coincidence. Action research from the organizations perspective often looks like consulting,
albeit consulting that typically is more scientifically rigorous and objective than what is
offered by consultants who are not researchoriented (Tenkasi & Hay, 2008; Werr &
Greiner, 2008). It is the researcher who takes
the responsibility of ensuring that the process
of working with the organization yields scientifically useful data, whether derived from
interviews, case studies, surveys, archival data
analysis, or some combination of these.
The beginning of the action research
process starts with a conversation between
the researcher and the organization to identify the intersection between the researchers
interests and the organizations business challenges. As Greenwood, Whyte, and Harkavy
(1993, p. 176) note, No one may mandate
in advance that a particular research process
will become a fully developed participatory
action research project. Participation is a process that must be generated. It begins with
participatory intent and continues by building participatory processes into the activity
within the limits set by the participants and
the conditions. The initial conversations
may lead to a full-blown research study, or
they may lead to the conclusion that there is
insufficient overlap between the researchers
interests and the organizations needs to warrant collaborating.
Because of this inductive and iterative
process, action research is best viewed as a
complement to traditional research methods, not a substitute. There are strengths and
weaknesses of both approaches (see Table II).
Action research is extremely well suited for
qualitative and case-study approaches. But
that does not preclude action research from
being strong in the statistical methods used,
including survey design and analysis (Ledford
& Mohrman, 1993a; Pasmore & Friedlander,

TABLE
II
Comparing the Traditional and Action Research Approaches

Traditional Research Approach
Action Research Approach
Theory development
Rely on existing literature

Not limited by phenomena
observed in organizations
Identify opportunities for new
theory development by looking for published anomalies in
research or practice arenas
Rely on existing literature

Rely heavily on phenomena observed
in organizations
Identify opportunities for new theory
development by working directly with
organizations
Empirical design/
Qualitative vs.
quantitative
Emphasize analytic rigor

Construct validity
Large number of items per
construct
Look for organizations with
willingness to administer long
surveys
De-emphasize qualitative and
case-study aspects
Emphasize both rigor and relevance

Case-study work is part of the
researchers toolkit
Surveys can play just as central a
role, but they are designed with an
eye toward impact on practice
Limit survey length if necessary to
increase response rates and generalizability to the population
Impact on practice
through the research
process
Wait until research is completed Engage organizational stakeholders in

the research process to build buy-in
Maybe make general stateand alignment from the outset
ments about how the results
Work iteratively with the organization
could be used in practice
to ensure that applicability is main No validation with practitioners
tained during the research process
that the results are actionable
in actual organizations
1982). Action research is also very well suited

for collecting and analyzing in-depth data
across multiple levels within an organization, particularly where individual employees
or roles are a key unit of analysis. The action
research process maximizes engagement with
key company stakeholders. This often ensures
maximum cooperation and access to data
that otherwise might be restricted by company gatekeepers looking to justify spending
large amounts of time and internal resources
working with an outside research team.
Selecting a topic to be pursued with an
action research approach can be more difficult than choosing a traditional research
topic. There is a type of chicken-versus-egg
challenge (which one comes first): how to
know in which domains action research
can be more easily conducted, having the
relationships with organizations to explore
those domains, and knowing how to publish the research once completed. Academic
researchers tend to be stronger only in the latter domain (knowing how to publish), while
company-based researchers and consultants
tend to be stronger in the first two. We have
found that more experience doing action

research leads to both a deeper understanding of how to craft acceptable topics, how
to establish deeper relationships with organizations willing to host the exploration of
such topics, and how to publish the research.
Indeed, it is hard to separate the three issues
from each other. At the end of the day, there
is no substitute for experience: our advice to
the budding action researcher, regardless of
background, is to take the plunge and just
start doing the work. You will make mistakes
as you go along, but if you keep an open
mind and focus on addressing all three objectives consistently, you can and likely will be
successful conducting action research.
We next turn to the different aspects
of the research process and discuss the difference between action versus non-action
research approaches.
The Initial Conversation: Gaining

Access to Conduct the Research
Coming to a shared understanding between
the researcher and the organization about the
161
162
importance of collaboration is the first critical

step in an action research project. This
includes identifying common ground for conducting the research project. As part of that
process, the researcher needs to identify what
are the strategic issues facing the organizationboth real and imagined. Without that
focus, the researcher runs the risk of both not
understanding the real factors
driving decision making and outPrell, Hubacek,
comes in the organization and
engaging in a research process that
Quinn, and Reed
will be entirely delegitimized from
the companys viewpoint. That
(2008) found
delegitimization in turn could
that involving
severely impact the quality of data
collected, decreasing the likeliorganizational
hood the research will unearth the
true causal factors driving the
stakeholders in the
behavior under study. For examinterpretation of
ple, Prell, Hubacek, Quinn, and
Reed (2008) found that involving
their social network organizational stakeholders in the
interpretation of their social netanalysis results led
work analysis results led to a second round of analysis and better
to a second round
selection of the research particiof analysis and
pants, which enabled the analysis
to better meet the needs of both
better selection
the research project and the organizational stakeholders.
of the research
The basis for the common
participants, which
ground in conducting the research
typically defines action versus
enabled the analysis non-action research projects. If
the common ground is based on
to better meet the
the researcher finding a sympathetic individual inside the organeeds of both the
nization who provides access but
research project and does not address issues of strategic
importance to the organization,
the organizational
then the project is almost guaranteed to be non-action research.
stakeholders.
Only when the strategic issues of
the organization are incorporated
as part of the basis for doing the work does it
typically become action research.
Interviews and Focus Groups

Interviews and focus groups are a key part of
the action research process. In a non-action
research study, they are treated as one-way

avenues of information gathering, to be used
solely by the researcher to hone the research
topic and/or collect transcripts that can be
coded and content analyzed for hypothesis
testing. In an action research study, interviews and focus groups also are typically used
to hone the research topic and often are used
for coding and content analysis. In addition,
an action research project uses them to learn
how the results from the study are likely to be
received by the organization, and to gather
information that can be used to support the
studys data-gathering efforts in the
organization.
As Schein (2006) notes, taking a traditional
research approach can lead to insufficiently
comprehensive data collection and misdiagnosis of the drivers of behavior in a system.
Schein relates a specific action research example in which he worked with a company to
determine the cause of a failed technology
implementation. The action research approach
he took enabled him to hone and refine the
research question to be more accurate than
what was originally identified to be tested. The
initial diagnosisconsistent with a traditional
research approachidentified a no layoffs
policy as the barrier to success. That is the
point at which the traditional approach would
have stopped. But because the researcher was
engaged in an action research relationship,
the inquiry continued and Schein was able to
collect additional data that identified deeper
conceptual problems with the entire sociotechnical system, specifically an inability to
visualize a less hierarchical system in which
bosses might play more of a consultant role
to highly paid professional operators. . . . In
fact, the no layoff norm might have been a
convenient rationalization to avoid having to
change deeper cultural assumptions about the
nature of work and hierarchy in this bank (p.
192). A researcher following the traditional
approach would have stopped after the initial diagnosis even though that diagnosis ultimately proved to be incorrect. This highlights
a potential further weakness of taking only
a traditional approach: partial or incomplete
data collection that can lead to misdiagnosis
of the drivers of behavior in the system.
The interviewees and focus-group participants in an action research study include

both the subjects directly under studythe
ones needed to test the hypothesesand key
stakeholders with insights into the organizational phenomena under study. Key stakeholders include managers at all levels, and
frontline employees involved in the processes under study. Senior leader stakeholders
include both those with oversight over the
parts of the organization being studied and
those in a position to provide insights into
how the organization is likely to take action
from the research results. Middle manager,
first-line manager, and employee stakeholders include those involved directly with the
processes under study, and those who interact laterally with the processes in other functions and business units. Each of these groups
provides a different perspective on how the
results of the study are likely to be received
and used by the organization. The action
researcher needs these perspectives to determine how the results will be presented to
maximize their acceptance and the likelihood
that action will be taken from them.
The focus of these stakeholder interviews
and focus groups specifically needs to answer
the following:
What are the organizational issues or

business challenges that the research
might address?
When stakeholders identify an issue, are
there unspoken agendas that also need to
be addressed? These include the proverbial
elephants in the room that everyone in
the organization knows are challenges yet
that culturally may be taboo to discuss
openly. In order for the action research
agenda to be effective, the researcher
often needs to address both the stated
and unspoken agendas.
Who will make the decisions using the
results from the analysis?
How will the results be used?
Surveys
Action research takes into consideration how
useful the survey results will be in helping the
organization to gain meaningful insights and
163
to accomplish meaningful change. This may

mean scaling back how long a survey is to
increase stakeholder buy-in and response
rates; adding questions that are used purely
for feedback purposes but that the organization views as critical; and building in feedback sessions as part of the process that seek
to not only report out the survey results but
also maximize the probability the results are
used to influence key decision making.
TableIII describes the range of ways that traditional researchers can incorporate action research methods into
The interviewees
their approaches.
Making concessions such as
and focus-group
these may seem anathema to traditional researchers, yet these are
participants in an
sound principles that can be justiaction research
fied on purely scientific grounds.
Shorter surveys can reduce the
study include
bias from low response rates or
survey fatigue. Adding questions
both the subjects
deemed important by the organidirectly under
zation and focusing on how the
results are used can increase the
studythe ones
organizations willingness to provide access to key personnel and
needed to test the
actively encourage their participahypothesesand
tion in the study, which in turn
can increase response rates and
key stakeholders
the thoughtfulness and accuracy
of the respondents. Thus, incorpowith insights into
rating action research principles
into traditional survey research
the organizational
can be justified in part for purely
phenomena under
scientific reasons.
study.
Archival Data
Archival data broadly construed include any
data collected and made available by the
organization that were not collected first by
the researcher. How such data are used in
non-action research versus action research
approaches is not different in principle but
often differs in practice. For one, as has
already been argued, the action researcher
typically gets access to a broader range of
archival data than the traditional researcher
who does not take an action-oriented
approach. Even in cases where the same
164

TABLE
III
Extent of
Integration
Options for Integrating an Action Research Orientation Into Traditional Research Programs
Integration Examples
Light
Researcher makes genuine effort at end of project to ensure the results can be fully
understood and incorporated by organizations into decision making
Researcher uses the results of the dialogue about usefulness of research ndings to
alter future research programs to increase their perceived relevance by organizations
Medium
Researcher works collaboratively with organizations to nd mutual ground in

formulating and executing a research agenda, while guiding the outcome toward
topics the researcher identied ahead of time as relevant
Researcher includes as part of the research process regular feedback loops with
the organization to maximize stakeholder engagement with and participation in the
research process
Researcher makes some adjustments as needed in the research design to improve
perceived usefulness of the research process to the organization and its stakeholders
Heavy
Researcher and organization jointly identify and decide the domain for the research
process, with equal input to the domain decisions
Primary, but not exclusive, importance in the research design process is given to the
organizations ability to use the research results to drive effective decision making
Research tools are adapted to ensure usability of the results, while maintaining
scientic validity
information might be made available to both

types of researchers, the action researcher
typically has greater access to internal stakeholders with deep knowledge of the datas
meaning, including their strengths and weaknesses. This gives the action researcher an
advantage in understanding the limitations
and potential of such data.
When analyzing archival data, the action
researcher also typically has access to the
organizations internal reports about and
experts on the data. Thus, when potential
anomalies are discovered in the data, the
action researcher has access to resources that
can help resolve questions that would take
other researchers a lot longer to resolve, and
that might never be solvable without that
resource access. At minimum, this reduces
the time needed to process archival data; at
maximum, it has the potential to create much
deeper and accurate insights when taking an
action research approach.
For example, Crossley et al. (2013) had
access to data collected from the organization about trust. Unfortunately, the measures
used by the organization were not the same
as the ones validated from the literature, and
the organization was not willing to change
its internal measures and resurvey the entire
population. As an alternative, the researchers

administered a survey to a subset of people in
the company, using both the validated measures from the literature and the companys
measures. Doing so, the researchers showed
almost identical correlations between the
measures (r = .93), which was evidence of
convergent validity and enabled the publication of the results in a refereed journal. Had
they not taken an action research approach,
they would not have been granted access to
resurvey employees using measures already
used by the organization.
Results/Reports
Creating feedback reports for the organization to use the results of the research is unique
to action research; there is no parallel in traditional research. This is because it is never
acceptable to take results as they would be
written up for a scientific research audience
and present them verbatim to an organizational audience. Instead, the parts of the
research that are most relevant to the companys context and the issues about which
they care the most have to be featured front
and center in the feedback report. The parts
of the research that are tangential to those
objectives have to be either de-emphasized or

even excised entirely from the feedback
report, depending on the extent of overlap
between the dual objectives of informing the
research literature and informing practice in
the organization.
Feedback reports that look more academic
in style tend to be less well received than those
that adopt some of the presentation and formatting approaches commonly used by consultants. This means de-emphasizing word
processor documents that have only text and
no graphics. It also often means presenting
the results in PowerPoint or a similar format,
either as a complement to a more detailed
written report or even sometimes as the sole
vehicle for reporting the results. Typically, the
more the feedback report uses the type of professional presentation elements of a consulting company, the better it is received. This, of
course, is no substitute for substance: presentation cannot trump content. However, substance not presented well unfortunately may
be rejected by people in organizations who
are used to digesting information presented
in formats that are more visual than what
researchers are used to employing for sharing
research results.
Case-Study Example
The action research project used by Levenson
et al. (2006) provides examples of each aspect
of the action research process described
earlier.
The Initial Conversation
What enabled the research to be conducted
was a collaborative relationship between the
researchers and the company. The genesis for
the research was a request from the company
to the Center for Effective Organizations at
the University of Southern California for help
evaluating the design and impact of a managerial competency system. In order to engage
with the company to do the work, however,
the researchers had to make sure to satisfy
both their own research interests and the
companys need for a program evaluation.
This necessitated a close working relationship
to identify the issues to be addressed, and the
165
optimal way to balance scientific validity and

the companys business needs. Taking an
action research approach like this is a core
philosophy of work done with companies at
the Center for Effective Organizations; and it
was the reputation for such work that led the
company to approach the Center in the first
place.
Interviews and Focus Groups
The power of this action research approach in
terms of the quality of the research data that
were gathered emerged only as the study got
under way, however. It was only after agreeing to do the work that the researchers were
granted sufficient access to the
companys stakeholders to conFeedback reports
duct interviews. Doing so led to a
complete understanding of the
that look more
design of the competency system
academic in style
and the systems potential for
impacting the companys bottom
tend to be less well
line. Two key features of the system emerged in the process of received than those
doing extensive site interviews
that adopt some of
with both the competency system
participants and the corporate
the presentation
and local leadership: (a) that people were often promoted out of
and formatting
the competency system to the
approaches
local leadership teams without
achieving the highest level in the
commonly used by
system and (b) that the smaller
sites were simple enough that the
consultants.
local leadership could solve many
problems by bypassing the managers in the competency system. This directly
informed the regression models used to conduct the site-level analysis that identified a
business impact of the competency system
only at the medium- and large-size sites.
While researchers taking a traditional
approach could have identified the driving
factors in the organization linking the competency system to business impact if presented with all the data, the action research
approach was required to gain access to
the data in the first place. In fact, the company representatives included a practitioner
with a PhD in industrial and organizational
166
psychology who was very familiar with traditional academic research approaches and was
very reluctant to collaborate with traditional
academics on the study, similar to the perspectives voiced by our interviewees reported
earlier in this article. Thus, the action research
approach was key to both getting access to
the company to conduct the study and to collecting the interview data needed to gain the
insights regarding the link between the competency system and business impact.
Surveys
The survey designed to collect the data for
the study struck a balance between the content needed specifically for the research questions and the content requested
by the company to evaluate the
The action research competency system. The organization was interested in details
approach was key to
such as how committed leaders
both getting access were to the success of the system,
how active HR was in supporting
to the company to
it, how much time people spent
on activities related to the system,
conduct the study
and perceptions about the systems impact on the development
and to collecting
of managers and how well they
the interview data
worked together, and more. None
of those areas were a focus of the
needed to gain the
research, yet if they had been
excluded from the survey, the
insights regarding
organization would not have
the link between
agreed to allow the research study
to be conducted. By devoting part
the competency
of the survey to items designed
system and business solely for feedback purposes to the
organization, the researchers were
able to ask the questions at the
impact.
center of their inquiry.
Archival Data
The action research approach revealed critical
details about the competency system that
highlighted its unique design and the value
of the ratings for testing a causal link between
competencies and performance. In most
managerial competency measurement
approaches, managers are rated yearly on
observed behaviors, and the ratings can
fluctuate from year to year depending on the

raters perceptions. For the organization
under study, in contrast, the researchers
learned that the competency ratings were
treated as a promotion: a manager could
move up in the competency system but never
down; once promoted to a higher level, any
decrease in performance was treated as a performance management issue. If this way of
establishing and maintaining the competency ratings were consistently applied, then
the researchers could use the competency ratings as a potential causal variable in multivariate regression models explaining both
individual and site performance.
These details were revealed through the
initial stakeholder interviews. To validate
the details, subsequent analysis of the competency data confirmed that the ratings did
not decrease over time. However, that alone
was insufficient to make the researchers comfortable that they had identified a true causal
variable. So they incorporated questions
about how the competency ratings were set
and maintained in the interviews conducted
at multiple sites with local site leaders and
with participants in the competency system.
The results of these extensive interviews confirmed the findings of the initial interviews
and archival analysis, creating the foundation
for the multivariate models that were run as
the core part of the analysis for the research.
Reports and Feedback
The feedback materials created for the
company included a PowerPoint slide deck
summarizing the results, item reports with the
mean values of the individual survey questions and constructs created for the analysis,
and in-person meetings to discuss the survey
results. The multipronged approach was
instrumental in providing platforms for communicating the results that reached a broad
group of internal stakeholders. Most important was the conclusion that there was a direct
link between the competency system and
improved performance at the sites: sites with
a greater proportion of higher-rated managers
had better operational performance. Though
this result was reported in the
written materials provided to the company,

the process of presenting the results in person
and discussing them with the leadership and
HR representatives was necessary to ensure
they fully understood and accepted the conclusion. That in turn enabled subsequent decision making that incorporated the results.
Conducting Action Research

in Fast-Growth, High-Change
Organizations
Any research question focused on young,
fast-growing, and/or entrepreneurial firms
stands to gain from adapting an action
research approach. The small firm sector in
general is characterized by higher rates of
organizational births and deaths than the
large firm sector (Davis, Haltiwanger, &
Schuh, 1998). Young companies and industries are less likely to have experience working with the tools of management research
and organization behavior and thus may be
more resistant to embracing such an external
perspective without the benefits provided by
an action research approach.
A big strength of action research is that
it is ideally suited for situations of high complexity and rapid change (Yorks & Nicolaides,
2007). In such settings, it can be very hard for
the researcher to know before engaging with
an organization which theories are the ones
that are most relevant for testing (Shotter,
2007). Fast-growth, high-change environments are populated by organizations that
have to be agile in order to survive. In such
situations, the pace of change is so rapid
and touches so many parts of the system,
an action research approach may be needed
even more than in settings where the rate of
change is less rapid, pervasive, and complex.
The reasons are twofold. First, organizations
need to respond as quickly as possible to the
external environment lessens their ability to
engage in research for researchs sake: if they
spend too much energy engaging in issues
unrelated to the factors directly related to
their survival, they run the risk of missing key
signals to which they must respond. Second, a
traditionally oriented, disengaged researcher
will be at even greater risk of formulating
167
research questions that are unrelated to the

factors directly responsible for organizational
success because of lack of direct access to the
information in the environment to which the
organization is responding.
The high-technology sector is a leading
example of such an environment, with rapid
rates of change, disproportionately high levels of organizational birth and death, and
innovation cycles that are among the shortest on the planet. Consider the example of a
fast-growing company operating in the social
networking space, a market that is growing
rapidly yet where few companies are profitable. The terms of business success in this
market have yet to be written for the vast
majority of firms that will eventually be profitable. This creates
Any research
an incredibly high level of uncertainty for firms in terms of the
question focused
success of their business strategy:
even the most self-assured, confion young, fastdent entrepreneur whose user base
growing, and/or
(participants who may become
profitable customers in the future)
entrepreneurial
is growing rapidly faces real uncertainty about whether and how to firms stands to gain
successfully monetize the user
from adapting an
bases activities. Not being cash
flow positive yet, all activities of
action research
the organization are focused on
growing the user base and figurapproach.
ing out what parts of the business
can be monetized without driving away too many users. This uncertainty,
coupled with the intense competition from
other start-ups and fast-growing competitors,
creates a pressure-cooker-type work environment at the organization, where people are
underpaid for the long hours they work (in
the hopes of striking it rich when the firm
either goes public or is acquired) and everyone has a laser-like focus on becoming cash
flow positive and, ultimately, profitable.
Consider now the prospects of gaining
access to such a company to conduct research.
A traditional researcher who takes no time to
consider the needs of the company vis--vis
the study design faces a huge uphill battle to
gain access. Without an answer to the question What is the benefit to the company of
168
participating in the research? a researcher

stands virtually no chance of being allowed
to spend time with the companys employees.
An action researcher, in contrast, also faces a
challenge to get access, but one that is easier
to overcome if his/her research question and
approach can be tailored to help address pressing issues such as, for example, (1) increasing user retention or intensity (duration) of
people using the firms services, (2) maintaining high levels of employee commitment and
productivity in the face of high degrees of
uncertainty of business success, (3) increasing
employee retention/lowering turnover without large increases in cash compensation,
(4) increasing cross-functional collaboration
within the company, or (5) improving the
functioning of distributed work teams that
have to collaborate across time and space to
produce the companys products.
Though organizations operating in the
social networking space face a particularly
dynamic and uncertain environment, their
experiences are not particularly unique when
compared to fast-growing, entrepreneurial
organizations in other industries. Thus, the
specific business and employee issues might
vary, but the need to address them is just as
important for researchers who want to gain
access to those organizations to collect data
hence, the importance of taking an action
research approach.
Conducting Action Research

in Emerging Markets
A similar issue exists in fast-growing emerging markets like Brazil, China, India, and
Indonesia. Beyond the rapid rates of change
and evolution, conducting management
research in such environments may pose particular challenges that further highlight the
potential importance of taking an action
research approach. The fundamental and
rapid economic changes occurring simultaneously include (1) industrialization and urbanization; (2) maturation of industries from
simple assembly and low value added to complete value chain, including research and
development; (3) simultaneous influx
of foreign multinational corporations and

development of domestic champions; (4) regulation and legal system evolution; and (5)
transformation of industries from state-run to
private enterprise. The rapid rates of change
endemic in the emerging markets put companies in an unusually precarious position. A
heightened sense of urgency over the economic environment should reduce their willingness to engage in any research process that
is not perceived as directly contributing to
the knowledge they need to survive.
For example, we are familiar with a company in China that is a national leader in an
industry that is a hot area of research internationally. A prominent researcher from a
developed country sought to engage with the
company to do a case study. The company
refused, however, because the researcher did
not sufficiently address the companys needs
for actionable knowledge that could help it
overcome its current pressing business issues.
A separate group of researchers, consisting of
both native Chinese and foreigners, throughout this period consistently maintained a good
working relationship with the company
including access for conducting case-study
researchbecause they provided advice that
the company used to improve its operations.
Based on these experiences and our reading of the literature, we have come to the
conclusion that there is a pressing need for
research in emerging markets that is more
firmly rooted in action research. To get a
more concrete sense of the potential need
and role for action research with organizations in emerging markets like China today,
we conducted interviews with an opportunity sample of 10 companies operating in
the Shanghai, Nanjing, and Beijing regions
in China. The companies ranged in size
from very small (handful of employees)
through very large (market-leading position
in national industry), spanning a variety of
industries (textile manufacturing, consumer
goods, chemicals, business services, and telecommunications). The interviews focused on
the current business challenges facing each
organization, and their interest in partnering
with outside researchers.
The interview results revealed a fairly

uniform pattern that is consistent with
our hypotheses about the role that action
research can play in emerging markets.
First, all of the companies were struggling
with significant business challenges and
recognized the potential usefulness of partnering with outside experts who might be
able to help them solve the challenges. Yet
despite this, they all expressed little desire
in partnering with typical business school
faculty, unless the faculty would be willing to directly address their pressing business issues. Partnering on research topics
that were more tangential to their pressing
business issues was a much, much lower priority. This further highlights the benefits
of taking an action research approach to
both researchers and to the organizations
themselves.
Conclusion
Action research offers a unique opportunity
to bridge the large and growing divide
between the vast majority of management
research that is conducted and the usefulness of that research for organizations. We
identified benefits of taking an action
research approach for different constituencies: researchers, organizations, and
academic institutions. Our goal is to bolster
the case for doing action research led by
both external and internal researchers, and
to provide some guidance on how to carry
itout.
We have outlined the contributions that
traditional and action research can make,
and have argued that researchers should not
be forced into choosing only one approach
or the other. Rather, a mixed approach has
the greatest potential to yield the insights
needed both to improve theory development and testing and to improve organizational decision making. Moreover, there is
a range of ways that traditional researchers
can incorporate action research principles
into their research agendas. We are confident that if management researchers adopt
these principles, they will find the return
169
more than justifies the effort in terms of

contribution both to scientific knowledge
and to practice.
For organizations, action research offers
the promise of a more rigorous approach to
identifying the key factors that drive organizational behavior and performance. This
includes the construction of data sets from
disparate sources that are rarely combined
when internal analysts and external consultants usually search for root causes, and
extends to using multivariate model building and testing. The end result typically is a
more comprehensive and actionable set of
findings that can be used to support and improve organizational
Action research
performance.
For academic institutions,
offers a unique
action research offers a way to
opportunity to
bridge the relevance gap that has
been growing in recent years.
bridge the large
Supporting
and
encouraging
action research and researchers
and growing
offers a potential win-win whereby
scientific knowledge is expanded
divide between
at the same time that actionable
the vast majority
insights from that knowledge
also increase. If that knowledge is
of management
incorporated into course curricula
and used to engage students and
research that is
organizations, academic instituconducted and
tions ability to attract and retain
high-quality students and to prothe usefulness of
mote themselves in the business
community more broadly will
that research for
also increase.
organizations.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank two anonymous
reviewers, Deborah Dougherty, and participants at the 2010 International Association
of Chinese Management Researchers
Conference in Shanghai, China, for helpful
comments on an earlier, and much different,
version of this article. We would like to
thank the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 71372026 and
71002024) for financial support. All errors
are our own.
170
DR. WENHONG ZHANG is an associate professor at Nanjing University, China, a visiting scholar of National University of Singapore, and was an associate researcher at
Chinese University of Hong Kong. Originally educated and employed as a mathematician, Dr. Zhang received her PhD in system engineering from Southeast University
in China in 2004. She has visited and studied at Harvard University. She has led two
programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China in 2011 and 2014, and a
provincial research program. Her research has been published in a number of journals,
including Management World, and has been featured on the program of the International
Association of Chinese Management Research. She is a jury member of the Academy of
Management and the International Association for Chinese Management Research.
ALEC LEVENSON is a senior research scientist in the Center for Effective Organizations
at the University of Southern California. His action research with companies uses organization design, job design, human capital analytics, and strategic talent management
to optimize organization performance and HR systems. His research has been published
and featured in numerous academic and practitioner/media outlets. He is on the editorial
boards of Human Resource Management and Small Business Economics. He has received research grants from the Sloan Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, Rockefeller
Foundation, and National Science Foundation. He has trained HR professionals from a
broad range of companies in human capital analytics.
CRAIG CROSSLEY is an assistant professor of management at the University of Central
Florida. Prior to this role, he served in several industry functions, including human
resources, corporate strategy, marketing, and sales. During this time, he helped develop award-winning leadership development and HR metrics programs and served
as an industry expert for organizations, such as the American Society for Training and
Development and Corporate University Xchange. He seeks to conduct business-relevant
research on leadership, trust, and counter-productivity, which has been published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
the Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Human Relations.
References
Adler, N., & Docherty, P. (1998). Bringing business
into sociotechnical theory and practice. Human
Relations, 51, 319345.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work
environment for creativity during downsizing.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630640.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., &
Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the
work environment for creativity: Perceived leader
support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 532.
Amabile, T. M., Sigal, G., Barsade, J., Mueller, S., &
Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367403.
Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design
causality in the service of consequential theory.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 390406.
Bartunek, J. M., Walsh, K., & Lacey, C. A. (2000).

Dynamics and dilemmas of women leading
women. Organization Science, 11, 589610.
Beer, M. (2003). Why total quality management
programs do not persist: The role of management
quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation. Decision Sciences, 34, 623642.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (1996). Developing an
organization capable of implementing strategy and
learning. Human Relations, 49, 597619.
Bennis, W. G., & OToole, P. (2005). How business
schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review,
83(5), 96104.
Benson, G., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. (2004).
You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuitionreimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy
of Management Journal, 47, 315333.

Benson, G., & Pattie, M. (2009). The comparative roles
of home and host supervisors in the expatriate
experience. Human Resource Management, 48,
4968.
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. (2000). The space
between: Operationalizing relationality in organizational research. Organization Science, 11,
551564.
Church, A. H., & Oliver, D. H. (2006). The importance
of taking action, not just sharing survey feedback.
In A. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies and
applications (pp. 102130). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (Eds.). (2001). Designing
and using organizational surveys: A seven-step
process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coghlan, D. (2002). Interlevel dynamics in systematic
action research. Systematic Practice and Action
Research, 15, 273283.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of
academic and practitioner publications in human
resource management: Reasons for the divide and
concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 10131019.
Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E. (1997). A
hierarchical construct of self-management leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and
perceived work group effectiveness. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 275308.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996).
A predictive model of self-managing work team
effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643676.
Crossley, C. D., Cooper, C. D., & Wernsing, T. S. (2013).
Making things happen through challenging goals:
Leader proactivity, trust, and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
540549.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009), Organization
development and change. Independence, KY:
Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. S. (1990). Can organization
studies begin to break out of the normal science
straitjacket? An editorial. Organization Science, 1,
19.
Dunn, W. N., & Swiercze, F. W. (1977). Planned organizational change: Toward grounded theory. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 13, 135157.
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2006). Researching organizations using action research. In S. R. Clegg, C.Hardy,
T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of organization studies (pp.388408).
London, UK: Sage.
Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2007). Grounded theory
method in management research: Users perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
430455.
Finegold, D., Levenson, A., & Van Buren, M. (2005).
Access to training and its impact on temporary
workers. Human Resource Management Journal,
15(2), 119.
Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G. (2002).
Age effects on the predictors of technical workers
commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 23, 655674.
Foss, L., & Moldens, T. (2007). The engaged
researcherFrom translator to literary change
agent. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 20,
2739.
Fricke, W. (2006). General reections on how to
practice and train for action research. International
Journal of Action Research, 2, 269282.
George, E., Levenson, A., Finegold, D., &
Chattopadhyay, P. (2010). Extra-role behaviors
among temporary workers: How rms create
relational wealth in the United States of America.
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21, 530550.
Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T.J. (1996). Organization
science as a social construction: Postmodern
potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
32, 356377.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are
destroying good management practices. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 4, 7591.
Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Differential relationships among goal-setting training, efcacy and
effectiveness at the individual and team level.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 789808.
Davis, S. J., Haltiwanger, J. C., & Schuh, S. (1998).

Job creation and destruction. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 209226.
Drexler, J. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). A union-management cooperative project to improve the quality of
work life. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
13, 373386.
Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C., & Conger, J. (2009). Do you

see what I see? The complex effects of perceptual
distance between leaders and teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 6276.
171
172

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Unpacking the
concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic
dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure and national diversity on team innovation.
Gibson, C. B., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy
divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
202239.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
virtual team performance: The moderating role of

face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 187208.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B.
(2006). Enhancing the transfer of computer assisted
training prociency in geographically distributed
teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 706716.
Kraut, A. I. (2006). Getting action from organizational
surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graham, M. E., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Gainsharing

and womens and mens relative pay satisfaction.
Journal of Organization Behavior, 20, 10271042.
Latham, G. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on the

transfer of behavioral science ndings to the workplace: The times they are a-changin. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 10271032.
Greenwood , D. J., Whyte, W. F., & Harkavy, I. (1993).

Participatory action research as a process and as a
goal. Human Relations, 46, 175192.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1985). Education, management

style, and organizational effectiveness. Personnel
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). What if the academy really

mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19,
1116.
Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, A. M., Mohrman, S. A.,

Ledford, G. E., & Cummings, T. G. (1985). Doing
research that is useful for theory and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Huff, A. S. (2000). Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management

Review, 25, 288293.
Huxham, C., & Eden, C. (2007). Action research. In S.
Clegg & J. Bailey (Eds.), International encyclopedia
of organization studies (pp. 2125). London, UK:
Sage.
Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1993a). Looking

backward and forward at action research. Human
Relations, 46, 13491359.
Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1993b). Self-design
for high involvement: A large-scale organizational
change. Human Relations, 46, 143173.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2003). Researching

organizational practice through action research:
Case studies and design choices. Organizational
Research Methods, 6, 383403.
Levenson, A. R., Van der Stede, W. A., & Cohen,

S.G.(2006). Measuring the relationship between
managerial competencies and performance.
Journal of Management, 32, 360380.
Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1981). Impact of

employee participation in pay plan development.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
28, 111128.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 3446.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.

M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational
change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Judge, T. A., & Welbourne, T. M. (1994). A conrmatory investigation of the dimensionality of the
pay satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Applied
Kelemen, M., & Bansal, P. (2002). The conventions of
management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management,
13, 97108.
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigorrelevance
gap in management research is unbridgeable.
Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516533.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C.B.
(2004). The impact of team empowerment on
Liu, Y. (2008). Implementing and evaluating performance: Measurement initiative in public leisure facilities: An action research project. Systematic Practice
and Action Research, 22, 1530.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management
research. London, UK: Sage.
MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Grant, S. (2002).
Mode 2 management research. British Journal of
Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory
and organizational research. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 22, 141157.
Mintzberg, H. (1977). Policy as a eld of management theory. Academy of Management Review, 2,
88103.
Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring the
nancial impact of employee attitudes. Journal of

Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman, A. M.
(2001). Doing research that is useful to practice:
A model and empirical exploration. Academy of
Mohrman, S. A., Lawler, E. E., and Associates. (2011).
Useful research: Advancing theory and practice.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M.
(2003). The role of networks in fundamental organizational change: A grounded analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 301323.
Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods (Prentice Hall
Organization Development Series). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: FT Press.
Noffke, S., & Somekh, B. (2009). The Sage handbook
of action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Pasmore, W., & Friedlander, F. (1982). An actionresearch program for increasing employee involvement in problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 343362.
Pasmore, W. A., & King, D. C. (1978). Understanding
organizational change: A comparative study of
multifaceted interventions. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 14, 455468.
Payne, G. T., Benson, G. S., & Finegold, D. L. (2009).
Corporate board attributes, team effectiveness and
nancial performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 46, 704731.
Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A.
(2002). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace
inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36,
10131031.
case of circular design. Organization Science, 17,

287297.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as
evidence-based management? Academy of
Management Review, 31, 256269.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008).
Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the elds full weight of scientic knowledge through syntheses. Academy of
Management Annals, 2, 475515.
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Lets create a tipping point: What
academics and practitioners can do, alone and
together. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
10461054.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001).
Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and
transfer between practitioners and academics.
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The
very separate worlds of academic and practitioner
periodicals in human resource management:
Implications for evidence-based management.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Clinical inquiry/research. In P.
Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action
research (pp. 185217). London, UK: Sage.
Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S. A, Pasmore, W. A., Stymne,
B., & Adler, N. (2008). Handbook of collaborative
management research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Shotter, J. (2007). With what kind of science should
action research be contrasted? International
Journal of Action Research, 3(1+ 2), 6592.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business

schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 7895.
Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1999).

Developing effective self-managing work teams
in service companies. Group and Organization
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C., & Reed, M. (2008).

Whos in the network? When stakeholders inuence data analysis. Systematic Practice and Action
Research, 21, 443458.
Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance

gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management,
12(Special Issue), S3S26.
Prince, J. B., & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Does salary

discussion hurt the developmental performance
appraisal? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 37, 357375.
Stebbins, M. W., & Snow, C. C. (1982). Processes and

payoffs of programmatic action research. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 6986.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). The handbook of

action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial
Romme, A. G. L., & Endenburg, G. (2006).
Construction principles and design rules in the
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory

methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273285).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not.
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientic merits of action research.
173
174

Tenkasi, R. V., & Chesmore, M. C. (2003). Social
networks and planned organizational change.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39,
281300.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. V. (2005).

Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41,
373398.
Tenkasi, R. V., & Hay, G. W. (2008). Following the second legacy of Aristotle: The scholarpractitioner as
an epistemic technician. In A. Shani, S. Mohrman,
W. Pasmore, B. Stymne, & N. Adler (Eds.),
Handbook of collaborative management research
(pp. 4972). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R.

(1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice perspective.
Vickers, M. H. (2007). Reections from an action

researcherWhy we do what we do. International
Journal of Action Research, 3(1+ 2), 168189.
Viswanathan, M. (2012, June). Economic impact of
category captaincy: An examination of assortments
and prices (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from
http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/132030/1
/Viswanathan_umn_0130E_12847.pdf
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D., & Erez, A. (1998). The

role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a
theory-based measure of performance. Academy of
Werr, A., & Greiner, L. (2008). Collaboration and the
production of management knowledge in research,
consulting, and management practice. In A. Shani,
S. Mohrman, W. Pasmore, B. Stymne, & N. Adler
(Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management
research (pp. 93119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
145180.
Yorks, L., & Nicolaides, A. (2007). The role conundrums

of co-inquiry action research: Lessons from the
eld. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 20,
105116.
Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. (2005). As the twig is bent:

How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16,
687700.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational

organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 501518.

Action Research - Zhang Et Al-2015-Human Resource Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action Research - Zhang Et Al-2015-Human Resource Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOVE YOUR RESEARCH

FROMTHE IVY TOWER

Keywords: research methods and design, qualitative research methodology,

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2015

oday there is a large divide between

on how to use action research as part of an

What Is Action Research and How

AN ACTION RESEARCH PRIMER

If, in contrast, the reporting of the subjects

the field research

Making the Case for Action Research

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARYFEBRUARY 2015

Examples of Action Research Published in Refereed Academic Journals

Adler and Docherty (1998)

Amabile and Conti (1999)

Academy of Management Journal

Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta,

Leadership and the creativity

Amabile, Sigal, Barsade,

Administrative Science Quarterly

Affect and creativity at work

Bartunek, Walsh, and Lacey

Female leadership dynamics

TQM program persistence

Beer and Eisenstat (1996)

Organizational strategy and

Benson, Finegold, and

Academy of Management Journal

Tuition reimbursement and

Benson and Pattie (2009)

Human Resource Management

Supervisors and expatriates

Bradbury and Lichtenstein

Cohen, Chang, and Ledford

Work-life quality and group

Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer

Self-managing work team

Drexler and Lawler (1977)

Journal of Applied Behavioral

Union cooperation and quality

Finegold, Levenson, and Van

Human Resource Management

Temporary worker training

Finegold, Mohrman, and

Journal of Organizational Behavior Age and the employment

George, Levenson, Finegold,

International Journal of Human

Journal of Organizational Behavior Goal setting at individual and

Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)

Academy of Management Journal

Gibson, Cooper, and Conger

Journal of Applied Psychology

Distance between leaders and

Temporary workers extra-role

Gibson and Gibbs (2006)

Administrative Science Quarterly

Virtuality and team innovation

Gibson and Vermeulen (2003)

Administrative Science Quarterly

Subgroups and team learning

Graham and Welbourne (1999) Journal of Organization Behavior

Gainsharing and pay

Jenkins and Lawler (1981)

Organizational Behavior and