Honey,We Shrunk Our Impact: Social Impact in Organizational Research

There is a pivotal scene in the kitsch (and wholly unbelievable) Disney comedy, Honey, I shrunk the kids, where the lead protagonist Wayne Szalinski (played by Rick Moranis) shocks his wife with his experiment gone wrong. Proud but panicked by the success of his quirky shrinking ray gun, Wayne has to tell his wife the bad news:

Wayne Szalinski:

I shrunk the kids.

Diane Szalinski:

 …What?

Wayne:

And the Thompson kids too. They're about this big, they're in the backyard.

Diane:

What?

Wayne:

I threw them out with the trash.

Figuratively, (and using our imagination) this well-intentioned paradoxical outcome by a wacky genius might actually be the appropriate metaphor for where social impact sits in organizational change research today: consequential research and engagement, but shrunken and diminished by circumstances. Are the conditions we work under and the accompanying way we undertake organizational research unintentionally shrinking our social impact (all while we emphasize the sophistication of what we do)? Despite the pursuit of impact and its collaborative environment, and the never-ending introspection on it, as a field, we still have questions on this same outcome; on the broad impact to effect change that makes a difference. By social impact, we are referring to the significant or positive changes that effect a community and the well-being of those in that community, facilitated by the ability for researchers to produce and deliver socially engaging and actionable impact through knowledge (see Rawhouser et al., 2019).

In the evolving domain of organizational development and change, the role of scholarly research, especially its prescience, is pivotal. As we navigate an increasingly complex business ecosystem, given societal pressures, the ability of researchers to anticipate and adapt becomes paramount. The diligent works of the scholars that grace the pages of JABS, and many other journals that publish change and OD-related themes, have always sought to bring and connect relevant ideas alongside applied practice-driven research. Yet, despite the pursuit of forward-thinking insight and useful, practical knowledge, the broader social impact of such research appears to be increasingly bounded, and its spread questionable (acknowledged in broad discussion on scaling social impact, Dees et al., 2004). Part of this diminution comes from the useability of academic research for practice, and part from career and performance metric pressures and changes (Harley & Fleming, 2021). But either way, the end point increasingly looks the same—there is a recognized and acknowledged diminishing social impact return on and of organizational research, often (somewhat conveniently) portrayed in terms of questions on relevance, and practice orientation. Knowing the breadth of the problem and its genesis, though, differs from actions on moving forward. This challenge highlights the issue at hand: While social development and global problems escalate, and while research institutions increasingly push for engagement, excellence, and solutions through applied knowledge, as scholars, are we genuinely influencing society, and perhaps, even capable of impacting communities at scale?

It would be remiss to paint an absolute or overwhelmingly bleak picture of organizational research relevance and impact, and we acknowledge the plethora of social impact taking place and interest in it through research (Schwarz & Stensaker, 2016). After all, clearly, there is a long list of impressive organizational research-led work on consequential themes (such as UN SDGs, pandemic recovery, healthcare, education, housing, disability, see, https://www.csi.edu.au/research). Instead, with this editorial note, we are pushing deeper thought and action on something else—an impression that social impact from organizational researchers is far less impressive than it has been previously or could potentially be, held back by shrinking research to manageable cues, and measurable outcomes; researching on the same, known problems on trying to undertake “sweet-spot,” applied research (Mirvis et al., 2021), that happens to have impact, and consequently, practitioners not accessing or valuing scholarly knowledge.

At the core of the diminishing impact problem is the oft-noted “crisis” of creating practical, usable theory that leads to impactful outcomes (not just theory and publication)—a problem residing in what the academy has always done by attempting to formalize management research into a science (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005), resulting in the same subset of the same impact problems (too much theory; not enough novelty; weak practicality) with similar solutions (e.g., Pettigrew, 2011, on impact; von Krogh, 2020 on usefulness). If so, what does this shrinkage impact mean for the relevance of successive generations of early career scholars and doctoral students working in this “output” environment? And what does it represent for practitioners with impactful social problems trying to connect better with scholars? Having previously encouraged the field to think about whether academic researchers are progressively giving up on practice-oriented impact because others do this exchange better, or perhaps are not applied enough (Schwarz, 2023b), the corollary of this realization is on the impact itself. Social impact is far more than a metric, so contemplating a shrinking impact or impact score is part of our journey to refresh what it is we do as scholars, and for that matter, as practitioners thinking about scholarship. And the jury is still out on whether scholarly researchers can ever fight “the system” to make this change. As we enter our fourth year as an editorial board, this challenge and what it represents should be ringing alarm bells. Because shrinking needs correction rather than just attention if we are going to have a real, translational impact and enable others to achieve positive social changes.

Swept away: Relevance out with the trash? Beyond the well-acknowledged plethora of previous debate on the value and relevance of scholarly research (see Hoffman, 2021), questions on social impact persist. There is no doubt that developing impactful knowledge is increasingly valued and expected, pushed through National research funding bodies in their calls for improving or growing engagement and actionable research (e.g., U.K. Research Excellent Framework, US National Science Foundation, Australian Research Council engagement assessments). So, we can all agree that meaningful impact for academic, practitioner, and societal interests is important to the field and its ongoing relevance. But in the push for social impact through organizational research in this way, perhaps we are throwing out some of the good stuff (real positive impact) together with the trash (unusable but measured impact as outcome) after all—and knowingly do so all the while (and that is key really; the longevity of this “impacts” debate suggests we are accomplices or dupes in the shrinking outcome).

This observation, and what it represents, probably does not come as a shock—it is discussed incessantly (and never-ending debate on the topic is part of the problem), and ironically is part of the self-reflection on the problem itself (Schwarz, 2023a). As a field, we recognize the extent of the relevance problem that scholarship faces today, while also perpetually providing possible solutions (e.g., debates on collegiality, collaboration, evidence-based research; McKenzie & Bartunek, 2023; Shani et al., 2023). We have “known known” problems on what it is we are doing as scholars in a field that needs and looks for practical, consequential changes. But the social impact consequences of this are embedded in this acknowledgements because they are outcomes of our deficiencies. As Mirvis et al. (2021) implore us, the need for useful, applicable practical, and actionable research grounded in scholarship (that leads to connection between academe and practice) is increasingly important and necessary, given the complex and demanding world we live in.

And yet, outside of calls for engagement and social impact, we may have dropped the ball when it comes to increasingly solving social, consequential problems, instead making piecemeal or minor amendments to their problems. If you doubt this challenge think locally—how do you (or your employer) value engagement but then recognize the real engagement impacts of your research; how do your consulting jobs influence scholarly audiences and willingness to engage? Like fake recycling schemes (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/cooperation-to-continue-on-soft-plastics-recycling-after-redcycle-collapse), impressions may matter more than real impact on important, consequential societal goals and challenges. Our intention here in raising the theme is to move away from simply embedding impact in research as a next step or adding voice to a known issue, and to recognize that as applied researchers most of the problems with a shrinking social impact also hold their solutions. Honey, have we really shrunk our impact, or like a Disney caricature, is it all in our imagination?

Alarming Indicators: Shrinking Matter

This seemingly straightforward inquiry on impact has ignited profound debate, revealing a complex interplay of concerns about the trajectory, relevance, and future of our research endeavors. Our intention here is not to recap or reiterate what we already know about the problems with relevance, applied, phenomenon-driven, or translational research challenges (or paradoxically, to over-theorize the theme, per (Kieser et al., 2015). At JABS, we have already editorialized on this theme (Schwarz, 2023b; Schwarz & Vakola, 2021), published a special issue on aspects of it (Shani et al., 2023), and introspected broadly on the subject (e.g., Bednarek et al., 2023; Cummings & Cummings, 2020; McKenzie & Bartunek, 2023). Given its importance, it is now a well-acknowledged and overly discussed problem (start with Rynes et al., 2001, see also Antonacopoulou et al., 2023; Lawler et al., 1999; Pettigrew, 2011). But to deal productively with shrinking impact, we need to acknowledge where this problem resides practically. In that context, shrinking is prompted by four core, known matters that simultaneously (and perhaps even paradoxically) charter opportunity pathways forward.

Citation Metrics: Beyond the Numbers

Albert Einstein's poignant observation, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted,” is deeply relevant in the context of academic research and its reliance on citation metrics. Originally intended for cataloging and disseminating scientific literature (Garfield, 1955), these metrics have increasingly become the primary measure of academic success, deeply ingrained in the academic culture. However, their focus on quantifiable “impact factors” often overlooks the broader societal impact of research, creating a discrepancy between what is counted (citations) and what truly counts (“real-world” impact). This dissonance is evident in the academic community's approach to research: there is minimal career incentive to pursue studies that may significantly impact practice but do not generate high citation counts.

A global survey by SAGE in 2021 highlights this conundrum. It found that a vast majority of social science academics (81%) considered it important for their research to have value beyond academic circles, and 94% agreed that the goal of their work is to positively impact society. Yet, paradoxically, few research institutions seem to reward efforts to apply research in real-world settings—only about a third of the academics felt their institutions recognized such efforts. This misalignment is also reflected in the career goals of these academics, with a significant portion prioritizing career advancement over societal impact (Haley & Jack, 2023).

The issue becomes even more complex when considering the varying influence of these metrics. While they remain central within academic circles, their significance is diminishing in practitioner-oriented publications and policy documents, especially as some journals and publishers engage in manipulative citation strategies (Harley & Fleming, 2021). This trend suggests a growing divide: academic research often resonates within its own sphere but fails to extend its influence into broader societal contexts. Such a bifurcation raises critical questions about the nature and impact of academic research. Are we producing work that is too esoteric and of limited societal value, or is it that the pace of change in the practitioner world is too rapid for academic research to effectively connect and make a meaningful impact? The need to reevaluate and perhaps redefine how we measure societal impact in academic research becomes increasingly evident considering this dichotomy.

Pathway forward—reimagining citation metrics. Traditional citation metrics, while valuable, offer a limited view. Yet, the sheer size and scale of academic search engines and bibliographic databases mean that they are now the standard adopted in how we access up-to-date research, reinforcing the placement of citation over ideas. Rather than challenge this norm head-on, we need to broaden our horizons, exploring alternative, parallel indicators that capture the social impact of our research. However, this outlook may not be that evident because societal impact of business-related research can be difficult to pin down. When assessing societal impact, we are faced with a non-linearity, a temporality, and a visibility (or better yet: vanity) challenge. Societal impact may only materialize long after research has been published, or is framed as a collective achievement (funding, university, researchers), pushing the role of researchers to the background unless decision-makers need them for legitimation purposes. Notwithstanding these challenges, collectively, we need to agree on what is to count and how to document it (i.e., policy documents, practitioner journals, or popular media, governmental responses, publicity, contributions to education, and even commercialization), in the same way as we have learned to document data and analytical steps, and institutionalize practices for impact assessment akin to the peer review process that assesses scientific quality. For instance, Altmetric could be used in complement to traditional citation impact metrics, as it offers a broader perspective on the influence and reach of research, capturing impacts beyond academia into public policy, media, and public opinion. This can be particularly important for funders, institutions, and researchers interested in the broader impact of their work. Still, we need to make sure we remain aware that what all these activities do is increase the potential for societal impact. If we mistake the proxy for the thing itself, we turn means into ends and eventually incentivize appearance rather than impact.

Feedback from the Field: Voices from the Trenches

The bridge between academia and practice appears to show continuous signs of strain. Feedback from professionals and practitioners often underscores a growing chasm. While our research is lauded for its theoretical robustness, or its theory-building contribution, it is frequently critiqued by non-academic audiences for lacking pragmatic relevance (e.g., Kristof, 2014). Organizational scholars and practitioners coordinate their expertise around distinct knowledge systems that reflect distinct knowledge concerns—that is, rigorous scientific knowledge and practically relevant knowledge, respectively (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; Carton & Mouricou, 2017). Some have argued that these differences are at the foundation of an unbridgeable research–practice divide (Kieser & Leiner, 2009).

Further, while applied research underpins what we do, and is embedded, historically, in researching (Pierson, 1959), the field have been progressively overtaken by scholarship and the visibility of impact (see latest announcements by any university on its ranking) rather than social impact itself. This theoretical gap-practical limit feedback is a clarion call, urging us to introspect and repurpose the usefulness of applied scholarship that is not seen as useful, evident in the many single study cases with consequential outcomes that are then dead-ended practically, albeit highly cited academically. The notion of making a meaningful contribution has come to epitomize theorizing, at the expense of real impact outside that domain. In our pursuit of academic excellence, are we sacrificing social impact? Have we lost even more touch with on the ground realities of the business world, and the phenomena that matter to these partners?

Pathway forward—engaging with the field. Incorporating a section on practical implications in journals will not suffice, as most journals already do this. More than just paying lip service to social impact is required, which means going beyond adding a separate paragraph in articles that focuses solely on practical implications (Haley & Jack, 2023). Instead, active, sustained engagement with practitioners is the correction needed to bridge the academic-scholarly divide. Engaged research endeavors, workshops, and symposiums can serve as platforms for this pathway, fostering a symbiotic relationship between academia and practice. This action could encompass the way the two parties engage in framing a research agenda, its focus development, and implementation. As Shani et al. (2023) underscore, this engaging relies on cultivating a partnership or shared understanding to build a mutual interest, through mechanisms such as having open dialogue, and experimenting together with ways of knowledge creation. Rather than reinvent what this looks like, we already have these mechanisms as a pathway forward, including humble inquiry (Schein & Schein, 2021), relational scholarship (Bartunek, 2007), appreciative inquiry, and positive action (Cooperrider, 1990), and the need for knowledge entrepreneurs or idea practitioners (Carton & Ungureanu, 2018). In effect, an impacts reset relies on how we engage others, grounded in a more outward-looking relationship acknowledging that we are part of a shared inquiry, rather than simply asking and answering questions.

Shift in focus: The pendulum swing

Historically, organizational research has oscillated between theoretical depth and practical relevance. However, recent and ongoing trends suggest a pronounced tilt in this focus. While ensuring academic credibility, the emphasis on theoretical novelty and methodological rigor might be sidelining the practical implications of research. Leading journals in management, cater primarily to an academic audience, potentially sidelining the practical implications of research. The pendulum swing is in front of us—recognizing that few managers read academic journals, despite repeated calls from these journals to be more practice-oriented. And yet we (logically) teach our research students that tenure and career is linked to good research published in good academic journals, focused on scholarship. The risk of this outlook to social impact shrinkage is that impact has become a metric rather than engaged practice. Cynically, we might assume that while collaborative and responsible approaches to research are increasingly obvious in organizational scholarship, they now often are a means to capture or document interesting research ideas, used to generate appropriate theorizing and citation impact. Although not intentional, practice and engaged practice have been leveraged as a researching stream—something to do because it is what is valued (via formal, institutionalized constructs, such as UN SDG, UN PRME, values in action etc.). This shift raises a fundamental question: In our pursuit of measurable academic accolades, are scholars inadvertently sidelining the very audience our research aims to serve?

Pathway forward—balancing rigor with relevance. The scales of impactful research need a delicate balance. While theoretical and methodological rigor is paramount, we must also ensure our research remains rooted in “real-world” challenges or phenomena with consequences to enable others. Social impact requires a set of skills that few researchers today are well trained in or for—despite continual calls for “more” deep engagement, impact, and relevance. Interdisciplinary research, as identified in the AOM survey and FT awards (Jack, 2022), emerges as a powerful approach to address complex real-world phenomena. It incorporates diverse perspectives and experiences, proving more impactful than single-discipline research. However, Fini et al. (2022) noted that such research faces challenges in publication due to the threat it poses to disciplines’ and evaluators’ distinctiveness and knowledge domains, leading to potential penalization by evaluators, especially in small and distinctive academic disciplines. High-performing, interdisciplinary researchers often suffer the greatest penalties. This resistance to interdisciplinary research, often an attempt to maintain social boundaries, hinders the advancement of transformational research, education programs, and purpose-driven solutions that provide positive change. Resetting this pathway, therefore. requires not only a judicious and serious blend of academic excellence and societal relevance but also a recognition and embrace of interdisciplinary approaches. Let phenomena drive our research because these are consequential, rather than “interest” based, and encourage interdisciplinary collaboration to fully address these complex issues.

University Inc.: Changing Identities

In Wallace Stegner's final book (Crossing to Safety, 1987), his protagonist looks back on his academic career and laments, “Whatever happened to the passion we all had to improve ourselves, live up to our potential, leave a mark on the world? Our hottest arguments were always about how we could contribute. We did not care about the rewards … Instead, the world has left marks on us”, acknowledging how the change in university values has impacted scholarly identities and careers. This attribution is clearly linked to the shrinking social impact in organizational research, because academic careers and our identities have evolved alongside this adjustment. Changes to what a university is, and the place of research in that evolution towards a more measured and measurable corporate entity (Tuchman, 2009) have ensured that the scholarly values that promote social impact are now less visible. They are still primary and important but overwhelmed by the need for measuring impact (as engagement). They are also less aligned with what is needed to enhance impact, such as time and intellectual space, career investment, happiness that would enable tackling grand challenges and consequential issues that society face today. While few of us would reject attempts to encourage more social impact, by making impact a formal part of performance, evaluation, and discovery, paradoxically, this same structuring acts to impress what is academe today, subordinating our identities to what our employers view as engaged scholarship, for a more mechanistic approach to practice outcomes.

Instead, university life values output that tends to muse and introspect on global issues and big questions, but then reward more introspection via academic reputation markers (i.e., metrics) rather than the engagement itself. For instance, institutional funding models reward more funding that takes time to get approval (and get funded) rather than acknowledge the need to pivot quickly on current problems in the now (e.g., pandemic, health, war, climate). In this way, high impact problems progressively become institutionalized (e.g., grand challenges; https://www.grandchallenges.org/about; RRBM network https://www.rrbm.network/) along with formal position papers and thematic get-togethers, and scholars (especially early career scholars) logically pivot to attendant rewards for the sake of “demonstrating” impact. This aspect is driven by the change in universities themselves, and their movement towards having become a rewarding, measuring, profit-focused institution (University Inc) based on academe as a form of intellectual accounting. Not so much the “dark academia” that Fleming (2021) attributes it as, but a more cynical place to work that challenges identities outside of different types of impact. This change raises the challenge: Do universities value social impact primarily as a marketable device, and if so, have scholars acceded to this measure, resulting in altered identities? Who are we in this domain?

Pathway forward—enhancing collaborative inquiry. The way forward on the impact of changing identity on shrinking social impact overlaps with the problem itself. In being (somewhat) willing captives to the measurable aspects of research, impact falls and identity evolves. One way forward is by the academy—us—coming together and focusing on how we can team up on knowledge production, aligned more closely to a phenomenon shaped by practice and industry—a co-creation process. This overlap emphasizes a different scholarly worldview: Rather than look upwards and wait for or seek out institutional change, shifts in attitudes from funding bodies and initiatives, or established university-level pressure to direct change, effective academic and practice-based impact outcomes can come from how we collaborate (and do so in a less purposeful, more evolving way); a foundational or ground root revival. Such a response is slow and not simple precisely because it is less planned out, and because of what the field has become and the pressure of the status quo. But the “real world” and its research already exists. This pathway represents an honest dialogue (Shani et al., 2023) between scholars and practice in impact, enabling an internal amendment to increasingly narrow identities. Our collaboration as scholars and then in how we view practice and relevance enables this divide to break down further, limiting the shrinkage in effect.

Looking ahead as a catalyst for (more) social impact

Clearly, the pendulum has swung between the poles of academic rigor and societal relevance of scholarly work, and it has for some time. As we note previously, debate on this combination is continuous—and its is also constantly introspective, creating a circuitous stock-taking mode of development, further limiting impact. Part of the problem in fixing what we already know and shifting away from this trend is that our scholarly DNA recognizes the place for scholarly work that leads to applied impact and yet then we train in, build career around, and are rewarded for theory and theory outcomes (at least in most academic institutions). That is, we are trained, socialized, and inculcated with impact through scholarship (theory-driven research), rather than impact driving scholarship.

While there is enough debate out there on the virtues of each approach, and then on the calls for and inching movement towards more collaboration to create more impact, we generally and naturally adopt this scholarly profile. Breaking its momentum is hard because of its basis, founded in the “Humboldtian model of higher education …[where] professional independence and self-management were its key features. According to this ideal, university staff formed a “collegium of peers” in which debate, consensus, and professional integrity shaped academic practice” (Fleming & Harley, 2023, p. 5). This collectivity hurts us today because the community values social impact and what it represents, but prioritizes output and theory. The dominant focus on knowledge to advance a disciple (What is your contribution?) in the academy restricts the full extent of a pivot to social impact promoting positive, practical outcome. And that is precisely the problem we face today – we know and recognize what our “kryptonite weaknesses” are when it comes to limitations in our social impact, and yet we hardly avoid it (in fact, in some cases, we embrace this very weakness because it is rewarding in the audit culture that is the contemporary university, where measurement, ranking, and rewards outpace social impact reality (or lip service to it).

So, what can we do differently to adopt the pathways noted above and stem shrinking impact trends, or to begin a shift in the conversation? We propose both to pick a camp—an accepted approach—in the breadth of existent work on doing relevant scholarship and to accept the need to look ahead more, differently. For the former, there is a world out there promoting how we can engage societal and organizational problems collaboratively to undertake relevant, impactful research (e.g., Mirvis et al., 2021; Schwarz & Stensaker, 2014; Van de Ven, 2007). Pick one, or pick more, and integrate them in your approaches to scholarship. For the latter, look ahead by anticipating and working with what is on the horizon, rather than what we know. Amending Corley and Gioia's (2011) “prescience” orientation, which suggests impact comes from both what we need to know, the ability to foresee, anticipate, and influence future trends and challenges to influence practice, this outlook enables corrections that each of us can take to amplify the social impact of our research.

Rather than focus exclusively on the field's workable problems that we forecast or work into our “pipeline” based on performance (i.e., measurable) outcomes, we can focus on the undercurrents of our environments, by both discerning emerging patterns and proactively shaping the discourse to address challenges. Such anticipation can take many different forms, but consider these small steps as a start to the conversation:

Adopting informed anticipation: By both looking back and looking ahead, we can move beyond merely reacting to current challenges and tapering careers accordingly. Instead, we can proactively identify and address emerging issues, ensuring our research remains relevant and useful and offers actionable insights for practice, providing a catalyst for positive social changes. For instance, adopting informed anticipation could manifest in a study on the future of workplace automation and its impact on workforce dynamics. Researchers could analyze historical trends in technology adoption and workforce shifts, learning from past transitions such as the introduction of computers in the workplace. Simultaneously, they would look ahead, engaging with technology experts, futurists, and business leaders to understand emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics. The aim would be to forecast how these advancements might reshape job roles, skill requirements, and employee engagement strategies in the future. This study would offer a proactive approach to management research, moving beyond just reacting to current technological changes. By combining retrospective analysis with future forecasting, the research would aim to provide actionable insights for businesses to adapt their management practices, prepare their workforce for upcoming changes, and foster positive workplace transformations.

Collaborative visioning: Collaborative visioning, which involves bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders such as practitioners, policymakers, and futurists, exemplifies the principle of prescience in social impact research. Prescience, or the ability to foresee and plan for future developments, is crucial in this context, as it enables researchers to anticipate and address both current and emerging societal issues effectively (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011). An example of collaborative visioning could entail the study on the future of remote work, addressing potential technological advancements and evolving workforce dynamics. Business leaders and managers would share their prospective experiences and insights on managing remote teams, tackling challenges in communication, productivity, and employee engagement, whereas HR professionals would be set to contribute their future-focused perspectives on policy and cultural shifts necessary for effective remote work, with a particular emphasis on employee well-being and regulatory considerations. Technology experts would offer predictions on emerging tools and platforms that could shape the landscape of remote work. Futurists and workforce analysts could add their expertise, forecasting broader trends such as changes in work-life balance preferences and the dynamics of the gig economy. Additionally, researchers could provide theoretical frameworks to interpret these varied insights, ensuring the study's academic integrity. By integrating these diverse viewpoints, collaborative visioning not only helps to analyze the current state of remote work but also helps to anticipate and prepare for future developments.

Dynamic curricula: In academic settings, we have the opportunity to enrich curricula by weaving in practice orientations that are prescient, thereby preparing the next generation of scholars to proactively think about and address future business and societal challenges. This approach could be characterized by a blend of interdisciplinary learning, forward-looking business scenarios, research methodologies centered on societal impact, and a strong foundation in ethics and sustainability. Courses in this revamped curriculum would integrate business studies with fields like sociology and environmental science. This integration is crucial for developing an in-depth understanding of the wider societal impacts of business decisions. The approach fosters a mindset geared towards innovation and forward-thinking. Emphasis in research methodology training would be placed on understanding and evaluating societal impact. Techniques such as stakeholder analysis and impact assessments would be core components, arming students with the necessary tools to assess the broader implications of business activities. Moreover, instilling a strong sense of ethics and sustainability across the curriculum ensures that students recognize and value responsible business conduct. By moving away from a traditional, compartmentalized approach to education, dynamic curricula would be aimed at cultivating scholars who are not only adept in academic research but also keenly aware of and prepared to tackle the complex societal challenges intertwined with business in the modern world.

By anticipating future challenges, researchers can develop scholarship that is both academically rigorous and offers practical solutions, ensuring a more seamless flow of insights from academia to the field.

Reverse those shrinking rays: On legacy and promise

Doing more organizational research with social impact continues to stand at a crossroad, with a pathway leading to legacy and promise, or one limiting us to what we already do well but limiting impact. The choices we make on how to place social impact as a catalyst for positive social change will shape not just the trajectory of our academic community but the broader impact and relevance of our work. There are only so many interaction effects we can present to practitioners and industry partners before they stop listening or stop asking and go elsewhere. As we grapple with the challenges of relevance and the promise of what we do, and the questions on academia and its audit culture, we must remember our core mission: To produce research that not only advances knowledge but also serves as a collaborative, sharing enterprise we have with and between practitioners, policymakers, and society-at-large. Like the (gaudy) sequel to the Disney franchise on shrinking kids, let's blow up our social impact! With ongoing collaboration, and a renewed commitment to relevance and foresight, we can ensure the impact from our research remains out of the trash.