Critique and change: The “what”, “why”, “how”, and “so what”

Abstract

Critique and change can contribute to advancement and improvement in how we understand the world (i.e., theory) and how we can do things (i.e., practice). When done well (i.e., rigor, well argued) and well done (i.e., complete, novel) (Mukherjee et al., 2022; Whetten, 1989), critique and change can reaffirm and strengthen relevance and reputation, for example, in the case of academic publishing, the hallmark of premier journals as sentinels of good science (Lim, 2018a, 2021b). This is in line with critical theory, which advocates for critique and change of social practice for a brighter future (Tyson, 2006).

Essentially, critique can be defined as the act of assessing the “what” and “what if” of something, for example, the good (pros) versus the bad (cons), the strengths (advantages) versus the shortcomings (disadvantages), and the opportunities (potential benefits) versus the challenges (potential threats), whereas change can be described as the act of doing something differently, for example, adapting, modifying, or newly developing something (e.g., theory, practice) (i.e., the “what”).

The desire to maintain status quo is no longer relevant. With disruption omnipresent and the world progressing at an agile pace and in a dynamic manner (Lim, 2023b), change has now firmly established itself as a constant feature of the present and the future. Hence, to advance, we must not only acknowledge but also embrace change. However, change is not easy, with many people preferring to maintain status quo and thus resisting change. The rationale behind this preference and resistance could be attributed to the large investment (e.g., effort, money, people, time) gone into establishing the status quo. Therefore, change may be perceived as a threat that would discard past investment and status quo, even to the extent of rendering them irrelevant when they are discarded entirely rather than partially (i.e., the “why”).

Notwithstanding the reality that change is the only constant (urgency), not everything that could be changed should be changed, and thus, change, if any, should be strategic (usefulness/relevance). To illustrate, the reputational hallmark of premier journals (e.g., novelty, rigor, translational) should inarguably be maintained as status quo in order to preserve public confidence and trust in good science (otherwise, it could signal a threat to the possible end of good science) (importance), though it should also be noted that maintaining this status quo requires the ability and openness to critique as well as change that is done well and well done (given that critique and change are the foundations for this status quo) (necessity).

Given the sharp and succinct articulation of the problem statement (necessity, importance, usefulness/relevance, and urgency), this article endeavors to offer guidelines for advancing theory and practice through critique and change (aims) based on the current author's experience as an academic and administrator (triangulated source of credibility and rigor). Through these guidelines (i.e., the “how”), which builds upon a past editorial on how to choose a good topic (which, when extrapolated, could be used to choose a good cause for critique and change) (Lim, 2023a), it is hoped that people (e.g., professors, professionals, policymakers) in the future will be able to develop good critiques of the status quo (i.e., the “what”) so that they can propose exciting and meaningful changes that would advance or empower the advancement of knowledge (or know-how), and by extension, improve their prospects of successful pitching (e.g., publishing in premier journals, securing projects) while shaping the future of theory (i.e., academic) and practice (i.e., industry, society) (i.e., the “so what”).

Developing a critique and proposing a change are activities that should go hand in hand as their impact potential is greater when they co-exist and present themselves collectively rather than independently. When a change is proposed without a critique (which could be both positive and negative), the case for change is underdeveloped and thus less convincing. When a critique is presented without a proposal for change that would address that critique, the intention or purpose of the critique is inarguably questionable and thus often challenged. The world needs people with both questions and (not or) solutions; otherwise, the real issue may inevitably be the person raising the issue rather than the issue that is raised, especially in a world where there are more issues than that which could be handled.

The current issue of Global Business and Organizational Excellence (GBOE) comprises conceptual and empirical articles (two each) from Bangladesh, Ghana, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe (one each) that revolve around the narrative of critique and change.

First, using the case of manufacturing firms in a developing country, Makanyeza et al. (2023) explored the factors influencing small and medium enterprises’ innovativeness, revealing that firm resources, government support and institutional policies, and networks and collaborations positively influence firm innovativeness. Indeed, innovation is a critical asset that empowers firms to create and respond to change (Bamel et al., 2023; Ciasullo & Lim, 2022), enabling them to maintain and strengthen organizational legitimacy, as seen in Acquah et al. (2023) who also provided evidence from manufacturing firms albeit from another developing country.

Next, using a conceptual methodology informed by Lewin's three-stage model of change involving unfreezing, moving, and refreezing, Islam (2023) proposes a conceptual model to help firms manage organizational change in respond to global crises such as COVID-19. The model highlights the critical role of employee change-championing behavior in galvanizing the support needed to successfully implement organizational changes to tackle global crises, wherein transformational leadership, employee change-oriented engagement, and employee trust in leadership enable change-championing behavior among employees—thereby, extending conversations on mega-disruptions (Lim, Chin et al., 2022; Sutarto et al., 2022) as well as organizational change (Islam et al., 2021) and transformation (Islam et al., 2020) in GBOE.

Finally, using a conceptual methodology underpinned by the institutional theory perspectives of organizational institutionalism and institutional economics, Mandrinos and Lim (2023) propose an organizational institutionalism theory of de-internationalization, which extends the general theory of de-internationalization (Lim & Mandrinos, 2023) and tackles the emerging but less understood issue of de-internationalization (Lim & Mandrinos, 2020; Mandrinos et al., 2022) by theorizing the influence of the institutional environment (institutional constraint, institutional logic, institutional complexity) in shaping compliance and orientation of de-internationalization (maneuvering, response) among firms engaged in international business.

Taken collectively, the articles in the latest issue of GBOE highlight the importance of critique and change, and the five-step approach—i.e., acknowledge the status quo (step one), establish the problem statement (step two), clarify the big picture (step three), detail the process (step four), and show the support (step five)—introduced herein should be useful for advancing theory (i.e., how we understand the world) and practice (i.e., how we can do things) through critique (i.e., the act of assessing the “what” and “what if” of something) and change (i.e., the act of doing something differently).

Weng Marc Lim is responsible for conceptualization and writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing).

The author declares no conflict of interest.