Social scientists have long been concerned with using their research to make the world a better place and there are frequently calls within the management studies community for research which does so. In this essay, we consider the extent to which such concerns and calls are reflected in what is published in elite management journals. We coded approximately 5,500 articles published in “top-tier” management journals between 2008 and 2018 and found that only 2.8% of articles critically addressed global “grand challenges”—such as inequality, climate change, racism, and gender discrimination. This essay explores the possible reasons why. We reject the explanation that management academics are uninterested in major problems facing the world. Our argument instead focuses on the relationship between business school practices and journal norms. We term this the business school/elite journal gridlock. To break the gridlock, a number of changes are recommended.

长期以来，社会科学家一直在关注利用他们的研究来使世界变得更美好的情况，并且管理研究界经常呼吁进行研究。在本文中，我们考虑了精英管理期刊所发表的内容在多大程度上反映了这些顾虑和呼吁。我们对2008年至2018年间在“顶级”管理期刊上发表的约5500条文章进行了编码，发现只有2.8％的文章批评性地解决了全球性“巨大挑战”，例如不平等，气候变化，种族主义和性别歧视。本文探讨了可能的原因。我们拒绝有关管理学者对世界面临的重大问题不感兴趣的解释。相反，我们的论点着眼于商学院实践与期刊规范之间的关系。商学院/精英期刊僵局。要打破僵局，建议进行许多更改。