British Journal of Management, Vol.

17, 303–316 (2006)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00468.x

Towards Best or Better Practice in

Corporate Leadership Development:
Operational Issues in Mode 2 and Design
Science research
John Burgoyne and Kim Turnbull James*
Department of Management Learning, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX and
*Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Beds MK43 OAL, UK.
Email: j.burgoyne@lancaster.ac.uk [Burgoyne]; k.james@cranfield.ac.uk [James]

The research reported here was part of a UK government initiative to improve

management and leadership capability. Corporate leadership development was one
element of this initiative. The researchers, also the authors of this paper, were tasked
with developing a best practice guide in leadership development. The aim was to
establish current best UK corporate practice in order to inform similar organizations
striving to improve their approach to leadership development. The aim of this paper is to
present the findings of this inquiry as an example of Mode 2 research, i.e. that which is
co-produced with practitioners in a rigorous yet actionable way. The paper addresses
operational issues by exploring the tensions inherent in Mode 2 research and makes
some additions to previous literature on conducting Mode 2 research. It introduces the
notion of technological rules derived from the concept of management research as
design science, which enables the authors to articulate the way in which output can be
developed in a form readily acceptable to end users of Mode 2 research. Actionable
research products and accompanying dissemination issues are proposed as central
operational concerns for Mode 2 research.

Introduction (Gibbons et al., 1994) in action. Later in the

The Council for Excellence in Management and
Leadership (CEML) was established by the UK
Government through the Department for Trade
and Industry and the Department for Education
and Skills and their ministers at the time, in the
light of concern with UK productivity and a
belief in the potential contribution of improved
leadership performance, to help the UK improve
its stock of good quality leaders. The CEML
inquiry took place between 2000 and 2002. The
project described in this paper was aimed at the
improvement of leadership development in large
corporations. This paper gives an account of the
researchers’ experience of conducting this project,
which was arguably a good example of Mode 2
paper, the idea of design science, and particularly
the notion of technological rules as research
output (Van Aken, 2004, 2005), published after
the case research, is introduced as a further
analytical framework to aid understanding. Both
the nature of the research product and the
undertaking of a research process ‘in the context
of application’ were a concern from the outset.
Viewing the work from a design science perspec-
tive enabled the authors to understand why and
how the findings were readily accepted by the
recipients of the research – despite the fact that
the research did not produce the simple solutions
that some practitioner collaborators might have
wished for and expected. The paper begins by
discussing issues in Mode 2 research, presents the

r 2005 British Academy of Management

304
case example in terms of both our experiences
and our reflections. From this discussion, it
identifies important issues for the conduct of
management research in Mode 2.
Mode 2 and the management research
debate
The concept of Mode 2 research originates with
Gibbons et al. (1994), and was brought to
prominence for management researchers by, for
example, Tranfield and Starkey (1998) and
Starkey and Madan (2000). Broadly speaking,
Mode 2 can be understood as a knowledge
production system conducted in the context of
application. Consequently, research conducted in
Mode 2 usually involves both the production of
enduring and reliable knowledge, and engaging
and usually solving some ‘live’ problem for those
for whom the research is produced. MacLean,
MacIntosh and Grant (2002) suggest that Gib-
bons’ Mode 2 knowledge production could be
typified as having the following features; knowl-
edge produced in the context of application;
transdisciplinarity; heterogeneity and organiza-
tional diversity; social accountability and reflex-
ivity; diverse range of quality controls including
practicality of any solutions to the problem
researched (MacLean, MacIntosh and Grant,
2002, pp. 191–192). MacLean, MacIntosh and
Grant suggest these features can be thought of as
‘ingredients’ for Mode 2 research without having a
‘recipe’ that tells researchers how to combine them
and in what quantities. They also note the paucity
of material on practical issues in conducting Mode
2 research. They go on to identify shared control,
process rather than content generalization, trans-
disciplinarity, academic quality and research
reflexivity as ingredients of Mode 2 research that
can be combined in different ways. In similar vein,
Starkey and Madan (2001) also argue for change
and suggest that closing the relevance gap requires
the stakeholders in management research to
creatively address issues of content, process and
dissemination. They contrast the ‘co-production’
model with research conducted in Mode 1, which
they equate to fundamental work that is usually
undertaken in a separate context (usually a
university) from that in which the problem or
issue originated. Research conducted in Mode 1
usually has no immediate application potential
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
although the knowledge produced often can be
exploited later, thus dislocating knowledge pro-
duction from knowledge consumption.
Anticipated issues in the actual conduct
of Mode 2 research
Reviewing the main practice-based commentaries
on Mode 2 research revealed three main pre-
occupations; organization and processes in the
practice of research, competence and capability,
and methodological and meta-theoretical issues.
Organization and processes in the practice of
research
Several authors argue that the wide variety of
stakeholders in Mode 2-type work inevitably
leads to a complex research environment and
social organization. For example, Becher (1989)
argues that applied management research is
usually carried out by researchers not operating
in the context of a concentration of researchers
working on the same or similar issues. Gibbons
et al. (1994) and Kelemen and Bansal (2002)
argue that Mode 2 research operates in the
context of a broader range of knowledge
stakeholders than Mode 1. Harvey, Pettigrew
and Ferlie (2002) describe the organization of a
Mode 2 research activity as consequently more
complex. Hodgkinson, Herriot and Anderson
(2001) and Huff and Huff (2001) suggest that the
expanded researcher–practitioner community
conduct a shared process of problem identifica-
tion. The terms ‘Mode 1.5’ (Huff, 2000), ‘Mode 3’
(Starkey, 2001) and ‘pragmatic research’ (Hodg-
kinson, Herriot and Anderson, 2001) have been
coined to refer to the idea that Mode 1 and Mode
2 research support and enable each other, and
good research organization needs both in an
integrated and combined way. Becher (1989)
suggests that the issue focus in problem-oriented
research tends to favour a more ‘divergent’ form
of social organization in contrast to the ‘con-
vergent’ trend typical of the Mode 1 approach.
All of the above suggests that both substantive
and social tensions can be expected when work-
ing in Mode 2, particularly when researchers
schooled in the Mode1 model and practitioners,
more accustomed to consulting than research
interventions, come together.
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development 305

Competence and capability Becher (1989), writing about problem-focused

applied research, argues that this kind of research
Hodgkinson, Herriot and Anderson (2001) sug-
often has to accept a degree of paradigm
gest that to produce research that is both
diversity, in contrast to the consistency usual in
rigorous and relevant and in order to avoid being
purer research. Hodgkinson, Herriot and Ander-
either one or the other, special skills are needed
son (2001) express a similar idea in more
methodologically to produce a ‘pragmatic’ ap-
operational form, suggesting that Mode 2 re-
proach along with the necessary socio-political
quires a kind of pragmatism.
interpersonal skills to operate effectively. Kele-
Becher (1989) also suggests a contrast in terms
men and Bansal (2002) put further flesh on this
of the production of ‘know how’ knowledge with
idea by suggesting that in working in the two
‘know what’ knowledge. Quite whether this
language traditions of research and practice,
distinction may be reflected fairly in the possible
being able to communicate and translate between
distinctions between Mode 2 (know how) and
them, is an important element.
Mode 1 (know what) in terms of research goals
MacLean and MacIntosh (2002) identify four
remains contentious. For example, Kelemen and
areas of researcher competence required in Mode
Bansal (2002) argue, in contrast and with
2 research, centred on social and interpersonal
examples, that forms of esoteric knowledge often
competence rather than technical research skills.
associated with Mode 1 research, can, with
Thus, in conducting Mode 2 research, dialogue
communicative skill, give constructive and prac-
and facilitation skills, negotiation skills, capacity
tical insight into practitioner problems. Boland
to form open and trustworthy relationships and
et al. (2001) suggest that the process of assisting
spot new developments and alternative interpre-
with ‘practical problems’ is via the generative
tations as events unfold, are all essential.
contribution of theory – offering new perspectives
All of these authors suggest that issues in
rather than the deduction of truth-based solu-
relationship building and maintenance are key
tions and therefore mirroring Kelerman and
when conducting Mode 2 research. Not only do
Bansal (2002).
researchers require training in substantive content,
Therefore, tensions can be expected concerning
but also an understanding of managing research
the nature of both the objectives and outputs
as an ongoing social process. Creating and
from Mode 2 research. Serving such a broad
developing the research agenda to the satisfaction
church of expectations by configuring projects to
of all parties, managing a collaborative and
deliver, in parallel, appropriate findings and in
emergent approach to field work and producing
digestible form, constitutes a demanding agenda
output in acceptable form to all stakeholders
for Mode 2 researchers.
might all be expected to play important roles in
various stages of the relationship.
Purpose for presenting the CEML case
The authors’ experience of conducting the leader-
Methodological and meta-theoretical issues
ship development best practice research contrasts
Tranfield and Starkey (1998) and Tranfield (2002) with what might be regarded as the traditional
suggest that the demands of Mode 2 research way of conducting Mode 1 research. Paradoxi-
require an equal preoccupation with the ontolo- cally, much of the discussion on Mode 2 research
gical concerns to be addressed along with the is conducted by contrasting it with Mode 1 (the
relevant epistemological issues. Aram and norm), and is highly theoretical and conceptual.
Salipante (2003), Gibbons et al. (1994), Boland It is therefore of limited value to those who aspire
et al. (2001) and Kelemen and Bansal (2002) to conduct Mode 2 research. Whilst MacLean,
argue that Mode 2 research is concerned with the MacIntosh and Grant (2002) and MacLean and
truths and realities of particular situations rather MacIntosh (2002) suggest that there is a paucity
more than the quest for generalizable conclu- of case exemplars of Mode 2 research and they
sions. Linked to this view is the idea that what provide some basic ingredients for conducting
generalizes from one Mode 2 research project to Mode 2 research, there is clearly a need for
another often has more to do with research further exploration of Mode 2 research. This
process than substantive knowledge output. should be grounded, as far as possible, in the
306
practical conduct of Mode 2 research, rather than
in conceptual discussion of Mode 2/Mode 1
contrasts. The CEML case is presented as such
an example in order to extract further under-
standing of Mode 2 in practice.
CEML leadership development best
practice research: reflections,
experiences and learning from a Mode 2
research project
CEML’s view was that whilst the best UK
leadership contained elements of world-class
practice there remained potential to develop
better leadership across more sectors and to
influence the spread of leadership practice across
more organizations. (The evidence base for this
belief was obscure. It appeared to hold sway
because it aligned with the experience of Council
members, and seemed to be a generally held belief
within the Department for Trade and Industry
(DTI), perhaps resulting from a somewhat over-
generalized conclusion from a small piece of
unpublished research on UK manufacturing
plants.)
In terms of the CEML process, a number of
task groups were established each with their own
remit (e.g. professionals, SMEs, corporates). The
overall aim of the Council was to provide a
coherent strategy for UK management and
leadership development. This case study explores
the corporate project. This project was served by
a working group comprising senior figures in the
sector and by two researchers appointed from
academia, working part of their time on this
project. The working group members and the
researchers met regularly at points where key
decisions should be taken and for review. They
were held at a London office belonging to the
Chair of the working group’s company, every
couple of months. This was a significant feature
of the research and created an iterative approach
to the project with ideas being discussed at each
stage of development.
Tensions to be managed
From the start it was clear that tensions needed
to be managed between the expectations of the
working group members and the researchers.
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
Differences were apparent concerning what con-
stituted relevant and rigorous research, and
between the demands for a widely applicable
output and the problems associated with making
a contribution to knowledge beyond the cases in
the research sample.
Whilst these may be considered typical of the
different professional or organizational norms
the practitioners and researchers might have
come from, they lead to real differences that
had to be negotiated in the development of the
research agenda method and output. Examples of
these include:
Broad brief versus narrow terms of reference.
The brief provided by the Working Group was
to produce a best practice guide on leadership
development for corporations. It was to be
evidence-based, with a strategic focus, and had
to meet a tight time schedule of about 12 months,
including dissemination. From the working
group’s perspective this was a clear brief, with
the scope narrowed to a manageable size
(produce a guide) from an original vague brief
(make UK corporate leadership ‘world class’) i.e.
the guide would answer the ‘what should we do’
question, whereas an understanding of world-
class leadership would add to general knowledge
on leadership.
Tangible product versus academic papers. The
working group was keen to establish that the
project would be practical and tangible. In the
initial conversations it was clear that the aca-
demics should not turn this into a study that
added to general understanding without being of
immediate value to practitioners.
End-user focus versus interesting general ideas. The
stakeholders were the organizations represented on
the working group whose task was to speak on
behalf of the corporate sector. In discussion this
was defined as the FTSE 250. The eventual user
profile was taken to be professional HR with a
learning and development brief at senior levels. The
notion of end user was a key part of the early
working group discussions: what would the guide
look like?; would it be in a CD format?; web
based?; what resources might be needed to
disseminate it widely?; when should a prestigious
conference location for the launch be booked? This
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development
is clearly a different approach to Mode 1 research:
the dissemination was uppermost in people’s minds
right from the start. The responses from the launch
and other conferences would be an integral part of
developing and testing the research output. If
people could not relate to and use the product of
the research then the work would not be considered
to have been successful, no matter how much the
academic or practitioner communities might find it
interesting.
Best practice is what best practice firms do versus
questioning the notion of ‘best practice’. The
provision of terms of reference by the working
group was a significant decision as it prevented
the researchers from going off down familiar
‘exploratory’ paths and gave ‘permission’ for
them to engage in a focused search for a
pragmatic solution. However, the researchers
were troubled by the notion of ‘best practice’,
which was difficult to define. With the brief
agreed, it seemed more ‘obvious’ to the practi-
tioners what constituted ‘best practice’ than to
the researchers. The working group explicitly
stated their belief that ‘an organization that has
been in the top league for some time must be
doing something right and is worth studying’.
They believed that this should be the informant
basis for research in order to establish best
practice. At this stage the researchers wanted to
have a more detailed definition of what was
meant by ‘best practice’ – or even how best and
poor practice could be distinguished – particu-
larly as the research was being discussed as
attempting to establish a universal recipe for
leadership development.
An orientation to reflecting and finding meanings in
examples of practice versus an orientation to
describing examples of practice. The working
group also wanted a prescriptive outcome,
identifying the ‘right’, definitive view. An inter-
esting moment arose when the question was
asked, ‘what if the research tells us we should all
have a corporate university?’ Some members
immediately said, ‘well that wouldn’t do for us
even if it were best practice’, while others liked
the idea or already had one. In debate it became
clear that although the working group had in
mind that the researchers should simply compile
what ‘best practice organizations’ did and then
307
present these as a set of practices others should
adopt, this was not to be the way forward. In
practice there was likely to be more emphasis on
contingencies with different perspectives on
practices claimed as ‘the best’. Principles inform-
ing choice, rather than prescriptions without
choices, were needed. It is unlikely that the
clarity of this moment could have been reached
without extensive debate and discussion in the
working group.
Existing knowledge as a starting point for research
versus existing cases as a starting point. The
researchers wanted to know what existing re-
search might inform the study. The working
group interpreted a literature search before data
collecting as an ‘academic cul-de-sac’ and it was a
point of negotiation to include literature expli-
citly into the study. The researchers suggested a
focused and targeted literature review to provide
a rationale for the sample, review possible
research methods and identify relevant theory
Caution versus ambition. It was typical in the
project for the researchers to appear more
cautious than the working group would have
liked, for example concerning the generalizability
of findings. In turn, the researchers had to work
to a brief that was both more precise and
ambitious than they might have chosen.
Resolution of tensions in the conduct of
the research
Resolving and managing these tensions was a
major challenge for the project and the working
group, confirming the view that managing the
social organisation of research undertaken in
Mode 2 is a key issue. In detail, resolution of
these tensions was translated into the following
approaches taken to the conduct of the research.
Use of literature review in CEML case study
The literature on leadership and leadership
development is extensive. Spending too much
time on this part of the research would have
confirmed the working group’s fears concerning
the researchers losing focus on practice. The
literature search was, therefore, mainly restricted
308
to studies that were both evidence-based and
explored the theory and principles of leadership
development. The literatures on the nature of
leadership and the specific qualities of leader
behaviour were left untouched. Many papers
were rejected as ‘solutions’ put forward without
evidence or theory base (for example, detail of a
one-day course claiming to be a major leadership
development intervention was excluded on the
grounds that it had clearly been written as a
show-case paper by the consultants who delivered
the course, and contained no evaluation data or
critique of the event). In particular, the search
sought evidence of how other researchers had
established ‘best practice’. The literature search
focused mainly on recent studies reported in the
years since 1995, which referred to data collected
up to 1993. This was seen as an appropriate time
frame in order to ensure issues of topicality and
relevance were addressed. The search also looked
for case studies in leadership and management
development, corporate management develop-
ment, succession and career planning in order
to ensure that leadership development was
studied from a broad HR perspective and not
just in terms of development programmes. Apart
from including evidence-based materials, the final
papers selected for the review offered critique of
practice linked to theory or collated evidence
from other studies. Also included in the final
sample of studies were some well-established
writings on leadership to set the context. The
literature review formed the first tangible project
output (James, 2001).
Who to study – how to find best practice?
There were two sources of difficulty in choosing
organisations for ‘best practice’ cases. First,
selection involved subjective assessment by pre-
judging the nature and dimensions of best
practice to be discovered. Second, making such
a selection implied locating sources of best
practice that might be of general benefit.
The first issue had also been addressed by
several studies explored in the literature review.
Fulmer and Wagner (1999) undertook sponsored
research for the American Society for Training
and Development, the American Productivity
and Quality Center and TPG Learning Systems.
The best practice selection involved an initial
analysis of potential organizations by the re-
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
search team from journals and sponsors’ sugges-
tions. There then followed an evaluation of
potential best-practice partners, through a
screening survey of more than 30 organizations,
to select ten finalists and finally a selection of six
best-practice partners from these by the study’s
sponsors. The Corporate Leadership Council
(1997) conducted telephone interviews and on-
site visits to 150 companies, interviewed 50
academics, consultants and industry experts and
reviewed 10,000 pages of academic and business
literature to identify suitable cases from which
they developed a framework for leadership
development, resourcing and retention. Brown
(2000) used the criteria developed in these two
studies above to choose organizations that fitted
the ‘best practice’ criteria from these studies.
Stevens (1996) and Davis, Lucas and Marcotte
(1998) had simply chosen household names,
assumed to be doing something right for sus-
tained success.
The working group’s initial assessment of
which type of organizations to study was not
significantly different from the published sources
explored above. Companies with a household
name are widely thought to have something
useful to offer, whether the sample is selected
through a long identification process or by
reputation with project members. Indeed, the
same names come up in study after study.
When presented to the working group, the
literature review provided useful background and
enabled everyone to share a common starting
position, forming a route-finder through leader-
ship development. Based on the literature review,
the researchers decided to explore the possibility
of advocating the development of leadership
development strategies suited to the specific
requirements and situation of particular organi-
zations. Since the literature placed emphasis on
the alignment of business strategy and leadership
development, evidence needed to be collected
from executives at Group HR Director level.
Case examples would provide a useful output to
ground the theoretical principles in practice.
Overall, resolving the tension of the extent of
influence of existing literature by limiting scope
enabled the researchers to come back with
proposals that allowed for a deeper exploration
of leadership development strategy rather than
simply establishing a menu of leadership devel-
opment practices in ‘excellent’ organizations.
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development
Scoping empirical research
To resolve the tension concerning the potential
lack of end-user focus in fieldwork, a semi-
structured interview approach to data collection
was chosen. This enabled informants to see the
scope of the interview in advance and allowed the
managers to assemble information and their
thoughts. It also allowed all areas of the research
to be covered, yet encouraged focus on the issues
relevant to the particular organizational context.
The interview protocol had questions framed to
explore ‘why?’ and ‘how did you decide?’ as well
as ‘what did you do?’ The foci covered the
integration of leadership development with busi-
ness strategy, assumptions of leadership under-
pinning the development philosophy, choices
driven by specific contextual factors, non-HR
contributions as well as expert roles, policies for
attraction and retention and deployment for
development as well as training programmes.
The relative open nature of the questions allowed
the story of leadership development to unfold
naturally. The researchers were interested in
uncovering the ‘theory of leadership development
in use’. Because informants described ‘what’ as
well as ‘why’ they had developed their approaches,
the research output could start to answer the
question ‘what works, where and why?’.
Conduct of the research
Taking a more contingency-based approach to
the study resolved the tension concerning whom
to include in the sample. This framing of the
research meant that a number of organizational
contributions were needed. However, these did
not have to constitute a definitive sample of
organizations ‘who are the best’. The working
group was able to offer high-level access to
organizations within the scope of the study,
resulting in the researchers having access to
extensive interview time with main board direc-
tors who cleared their diaries with little notice.
Extensive notes were taken throughout the inter-
views using the interview protocol, although one
interview was recorded for convenience. How-
ever, in general it was clear that because of the
commercially sensitive nature of the interview
content it was not acceptable to record most of
the interviews.
Whilst many organizations could have fallen
within the remit, the researchers did ask for and
309
got access to a range of categories of organiza-
tions that the working group regarded as reflect-
ing the type of organizations at which the CEML
project was aimed. These were originally large
corporates, but the inclusion of the BBC and the
Civil Service in the working group had led to the
decision that the project should not be confined
to the private sector. The researchers advised that
it would be difficult to generalize across sectors,
but the working group decided to expand the
project scope at this point. The initial sample
included two retail organizations, two banks, two
engineering companies, two pharmaceutical com-
panies, two computer companies, two public-
sector organizations, as well as an oil company
and a new company encompassing household-
name organizations. The inclusion of the public-
sector organizations widened the complexity of
issues for exploration and this was taken into
account in the second phase of the research.
Although helpful in the social organization of the
research, broadening the sample had implications
for the later applicability of the report. This issue
was never completely resolved.
The researchers decided to conduct interviews
until there was a replication of the emerging
issues. Although this might not be ‘theoretical’
saturation, this provided a trigger to begin
analysing the data – the first iteration. The
analysis was written up and returned to the
interviewees for comment. Thus, any major
omissions resulting from interview gaps were
picked up and corrected. This was an iterative
process. The second stage was a consultation of
other organizations comprising similar organiza-
tions to the initial sample, including new hi-tech
companies and public-sector organizations that
the working group wanted to include and also
members of the working group themselves. All
those included are listed in the Best Practice Guide
(James and Burgoyne, 2001). In this second
iteration informants were asked to comment on
the initial analysis and offer any further thoughts
and examples from their own organizations.
Each data set was sorted into areas scoped in
the interview protocols (interviewees often told
their story in an order that made personal sense
to them). Under each aspect of the protocol, the
practices used were noted. The choice points and
decision-making processes that led to adoption of
those practices were also noted. Organizations
sometimes reported the importance of a practice,
310
such as evaluation of leadership development,
but simultaneously recognized that they did not
do this very well, or that they were at the early
stages of dealing with an issue. Whether or not it
was done well, its importance was noted. Some-
times descriptions of similar practices used varied
terms and occasionally similar terms were used
differently. All of these had to be checked with
interviewees, to understand their significance to
the organization rather simply registering the
practice descriptor. For example, corporate uni-
versities were eventually included in a theme on
the use of in-house versus external resources. This
arose from understanding the reasons for estab-
lishing a corporate university.
The process of analysing the data was one of
looking for patterns and grouping these to both
adequately represent the complexity of the inter-
view material, yet succinctly and accurately
capture the data in a form that could be
presented back to the informants and working
group for comment, and subsequently to organi-
zations that would use the research.
Presentation of findings: principles and issues for
leadership development practice
To meet the concerns identified by the working
group and keep in mind the ‘end user’, it was
important to assemble the findings in a way that
could inform reflective practice and simulta-
neously provide case examples. The idea of
‘principles’ emerged, and was used to mean the
key assumptions that needed to be clarified and
decision points that underpinned the practices
described. Comments from the initial informants,
those consulted in the second stage and made by
the working party were subsequently used to
modify initial ideas. Principles were not mechan-
isms for prescribing practices to be adopted, but
described important issues or processes that, if
reflected upon, would enable an organization to
assess its current and desired position.
The final presentation of the findings was based
on these principles to inform reflective practice.
This bridged the working group’s specification of
the need for a prescriptive output grounded on a
literature that reflected the complex relationship
between leadership development practices and
business imperatives. It provided a vehicle for
learning about potential improvements in practice
and acted as an aid for ‘reflexive practitioners’
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
(Schon, 1983). As Starkey and Madan (2001, p. 4)
observe, ‘a key goal in the research-practice
relationship is the development of forms of
knowledge that help managers become better
reflective practitioners by a critical reflection
upon the often un-examined mental models that
inform our actions’.
The principles were grouped as strategic
imperatives (those issues which if not resolved
lead to difficulties in producing a coherent set of
practices), strategic choices (principles that an
organization needed to address to begin to put a
leadership development strategy in place) and the
principle of evaluation. Another set of themes
emerged about organization values that were
mentioned as requirements for best practice
organizations. These were described as diversity
(improving leadership representation and leader-
ship development for currently under-represented
social groups), ecology (exposing managers in
leadership development programmes to environ-
mental issues relevant to their company and to
the kind of pressure groups that they would need
to be aware of), ethics (exploring ethical leader-
ship practice during leadership development
programmes) and good employer responsibilities
(leaders’ responsibilities in terms of a duty of care
to existing employees and the important of being
perceived as an employer of choice for potential
employees). Taken together, these principles and
values appeared to provide an umbrella for
making sense of the detailed accounts collected
and could encompass the differences that the data
showed between the organizations (for a fuller
explication see James and Burgoyne, 2001).
Keeping dissemination in mind throughout
The researchers, both involved extensively in
leadership development practice as well as
research, used the research findings to produce
additional implementation material. This was
reviewed and agreed with the working group.
This material comprised a step-by-step approach
to using the research findings, a set of case
examples and a toolkit for working through the
material. The guide is thus a set of tools to reflect
on practice with the principles and issues as the
‘route-finder’. It did not provide a blueprint for
leadership development activity, or, to continue
the map and route-finder analogy, it did not
specify the destination or a single route to a
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development
destination. The research was published as a best
practice guide on leadership development (James
and Burgoyne, 2001) and was made available in
print and web-based versions. The research was
only considered complete when the dissemination
process allowed it to become actionable.
Anticipated and unanticipated features
of conducting research in Mode 2 and
the contribution of the design science
concept
Our experience in this research confirms many of
the overall propositions on Mode 2 research
outlined in the introductory literature review for
this paper, organization and processes in the
practice of research, competence and capability
and methodological and meta-theoretical issues.
This section explores our findings from the CEML
project using these same three headings with the
aim of extending understanding of operational
issues in conducting Mode 2 research. We find the
presence of these additional key themes: problem
size, timescale and orientation to time; managing
the dissemination pressure; the nature and kind of
theory involved and the nature of effects.
Organization and processes in the practice of
research; problem size, timescale and orientation
to time
In the CEML case we were faced with the broad
problem of defining best practice in organizations
for leadership development. A more traditional
research approach (Mode 1) might have resulted
in a narrowing and simplification of the question.
This would have focused the study, made the
question more easily addressable and perhaps
offered a relatively reassuring certainty of find-
ings. In contrast, the Mode 2 researcher is
required to address a broad question and engage
a less-prescribed process, which can result in a
more ambiguous output. To those accustomed to
Mode 1 research, this can feel a risky endeavour
and raises the question for all management
researchers wishing to engage an issue-led or at
least issue-informed managerial agenda concern-
ing appropriate epistemological choices in agen-
da, design and output.
311
With regard to timescale, Mode 2 research, as
in the CEML case, tends to have a deadline, and
to be oriented to finding a solution to a problem
that is causing harm now, creating urgency in
solution production. The active timescale of
CEML was less than a year, including problem
definition, literature searching, case-study collec-
tion, sense making, writing and dissemination
and all this in regular consultation with the
working group. In contrast, a more traditional
approach is often to fund research over a two/
three-year timescale.
Time orientation and a sense of urgency are
also crucial Mode 2 issues because progress
matters to end-users. This does not mean that
deadlines cannot, and do not, slip, which they do.
As Weick (2001) suggests, in Mode 2 there is the
possibility of research funding arriving too late
for a decision required at a point in time.
Competence and capability; managing the
relationship with the working group and
dissemination of findings
Disseminating the findings is an integral part of
the design rather than a downstream ‘add-on’.
The iterations between end-user need and the
process of conducting the research are quite
different from Mode 1 research. As a Mode 2
study, the CEML investigation did have a
problem owner, primarily in the form of the
working group. This group was actively involved
with the researchers in the co-production of the
research and the final guide. This contrasts with
Mode 1 research for which sponsors, although
often having an interest and concern that the
research output is delivered, have less immediate
concern with the content of the output or hands
on involvement with it. The researchers were
regularly challenged to keep the project on
schedule and yet be open to change in the light
of working group discussions.
Resources (mainly money for staff time) were
available, but not necessarily more or less than
for Mode 1 research. However, access for data
collection was very good. The main issue was
how to make best use of this resource within the
timescale, which meant that the pressure on
researchers to obtain literature fast and quickly
conduct fieldwork.
As the relevance of the research to end users
was the prime pre-occupation of the working
312
group, the terms of reference, the discussions at
early meetings and the recurring theme of the
researcher/working-group relationship were all
driven by the idea of dissemination rather than
the production of new knowledge. This demanded
careful negotiation to ensure that the empirical
research was as extensive and iterative as could
be achieved in the timescale.
Methodological and meta-theoretical issues; kinds
of theory and nature of effects
These issues stood out in the CEML case.
Concern for ‘know how’, finding principles rather
than truths for particular situations, the diver-
gence of the issue to be researched and the need
to contain this, the broad range of knowledge
stakeholders and their implicit ontological and
epistemological beliefs, and the socio-political
and language/translation issues were all crucial to
the final success of the CEML project.
The nature of Mode 2-oriented research
demands a normative theoretical output. This
means that it produces a ‘should do’ answer. It
has been suggested that there are four kinds of
theory (Burgoyne, 1998) with which research can
be concerned. These are normative theories that
suggest what should be done, descriptive theories
that attempt to describe how things are, analy-
tical theories that attempt to explain why things
are as they are and critical theories that attempt
to challenge, and offer alternatives to, the way
things are described and interpreted.
What seems interesting is that in the domain of
Mode 2 research, as exemplified by CEML, the
order of preference for these different kinds of
theories is in neat reversal when contrasted with a
more traditional Mode 1 approach. Our sense of
the valuation of these types of theories from a
Mode 1 point of view is that the normative is most
suspect, perhaps containing unchallenged and
unjustified value judgements. Descriptive is per-
haps useful but stops short of anything interest-
ing. Analytical is of interest since it seeks to
address why things are as they are. Critical is
preferred as this can challenge the perspectives
taken in analytical (and normative) theorizing.
Experience of undertaking a Mode 2 approach
appears to be the reverse. Normative theory is
valued more than in Mode 1 since it addresses the
key question of what should be done? – with as
much of an evidence base and inductive justifica-
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
tion as possible. Descriptive theory has a place in
marking ‘how things are’ to define a starting point
for problem solution. Analytical and critical
theories appear of less interest since they are
oriented to explanations and criticism, and tend
to avoid the ‘what to do’ question. ‘What to do’
may be better framed as ‘how to decide what to
do in which circumstances’, or ‘what choices
might be available according to the context’?
Christensen and Raynor (2003) address the
importance of good theory to management
practice. Without theory the application of
research is narrowed to a few participating
organizations or, alternatively, so anodyne that
the findings form a prescription that can be widely
applied but whilst harming no one, can neither do
any good. Mode 2 orientation is normative but
cannot resort to a singular prescription.
Because Mode 2 research is concerned with the
truths and realities of particular situations rather
than the production of generalizable laws or
conclusions, the idea that what is generalizable
from one Mode 2 research project to another has
frequently centred on research processes and
organization (see for example, Aram and Sali-
pante, 2003; Boland et al., 2001; Gibbons et al.,
1994; and Kelemen and Bansal, 2002). However,
in the CEML project there was a focus on what
could be generalizable in terms of knowledge
about practice ‘know-how’ that had potential for
use in many organizations.
Questions about ‘know-how’ are the focus of
design science (Van Aken, 2004, 2005). He offers
the notion as ‘professional’ or ‘prescriptive’
science aiming to guide practice from an in-
formed science base through the application of
technological rules. He is careful to argue that
design science produces research-based guidelines
to inform action choices, rather than specific
prescriptions for action. He contrasts design
science – which produces normative guidelines
and ‘management theory’, with explanatory
science – which seeks to describe and understand
producing ‘organization theory’.
The concept of design science, which has
outputs different from explanatory science, is
useful for the Mode 2 researcher. In particular,
the notion of technological rules can inform the
product of the research and may help to explain
why Leadership Development: Best Practice Guide
for Organisations (James and Burgoyne, 2001)
once launched, was perceived as helpful because
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development 313

Imperatives for Mode 2 researchers

1. Recognize type of outputs and end-user perspective an integral part of the

research design from terms of reference to launch of research product.
2. Make dissemination an integral part of the research process.
3. Recognize the tensions to be managed derived from diverse and/or implicit
epistemological or ontological assumptions informing research orientations;
these need to be managed or unresolved tensions could influence the viability
of the research collaboration.

Choices for Mode 2 researchers

1. Decide how regular the meetings of stakeholders should be and the nature of
these meetings. Who chairs these? What is on the agenda?
2. Decide whether and how the stakeholders will be involved in decisions
concerning detailed research design and the extent to which the research will
evolve using iterations including inputs from key stakeholders.
3. Decide how the literature and the existing knowledge base will shape research.
4. Decide the nature of the output sought – contribution to theory, prescriptive
knowledge/ technological rules – and how this will link to end users and
dissemination channel.
5. Decide how to extend the research beyond case exemplars to enable reflective
practice and generalizable findings beyond the research site.
6. Decide how to react to the pressure to produce quick results in order to meet
the urgency of addressing the problem (action needed urgently versus action
after careful evaluation of results).
7. Decide how to conduct research where the output useful to users is primary –
working back to design research accordingly.

Values for Mode 2 researchers

Collaboration; desire to impact practice; closeness to practice and improvements to

practice rather than distant or critical perspective on theory about practice.

Figure 1. Towards Best Practice principles for Mode 2 research

did not prescribe a solution but provided a set of
rules for working out what would be appropriate
in a specific organizational circumstance. Van
Aken’s (2005) notion of field-tested and
grounded technological rules (tested in the field
of application and grounded in the best available
theory of why the intervention leads to specific
performance) may be a helpful way of thinking
about output from Mode 2 research in order to
inform practice across multiple organization
sites. A technological rule has the logic of ‘to
achieve Y in situation Z, then perform action X’.
In our case this translates as ‘to develop the
organization leadership you need to deliver your
business strategy, consider these issues, through
these steps, to form the decisions into a coherent
whole along these choice points’. Our concerns
about generalizing our findings from the private
to the public sector would be reflected in Van
Aken’s question ‘what is field-tested?’. Future
research could explicitly explore differences in
requirements in the public sector. The notion of
grounded rules would also point to a future
research agenda to develop an explanatory level
of understanding.
Many of the issues and tensions in conducting
Mode 2 research centre on the nature of the
output for managing the practical processes and
organization of the research are exercised in the
context of agreeing and delivering the output. If
different potential outputs are not explicitly
explored from the start it is likely that research
process management skills could not redress this
omission.
A way of articulating our reflection and
learning about conducting Mode 2 research is
to produce ‘best practice principles’ that parallel
our corporate leadership development guide
(Figure 1). This incorporates existing knowledge
plus our additions as outlined in this paper under
the headings of organization and process, com-
petence and capability and meta-theoretical and
314
methodological issues. We include reference to
the tensions experienced during the research and
our use of the idea of technological rules as a way
of construing the output from the research.
Conclusions
The traditional propensity of management re-
search to be conducted in Mode 1 and thought of
as explanatory science is interesting, since man-
agement research, like engineering or medical
research, might be thought of as practice-based.
Revans (1980, p. 197) notes that UK business
schools took root in ‘book’ rather than ‘tool’
disciplines and institutions. The root of this may
in turn lie further back in the mission adopted by
many American Business Schools resulting from
the Ford and Carnegie reports, which set the
management field on a road to achieving
scientific respectability through association with
universities, rather than being low-status ‘trade
schools’ (Porter and McKibben, 1988). ‘Books’
and explanation may have taken precedence over
‘tools’ and effective design in this pursuit of
scientific respectability. In a recent critique of
business schools, Bennis and O’Toole (2005)
attribute inappropriate and unhelpful research
in them to ‘physics envy’ – the role model for
explanatory science. The tendency also may be
cultural. For example, it may be argued that
France, Germany and Japan generally privilege
an engineering and design orientation and are less
‘bookish’ in their management education. The
importance of the debate about the nature of
prescriptions derived from management research
and the importance of conducting influential
research is reflected in the response of Bazerman
(2005) to Ferraro, Pfeffer and Sutton (2005).
These papers, rooted in economics and psychol-
ogy, are addressed to social science more broadly.
Bazerman (2005) suggests that prescriptive re-
search is not even recognized as an appropriate
objective by most social scientists and argues that
the most important social and management
research provides novel descriptive findings that
can be turned into useful prescriptions. Manage-
ment research, he argues, is in an excellent
position to create prescriptive knowledge if we
change our values and confront the problems,
such as taking cross-disciplinary risks, head on.
He argues for the urgency of this agenda.
J. Burgoyne and K. T. James
This paper has attempted to make a start in
providing a best practice approach to conducting
Mode 2 research, which should be developed and
refined as experience of Mode 2 management
research expands. The experience of conducting
this research for the researchers was one of
needing to balance the needs of practitioners
wanting a prescription and the currency and
value of research commensurate with the stan-
dards, customs and practice of academia that is
largely in the Mode 1 domain. The researchers
aimed to conduct rigorous research, but were
constantly challenged by the notion of what
constitutes rigour and relevance. This phrase is
often used in discussions on the future of
management research, but in practice, Mode 2
researchers can be torn between contributing to
theory development and meeting the require-
ments of their practitioner partners. The design
science concept helps configure contribution as
developing prescriptive knowledge/technological
rules for a professional field. The issues to be
managed include moving the practitioners to this
perspective and avoiding research leading to
simple prescriptions. If the challenge of explain-
ing and training researchers in good Mode 2
practice is not explored at the practical level of
conducting research as well as in discussions
about which mode is suitable for future manage-
ment research, there will be no healing of the rift
between academic theory and management prac-
tice. This is much needed at a time when not only
government policy but also academic organiza-
tions such as the Academy of Management (see
for example, Bazerman, 2005; Rynes, Bartunek
and Daft, 2001) are calling for management
research focused on developing actionable
knowledge that impacts practice and makes a
difference to national competitiveness and the
quality of public services.
References
Aram, J. D. and P. F. Salipante (2003). ‘Bridging scholarship in
management: epistemological reflections’, British Journal of
Management, 14, pp. 189–205.
Bazerman, M. H. (2005). ‘Conducting influential research: the
need for prescriptive implications’, Academy of Management
Review, 30(1), pp. 25–31.
Becher, A. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual
Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. The Society for
Research into Higher Education and the Open University
Press, Milton Keynes.
Best Practice in Corporate Leadership Development
Bennis, W. G. and J. O’Toole (2005). ‘How Business Schools
Lost Their Way’, Harvard Business Review, 1 May, pp. 1–9.
Boland, R. J., J. Singh, P. Salipante, J. D. Aram, S. Y. Fay and
P. K. Anawattanachai (2001). ‘Knowledge representations
and knowledge transfer’, Academy of Management Journal,
44, pp. 393–417.
Brown, P. (2000). ‘New Directions in Leadership Development:
A Review of Trends and Best Practices’, The Public Manager,
Winter, pp. 37–41.
Burgoyne, J. (1998). ‘Management Learning: Form, History
and Prospects, Proceedings of the Emerging Fields in
Management: Connecting Learning and Critique Confer-
ence, Leeds, July.
Corporate Leadership Council (1997). The Next Generation:
Accelerating the Development of Rising Leaders. The Advi-
sory Board Company, Washington DC.
Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor (2003). ‘Why hard-nosed
executives should care about management theory’, Harvard
Business Review, 81(9), pp. 66–74.
Davis, S. R., J. H. Lucas and D. R. Marcotte (1998). ‘GM
Links Better leaders to Better Business’, Workforce, Costa
Mesa 77(4), pp. 62–68.
Ferraro, F., J. Pfeffer and R. I. Sutton (2005). ‘Economics,
language and assumptions: how theories can become
self-fulfilling’, Academy of Management Review, 30(1),
pp. 8–24.
Fulmer, R. M. and S. Wagner (1999). ‘Leadership: Lessons
From the Best’, Training and Development, 53(3), pp. 28–32.
Gibbons, M. L., C. Limoges, H. Nowotney, S. Schwartman,
P. Scott and M. Trow (1994). The New Production of
Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
Harvey, J., A. Pettigrew and E. Ferlie (2002). ‘The determinants
of research group performance: towards Mode 2?’, Journal of
Management Studies, 39(6), pp. 747–773.
Hodgkinson, G. P., P. Herriot and N. Anderson (2001).
‘Re-aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research:
Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy’, British journal of Management, 12, Special Issue,
S41–S48.
Huff, A. (2000). ‘Presidential Address: Changes in Organiza-
tional Knowledge Production’, Academy of Management
Review, 25, pp. 288–293.
Huff, A. S. and J. O. Huff (2001). ‘Re-focusing the business
school agenda’, British Journal of Management, 12, Special
Issue S49–S54.
James, K. (2001). Leadership and Management Excellence;
Corporate Development Strategies, Council for Excellence in
Management and Leadership, Crown Copyright, London.
James, K. and J. Burgoyne (2001). Leadership Development: Best
Practice Guide for Organisations. Council for Excellence
in Management and Leadership, Crown Copyright, London.
Available at http://www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org
315
Keleman, M. and P. Bansal (2002). ‘The conventions of
management research and their relevance to management
practice’, Academy of Management Journal, 13, pp. 97–108.
MacLean, D., R. MacIntosh and S. Grant (2002). ‘Mode 2
Management Research’, British Journal of Management, 13,
pp. 189–207.
MacLean, D. and R. MacIntosh (2002). ‘On the challenges of
management research’, European Journal of Management,
20(4), pp. 383–392.
Porter, L. W. and L. E. McKibbin (1988). Management
Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st.
Century. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Revans, R. W. (1980). ‘The Book and the Tool’. In Action
Learning: New Techniques for Managers, pp. 181–200. Blond
& Briggs, London.
Rynes, S. L., J. M. Bartunek and R. I. Daft (2001). ‘Across the
great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between
practitioners and academics’, Academy of Management
Journal, 44(2), pp. 340–355.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Temple Smith,
London.
Starkey, K. (2001). ‘In Defence of Modes One, Two and Three:
A Response’, British Journal of Management, 12, Special
Issue, S77–S80.
Starkey, K. and P. Madan (2000). Bridging the Relevance Gap:
Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research,
Report to Council of the British Academy of Management
and the Foundation for Management Education. University
Business School, Nottingham.
Starkey, K. and P. Madan (2001). ‘Bridging the Relevance Gap:
Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management
Research’, British Journal of Management, 12, Special issue,
S3–S26.
Stevens, T. (1996). ‘Follow the Leader’, Industry Week, 245(21),
pp. 16–17.
Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). ‘The Nature, Social
Organisation and Promotion of Management Research:
Towards Policy’, British Journal of Management, 9,
pp. 341–353.
Tranfield, D. (2002). ‘Formulating the nature of manage-
ment research’, European Management Journal, 20(4),
pp. 378–382.
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). ‘Management Research Based on the
Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested
and Grounded Technological Rules’, Journal of Management
Studies, 41, pp. 219–245.
Van Aken, J. E. (2005). ‘Management Research as a Design
Science: Articulating the Research products of Mode 2
Knowledge Production in Management’, British Journal of
Management, 16, pp. 19–36.
Weick, K. E. (2001). ‘Gapping the Relevance Bridge: Fashions
Meet Fundamentals in Management Research’, British
Journal of Management, 12, pp. 71–76.
316 J. Burgoyne and K. T. James

John Burgoyne is Professor of Management Learning at Lancaster University Management School

and Henley Management College. His research, teaching and professional interest is in the design,
delivery and evaluation of management, leadership and organization development. From 2000 to
2002 he was on secondment as policy research consultant to the Council for Excellence in
Management and Leadership, a government-sponsored inquiry into the effectiveness and
development of management and leadership capability in the United Kingdom.

Kim Turnbull James is Professor of Executive Learning at Cranfield School of Management. Kim is
also Director of the Cranfield Executive Doctorate. Her research and professional interests include
the development of strategic capability in leaders, distributed leadership, collaborative learning and
senior women managers’ development. Kim is researching executive and organizational learning
that crosses traditional boundaries and involves whole industries in major change.