It is argued that teaching is more important to shared understanding of management and organizations than scholars acknowledge. Teaching has been ignored in discussions of scholars' intellectual enterprise, in part, because of a practicality that violates Romantic Era ideals of intellectuals as otherworldly and pure. Yet teachers in conversation with their students have always been central to how students learn and develop their ideas. In the case of management professors, who they teach (students with management experience), the institutional context in which they teach them (tuition-dependent and rankings-focused university business schools), and the publishing industry (increasingly focused on lower-division books for teenagers) are as much causes of the fractured visage of management scholarship as are any actions of the field's elites. Implications for action include more open conversations about how MBA teaching influences our intellectual work and the development of coherent books for experienced adult students. © 2007 Sage Publications.

Jones and Stout (2015) have made one claim that I would like to correct: There is substantial quantitative (and observational) research on the workplace and organizational performance effects of nepotism and cronyism. That these authors have missed this research is understandable; the research is not in traditional industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology publications (although some of it does appear in journals from the related field of organizational behavior). Nevertheless, this work is systematic and rigorous, and the work provides strong evidence to support the experience-based perceptions of practitioners that nepotism and cronyism damage employees and their supervisors and produces poorer organizational performance. I welcome the opportunity that Jones and Stout (2015) have provided to briefly introduce my colleagues in I-O psychology to this literature.