I am admittedly out of my depth here, but I want to make a quick comment about something I've noticed from HBR publications (which claim to be primarily from HB

I am admittedly out of my depth here, but I want to make a quick comment about something I've noticed from HBR publications (which claim to be primarily from HBS professors). Typically, they strike me as the most stereotypically "academic" writings that I regularly run across. Meaning they are working hard to maintain an appearance of rigor and neutrality, but spend a great deal of time and effort squinting and straining to produce an outcome that aligns with their intended philosophy and desired conclusions. There is just so much output that is naive and tone-deaf to what's experienced on the ground in the white-collar world. While you can arrange some battery of numbers to support almost any case ("there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"), it doesn't change the efficacy or practicality of some of the things they end up endorsing/suggesting. This is not a universal or blanket condemnation, as I do follow HBR precisely because sometimes their output is interesting or valuable. But many times it's clearly the result of a bubble. One of the most offensive habits of academia is to elevate people to professorships almost straight out of school, despite these people having virtually zero real experience practicing the art they claim to know how to teach. This is particularly offensive when it comes to fields where the art is a crucial part of the application, like business and law -- which, afaik, are two fields where these farcical elevations happen routinely.