Search results

Attitudes of deans of American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited schools/colleges of business were surveyed regarding nine areas central to the practice of collegiate level business education. These deans were then classified into three categories in a manner consistent with the new AACSB standards for accreditation. Finally, a one‐way ANOVA indicated the degree to which the attitudes of these groups of deans differed across items on the original instrument. The study suggests implications for the revised accreditation process of the AACSB.

The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the set of papers which comprise this issue of the journal, and to provide an interpretation of the current strategic debates about the future evolution of business school paradigms and, hence, identify possible strategic options.

The papers can be categorized into three broad themes: first, the impacts and environmental influences on management education including issues of globalization, global sustainability and advances in digital and social media. Second, challenges and criticisms of management education covering issues of legitimacy, business model sustainability and the need for change in business models. Third, the re‐invention of business schools and the creation of alternative models of management education and approaches for effective implementation and delivery of those models.

Globalization is an important environmental influence. Arnoud de Meyer, the President of SMU, offers his reflections. The paper by Peter Lacy and his colleagues at Accenture builds on the theme of globalization by examining the new era of global sustainability in the management arena. In discussing the second theme of challenges and criticisms, David Wilson and Howard Thomas examine the continued legitimacy of the business school with respect to both academic legitimacy in the university and business relevance and thought leadership legitimacy in the management community. Kai Peters and Howard Thomas address the issue of the sustainability of the current business school financial model and question whether it is too luxurious. Santiago Iñiguez and Salvador Carmona reinforce this urgent need to review the sustainability and viability of the existing business school models. Building on the importance of technology impacts, James Fleck illustrates how the Open University Business School (OUBS), the leader and pioneer in blended and distance learning in management education, has focused on further developing models of blended learning which will challenge the current weak adoption of such models in well‐known business schools. Rich Lyons, on the other hand, presents a thoughtful analysis of the careful implementation of a completely new MBA curriculum at the well‐regarded Haas Business School at Berkeley. Peter Lorange's “network‐based” model, on the other hand, is the most radical change model. Granit Almog‐Bareket's leadership paper offers one perspective on the importance of business school leadership in creating the conditions for innovative and insightful management of business school futures.

Clearly, debates and criticisms of business schools will continue to be addressed. It is a sign of a healthy academic and management community that such debates – particularly through the auspices of EMFD – can be presented in an open and constructive manner, as in this special issue of the Journal of Management Development.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the purpose of the business school in light of the growing globalization of the business world.

The paper investigates the purpose of the business school, with views from the literature. It also presents views as to the purpose of the business school today.

The paper finds that the purpose of the business school is to create value in the forms of academic, personal and public or social value.

This paper has interesting information as to the purpose and role of business schools in the globalizing modern world.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of the business school now and in the future.

The paper takes the form of an editorial review and argument.

The paper acknowledges the impact of globalization and “marketization” on business schools.

The editorial offers scope for accounting academics to engage with the university and protect against business school corporatization and/or privatization. This is an important issue in higher education, not only in Australia, but internationally.

The paper provides important empirical data and research information to scholars in the interdisciplinary accounting field of research about the future for business schools.

Suggests that there are six major dimensions that influence students' attitudes on postgraduate marketing education selections and these are: practical considerations; curriculum requirements; convenience factors; experience with the institutions; academic factors; and admission considerations. Emphasises that with new, progressive business teaching postgraduate marketing programmes sprouting up, the face of European and UK marketing and business schools is changing rapidly. Investigates the attitudes of the major business schools in the UK towards the variables that influence the selection of marketing studies, focusing on finding relationships between dependent variables. Sums up that the expansion of the marketing concept to higher education industry, requires the adaptation and implementation of these findings, in order to improve.

The paper seeks to describe the rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings and some of the problems inherent in developing and publishing them.

The rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings is discussed, as are the ways in which business schools use the rankings.

Business schools have an ambivalent relationship to business schools rankings, openly criticising them but using favourable aspects of the rankings in their schools' marketing.

Business school rankings are probably here to stay. Most business schools are developing ways of using them for their own purposes.

Examines the incongruency between what business schools teach and what business organizations actually need. Suggests a need for reform. Explores the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation standards and suggests that this needs much clarification. States that emphasis should be less on the evaluation of “the institutional machinery of business schools” and more on management education′s “impact on society” as an indication of success. Concludes that more innovative action is needed within the management education process.

The paper seeks to share a viewpoint on the benefits and value of AACSB International business accreditation and some perspectives on the evolution of business accreditation on a global basis.

This is a commentary/viewpoint paper.

AACSB accreditation is global brand delivering external validation of high‐quality business schools providing key stakeholders, students, faculty and employers, with a decision criterion for selecting institutions with which to be associated.

In an increasingly competitive, global market for leading business students and an ever‐increasing number of business programs that deliver management education, differentiation is critical. Earning AACSB International accreditation can provide an important external validation and statement that can be an important factor in identifying high‐quality business schools by prospective students, faculty, and employers.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the responsibilities and opportunities that arise for management education out of the 2008/2009 economic and financial crisis, with a focus on the emerging leadership role of Asian business schools, notably in China.

The paper begins by identifying three fundamental challenges for management education. It then discusses two conceptual issues relating to, first, the contents and systems to be included in curriculum reform and learning, and second, the drivers of change in management education. The paper draws upon conceptual papers advanced by leading business school deans, and identifies conditions which provide Asian business schools with a unique, transformational role.

The depth, breadth and seriousness of current economic and social problems in emerging economics suggest that the necessary reform and transformation of management education is most likely going to be led by business school deans and management education faculty located in and working with business leaders in emerging markets. China business schools are likely to emerge as thought leaders in the reform process in part due to the quality of scholars, especially “returnees”, now locating there.

Thought leadership from Asian/Chinese business schools will change the current academic model, based on one‐way knowledge transfer, to a two‐way learning model. This transformation from industrialized to emerging economies will have far‐reaching consequences for curriculum design, faculty exchanges and international cooperation between business schools.

The shift toward Asia‐ or China‐originated thought leadership is evidence of a wider international social trend.

The paper challenges existing views of management education which are still led by Europe and North America, thus offering a new perspective on the drivers of change in management education.

Professional schools, including collegiate business schools, are pulled in two opposing directions. The academy, where they live, pulls them to emphasize science and its values, and to focus on expanding the field of knowledge. The profession, into which their graduates move, pulls them to deal with immediately relevant, practical problems. The two also seek different characteristics in curriculum, the academy emphasizing that which will groom future scientists and the profession emphasizing that which will produce immediately employable practitioners. Collegiate business schools have not done a smooth, integrated job of balancing these competing claims for allegiance. Rather, history shows that they have satisfied one side and then, when the other side’s complaints became too loud, switched sides completely to the irritation of the constituency just jilted. This article describes what has happened and proposes a model which, if built into the accreditation standards, could reduce these unfortunate pendulum swings.