Search results

This paper aims to use the origin story of Dalhousie’s Faculty of Management as a foil for unpacking the tensions between deep disciplinary specialization and liberal education in business schools in Canada and the USA. Ultimately, the paper reveals that those tensions are not irreconcilable, and that through the fortunes of historical contingencies and deliberate decision-taking, a faculty can embrace the benefits of both breadth and depth.

The paper proposes a critical organizational history of management education through a case study. By drawing on secondary literature and archival sources, the authors focus on moments in business education, such as the founding of the Wharton School of Business, the release of the Carnegie and Ford Reports and the trend towards increased specialization to situate a case study of Dalhousie University’s Faculty of Management.

The authors find that the evolution of business education in North America from its broad, liberal origins towards narrow, specialization has come at a cost to some of the benefits of business and management education. An alternative approach, one reflected in the design of Dalhousie’s Faculty of Management, its programme offerings and its interconnection with other disciplines, enables the advantages of deep disciplinarity to co-exist (and cross-inform) with the advantages of liberal approach to knowledges.

The Dalhousie model offers business schools an example of a faculty that balances the rich insights of liberal interdisciplinarity with the need for sophisticated approaches to more granular, often disciplinary, topics. In addition, the paper offers the story of a multidisciplinary management faculty, some explanation for how that faculty was maintained despite pressures towards specialization; and in doing so, contributes to the limited historical research of management education, particularly in Canada, post-2000.

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.

In this chapter, the authors review talent management in the research university sector, business schools in particular. The authors adopt an “exclusive” perspective on talent management, assuming that some scholars contribute disproportionately to organizational performance. The authors identify two particular groups of scholars likely to be the target of exclusive talent management practices in business schools: (i) faculty on a tenure track career path and (ii) “star” tenured faculty with exceptionally strong track records. Focusing on these current and potential future “stars,” the authors review and discuss talent management practices related to talent identification, recruitment and selection, performance management, talent development, benefits and rewards, and tenure, promotion, and retention. In the extant literature, these topics have been mostly examined in the general university environment and less so in the business school context. This is somewhat problematic given that business schools have their own special characteristics. Moreover, some of the reviewed topics – especially talent development – have received only marginal scholarly interest thus far. Based on this literature review, and by drawing on their own experience working in different roles in academia, the authors highlight some of the gaps in the current body of knowledge and propose an agenda for future research.

The purpose of this paper examines some of the controversies facing business schools in their future evolution and pays particular attention to their competitive positioning as centres of management research.

The paper combines and builds on current literature to provide an analytic overview of the environment and competitive challenges to management research in business schools.

The paper assesses the impacts of a globalized environment and ever‐changing competitive dynamics, for example in terms of the supply of high‐quality faculty, on the activity of management research in business schools. It points out that research impacts must be judged not only in terms of theoretical development but also managerial and policy impact. However, managerial impact is difficult to measure and the “voice of practice” must be carefully identified.

The paper identifies the current challenges for undertaking innovative research in business schools in light of their competitive environment. Three interrelated conjectures focusing particularly on managerial impact are raised which identify problems and limitations of current debates on management research in business schools.

The purpose of this paper is to undertake a survey of the external and internal forces changing the nature of business schools and business education. It aims to investigate how management education responds to increasing productivity, innovation and capability challenges, examine how MBA programs currently meet these demands, and how these courses might redefine their identity and delivery and finally explore how to deepen engagement between business schools and business stakeholders, and to balance the imperatives of relevance and quality.

This is a survey of business schools and business education in the context of evolving educational and industry policy in Australia in response to an increasingly international and competitive economy. The different potential roles and strategies of business schools are examined, and future strategies identified.

The paper finds that management education is facing insistent pressure to change internationally, and that business schools need to become more dynamic, innovative and responsive to succeed.

This survey considers the implications of recent policy on business education and relates this to emerging practice. Further research is required on how innovative pedagogical approaches will deliver more integrated and relevant business education.

The paper defines key business school strategies, and outlines significant new approaches to making business education more innovative, responsive, integrated and engaged.

The paper considers means to more active stakeholder engagement for business schools.

The paper highlights the weaknesses of traditional business education strategy, and reveals the potential for significant change.

It is a particular pleasure and privilege to be invited to address this conference of the Institute of Personnel Management in its Diamond Jubilee Year. It is an additional pleasure that this should take place during my first year in office as Principal of the London Business School, an honour accorded to my predecessor Dr Arthur Earle who spoke to the National Conference in 1965. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since that time. Much has occurred in the field of management education which serves as a backcloth to my main purpose which is to make some attempt to delineate what I believe a business school may contribute to management education.

BUSINESS SCHOOL GRAFFITI is a highly personal and revealing account of the first ten years (1965–1975) at Britain’s University Business Schools. The progress achieved is documented in a whimsical fashion that makes it highly readable. Gordon Wills has been on the inside throughout the decade and has played a leading role in two of the major Schools. Rather than presuming to present anything as pompous as a complete history of what has happened, he recalls his reactions to problems, issues and events as they confronted him and his colleagues. Lord Franks lit a fuse which set a score of Universities and even more Polytechnics alight. There was to be a bold attempt to produce the management talent that the pundits of the mid‐sixties so clearly felt was needed. Buildings, books, teachers who could teach it all, and students to listen and learn were all required for the boom to happen. The decade saw great progress, but also a rapid decline in the relevancy ethic. It saw a rapid withering of interest by many businessmen more accustomed to and certainly desirous of quick results. University Vice Chancellors, theologians and engineers all had to learn to live with the new and often wealthier if less scholarly faculty members who arrived on campus. The Research Councils had to decide how much cake to allow the Business Schools to eat. Most importantly, the author describes the process of search he went through as an individual in evolving a definition of his own subject and how it can best be forwarded in a University environment. It was a process that carried him from Technical College student in Slough to a position as one of the authorities on his subject today.

The spread of entrepreneurial rent seeking (or entrepreneurialism for short) and market-based performance measurement (accreditation, rankings) have transformed many business schools into risk-taking organizations. The establishment of formal risk management activities would represent the fitting counterpart to this development. The purpose of this paper is to examine the state of risk management activities in business schools and evaluates the presence of discrepancies from first-best practices found in the corporate sector.

The data for this study were collected through a structured questionnaire addressed to heads of internationally active business schools in cooperation with a major international accreditation provider. Non-parametric and parametric methods (logistic regression) were used to analyze the formalization of risk management in business schools, in particular the differentiating role of entrepreneurial rent seeking and international accreditation.

Risk management is still in the early stages of formalization compared to the corporate sector. The results indicate that entrepreneurial rent seeking does not encourage the institutional establishment of risk management in business schools, while holding international accreditation has the opposite effect.

Risk management has become a focus area of regulators and accreditation agencies. The rising number of business schools struggling financially also serves as evidence that risk taking is frequently not matched by formal risk management policies (further supported by descriptive statistics of the survey published separately). The largely uncontested statement of the R. Lyons, Dean of the Haas School/Berkeley, that 50 per cent of business schools will disappear within the next five to ten years can only be rationalized in the context of risk not being appropriately addressed by business schools.

The paper represents the first empirical study analyzing risk management practices in business schools. The study design follows the approach commonly employed in the corporate risk management literature to capture the design of the risk management process covering governance aspects as well as approaches to risk identification, risk assessment, risk mitigation and performance controlling.

The author was invited to give the 2011 Inaugural Conference address of the Africa Academy of Management (AFAM). The purpose of this paper is to summarize the remarks of the author's keynote address, so as to make them more widely available to varied audiences and to stimulate research and discussion about the future of African management.

It is a personal story of an African pioneer in African management education, research and practice. The author also shares personal thoughts for building business schools in Africa.

AFAM and its members have a role to play to advance Africa's management, leadership and overall development.

The idea is not for others to replicate the author's journey but to learn from it as they forge their own.