Search results

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.

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.

This study aims to identify the strategic leadership and change management used to obtain the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditations as well as the research development on AACSB in the past decade.

This study used a systematic literature review following Petticrew and Roberts’ study. The articles were limited to empirical studies published from 2013 to 2022, taken from the Dimensions AI database.

The findings suggested that two leadership styles were used to obtain AACSB accreditation: dominance-oriented transformational and financial leadership, alongside three traits of academic leaders: commitment, engagement and encouragement. Additionally, three change management models/processes were found in the articles: teaching evaluation framework, temporary isomorphism and authenticity. Finally, they discovered that the object of the studies on AACSB accreditation had been narrowed down from the organizational level to smaller objects consisting of schools’ identity, teaching, learning and business schools’ key players.

As this study only used Dimensions AI, potential articles related to the topic outside the database could not be obtained. Thus, it limits the scope of the findings of this paper.

This study informs academic leaders in business schools about the role of strategic leadership and change management in obtaining AACSB accreditation.

Through a systematic scoping review, this study presented a decade of research development on AACSB in addition to the strategic leadership and change management needed to obtain it.

The 170-year-old Master in Business Administration (MBA) program is becoming obsolete and inefficient to address today's real-world problems, and is facing mounting criticism from business scholars, management deans, and academic scholars alike. Reviewing major criticisms, this chapter suggests a new design for the MBA program that will not only address the criticisms but also accept a paradigm shift that will spearhead it in coming decades. The redesigned MBA “structure” proposes a four-semester full-time program, during which each semester delves into deeper marketplace problems of increasing complexity (i.e., from simple to complex to unstructured to wicked problems) and deals with these problems with new levels of critical thinking skills and ethical reasoning processes tempered by corresponding entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and values. The “content” of the redesigned program is anchored around five major themes of business learning: namely, intrinsic motivation management, creativity and innovation management, productivity management, revenue management, and eco-sustainability management, each geared to generate professional entrepreneurial knowledge, and skills and values urgently needed today. Numerous beneficial features of this newly redesigned integrated business management program (MBA) are also discussed.

This paper aims to find an answer to the questions: To what extent is the implementation of responsible management education (RME) perceived to be adequate for developing responsible leadership skills among business school students? How should it be used effectively to guarantee such an outcome?

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 management educators working at three public business schools. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the collected data.

The findings show that the implementation of RME alone is not adequate to ensure the development of responsible leadership skills among students in business schools. However, management educators do perceive it as a considerable step towards that outcome if accompanied with internship and training opportunities to exercise and observe how social roles and activities are practiced in business, not-for-profit and civil society organisations.

This study is a pioneering attempt to address the relationship between RME and developing responsible leadership skills among students in non-Western business schools.

The study aims to explore and classify the key enablers of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) implementation in business schools.

By applying the Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) approach, it builds a hierarchical model of the identified enablers of AACSB implementation. Additionally, the Fuzzy Matriced Impacts Croises-Multiplication Applique and Classement (FMICMAC) technique is used to classify and determine the influence of these enablers on the implementation of AACSB accreditation.

The paper presents an ISM model of the identified enablers and draws managerial insight from it. Categorization of the key enablers into four groups helps in understanding the relative influence of each group of enablers on the AACSB implementation in business schools.

The proposed model of the key enablers will help business schools that are pursuing AACSB accreditation prioritize the enablers. As the study has considered experts' opinions to establish the model, some amount of bias cannot be discounted.

The development of the ISM model of the key enablers of AACSB implementation in business schools is a unique attempt. The findings will help business schools focus on the key enablers that influence implementation of AACSB standards.