Search results

To show how companies that address gender diversity issues as business issues, not just as human resources issues, will reap rewards both inside and outside the company. Also, to show how business schools can make a significant contribution toward the understanding of diversity as a business issue.

First, women's corporate managerial roles are examined: the economic and social reasons to focus on gender diversity and the costs of companies’ failure to address diversity issues, specifically, turnover and retention. Next, women's roles as consumers are studied. Finally, women's roles as business students are looked at, specifically, the negative stereotypes reinforced in business school and carried into the workplace. The study concludes with examples of programs developed by Avon Products and Deloitte and Touche, LLP, to address diversity issues.

Provides statistics on women's workforce participation, costs of corporate turnover, women's earned college and graduate degrees. Identifies the key barriers to female career advancement; discusses the role of female consumers and business owners; provides company examples and case studies that illustrate the successful integration of women into academic and corporate life.

Only Stanford and Harvard Business school cases are looked at, although the latter is the largest producer of case studies used in business schools. One of the two longer corporate examples discusses diversity strategies in Avon Mexico which may limit its relevance to other US companies.

Good source for bibliography on corporate and academic diversity. Particularly useful for corporate human resources professionals and women about to enter business school or start their first corporate job. Also useful for researchers/academics writing business school case studies.

Presents a strong case for the retention and development of corporate women as well as the need for business school cases to model behavior and modify negative attitudes toward women in business.

Business schools are increasingly emphasizing diversity in their courses as well as in their student populations. Additionally, most schools pay lip‐service to increasing diversity in their faculty compositions. But how well are business schools meeting the goal of a diverse faculty? The purpose of this research was to examine this issue through the analyses of the results of a survey sent to 71 schools of business across the USA. The survey examined ethnic backgrounds, asking for the number of Caucasians, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian‐Pacific peoples, and American‐Indians on faculties. Gender and the position in the school, i.e. dean, associate dean, director, professional, were also collected. Diversity varied between the positions held by faculty but not by the number of years in administrative positions. Significant differences between public and private schools were not evident based on these variables.

Business school accreditation is currently striving to provide minimum guidelines that all schools must meet, while at the same time allowing for diversity,since schools are not homogeneous in their goals andmissions. The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the long established accrediting body has been criticized for being monolithic in its development and implementation of standards for achieving accreditation. This issue has led to the development of a second accrediting body for business education. The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) was formed in 1988 in part as a reaction to concerns that the standards set by AACSBdid not recognize diversity within the missions of its member schools. The mission issue concerns primarily the role of research and terminal degrees as standards for accreditation. Critics contend that emphasis on research and terminal degree coverage favors the research oriented schools and has limited the number of AACSB member schools that can achieve accreditation. Approximately 280 out of 700 member schools are accredited (Sanford).

Research indicates that high‐performing firms share common components among their mission statements. The present study aims to begin a search for a similar correlation among academic schools of business.

Content and statistical analyses are used to analyze mission statements gathered from nearly all AACSB‐accredited business schools.

Mission statements for AACSB‐accredited schools are less than a page but not extremely short nor memorable. They address multiple stakeholders and usually do not include vision statements, goals or objectives. They often do not reference quality or the AACSB.

The sample was AACSB schools. As such, one should be circumspect in generalizing to other areas of business.

This paper shows deans and other interested stakeholders what an average mission statement for an AACSB school looks like. It also suggests that mission statements do not effectively identify individual universities. In general, mission statements are found to be longer than expected.

Business school deans need to be aware of the mission statements among their competitors in order to make better decisions in writing their own statements. Also, the research lays useful groundwork for those who want to discuss more controversial issues, such as the following: do mission statements differentiate the schools or is each school mission statement so similar to the others that there is little or no value in its expression?

This paper aims to present demographic characteristics and postgraduate employment trends of business doctoral graduates, especially the proportion that are underrepresented minorities (URMs) over time.

The authors analyze the near census of individuals receiving doctoral degrees in a wide range of business disciplines from US-accredited universities from 1973 to 2018 (n = 50,091) contained with the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. The authors analyze how the proportion of URM graduates, by discipline, has changed over time both in terms of receiving a doctoral degree and entering an academic position.

The proportion of URM graduates fluctuated between approximately 5% and 15% annually, steadily increasing across decades. Overall, 64.4% of all graduates entered an academic position, with notably higher rates among whites (72.1%) compared to Blacks (51.8%), Hispanics (60.4%) and other URMs (56.4%) (p < 0.001). In adjusted models, the proportion of URMs that entered academic positions significantly increased overtime, beginning in the 1990s and peaked in the 2000s. Although the few institutions that graduated the highest number of URMs do not currently have an Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-accredited business school, the authors identify several exemplar institutions where URM graduates entered academic jobs at the highest rates.

The authors provide demographic trends that shed light on ways to influence an increase in URM doctoral graduates from business disciplines into academic careers. This discussion is of interest to university administrators and other stakeholders interested in diversity issues in higher education.

The future of higher education for business and management is discussed against the framework providedby the 1959 Gordon‐Howell and Pierson reports, and the 1988 Porter and McKibbin report. In light of the concern for rapid and uncertain environmental change,a model of business school roles in contemporary society ‐ passive provider, participating provider, and pathfinding provider ‐ is presented. Implications forbusiness curricula and faculty are examined. Further attention is given to the needs for greater vertical and horizontal integration of business schools with their external environments. A final caution advises that business schools should seek to respond to future challenges without sacrificing their own identities which are essential to the emergence of true institutional excellence.