Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the utility of a selection instrument in predicting service and technologically oriented performance in technologically oriented businesses in mainland China and Japan.

Data was collected from 262 employees in mainland China and 236 employees in Japan pertaining to their service and technology orientations with regard to on‐the‐job performance in a high technology management environment. Employees completed a personality‐oriented employment questionnaire that has been previously examined.

Each dimension predicted performance in both samples, although the structures were not consistent across the two countries. In China, the seven dimensions consist of extroversion, emotional stability, the desire to make good impressions on others, conscientiousness, life satisfaction, performance orientation, and helpfulness. In Japan, the seven dimensions consisted of extroversion, emotional stability, the desire to make good impressions on others, conscientiousness, closed mindedness, empathy, and helpfulness. Results from multiple regression analyses suggested that substantially less of the variance in service‐oriented and technologically oriented performance could be explained in China than in Japan.

Researchers and practitioners alike should be careful when applying surveys developed and validated in western countries because they may not measure the same constructs in China. Further, although countries in Asia share physical proximity, their cultures are so diverse that the utility of such assessments may vary substantially from one country to another.

There is a dearth of empirical research examining on‐the‐job performance in China. This paper, however, adds to the literature by examining high technology businesses in China and demonstrating how their internal processes may differ both from western organizations and those in other Asian cultures.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the 2013 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation Standards for both business faculty and their deans who are responsible for implementing these changes.

This paper is a speculative viewpoint on the implications of the 2013 AACSB standards by a set of a co-authors that include AACSB deans who are active in accreditation reviews and serve as mentors to schools in the accreditation process and senior faculty who have written self-studies for AACSB and served as consultants for schools seeking AACSB accreditation internationally.

The implications of the 2013 AACSB business accreditation standards are arguably positive for active scholars holding a relevant doctoral degree. For example, active and engaged scholarly faculty should appreciate the ability to use additional indicators of the impact of their career’s intellectual contributions (IC) including, but not limited to, citations, editor ships, professional leadership positions and other measures of professional esteem.

The implications of the 2013 AACSB accreditation standards for deans are potentially less positive. The new standards codify one of the deans’ major duties – that of ensuring that the faculty have resources adequate to support the school’s mission.

This paper represents a starting point for understanding the implications of the 2013 AACSB accreditation standards, and that as the standards are operationalized over the subsequent years that these standards, like the previous changes in AACSB standards, will stimulate additional research on business school accreditation. The implications for both faculty and deans are speculative, but are grounded both by the literature and experience of the authors. The paper uses a set of tables to illustrate the impact of the new AACSB standards with examples for each guiding principle and standard.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the question of how well business school accreditation bodies manage their own brands. It does so by extending research on business school branding by Pitt et al. (2006) to explore how well business school accreditation organizations such as AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Association of MBAs, and the European Foundation for Management Development Quality Improvement System manage their brands.

An on-line survey of business school deans was conducted during October and November of 2013. SurveyMonkey was used to administer the survey to 1,131 valid e-mail addresses found for the deans of member schools.

Business school deans face complex decisions in terms of marketing. The selection of which accreditation “co-brand” to seek is both strategically relevant to the market position of the business school and has numerous financial and often career implications. The findings in this research suggest that AACSB is perceived by a broad global sample of business school deans to be generally the strongest brand, and therefore likely the best choice if a school is seeking only one accreditation.

This study contributes to the understanding of business school marketing, strategic planning, and branding in a highly competitive global market.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of an exploratory survey designed to measure AACSB member deans’ perceptions about the recently revised 2013 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation Standards. In April of 2013, AACSB International released a major revision of its accreditation standards to better reflect the increased globalization of management education.

The present study surveyed AACSB member school deans via e-mail using SurveyMonkey during October and early November of 2013. A total of 1,131 valid e-mail addresses were found for the deans/heads of member schools (accredited and non-accredited). In total, 259 surveys were completed, resulting in a 23 per cent response rate for member schools with valid e-mails (n = 1,131).

The present study found that the AACSB membership largely perceives that AACSB accreditation is a basic requirement to be a credible and competitive business school, is an indicator of a quality education and is linked to enhancing a business school’s ability to be effective in faculty recruitment and student placement. Even business school’s holding association of MBA (AMBA) and the European Foundation for Management Development’s International Accreditation Program (EQUIS) accreditation seemed to think that AACSB accreditation is a basic requirement to be a competitive business school. The most notable finding of this study is that most deans indicated that they will be able to meet the 2013 standards.

Although at the time of the survey no business school had been subject to review under the new standards, member deans largely felt that the guiding principles and values and the accreditation standards themselves are achievable. In addition, there was widespread agreement that AACSB accreditation is valuable, meaningful and essential in today’s globally competitive environment.