Search results

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 purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the financial models used by business schools, with a specific focus on the cost side of the model.

The paper systematically looks at sources of revenue and areas of expenditure under different business school models.

The paper finds that the faculty model used by many business schools, with the need to devote significant effort to generate academic publications, is very cost intensive and not efficient. The paper suggests that alternative models can be developed which would make business schools more financially sustainable.

While there has been a lot of societal attention paid to sources of income, most notably tuition, very little attention has been paid to the actual use of resources within the business school environment or to alternative models which could be used to deliver high quality education at lower cost.

Given the entitlement and job mobility associated with Generation Y, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the moderating effects of psychological entitlement and tenure on the felt accountability-job satisfaction relationship.

Survey data from a sample of resident assistants were examined using hierarchical moderated regression analysis.

Entitled employees responded to accountability favorably, demonstrating lower job satisfaction than non-entitled employees when accountability was low, but nearly equal levels when accountability was high. All participants reported higher job satisfaction when job tenure was lower, but entitlement-driven satisfaction differences were observed only when accountability was low.

Cross-sectional data warrants longitudinal replication to establish causation and to give insight into how much time must pass before accountability begins to reduce the negative effects of entitlement.

Findings suggest that managerial tactics that increase employees’ felt accountability could reduce the negative impact of psychological entitlement on job attitudes and related outcomes.

Using a unique sample of Generation Y employees, the results provide an indication of how supervisors from earlier generations can improve the workplace attitudes of younger workers.

This paper sets out to examine the affect of rankings on business schools from the perspective of a business school director.

The paper critiques the methodologies of ranking systems, their statistical validity, the factors used, and the weightings given to them.

Rankings are significant drivers of a school's reputation. Good performance can double inquiries and applications and allow schools to charge prestige premiums. Financial Times top decile MBA programmes charge, on average, just below $80,000 for an MBA. Bottom decile schools charge only $37,000.

This paper finds that it is impossible to challenge the criteria set out by a variety of rankings organisations and it is ill‐advised to boycott rankings. Schools are advised to consider which criteria reflect areas needing improvement and to continue “playing the game”.