Search results

This article is based on the author’s experience as head of a leading international business school, with strong embedded values in providing the highest level of quality business education within a global perspective. The scope of the article is one of focusing on a global business school, i.e. one which is able to draw on professors and students to come together for teaching and learning in a “global meeting‐place” from all over the world. The article provides the following results, conclusions and recommendations: first, a distinction is made between local business schools, serving typically a national market, regional business schools, typically serving a number of national markets, but within the same language area, and global business schools, typically serving the entire world community. Then the content of a global curriculum is reviewed, and five items are being identified: a strategic competence, a partnership competence, a staffing competence, a learning competence, and an organizational competence. In order to pursue global growth and to develop the capabilities for this, a conceptual model by Chakravarthy and Lorange is then being introduced, where one’s strength will be the starting‐point/basis for further global expansion, either by leveraging one’s capability vis‐à‐vis new markets, or by building a new business by adding new competences to the existing ones, or as a next step by combining the two leveraging and building dimensions into a transform strategy. Four managerial challenges are then being reviewed for the leading global business school, namely the issue of language, the mix of the student body, the degree of internationalization of the teaching and administrative staff, as well as the global marketing challenge. The article concludes with a discussion regarding an optimal location for the global business school. It is argued that perhaps many of today’s leading business schools, being located in major markets, will not have an optimal location, due to the fact that these major markets can more or less explicitly lead to a nationally based bias of the teaching and research being undertaken, i.e. obstructing the globality focus of the business school. A small country location might therefore be preferable.

The purpose of this article is to explore how corporate strategies have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A wide array of literature has been surveyed. Also, several senior executives have been interviewed. And two senior management counterparts have provided inputs. The approach taken is thus exploratory and pre-paradigmatic. This sets the stage for potential empirical investigations.

There seems to be a clear shift towards more web-based inputs regarding the way corporations are executing their strategies. Surprisingly shorter-term strategy implementation seems to be rather effective. More fundamental shifts in strategies, however, seem to depend a lot on executives' abilities to travel, and this have been severely curtailed.

The propositions that are stated in the paper have not been tested empirically. This sets clear limitations regarding generalizability.

It seems important to strengthen firms' capabilities regarding distance-driven strategic execution, as well as strengthened cash flow management.

There seems to be a clear shift towards more nationalization, and a slowing-down of globalization.

While many of the findings might be seen as rather self-evident, there is nevertheless originality in the way that COVID-19's impact on firms' strategies has been analysed.

The strategic planning process has been used and appreciated for many years, and there is a well‐established body of knowledge regarding how this process supports conventional business operations. Little attention, however, has been given in the literature or in practice to what planning activities support business‐creating efforts—the initial stages required for developing new, embryonic businesses. In addition, very little has been said about what specific planning processes would be most appropriate in supporting business activities that have exceptional opportunity for growth, given their positive results in the early experimentation phase. Ideally, innovative business activities, followed by the rapid expansion of successful experiments, will strengthen the core business of the firm. While the classical strategy process can do an adequate job within the context of an established business, different strategic planning processes are required in the early stages of development and rapid expansion. Each of these business contexts requires a strategy process tailored to its unique environment and issues.

Describes a managerial approach for creating or strengthening organizational learning through a “learning partnership”. Outlines and draws on the approach used at the International Institute of Management Development. Proposes that a close relationship of co‐operation must be formed between the corporation and outside learning partners.

If strategic planning systems have failed it is because managers have failed to adapt them to the changed contexts of their businesses. Four distinct contexts are identified: Pioneer, Expand, Reorient, and Dominate. These labels are chosen to indicate the primary challenge for the business unit in each of these contexts. The contexts vary in their risk and in the adaptation and/or integration orientation that they demand of the strategic planning system. Four key elements of the strategic planning system: direction of goal setting, time‐spending patterns in planning, the relative importance of the strategic budget, and the linkage between the financial plan and the budgets, are identified. Each can be manipulated to adapt the system to suit the firm′s business context.

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 highlight how an innovative design might look for a business school of the future.

This is a think‐piece, but draws heavily on the real‐life experience of the Lorange Institute of Business Zurich.

A practical approach is presented for “how to do it” – clear, implementational guidelines regarding the design of the business school of the future.

A new model is put forward in the paper for business schools of the future.

How can studying the case of the modern business school potentially give us a better understanding of the phenomenon of complex collaborations? (Gregoire & Prigogine, 1989; Peak & Frame, 1994; Stacey, 1995). Why does a business school need to enter into complex collaborations? (Lorange, 2000, 2002c, 2003). As a starting position, we should recognize that the activities of the classic business school are generally rather mature. There is fierce competition among business schools, the supply is abundant, and there are only a few established, elite business schools that can be seen as being truly different from the large agglomeration of schools. As such, we can see the business school arena as relatively mature, even atomistic.