to b. or not to b.?: the b. schools under attack—again?

TO B. OR NOT TO B.?: THE B. SCHOOLS UNDER ATTACK-AGAIN? VAN ESCH, SAGEBIEN & MELENCHUK

To B. or Not to B.?: The B. Schools Under Attack- Again?

L. Van Esch J. Sagebien K. Melenchuk Saint Mary's University

Abstract A thorough. ulheir nor eshuitsrive. survey nas cvnducred of the current

lirerutiire on unrldu-ide niegurrends. rhe impact of these trends on the business toninirotity. mid the abi l iu of cwrrent business educurion programs to educure future munugers. The puper sumniurizes the research findings und rhe tieus of business Ieuders. futurists, und ucudeniics. The key cnncern is lo understund why. in spire of se1.er.d decades of srridenr calls&)r inimediute chmge, the necessury (even rhough radical) changes have nor occurred. The puper discusses some of the ohsracles ro change and offers some implicarions to educutors.

Rhumb On u fuir un esumen upprofnndi. suns toutefois Fire e.vhuustif, de lo

littirarure actirelle portunt sur Ies i-ugues de fond qui sec'oiient la plunkte. des consiquences de ces tendunces sur Ies enrreprises er sur la capuciri des programmes en sciences udniinisrrutives prisentement en vigueur de former Ies cudres de I'uvenir: Cer urricle conrienr un risumi des risulrars de lo recherche. les npinions de chefs denrreprise. de fururolngues er d universituires. La question de fond esr de comprendre pnurquoi. apr3s rani d'annies dappels incessanrs a des changemenis urgenis. les mndijicarions nicessaires, tout en admertunt qu'elles soienr radicales. ne se snnr roujours pus produites. On trnuve duns cer urricle une discussion sur quelques-uns des obsrucles au chungenient et quelques iniplicurions pour Ies iducareior.

WORLD MEGA-TRENDS: THE NEED FOR CHANGE

The world is undergoing a radical social and economic transformation. Change is occurring at an unprecedented rate: the world's markets show little growth, North America's leadership position is declining, there is little or no growth in domestic productivity, an information-based economy has emerged, and new power blocs are being formed. The rules have changed; the odds are no longer stacked in favor of the Western economies.

Although the last half century has brought an era of unprecedented growth, particularly for the industrialized countries and the NICs, some of the side effects of this growth are far from desirable and actually threaten the basis of any future growth. The short-sightedness of the pre- viously sovereign economic values (growth, material prog- ress, efficiency, productivity) is recognized-the issue debated by the experts is not the likelihood of a financial collapse or an environmental crisis, but the timing, extent, and ramifications of each.

While only yesterday business was "admired and feted," now "big business and moneyrnen-" whose greed and shortsighted management are held responsible for pollution, commercial over-development, unemployment, protection- ism, etc.- are being "villified" (The Economist, 1989a). On the other hand, small firms, which are seen as embodying human values (personal fEedom, independence, morality), escape criticism and the datsu-sara (the corporate runaway, who drops out in order to do his own thing) is actually viewed with affection (ibid).

In order to survive in this volatile environment, corporations must adapt quickly and "accurately." The world's larger corporations seem to face a classic prisoner's di- lemma. Research on biological systems, from bacteria to the most complex societies, from World War I soldiers to vam- pire bats, shows that in a zero-sum game in a closed system co-operation eventually emerges because only co-operation works in the long run (Axelrod, 1984; Warsh, 1988). Never- theless, "lean, mean and beating the hell out of the Japanese" (Spence, 1989) has remained the battle cry of North Ameri- can corporations.

Change requires a model which can describe the "ideal" state, a strategy designed to achieve this state, and agents that can bring about the change. As the training ground for future managers, the business schools are entrusted with the task of providing the right set of skills and abilities to meet these challenges. The business schools' critics have by and large provided visionary models, powerful strategies, and realistic tactical prescriptions for these agents of change. There is little evidence of action. Many of the obstacles are obvious- vested interests of the faculty and the business com- munity, lack of funds, incentive systems that work against new approaches, and so on. Others are not so obvious. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to wait- a general call for praxis is needed.

WHAT ARE THE QUALITIES NEEDED IN FUTURE MANAGERS?

Current management wisdom is being called into question. None of its tools-basic accounting practices, patterns

RCSA I CJAS 21 MARS / MARCH 1990

TO B . OR NOT TO B.?: THE B. SCHOOLS UNDER ATTACK-AGAIN? VAN ESCH, SAGEBIEN & MELENCHUK

of organization, formulation ofstrategy, or work forcecare- can cope with the new rate of change. Having in fact been carefully honed to deal with stability, "our so-recently tried- and-true management tools are, arguably, worthless, many downright dangerous." (Peters, 1989. p. 19). As important decisions are increasingly made by "workers" organizational structures are becoming flatter: the role of top management has changed from "bosses" to "leaders"-not narrow "technocrats," and perhaps not even "managers" (Drucker, 1989a; Mintzberg, 1989).

A whole new array of leadership requirements is called for: the capacity to manage and live with continuous change and turmoil; the ability to continuously assess and adjust resources, technologies, organizational structures, and people to reflect simultaneously a centralized view of strategy and a localized view of customers and cultures; a global outlook, with a heightened awareness of strategic marketing and a competitiveness which is "close to the customer"; and skills and capabilities to lead teams in flexible and respon- sive ways (Rhinesmith et al, 1989, p.34). Clearly, future managers also need a sense of human and environmental stewardship.

CAN THE BUSINESS SCHOOLS DELIVER? - PAST AND CURRENT CRITICISMS

Since their inception, business schools have been almost continuously under attack. However, the old criticisms were directed simply at their practical focus and their standards, while "the new criticisms blame graduate business education for failures of American management, ...[ for being] too academic, too technical, and too narrow ... to prepare the kind of leaders crucially needed in an economy under stress" (Cheit, 1985, p. 47).

Current business programs (in their broadest sense, the interaction between corporations, university administrators, faculty, and students) are considered incapable of producing the qualities desired (some think required) in future managers and leaders. In the 19SOs, Sputnik highlighted the defi- ciencies in the North American science and technology curriculum. In the 1980s, North American industry's wors- ening competitive position (particularly vis-a-vis Japan) has been reductionistically attributed to management problems, which in turn have been attributed to shortcomings in business education. Blaming the business schools results in part from the traditional liberal-education paradigm which pre- supposes that whatever the problem, education is the answer. Thus it is perhaps no surprise that business schools are the whipping boys. Rightly or not, however, in the search for causes and for solutions, "the buck stops here."

Leaving aside the issue of whether business education is a scapegoat or a culprit, that there are shortcomings in current business education is not disputed. More or less continuously since the late sixties, a list of critics, certainly not "outsiders" and certainly not subversives, have reiterated roughly the same themes. The major critics, and theircriticisms, are well known: Ashen (1969), Behrman and Levin (1984), Cheit (1985), Dill (1989), Drucker (1968, 1988, 1989), Maher (1989), Hayes and Abernathy (1980), Livingston (1971 1, Meek, Woodworth and Dyer (1988), Mintzberg (1975,

1989). Peters and Waterman (1982), Porter and McKibbin (1988), and Simon (1967). In fact, after re-reading the literature of the past two decades, the only question is: "How many prophets does it take'?"

Throughout this literature, the same criticisms recur with remarkable consistency. Many revolve around the business schools' "false, shallow concept of managers" (Cheit, 1985), which has promoted analytic detachment and short-term cost-cutting over long-term investment. Cheit's ( 1985) summary of these criticisms is that the schools emphasize the wrong model, ignore important work, fail to meet society's needs, and foster undesirable attitudes. Porter and McKibbin (1988) also conclude that there are insufficient emphases on "vision," integration, and ethics. Mintzberg (1989) has even more radical criticisms-that the wrong people teach the wrong things, to the wrong people, at the wrong time.

Not surprisingly, the recommendations are also remark- ably consistent and do not need to be repeated here in great detail. A summary of the recommendations includes more breadth in the curriculum by integrating liberal arts courses; more integration between functional areas, including pro- duction; technological literacy; effective social and commu- nication skills; focus on visionary, entrepreneurial, and strategic thinking; emphasis on leadership rather than management; greater exposure to the real world of business, including the socio-political and international environments: implementation skills; sensitivity to ethics, and values; and life-long learning.

As professional schools, business schools must serve the needs of corporations. But doing this job well does not mean merely serving the current parochial needs of the private sector, even when pressured by the private sector as primary consumer of prospective employees or, increasingly, as benefactor. As part of Academe, business schools must also serve the needs of society-advancing the boundaries of knowledge and developing society's human capital. A complex balancing act is required-practical relevance must be achieved without "abandoning all scholarly values in a vain search for packaged ideas to relieve companies' short term management pains" (Fleet, 1984, p. 9). Ironically, in fact, it is in a return to the objectives of the liberal arts education that a solution to the current crisis is being sought.

However, despite these continuous pleas for substantial changes, despite rapid growth in business school enrolment, despite the increased involvement of governments and corporations in business-school curricula, nothing much has happened. The occasional "integrative" course has been added to the first or last year of the program; the odd course in ethics has been grafted into the program; the old "business-and-society'' or "business-and-the-changing-environment" course has been resurrected; the debate over the liberal arts component has heated up. There are some bright spots. Harvard Business School has been given close to $30 million to "address the need for more work on values, ethics and character" (Dill, 1989, p.57). And many schools have initi- ated curriculum reviews. But for most schools, it's still pretty much business as usual.

RCSA I CJAS 22 MARS / MARCH I990

TO B. OR NOT TO B.!: THE B. SCHOOLS UNDER ATTACK-AGAIN? VAN ESCH, SAGEBIEN & MELENCHUK

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES TO CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS SCHOOLS?

Since so little has been done, the obstacles to change must somehow be embedded in the system itself, either in the agents of change or in the nature and magnitude of the required change.

ARE THE AGENTS OF CHANGE THE OBSTACLES TO CHANGE?

Real change in the business schools must be championed by both the corporations and the schools themselves. Each seems to be waiting for the other to make the first move. The unrealistic expectations of the business students and of the "average individual" only compound the problem The Corporations: Drones, Clones and Commitments

Corporations are agents of change in business schools in their roles of advisors, trustees, and recruiters. To some extent, corporations (mostly American) are themselves obstacles to business school change. Initially, many did not believe (or did not want to believe) that there was a problem. For some this is still true-they expect to adapt successfully to the megatrends discussed earlier.

Those who were convinced that there was a problem saw three alternatives: ( I ) do nothing, but continue to watch the short-term bottom line (even though this is likely to be the most common approach. there is virtually no encouragement for it in the literature); (2) look for "quick fixes" (Campbell, 1989), what Ohmae called "the Marco Polo syndrome" where, "Western management gurus ... look at a Japanese company and see that they raise the flag every morning. 'We don't do that', they say, 'so that must be it."' (p. 48); or (3) truly commit to "managing the present from the future'' (Smits, 1989, p.66). True commitment to the future would require changes in both "technology and innovation" (Ab- bott, 1988; Chambers, 1988) and "people and quality" (Druc- ker, 1988; Peters et al, 1982. 1985).

However, regardless of the alternative preferred by upper management, many corporate recruiters are still hiring drones and clones. At the entry level, for instance, the Cor- porate-Higher Education Forum Task Force found that Ca- nadian business has only paid lip service to the internationalization of management: while "CEO's generally favor international business skills in entry-level hiring cri- teria and claim to value well-educated liberal arts graduates with foreign language competence, human resource managers usually demand immediate and specific functional skills" (1988, p.2; Steier et al, 1989, p.143). At senior levels, "in their fear of bringing a 'weirdo' to Milwaukee, recruiters often end up with younger versions of the pinstriped policy- makers they already have." (Berhman & Levin, 1984, p. 146). And, in spite of all the hoopla, there still seems to be a "glass ceiling" for women executives, minorities, and in- trapreneurs. Until schools and students see visible evidence that corporations are not only hiring but also promoting "weirdos," they cannot afford to make much more than a comparably token commitment.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the need for more humane organizations in order to improve produc-

tivity and quality of service, the business literature is replete with examples of the juxtaposition of social and bottom-line goals, as if they worked in opposition. In a recent conference sponsored by the National Centre for Management Research and Development, on the topic "What is Needed in Women in Management Research," Louise Cannon, Senior Vice President at the Bank of Nova Scotia, and Joy Bollen, Vice President of Human Resources and Corporate Services at Imperial Life, agreed that corporations are looking for bottom-line results, and will only make changes-such as providing day care or flex time-if such changes can be shown to be cost-effective. "Because a program is socially 'good' is not enough from a corporate perspective." said Cannon- "anything seen as socially-motivated only, without cost-ben- efit, will be cut." (NCMRD, 1989) Since cost-cutting as a means to increase profit is a finite tactic, how, one might ask, is the bottom line to be improved, if not by creating a more productive environment, by addressing, among other things, employees'needs? The conference also highlighted the trend for "leaner and meaner" corporations-hardly the visionary, humanistic organizations that are being called for!

There are some signs worthy ofoptimism. I n the U.S., the larger corporations are spending ever-increasing proportions of their human resources budgets on employee/management education. In addition, some corporations are sending senior managers to seminars such as those conducted by The Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, which are designed to help executives develop an appreciation of their personal and institutional value systems, as well as of others' value systems, on the understanding that "value considerations are the basis for most significant decision making." (Slater, 1984, p. 39) However, some corporations' willingness to invest heavily in in-house training of managers does not lessen business schools' responsibility-it only highlights what is in turn expected of the schools. The Schools: Whose Move Is It?

Administration In their capacity as professional schools, business schools

tend to be conservative. Like students intent merely on employment and casting about for "what business wants," many schools are waiting for demonstrable changes in corporate cultures as their own cue to change.

The prudence of this conservative "wait and see" approach is highly questionable. In their report on the state of business education, Porter-McKibbin delivered a short sim- ple message:

"Success in management education has bred compla- cency, an indifference to strategic planning, and a propensity to copy rather than to innovate and take risks. What the world needs is responsiveness, variety and quality. Since no one can predict the right formula for tomorrow's management education, prudence lies in diversity of approach. Schools need to heed their own best teaching on market analysis, strategic planning, organizational design and entrepreneurship. Each must search and gamble more to develop a unique identity and to internalize institutional flexibil- ity. Rather than following the leaders, schools-on-the-

RCSA I CJAS 23 MARS 1 MARCH 1990


make must risk being different. Innovation should be the watchword." (Dill, 1989, p.55) Porter-McKibbin's conclusions and recommendations

are not new. A host of critics has been calling for essentially the same reforms. But, as Dill (1989) discovered, agreement with the rationale for change does not necessarily result in any actual change. Dill conducted a random survey of business school deans several months after publication of the Porter-McKibbin report to assess its impact. The results were anything but encouraging: only a minority of the deans had read more than the executive summary, and only a few more planned to; fewer than 20% reported formal plans to review the report with their faculties: another 20% described the recommendations as too far-fetched or too expensive to consider. More than one said that they could not even afford to discuss the report with their faculty because budgets were too tight to encourage experiments.

Change in most academic institutions is difficult. Among the host of factors complicating curricular decisions are the absence of a single final authority; the fact that participants in a decision. and even the key decision makers, often do not know what the real issues are; and the tendency to protect turfs (which is often disguised as concern for rigor), rather than addressing the overall education of the whole student (Caballero, 1986). High walls between departments and faculties and conflicting priorities also make change difficult to inspire and to orchestrate (Dill 1989, p.56).

Compounding this problem, the bold, innovative changes and the experimentation required come at a time of very deep funding cuts. Universities do have "other priorities to juggle" (Dill, 1989) and a history of oiling the squeaky wheel. That the business school has historically been the cash cow only adds to the difficulty.

Given all these constraints, how can administrators foster the required changes? Behrman and Levin offer a few sug- gestions:

"Asking senior, tenured faculty and junior, nontenured faculty to help visualize and generate a strategic change of direction requires a dean who has intemal- ized what an excellent business school is, who can engender maximum trust, lead by example, and per- suade or support his or her faculty in undertaking the personal changes and risks required for turnaround. ... [He or she] must lead and explain the new vision so that others are attracted and become dedicated to it. Of all these qualities, trust in equitable treatment will generate and retain the strongest following of risk-tak- ers. ... [He or she] must also offer appropriate rewards to direct the thrust of research away from narrow concerns, ... and shift authority and responsibility from disciplines (departments or areas) to program direc- tors." (1 984, p. 146) Sadly though, the same shortage of dynamic leaders and

risk-taking product champions that characterize the corporate world is also evident inside the schools.

It is only from perhaps painful, but undoubtedly exciting, soul-searching that the next steps can emerge. Hopefully, however, as Gordon and Howell's and Pierson's studies did in 19.59, current studies will "identify the irrelevancies and

.._ shift the bases of power inside [or between] universities toward people who want change, ... because those [universities] that don't, will fall behind." (Howell, 1984, p. 2)

The Faculty The responsiveness of business schools also depends on

faculty members, who have diverse views. Apparently, many faculty members are unimpressed by

the criticism being directed at the schools (Cheit, 1985, p.57). Some think that Porter-McKibbin gave too much credence to business people who do not themselves understand the challenges that lie ahead (Dill, 1989, p. 56). Some are convinced that business schools should simply produce technical specialists because there is a demand for them (Rosett, 1983). Some think that leadership identification and development is best done on the job, that some specialists just naturally become leaders (ibid).

Nevertheless, most faculty members do agree that change is necessary. In terms of the nature and the extent of the change itself, in most schools the views fall between two extremes one which thinks that all that is needed is a bit of "tinkering" at the course level, leaving the composition of the student body intact, and the other which thinks that management education should be reserved for proven managers who have already demonstrated leadership potential (Mintzberg, 1989, among others).

Some critics do not think that the present faculty are the right people for the job (Mintzberg, 1989). Consider Behr- man and Levin's indictment of the faculty as individuals "who had never succeeded in business, but who could tinker, both mathematically and behaviorally (and often on irrelevant databases) with significant problems and who often deluded themselves and others into believing that they had actually found a solution" (1984, p. 143); and who, because their position in the world was determined by measurable research output, "applied their new sciences to unreal problems," producing research that was irrelevant to the serious policy issues management faces. Since even the new Ph.D. recruits appear to be "running from the responsible, risk-taking, externally-focused, multidimensional, and high achievement arena of corporate life toward a more sheltered risk-free existence" (p. 144), presumably in imitation of their mentors, there is no reason to assume that the problem will simply go away.

To develop a capable faculty, schools must groom current and future faculty members into the dynamic leaders and visionaries they propose to teach. This will require encouragement and support (and probably an overhaul of the pub- lish-or-perish system) as faculty members upgrade their expertise in areas other than their main interests, build experience in business (at home and abroad), and develop new teaching skills. In addition, recruiting more widely would encourage creative debate and foster new insights.

Students Some of the obstacles to change lie in the quality of the

entering students, their reasons for wanting business degrees, their expectations of their future careers, and their compre- hension of "leadership" and "social responsibility".

Who enrnlls in a business program? Enrollment demand continues to grow as students shift toward professional and

RCSA I CJAS 24 MARS I MARCH 1990


career-oriented disciplines with more direct employment opportunities. In the US . , upwards of 26% of freshmen choose business (Caballero & Dickinson, 1984). In Canada, the figure is half that-l2% in 1980 (SSHRC), perhaps because of quotas and entrance requirements.

There is growing dismay over "significant erosion" in public-school education (e.g., see Finn, 1987). In the U.S., SAT and GRE scores have steadily slipped: from 1963 to 1980, average verbal SAT scores fell 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points (Carlisle, 1988). No wonder statements like "few contend that Amer- ican education has deteriorated to the point that it produces only illiterates" (Finn, 1987, p. 63) and "the average Ameri- can graduates from high school with the knowledge and skills of the Japanese ninth grader" (Rohlen, 1987, p.42) abound. Canada is, of course, no different. The 1987 Southam Newspaper survey found that 17% of high school graduates were functionally illiterate-even more startling, 13% of university dropouts and 8% of university graduates were illiterate! (Maynard, 1989) Thus, at a time when the expectations of the output are at an all-time high, the capabilities of the input are steadily tracking downward.

Because of fundamental misconceptions about careers in business, business schools may not be attracting the best future-leader material. Students in the humanities and the social sciences do seem to be more critical, more involved, more issues- and values-conscious, and more open to intro- spection. In fact, some corporations have moved back to recruiting general B.A.'s rather than B.Comm.'s.

Why do they enroll.7 The main reason given by entering students-up to 90% of MBA's (Arbuckle,l984, p.25)-is not an overriding interest in the subject matter, but a belief that the degree enhances the chances of finding a good job after graduation (Maher 1989, p. 37). The business press is largely to blame. For example, Forbes describes the MBA as "second in esteem only to the coveted Doctor of Medicine as a passport to the good life." (Cheit, 1985, p.46) This is perhaps why students are willing to subject themselves to four (undergraduate) or two (MBA) years of drudgery and number-crunching. But is self-selection of individuals intent only on the good life appropriate? Or, for that matter, are the schools really delivering?

Compounding the self-selection problem, "students, and business students especially, tend to be conservative about their educations" (Slater, 1984, p. 41), in part due to concern that their education immediately translate into job opportunities. They "want to learn what has worked, not what might, and [they] are bound to be skeptical about giving up precious class time for studies that are imprecise, speculative, and futuristic." (Ibid) In this regard, students do seem to be quite realistic in their assessment of the preference of corporate recruiters for technocrats rather than humanistic managers. "Fortunately, business students are also pragmatic. Once convinced of inherent value, they quickly become willing adherents." (Ibid) Even in this case, though, students' con- victions of the value of a more humanist approach have an external locus of control-i.e. what they perceive upper management might expect from them as future managers- rather than an appreciation of their own interests and poten- tials.

At-e their e.ipcctution.s in line ~ Y t h reulit!;) Most business students' expectations of the world in which they are going to live, and the careers they are going to pursue, are not realistic. Most undergraduates and many MBA's do not have any clear idea of the types of "good jobs" available to them, let alone which of those jobs would interest them more. Hodgson ( 1989) describes a "breathtaking uniformity" in the futures and the careerpatterns envisaged by 145 senior MBA students in his career management course. (While the sample may be biased, Hodgson found the picture to be consistent with that portrayed by 2900 pieces of written work relating to career management.) Almost 95%' saw themselves first obtaining conventional employment, not out of any particu- lar interest or commitment, but to earn money, generate more net worth, and get experience. They expected their employment to offer them interesting work, supportive bosses, stimulating colleagues, and a balanced life. In the foreseeable future they would eventually own and manage their own successful busine And, despite the widely anticipated decline in the standard of living, all expected to live very well. As far as the future is concerned, one thing is certain- today's students are likely to be disappointed.

What is their uttitude to the sociul responsibility of' leud- er-ship? In addition to their naivete, students' attitudes about social responsibility are alarming. When asked to think about their careers in relation to issues critical to the 21 st century, Hodgson's (1989) students simply ducked the issue-the real make-or-break issues facing mankind in the immediate future were seen as unsolvable, as solving themselves, or as being solved by others. Hodgson's conclusion bears repeat- ing: "Whatever else my students become, they will not become the leaders of their generation. Instead, they will become part of the problem." (p.8)

Hodgson also asked his students what their career would be if their vocation and avocation were one: "Many did not know what an avocation is. When the question was ex- plained, most lost interest in both the question and the answer... Yet most expect and demand significant job satis- faction and self-actualization from their work." (p.8) Hodg- son noted that students were unprepared to take the necessary effort and risk to bring self-actualization into their work, and instead expected it to come from outside (in terms of variety and challenge in the work, and supportive and stimulating bosses and colleagues). This is even more optimistic than our own experience. Our MBA students, although demanding "self-actualization"-in fact, many think that they are already self-actualized!-have little or no experience of the "self" they expect to actualize and no inclination to explore it. Hodgson's findings bring to mind Cheit's fourth criticism of the business schools: they "encourage a variety of undesirable personal characteristics in students, including unrealistic expectations, job hopping and disloyalty:" (1985, p. 51)

What do they think is e,xpecteu' of them? Dimick (1989) examined the influence of organizational roles on choice behaviour in a situation where financial outcomes (sales/profits) and public safety were in apparent conflict. In a repeated-measures design, with order of questions counter- balanced, MBA students were asked (a) what they personally would do, (b) what they would do if they were the presi-

RCS.4 i CJAS 25 MARS / MARCH 1990


dentboard member/consultant. or (c ) what they predicted the actual presidentboard member/consultant would do. Students' personal preferences were much more sensitive to public safety than were their in-role decisions, which in turn were markedly more sensitive to public safety than were their predictions of the actions of real incumbents. Thus "in situations where there is a contlict between public safety and the economic interests ofthe organization. MBAstudents see their personal values as different from the values they perceive as controlling the decisions ofexecutives, consultants, and boards." (p. 64) Even more importantly, in role-playing situations at least, they were willing tocompromise their own values. Given this, Hodgson's (1989) final observation was not surprising: "When asked to describe incidents in which they felt particularly worthy or strong, many [students] described situations in which they acted with deep caring and genuine compassion. Yet, when asked to analyse their own values, these [same] incidents were subordinated or were re-interpreted as instances of personal goal-setting and achievement." (p.8) Ironically, the students seemed to feel they should sublimate their best instincts to the goal-setting, results-oriented, achievement focus of contemporary business culture.

Citizens / Society at Large In defense of business students, their attitudes in large part

merely retlect the tnedia, the prevailing culture and what they perceive to be the expectations about their careers, their standard of living, and their future roles as managers.

For instance, Ahmed and Jabaes (1988) found significant differences in the values of business students in France and in English Canada. French students were significantly more negative towards business and placed a greater value on spiritual and society-oriented outcomes. English Canadians, on the other hand, "emphasized personal and materialistic end states and took a pragmatic, self-oriented approach to life." (p. 55) The results "clearly supported the individualis- tic, [status- and] achievement-oriented motivation of English Canadians as opposed to the group-oriented, socially-in- spired orientation of (the) French." (p. 51)

Business students are not alone in their unrealistic expectations of the future. The current generation of North Ameri- cans cannot hope to be "better off ' than their parents, and will therefore have to learn how to "live with less." Dholakia's (1984) research on the effect of the changing economic environment on consumption values in the U.S. showed that adherence to the "American Dream" (defined as the ability to purchase a well-furnished home and two cars, to travel, and to belong to local clubs) persisted despite failure to achieve it (measured in part by ownership of the "ideal home"). "The changing economic environment has threatened major aspects of the American Dream. However, the threats have negatively affected the Dream rather than the aspirations for it. This discrepancy between objective and subjective reality continues to persist." (p.41) Dholakia points to "involuntary simplicity" as a painful and disap- pointing adaptive process which will be required of the average citizen.

When the expectations of business students are examined in this context, it is clear that the obvious gap between subjective and objective reality must be addressed by all

North Americanc. The values of our society-particularly our consumption value\ and the guarantee of achieving the "good life"-must be redefined in order to fit with the new realities.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS?

Albeit slowly, some change is occurring in the universities. But grafting humanities and ethics courses into the business curriculum is, frankly, not enough. Business aca- demics must reconsider the purposes of education, acknowledge the shortcomings in the system and in our training as educators, and assume personal responsibility for bringing about change.

Education has two fundamental purposes: to acculturate the next generation (i.e., to transmit society's shared system of meanings, its acquired skills, and its "truths") and to discipline students' natural curiosity. In other words, our objective is to provide students with the background knowledge and the modes of [nquiry that will enable them to identify and explore the critical issues they will face. As educators, we have generally focused on the transmittal of knowledge ("skills" and "truths"), all too often at the expense of students' natural curiosity. "The great end of education is to discipline rather than to furnish the mind; to train it to the use of its own powers, rather than fill it with the accumulation of others" (Tyrone Edwards), and "the greatest challenges facing both the arts and education are how to navigate the perilous course between adventure and discipline, how to respond to tradition without either rejecting it or becoming its slave," (Robert W. Corrigan) quoted in the Touche Ross Report on Business Education (1984). Our job is to turn the lights on, not arrange the furniture! Nor even give to them our second-hand furniture because they don't have any!

We must meet the challenge of "real education". We must help students to develop a natural and life long curiosity for knowledge, to re-discover their own creativity, to identify their preferred ways of learning/thinking, to develop a sense of ethical judgement and moral reasoning, and to understand all of the contextual issues of the "global village." Admit- tedly, "context raises messy and complex questions, ones difficult for students (and instructors) to deal with, but difficulty negates neither their presence in the decision-making process nor their substantive relevance." (Chambers, 1988.

As scientists, we have internalized that tradition's very good methods of investigating the smaller problems. But we do not have very good methods of investigating the really big ones. Thus, to some extent, we grow and control mi- crobes in petri dishes (case analysis and "research"), but are terrified of dealing directly with the diseased patient (the "real world"), perhaps for fear of contagion by "messy" issues; hence we are incapable of offering real solutions that can restore health. Our inability to deal with the "big/messy problems" is then passed on to managers: "businessmen throughout most of their history, and particularly during the last forty years, have proven incapable of understanding adequately the economic and political requirements of the socio-economic system upon whose political stability and

p. 25)

RCSA I CJAS 26 MARS 1 MARCH I990

ro B. OR NOTTO B.?: THE B. SCHOOLS UNDER ATTACK-AGAIN? VAN ESCH, SAGEBIEN & MELENCHUK

economic growth their own social existence rests." (Yogel, 1974, p.74) And now the results of our inability to deal with the big problems threaten the future of our environment and, some think, the future of humanity itself. Ironically, people who have had no training in how to teach, and who may in fact be part of the problem, now find themselves called upon to teach the people who will be part of the solution.

RECOMMENDATIONS: What, Then, Must We Do?

In our search for solutions, we must not fall prey to the "quick fix" mentality of the paperback management gurus. A "one-minute'' business-school manager's solution would only compound the problem. "The triumph of the twentieth century is that it has purged itself of certainty. ... There are still mysteries, which means that there must always be hesi- tation. " (The Economist, 1989b, p. 14) On the contrary, we must come to terms with the realities of our time. We face complex issues that require genuine commitment, persever- ance, creativity, and time.

First, we must acknowledge that there are problems and that they are not going to go away. In every school the self-questioning process, "What business should we be in?" has already begun. However, we are all looking about anx- iously for help, waiting for someone "outside" or "higher up" to make the first move. As the review of the "agents as obstacles" showed, that is not going to happen. Collectively and individually, we must take responsibility for spearhead- ing the change.

Second, we must address the obstacles presented by each of the-agents of change. For instance, those presently in power corporate executives, administrators, and the faculty-should embark upon a process of self-reflection and examination, in order to identify their value systems and "entrapping metaphors" (Morgan, 1980). The Executive Seminars offered by the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Stud- ies in Colorado offer an example:

The Executive Seminars are "designed with the belief that value considerations are the basis for most significant decision making. And to be effective, a manager must be conscious of this. ... It gives executives in mid-career an opportunity to step back from their highly structured work environment and focus on their personal and institutional value systems, as well as the value systems of others. ... Values cannot, of course, be taught to adults and it would be both presumptuous and pointless to try, but adults can be sensitized to the important fact that values influence behavior." (Slater, 1984, p. 39) Third, we must begin the trial and error process that will

bring about a new educational approach. Rather than merely adding "remedial" courses in business and society, ethics, etc., the whole system must be infused with the moral dis- course that can incorporate ethical, environmental and soci- etal concerns.

As teachers, we must orient to the future instead of to the past. From this perspective, student apathy is not a failing in them. It is a sign that we have not acknowledged the real issues. The university should not be a sterile environment of

canned lectures (where "I came to every class, I sat in the front row, 1 took good notes" merits a B) and worn-out discussions. A university should be driven by burning questions and idle curiosity. Then, students will "have places to put" all of the things they are learning, true creativity can emerge, and educators will no longer have to motivate and entertain in order to inform. As a bonus, focusing on today's questions rather than yesterday's answers will also cut out all of the non-education that comes from our being secretly afraid that they may find out that we do not know everything. More importantly, i t will add relevance and reality and hence hope!-to the process.

We must also bring "context" back into problem-solving. Our attempts to excise bits of "the real world" and bring them into the classroom f9r scrutiny and, more to the point, for students to practice decision-makin+.g., in illustrative examples, case analyses, computer games / simulations, etc.- have in some ways backfired. Students, and even corporate managers, come to view complex decisions as "games." Often, they have no appreciation that their decisions will affect other peoples' lives, their families' lives, whole com- munities, and sometimes even entire countries and economies. Similarly, they often fail to appreciate the impact of their decisions on the environment, on other corporations, on the future of their own corporation, and so on. Not only must they be able to deal with these complex issues when they are confronted with them, but they must also know to ask those questions in the first place. As educators, we have to help future decision makers to perceive both the context and the consequences of their decisions.

In conclusion, we must prepare students to assume leadership. We must introduce them to a variety of viewpoints and sources of information (Benton, 1985) and require them to decide which approach or interpretation best suits the problem at hand. Only by acknowledging their intelligence and their fundamental resourcefulness can we empower them to carry on.

REFERENCES Abbott. M. ( 1988) "The Need for Education in Management of Technology in Canada"

Management Edircarion and Devclopnienr, Vol. 9 (10). Administrative Sciences Awxidt ion of Canada, 4-1 3.

Ahmed, S. A. and Jdbaes, J . (1988) "Comparative Study of Job Values of Business Students in France and English Canada" Cnnadiori ./our-nu/ of Adniini.stm/lii,e Scien<,e. (June). 5 1-59.

Applegate, L. M.. Cash, J . I . and Quinn Mills. D. ( I 988) "Information Technology and Tomorrow's Manager" HurvardBu.uiirss Rei,im,. (November-December), 128- 136.

Arbuckle, E. (1984) "The M.B.A. Today - A U.S. Perspective." GJiKhe Ross Repor-t U I I BiisinrJs Edriiarioir. New York: Touche Ross. 25-26

Ashen, M. (1969) "The Management of Ideas" Harvurd Business R<webv, (July/August), 99-107.

Axelrod, R. ( 1984) The Einlrition ofCooperufron. New York Basic Books. Behrman, J . N. and Levin, R. 1. (1984) "Are business schools doing their job'!" Howaid

Benton, R. ( 1985) "Micro Bias and Macro Prejudice in the Teaching of Marketing"

Brundtland. G. (1987) Our Comniori Firtiire: The World Conimissioti on Eni.ironnienr and Dei~elopnient. New York: Oxford University Press.

Caballero, M. and Dickinson, R. (1986) "Four-year Undergraduate Business Administration" Journal oftdircufion tor Bminrss. (May), 354-359.

Canadian Federation of Deans (1983) "Management: The Enabling Resource"-Tlrc Row1 Commission ori the Ecorionrii' Utiron und Dei,dopmcrit P ~ ( J . s / J ~ ~ ~ . s , (December).

Bir.srii~ss R e r w ~ ' . (Janualy-February). 142- 147.

JoiIr-Ilu/ ~J~Mic,nmu~hct l lrg. 5 , 43-58.

RCSA i CJAS 21 MARS / MARCH 1990


Cainphell. K. ( l Y X 9 ) "What We Still Mipht Lenm from the Japanese" in M u i i ~ t , q ~ ~ i i i i ' i i r

€ h i ( u t i o i i t i i t ( / /hi i ~ / ( ~ p i t ? i i t , Vol.'). Pdrt 111. Admini\trativc Science\ As\ociatioii 01 C~ln;ldn. 46-55.

Carli \k E.R. ( I Y X X ) "Edi icat in~ for the Future" Plu i i i i i i iq mil Cli i r i tq i i i ,q. IY (Fall). l3lLl4I).

Chamber\. E. ( I Y X X ) "The B. Coinm. Prograin: What about Science and Technology" in Muiiuqiwiiwi t . i l i i i ,ur t , i i i uiiilDizi i~ lopmei i t . VdY. Pad 10. Admiiii\trativr Science\ A i \ o c i a t ~ ~ n of C,inad,i. 23-30.

Cheit. E. I 19x5) "Bu\ine\\ School, and Their Critic," Culit(iiiii(i Muii~t,q2iii~'iir Rci i i ' \ i ,

Cocheu. E. ( I Y X Y ) "Training for Qunl i ty Iinpr(~veinent'' I?u i i i t i i ,q & Dci i ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ i i r i ~ i i t

27 (Spring). 43-62.

, l , l l l t l i d . 43 ( I 1, 56-62,

Mccriirs r l i c Ncril foi

I i i r iJ i t i u r i ( i i t i t 1 Bii\iiti,.\.\ t { p i u i w i i i Cuiiuilii, M " ~ r e n l . Corporate Higher Educntion Forum.

Dholahia. R. R. ,ind Levy. S. J ( l Y 8 7 ) "The Con\iimer Dreatn in the Lnited States: Aspiration\ and Achievemenr\ in ii Chmginp Environment" .Jotti.iiul o/ M ~ i i i / i t i i ~ t i ~ ~ , / i i i , ~ , , (Fall). 41-51,

Dill. W. R 1 I Y X Y ) "Management Education: I\ Succe\\ Breeding Failure'!" Cliuii,qi, Mitqit:tiic. 1 MarchiApril I989). 54-57.

Dimick. D 11989) "The Influence of Organizational Role\ and Per\onal Value\ on MBA Choice Behavior" 111 Motiir,qmiciir Eilitr i i r i o i i oiril Di~ i~ i~ / ( ipn t~~ i i r . Vol. 10, Part 10. Adminirtrative Science\ Asociation of Canada. 56-65.

Drucher. P. F. (I 9X9a) "Hou Schools Mu\t Change" Psv<h( i l (adapted tnim Drucher. Peter F.. I I Y X Y ) . Tlii, Ni% K w l i

and Row.)

(May) . 48-59

(September-October), 65-76.

RCI.ICM,. (January-February. 45-53,

Corpoi;ite Higher Educ:ition F.orum ( I Y X X I C;;oiiiq G/(l/Jii/

P~l l i r l i~ \ l l i l €< 011,I1l111 \ ' t i l l 1 Btl.\i~l~~.\.\llii S,Il.lrr\. U11d W ~ l l ~ l l l

Drucher, P. F. ( IYXYb) "The Neu, World According to Drucher" Bitsiiii2.\.~ Mr>ii/Ii. 133

Drucher. P. F. ( 19XXn) "Management and the World's Work" ~Hrrri.uirlBitsiiie.\.s R i w r M .

Drucher. P. F. ( 1988b) "The Coming of the Neu Organiration." Hiir iu id Bii.stiio,

Drucker. P. E (lY6X) The A , ~ P , I / D i . ~ ( ~ J i i r i i i i i i ~ Y , h e w Yorh: Harper & Row.

T / I P Ewiioniirr (1989a) "Backla\h against busine\\" (April 15). 11-12, Tlrc Ei.niionii.\r ( 1989b) "The self-purged century" (August 121. 13-11. T/ie h oiionit.\r ( 19x9~) "Case \tudy in caring" (Sept. 30). 27.

Feather. F. ( 19x9) "G-Force\ of Change and the Geo-Strategic Management Era

Finn. C. Jr. (19x7) "Education that works: make the \chools compete" Hiri-i,ui-d

Fleet, K . (1984) "Why Have British Business Schools Failed'!" Touche R o u , Repoi-r

Gordon. R. and Howell, J . ( 1959)11i,~hrrEdtti iitioiif(JrBir.siiiess. New Yorh: Coluinbia

Harman. W.( 1988)Gliihrrl MiiidChrin,gr Tliupr-rinir.sr ofthe Lrrsr Yeur-s o f t h e T ~ ~ i ~ i u f h

Haye\, R. and Abernathy,W. (19x0) "Managing Our Way to Economic Decline"

Hayne\. A. (1989) "What about the Future"," B i t s r t i i ~ ~ s Qti i i rr~i-I ! . 5X4) (Spring )

Hodgton, R. (1989) "Destiny or Disappointment: Which will i t be?," Bitsitiess

Howell, J . (1984) "An Interview with Professor James E. Houell" by James Schmotter,

Leavitt. H. and Whi\ler, T.. (1958), "Management in the 1980s" Hori~aid Bit.~rt~e.s.s

( 1990-?050)." Bttstiie.s\ Qiuirrcrlx 53(4) (Spring 19x9). 78-81.

Bi tc i i i i~v .~ Rei ICM', (September-October). 63-6%

0 1 1 B ~ i s i i i ~ ' . ~ . ~ E d i t u i r i o i i , New York. 5-9.

University Press

Ceiitui-,., Indianapolis: Knowledge System\ Inc.

Hiiriwil Btt,\iiies.\ Kr'i,iru , (July/August), 66-77.

54-51.

Quui trt.ly. 53(4) (Spring), 5-8.

Selections, 9-14.

ReiGw, (November-December). 67-77.

Le\,iii\on. H. ( l Y 6 Y ) "Excerpt\ from Oil k i n g a Middle-;iped Manager" H ( t i w r d

Levitt, T. 1 I Y X 3 ) The Mot k r i i i y lrii itqiiii irroii, New Yorh. The Free Pre\\.

I.iving\ton. J.S. ( 1971) "Myth of the Well-educated Managel-"

.Maher. P, M. ( 1980) "Bu\ine\\ Education in C:in;rd:i. Bu\ine\\ Should he ConcernecV'

Maynard. R . 1 1981)) "Look Jane. Dich Can't Red . . " k y i i r oi i Bit\iiii,,\.\ bfuqu:iiii,,

Meek. C.. Woodworth. W. mid Dyer. G. (1988) ,Mitiici,yiiiq /I?. r l i c Ntiiiilwi.\,

Mintrberg. H. (1975) "The Manager's J o h Folklore and Fact." l f i ir iuid Bi i \ i i i iw

R i w c ~ . (July/Augu4. 49-61. Mii1trberg.H (IYXY)"TheChalleiigeofthr 1YY0'\:Training Manager\. No t M B A \".

Pre\entarion at the Administrative Science\ A\\ociation o t Canadn. aniiual meeting. Montreal.

Morgan, G. (19x0) "Puxl ignh. Metaphor\. and Pulrle Solving i n Orp;ini~at~onal Theory" Ailniiiiisrriilii I' S r i o i r 1' Qitirrr i~rlv. 605-622.

NCMRD ( 1989) "What I\ Needed i n Women i n Mnnagemciit Re\each" Muiiii,qi~iiii~iir R6,seui~c~Ii Ulxlorc. \;>I..j, N o 1. 'Vationnl Centre for Manngcincnt Rewarch and Development.

Pennar, ti. (19x7) ' ' I \ the U.S. Going the Way of Britaiii" Hii\riic.s.\ M i ~ c h . (April 201. 64-66.

Peter\. T. and Austin. N. (1985) A Pii\ voii fcir E ~ w l l i ~ i i i 1'. Toronto: Raiidoni Hou\c.

Peten. T. and Waterman. R. ( 19x2) Iir Siwri ti I>/ E\i~c,lliw( 1'. Ncw York: Warner Book\. Peters. T. ( 1989) "Tomorrow'\ Compaiies: Neu Pmduct\. Neu Marlet\. New

Competition. New 7.hinhing'' 7/1r Ei~~iiro~iit.\r. (March 4). 10-22.

Pierson, F. (19.59) The Liltt i~uri~ii i Anicw 1111 Btt.\iiii,s.\ Meii: A S r i r i l > (i/

Uiiii,rr.\ rr\.-Col/e,~r Pro,qirmr.\ I I I Bits i A i l i i ~ i i r t , ~ ~ r i i / i ~ ~ i i . Neu York: McGraw-Hill.

Pitt5, R.A ( 1989) "Management and the Liberal Intellectual Tradition: Are They Mutually Exclusive", Pre\entation at the Administrative Science\ A\socintion 01 Canada, annual meeting Montreal.

Porter, L. W. and McKibbin, L. E. ( 1988) Moiia,yiwii'iit Eilttt uftoii iiiiil Di~wlopiii<,iit Di rfr or Tliriisr i i i to thc 2 l s r Ccvrritry". New Yorh: McGrau-Hill Booh Companq.

Pomer, B., Hall, J . and Harder. J. (1986) "People Are Our Mo\t Importmit Re\ource, But . . . Encouraging Employee Development" Bitsiiii~ss H~ii~i:(iii\, (September-October). 52-54,

D. and Maxuell. D. (19x9) "Developing Leaders for the Global Enterpri\e." 1ruiiii11,q & Diw'Iop?iiCiiI .J<ittriii i l. 43(4) (April ). 2.5-34.

(September-October), 42-45.

Srrrcr Jul t i . t i i r / . (December). I X.

Y - I4

t l i i . \ i i i i~. \ \ R ~ V I P M , (JulyiAugust).

Hiit.i.uri1 Bti\iiii,\.\

Ri,i.ii+t. (JaiuaryFehruai-y). 79-81),

Biis t iw\I Qitiir/<,i.Iy 5314) (Spring). 37-42.

(.May). 87-96.

Rhine\mith, S., Williamson, J . . Ehlen.

Rohlen, T. P. (19x7) "Why Japalese Education Worhj" Hut-wiul B i t s i i i ~ ~ . \ s K

Rosett, R. (1983)"Findings and Expertsand Leader\: ADcCenwofthe MBA"T1ir Wit11

Schmotter. J. W. ( 1984) "An Interview with Profe\\or James E. Howell." .Sr/c,ctiiiii.s.

Silk. L. (1989) "Thechallenge for Manager\ I \ to Make Morality Pay" Biroiic.\s Moiirli. (May) 8-1 I .

Simon, H. ( 1967) "The Bu\ine\s School: A Problem in Organizational De\ign" T/ie Joiir-tiul 14 Miritit,genreiit Srudics, (February), I - I X.

Singh, J. B. (1988) "The Teaching of Ethics in Canadian Schools of Management and Administrative Studies," in Mmiugenzetir Eihii'a/ioii o t d D r i ~ i ~ l ~ i ~ ~ n i ~ ~ i i l . Administrative Sciences Association of Canada. Vo1.9, Part 10, 103- I 10.

Slater, J. E. ( 1984) "The Humanities and Bu\ines\ Leaders," Toiii /rc R(I.\$ Kiy~o t I 0 1 1

Bitsrtiecs Eiltrr utioii, New Yorh, 3Y-42.

Smits. S. J. (1989) "Middle Managers: Coping With the 'Natural State'" %.otiitti ,q & Dewlopnient Joui-iial. 433) (March). 65-67.

RCSA I CJAS 28 MARS / MARCH 1990

to b. or not to b.?: the b. schools under attack—again?

Documents