Article - University at Albany

"COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS: LOSING RELEVANCE?"
2008
Review of Business Research, 8 (5), 154-162
Raymond K. Van Ness, Ph.D. State University of New York at Albany,
Kimberly Melinsky, Ph.D. ABD, State University of New York at Albany
ABSTRACT
This paper examines ideas surrounding Business School relevance in both
historical and contemporary contexts. It frames critiques in epistemological
terms and identifies the opposite end points of the assessment continuum as (1)
loss of legitimacy, and (2) loss of relevance. It compares course-value
perceptions of educators to those of business professionals and discovers
incongruity. Academicians believe a strong emphasis on quantitative issues is
vital to high-quality scholarship whereas business professionals believe the
emphasis should be on people-management knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Research with dubious practical value and curricula that business professionals
believe has insufficient emphasis on people issues may be causing B Schools to
lose relevance. Suggestions for further research are presented.
Keywords: Management, Education, Business Education
"COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS: LOSING RELEVANCE?"
1. INTRODUCTION
Criticism of collegiate schools of business and management related scholarship is not a
new phenomenon. In fact, the very existence of this field of study as part higher education
required overcoming “legitimacy” objections from a wide range of other academic disciplines
(Engwall, 2007). Once established, enrollment in Business School degree-granting programs
soared (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002) however, that has not immunized them from intense scrutiny
and persistent criticism by epistemologists (Locke, 1996). In the broadest context, epistemology
is a subjective domain where ideas about the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge are
debated. Even the briefest review of professional and academic literature suggests that a wide
range of practitioners and academicians have engaged, either wittingly or unwittingly, in an
epistemological debate over B School performance. These debates seem to have created
somewhat of an identity crisis for business schools, threatening their ability to balance highquality scholarship with practice-relevant educating activities (McGrath, 2007).
B School performance critiques in epistemological terms, seem to center on one of two
beliefs: (1) acquiescence to the demands of corporate management has resulted in a loss of
academic legitimacy (abandonment of scientific research) (Bridgman, 2007; Bennis and
O‟Toole, 2005) or (2) acquiescence to the esoterics of academic purity has resulted in the loss of
relevance (abandonment of practical research) (Augier and March, 2007). Since academic
research is a fundamental element in curriculum development, criticism of one is criticism of
both. B School relevance is dependent upon both practical research and classroom activities that
address contemporary problems.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Practical Research
Alarmingly, the apparent preoccupation with how they are perceived by other academic
disciplines rather than how they influence business practice does not bode well for B School
relevance (Watson, 1993). Business schools may be well advised to take a page from natural
science researchers who have disregarded epistemological critiques and continued their work on
the basis of practicality (Locke, 1996). The consequence of surfeit concentration on “knowledge
purely for its own sake” may be a popular concept for academic purists but for pragmatists it is
the short path to irrelevance. Achieving and sustaining practical relevance requires the
integration of practitioner concerns, challenges, and problems to the management research
process (Augier, 2006). Unfortunately, some analysts believe that B Schools have already drifted
too far from this concept since there is little evidence to suggest that their research has any
influence on management practice (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002).
The value of research connected to business practice has long been considered an
essential building block of relevant curricula. For example, in May of 1920, while addressing
the Association of Collegiate Schools of Business, Horace Secrist of Northwestern University
cautioned that although students need to be trained in the elements of scientific methods, they
must also be acquainted with business problems in order to render service to business (Secrist,
1920). In July of 1931, a paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the American
Association of Collegiate Schools of Business by G. A. Warfield, Dean of the School of
Commerce, Accounts, and Finance at the University of Denver echoed the sentiments of Dr.
Secrist. Maintaining channels of communication with business using surveys of former students
such as those used by Wharton and the University of Pennsylvania provide meaningful data for
guiding and strengthening research and the educational process (Warfield, 1931).
2.2 Training versus Educating
Unfortunately, research associated with business practice is often viewed as being outside
of the scientific model not only by other academic disciplines but also by B Schools themselves
(Bennis and O‟Toole, 2005). Thus, practical research – business related – is frequently
discouraged thereby enhancing perceptions by business professionals that B Schools are losing
relevance (Debnath, Tandon, and Pointer, 2007). It is not impossible to wonder if the fear of
being classified as a T School (Training) is an underpinning factor in the intense and frequently
myopic focus on the scientific model to the exclusion of practical research. Concerns of this
nature have been articulated in the literature for decades. For example, Lillian M. Gilbreth, in
1935, expressed frustration that other disciplines within colleges, including women‟s colleges,
failed to recognize the educational values of business studies, viewing them as training activities
rather than educational activities. Nevertheless, she believed that criticism by the “uninitiated”
did not alter the reality that business education is undeniably important to society. In her opinion,
the value of business education was dependent upon the ability of academicians to understand
the history of business, comprehend the role of education, observe and understand the business
climate, and have the courage to make and accept the required changes (Gilbreth, 1935).
2.3 Perceptions of Educators versus Business Professionals
Making and accepting the changes necessary to ensure relevance in research and
curricula can be a challenging endeavor. The process is likely exacerbated by epistemological
critiques involving the suggestion that suggest B Schools run the risk of transforming themselves
into T Schools as they acquiesce to the demands of practitioners. However, this line of criticism
is misguided since training concentrates on refining skills for a specific task whereas educating is
the process of broadening and enriching the whole person (Walker, Hanson, Nelson, and Fisher,
1998). In other words, training is a narrowly focused program that leads to high proficiency in a
specific skill (Moore, 1998) while educating is the process of exchanging knowledge related to a
broad range of concepts (Brotheridge and Long, 2007). Business professionals prefer graduates
with an educational experience that is broad in scope and one that enables them to understand
and communicate ideas on a wide range of issues (Bukics and Fleming, 1999; Lewis and
Ducharme, 1990). Training activities are most effectively conducted within corporate settings or
by large-scale personnel recruiters (Safon, 2007).
Although educators and business professionals generally agree that B Schools are not and
should not be T Schools they do have some epistemological disagreements related to the nature
and limits of various topics within curricula (Levenburg, 1996). In business, it is understood that
stagnation deteriorates relevance. Progress is impossible without change. Similarly, ensuring
relevance in academic programs requires periodic restructuring (Klimoski, 2007; Learmonth,
2007; Schlesinger, 1996). Unfortunately, B Schools have a tendency to resist change, which may
account for disagreements with business professionals as to the value of specific courses within
curricula (Kleiman and Kass, 2007). For example, Quelch (2005) and Bennis and O‟Toole
(2005) assert that educators tend to focus too much on the hard analytic skills and not the „softside‟ of management. We therefore propose the following hypotheses regarding the value
business professionals and educators place on various content areas within business curriculum.
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference between educators and business
professionals in the perceived value of specific content areas within a business
curriculum.
Hypothesis 2: Professional designation (business professional versus educator) will
have a significant effect on the placement of value of various content areas, such that
educators will have a significantly higher mean score in analytical content areas than
business professionals.
3. METHODS
3.1 Sample and Procedures
Two samples were needed for this study. The first sample, business professionals, was
selected at random from the Society of Human Resource Management database of companies
throughout the United States. The organizations selected included a cross-section of industries,
including manufacturing, professional services, retailing, financial services, health and human
services, and information technology. Contact information was collected for individuals holding
various positions within each organization. Participation in the survey was voluntary and it was
administered by paper via U.S. mail. Anonymity was guaranteed by not including any
identifying items on the questionnaire.
The second sample of educators was drawn from a website published by the University of
Texas, Austin that lists all regionally accredited college level educational institutions in the
Unites States. Two-year and four-year educational institutions were selected to participate in the
survey. The surveys were directed to individuals identified as Deans, Associate Deans, or Chairs
of Business Departments. The surveys were distributed to individuals in paper format through
US Mail. Again, anonymity was guaranteed by not including any identifying items on the
questionnaire.
Of the combined 301 mailings, 108 responses were received, three of which were
unusable. This left a total combined sample size of 105 (63 business and 42 educators) and a
total usable response rate of 34.9%. Of the 63 business managers that responded, 22% were from
manufacturing, 19% from professional services, 13% from retailing, 10% from financial
services, 8% from health and human services, 5% from information technology, and 23% from
other industries. The business sample had a gender distribution of 65% female and 35% male,
with most respondents being between the age of 46 and 55. Of the 42 educators that responded,
36% were from two-year colleges and 64% were from four-year colleges. The educator‟s sample
had a gender distribution of 38% female and 62% male, with most respondents being between
the age of 46 and 55.
3.2 Measures
(1) Perceived Value of Academic Content Areas. A measure was created to assess business and
educational professional‟s perceived value of specific academic content areas. Interviews were
held with various subject matter experts, including individuals from two-year and four-year
academic institutions, business professionals from various industries and an officer of the
Society of Human Resource Management. Based on these interviews, critical academic content
areas were selected for a survey of educators and business professionals. Content areas included
accounting, finance, economics, marketing, management, operations management,
humanities/liberal arts, mathematical/analytical and foreign language fluency/international
management. Each content area had specific courses listed within them. For example,
management included courses such as organizational behavior, leadership and human resource
management. Every individual was asked to rate the value of each course on a scale from one to
five, one being unimportant to a business education and five being very important to a business
education.
(2) Professional Designation. The independent variable, professional designation, was measured
through data collection. All surveys collected from business professionals were coded 1 and all
surveys collected from educators were coded 2.
(3)Demographic variables. Demographic variables, such as gender and age group were measured
through two simple questions. Gender was simply measured by requesting individuals to denote
either male or female on the survey. Females were coded 1 and males 2 for analysis. Age group
was measured through a question requesting individuals to denote their age group. Age group
classifications were “under 36”, “36-45”, “46-55”, “56-65”, and “65 & up”. Each age group was
coded separately for analysis.
3.3 Analyses
The means, standard deviations and two-tailed Pearson Correlations were calculated for
the dimensions of academic curriculum. The results can be seen in Table 1.
Multivariate analyses of variance were then performed to find the differences in the
separate areas of academic curriculum as a function of professional designation (business
professionals versus educators). The separate dimensions of academic curriculum were
calculated using the mean dimension score for each individual participating in the survey. The
Wilkes‟ Lambda was calculated, followed by the calculation of separate univariate F-tests and
cell means in order to ascertain the impact of the main effect of professional designation on each
academic content area. The results of these analyses can be found in Tables 2 and 3.
4. RESULTS
As seen in Table 1, there were moderately strong correlations between many of the
dimensions of academic curriculum. In general, courses that use analytical assessment, such as
Accounting, Finance, Operations Management and Mathematical/ Analytical courses had
significant positive Pearson correlations at the p < .01 level. Marketing and Foreign Language
Fluency / International Management courses also had significant positive Pearson correlations at
the p < .01 and p < .05 levels with each other and the analytical assessment courses above. In
addition, management courses tended to have smaller insignificant correlations with the
analytical assessment courses and significant relationships with Marketing and Operations
Management courses. The significant correlations were to be expected due to the similar nature
of the courses.
TABLE 1
PEARSON CORRELATION MATRIX OF THE AREAS OF BUSINESS CURRICULUM
1. Accounting Courses
2. Finance Courses
3. Economics Courses
4. Marketing Courses
5. Management Courses
6. Operations Mngt Courses
7. Humanities Courses
8. Mathematical / Analytical Courses
9. Foreign Language Fluency / International Mngt
Notes: N = 105; ** p < .01, * p < .05 (2-tailed)
Mean
4.30
3.39
3.39
3.55
3.98
4.17
3.03
3.37
2.36
SD
0.73
0.89
0.90
0.84
0.63
0.58
0.76
0.79
0.87
1
0.47**
0.34**
0.24*
0.09
0.33**
0.22*
0.38**
0.16
2
0.38**
0.47**
(0.02)
0.04
0.30**
0.25**
0.26**
3
4
0.19
(0.14) 0.26**
0.05
0.15
0.23* 0.21*
0.42** 0.06
0.26** 0.42**
5
6
0.38** 0.07 0.07
(0.07) 0.15
0.10 0.12
7
8
0.25**
0.18 0.31**
9
-
The results for the multivariate analysis of variance on the effect of professional
designation on the various areas of business curriculum can be seen in Tables 2 and 3. The
Wilkes Lambda was moderate and significant, with business or educator identification providing
for approximately 34% of variability in the selected course areas. The results of the univariate Ftests and the cell means provided a better understanding of the influence of the main effect of
professional designation on the individual academic dimensions. As seen in Table 2, professional
designation had a strong significant effect on Finance Courses and Economics Courses with p <
.001. It also had a significant effect on Humanities / Liberal Arts Courses and Mathematical /
Analytical Courses at p < .01 and Management Courses at p < .05. The data did not support
professional designation having a significant effect on the desire to have Accounting Courses,
Marketing Courses, Operations Management Courses and Foreign Language Fluency
/International Management Courses in a business student‟s academic repertoire. As seen in Table
3, the means of the significant course areas show that educators placed more value on Finance
Courses, Economics Courses, Humanities/ Liberal Arts Courses, and Mathematical/Analytical
Courses within a business student‟s academic curriculum. Business Professionals placed more
value on Management courses within an academic curriculum. Therefore, the results supported
our conclusions drawn in Hypotheses 1 and 2.
TABLE 2
TESTS OF MAIN EFFECTS AND TESTS OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS VS. EDUCATORS
ON EACH AREA OF BUSINESS CURRICULUM USING UNIVARIATE F-TESTS
IV Name
DV Name
Business/Education
Wilks'
Lambda
Value (F)
Univariate F
.66 (5.36)***
Partial
Eta2
.34
Accounting Courses
---
1.82
.02
Finance Courses
---
16.98***
.14
Economics Courses
---
22.51***
.18
Marketing Courses
---
1.14
.01
Management Courses
---
4.56*
.04
Operations Management Courses
---
.00
.00
Humanities/Liberal Arts Courses
---
12.17**
.11
Mathematical / Analytical Courses
---
11.84**
.10
Foreign Language Fluency /
International Management
---
1.63
.02
Notes: ap < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 N = 105
TABLE 3
CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE CONTENT AREAS OF BUSINESS
CURRICULUM AS A FUNCTION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS AND EDUCATORS
Business Professionals and Educators
Academic Areas
Business Professionals
Educators
(n = 63)
(n = 42)
Accounting Courses
4.22 (.73)
4.42 (.71)
Finance Courses
3.12 (.86)
3.80 (.78)
Economics Courses
3.08 (.83)
3.86 (.81)
Marketing Courses
3.48 (.90)
3.65 (.74)
Management Courses
4.08 (.48)
3.82 (.79)
Operations Management Courses
4.16 (.58)
4.17 (.59)
Humanities / Liberal Arts Courses
2.83 (.70)
3.33 (.75)
Mathematical / Analytical Courses
3.17 (.84)
3.68 (.57)
Foreign Language Fluency /
International Management
2.27 (.84)
2.49 (.90)
5. DISCUSSION
Overall, our results supported both hypotheses. First, there was a significant difference in
between what educators and business professionals perceive to be important in a business
curriculum. Quite simply, educators and business professionals place a higher value on different
content areas within a business student‟s academic curriculum. When assessing the individual
academic content areas, professional designation accounted for approximately 34% of the
variance, clearly a substantial proportion of the overall variance. In practical terms, professional
designation accounts for a great deal of the difference in the perception of value of various
content areas in academic curriculum. This finding supports our decision to explore more
thoroughly the different perceptions of educators and business professionals on the value of
different content areas within a business curriculum.
Our second hypothesis on the value of analytic content areas was confirmed; educators
placed a significantly stronger value on analytical courses than workforce business professionals.
Educators placed a significantly higher value on most analytic course content, including finance,
economics, and mathematical/analytic courses. This confirms statements by Bennis and O‟Toole
(2005) and Quelch (2005) that there is a strong focus by educators on the analytic skills and not
the softer side of management. Interestingly enough, business professionals placed a
significantly higher value on managerial content in business curriculum. Looking at the results as
a whole, it appears that educators are more focused on training a business student in how they
need to mathematically analyze a problem, whereas business managers are looking for
individuals coming out of a business program to have a good understanding of how to deal with
people and the softer-side of management. One might even assume that businesses feel that they
can train their employees in the analytical needs for the business, but need new employees to
know how to deal with one another. This is even more eye-opening when looking at the
diversified business sample that brought these results. Multiple industries, including the financial
services industry where you would assume there would be a strong analytical focus, are
represented. This indicates there needs to be a realignment of business curriculum to meets the
needs of businesses.
There were a few smaller findings from this study that bare mentioning. First, despite the
significant differences in perception of value of analytic courses, there were no significant
differences in the value of accounting courses between business professionals and educators.
Educators did place a higher value on accounting courses within a curriculum over business
professionals, however it was not significant. The most practical reason for this is possibly the
inclusion of a managerial accounting course in the overall accounting course content. Business
managers could have placed more value on the managerial accounting course due to a stronger
managerial focus within the course. The other small finding that came out of this study is that
despite the fact that managers valued managerial courses significantly higher than educators,
they did not value humanities/liberal arts classes as high as educators. There are several obvious
reasons for this significant difference. The most resonant is that managers are focused on softskills in management. They want to ensure that their new employees have a good understanding
of how to deal with other individuals in their business and basic business issues. This does not
necessarily include a basic understanding of humanities and world history.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
We recognize that there are limitations with this study. First we acknowledge that as a
correlational study no causality can be inferred from these results. However, due to the nature of
content in this study, one can assume that a there is a correlation between the professional
designations of business manager and educator and the differences in valuation of course content
and the need for causality is limited. Limited concern can also be drawn from the significant
correlations found between some of the variables. However, the analysis and the conclusions
drawn from the findings really negate possible issues from this significance. For example, the
significantly correlated analytical variables were analyzed as a whole in the conclusions drawn
from this study.
Based on our findings, our analysis, and our recognition of limitations, we suggest that
further studies understanding what businesses desire in new hires will yield important
information that can enhance understanding of and communication with the newest entrants to
the workforce. Further qualitative examination, including interviews and observations, might
identify specific components within business curriculum that are more valuable to businesses.
Other studies might include understanding what practical experience in conjunction with
education is needed in business curriculum along with studies understanding how values play
into the effect of curriculum an employee success. We also suggest that surveys of former
students may be a prime source for identifying crucial areas in need of scientific research.
Findings from these investigations can be a prime source for strengthening the relevance of
educational programs.
7. CONCLUSION
All scholarship has a certain element of conceit and pretentiousness because its objective
is to be the primary authority (Locke, 1996). However, in our opinion, the aspiration to be
primary authority can be a central driver for high-quality research and effective curricula when it
is augmented by the desire to assimilate the concerns of practitioners. Academic legitimacy is
not sacrificed by linking science to practice (Pfeffer, 2007). The goal of education should be to
use research to find evidence of cause-and-effect relationships and assist students in learning and
applying what they have learned to their professional practice (Rousseau and McCarthy, 2007).
B Schools should be concerned about enhancing and sustaining relevance and to do so they must
develop educational programs that address the needs of practitioners (Beamish and Calof, 1989).
Perhaps the words of Horace Secrist (1920), G. A. Warfield, (1931), and Lillian Gilbredth (1935)
are as apropos today as they were decades ago when they recommended listening to the voices of
practitioners in order to ensure B School relevance.
REFERENCES
Augier, Mie, "Making Management Matter: An Interview with John Reed”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5 (1), 2006, 84-100.
Augier, Mie and March, James G., “The Pursuit of Relevance in Management Education”,
California Management Review, 49 (3), 2007, 129-146.
Beamish, Paul W. and Calof, Jonathan L., “International Business Education: A Corporate
View”, Journal of International Business Studies, 20 (3), 1989, 553-564.
Bennis, Warren.G. and O‟Toole, James, “How Business Schools Lost Their Way”, Harvard
Business Review, May, 2005, 96-104.
Bridgman, Todd, “Reconstituting Relevance: Exploring Possibilities for Management Educators‟
Critical Engagement with the Public”, Management Learning 38 (4), 2007, 425-439.
Brotheridge, Celeste and Long, Stephen, “The „real-world‟ challenges of managers: implications
for management education”, Journal of Management Development, 26 (9), 2007, 832-842.
Bukics, Rose and Fleming, John, “New Hires”, Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 70, 1999, 22-27.
Debnath, Sukumar C., Tandon, Sudhir, and Pointer, Lucille V., “Designing Business School
Courses to Promote Student Motivation: An Application of the Job Characteristic Model”,
Journal of Management Education, 31 (6), 2007, 812-831.
Engwall, Lars, “The anatomy of management education” Scandinavian Journal of Management,
23, 2007, 4-35.
Gilbreth, Lillian M., “What Do We Ask of Business Education?”, Journal of Educational
Sociology, 8 (9) 1935, 549-554.
Kleiman, Lawrence S. and Kass, Darrin, “Giving MBA Programs the Third Degree”. Journal of
Management Education, 31(1) 2007, 81-103.
Klimoski, Richard, “Introduction: Promoting the “Practice” of Learning From Practice”,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (4), 2007, 493-494.
Learmonth, Mark, “Critical Management education in Action: Personal Tales of Management
Unlearning”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (1) 2007, 109-113.
Levenburg, Nancy, “General Management Skills: Do Practitioners and Academic Faculty Agree
on their Importance?” Journal of Education for Business, 72, 1996, 47-52.
Lewis, D. and Ducharme, R., “The Education of Business Undergraduates: A gap in
academic/practitioner expectations?” Journal of Education for Business, 66, 1990, 116-124.
Locke, Robert. R., The collapse of the American management mystique, Oxford University
Press, 1996.
McGrath, Rita, “No Longer a Stepchild: How The Management Field Can Come Into Its Own”,
The Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6) 2007, 1365-1378.
Moore, J., “Education versus Training”, Journal of Chemical Education, 75 (2), 1998, 135.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, “A Modest Proposal: How We Might Change the Process and Product of
Managerial Research”, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6) 2007, 1334-1345.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Fong, Christina T., “The End of Business Schools? Less Success Than Meets
the Eye”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1) 2002, 79-95.
Quelch, John, “A new agenda for business schools” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(15)
2005,B19.
Rousseau, Denise M. and McCarthy, Sharon, “Educating Managers From An Evidence-Based
Perspective”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, (6) 1, 2007, 84-101.
Safon, Vicente, “Factors That Influence Recruiters‟ Choice of B-Schools and Their MBA
Graduates: Evidence and Implications for B-Schools”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 6 (2), 2007, 217-233.
Schlesinger, Phyllis F., “Teaching and evaluation of an integrated curriculum”, Journal of
Management Education, 20 (4) 1996, 479-490.
Secrist, Horace, “Research in Collegiate Schools of Business”, The Journal of Political
Economy, 28 (5) 1920, 353-374.
Walker, Rhett H., Hanson, Dallas, Nelson, Lindsay and Fisher, Cathy, “A Case for more
Integrative Multi-disciplinary Marketing Education”, European Journal of Marketing 32 (9/10)
1998, 803-812.
Warfield, G. A., “Surveys of Schools of Business”, The Journal of Business of the University of
Chicago, 4 (3) 1931, 78-87.
Watson, Stephen R., “The Place for Universities in Management Education”, Journal of General
Management, 19 (2),1993, :14-42.