Rethinking the current dominant approach to business school strategy

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the paper is twofold: to question the current use of the extant competitive strategy frameworks imported from the context of the business firm; and to call for innovative frameworks that are more faithful to the nature, purpose, and needs of business schools.

Design/methodology/approach

An extensive literature review is undertaken in the field of business school competitive strategy. This literature is then evaluated to see how sensitive it is to the specific context of the business school. Inferences are then drawn and the paper is structured to make the case for the need to rethink the current approach to business school strategy.

Findings

The application of the current dominant approach in the competitive strategy literature, which prioritizes value capture over value creation, is questionable in the context of business school strategy. There are deep and multiple differences between business firms and business schools. These differences call for shifting the focus toward value creation and emphasizing the social mission of business schools.

Research limitations/implications

The paper focuses only on undergraduate education. Extending the argument to include other activities of business schools requires further research.

Practical implications

Business school strategy researchers and practitioners are encouraged to alter their current approach to be less occupied with competition and more concerned with value creation for students, stakeholders, and society at large.

Originality/value

The paper represents an early call for strategists and researchers to rethink their current dominant approach of applying the extant business strategy literature to business schools. It makes the case for the necessity of taking into account the deep and multiple differences between business firms and business schools.

Citation

Salem Khalifa, A. (2010), "Rethinking the current dominant approach to business school strategy", European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341011082907