Search results

The notion of global responsibility is coming to light as it appears that the control of the economies by nation‐states has proved inefficient. Therefore, solutions are often sought by appealing to responsibility (for enterprises, individuals, interest groups …). In particular, global responsibility calls for firms to limit their own activities when it opposes the general interest. But it is generally admitted in the firms that a condition to maximize their profits is all about allowing the laws of economy to express themselves, without any restraint, in order to give their whole potential. In this sense, it refers to “total freedom”. This article tries to re‐examine the very concept of global responsibility versus total freedom. For that it addresses the question through two major issues: (1) responsibility as an external constraint, a source of improvement; (2) the responsibility of corporate governance for financial transparency.

Over the past years, the teaching of third sector management and corporate social responsibility in business schools has been characterized by two main features: it has become widespread, and the assumption that a company's moral behavior has a financial correlate was abandoned. It follows from the second element that these classes are no longer meant to train managers to make a more effective economic contribution. The courses can now find a different, higher purpose, namely to emphasize the impact of the companies' and non‐profit organizations' social activities. This paper aims to address this issue.

The paper looks at two prevailing models of integration of third sector management in the curriculum and their limits.

The paper finds that emphasizing companies' and non‐profit organizations' social activities can be achieved if managers are trained in a way that better apprehends the stakes of these social activities. However, for business schools to make a significant contribution to this field and avoid missing the opportunities of this “non profit turn”, they must establish a vision of what these courses mean to them.

This paper provides useful information on the challenges of teaching a curricula taking into account the companies' and non‐profit organization' social activities.

In the future, the legitimacy of business schools will no longer be in question, nor will their vocation to participate in training the élite (especially of companies) alongside institutes which, in various countries, train top Civil Servants. But this context, which dominant positions always provoke, should not encourage complacency. On the contrary, it should invite reflection on the weaknesses of the institutions in question. Aims to discuss this issue.

Some major new trends in management education are questioned (the use of new information technologies, an initiation to management starting at a much earlier stage of the education track, a different way to grasp the use of case studies).

This paper is an analysis of the functions of business schools and management faculties in universities. It leads one to observe that they appear above all as places busy “reproducing” or “miming” reality. Where science faculties describe, management teaching establishments imitate.

This paper is dedicated not only to stressing the pedagogic dangers that new trends in management education imply, but also to explaining what major change it could induce.

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 present details of this special issue, that has as its theme: “Business school futures: evaluation and perspectives”.

The Guest Editors have assembled a set of papers presented at recent AACSB/EFMD meetings to provide further fuel for this important debate.

Together the papers in this volume provide a set of insights about important themes and perspectives on business schools as we reflect about their future evolution.

The insights presented in this special issue should provide the fuel for continued critical debate and dialogue as we confront the current turning points in management education and also develop future strategies for the continued success and evolution of the business school in the modern university.

Business schools appear to be slow adopters of responsible management education (RME), though the rhetoric of RME is visible throughout the sector. The purpose of this paper and the accompanying ones in this Special Issue is to address this apparent gap between substance and image by analysing the barriers to RME adoption and potential ways of overcoming them. The contributions offer insights from a range of different perspectives that will help encourage an informed debate on how to make RME more of a reality in management education.

This paper analyses the problem within the dominant institutional logic of the business school sector, which is shaped by entrepreneurialism, operational for-profit orientation and externally validated reputation creation. It sets the stage for the other contributions to this Special Issue, which use alternative approaches to analyse the limited progress of RME adoption.

This paper identifies five potential barriers to RME adoption: students, as “customers”, do not sufficiently value the “R” in RME; the switch from full-time to part-time and online provision precludes the use of pedagogical methods particularly suited for RME; the fragmentation of intellectual production in business schools makes it difficult to implement an institution-wide RME-based learning model; the standardization of educational provision combined with a focus on ranking-related performance indicators moves business schools away from addressing RME-specific learning needs; and entrepreneurialism and business school rankings link RME directly and indirectly to financial impact, which is difficult to determine. In the authors’ view the way forward requires a review of the intellectual underpinning of modern management in combination with the adjustment of organizational routines and more explicit forms of faculty development.

The existing literature focuses on the differentiating features of RME and how they can help to overcome deficiencies in management education as practiced today. This paper and others in this Special Issue adopt the reverse perspective and analyse the reasons for institutional inertia as a starting point for identifying ways of encouraging more widespread adoption.