Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Do Business Schools Value the Competencies That
Businesses Value?
Steven Eric Abraham & Lanny A. Karns
To cite this article: Steven Eric Abraham & Lanny A. Karns (2009) Do Business Schools Value the Competencies That Businesses Value?, Journal of Education for Business, 84:6, 350-356, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.350-356
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.6.350-356
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 121
View related articles
ABSTRACT. t is clear that one of the goals of businessschoolsandbusinessschool education is to prepare graduates for employmentaftergraduation.Asstated in the preamble to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-ness’s (AACSB; 2006)Eligibility Pro-cedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation, “In this environment, management education must prepare students to contribute to theirorganizations...”(p.1).Topre-parestudentsforemploymentfollowing graduation,itisimperativethatbusiness schoolsprovidethemwiththeskillsand competenciesthatorganizationsseekin theiremployees.
Nearly 21 years ago, however, Por-ter and McKibbin (1988) discussed that business school graduates are not considered to be well prepared for employment in business following undergraduate school education. In the ensuing years, however, researchers haveechoedthiscontention(Barksdale, 1998;Bennis&O’Toole,2005;Camp-bell, Heriot, & Finney, 2006; Ghoshal, 2005;Mintzberg,2004;Moberg,2006; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). In the present article, we attempted to examine the extent to which business schools pre- paretheirgraduatesforsuccessinbusi-nessfollowinggraduation.Specifically, we addressed statistically the extent to which business schools emphasized in their curricula the competencies that
businessesfeelareindicativeofsuccess-ful managers.The present article pres-entsareviewoftheliteraturethathelps set the background for this research; states the problem, method, findings; discussesthestudy;andthenconcludes withsomeexplanationsforthefindings andpossibilitiesforfurtherresearch.
LiteratureReview
Although some researchers have basedtheircriticismsofbusinessschool education on subjective analyses, there have been several attempts to assess empirically whether business schools are providing their students with the skills they need after graduation. For example,in“HowRelevantistheMBA? AssessingtheAlignmentofMBACur-ricula and Managerial Competencies,” Rubin and Dierdorff (2007) examined the relevancy of the MBA curricula at 373schoolsincomparisonwithmana-gerial competency requirements. Spe-cifically, Dierdorff and Rubin (2006) had developed a list of six manage-rial competencies through an elaborate analysis of O*NET information, and surveyed managers to determine the importance that they assigned to those competencies.RubinandDierdorffthen examined the curricula in the MBA programs at 373 AACSB-accredited schoolsandinvestigatedstatisticallythe extent to which the courses in those
DoBusinessSchoolsValuethe
CompetenciesThatBusinessesValue?
STEVENERICABRAHAM LANNYA.KARNS
STATEUNIVERSITYOFNEWYORKATOSWEGO OSWEGO,NEWYORK
I
ABSTRACT.Theauthorsusedsurveyresearchtodeterminethecongruence amongthecompetenciesthatbusinesses identifyasbeingindicativeofsuccessful managers,thecompetenciesthatbusiness schoolsidentifyasbeingindicativeofsuc-cessfulgraduates,andthecompetencies thatareemphasizedinbusinessschool curricula.Theresultsshowthatalthough businessesandbusinessschoolsessentially agreeonthecompetenciesthatidentifysuc-cessfulmanagersandgraduates,business schoolsdonotemphasizethesecompeten-ciesintheircurricula.Becauseoneofthe maingoalsofbusinessschoolsistoprepare theirgraduatesformanagerialcareersafter graduation,theseresultssuggestthatbusi-nessschoolsshoulddomoretoaligntheir curriculawiththedesiresofbusinesses.
Keywords: businessschoolcurricula,mana-gerialcompetencies
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
curricula covered the same competen-cies that managers deemed important. Theyfoundthatoverall,therewascon- siderablemismatchbetweentheimpor-tancethatmanagersassignedtothesix competencies they had developed and the degree to which those same com-petencies were covered by the courses requiredintypicalMBAprograms.
In“Professors,ManagersandHuman Resource Education,” Langbert (2000) developed a list of 16 human resource (HR)subjectareasandaskedHRman-agersandprofessorsinMBAprograms torankthesesubjectsintermsofimpor-tance from 1 to 16. Both groups were surveyed in 1992 and again in 1998. Theprofessorsandmanagerswerethen givenalistofsixcompetencyareasand werefirstaskedtodeterminetheimpor-tance of these areas and then asked to determine the extent to which MBA programs covered these competency areas. It is interesting that, although themanagersandprofessorsessentially agreed on the importance of the six competencies identified, both groups felt that MBA programs did not do a goodjobofemphasizingtheseareas.It isnotsurprising,however,thatthepro-fessors surveyed were less pessimistic about the quality of MBA education thanwerethemanagerssurveyed.
Last, in “Identifying Core Business School Competencies,” Sadri (2002) identified seven core business school competencies and looked at three ques-tions, one of which is directly relevant to the present article: “Is the College of Business and Economics [at Califor-niaStateUniversity,Fullerton]teaching also asked employers of the school’s graduates whether they found it neces- sarytoprovidetraininginthesecompe-tencies.MuchasinstudiesbyRubinand Dierdorff(2007)andLangbert(2000),as wediscussedpreviously,theschoolwas deemedby the alumni and the employ-ers surveyed not to be doing an overly effective job teaching the competencies deemed important. In sum, Rubin and Dierdorff, Langbert, and Sadri looked empirically at the extent to which
busi-nessschoolswereteachingcompetencies deemed important in business, and all threetendedtoconfirmthelong-standing criticismsofbusinessschooleducation.
StatementoftheProblem
Thegoalofthepresentresearchwasto compare undergraduate business school educationwiththeskillsbusinessesseek intheiremployees,buttheapproachwe used was unique. Rather than starting withasetofskillsorcompetenciesthat wethoughtbusinessesdemandedapriori andexaminingtheextenttowhichbusi- nessschoolsandbusinessschooleduca-tion adequately prepared their graduates with these skills, we asked businesses which competencies they seek in their employeesandthendeterminedwhether business schools were preparing their graduates with these competencies. In otherwords,weusedatwo-stepapproach to assess whether business schools ade-quately prepare their graduates with the skills that they need after graduation. First,wesurveyedbusinessestoascertain theskillsthattheyseekintheiremploy-ees.Then,wesurveyedbusinessschools to ascertain the importance they place onthesecompetenciesandwhetherthey include these competencies as part of theircurricula.Specifically,weaddressed thefollowingthreeresearchquestions: ResearchQuestion1(RQ1):Dobusiness
schoolsidentifythesamecompeten-cies as describing “the highly suc-cessfulgraduateoftheundergraduate program(s)at[the]school”thatbusi-nessesidentifytodescribe“thehighly successfulmanager/executive?” RQ2: Do business schools emphasize
thesamecompetenciesintheirunder-graduate programs that businesses identify as describing “the highly successfulmanager/executive?” RQ3:Arebusinessschoolsemphasizing
thesamecompetenciesintheirunder-graduate programs that they identify as describing “the highly success-ful graduate of the undergraduate program(s)at[the]school?”
METHOD
We conducted the research neces-sarytoaddressthethreeaforementioned questionsintwostages.Abraham,Karns,
Shaw, and Mena (2001) described the firststage,andwereviewitbrieflyinthe presentarticle.KarnsandMena(1998) identifiedalistof23competenciesthat were important to businesses in a pilot studythatinvolvedexaminingtheperfor-manceappraisaldocumentsofasample of organizations. We then used survey researchtoinvestigatethefollowingtwo issues:(a)whetherasetofcompetencies beingusedbyorganizationsasdescrib- ingsuccessfulmanagerscouldbeidenti-fied,and(b)whetherorganizationswere appraising these same competencies as part of their managerial performance appraisalprograms.Becausethesurvey usedinStage1extendedthepreviously referencedpilotstudythatidentified23 competencies(Karns&Mena),thesur-vey included only the 23 competencies identifiedinthepilotstudy.Abrahamet al.reportedthesefindings.
Because the goal of Stage 2 was to compare the information business schools provided with the information thatbusinesseshadprovidedinthefirst stage,wesoughttodesignasurveythat wasassimilaraspossibletothesurvey senttobusinessesinStage1.1
Thesur-veythatwesenttobusinessesinStage 1 listed the 23 competencies from the pilot study(Karns & Mena, 1998) and hadtwocolumns.2ColumnAaskedthe
respondentsto“placeacheckmark... next to those competencies that you feel would tend to describe the highly successful manager/executive working in your organization,” and Column B askedtherespondentsto“placeacheck-mark [next to those competencies that are used] to evaluate that executive’s workperformance.”
The survey that we sent to business schoolsinStage2listed21of23com-petenciesfromthepilotstudy(Karns& Mena,1998)andhadtwocolumns.Col-umnA asked the respondents to “place a checkmark . . . next to those com-petencies that you feel would tend to describe the highly successful graduate oftheundergraduateprogram(s)atyour school” and Column B asked them to “place a checkmark if that competency is currently emphasized as part of your undergraduate program(s).” In all, we randomlyselected200businessschools in the United States and Canada with undergraduate business programs from
the AACSB International membership directorytoreceivethesurvey.Wesent the survey electronically to the person identified in the directory along with a request to have an appropriate person completethesurvey.Wesentonefollow- upe-mailrequesttoeachschool.Inall, wereceivedresponsesfrom42ofthe200 schoolsthatwecontacted,foraresponse rate of 32%. The respondents’ demo-graphicsarepresentedintheAppendix.
To address the questions of interest, wemadethreecomparisons:
1.To addressRQ1, we compared the percentage of business schools that identified a competency as describ-ing “the highly successful graduate of the undergraduate program(s) at [the] school” with the percentage of businesses that identified that same competency as describing “the highly successfulmanager/executive.”
2.ToaddressRQ2,wecomparedthe percentage of business schools that emphasized a competency as part of the school’s undergraduate program with the percentage of businesses that identified that same competency as describing“thehighlysuccessfulman-ager/executive.”
3.To addressRQ3, we compared the percentage of business schools that emphasized a competency as part of the school’s undergraduate program withthepercentageofbusinessschools thatidentifiedthatsamecompetencyas describing“thehighlysuccessfulgradu-ate of the undergradudescribing“thehighlysuccessfulgradu-ate program(s) at [the]school.”
RESULTS
The results from the present study are displayed in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 addresses RQ1: Column 1 lists the percentage of businesses thatidentifiedacompetencyasdescrib-ing “the highly successful manager/ executive,”Column2liststhepercent-age of business schools that identified acompetencyasdescribing“thehighly successful graduate of the under-graduate program(s) at [the] school,” Column3liststhedifferences,andCol-umn 4 liststs showing the statistical significance of the difference. Table 2 addressesRQ2
:Column1liststheper-TABLE1.ComparisonofBusinesses’andSchools’Descriptors
Businesses’ Schools’
Competency descriptor(%) descriptor(%) Difference(%) (df=317)
Communicationskills 92.8 100.0 –7.2 –4.63
Customerfocus 84.5 40.5 44.0† 5.52
Teamworker 81.6 88.1 –6.5 —
Interpersonalskills 87.0 95.2 –8.2 –2.10
Dependable 81.6 83.3 –1.7 —
Foreignlanguage
proficiency 6.9 21.4 –14.5 –2.21
Problemsolver 89.2 97.6 –8.4 –2.79
Purposeful 40.9 47.6 –6.7 —
Technicalexpertise 76.9 61.9 15.0 —
Flexible/adaptable 81.9 88.1 –6.2 —
Staffdeveloper 65.3 14.3 51.0† 8.27
Experienceinaforeign
country 5.8 16.7 –10.9 —
Resultsoriented 87.7 73.8 13.9 —
Leadershipskills 85.9 97.6 –11.7 –3.69
Hardworker 66.1 83.3 –17.2 –2.66
Qualityfocused 80.1 64.3 15.8 2.01
Businessexpertise 73.3 64.3 9.0 —
Timemanager 47.3 47.6 –0.3 —
Professionaldress 30.0 47.6 –17.6 –2.13
Imaginative 51.6 64.3 –12.7 —
Risktaker 50.0 47.8 2.2 —
Note.Dashindicatesnosignificantdifferenceatconventionallevels(p<.05,two-tailed). †Difference>20%.
TABLE2.ComparisonofBusinesses’DiscriptorandSchools’Emphasis inUndergraduatePrograms
Businesses’ Schools’
Competency descriptor(%) emphasis(%) Difference(%) t (df=317)
Communicationskills 92.8 90.5 2.3 —
Customerfocus 84.5 26.2 58.3† 8.10
Teamworker 81.6 83.3 –1.7 —
Interpersonalskills 87.0 66.7 20.3† 2.61
Dependable 81.6 40.5 41.1† 5.13
Foreignlanguage
proficiency 6.9 14.3 –7.4 —
Problemsolver 89.2 90.5 –1.3 —
Purposeful 40.9 21.4 19.5 2.74
Technicalexpertise 76.9 81.0 –4.1 —
Flexibleoradaptable 81.9 33.3 48.6† 6.30
Staffdeveloper 65.3 2.4 62.9† 16.90
Experienceinaforeign
country 5.8 16.7 –10.9 —
Resultsoriented 87.7 45.2 42.5† 5.29
Leadershipskills 85.9 73.8 12.1 —
Hardworker 66.1 54.8 11.3 —
Qualityfocused 80.1 38.1 42.0† 5.29
Businessexpertise 73.3 61.9 11.4 —
Timemanager 47.3 28.6 18.7 2.44
Professionaldress 30.0 23.8 6.2 —
Imaginative 51.6 33.3 18.3 2.30
Risktaker 50.0 23.8 26.2† 3.66
Note.Dashindicatesnosignificantdifferenceatconventionallevels(p<.05,two-tailed). †Difference>20%.
centage of businesses that identified a competency as describing “the highly successful manager/executive,” Col-umn 2 lists the percentage of business schools that identified a competency as being emphasized in the school’s undergraduateprogram,Column3lists the differences, and Column 4 liststs showing the statistical significance of the difference. Table 3 addresses RQ3: Column 1 lists the percentage of business schools that identified a com-petency as describing “the highly suc-cessful graduate of the undergraduate program(s) at [the] school,” Column 2 liststhepercentageofbusinessschools that identified a competency as being emphasizedintheschool’sundergradu- ateprogram,Column3liststhediffer-ences,andColumn4liststsshowingthe statisticalsignificanceofthedifference.
DISCUSSION
PerTable1,thereisagooddealof similarity between the competencies that businesses identify as describing
thesuccessfulmanagerandthecompe-tenciesthatbusinessschoolsidentifyas describing the successful graduate of thebusinessschoolprogram.Although there was a statistically significant difference between businesses and schoolswithrespectto10of21compe- tenciesthatweexamined,thenumeri-caldifferencebetweenbusinessesand business schools was small. There wereonlytwocompetenciesforwhich communication skills, team worker, interpersonalskills,dependable,prob-lem solver, purposeful, flexible/adapt-able,businessexpertise,timemanager, andrisktaker.Theseresultsshowafair degree of congruence between busi-nesses and schools in terms of the competencies they deem important. In other words,RQ1 can be answered affirmatively: Business schools iden- tifythesamecompetenciesasdescrib-ing “the highly successful graduate of the undergraduate program(s) at
[the] school” that businesses identify as describing “the highly successful manager/executive.”
Incontrast,thedatainTable2show a striking dissimilarity between the competencies that firms identify as describing the successful manager and the competencies that are emphasized inbusinessschools’undergraduatepro-grams. Specifically, for 11 competen-cies, the percentage of businesses that checked a particular competency as describing “the highly successful man-ager/executive” was statistically great-er than the percentage of schools that emphasized that same competency in their undergraduate programs: custom-er focus, interpersonal skills, depend-able, purposeful, flexible/adaptdepend-able, staff developer, results oriented, qual-ityfocused,timemanager,imaginative, and risk taker. Even more important, someofthedifferenceswerelarge.For example,65.3%offirmsidentifiedstaff developerasdescribing“thehighlysuc-cessfulmanagerorexecutive,”whereas only 2.4% of schools emphasized that same competency in their undergradu- ateprograms.Therewereeightcompe-tenciesforwhichthedifferencebetween businessesandschoolswasgreaterthan 20%: customer focus, interpersonal skills, dependable, flexible/adaptable, staff developer, results oriented, qual-ityfocused,andrisktaker.Foronlysix competencies was the difference less than10%:communicationsskills,team worker, foreign language proficiency, problemsolver,technicalexpertise,and professional dress. These results show that business schools are not empha-sizing in their undergraduate programs the competencies that are important to businesses. In other words,RQ2 must be answered negatively on the basis of the data: Business schools do not emphasize the same competencies in theirundergraduateprogramsthatbusi-nessesidentifyasdescribing“thehighly successfulmanager/executive.”
Last, the data in Table 3 show that overall, business schools are not emphasizing in their undergraduate programs the competencies that they identifyasdescribing“thehighlysuc-cessfulgraduate.”Specifically,foreach of15competencies,thepercentageof schools that identified it as describ-TABLE3.ComparisonofSchools’DescriptorandSchools’Emphasisin
UndergraduatePrograms
Schools’ Schools’
Competency descriptor(%) emphasis(%) Difference(%) t (df=317)
Communicationskills 100.0 90.5 9.5 2.08
Customerfocus 40.5 26.2 14.3 2.35
Teamworker 88.1 83.3 4.8 —
Interpersonalskills 95.2 66.7 28.5† 4.05
Dependable 83.3 40.5 42.8† 5.45
Foreignlanguage
proficiency 21.4 14.3 7.1 —
Problemsolver 97.6 90.5 7.1 —
Purposeful 47.6 21.4 26.2† 3.81
Technicalexpertise 61.9 81.0 –19.1 –3.11
Flexible/adaptable 88.1 33.3 54.8† 7.39
Staffdeveloper 14.3 2.4 11.9 2.35
Experienceinaforeign
country 16.7 16.7 0.0 —
Resultsoriented 73.8 45.2 28.6† 4.05
Leadershipskills 97.6 73.8 23.8† 3.58
Hardworker 83.3 54.8 28.5† 4.05
Qualityfocused 64.3 38.1 26.2† 3.81
Businessexpertise 64.3 61.9 2.4 —
Timemanager 47.6 28.6 19.0 3.11
Professionaldress 47.6 23.8 23.8† 3.58
Imaginative 64.3 33.3 31.0† 4.23
Risktaker 47.8 23.8 24.0† 3.41
Note.Dashindicatesnosignificantdifferenceatconventionallevels(p<.05,two-tailed). †Difference>20%.
ing “the highly successful graduate of the undergraduate program(s) at [the] school” was statistically greater than the percentage of schools that emphasized that same competency in their undergraduate programs: com-munications skills, customer focus, interpersonal skills, dependable, pur- poseful,flexible/adaptable,staffdevel-oper,resultsoriented,leadershipskills, hard worker, quality focused, time manager, professional dress, imagi-native, and risk taker. Alternative-ly, there is only one competency— technicalexpertise—thatisemphasized in schools’ undergraduate programs but that is not identified by business schools as describing “the highly suc-cessful graduate of the undergradu-ateprogram(s)at[the]school.”Again, some of the differences were large. Specifically, there were 11 competen-cies for which the difference between what schools identified and what they emphasizedintheirundergraduatepro- gramswasgreaterthan20%:interper-sonal skills, dependable, purposeful, flexible or adaptable, results oriented, leadership skills, hard worker, quality focused, professional dress, imagina-tive,andrisktaker.Alternatively,there wereonlyfivecompetenciesforwhich thedifferencewaslessthan10%:com-munications skills, foreign language proficiency, problem solver, experi-enceinaforeigncountry,andbusiness expertise. These data clearly indicate thatschoolsdonotemphasizeintheir undergraduateprogramsthecompeten-cies that they identify as describing the highly successful business-school graduate. Therefore,RQ3 also must be answered negatively on the basis of the data: Business schools are not emphasizingthesamecompetenciesin theirundergraduateprogramsthatthey identify to describe “the highly suc-cessful graduate of the undergraduate program(s)at[the]school.”
Insummary,thedatadiscussedpre-viouslyconfirmedwhathasbeenfound inseveralpriorstudies,butaddednew information as well. Similar to Rubin and Dierdorff (2007), Sadri (2002), and Langbert (2000), we found that business schools were not emphasiz-ing in their undergraduate curricula the competencies that are relevant to
business. This finding presents reason forconcern,becauseasmentionedpre-viously, one of the goals of business schoolsandbusinessschooleducation istopreparegraduatesforemployment aftergraduation.
The present study also adds new information that has not been shown in earlier research. One minor differ-enceisthatthedatainthepresentstudy dealt specifically with undergraduate students and undergraduate business school curricula, whereas much of the earlier literature deals with the MBA. It is important to note that what has been found in the past with respect to MBA curricula applies to undergradu-atecurriculaaswell.Amoresubstantial difference between the present study andearlierliteratureisthatthecompe-tencies examined in the present article wereidentifiedasbeingrelevanttosuc-cess in business by businesses, rather than by the researchers. Therefore, we areconfidentthatthecompetenciesthat we examined in the present study are importanttobusinesses.
Themostimportantnewfindingthat data in the present study show is that businesses and business schools gener-allyagreeonthecompetenciesthatare indicative of successful employees. In other words, even though businesses and business schools agree on which competencies are important, business schools are not emphasizing those competencies in their curricula. Prior researchhasnotlookedatwhetherbusi-nesses and business schools agree on which competencies are relevant; prior studies have looked only at whether businessschoolswereteachingagiven set of competencies, not whether busi-nesses and business schools agreed on the importance of those competencies. Without data showing this to be true, the discrepancy between the compe-tenciesbusinessesdeemedrelevantand the competencies business school cur-ricula emphasized could be explained by business schools not agreeing with businessesonthecompetenciesthought to be indicative of successful business schoolgraduatesoremployees.Inother words,businessschoolsmaybeempha-sizing in their curricula the competen-cies they deemed relevant even though
thosearenotthecompetenciesbusiness-es deemed relevant, because business schools did not agree with businesses onwhichcompetencieswereimportant. The data in the present study negate thatexplanationbecauseitshowedthat businesses and business schools agree onthecompetenciesthatareindicative ofsuccessfulbusinessschoolgraduates oremployees.Becausebusinessschools andbusinessesagreedonthecompeten-ciesdeemedtobeimportant,theremust be an alternate reason to explain why businessschoolswerenotemphasizing intheircurriculathecompetenciesthat businessesdeemedimportant.
Thefinalnewfindingpresentedinthe present article is that business schools are not emphasizing in their curricula the competencies that they themselves considered indicative of successful businessschoolgraduates.Thisfinding issignificantinandofitself,butitalso directly supports the finding discussed previously. Business schools and busi-nessesagreeonwhichcompetenciesare indicativeofsuccessfulbusinessschool graduates or employees, but business schoolsarenotemphasizingthesecom-petenciesintheircurricula.
Conclusion
Given that the mission of business schools is to prepare their students for employmentaftergraduation,research-ersshouldwonderwhythereweresuch significant discrepancies between the competencies businesses valued and thosebusiness-schoolcurriculaempha-sized. Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to explain why these discrep-ancies exist; we can merely conjecture aboutthepossiblefactorsthatmaycon-tributetothem.
One possible explanation may be that there is a basic difference in focus between respondents in a business and thoseinabusinessschoolwhentheyare askedtorespondtoasurveylistingthe importanceofspecificmanagerialcom-petencies. Business respondents may place their focus on competencies that leadtosuccessinthebusiness,whereas business school respondents may focus on technical-skills development and general education requirements across thecurriculum.Inotherwords,business schools may have a wider focus that
encompasses students in many degree paths leading to a more generalized concept of managerial competencies. Furthermore, business schools may be influenced by the time constraints of whatcanbeincludedrealisticallyinthe typical4-yearcurriculum.Trade-offsare sometimesnecessarywhenschoolsstrive tomeetsimultaneouslytherequirements ofaccreditingagencies,theexpectations for professional certification, and local generaleducationrequirements.Inthese situations, school administrators may assume that some general competen-cies such as communications skills are embedded across the curriculum with-outaspecificfocus.Therefore,although somegeneralcompetenciesmaybeseen asnecessaryandexpected,theyarenot seenasbeingemphasizedinthecurricu-lumperse.
In addition, business schools may be placing undue emphasis on current high-interest topics, such as strategic integration, entrepreneurship, or global management, at the expense of more common managerial competencies such as leadership, oral communication, and quantitativeskillsthatbusinessesseeas necessary to ensure that the business schoolgraduatewouldbesuccessfulina managerialposition.
The explanations presented in the present article are mere conjectures. Further research should examine why business school curricula do not place moreemphasisonthecompetenciesthat areidentifiedasimportanttobusinesses,
especially when business schools them-selvesrecognizetheimportanceofthese competencies. Business schools should attempttoincludethesecompetenciesin thecurricula.
NOTES
1.Thesurveyssenttobusinessesandbusiness schoolsareavailablefromtheauthorsonrequest.
2. Unfortunately, we included only 21 of 23 competencies on the business survey sent to schools;weomittedsafetyconsciousanduncom-promising from the school survey because of a technical error.Although this prevents the com-parisonfrombeingideal,thedataandresultsare useful,nonetheless.
Steven Eric Abrahamis a professor in the School of Business at the State University of NewYorkatOswego.Heteacheshumanresource management, labor relations, and employment law.Hisresearchinterestsarethesame,andhe often uses event study methodology to investi-gatetheseissues.
Lanny A. Karnsis a professor at the State University of NewYork at Oswego. He teaches leadership,businessethics,andmanagement,and hisresearchinterestsarebusinessethicsandcom-petencytheory.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven EricAbraham, 316 Rich Hall,Oswego,NY13126,USA.
E-mail:abraham@oswego.edu
REFERENCES
Abraham,S.E.,Karns,L.A.,Shaw,K.,&Mena, M. (2001). Managerial competencies and the managerialperformanceappraisalprocess.Jour-nalofManagementDevelopment,20,842–852. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB) International. (2006). Eli-gibilityproceduresandaccreditationstandards forbusinessaccreditation.Tampa,FL:Author. Barksdale,K.(1998).WhyweshouldupdateHR
education.JournalofManagementEducation, 22,
526–530.Bennis,W.G.,&O’Toole,J.(2005,May).How businessschoolslosttheirway.HarvardBusi-nessReview,2005,96–104.
Campbell, N. D., Heriot, K. C., & Finney, Z. R. (2006). In defense of silos: An argu-ment against the integrative undergraduate businesscurriculum.JournalofManagement Education,30,316–332.
Dierdorff,E.C.,&Rubin,R.S.(2006).Towarda comprehensiveempiricalmodelofmanagerial competencies. McLean,VA: MER Institute of theGraduateManagementAdmissionCouncil. Ghoshal,S.(2005).Badmanagementtheoriesare
destroying good management practices.Acad-emy of Management Learning and Education, 4,75–91.
Karns,L.A.,&Mena,M.A.(1998).Sharpening theperformancemanagementfocususingcore competencies:Apilotstudy.Paperpresentedat the Academy of Business and Administrative Sciences, Emerging Economic International Conference,Budapest,Hungary.
Langbert, M. (2000). Professors, managers, and human resource education.Human Resource Management,39,65–78.
Mintzberg,H.(2004).ManagersnotMBAs:Ahard lookatthesoftpracticeofmanagingandman-agementdevelopment.London:PrenticeHall. Moberg, D. J. (2006). Best intentions, worst
result:Groundingethicsstudentsintherealities oforganizationalcontext.AcademyofManage-mentLearning&Education,5,307–316.
Pfeffer,J.,&Fong,C.T.(2002).Theendofbusi-nessschools?Lesssuccessthanmeetstheeye. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-tion,1,78–95.
Porter, L., & McKibbin, L. (1988). Manage-ment education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century?New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rubin,R.S.,&Dierdorff,E.C.(2007,August).How relevantistheMBA?Assessingthealignmentof MBA curricula and managerial competencies. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of ManagementMeeting,Philadelphia,PA.
Sadri,G.(2002,December5).Identifyingcorebusi-ness school competencies.Exchanges: Online Journal ofTeaching and Learning in the CSU. RetrievedFebruary20,2008,fromhttp://www. exchangesjournal.org/print/print_1044.html
APPENDIX
BusinessSchoolRespondentDemographics(%)
Positiontitle
Dean 57.1
Assistant/Associatedean 26.2
Departmentchair 2.4
Facultymember 14.3
Numberofstudentsintheundergraduate programinbusiness
<500 7.3
501–1,000 17.1
1,001–1,500 24.4
>1,500 51.2
Campusdescription
Public 83.3
Private 16.7
Businessprogramdescription
Undergraduateonly 2.4
Undergraduateandmaster’sonly 66.7
Undergraduate,master’s,anddoctorate 28.6
Master’sanddoctorateonly 2.4
AssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsof Businessaccreditationstatus
Businessonly 50.0
Businessandaccounting 50.0
Candidacy 0.0
Other 0.0
