Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:44
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
To cite this article: Ozen Asik-Dizdar (2015) To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management Education and Its Discontents, Journal of Education for Business, 90:8, 443-450, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
To Be or Not to Be
. . .
a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The author discusses the criticisms directed at management education and argues that the causes of today’s problems are rooted in the apparent disconnect between management academics and practitioners. It starts with an examination of management education and its discontents from past to present. Then, existing problems are analyzed in the categories of (a) relevance, (b) analytical versus soft skills, and (c) legitimacy. It is asserted that the problems can be overcome when management scholars and practitioners reconcile and exert their joint efforts on redefining management as a professional discipline. Suggestions are offered as to how to carry out this endeavor.
Keywords: analytical skills, academic-practitioner gap, legitimacy, management education, professional ethics, relevance, soft skills
Management schools, while recognized for their contribu-tions in leading the way toward today’s fast-paced global-ized business world, have been under close scrutiny as to the consequences they produced. This paper posits that the source of the current problems is the apparent disconnect between management as an academic discipline and man-agement as practice, and the solution can be found in work-ing toward establishwork-ing management as a sound profession.
Criticisms that highlight the problems currently experi-enced (or perhaps, caused?) by management schools are more pronounced today (Adler, 2006; Drucker, 1992; Leavitt, 2007; Spender, 2007). Against a background of dynamic and unpredictable business environment, business practitioners struggle to cope with ongoing change by establishing new forms of business (e.g., alliances, network organizations), utilizing new communication technologies (e.g., interactive websites, social networking), developing new products and services, and competing on a worldwide scale (Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002). In this regard, management schools are criticized for being just a follower of the changes, and not ahead of them in teaching and research.
Moreover, it seems management is no longer a favorite major among the college-going population, as evidenced by the decline in management school enrollment since 2008 (Fischer & Glenn, 2009; Goudreau, 2012; Mondello, 2011). Although some increase has recently been observed at MBA-level (Estrada & Schoenfeld, 2013), the growth is yet slow and figures remain much lower than those before the economic crisis of 2008–2009. In addition to increased costs, another potential cause may be characteristics of the younger college population, Generation Y (Eisner, 2011; Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Martin, 2005; Weiler, 2005). Born into the global era of fast information and com-munication technologies, Generation Y is highly technol-ogy-literate, and their acute awareness of the social and environmental problems feeds into their skepticism about the morals of the business world (Loughlin & Barling, 2001). They are skeptical even about the necessity of edu-cation (Jarzabkowski, Giulietti, Oliveira, & Amoo, 2013), especially under the influence of popular culture of fast-track careers and success obtained in nonconventional ways by role models such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zucker-berg. In this regard, management schools are criticized for having remained ineffective in attracting this young group of individuals, and retaining them in the school system throughout.
Therefore here I deal with whether management can or should be organized around principles of a profession, and,
Correspondence should be addressed to Ozen Asik-Dizdar, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Department of Management, 842 Cambie St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 2P6, Canada. E-mail: o_dizdar@fdu. edu
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
if so, what measures can be taken to ensure that manage-ment schools overcome the issues and criticisms they are facing. As mentioned previously, it is imperative that social institutions adapt to change, move away from rigidity, and enhance flexibility (Spender, 2007; Starkey & Tempest, 2009). Furthermore, by virtue of their relentless questioning and search for meaning, the more skeptical and unconven-tional young generation implicitly encourage social institu-tions to change (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010). Hence, it is no surprise that management schools, considered one of the prime builders of today’s society, are under close scrutiny.
Here I first talk about past improvement efforts in man-agement education; then, I categorize current issues in three grand areas that can be addressed by interweaving manage-ment education and professional ethics.
MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN PERSPECTIVE
Management schools have been the focus of interest for various improvement efforts since their inception (Augier & March, 2011). Early critics observed that management education was not as strongly positioned as the established professional areas of study, such as medicine, law, or engi-neering. Rather, management schools were instituted to serve as trade or vocational schools primarily based on practice, where the first few professors were themselves practicing managers and entrepreneurs (Mintzberg, 2004). Regarding teaching, it was observed that instructors struc-tured the course material based on personal experience. Although not an immediate negative, such an approach lacked sound research to substantiate theory and feed into teaching.
Weaknesses in teaching and research in management schools were addressed in the recommendations of Gordon-Howell and Pierson Reports, both dated 1959 (Augier & March, 2011; Goodrick, 2002). These reports asserted that management schools were too narrow-minded in their trade-focused approach to education, which was insufficient for the scientific scrutiny needed for scholarly activity, let alone a profession. Both reports criticized management education stating that academic standards were low and the curriculum full of vocational courses with little value to build analytical and managerial competencies. The reports further maintained that should management schools wish to gain the respectable status of an academic institution, they should engage in more theory and research driven endeav-ors with more scientifically oriented faculty (Anonymous, 2009; Augier & March, 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
Concurring with others (Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Shoemaker, 2008), Augier and March (2011) argued that the reports did create the impact sought, and many reforms helped gradually transform management
schools, by enhancing their scientific rigor with thorough research and theory development, their academic standing within the university system, and their status in the business world. Recently, however, management schools are back under close scrutiny, as present-day criticisms question not only their tools and approaches in teaching and research, but also their underlying philosophy.
One common criticism from past to present is that man-agement schools have been unable to lead the change in business practice. It appears that while past criticisms mainly aimed for elevating management studies on the premise that lack of scientific perspective was the main cause for management schools’ inability to lead the change (Augier & March, 2011; Shoemaker, 2008), today’s criticisms seem to say the opposite, that management schools have been unable to predict and lead the change (or incorporate the change in their teaching and research), because they have become too “scientific,” to the extent of losing connection with business practice, and becoming detached from reality (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Min-tzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
Renewed criticisms, therefore, point to three potential detriments for the future of management schools: (a) that management school, with its current teaching and research, has lost its connection to the real world; (b) that the output (graduates) produced by management schools have primarily been greedy, self-interested, materialistic individuals looking to maximize their own benefit; and (c) that management school, placing such greed at the root of its educational philosophy, has been one of the prime con-tributors to the current world problems. The most immedi-ate implications include the declining enrollment figures, and the public taking for granted that business world is “dirty,” driven by extreme profit motive. Furthermore, the academe is perceived to be unable to offer relevant solu-tions to business-related issues, as their work is seldom directly available to the world of practice and general public.
Given these, I analyze today’s criticisms to management schools in the following dimensions:
1) Relevance: Criticism that questions the extent to which management schools have been detached from reality and immersed in their own world, such that they have lost the practical relevance of their research (Ireland, 2012; Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenol-losa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007).
2) Analytical versus soft skills:Criticism that manage-ment schools have trained students as experts in busi-ness functions with deeply entrenched analytical skills, often accompanied by lack of interpersonal skills, resulting in an inability to see the big picture, take initiative, make effective decisions, and be a leader (Adler, 2006; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Minz-berg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
444 O. ASIK-DIZDAR
3) Legitimacy: Criticism that scrutinizes the predomi-nant rational economic model of the society adopted by management schools, stating that this focus has promoted the pursuit of self-interest, and therefore legitimized amoral behavior, where the thin line between self-interest and greed could easily (and jus-tifiably) be crossed (Augier & March, 2011; Ghoshal, 2005; Wang, Malhotra, & Murnighan, 2011).
The Issue of Relevance
The first issue concerns how relevant the research con-ducted by management scholars is (Augier & March, 2011; Hubbard & Lindsay, 2013; Ireland, 2012; Spender, 2007). Just like in medicine, law, or engineering, the expectation in fields of professional study is that research be conducted under systematic study, and the results obtained inform and improve the practice of the field (Hughes, Bence, Grisoni, O’Regan, & Wornham, 2011; Tushman et al., 2007). If management is a profession, we can similarly expect that academic research conducted in management schools feed into practice, and help advance the knowledge base of practitioners.
However, the concern is that management research has gradually become preoccupied with peripheral topics that may or may not be interesting or useful to management practice (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011). Further, it appears that management research has been con-cerned with the rigor of its scientific scrutiny, with exces-sive focus on quantitative methodology (Ireland, 2012; Pearce & Huang, 2012; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006), more than the significance of the results within the larger context they are part of.
Admittedly, this issue has multiple dimensions:
Management research seems to focus on narrow
prob-lems or topics that may be easily quantified for aca-demic purposes, but trivial for practical purposes (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011; Min-tzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006). Therefore, no matter how valuable and sound it is, research does not create impact on management prac-tice. Furthermore, although scholarly articles pub-lished in academic journals almost always elaborate on managerial implications of research findings, it is hard to say that these publications reach widespread audience outside academia, which undermines the usability of results by practitioners. On the other hand, publications such as the Economist, Harvard Business Review, Forbes, orCalifornia Management Review, addressing both academic and practitioner audiences, can be said to act as intermediaries where authors and readers from either background can meet (Cohen, 2007; Pearce & Huang, 2012).
Young scholars (mainly referring to full-time,
tenure-track faculty in management schools) are essentially expected to “publish” their research, and most often their venue is academic journals. The system therefore perpetuates its own problem as it is established in such a way that publication pressure outweighs the con-cerns about usefulness of research results. Scholars may therefore consider practical relevance as a sec-ondary concern, and getting published as primary. Another interesting observation by Pfeffer and Fong (2002) and Trank and Rynes (2003) is that publica-tions that exert influence over management practice are rarely produced by academics—the majority of top-selling business and management books are often authored by practitioners. Perhaps because of their apparent disconnect, there’s not much flow of infor-mation between academia and practice, and hence practitioners are coming up with popularized self-help books, methods of analysis (e.g., Boston Consulting Group’s growth-share matrix), and other treatise that may or may not be backed up by scientific scrutiny.
As a result, academic-practitioner gap has grown wider over time, and it is almost as if management scholars and practitioners operate in different realms, perhaps within some feeling of mutual distrust, unbelieving of what they can actually contribute to one another.
The Issue of Analytical Versus Soft Skills
Another issue concerns the dismissal of soft skills in teach-ing where students mostly forge their strength in develop-ing analytical skills, coupled with quantitative techniques (Hughes et al., 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Tung, 2006). These include analysis of financial markets, company market share, operations research, strategy; that is, techniques that usually relate to separate functions of business. In this regard, management schools are designed in such a way that teaching is segregated (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002)—separate departments deliver the hard knowledge and develop expertise in their particular field (function) of study.
The concern is that this functional segregation may lead to an excessive focus on analytical skills, where students easily lose sight of what exactly constitutes “management” of a business organization (Mintzberg, 2004; Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002). While management teaching has been effective in delivering functional business knowledge and developing analytical skills, it has done so mostly at the expense of soft skills (e.g., communication, leadership, ini-tiative-taking, and other interpersonal issues; Robles, 2012; Schulz, 2008). Compared to hard (analytical) skills, soft (interpersonal) skills are often dismissed as common sense knowledge, or on the grounds that they are easy to acquire at any point in time (Crawford, Lang, Fink, Dalton, &
Fielitz, 2011). This inattention or inability to instill soft skills by management schools is severely criticized by scholars (Mintzberg being the most prominent) arguing that soft skills are essentially what make the practice of management.
The exclusion of soft skills resulted in management edu-cation engendering a rational economic mindset in its par-takers, and reinforcing individuals to ignore the emotional aspect of human existence. The assumption is that rational behavior must supersede everything, and everyone is expected to remain objective and impersonal, disregarding any emotions that may interfere with business practice. As such, softer aspects such as interpersonal understanding, moral judgment or empathy are undermined, or simply viewed as secondary (Leavitt, 2007; Tung, 2006; Zhu, 2009). As a result, rational individuals have lacked the ability to see the social implications of business decisions, to think creatively in problem-solving situations, and to understand the depth of social problems they may have caused. In brief, the emphasis that economic grand theory and rational perspective have placed on achieving profit-ability and competitiveness as the primary objectives of a business organization overshadowed other viewpoints.
The Issue of Legitimacy
The last issue is perhaps the most fundamental, as it scruti-nizes the very existence of management schools. Ghoshal (2005) drew attention to the unintended consequences of economic theory that lies at the basis of all business activ-ity, as well as management teaching and research: eco-nomic theory has implicitly legitimized that homo economicus, while relying on self-interest for all his activ-ity, can easily turn greedy, abuse others, use unethical behavior, and violate moral rules of society.
This criticism appears especially valid considering the economic crises and corporate scandals of the recent deca-des. It is further supported by empirical studies, for exam-ple by Wang et al. (2011), who found that economics education is associated with positive attitudes toward, and increases the moral acceptability of greed. Similarly, Giac-alone (2004) criticized business education for being unable to instill the right virtues in students and help them think beyond profits and self-interest. These findings and obser-vations lead us to pause and reflect upon the educational philosophy of management schools, and the contributions that they have so far made to management practice. Man-agement schools have long stagnated in their current educa-tional system; however, as advocated by Howell in an interview years after his influential report, they must con-tinuously renew themselves in order to respond to the changing needs of the society (Schmotter, 1984). Not only the educational content, but also the structure and process must be revisited (Leavitt, 2000). With the times changing, there is an opportunity for management scholars to step up
and turn management education around to make it a thriv-ing and engagthriv-ing discipline again. What’s needed is a new self-definition, which can be formulated around a new mis-sion and principles of profesmis-sional ethics, hence affirming management as a profession and aligning all academic and practitioner institutions.
Can Management Be Considered a Profession?
While some argue that management can be considered a profession just like other established professions as medi-cine, law, and engineering, there is extensive debate about whether management is a profession, or just a practice, or even an academic discipline at all (Barker, 2010; Khurana, Nohria, & Penrice, 2005; Knights, 2008; Mintzberg, 2004). Professions have existed since the early days of civilization as distinct areas of specialty that entailed a specific knowl-edge possessed only by those who exercised the profession, and where not everybody was eligible to affiliate. Examin-ing the three main characteristics of professions (Augier & March, 2011; Greenwood, 1957; Trank & Rynes, 2003), the following can be argued about whether or not manage-ment fits the bill:
Autonomous knowledge basis:Professions have a
gen-eralized, systematic, and abstract knowledge base that is only accessible to those who belong to the profes-sion. This knowledge base constitutes the fundamen-tals, and is delivered to new members by a combination of theoretical learning, observation, and clinical application. Medicine, law, and engineering fit this requirement well, and so does management, with its set of special knowledge, expertise, and teach-ing practices concernteach-ing a business organization.
Socially regulated selectivity: While professional
knowledge is only accessible to those who exercise it, these individuals are selected into the profession by thorough examinations and a rigorous set of rules and regulations, enforced by professional organizations and/or accreditation bodies. The expectation is that those who exercise the profession are properly selected, trained, and certified individuals, who other-wise would not be allowed to employ their special knowledge. Again, medicine, law, and engineering fit well within the picture, as they each have their special schools coordinated with their respective organizations that regulate the profession with all-encompassing standards. Management, however, is a bit different: on the one hand, it does offer specialized education in its own schools; on the other hand, the coordination of management schools with professional organizations appears rather weak. Management as a profession seems to be independently regulated from manage-ment education at the institutional level (as an example, on the practice side, there is American
446 O. ASIK-DIZDAR
Management Association; on the academic side, there is Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-ness, and Academy of Management), and it is hard to talk about all-encompassing standards to define who should qualify as a management professional.1
Social trustworthiness: One last characteristic of a
profession is its ideological or ethical component. In addition to being selected into the profession after thorough knowledge transfer and certification, a pro-fessional is expected to exercise the profession for the greater social good, transcending anybody’s personal interests or values, including an individual’s own. This not only engenders a professional identity, but also boosts the level of societal trust that the profes-sion will be uniformly executed to the benefit of the society. Often codified in written form, this ethical component is perhaps the most crucial, because its violation is a serious offense to the society, the profes-sion, and the professional individual. Again, medi-cine, law, or engineering can be said to fit well within this picture, as each profession requires its members to take an oath, and any violation of the code is sub-ject to prosecution. When it comes to management, however, recognition of the need for an ethical code is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the corporate scandals of the early 21st century, nobody gave seri-ous thought into the fact that violation of ethics while performing managerial duties could cause social harm, unrest, and despair. Again, the lack of coordina-tion among organizacoordina-tions that regulate management education and practice makes it difficult to determine, let alone enforce, the standards for a generally accepted ethical code of conduct.
All in all, management falls short of being a profession on a par with medicine, law, or engineering. As Khurana et al. (2005) aptly put it, while management assumes appearan-ces and privileges of being a profession, it evades the associ-ated constraints and responsibilities. Extensive focus on economic theory in management teaching and research implicitly indoctrinated us that the greater good of the soci-ety will be best served if the business markets are left free from intervention (Ghoshal, 2005; Smith, 2005)—when left alone, all parties will pursue their self-interest, and while protecting theirs, they will not allow another’s self-interest to override it. Hence, the system will perfectly regulate and balance itself. However, in reality, all it did was to breed “greed”—although it sounded reasonable in theory, the sys-tem has not worked as anticipated, as control mechanisms were also grounded in the same self-interested motivation. That is, the system allowed the more aggressive and the more greedy to gain more, and in doing so, take advantage of others.
Adding to this all the teaching and research on how to maximize profits, increase market share, and boost
competitiveness, management schools inadvertently legiti-mized the pursuit of self-interest, disregarding social conse-quences it may cause. Arguably, economic crises, social unrest, unemployment rates, even environmental problems are the outcome of this mindset motivated by insatiable greed and self-interest.
As such, it seems among the greatest contributors to the world’s current state of affairs are management schools, and lack of coordination between academic and practitioner organizations. If management schools and organizations did not evade establishing their own set of professional rules and regulations, and complied with their respective constraints and responsibilities, the greed mindset would not have prevailed so easily. A system of checks and balan-ces would be in place where academia would inform and have a more direct say upon management practice, which in turn, would be more synchronized with academia. A true collaboration would have existed between management scholars and practitioners, and the academic-practitioner gap would be avoided altogether, before it even came about.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
Management schools are already recognizing and taking steps to counter the problems they have contributed to, as well as rectifying their negative image. For example, advo-cating the closure of the academic-practitioner gap on the research front, Hughes et al. (2011) offered a framework describing systematic ways in which academics and practi-tioners could come together. Tushman et al. (2007) pro-posed executive education as a suitable medium to translate academic knowledge into managerial practice. Pearce and Huang (2012) and Ireland (2012) discussed the concept of “actionable research” as they argued that research based on action could more easily inform teaching, and make better sense for practice. On the teaching front, Rubin and Dier-dorff (2009) argued for more emphasis be placed in the master of business administration curriculum on the most significant managerial competencies required outside aca-demia, including managing human capital and decision-making processes. Further, Waddock and Lozano (2013) advocated a more holistic management education relating to softer aspects of managerial development, balanced with self-awareness, global integration, and understanding of broad implications of business decisions. Other studies also support the need for more soft skills training in man-agement education overall (Crawford et al., 2011; Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Robles, 2012; Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003).
Moreover, management schools collaborate with indus-try to conduct research that addresses actual indusindus-try issues; offer a variety of professional development opportunities whereby students gain hands-on experience through
internships, and service learning projects; and include topics such as business ethics and sustainability in the cur-riculum. These examples demonstrate the fact that aware-ness is in place for removing the barriers between the academic and practitioner worlds, and addressing each oth-er’s needs and expectations. What is still missing, however, is a shift of mind for a true turnaround to professionalize management education. For doing so, this paper suggests that management academic and practitioner organizations start by questioning their trueraison d’etre^ , and reorganize around a new grand mission. A new and mutually agreed-upon self-definition can act as a sound base for scholars and practitioners to better align their fundamental purpose with the needs of today’s society.
The following grand mission can be proposed: Develop-ing management scholars and practitioners who have a keen sense of responsibility to serve human, societal, and economic needs, and who are adept at addressing the same, with their repertoire of technical (functional) exper-tise, academic literacy, and experiential know-how.
The proposed mission can be said to entail the elements of professionalism (specific knowledge base, regulated selectivity, and social trustworthiness), and can promise that the output of management school, scholar or practi-tioner, will be aware of the responsibilities invested in them. On this basis, management academic and practitioner organizations can further detail the shared principles of pro-fessional ethics that will help coordinate research, teaching, and practice. Going back to the specific issues raised in this article:
1) Regarding the issue of practical relevance, new orga-nizational structures (e.g., research institutes) that initiate joint discussions between academic and prac-titioner sides can be established to ensure that the academic-practitioner involvement or engagement is firmly instituted. Workshops can be held to elaborate on what constitutes valuable research for practitioner purposes, and develop projects to tackle shared issues. Likewise, problems that practitioners experi-ence on a day-to-day basis can help feed research in these workshops. Furthermore, new journals can be issued to publish the results of these collaborative endeavors, in distribution for both academic and practitioner communities. These efforts can hence serve to engage practitioner communities to contrib-ute to relevant research that will offer tools and solu-tions for their issues, backed up by sound academic input.
2) For the issue regarding the lack of soft skills, recog-nizing the value of clinical teaching and experiential learning is a must. The perception that the delivery of knowledge regarding soft skills is easy and straightforward with courses on organizational behavior, interpersonal skills, or leadership, is
misinformed. Content of these courses can be enhanced so as to incorporate activities simulating real-life environments that can provide the opportu-nity to practice what’s learned in theory. Further-more, within a “craft learning” perspective, experiential opportunities can be incorporated in the curriculum, including working together with a man-agement professional on real-life manman-agement prob-lems, shadowing a manager in his/her daily routine, and decision-making in controlled environments. These experiences can therefore provide a more com-plete picture of the intricate nature of management practice.
3) Finally, regarding the issue concerning legitimacy, management scholars and practitioners should finally decide whether management is to be a profession. It appears that this is a delicate point where scholars and practitioners refrain from taking a clear-cut posi-tion; however, this is probably the gist of the whole matter to change management education for better. Academics and practitioners can develop standards of professional ethics for management, with all its rules, regulations, examinations, and ethical code in place. This process requires contributions from exist-ing academic and practitioner organizations, so that a profession can be defined in its full extent, be taught and practiced along its defined constraints and responsibilities. Those elements can hence act as ref-erence points against which the education and prac-tice of management can be checked and kept in order.
The collaboration of management scholars and practi-tioners is imperative in this process, not only to eliminate the academic-practitioner disconnect, but also to prevent management practice being misused by self-interested managers. Management schools can further complement this process by scrutinizing the economic theory back-ground underlying their teaching and research, and study-ing its social implications (e.g., poverty, social injustice, unemployment, organizational well-being, social welfare)
Admittedly, all these are easier said than done, as lots of difficulties inside and outside management schools curb the enthusiasm, ranging from funding structure to school rankings, from tenure system to grade inflation, and more (while fully recognizing the significance of these issues, they remain to be discussed in a separate arti-cle). It seems essential that management schools and aca-demic organizations recognize their responsibility in creating today’s business world. From this recognition, it is possible to make a positive turnaround, so long as man-agement schools are ready and willing to challenge the status quo, objectively criticize themselves, adopt a new mindset, and re-open the borders between academic and practitioner worlds.
448 O. ASIK-DIZDAR
With management being a discipline so closely linked to practice, two things seem obvious: (a) management research is not supposed to sit in ivory towers—it is sup-posed to mean something for ordinary people, and do some-thing to make their life better; and (b) management teaching is not supposed to teach greed—it is supposed to develop well-rounded individuals who will join the work-force fully aware and considerate of all dimensions of human life. The most important step toward the turnaround will be made only when management education, with all its academic and practitioner institutions, is reorganized around professional ethics. As Pirson and Lawrence (2010) suggested, the ideal of a balanced society will be reached through a balanced management education where human-ism is put back in place.
NOTE
1. This is less true for the disciplines of accounting, finance, or marketing, where the academics and prac-titioners seem to be more closely connected at institu-tional level.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (2006). The art & leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5,
486–499.
Anonymous. (2009, June 4). The Gordon-Howell report of 1959—The more things change. A seminal critique of American business education, five decades on.The Economist.Retrieved from http://www.economist. com/node/12762453
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011).The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barkema, H. G., Baum, J. A. C., & Mannix, E. A. (2002). Management challenges in a new time.Academy of Management Journal, 45,916– 930.
Barker, R. (2010). No, management isnota profession.Harvard Business Review, 88(7/8), 52–60.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap.Academy of Management Jour-nal, 50,1013–1019.
Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton, R., & Fielitz, L. (2011). Compar-ative analysis of soft skills: What is important for new graduates? Wash-ington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. Drucker, P. F. (1992). The new society of organizations.Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 95–104.
Eisner, S. P. (2011). Teaching generation Y college students: Three initia-tives.Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(9), 69–84. Estrada, R., & Schoenfeld, G (2013). Application trends survey
report. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/market-intelligence-and-research/research-library/admissions-and-application-trends/2013-appli cation-trends-survey-report.aspx
Fischer, K., & Glenn, D. (2009, August 31). 5 college majors on the rise.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/article/5-College-Majors-On-the-Rise/48207/
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good man-agement practices.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4,75–91.
Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3,415–420. Goodrick, E. (2002). From management as a vocation to management as a scientific activity: An institutional account of a paradigm shift.Journal of Management, 28,649–668.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both matter.Management Learning, 37,419–428.
Goudreau, J. (2012, May 15). The 15 most valuable college majors. For-bes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/ 05/15/best-top-most-valuable-college-majors-degrees/
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3), 45–55.
Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013). From significant difference to sig-nificant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research.
Journal of Business Research, 66,1377–1388.
Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011). Scholarship that matters: Academic-practitioner engagement in business and management.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10,40–57.
Ireland, R. D. (2012). Management research and managerial practice: A complex and controversial relationship. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11,263–271.
Jarzabkowski, P., Giulietti, M., Oliveira, B., & Amoo, N. (2013). “We don’t need no education”–Or do we? Management education and alumni adoption of strategy tools.Journal of Management Inquiry, 22,4–24.
Khurana, R., Nohria, N., & Penrice, D. (2005, February 21). Is busi-ness management a profession? Op-Ed. HBS Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/ 4650.html
Knights, D. (2008). Review of the book From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management As a Profession, by R. Khurana.Academy of Management Review, 33, 1019–1022. Leavitt, H. J. (2000). The old business school and the new world: Real
trouble ahead?Selections, 16,32–34.
Leavitt, H. J. (2007). Big organizations are unhealthy environments for human beings.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6,
253–263.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 74,543–558.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23,857–861.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity—What managers need to know about Generation Y.Industrial and Commercial Training, 37,39–44.
Mintzberg, H. (2004).Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft prac-tice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1,64–76.
Mondello, J. (2011, September 8). Undergraduate business enrollment declines in the United States.AACSB International Business Education Data and Research Blog. Retrieved from http://aacsbblogs.typepad.com/ dataandresearch/2011/09/undergraduate-business-enrollment-declines-in-the-united-states.html.
Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to management education.Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 11,247–262.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less suc-cess than meets the eye.Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 1,78–95.
Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Humanism in business—Toward a paradigm shift?Journal of Business Ethics, 93,553–565.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.Business Communication Quarterly, 75,
453–465.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required manage-rial competencies.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8,208–224.
Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2,269–283. Schmotter, J. W. (1984). An interview with Professor James E. Howell.
Selections, 1(2), 8–16.
Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond aca-demic knowledge.NAWA: Journal of Language and Communication, 2,
146–154.
Shoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking management education.California Management Review, 50,119–139. Smith, A. (2005). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations. In J. Manis (Ed.),The electronic classics series. Hazleton, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Spender, J. C. (2007). Management as a regulated profession: An essay.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16,32–42.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: The design challenge for business schools.Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 8,576–586.
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education.Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 2,189–205.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006.Perspectives on Psy-chological Science, 5,58–75.
Tung, R. L. (2006). Of arts, leadership, management education, and man-agement research: A commentary on Nancy Adler’s “The arts & leader-ship: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?”Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5,505–511.
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M., & McGrath, D. (2007). Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research.Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 6,345–362.
Waddock, S., & Lozano, J. M. (2013). Developing more holistic manage-ment education: Lessons learned from two programs.Academy of Man-agement Learning and Education, 12,265–284.
Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10,
643–660.
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory.The Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship, 31,46–53.
Zhu, Y. (2009). Philosophical underpinnings for equilibrium of values and implications for management education: A response to Harold Leavitt. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8,
290–296.
450 O. ASIK-DIZDAR
