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: 20:32
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson
To cite this article: Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson (2014) AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended Consequences: A Deming View, Journal of Education for Business, 89:2, 103-109, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
Published online: 17 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 136
View related articles
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
James Mueller
College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
Dan Benson
Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, USA
The AACSB accreditation process reflects basic quality principles, providing standards and a process for feedback for continuous improvement. However, implementation can lead to unintended negative consequences. The literature shows that while institutionalism and critical theory have been used as a theoretical base for evaluating accreditation, W. E. Deming’s philosophy has not. This article fills that void by examining possible negative consequences in meeting faculty qualification requirements in institutions with a teaching mission.
Keywords: AACSB accreditation, Deming, profound knowledge
The mission of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is “to spread accreditation to advance the quality of management education” (Runcieman, 2009). AACSB has been so successful communicating the impor-tance of its quality assurance mission, that many schools now perceive the lack of accreditation as a competitive disadvan-tage (Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009; McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005). Revisions to its standards to include teaching institu-tions, combined with an ambitious international expansion strategy, have resulted in a 42% growth rate in the number of accredited schools overall (Runcieman, 2009), and a 300% increase in accreditation of schools internationally (Kraft, 2006). As of July 2012, AACSB reported a total of 655 ac-credited institutions, of which 165 were outside of the United States (AACSB, 2012).
The AACSB goals are laudable. Their guidelines follow general quality processes in order to improve curricula, facili-ties, and faculty. And it has, as the literature review will attest, made significant strides in improving business education. Ac-creditation assures that the faculty who teach subjects have either academic or professional qualifications to teach those subjects. It assures that a process is in place to monitor the
Correspondence should be addressed to James Mueller, College of Charleston, School of Business, 9 Liberty Street, Charleston, SC 29424, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
voice of the customers of higher education and to feed back that voice to improve the program. It requires an assurance of learning system, which utilizes continuous improvement. However, as the literature will also attest, there are poten-tial concerns, not so much with the intent of the AACSB standards, but with the interpretations and implementation within programs. This critique of the accreditation process stems largely from two conceptual bases, institutional theory and critical theory. The purpose of this article is to add a third conceptual base, that of W. E. Deming’s Theory of Profound Knowledge. Specifically, it will explore possible negative unintended consequences related to the assurance of faculty qualifications among institutions with a teaching mission.
We examine the literature on AACSB accreditation and provide background on both Deming’s system and the rele-vant AACSB accreditation standards. Then, we explore the possible negative implications, given the Deming view, to raise issues of possible concern and discussion.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature leaves the impression that AACSB is either the most important guarantor of the quality in busi-ness education, or that it is to be blamed for spawning a tsunami of inferior research, destroying faculty morale, and
104 P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
reducing innovation and autonomy in business school opera-tions. The truth, at least as it is reflected in the literature, may lie somewhere in between these two extremes. Nevertheless, AACSB must be considered a force majeure, influencing the lives of millions through its mission of quality assurance.
AACSB has a history of influencing curriculum devel-opment and programmatic changes in business schools. For instance, AACSB is credited for being one of the first to recognize the importance of the international dimension for U.S. business education as early as 1959 (Thanopoulos & Vernon, 1987). Teaching ethics has been a requirement since 1979 (Shannon & Berl, 1997), and information technology, culture, diversity, and social responsibility all have taken their turn at being promoted through white papers, and all are incorporated into AACSB’s expected curriculum content. Whether AACSB is responsible for initiating these major thematic elements of business education is debatable, but the organization is nevertheless credited with both positive (Ng & Spooner, 2007) and negative (e.g., Albritton, McMullen, & Gardiner, 2003; Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009) changes in quality of educational programs. Navarro (2008) identified a prob-lem in master of business administration (MBA) curricula, emphasizing functional silos, quantitative skills, and lectures over multidisciplinary integration, experiential learning, and soft skills. He called for AACSB leadership to make the shift, but complains that the peer-review process amounts to the fox guarding the henhouse.
While AACSB’s impact on education quality is ques-tioned by some, there is little doubt that a primary benefit of AACSB accreditation is the perception of quality con-veyed by the coveted seal, or stamp of approval. AACSB’s chief accreditation officer posits that AACSB status helps parents, prospective students, faculty, and employers shop for quality education (Trapnell, 2007). Jantzen (2000b) took an even stronger position, stating, “the accreditation status of a business program is thesine qua nonin determining how prospective business students judge the quality of a program” (p. 738).
Perceptions of quality appear to confer at least some finan-cial benefits to the main educational participants (faculty and students). Hardin and Stocks’s 1995 study found that accred-itation enhanced the entry-level job prospects for accounting students, and a number of studies report that faculty salaries are higher at AACSB-accredited schools (e.g., Agarwal & Yochum, 2000; Bertin, Prather, & Zivney, 1999; Levernier, Miles, & White, 1992).
Higher faculty salaries, obviously, also add to the cost of operations (and tuition), but are only a part of the total cost associated with accreditation, another frequent criticism of the organization’s impact (e.g., Mangan, 2003; Scherer, Rajshekhar, Bryant, & Tukel, 2005). In a 2009 study of ac-creditation costs, the mean initial cost (e.g., self-study, doc-umentation, surveys, training, infrastructure) was approxi-mately $50,000 while the mean increase in operating ex-penses (e.g., faculty salary, recruitment, technology, library
holdings) was reported at approximately$400,000 per year (Heriot, Franklin, & Austin, 2009).
As stated at the outset, improving the quality of manage-ment education is the organization’s prime directive, and the literature is not particularly kind to AACSB in the evaluation of this objective. AACSB’s present quality standards (inter-preted by most as requirements) are mission based, and fall into the general categories of strategic planning (standards 1–5), educational participants (standards 6–14), and assur-ance of learning (standards 16–21). A significant number of recent studies on AACSB have investigated the impact of AACSB’s shift to mission-based standards of accreditation (e.g., Mangan, 2003; Yunker, 2000), and the motivation be-hind the change. Jantzen (2000a) and Lowrie and Wilmott (2009) both conclude that this move was not based on im-proving business education, but was one of organizational survival.
As the market for accrediting research institutions ma-tured, several competing accrediting bodies (e.g., Accredita-tion Council for Business Schools and Programs and Euro-pean Quality Improvement Council) were having increased success at accrediting the non-tier one institutions. AACSB does not accredit for-profit institutions (Linker, 2007), so targeting the high growth online university market was not a viable option. In order to maintain growth, AACSB revised its standards to make accreditation more accessible to nonre-search, or teaching, institutions (Thompson, 2004), and also began expanding internationally.
Accrediting on the basis of good teaching, however, is not as simple as counting publications (Yunker, 2000), and faculty at nonresearch institutions were simply not as prolific as their tier I counterparts. In order to avoid the appearance of diluting their accreditation standards, AACSB broadened the types of research (or intellectual contributions) that count for academic qualifications, and moved to mission-based, not absolute, standards (Janzen, 2000a; Lowrie & Wilmot, 2009).
While many aspects of AACSB’s accreditation philoso-phy have been researched, the most resilient stream (and one that predates mission-based accreditation) challenges the as-sumption that research output should be used as the main standard for academically qualifying faculty. Not surpris-ingly, there is a strong correlation between levels of research output and AACSB accreditation (Srinivasan, Kemelgor, & Johnson, 2000). While there have also been reports of a link between research output and teaching effectiveness, student evaluations are the most frequently used indicator of teach-ing effectiveness (e.g., Noser, Manakyan, & Tanner, 1996). An extensive review of the literature of the link between research and teaching is not in the purview of this article. Instead, the relationship is best summed up in an AACSB publication, where it is admitted that there is “no definitive research linking research output with effective teaching... yet AACSB clearly believes that interdependency exists and is a positive aspect of effective business education” (AACSB,
2008, p. 17). As a result, faculty at AACSB accredited insti-tutions are directed away from teaching by being given re-duced teaching loads so that they have more time to publish (Hedrick, Henson, Krieg, & Wassell, 2010; Stark & Miller, 1976). Taylor and Stanton (2009), after acknowledging no relationship between publishing and teaching, noted that the “inevitable result can only be...a greater quantity of pub-lished research ...regardless of the value or relevance of that research” (p. 94). In addition, Lee and Quddus (2008) found that accounting faculty, while publishing, were not publishing in areas of their teaching.
Lack of evidence is a problem in other aspects of AACSB. Romero (2008), in defending AACSB against a critique, ad-mitted “a lack of published, hard, and systematic data on AACSB’s positive strategic impact” (p. 246). And, this lack of evidence is extended to business schools, in general, by Pfeffer and Fong (2002), where they noted, “There is little evidence that mastery of the knowledge acquired in business schools enhances people’s careers” (p. 80). They referenced the institutionalism argument that requirements can lead to ritualized practices with no empirical evidence to support ef-fectiveness. AACSB accreditation could fall within the realm of institutionalized practices.
The lack of empirical evidence of quality has also opened the door to criticism from constructionists and critical the-orists. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) challenged the benefits of AACSB. They point to the ambiguity of terms such as high quality and usefulness in the goals. They warned that such ambiguity opens the door to peer pressure through peer review to force a one true way, namely, the American view of business education. Kilpatrick, Dean, and Kilpatrick (2008) argued that accreditation privileges a rational, analytical, and linear view of education above the liberal model of holis-tic education. They warn that accreditation rewards confor-mity at the possible cost of creativity and life-long learning. Barrow (1999) argued that any quality management system will result in compliance with the elements of the system, but not result in substantive improvements. He argued that the system will result in (a) an instrumental, bureaucratic re-sponse; (b) an emphasis on efficiency, not effectiveness; and (c) rational modes of behavior, with the corresponding pre-sumption of objectivity and neutrality and a preference for what is readily measurable. For Barrow, “Individuals are en-couraged to become increasingly passive and to allow their roles to be shaped by the technical, instrumental rational-ity of systems...” (p. 34). For critical theorists, power is a central issue. The association of AACSB with elitism and le-gitimacy raises concerns. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) went so far as to compare it to extortion: “Given the consider-able burdens of accreditation, institutions may prefer not to seek AACSB accreditation. But which of them can afford not to pay the dues for protection afforded by this club” (p. 416).
Thus, institutionalism and critical theory have been used as a basis for critique of AACSB’s ability to add quality to a
business program. We propose a third base, that of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
DEMING’S SYSTEM OF PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE
InThe New Economics, Deming (1994) introduced his Sys-tem of Profound Knowledge. Since then, it has been linked to organizational transformation (Gapp, 2002), transforma-tional leadership (Caldwell et al., 2012), learning organi-zations (Cavaleri, 2008; Khan, 2010; Moumtzoglou, 2003), motivation (Linderman, Schroeder, & Choo, 2006), and hu-man errors (Myszewski, 2012). The System of Profound Knowledge consists of four parts: systems, variation, the-ory of knowledge, and psychology. Each part is described here along with the implications for our critique of the ac-creditation process.
Central to Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is the notion of a system. Seeing systems represents a dramati-cally different way of viewing the world. Indeed, for Ackoff (1999), a system is not a concept, but a worldview. Senge (1990) defined systems thinking as “a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots”’ (p. 68). Whereas analysis deals with complex-ity by stopping the action, breaking the problem into parts, and working individually with those parts, systems thinking is the opposite. Systems thinking approaches complexity by allowing action and rising above the issue to see it as part of a larger whole.
In this article, appreciating systems means recognizing management education as a complex web of highly interac-tive problems, what Ackoff (1999) defined as a mess. Chang-ing one part here at one point in time can have implications for another part over there at a later point in time. There are reinforcing and counter-balancing feedback loops operating over time. There are nonlinear relationships that can cause major shifts in responses. This complexity can often lead to unintended consequences (Senge, 1990).
The second element of Deming’s System is understanding variation and deals with how managers respond to changes in performance data. Statistical process control theory demon-strates that systems and processes contain natural variation caused by the complex interaction of system components. Process control charts are used to indicate if a change in performance is due to this natural variation and should be ignored, or is due to a change in the system, in which case the change should be investigated.
For our purpose, administrators and faculty need to apply concepts from statistical process control in order to know if aspects of the educational system are in control. Ideally, the system should be producing consistent, predictable results.
In Theory of Knowledge, Deming emphasized the im-portance of knowledge, as distinguished from information
106 P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
and facts. Knowledge is derived from theory and the testing of a theory’s predictions (Deming, 1994). Theory and test-ing predictions are essential for sorttest-ing out cause and effect and are, therefore, essential to management. Knowledge re-quires controlled experiments to provide predictive validity. In an analytical sense, we need to isolate cause and effect and design rigorous experimental studies to understand causal re-lationships. In a systems sense, we need to develop theories of complex interactions for future testing.
The implication for our view of accreditation is that it requires a model of the complex web of interactions affecting management education. It requires a theory from which to base experiments and evidence to support or refute the theory. The last element, Psychology, recognizes that manage-ment is a social system, where one or more parts consist of a conscious being. This makes the system that much more com-plex (Ackoff, 1999). This brings theories of human behavior to the fore, especially as they relate to systems and variation. Central to Deming’s concerns regarding psychology are con-cepts of intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Fear and coercion reduce intrinsic motivation and drive out pride of work. Perhaps more importantly, incentives and rewards also reduce intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Here Deming drew on a large body of psychological research on intrinsic motivation (for a summary, see Deci, 1995).
For Deming, the research was clear: eliminate any concept of Management by Objectives with the attendant incentive programs to reward the accomplishment of individual objec-tives (Deming, 1994). Given that individual performance is the result of the complex interaction of multiple causes, most of which are outside the control of the individual, then in-dividual performance evaluations, especially those that hold individuals accountable for objectives, will do more harm than good. They will serve to decrease intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Decreasing intrinsic motivation and pride will, in turn, reduce quality (Deming, 1994).
The implications for this article involve the appreciation that humans are an important part of the system and their feelings and motivations are of central concern. Intrinsic motivation—the degree to which faculty, staff, and adminis-trators care about their work—and the degree to which they take pride in their work are vitally important to the system and add to the degree of complexity in the system.
Last, these parts of Deming’s System of Profound Knowl-edge form an integrated system where the elements are highly interactive and interdependent. It is from this integrative sys-tems standpoint that we apply Deming’s theory to AACSB accreditation. Before we do, however, we need to review, briefly, the AACSB standards we will address.
AACSB STANDARDS
There are three areas of focus within the AACSB accredi-tation process: strategic management, participants, and
as-surance of learning. Our focus will be on the second set of standards. Regarding participants, the standard for faculty is that a minimum of 50% of the faculty must be academically qualified (AQ). A total of 90% of the faculty must be either AQ or professionally qualified (PQ). To be considered PQ a faculty member must have high level experience within their field.
AQ status is based upon a rolling five-year period. To become AQ, a faculty member must have a doctorate and have a minimum number of peer reviewed journal publications within the five-year period. The requirements for the number of publications will depend upon the nature of the academic institution. At a university just seeking accreditation with a teaching orientation, the number will likely be two or more for professors teaching undergraduate students and three or more for professors teaching in an MBA program.
IMPLICATIONS
One violation of Deming’s principles, and perhaps the great-est opportunity for negative unintended consequences, lies in the determination of the qualifications of faculty. For AACSB, the justification for qualifications are tautological: “Since the intent of academic qualifications is to assure that faculty members have research competence in their primary field of teaching, the existence of a current research record in the teaching field will be accepted as prima facie evidence of academic qualifications” (AACSB, 2008, p. xx). In this stan-dard, faculty are labeled as either AQ, PQ, or other. At most, 10% of faculty can be in the other category. Our concern, and what we address in this section, is that in the process of determining faculty qualifications, competent, effective, and professional faculty might be categorized as other and potentially removed from a school of business.
The standard, as it is generally interpreted, requires at least two publications in a peer-reviewed journal every five years (Smith, Haight, & Rosenberg, 2009). Yet, there is no conclusive evidence that meeting the standard will improve teaching performance or the performance of the program. The concern is that, for teaching institutions, effective teaching does not factor into the AACSB’s criteria for qualification. We examine three potential negative consequences of admin-istrative actions to assure a qualified faculty: management by objectives, salary inversion, and structural gaming.
Management by Objectives
One response is to establish incentive programs based on publishing objectives. Indeed, the belief in the link between teaching ability and publishing has spawned a wave of merit-based pay systems in member schools designed to reward re-search output. In effect, programs are implementing manage-ment by objectives whereby faculty members are rewarded for meeting publication count objectives.
Also, despite a strong teaching mission and a university-wide core value of small class size, departments, in our ex-perience, have responded by encouraging faculty to teach double sections, reducing the contact hours for faculty. Some faculty responded by giving more multiple-choice tests and requiring fewer written assignments, thus freeing more time for research. In addition, there was an increase in the number of intra-organizational multiple-author publications. These were perfectly rational responses given that the program had installed a merit-based pay system based mainly on publica-tions. This was the only way to receive a pay increase because cost-of-living increases had been eliminated.
Deming warned that if you use measurements, in this case the publication count, to evaluate people, then you open the door to possible abuse (Deming, 1994). People will start fudging numbers or gaming the system. The publication re-quirement then becomes a game. For example, editors of low-level journals now have significant power. Imagine a nontenured faculty member who is such an editor, or who has access to an editor. This member can make deals with senior faculty who need publications. The quid-pro-quo agreement becomes, “I’ll publish you if you support me for tenure or promotion.” Or, as suggested previously, deals may be made with the sharing of authorship. If two authors publish indi-vidually, they each get one hit. If, however, they agree to put each other’s names on the papers, they each get two hits.
Another consequence could be to direct faculty into ar-eas where publishing is ar-easier, rather than to arar-eas of faculty interest. If cross-sectional empirical studies (surveys), as op-posed to longitudinal or constructionist research, are easier to conduct and easier to publish (more journals available), then faculty may be more inclined to choose those types of studies. If broad system-based studies fail to fit a journal, they will be subject to more desk rejections. Faculty may be encouraged to stick to narrow specialty fields where the con-tribution is incremental as opposed to venturing into broad, perhaps controversial, and perhaps more fertile and effective areas. Kilpatrick et al.’s (2008) concerns about accredita-tion leading to unjustified conformity apply here. These are also examples of Barrow’s (1999) dramaturgical compliance, where faculty will do the bare minimum to meet the letter of the law, but not advance the quality of the program.
Salary Inversion
Another potential problem with emphasizing publications occurs with hiring new faculty. In nonunion schools, new fac-ulty members are often offered higher salaries. This can eas-ily result in salary inversion. In one case, newly hired assistant professors are brought in at salaries 20–30% higher than as-sociate and full professors, who not only have 15–30 years of teaching experience, but also have met or exceeded existing publishing requirements. In union schools, where salaries are restricted, new faculty members are often brought in at higher
ranks to accommodate a higher salary. In many cases, this salary is still short of AACSB averages so the new faculty members are also offered reduced teaching loads and guaran-tees of extra-pay opportunities. In both cases, nonunion and union, experienced faculty members are treated inequitably. Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) predicts that experienced pro-fessors will reduce their inputs to balance the inequity in outcomes. There is the potential for the lower paid faculty to reduce inputs in order to counter the lower salary.
Structural Gaming
Manipulation of the organizational structure, what we call structural gaming, is another possible consequence of the qualification standards. Consider a hypothetical school of thirty faculty where half are new and active in research, and half are older, tenured faculty who have not kept up with publishing (nor had they been required or expected to publish in the past). However, for the sake of argument, we assume that these older faculty attend conferences, present conference papers, read regularly in their field, and have developed interests that have enhanced their teaching such as learning new technologies and teaching techniques. In addition, we will assume that they are committed and caring faculty both to their institution and to students and they are committed to mentoring the younger faculty.
The older faculty, in light of AACSB, are classified as neither AQ nor PQ, but as other. A viable institutional re-sponse, and one that has developed, is to restructure the school whereby unqualified faculty are placed in a separate department and given a deadline by which to become quali-fied. There are two potential negative consequences. First, it may be divisive, creating a caste system where some faculty members are considered better than others based on their publications. The faculty members in the other category may feel publicly embarrassed in front of their university peers. If so, commitment to the program would decrease. For ex-ample, this could lead to mentor inversion where younger faculty members are coerced into helping older faculty pub-lish. The younger faculty might resent the time this takes away from their publishing and the older faculty might resent being mentored by younger faculty.
Second, the older faculty could see the publishing re-quirement as coercive if they do not believe that publishing is either relevant or a requirement for the teaching profes-sion. Yet, tenured faculty could be removed from the school of business for not publishing. Navarro (2008) cited this as a concern in curriculum design, stating that radical change cannot be expected as long as the emphasis is on publishing. We would add that neither can significant improvements in teaching.
Third, and last, the structure may hinder service and shared governance by discouraging medium-term administrative appointments, such as department chairs or interim roles
108 P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
in the Dean’s office. It could also discourage university and community service activities. Faculty may be less likely to take on leadership positions in governance, the roles and responsibilities usually taken on by tenured faculty. In this structural gaming example, it is conceivable, and we know of a case where this is so, that no tenured faculty in a department are qualified.
Of course, the previous scenario is built on the assumption of productive experienced faculty. In the case of generally unproductive faculty, the coercion to publish may serve as a convenient mechanism for forcing these faculty members out of the program.
CONCLUSION
If we consider the possible consequences, there is a risk that the qualification requirements in AACSB may not yield an improvement in the teaching program. Indeed, they may serve to reduce the quality. Management by objective pro-grams shift emphasis away from teaching and service, fos-ter gaming of the system, and decrease intrinsic motivation. Salary inversion is potentially harmful to professionalism and commitment while structural gaming could create a host of consequences. We would ask: Will experienced teaching faculty be as committed to the school? Will they care as much as they had before about either the program or the students? Will they be as likely to continue to explore new teaching methods? Will they be inclined to mentor the younger faculty who are paid more and who are ‘mentoring’ the older faculty in research? In Deming’s terms, all of the them would have contributed to reduced pride in work and reduced intrinsic motivation, the degree to which they care about their work.
With all these problems, what would Deming suggest? We believe his response would address the larger system. Having faculty who are not publishing is part of the system. Therefore, finding out why faculty members do not publish is an important part of understanding the system. Perhaps one reason that older faculty do not publish is that they have come to realize that publishing, especially in lower tier journals, does not contribute to knowledge. If the journal is not listed in an online database, the articles are likely not read. If they are listed, the articles are often not cited. Or faculty may realize that the publications, in general, are not contributing in the larger, global view of the world’s ills. If any aspect of this is true, then qualification takes on new meaning.
While we are aware of many applications of the concerns raised previously, we are also aware that the AACSB stan-dards are not at fault. Programs have dealt effectively with unpublished faculty without installing incentive systems, cre-ating salary inversion, and encouraging gaming of the sys-tem. Our objective has been to draw attention to the potential insidious side of improvement efforts based on Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1999).Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management. New York, NY: Wiley.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange.Advanced Experimental Social Psychology,62, 335–343.
Agarwal, V., & Yochum, G. R. (2000). The academic labor market for new PhDs in business disciplines.Journal of Business & Economic Studies 6, 1–21.
Albritton, M. D., McMullen, P. R., & Gardiner, L. R. (2003). OR/MS content and visibility in AACSB-accredited U.S. business programs.Interfaces,
33(5), 83–89.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2008).
Final report of the AACSB International impact of research task force. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/resource centers/research/ Final/Impact of Research Report-FINAL.PDF
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012).
Schools accredited in business: Ordered by country/region, state, name. Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=
AACSB&WebKey=00E50DA9-8BB0-4A32-B7F7-0A92E98DF5C6 Barrow, M. (1999). Quality-management systems and dramaturgical
com-pliance.Quality in Higher Education,5, 27–36.
Bertin, W. J., Prather, L., & Zivney, T. L. (1999). The new hire market in finance for 1997–1998: Salaries and other market factors.Financial Practice and Education,9(2), 7–16.
Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence.
Journal of Business Ethics,109, 175–187.
Cavaleri, S. A. (2008). Are learning organizations pragmatic?The Learning Organization,15, 474–485.
Deci, E. L. (with Flaste, R.). (1995).Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Deming, W. E. (1994).The new economics: For industry, government, edu-cation(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Educational Services.
Gapp, R. (2002). The influence the system of profound knowledge has on the development of leadership and management within an organization.
Managerial Auditing Journal,17, 338–342.
Hardin, J. R., & Stocks, M. H. (1995). The effect of AACSB accredita-tion on the recruitment of entry-level accountants.Issues in Accounting Education,10, 83–90.
Hedrick, D. W., Henson, S. E., Krieg, J. M., & Wassell, C. S. (2010). The effects of AACSB accreditation on faculty salaries and productivity.
Journal of Education for Business,85, 284–291.
Heriot, K., Franklin, G., & Austin, W. (2009). Applying for initial AACSB accreditation: An exploratory study to identify costs.Journal of Education for Business,84, 283–288.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000a). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on the accreditation process.Journal of Education for Business,75, 343– 347.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000b). Price and quality effects on the demand for U.S. grad-uate business programs.International Advances in Economic Research,
6, 730–740.
Khan, M. A. (2010). Evaluation the Deming management model of to-tal quality in telecommunication industry in Pakistan—An empirical study.International Journal of Business and Management,5(9), 46– 59.
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards.Journal of Management Inquiry,17, 200–212.
Kraft, A. (2006, September–October). Growth and consequences.BizEd, 42–46.
Lee, B. B., & Quddus, M. (2008). AACSB standards and accounting fac-ulty’s intellectual contributions.Journal of Education for Business,83, 173–179.
Levernier, W., Miles, M. P., & White, J. B. (1992). Effects of AACSB accreditation on academic salaries.Journal of Education for Business,
68(1), 55–61.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Choo, A. S. (2006). Six sigma: The role of goals in improvement teams.Journal of Operations Management,24, 779–790.
Linker, A. (2007). Strayer, brushing aside critics, growing in Triangle.
Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/ triangle/stories/2007/11/19/
Lowrie, A., & Willmott, H. (2009). Accreditation sickness in the consump-tion of business educaconsump-tion: The vacuum in AACSB standard setting.
Management Learning,40, 411–420.
Mangan, K. S. (2003, May 9). New accreditation rules give business schools more leeway on faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A15.
McKee, M. C., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Institutional field of dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the new legitimacy of Cana-dian business schools.Canadian Journal of Administrative Science,22, 288–301.
Moumtzoglou, A. (2003). ‘Learning hospitals’ and quality.Knowledge and Process Management,10, 231–236.
Myszewski, J. M. (2012). Management responsibility for human errors.
TQM Journal,24, 326–337.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in failure?Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation,7, 108–123.
Ng, S., & Spooner, K. (2007). From IR to HRM: Thank God for AACSB.
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations,32, 69–86.
Noser, T. C., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. R. (1996). Research productivity and perceived teaching effectiveness: A survey of economics faculty.
Research in Higher Education,37, 199–221.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.Academy of Management Learning & Education,1, 78–95.
Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns.
Academy of Management Learning & Education,7, 245–255.
Runcieman, N. (2009). Organisation sets its sights on Asia. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/article/ 686436/organisation-sets-its-sights-asia
Scherer, R. F., Rajshekhar, G. J., Bryant, M., & Tukel, O. (2005). Chal-lenges of AACSB international accreditation for business schools in the United States and Europe.Thunderbird International Business Review,
17, 651–669.
Senge, P. M. (1990).The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the leaning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shannon, R. J., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Are we teaching ethics in marketing?: A survey of students’ attitudes and perceptions.Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 1059–1075.
Smith, K. J., Haight, G. T., & Rosenberg, D. L. (2009). An examination of AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual contribu-tions and academic and professional qualificacontribu-tions of faculty.Journal of Education for Business,84, 219–227.
Srinivasan, S., Kemelgor, B., & Johnson, S. D. (2000). The future of business school scholarship: An empirical assessment of the Boyer Framework for U.S. deans.Journal of Education for Business,76, 75–81.
Stark, B. J., & Miller, T. R. (1976). Selected personnel practices relating to research and publication among management Faculty.The Academy of Management Journal,19, 502–505.
Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A. D. (2009). Academic publishing and teaching effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accredited business school faculty.Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,13, 93–106. Thanopoulos, J., & Vernon, I. R. (1987). International business education
in the AACSB schools.Journal of International Business Studies,18, 91–98.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with Milton Blood: The new AACSB standards (Interview).Academy of Management Learning & Education,3, 429–439.
Trapnell, J. (2007). AACSB International accreditation.Journal of Manage-ment DevelopManage-ment,26, 67–72.
Yunker, J. A. (2000). Doing things the hard way: Problems with mission-linked AACSB accreditation standards and suggestions for improvement.
Journal of Education for Business,75, 348–353.
