08832323.2014.929560
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited
Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors of
Conformity Versus Differentiation
Kyle E. Brink, Timothy B. Palmer & Robert D. Costigan
To cite this article: Kyle E. Brink, Timothy B. Palmer & Robert D. Costigan (2014)
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors of
Conformity Versus Differentiation, Journal of Education for Business, 89:8, 425-432, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
Published online: 04 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 62
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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: 20:49
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 425–432, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited
Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors
of Conformity Versus Differentiation
Kyle E. Brink and Timothy B. Palmer
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Robert D. Costigan
St. John Fisher College, Rochester, New York, USA
Learning goals are central to assurance of learning. Yet little is known about what goals are
used by business programs or how they are established. On the one hand, business schools
are encouraged to develop their own unique learning goals. However, business schools also
face pressures that would encourage conformity by adopting goals used by others. The
authors examined the extent to which learning goals of business programs are unique versus
similar. Their evidence suggests business schools adopt goals that are quite similar. Public
schools and lower ranked schools were more likely to demonstrate such conformity. The
implications of goal similarity are discussed for management education and assurance of
learning.
Keywords: AACSB, assurance of learning, business accreditation, business education,
learning goals
All organizations, including business schools, must contend
with the tension between differentiation and conformity in
their business strategy. Business schools have debated differentiation and conformity for roughly 100 years
(McKenna, Yeider, Cotton, & Van Auken, 1991). The
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International (AACSB), as the largest accreditor of business
schools, wrestles with this same tension. When Joseph A.
DiAngelo was the chair-elect of the committee reviewing
AACSB’s accreditation standards, he said that “when the
rules are too prescriptive, schools’ mission statements,
which drive their curricula and hiring patterns, all start to
look the same. ‘It’s all vanilla. I want to see the nuts and
the cherries and all the things that make your school
unique’” (Mangan, 2012, para. 6–7).
We examine the differentiation versus conformity tension in the context of the learning goals of AACSB-accredited business schools. Though some scholars have
Correspondence should be addressed to Kyle E. Brink, Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business, Department of Management,
1903 W. Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008–5429, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
conducted research related to the AACSB’s strategic management standards (e.g., Hammond & Webster, 2011;
Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006; Orwig & Finney, 2007;
Palmer & Short, 2008), “studies that are attentive to the
impacts upon curriculum design and learning from accreditation institutions are atypical” (Lowrie & Willmott, 2009,
p. 412). The lack of research related to assurance of learning is unfortunate given that the development of student
learning goals is one of the key principles for meaningful
educational accountability (Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2008).
We chose to focus on learning goals because they form
the basis for the curriculum (Rubin & Martell, 2009). The
learning goals explicate a business school’s mission and
curricular priorities and serve as the link between a school’s
mission and assessment. The 2003 Standards (AACSB,
2012) say that learning goals are “a key element in how the
school defines itself” (p. 61) and that:
This list of learning goals derives from, or is consonant
with, the school’s mission. The mission and objectives set
out the intentions of the school, and the learning goals say
426
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
how the degree programs demonstrate the mission. That is,
the learning goals describe the desired educational accomplishments of the degree programs. The learning goals
translate the more general statement of the mission into the
educational accomplishments of graduates. (p. 60)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
When Milton Blood was the managing director of the
AACSB, he highlighted the importance of learning goals,
saying that they are,
. . . a way of focusing on the competencies you want students to have as graduates of the program, and [give] the
schools a way to say to both prospective students and to
potential employers of graduates of that program, “Here are
the knowledge and skills that will be instilled in the graduates of that program.” (Thompson, 2004, p. 437)
In sum, the purpose of our research is to examine the
undergraduate learning goals that AACSB-accredited business programs use for assurance of learning. We identify
the extent of variation that exists between business programs with respect to their learning goals as they face competing pressure to uniquely position themselves in the
market, while at the same time succumbing to conformity
brought about from a host of environmental pressures. We
also explore program characteristics that predict which
types of business schools are most likely to differentiate
versus conform through their array of learning goals.
DIFFERENTIATION VERSUS CONFORMITY
The tension for business schools to be distinct, but not
excessively so, is not new. McKenna et al. (1991) described
how the pendulum began swinging from differentiation in
1959 as a result of the separately commissioned reports by
Gordon and Howell and by Pierson. Prior to the 1950s,
diversity in business programs was commonplace. Gordon
and Howell and Pierson criticized business schools for the
lack of standardization with respect to faculty preparation,
curricula, and teaching pedagogy (Cotton, McKenna, Van
Auken, & Yeider, 1993). Business schools adapted to these
criticisms, perhaps too effectively, and “by the 1980s the
curricula of most schools of business appeared predictably
similar, as if cut from the same cloth” (Cook, 1993, p. 28).
The pendulum, however, would swing in the opposite
direction after the AACSB commissioned Lyman Porter
and Lawrence McKibbin to undertake a comprehensive
review of U.S. business education (Porter & McKibbin,
1988). Their efforts resulted in a significant change in the
AACSB’s accreditation standards. In particular, the Porter
and McKibbin report argued the AACSB should permit
business schools to capitalize upon their unique strengths
by crafting uniqueness into their assurance of learning
plans, including learning goals.
The tension between differentiation and conformity witnessed by business schools is one felt by many types of
organizations and can be explained through the lenses of
competing views about organizations and their strategies.
We examine those perspectives, in the context of assurance
of learning standards adopted by business schools, in the
following sections.
Assurance of Learning Standards: Differentiation
A common perspective in business is that firms should
develop distinctive competencies resulting in asymmetry,
or uniqueness, from their rivals. The strategic view would
suggest that schools differentiate themselves through learning goals that target particular markets in an attempt to
secure resources. In line with the strategic perspective, the
2003 standards (AACSB, 2012) indicate that learning goals
should differ across schools. Milton Blood stated that along
with the change to direct assessment standards, “we will
see very clear differences between schools on how they
will define their learning goals. . . . We will start seeing
schools differentiating themselves more and more as they
. . . define learning goals for degree programs” (Thompson,
2004, p. 436).
Guidance provided by the AACSB standards suggests
schools derive goals that meet their unique situations. In
particular, they state, “because of differences in mission,
faculty expectations, student body composition, and other
factors, schools vary greatly in how they express their
learning goals” (AACSB, 2012, p. 61). Schools are encouraged to canvass the perspectives of a wide variety of stakeholders, such as alumni, students, and employers, for input
about learning goals. One avenue they recommend is to
seek direction from advisory boards whose members represent unique stakeholder perspectives (AACSB, 2007).
AACSB is perhaps more emphatic in suggesting differentiation in learning goals with regard to addressing student
needs. This is because, “goals assist potential students to
choose programs that fit their personal career goals. Only
with an accurate understanding of the learning goals can a
potential student be able to make an informed choice about
whether to join the program” (AACSB, 2012, p. 60). In support, Romero (2008) concluded that the AACSB’s standards promote innovation and creativity regarding
curriculum and course development, and Glenn (2011)
argued for the presence of thousands of learning goals that
have been defined across all AACSB-accredited schools.
Assurance of Learning Standards: Conformity
The strategic view promoting differentiation on the basis of
learning goals is appealing. However, business schools face
considerable pressures that may temper differentiation and
promote conformity instead. Theories about organization
and economics hold that organizations perform best when
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
they fit with the demands of their external environment.
This requires administrators to ensure their organizations
are attuned to key success factors that are a function of the
environment’s demands (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). More
broadly, it is argued that organizations are influenced by
“rules of appropriateness” (March & Olsen, 1984, p. 741)
resulting in actions that are brought into harmony with
environmental conditions (F. M. Scherer & Ross, 1990).
Conforming behaviors arise through socialization, education, as well as “acquiescence to convention” (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 11). Further, organizations accrue benefits
by positioning themselves similar to others who are
respected (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992). In the context of business program assurance of learning, these pressures would
result in the selection of learning goals that are similar to
those adopted by other schools.
Given our focus on learning goals, we pay particular
attention to pressures engendered by assessment and
accreditation standards at both the institution and business
program levels. At the institutional level, norms in higher
education assessment provide one example of a key environmental constraint. Business schools face pressure to
align their goals with commonplace core knowledge goals
found at their respective institutions and in higher education. For example, the Higher Learning Commission, which
is the accrediting body for the North Central region of the
United States includes in its criteria for accreditation that
all university programs engage students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information and that all programs recognize human and cultural diversity (Higher
Learning Commission, 2013). A requirement of a university’s accreditation, therefore, is the pressure for programs, whether business or arts and sciences, to have
learning goals conform to goals that unite the university. It
is likely that the learning goals of all business programs
would include those that address some of the general
knowledge and skills.
Business schools also face pressure from their own
accrediting bodies. For example, prior to 2003 the
AACSB standards prescribed curricular content areas,
whereas the 2003 and 2013 AACSB standards no longer
do so. It is plausible that business schools’ learning
goals are a vestige of the pre–mission-linked standards
that emphasized a prescribed body of knowledge for
undergraduate and master’s programs. It was commonly
felt that business education should stand on the shoulders of core standards that are shared across business
schools. Indeed, a common body of knowledge was the
most frequently cited advantage of accreditation by
deans and the second most frequent by professors (Henderson, Jordon, & Crockett, 1990). Goals may evidence
congruence because they have historically been perceived to be the right goals that are most appropriate
for business school students. In support, Navarro (2008)
found little differentiation in core master of business
427
administration courses and a standard design in core
curricula in the 50 top-ranked business schools.
In a similar vein, though the 2003 and 2013 AACSB
standards no longer prescribe curricular content, pressure to
conform would be heightened through specific language
found in these standards. For example, the standards provide several examples of general and management-specific
learning goals (e.g., leadership, problem solving), and the
AACSB stated that “curricula without [globalization and
information systems] would not normally be considered
current and relevant” (AACSB, 2012, p. 70). Statements
such as these can have the same effect as prescription. As
Kilpatrick, Dean, and Kilpatrick (2008) cautioned,
“although AACSB does not advocate for a specific
approach to meeting standards and itself does not recommend standardization, interpreting and complying with new
standards may easily be seen as a movement toward just
that” (p. 201).
Predictors of Differentiation Versus Conformity
in Business Program Learning Goals
Though the tension between differentiation and conformity
exists, it is not a dichotomous either–or proposition. Rather,
it is a continuum. When business programs establish their
learning goals, they make a choice regarding the extent to
which they want to differentiate themselves or conform to
the influence of environmental pressures. Some programs
may exclusively adopt goals that are commonly used by
other schools or mirror the topics recommended by the
AACSB standards. Some may attempt to develop entirely
unique goals. Finally, others may evidence a mix of conforming and differentiating goals.
We believe there are predictable differences regarding
the extent to which business programs differentiate themselves or conform through their learning goals. For example, McKenna et al. (1991) suggested that forces for
differentiation include market niche, characteristics of the
student population, preferences of endowment donors,
regional job markets for graduates, and the local economy.
Many of these forces are characteristics of the external
environment and are not institutional or business program
factors, per se. However, institutional control (i.e., public
versus private ownership) is an institution-level factor that
is related to many of these external forces and, as such,
may be related to learning-goal conformity. The philosophy
of the institution mission statement may influence the business program mission (Palmer & Short, 2008) and, in turn,
assurance of learning goals.
We expect that public schools are more likely to have
conforming learning goals than private schools. Deans of
public business schools must satisfy not only the needs of
university administrators, faculty, students, and alumni, but
also state boards and elected officials. This additional level
of oversight is more likely to constrict the range of goals
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
428
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
considered than it is to engender creativity and uniqueness.
In contrast, private business schools may have missions
that are influenced by the values of nongovernment stakeholder. In addition, private colleges often cater to a smaller
niche and, because they are more tuition driven than their
public counterparts, they may need to be more adaptive to
these niches and more innovative with their learning goals.
Private institutions may also receive funding from a wider
variety of stakeholder types. Further, some private schools
may have a stronger liberal arts focus, others may focus
more on social justice and service learning, while others
may have a religious affiliation. To the extent that learning
goals reflect the greater diversity of missions and stakeholders found in private schools, we would expect that private
schools also have more differentiated learning goals. This
is because they face fewer pressures to conform to learning
goals of other business schools and greater pressures to
position themselves uniquely in their markets. Thus, the
first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Learning goals of public undergraduate
business programs would be more likely to conform
than learning goals of private undergraduate business
programs.
On the other side of the tension, McKenna et al. (1991)
suggest that forces for conformity include accreditation
standards, a fixed set of refereed journals, a national faculty
and administrator job market, and national rankings of programs. Given that these are forces for conformity, there
would be little variability across business programs with
respect to most of these factors. However, program rankings would have sufficient variability to determine its influence on learning-goal conformity.
It is plausible that the reputation of the undergraduate
business program will influence the extent to which the
business school conforms or differentiates through its learning goals. AACSB accreditation is regarded by some as the
more prestigious of the business school accreditors (Roller,
Andrews, & Bovee, 2003). For schools hoping to improve
the reputation of their undergraduate business programs,
AACSB accreditation may be the only distinguishing factor
separating them from similar business programs. In contrast, more reputable programs have a variety of ways to
distinguish themselves including key alliances with worldwide firms and unique centers offering executive education.
As a result, AACSB accreditation might be regarded as
more valuable or essential to schools aspiring to enhance
their reputations, and hewing closely to perceived AACSB
norms may be deemed essential to these schools. As such
we believe less reputable programs will be more likely to
succumb to external environmental pressures and may
adopt goal topics that closely imitate their AACSB-accredited peers or conform more closely to the AACSB standards. Thus, the second hypothesis is:
H2: Learning goals of less reputable business programs
would be more likely to conform than learning goals of
more reputable undergraduate business programs.
METHOD
Sample
We searched for learning goals on the websites of U.S.
undergraduate business programs that appeared on
AACSB’s accreditation list. If the website did not have the
learning goals posted, we emailed the business school’s
dean to request the program’s learning goals. Searches of
schools’ websites yielded 116 sets of learning goals. We
received email correspondence from deans or representatives of the dean, yielding another 91 sets of learning goals.
In total, we obtained the learning goals of 207 of the 465
AACSB-accredited U.S. undergraduate business programs,
which translates into a participation rate of 45%.
Coding Business Program Learning Goals
Two independent reviewers (one was the study’s third
author and the other was a trained research assistant) independently coded all business programs’ learning goals. We
used Miles and Huberman’s (1994) inductive approach to
code learning goals. No precoding of the learning goals
was conducted. After all of the goals were collected, the
coding process began. Learning-goal themes were identified inductively through an iterative process. More specifically, we reviewed the learning-goal topics or concepts
(i.e., knowledge areas, skills, abilities, and other competencies) appearing in a representative subset of our sample and
developed an initial list of topic areas. We then began coding the learning goals of each school in the entire sample
into our initial topic areas; and in line with Miles and
Huberman, we revised our learning-goal categories by adding new topic areas as needed. We ultimately identified 25
learning-goal topics (see Figure 1).
We recognize that some of the goal topics are related to
one another conceptually (e.g., decision making, problem
solving, and analytical skills; integrative thinking and strategic thinking; communication and debate or dialogue).
Indeed, it would be possible to classify all of the goals into
higher order constructs such as conceptual, interpersonal,
and technical competencies (cf. Dierdorff, Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009). Nevertheless, each business program made a
conscious choice regarding the wording of its final goals.
That is, despite the interrelationships among constructs,
some programs chose to emphasize interpersonal skills
whereas more programs chose to emphasize team skills. A
few schools chose to emphasize debate whereas most
schools emphasized communication. These intentional word
choices may serve as the means for differentiation or
6%
5%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
Reflective Thinking
Sustainability/Env
Entrepreneurship
Experiential Learning
Liberal Arts
Uncertainty/Ambiguity
Debate/Dialogue
9%
11%
10%
Logical Reasoning
Life-Long Learning
Strategic Thinking
Creative Thinking
Interpersonal Skills
Integrative Thinking
Leadership Skills
Workplace Diversity
Team Skills
Decision Making
Critical Thinking
Analytical Skills
Technology Skills
Business Ethics
0%
Communication
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
20%
15%
30%
18%
26%
40%
21%
35%
46%
50%
49%
51%
54%
70%
Problem Solving
60%
58%
70%
Functional Knowledge
70%
65%
72%
% of Business Schools
80%
Global/Intl Business
90%
429
83%
100%
89%
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
Learning Goal Topic
FIGURE 1. Percentage of business schools using each learning-goal topic (N D 207). Communication included goals related to communication, written
communication, or oral communication. Functional knowledge refers to knowledge related to business functions. Integrative thinking included goals related
to multidisciplinary, cross-functional, or systems thinking. Creative thinking included innovation or innovative thinking. Experiential learning included goals
related to service learning, internships, or cooperative education.
conformity in learning goals. Even if the words were not
carefully chosen with the intent to conform or differentiate,
they may still signal conformity/differentiation to stakeholders. Therefore, we chose to remain true to the wording used
by the business programs rather than attempting to interpret
what they may have meant and speculating whether some
topics should have been combined with other similar topics.
For all learning goals, a coding of 1 was assigned to a
learning-goal topic if the goal was present in the program’s
set of learning goals; a coding of 0 was assigned to a learning-goal topic if the goal was not present. Any discrepancy
between the two raters was resolved with the independent
judgment of a third trained rater. Inter-coder agreement
was determined based on the independent ratings of the first
two raters using percent agreement and Cohen’s kappa. The
overall percent agreement across all learning-goal topics
was .88, which is sufficient according to qualitative
research standards (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Cohen’s
kappa across all learning-goal topics was .73 (p < .001)
demonstrating sufficient intercoder agreement (Lombard,
Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002; Sun, 2011).
Differentiation and Conformity Variable
In order to test our hypotheses, we needed to establish an
index of differentiation and conformity. We first classified
each of the 25 learning goal topics as conforming or differentiating goals based on whether they were used more or
less frequently than what would be expected by chance (or
on average). Our sample included a total of 1,800 goals
across 207 business programs and 25 goal topics, which
results in an average of .35 goals per school per topic.
Therefore, we used the frequency value of 35% as the
threshold for defining conforming versus differentiating
learning goals. All 11 goal topics with a frequency of 46%
or more (see the left-most goal topics in Figure 1) occurred
more frequently than would be expected by chance. These
conforming learning goals represent areas of conformity
among business schools. All 13 goal topics with a frequency of 26% or less (see the right-most goal topics in
Figure 1) occurred less frequently than would be expected
by chance. These differentiating learning goals represent
areas of differentiation among business schools. For the
leadership goal, the observed frequency (35%) was equal to
the expected probability (.35). Therefore, we excluded it
from subsequent analyses. Binomial tests confirmed that
the observed probabilities of all conforming and differentiating learning goals departed significantly (p < .001) from
the expected probability of .35, whereas the observed probability of the leadership learning goal did not.
Next, we established a business program conformity
variable as the proportion of a business program’s
430
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
learning goals that were determined to be conforming
learning goals. Therefore, the business program conformity variable could range from 0 (no conforming goals) to
1 (only conforming goals). The business program conformity variable was negatively skewed (M D .82, SD D .13,
skewness D –.52); the skewness was statistically significant (p < .01). Twenty-two percent of the business program sample had perfect conformity (i.e., conformity
values D 1.0) and 1% had conformity values less than .5.
Generally, the descriptive statistics and frequencies suggest that business schools are relatively homogenous in
their learning goals, indicating that they are more likely to
conform than differentiate.
Business Program Characteristics
We gathered data related to institutional control and business program reputation. Institutional control was measured
as public (coded as 0; n D 156) versus private (coded as 1;
n D 51) with data obtained from the AACSB website. For
reputation, we used the 2010 Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s
rankings of top undergraduate business schools. The BusinessWeek rankings were the first ranking system and are
considered the most influential ranking list (Corley &
Gioia, 2000; Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008). We coded each
school as unranked (coded as 0; n D 161) or ranked (coded
as 1; n D 46), and we recorded the numeric ranking for the
ranked schools.
RESULTS
We analyzed the relationship between institutional control
and business program conformity using an independent samples t-test. The result is statistically significant, t(205) D
3.64, p < .001, d D 0.59. Public schools (M D .84, SD D
.13) were more likely to conform than private schools (M
D .77, SD D .13), supporting H1. We then analyzed the
relationship between undergraduate business program
ranking and business program conformity using an independent samples t test. The result was not statistically significant, t(205) D –0.20, p D .84, d D –0.03), indicating
that ranked (M D .83, SD D .13) and unranked (M D .82,
SD D .13) business programs were equally likely to conform in their learning goals.
To drill deeper into the data, we analyzed the relationship between undergraduate business program ranking and
business program conformity on the subset of 46 ranked
programs. The correlation between rank and conformity
was statistically significant (r D .37, p D .01), indicating
that lower ranked schools (i.e., schools with a larger
numeric ranking value) were more likely to conform in
their learning goals. Therefore, while H2 was not supported
when comparing ranked versus unranked undergraduate
business programs, we find supporting evidence when using
the subset of ranked schools and treating rank as a continuous variable.
DISCUSSION
We found variation among business programs with respect
to their mix of conforming and differentiating goals. Public
schools were more likely to conform in their choice of
learning goals than private schools, and lower ranked
undergraduate business programs tended to conform more
than higher ranked programs. However, we did not find a
difference between ranked and unranked schools.
Though we found variation among business programs
with respect to their mix of conforming and differentiating
goals, overall the schools were rather homogenous. In fact,
22% of the programs in our sample utilized only conforming goals. The programs that did differentiate themselves
did so to a small extent. Therefore, it appears that the
conformity pole of the tension is stronger than the differentiation pole. Despite the AACSB’s desire for differentiation, it is possible that business schools fear that loosing
accreditation is more likely to result from the failure to conform rather than the failure to differentiate.
Implications for Practice
Results of our study would suggest that an area for schools
to focus on is the content of their learning goals and objectives. This would include asking critical questions about a
specific program’s optimal mix of goals and objectives
such as the following: Why do we have the mix that we do?
How can we best align our learning goals to our mission
and target markets? Part of this conversation should be
focused on purposeful conformity: identifying goals that
are relevant to all business students graduating from all
business schools. The other component is selecting goals
that are unique to programs that are designed to most effectively meet the needs of target markets.
Regarding the high level of conformity detected among
schools’ goals in our study, we believe it is important for
faculty to think about why there is so much commonality
among goals and if the goals evidencing high conformity
represent skill sets our students are most in need of. Our
worry is that common goals such as communication or
ethics, while appealing and important, may be used on a
shared belief that legitimate business schools adopt them in
their assessment plans. However, merely conforming gives
short shrift to the underlying potential these goals might
provide our students.
Our results also identified goals that are not commonly
found in business school assessment plans. Sustainability is
a key priority among business (Nidumolu, Prahalad, &
Rangaswami, 2009), yet only 5% of the schools in our study
identified it as a learning goal. Likewise, many believe that
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
today’s hypercompetitive business environments demand
innovative thinking (Hamel, 2007), yet this is not a commonly employed learning goal. While some (18%) have
adopted creative thinking and 5% have entrepreneurship,
learning goals encouraging innovative thinking are uncommon. Our belief is not that all schools need to adopt sustainability or innovation (for example) as learning goals.
However, we worry that the apparent pressures for conformity, whether real or presumed, may be resulting in business educators adopting learning goals that are not
preparing students as well as we can be.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
Implications for Future Research
Though our research sheds light on the extent to which
business schools conform in their learning goals, we do not
yet know what they are conforming to. For example, a business school may be conforming to the goals of their peer
and aspirant schools, to the learning goal and curricula
topics put forth in the AACSB standards, or to evidencebased competencies established in empirical research. Any
of these sources of conformity could result in homogeneous
learning goals across business programs. Additional
research is needed to determine the source to which programs are conforming and the extent to which areas of conformity are relevant to business program stakeholders.
Similarly, though business schools demonstrate more
conformity than differentiation in their learning goals, we
do not know whether conformity is necessarily a negative
outcome. Given that varying degrees of conformity and differentiation are natural for organizations in all industries,
perhaps it should come as no surprise that conformity is
present in the business school industry. Apparently there
was too much sameness among business schools in the
1970s to 1980s (prior to the Porter & McKibbin [1988]
report). Future research should identify how much differentiation is desired or needed. Is having one unique learning
goal enough, or should programs have several unique
goals? At what point does a business program go from
being differentiated to one whose legitimacy is suspect? If
a business program’s mission is to conform and be similar
to other schools, is there value in this to that particular
school and what factors might it depend on? Though we did
find a correlation between conformity and undergraduate
business program ranking, we believe the correlation is
more likely a result of better schools being more willing to
develop differentiating learning goals and less likely a
result of differentiating learning goals causing schools to
achieve a higher ranking.
Limitations
Some caution is necessary when interpreting our findings
because our sample comprised 45% of U.S. AACSBaccredited undergraduate business programs. Whether our
431
results generalize to the learning goals of the other 55% of
accredited undergraduate programs or graduate, international, or non–AACSB-accredited programs not in our sample is uncertain.
Though AACSB-accredited schools do not appear to be
strongly differentiated from one another, there is some evidence that AACSB-accredited programs are differentiated
from non–AACSB-accredited programs. For example, R.
F. Scherer, Javalgi, Bryant, and Tukel (2005, p. 654) stated
that a primary reason business schools seek AACSB
accreditation is to “enhance their reputation/image by differentiating themselves from non-accredited schools.” Similarly, Jantzen (2000) found small differences with respect
to student, faculty and program characteristics between
schools that were candidates for AACSB accreditation and
those that were recently accredited. However, he found substantial differences between candidate schools and those
not pursuing AACSB accreditation, further suggesting that
there may be larger differences between accredited versus
nonaccredited schools and smaller differences within the
sample of AACSB-accredited schools.
CONCLUSION
The AACSB encourages differentiation in mission statements as well as in the mission-linked learning goals. However, it appears that Milton Blood’s prophecy of very
different learning goals across AACSB-accredited schools
has not yet been fulfilled, and Joseph DiAngelo may have a
difficult time finding the nuts and cherries. Though the tension between differentiation and conformity is real, in the
context of the undergraduate learning goals of AACSBaccredited business programs it appears that the pressure to
conform is stronger than the pressure to differentiate. Public
schools and lower ranked business programs, in particular,
are more likely to adopt conforming learning goals. Additional research is needed to determine what business programs are conforming to and to determine the extent to
which learning goal conformity versus differentiation is
beneficial to all stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33–46.
Association of American Colleges and Universities, & Council for Higher
Education Accreditation. (2008). New leadership for student learning and
accountability: A statement of principles, commitments to action. Retrieved
from http://www.chea.org/pdf/(2008).01.30_New_Leadership_Statement.
pdf
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. AACSB White Paper No. 3. Retrieved from http://www.
aacsb.edu/en/publications/whitepapers/
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
432
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2012). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards
for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.AACSB.edu/
accreditation/standards-busn-jan(2012).pdf
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards
for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/
accreditation/business/standards/2013/2013-business-standards.pdf
Bloomberg BusinessWeek. (2010). Best undergraduate B-schools ranking
history. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-0320/best-undergraduate-b-schools-ranking-history
Cook, C. W. (1993). Curriculum change: Bold thrusts or timid extensions.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 6, 28–40.
Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2000). The rankings game: Managing business
school reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 319–333.
Cotton, C. C, McKenna, J. F., Van Auken, S., & Yeider, R. A. (1993). Mission orientations and dean’s perceptions: Implications for the new
AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 6, 17–27.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). The milieu of
management: Exploring the context of managerial work role requirements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 972–988.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W.
Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and
impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 699–738.
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hammond, K. L., & Webster, R. L. (2011). Market focus in AACSB member schools: An empirical examination of market orientation balance
and business school performance. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15, 11–22.
Henderson, J., Jordon, C. E., & Crockett, J. R. (1990). AACSB accreditation: Perceptions of deans and accounting professors. Journal of Education for Business, 66, 9–12.
Higher Learning Commission. (2013). Policy title: Criteria for accreditation. Retrieved from http://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/criteria-foraccreditation.html
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on the
accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 343–347.
Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2006). Is accreditation good for the
strategic decision making of traditional business schools? Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5, 225–233.
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns
about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17, 200–212.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis
in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.
Lowrie, A., & Willmott, H. (2009). Accreditation sickness in the consumption of business education: The vacuum in AACSB standard setting.
Management Learning, 40, 411–420.
Mangan, K. (2012, February 9). New business-school accreditation is
likely to be more flexible, less prescriptive. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/article/New-BusinessSchool/130718/
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review,
78, 734–749.
McKenna, J. F., Yeider, R. A., Cotton, C. C., & Van Auken, S. (1991).
Business education and regional variation: An administrative perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 67, 50–55.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2008). Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the BusinessWeek ranking. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 7, 26–41.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U. S. business
schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 108–123.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 87, 56–64.
Orwig, B., & Finney, R. Z. (2007). Analysis of the mission statements of
AACSB-accredited schools. Competitiveness Review, 17, 261–273.
Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (2008). Mission statements in U.S. colleges of
business: An empirical examination of their content with linkages to
configurations and performance. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 7, 454–470.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and
development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Roller, R. H., Andrews, B. K., & Bovee, S. L. (2003). Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of alternative costs, benefits,
and motivations. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 197–204.
Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 245–255.
Rubin, R. S., & Martell, K. (2009). Assessment and accreditation in business schools. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 364–
383). London, UK: Sage.
Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Scherer, R. F., Javalgi, R. G., Bryant, M., & Tukel, O. (2005). Challenges
of AACSB International accreditation for business schools in the United
States and Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review, 47,
651–669.
Sun, S. (2011). Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 11, 145–163.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with Milton Blood: The new
AACSB standards. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
3, 429–439.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited
Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors of
Conformity Versus Differentiation
Kyle E. Brink, Timothy B. Palmer & Robert D. Costigan
To cite this article: Kyle E. Brink, Timothy B. Palmer & Robert D. Costigan (2014)
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors of
Conformity Versus Differentiation, Journal of Education for Business, 89:8, 425-432, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
Published online: 04 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 62
View related articles
View Crossmark data
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: 20:49
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 425–432, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.929560
Learning Goals of AACSB-Accredited
Undergraduate Business Programs: Predictors
of Conformity Versus Differentiation
Kyle E. Brink and Timothy B. Palmer
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Robert D. Costigan
St. John Fisher College, Rochester, New York, USA
Learning goals are central to assurance of learning. Yet little is known about what goals are
used by business programs or how they are established. On the one hand, business schools
are encouraged to develop their own unique learning goals. However, business schools also
face pressures that would encourage conformity by adopting goals used by others. The
authors examined the extent to which learning goals of business programs are unique versus
similar. Their evidence suggests business schools adopt goals that are quite similar. Public
schools and lower ranked schools were more likely to demonstrate such conformity. The
implications of goal similarity are discussed for management education and assurance of
learning.
Keywords: AACSB, assurance of learning, business accreditation, business education,
learning goals
All organizations, including business schools, must contend
with the tension between differentiation and conformity in
their business strategy. Business schools have debated differentiation and conformity for roughly 100 years
(McKenna, Yeider, Cotton, & Van Auken, 1991). The
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International (AACSB), as the largest accreditor of business
schools, wrestles with this same tension. When Joseph A.
DiAngelo was the chair-elect of the committee reviewing
AACSB’s accreditation standards, he said that “when the
rules are too prescriptive, schools’ mission statements,
which drive their curricula and hiring patterns, all start to
look the same. ‘It’s all vanilla. I want to see the nuts and
the cherries and all the things that make your school
unique’” (Mangan, 2012, para. 6–7).
We examine the differentiation versus conformity tension in the context of the learning goals of AACSB-accredited business schools. Though some scholars have
Correspondence should be addressed to Kyle E. Brink, Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business, Department of Management,
1903 W. Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008–5429, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
conducted research related to the AACSB’s strategic management standards (e.g., Hammond & Webster, 2011;
Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006; Orwig & Finney, 2007;
Palmer & Short, 2008), “studies that are attentive to the
impacts upon curriculum design and learning from accreditation institutions are atypical” (Lowrie & Willmott, 2009,
p. 412). The lack of research related to assurance of learning is unfortunate given that the development of student
learning goals is one of the key principles for meaningful
educational accountability (Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2008).
We chose to focus on learning goals because they form
the basis for the curriculum (Rubin & Martell, 2009). The
learning goals explicate a business school’s mission and
curricular priorities and serve as the link between a school’s
mission and assessment. The 2003 Standards (AACSB,
2012) say that learning goals are “a key element in how the
school defines itself” (p. 61) and that:
This list of learning goals derives from, or is consonant
with, the school’s mission. The mission and objectives set
out the intentions of the school, and the learning goals say
426
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
how the degree programs demonstrate the mission. That is,
the learning goals describe the desired educational accomplishments of the degree programs. The learning goals
translate the more general statement of the mission into the
educational accomplishments of graduates. (p. 60)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
When Milton Blood was the managing director of the
AACSB, he highlighted the importance of learning goals,
saying that they are,
. . . a way of focusing on the competencies you want students to have as graduates of the program, and [give] the
schools a way to say to both prospective students and to
potential employers of graduates of that program, “Here are
the knowledge and skills that will be instilled in the graduates of that program.” (Thompson, 2004, p. 437)
In sum, the purpose of our research is to examine the
undergraduate learning goals that AACSB-accredited business programs use for assurance of learning. We identify
the extent of variation that exists between business programs with respect to their learning goals as they face competing pressure to uniquely position themselves in the
market, while at the same time succumbing to conformity
brought about from a host of environmental pressures. We
also explore program characteristics that predict which
types of business schools are most likely to differentiate
versus conform through their array of learning goals.
DIFFERENTIATION VERSUS CONFORMITY
The tension for business schools to be distinct, but not
excessively so, is not new. McKenna et al. (1991) described
how the pendulum began swinging from differentiation in
1959 as a result of the separately commissioned reports by
Gordon and Howell and by Pierson. Prior to the 1950s,
diversity in business programs was commonplace. Gordon
and Howell and Pierson criticized business schools for the
lack of standardization with respect to faculty preparation,
curricula, and teaching pedagogy (Cotton, McKenna, Van
Auken, & Yeider, 1993). Business schools adapted to these
criticisms, perhaps too effectively, and “by the 1980s the
curricula of most schools of business appeared predictably
similar, as if cut from the same cloth” (Cook, 1993, p. 28).
The pendulum, however, would swing in the opposite
direction after the AACSB commissioned Lyman Porter
and Lawrence McKibbin to undertake a comprehensive
review of U.S. business education (Porter & McKibbin,
1988). Their efforts resulted in a significant change in the
AACSB’s accreditation standards. In particular, the Porter
and McKibbin report argued the AACSB should permit
business schools to capitalize upon their unique strengths
by crafting uniqueness into their assurance of learning
plans, including learning goals.
The tension between differentiation and conformity witnessed by business schools is one felt by many types of
organizations and can be explained through the lenses of
competing views about organizations and their strategies.
We examine those perspectives, in the context of assurance
of learning standards adopted by business schools, in the
following sections.
Assurance of Learning Standards: Differentiation
A common perspective in business is that firms should
develop distinctive competencies resulting in asymmetry,
or uniqueness, from their rivals. The strategic view would
suggest that schools differentiate themselves through learning goals that target particular markets in an attempt to
secure resources. In line with the strategic perspective, the
2003 standards (AACSB, 2012) indicate that learning goals
should differ across schools. Milton Blood stated that along
with the change to direct assessment standards, “we will
see very clear differences between schools on how they
will define their learning goals. . . . We will start seeing
schools differentiating themselves more and more as they
. . . define learning goals for degree programs” (Thompson,
2004, p. 436).
Guidance provided by the AACSB standards suggests
schools derive goals that meet their unique situations. In
particular, they state, “because of differences in mission,
faculty expectations, student body composition, and other
factors, schools vary greatly in how they express their
learning goals” (AACSB, 2012, p. 61). Schools are encouraged to canvass the perspectives of a wide variety of stakeholders, such as alumni, students, and employers, for input
about learning goals. One avenue they recommend is to
seek direction from advisory boards whose members represent unique stakeholder perspectives (AACSB, 2007).
AACSB is perhaps more emphatic in suggesting differentiation in learning goals with regard to addressing student
needs. This is because, “goals assist potential students to
choose programs that fit their personal career goals. Only
with an accurate understanding of the learning goals can a
potential student be able to make an informed choice about
whether to join the program” (AACSB, 2012, p. 60). In support, Romero (2008) concluded that the AACSB’s standards promote innovation and creativity regarding
curriculum and course development, and Glenn (2011)
argued for the presence of thousands of learning goals that
have been defined across all AACSB-accredited schools.
Assurance of Learning Standards: Conformity
The strategic view promoting differentiation on the basis of
learning goals is appealing. However, business schools face
considerable pressures that may temper differentiation and
promote conformity instead. Theories about organization
and economics hold that organizations perform best when
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
they fit with the demands of their external environment.
This requires administrators to ensure their organizations
are attuned to key success factors that are a function of the
environment’s demands (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). More
broadly, it is argued that organizations are influenced by
“rules of appropriateness” (March & Olsen, 1984, p. 741)
resulting in actions that are brought into harmony with
environmental conditions (F. M. Scherer & Ross, 1990).
Conforming behaviors arise through socialization, education, as well as “acquiescence to convention” (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 11). Further, organizations accrue benefits
by positioning themselves similar to others who are
respected (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992). In the context of business program assurance of learning, these pressures would
result in the selection of learning goals that are similar to
those adopted by other schools.
Given our focus on learning goals, we pay particular
attention to pressures engendered by assessment and
accreditation standards at both the institution and business
program levels. At the institutional level, norms in higher
education assessment provide one example of a key environmental constraint. Business schools face pressure to
align their goals with commonplace core knowledge goals
found at their respective institutions and in higher education. For example, the Higher Learning Commission, which
is the accrediting body for the North Central region of the
United States includes in its criteria for accreditation that
all university programs engage students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information and that all programs recognize human and cultural diversity (Higher
Learning Commission, 2013). A requirement of a university’s accreditation, therefore, is the pressure for programs, whether business or arts and sciences, to have
learning goals conform to goals that unite the university. It
is likely that the learning goals of all business programs
would include those that address some of the general
knowledge and skills.
Business schools also face pressure from their own
accrediting bodies. For example, prior to 2003 the
AACSB standards prescribed curricular content areas,
whereas the 2003 and 2013 AACSB standards no longer
do so. It is plausible that business schools’ learning
goals are a vestige of the pre–mission-linked standards
that emphasized a prescribed body of knowledge for
undergraduate and master’s programs. It was commonly
felt that business education should stand on the shoulders of core standards that are shared across business
schools. Indeed, a common body of knowledge was the
most frequently cited advantage of accreditation by
deans and the second most frequent by professors (Henderson, Jordon, & Crockett, 1990). Goals may evidence
congruence because they have historically been perceived to be the right goals that are most appropriate
for business school students. In support, Navarro (2008)
found little differentiation in core master of business
427
administration courses and a standard design in core
curricula in the 50 top-ranked business schools.
In a similar vein, though the 2003 and 2013 AACSB
standards no longer prescribe curricular content, pressure to
conform would be heightened through specific language
found in these standards. For example, the standards provide several examples of general and management-specific
learning goals (e.g., leadership, problem solving), and the
AACSB stated that “curricula without [globalization and
information systems] would not normally be considered
current and relevant” (AACSB, 2012, p. 70). Statements
such as these can have the same effect as prescription. As
Kilpatrick, Dean, and Kilpatrick (2008) cautioned,
“although AACSB does not advocate for a specific
approach to meeting standards and itself does not recommend standardization, interpreting and complying with new
standards may easily be seen as a movement toward just
that” (p. 201).
Predictors of Differentiation Versus Conformity
in Business Program Learning Goals
Though the tension between differentiation and conformity
exists, it is not a dichotomous either–or proposition. Rather,
it is a continuum. When business programs establish their
learning goals, they make a choice regarding the extent to
which they want to differentiate themselves or conform to
the influence of environmental pressures. Some programs
may exclusively adopt goals that are commonly used by
other schools or mirror the topics recommended by the
AACSB standards. Some may attempt to develop entirely
unique goals. Finally, others may evidence a mix of conforming and differentiating goals.
We believe there are predictable differences regarding
the extent to which business programs differentiate themselves or conform through their learning goals. For example, McKenna et al. (1991) suggested that forces for
differentiation include market niche, characteristics of the
student population, preferences of endowment donors,
regional job markets for graduates, and the local economy.
Many of these forces are characteristics of the external
environment and are not institutional or business program
factors, per se. However, institutional control (i.e., public
versus private ownership) is an institution-level factor that
is related to many of these external forces and, as such,
may be related to learning-goal conformity. The philosophy
of the institution mission statement may influence the business program mission (Palmer & Short, 2008) and, in turn,
assurance of learning goals.
We expect that public schools are more likely to have
conforming learning goals than private schools. Deans of
public business schools must satisfy not only the needs of
university administrators, faculty, students, and alumni, but
also state boards and elected officials. This additional level
of oversight is more likely to constrict the range of goals
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
428
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
considered than it is to engender creativity and uniqueness.
In contrast, private business schools may have missions
that are influenced by the values of nongovernment stakeholder. In addition, private colleges often cater to a smaller
niche and, because they are more tuition driven than their
public counterparts, they may need to be more adaptive to
these niches and more innovative with their learning goals.
Private institutions may also receive funding from a wider
variety of stakeholder types. Further, some private schools
may have a stronger liberal arts focus, others may focus
more on social justice and service learning, while others
may have a religious affiliation. To the extent that learning
goals reflect the greater diversity of missions and stakeholders found in private schools, we would expect that private
schools also have more differentiated learning goals. This
is because they face fewer pressures to conform to learning
goals of other business schools and greater pressures to
position themselves uniquely in their markets. Thus, the
first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Learning goals of public undergraduate
business programs would be more likely to conform
than learning goals of private undergraduate business
programs.
On the other side of the tension, McKenna et al. (1991)
suggest that forces for conformity include accreditation
standards, a fixed set of refereed journals, a national faculty
and administrator job market, and national rankings of programs. Given that these are forces for conformity, there
would be little variability across business programs with
respect to most of these factors. However, program rankings would have sufficient variability to determine its influence on learning-goal conformity.
It is plausible that the reputation of the undergraduate
business program will influence the extent to which the
business school conforms or differentiates through its learning goals. AACSB accreditation is regarded by some as the
more prestigious of the business school accreditors (Roller,
Andrews, & Bovee, 2003). For schools hoping to improve
the reputation of their undergraduate business programs,
AACSB accreditation may be the only distinguishing factor
separating them from similar business programs. In contrast, more reputable programs have a variety of ways to
distinguish themselves including key alliances with worldwide firms and unique centers offering executive education.
As a result, AACSB accreditation might be regarded as
more valuable or essential to schools aspiring to enhance
their reputations, and hewing closely to perceived AACSB
norms may be deemed essential to these schools. As such
we believe less reputable programs will be more likely to
succumb to external environmental pressures and may
adopt goal topics that closely imitate their AACSB-accredited peers or conform more closely to the AACSB standards. Thus, the second hypothesis is:
H2: Learning goals of less reputable business programs
would be more likely to conform than learning goals of
more reputable undergraduate business programs.
METHOD
Sample
We searched for learning goals on the websites of U.S.
undergraduate business programs that appeared on
AACSB’s accreditation list. If the website did not have the
learning goals posted, we emailed the business school’s
dean to request the program’s learning goals. Searches of
schools’ websites yielded 116 sets of learning goals. We
received email correspondence from deans or representatives of the dean, yielding another 91 sets of learning goals.
In total, we obtained the learning goals of 207 of the 465
AACSB-accredited U.S. undergraduate business programs,
which translates into a participation rate of 45%.
Coding Business Program Learning Goals
Two independent reviewers (one was the study’s third
author and the other was a trained research assistant) independently coded all business programs’ learning goals. We
used Miles and Huberman’s (1994) inductive approach to
code learning goals. No precoding of the learning goals
was conducted. After all of the goals were collected, the
coding process began. Learning-goal themes were identified inductively through an iterative process. More specifically, we reviewed the learning-goal topics or concepts
(i.e., knowledge areas, skills, abilities, and other competencies) appearing in a representative subset of our sample and
developed an initial list of topic areas. We then began coding the learning goals of each school in the entire sample
into our initial topic areas; and in line with Miles and
Huberman, we revised our learning-goal categories by adding new topic areas as needed. We ultimately identified 25
learning-goal topics (see Figure 1).
We recognize that some of the goal topics are related to
one another conceptually (e.g., decision making, problem
solving, and analytical skills; integrative thinking and strategic thinking; communication and debate or dialogue).
Indeed, it would be possible to classify all of the goals into
higher order constructs such as conceptual, interpersonal,
and technical competencies (cf. Dierdorff, Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009). Nevertheless, each business program made a
conscious choice regarding the wording of its final goals.
That is, despite the interrelationships among constructs,
some programs chose to emphasize interpersonal skills
whereas more programs chose to emphasize team skills. A
few schools chose to emphasize debate whereas most
schools emphasized communication. These intentional word
choices may serve as the means for differentiation or
6%
5%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
Reflective Thinking
Sustainability/Env
Entrepreneurship
Experiential Learning
Liberal Arts
Uncertainty/Ambiguity
Debate/Dialogue
9%
11%
10%
Logical Reasoning
Life-Long Learning
Strategic Thinking
Creative Thinking
Interpersonal Skills
Integrative Thinking
Leadership Skills
Workplace Diversity
Team Skills
Decision Making
Critical Thinking
Analytical Skills
Technology Skills
Business Ethics
0%
Communication
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
20%
15%
30%
18%
26%
40%
21%
35%
46%
50%
49%
51%
54%
70%
Problem Solving
60%
58%
70%
Functional Knowledge
70%
65%
72%
% of Business Schools
80%
Global/Intl Business
90%
429
83%
100%
89%
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
Learning Goal Topic
FIGURE 1. Percentage of business schools using each learning-goal topic (N D 207). Communication included goals related to communication, written
communication, or oral communication. Functional knowledge refers to knowledge related to business functions. Integrative thinking included goals related
to multidisciplinary, cross-functional, or systems thinking. Creative thinking included innovation or innovative thinking. Experiential learning included goals
related to service learning, internships, or cooperative education.
conformity in learning goals. Even if the words were not
carefully chosen with the intent to conform or differentiate,
they may still signal conformity/differentiation to stakeholders. Therefore, we chose to remain true to the wording used
by the business programs rather than attempting to interpret
what they may have meant and speculating whether some
topics should have been combined with other similar topics.
For all learning goals, a coding of 1 was assigned to a
learning-goal topic if the goal was present in the program’s
set of learning goals; a coding of 0 was assigned to a learning-goal topic if the goal was not present. Any discrepancy
between the two raters was resolved with the independent
judgment of a third trained rater. Inter-coder agreement
was determined based on the independent ratings of the first
two raters using percent agreement and Cohen’s kappa. The
overall percent agreement across all learning-goal topics
was .88, which is sufficient according to qualitative
research standards (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Cohen’s
kappa across all learning-goal topics was .73 (p < .001)
demonstrating sufficient intercoder agreement (Lombard,
Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002; Sun, 2011).
Differentiation and Conformity Variable
In order to test our hypotheses, we needed to establish an
index of differentiation and conformity. We first classified
each of the 25 learning goal topics as conforming or differentiating goals based on whether they were used more or
less frequently than what would be expected by chance (or
on average). Our sample included a total of 1,800 goals
across 207 business programs and 25 goal topics, which
results in an average of .35 goals per school per topic.
Therefore, we used the frequency value of 35% as the
threshold for defining conforming versus differentiating
learning goals. All 11 goal topics with a frequency of 46%
or more (see the left-most goal topics in Figure 1) occurred
more frequently than would be expected by chance. These
conforming learning goals represent areas of conformity
among business schools. All 13 goal topics with a frequency of 26% or less (see the right-most goal topics in
Figure 1) occurred less frequently than would be expected
by chance. These differentiating learning goals represent
areas of differentiation among business schools. For the
leadership goal, the observed frequency (35%) was equal to
the expected probability (.35). Therefore, we excluded it
from subsequent analyses. Binomial tests confirmed that
the observed probabilities of all conforming and differentiating learning goals departed significantly (p < .001) from
the expected probability of .35, whereas the observed probability of the leadership learning goal did not.
Next, we established a business program conformity
variable as the proportion of a business program’s
430
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
learning goals that were determined to be conforming
learning goals. Therefore, the business program conformity variable could range from 0 (no conforming goals) to
1 (only conforming goals). The business program conformity variable was negatively skewed (M D .82, SD D .13,
skewness D –.52); the skewness was statistically significant (p < .01). Twenty-two percent of the business program sample had perfect conformity (i.e., conformity
values D 1.0) and 1% had conformity values less than .5.
Generally, the descriptive statistics and frequencies suggest that business schools are relatively homogenous in
their learning goals, indicating that they are more likely to
conform than differentiate.
Business Program Characteristics
We gathered data related to institutional control and business program reputation. Institutional control was measured
as public (coded as 0; n D 156) versus private (coded as 1;
n D 51) with data obtained from the AACSB website. For
reputation, we used the 2010 Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s
rankings of top undergraduate business schools. The BusinessWeek rankings were the first ranking system and are
considered the most influential ranking list (Corley &
Gioia, 2000; Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008). We coded each
school as unranked (coded as 0; n D 161) or ranked (coded
as 1; n D 46), and we recorded the numeric ranking for the
ranked schools.
RESULTS
We analyzed the relationship between institutional control
and business program conformity using an independent samples t-test. The result is statistically significant, t(205) D
3.64, p < .001, d D 0.59. Public schools (M D .84, SD D
.13) were more likely to conform than private schools (M
D .77, SD D .13), supporting H1. We then analyzed the
relationship between undergraduate business program
ranking and business program conformity using an independent samples t test. The result was not statistically significant, t(205) D –0.20, p D .84, d D –0.03), indicating
that ranked (M D .83, SD D .13) and unranked (M D .82,
SD D .13) business programs were equally likely to conform in their learning goals.
To drill deeper into the data, we analyzed the relationship between undergraduate business program ranking and
business program conformity on the subset of 46 ranked
programs. The correlation between rank and conformity
was statistically significant (r D .37, p D .01), indicating
that lower ranked schools (i.e., schools with a larger
numeric ranking value) were more likely to conform in
their learning goals. Therefore, while H2 was not supported
when comparing ranked versus unranked undergraduate
business programs, we find supporting evidence when using
the subset of ranked schools and treating rank as a continuous variable.
DISCUSSION
We found variation among business programs with respect
to their mix of conforming and differentiating goals. Public
schools were more likely to conform in their choice of
learning goals than private schools, and lower ranked
undergraduate business programs tended to conform more
than higher ranked programs. However, we did not find a
difference between ranked and unranked schools.
Though we found variation among business programs
with respect to their mix of conforming and differentiating
goals, overall the schools were rather homogenous. In fact,
22% of the programs in our sample utilized only conforming goals. The programs that did differentiate themselves
did so to a small extent. Therefore, it appears that the
conformity pole of the tension is stronger than the differentiation pole. Despite the AACSB’s desire for differentiation, it is possible that business schools fear that loosing
accreditation is more likely to result from the failure to conform rather than the failure to differentiate.
Implications for Practice
Results of our study would suggest that an area for schools
to focus on is the content of their learning goals and objectives. This would include asking critical questions about a
specific program’s optimal mix of goals and objectives
such as the following: Why do we have the mix that we do?
How can we best align our learning goals to our mission
and target markets? Part of this conversation should be
focused on purposeful conformity: identifying goals that
are relevant to all business students graduating from all
business schools. The other component is selecting goals
that are unique to programs that are designed to most effectively meet the needs of target markets.
Regarding the high level of conformity detected among
schools’ goals in our study, we believe it is important for
faculty to think about why there is so much commonality
among goals and if the goals evidencing high conformity
represent skill sets our students are most in need of. Our
worry is that common goals such as communication or
ethics, while appealing and important, may be used on a
shared belief that legitimate business schools adopt them in
their assessment plans. However, merely conforming gives
short shrift to the underlying potential these goals might
provide our students.
Our results also identified goals that are not commonly
found in business school assessment plans. Sustainability is
a key priority among business (Nidumolu, Prahalad, &
Rangaswami, 2009), yet only 5% of the schools in our study
identified it as a learning goal. Likewise, many believe that
LEARNING GOALS OF AACSB-ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
today’s hypercompetitive business environments demand
innovative thinking (Hamel, 2007), yet this is not a commonly employed learning goal. While some (18%) have
adopted creative thinking and 5% have entrepreneurship,
learning goals encouraging innovative thinking are uncommon. Our belief is not that all schools need to adopt sustainability or innovation (for example) as learning goals.
However, we worry that the apparent pressures for conformity, whether real or presumed, may be resulting in business educators adopting learning goals that are not
preparing students as well as we can be.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
Implications for Future Research
Though our research sheds light on the extent to which
business schools conform in their learning goals, we do not
yet know what they are conforming to. For example, a business school may be conforming to the goals of their peer
and aspirant schools, to the learning goal and curricula
topics put forth in the AACSB standards, or to evidencebased competencies established in empirical research. Any
of these sources of conformity could result in homogeneous
learning goals across business programs. Additional
research is needed to determine the source to which programs are conforming and the extent to which areas of conformity are relevant to business program stakeholders.
Similarly, though business schools demonstrate more
conformity than differentiation in their learning goals, we
do not know whether conformity is necessarily a negative
outcome. Given that varying degrees of conformity and differentiation are natural for organizations in all industries,
perhaps it should come as no surprise that conformity is
present in the business school industry. Apparently there
was too much sameness among business schools in the
1970s to 1980s (prior to the Porter & McKibbin [1988]
report). Future research should identify how much differentiation is desired or needed. Is having one unique learning
goal enough, or should programs have several unique
goals? At what point does a business program go from
being differentiated to one whose legitimacy is suspect? If
a business program’s mission is to conform and be similar
to other schools, is there value in this to that particular
school and what factors might it depend on? Though we did
find a correlation between conformity and undergraduate
business program ranking, we believe the correlation is
more likely a result of better schools being more willing to
develop differentiating learning goals and less likely a
result of differentiating learning goals causing schools to
achieve a higher ranking.
Limitations
Some caution is necessary when interpreting our findings
because our sample comprised 45% of U.S. AACSBaccredited undergraduate business programs. Whether our
431
results generalize to the learning goals of the other 55% of
accredited undergraduate programs or graduate, international, or non–AACSB-accredited programs not in our sample is uncertain.
Though AACSB-accredited schools do not appear to be
strongly differentiated from one another, there is some evidence that AACSB-accredited programs are differentiated
from non–AACSB-accredited programs. For example, R.
F. Scherer, Javalgi, Bryant, and Tukel (2005, p. 654) stated
that a primary reason business schools seek AACSB
accreditation is to “enhance their reputation/image by differentiating themselves from non-accredited schools.” Similarly, Jantzen (2000) found small differences with respect
to student, faculty and program characteristics between
schools that were candidates for AACSB accreditation and
those that were recently accredited. However, he found substantial differences between candidate schools and those
not pursuing AACSB accreditation, further suggesting that
there may be larger differences between accredited versus
nonaccredited schools and smaller differences within the
sample of AACSB-accredited schools.
CONCLUSION
The AACSB encourages differentiation in mission statements as well as in the mission-linked learning goals. However, it appears that Milton Blood’s prophecy of very
different learning goals across AACSB-accredited schools
has not yet been fulfilled, and Joseph DiAngelo may have a
difficult time finding the nuts and cherries. Though the tension between differentiation and conformity is real, in the
context of the undergraduate learning goals of AACSBaccredited business programs it appears that the pressure to
conform is stronger than the pressure to differentiate. Public
schools and lower ranked business programs, in particular,
are more likely to adopt conforming learning goals. Additional research is needed to determine what business programs are conforming to and to determine the extent to
which learning goal conformity versus differentiation is
beneficial to all stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33–46.
Association of American Colleges and Universities, & Council for Higher
Education Accreditation. (2008). New leadership for student learning and
accountability: A statement of principles, commitments to action. Retrieved
from http://www.chea.org/pdf/(2008).01.30_New_Leadership_Statement.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. AACSB White Paper No. 3. Retrieved from http://www.
aacsb.edu/en/publications/whitepapers/
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:49 11 January 2016
432
K. E. BRINK ET AL.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2012). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards
for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.AACSB.edu/
accreditation/standards-busn-jan(2012).pdf
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSB). (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards
for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/
accreditation/business/standards/2013/2013-business-standards.pdf
Bloomberg BusinessWeek. (2010). Best undergraduate B-schools ranking
history. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-0320/best-undergraduate-b-schools-ranking-history
Cook, C. W. (1993). Curriculum change: Bold thrusts or timid extensions.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 6, 28–40.
Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2000). The rankings game: Managing business
school reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 319–333.
Cotton, C. C, McKenna, J. F., Van Auken, S., & Yeider, R. A. (1993). Mission orientations and dean’s perceptions: Implications for the new
AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 6, 17–27.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). The milieu of
management: Exploring the context of managerial work role requirements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 972–988.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W.
Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and
impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 699–738.
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hammond, K. L., & Webster, R. L. (2011). Market focus in AACSB member schools: An empirical examination of market orientation balance
and business school performance. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15, 11–22.
Henderson, J., Jordon, C. E., & Crockett, J. R. (1990). AACSB accreditation: Perceptions of deans and accounting professors. Journal of Education for Business, 66, 9–12.
Higher Learning Commission. (2013). Policy title: Criteria for accreditation. Retrieved from http://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/criteria-foraccreditation.html
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on the
accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 343–347.
Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2006). Is accreditation good for the
strategic decision making of traditional business schools? Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5, 225–233.
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns
about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17, 200–212.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis
in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.
Lowrie, A., & Willmott, H. (2009). Accreditation sickness in the consumption of business education: The vacuum in AACSB standard setting.
Management Learning, 40, 411–420.
Mangan, K. (2012, February 9). New business-school accreditation is
likely to be more flexible, less prescriptive. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/article/New-BusinessSchool/130718/
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review,
78, 734–749.
McKenna, J. F., Yeider, R. A., Cotton, C. C., & Van Auken, S. (1991).
Business education and regional variation: An administrative perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 67, 50–55.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2008). Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the BusinessWeek ranking. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 7, 26–41.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U. S. business
schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 108–123.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 87, 56–64.
Orwig, B., & Finney, R. Z. (2007). Analysis of the mission statements of
AACSB-accredited schools. Competitiveness Review, 17, 261–273.
Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (2008). Mission statements in U.S. colleges of
business: An empirical examination of their content with linkages to
configurations and performance. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 7, 454–470.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and
development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Roller, R. H., Andrews, B. K., & Bovee, S. L. (2003). Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of alternative costs, benefits,
and motivations. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 197–204.
Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 245–255.
Rubin, R. S., & Martell, K. (2009). Assessment and accreditation in business schools. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 364–
383). London, UK: Sage.
Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Scherer, R. F., Javalgi, R. G., Bryant, M., & Tukel, O. (2005). Challenges
of AACSB International accreditation for business schools in the United
States and Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review, 47,
651–669.
Sun, S. (2011). Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 11, 145–163.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with Milton Blood: The new
AACSB standards. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
3, 429–439.