08832323.2015.1087370
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
To cite this article: Ozen Asik-Dizdar (2015) To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents, Journal of Education for Business, 90:8, 443-450, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
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: 19:44
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 443–450, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
To Be or Not to Be. . . a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The author discusses the criticisms directed at management education and argues that the
causes of today’s problems are rooted in the apparent disconnect between management
academics and practitioners. It starts with an examination of management education and its
discontents from past to present. Then, existing problems are analyzed in the categories of
(a) relevance, (b) analytical versus soft skills, and (c) legitimacy. It is asserted that the
problems can be overcome when management scholars and practitioners reconcile and exert
their joint efforts on redefining management as a professional discipline. Suggestions are
offered as to how to carry out this endeavor.
Keywords: analytical skills, academic-practitioner gap, legitimacy, management education,
professional ethics, relevance, soft skills
Management schools, while recognized for their contributions in leading the way toward today’s fast-paced globalized business world, have been under close scrutiny as to
the consequences they produced. This paper posits that the
source of the current problems is the apparent disconnect
between management as an academic discipline and management as practice, and the solution can be found in working toward establishing management as a sound profession.
Criticisms that highlight the problems currently experienced (or perhaps, caused?) by management schools are
more pronounced today (Adler, 2006; Drucker, 1992;
Leavitt, 2007; Spender, 2007). Against a background of
dynamic and unpredictable business environment, business
practitioners struggle to cope with ongoing change by
establishing new forms of business (e.g., alliances, network
organizations), utilizing new communication technologies
(e.g., interactive websites, social networking), developing
new products and services, and competing on a worldwide
scale (Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002). In this regard,
management schools are criticized for being just a follower
of the changes, and not ahead of them in teaching and
research.
Correspondence should be addressed to Ozen Asik-Dizdar, Fairleigh
Dickinson University, Department of Management, 842 Cambie St.,
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 2P6, Canada. E-mail: o_dizdar@fdu.
edu
Moreover, it seems management is no longer a favorite
major among the college-going population, as evidenced by
the decline in management school enrollment since 2008
(Fischer & Glenn, 2009; Goudreau, 2012; Mondello, 2011).
Although some increase has recently been observed at
MBA-level (Estrada & Schoenfeld, 2013), the growth is yet
slow and figures remain much lower than those before the
economic crisis of 2008–2009. In addition to increased
costs, another potential cause may be characteristics of the
younger college population, Generation Y (Eisner, 2011;
Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Martin, 2005; Weiler,
2005). Born into the global era of fast information and communication technologies, Generation Y is highly technology-literate, and their acute awareness of the social and
environmental problems feeds into their skepticism about
the morals of the business world (Loughlin & Barling,
2001). They are skeptical even about the necessity of education (Jarzabkowski, Giulietti, Oliveira, & Amoo, 2013),
especially under the influence of popular culture of fasttrack careers and success obtained in nonconventional
ways by role models such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. In this regard, management schools are criticized for
having remained ineffective in attracting this young group
of individuals, and retaining them in the school system
throughout.
Therefore here I deal with whether management can or
should be organized around principles of a profession, and,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
444
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
if so, what measures can be taken to ensure that management schools overcome the issues and criticisms they are
facing. As mentioned previously, it is imperative that social
institutions adapt to change, move away from rigidity, and
enhance flexibility (Spender, 2007; Starkey & Tempest,
2009). Furthermore, by virtue of their relentless questioning
and search for meaning, the more skeptical and unconventional young generation implicitly encourage social institutions to change (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010). Hence,
it is no surprise that management schools, considered one
of the prime builders of today’s society, are under close
scrutiny.
Here I first talk about past improvement efforts in management education; then, I categorize current issues in three
grand areas that can be addressed by interweaving management education and professional ethics.
MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN PERSPECTIVE
Management schools have been the focus of interest for
various improvement efforts since their inception (Augier
& March, 2011). Early critics observed that management
education was not as strongly positioned as the established
professional areas of study, such as medicine, law, or engineering. Rather, management schools were instituted to
serve as trade or vocational schools primarily based on
practice, where the first few professors were themselves
practicing managers and entrepreneurs (Mintzberg, 2004).
Regarding teaching, it was observed that instructors structured the course material based on personal experience.
Although not an immediate negative, such an approach
lacked sound research to substantiate theory and feed into
teaching.
Weaknesses in teaching and research in management
schools were addressed in the recommendations of GordonHowell and Pierson Reports, both dated 1959 (Augier &
March, 2011; Goodrick, 2002). These reports asserted that
management schools were too narrow-minded in their
trade-focused approach to education, which was insufficient
for the scientific scrutiny needed for scholarly activity, let
alone a profession. Both reports criticized management
education stating that academic standards were low and the
curriculum full of vocational courses with little value to
build analytical and managerial competencies. The reports
further maintained that should management schools wish to
gain the respectable status of an academic institution, they
should engage in more theory and research driven endeavors with more scientifically oriented faculty (Anonymous,
2009; Augier & March, 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer
& Fong, 2002).
Concurring with others (Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer
& Fong, 2002; Shoemaker, 2008), Augier and March
(2011) argued that the reports did create the impact sought,
and many reforms helped gradually transform management
schools, by enhancing their scientific rigor with thorough
research and theory development, their academic standing
within the university system, and their status in the business
world. Recently, however, management schools are back
under close scrutiny, as present-day criticisms question not
only their tools and approaches in teaching and research,
but also their underlying philosophy.
One common criticism from past to present is that management schools have been unable to lead the change in
business practice. It appears that while past criticisms
mainly aimed for elevating management studies on the
premise that lack of scientific perspective was the main
cause for management schools’ inability to lead the change
(Augier & March, 2011; Shoemaker, 2008), today’s
criticisms seem to say the opposite, that management
schools have been unable to predict and lead the change (or
incorporate the change in their teaching and research),
because they have become too “scientific,” to the extent of
losing connection with business practice, and becoming
detached from reality (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
Renewed criticisms, therefore, point to three potential
detriments for the future of management schools: (a) that
management school, with its current teaching and
research, has lost its connection to the real world; (b) that
the output (graduates) produced by management schools
have primarily been greedy, self-interested, materialistic
individuals looking to maximize their own benefit; and (c)
that management school, placing such greed at the root of
its educational philosophy, has been one of the prime contributors to the current world problems. The most immediate implications include the declining enrollment figures,
and the public taking for granted that business world is
“dirty,” driven by extreme profit motive. Furthermore, the
academe is perceived to be unable to offer relevant solutions to business-related issues, as their work is seldom
directly available to the world of practice and general
public.
Given these, I analyze today’s criticisms to management
schools in the following dimensions:
1) Relevance: Criticism that questions the extent to
which management schools have been detached from
reality and immersed in their own world, such that
they have lost the practical relevance of their
research (Ireland, 2012; Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007).
2) Analytical versus soft skills: Criticism that management schools have trained students as experts in business functions with deeply entrenched analytical
skills, often accompanied by lack of interpersonal
skills, resulting in an inability to see the big picture,
take initiative, make effective decisions, and be a
leader (Adler, 2006; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Minzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
3) Legitimacy: Criticism that scrutinizes the predominant rational economic model of the society adopted
by management schools, stating that this focus has
promoted the pursuit of self-interest, and therefore
legitimized amoral behavior, where the thin line
between self-interest and greed could easily (and justifiably) be crossed (Augier & March, 2011; Ghoshal,
2005; Wang, Malhotra, & Murnighan, 2011).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
The Issue of Relevance
The first issue concerns how relevant the research conducted by management scholars is (Augier & March, 2011;
Hubbard & Lindsay, 2013; Ireland, 2012; Spender, 2007).
Just like in medicine, law, or engineering, the expectation
in fields of professional study is that research be conducted
under systematic study, and the results obtained inform and
improve the practice of the field (Hughes, Bence, Grisoni,
O’Regan, & Wornham, 2011; Tushman et al., 2007). If
management is a profession, we can similarly expect that
academic research conducted in management schools feed
into practice, and help advance the knowledge base of
practitioners.
However, the concern is that management research has
gradually become preoccupied with peripheral topics that
may or may not be interesting or useful to management
practice (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011).
Further, it appears that management research has been concerned with the rigor of its scientific scrutiny, with excessive focus on quantitative methodology (Ireland, 2012;
Pearce & Huang, 2012; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006),
more than the significance of the results within the larger
context they are part of.
Admittedly, this issue has multiple dimensions:
Management research seems to focus on narrow problems or topics that may be easily quantified for academic purposes, but trivial for practical purposes
(Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006).
Therefore, no matter how valuable and sound it is,
research does not create impact on management practice. Furthermore, although scholarly articles published in academic journals almost always elaborate
on managerial implications of research findings, it is
hard to say that these publications reach widespread
audience outside academia, which undermines the
usability of results by practitioners. On the other
hand, publications such as the Economist, Harvard
Business Review, Forbes, or California Management
Review, addressing both academic and practitioner
audiences, can be said to act as intermediaries where
authors and readers from either background can meet
(Cohen, 2007; Pearce & Huang, 2012).
445
Young scholars (mainly referring to full-time, tenuretrack faculty in management schools) are essentially
expected to “publish” their research, and most often
their venue is academic journals. The system therefore
perpetuates its own problem as it is established in such
a way that publication pressure outweighs the concerns about usefulness of research results. Scholars
may therefore consider practical relevance as a secondary concern, and getting published as primary.
Another interesting observation by Pfeffer and Fong
(2002) and Trank and Rynes (2003) is that publications that exert influence over management practice
are rarely produced by academics—the majority of
top-selling business and management books are often
authored by practitioners. Perhaps because of their
apparent disconnect, there’s not much flow of information between academia and practice, and hence
practitioners are coming up with popularized self-help
books, methods of analysis (e.g., Boston Consulting
Group’s growth-share matrix), and other treatise that
may or may not be backed up by scientific scrutiny.
As a result, academic-practitioner gap has grown wider
over time, and it is almost as if management scholars and
practitioners operate in different realms, perhaps within
some feeling of mutual distrust, unbelieving of what they
can actually contribute to one another.
The Issue of Analytical Versus Soft Skills
Another issue concerns the dismissal of soft skills in teaching where students mostly forge their strength in developing analytical skills, coupled with quantitative techniques
(Hughes et al., 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Tung, 2006). These
include analysis of financial markets, company market
share, operations research, strategy; that is, techniques that
usually relate to separate functions of business. In this
regard, management schools are designed in such a way
that teaching is segregated (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006;
Pfeffer & Fong, 2002)—separate departments deliver the
hard knowledge and develop expertise in their particular
field (function) of study.
The concern is that this functional segregation may lead
to an excessive focus on analytical skills, where students
easily lose sight of what exactly constitutes “management”
of a business organization (Mintzberg, 2004; Mintzberg
& Gosling, 2002). While management teaching has been
effective in delivering functional business knowledge and
developing analytical skills, it has done so mostly at the
expense of soft skills (e.g., communication, leadership, initiative-taking, and other interpersonal issues; Robles, 2012;
Schulz, 2008). Compared to hard (analytical) skills, soft
(interpersonal) skills are often dismissed as common sense
knowledge, or on the grounds that they are easy to acquire
at any point in time (Crawford, Lang, Fink, Dalton, &
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
446
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
Fielitz, 2011). This inattention or inability to instill soft
skills by management schools is severely criticized by
scholars (Mintzberg being the most prominent) arguing that
soft skills are essentially what make the practice of
management.
The exclusion of soft skills resulted in management education engendering a rational economic mindset in its partakers, and reinforcing individuals to ignore the emotional
aspect of human existence. The assumption is that rational
behavior must supersede everything, and everyone is
expected to remain objective and impersonal, disregarding
any emotions that may interfere with business practice. As
such, softer aspects such as interpersonal understanding,
moral judgment or empathy are undermined, or simply
viewed as secondary (Leavitt, 2007; Tung, 2006; Zhu,
2009). As a result, rational individuals have lacked the
ability to see the social implications of business decisions,
to think creatively in problem-solving situations, and to
understand the depth of social problems they may have
caused. In brief, the emphasis that economic grand theory
and rational perspective have placed on achieving profitability and competitiveness as the primary objectives of a
business organization overshadowed other viewpoints.
The Issue of Legitimacy
The last issue is perhaps the most fundamental, as it scrutinizes the very existence of management schools. Ghoshal
(2005) drew attention to the unintended consequences of
economic theory that lies at the basis of all business activity, as well as management teaching and research: economic theory has implicitly legitimized that homo
economicus, while relying on self-interest for all his activity, can easily turn greedy, abuse others, use unethical
behavior, and violate moral rules of society.
This criticism appears especially valid considering the
economic crises and corporate scandals of the recent decades. It is further supported by empirical studies, for example by Wang et al. (2011), who found that economics
education is associated with positive attitudes toward, and
increases the moral acceptability of greed. Similarly, Giacalone (2004) criticized business education for being unable
to instill the right virtues in students and help them think
beyond profits and self-interest. These findings and observations lead us to pause and reflect upon the educational
philosophy of management schools, and the contributions
that they have so far made to management practice. Management schools have long stagnated in their current educational system; however, as advocated by Howell in an
interview years after his influential report, they must continuously renew themselves in order to respond to the
changing needs of the society (Schmotter, 1984). Not only
the educational content, but also the structure and process
must be revisited (Leavitt, 2000). With the times changing,
there is an opportunity for management scholars to step up
and turn management education around to make it a thriving and engaging discipline again. What’s needed is a new
self-definition, which can be formulated around a new mission and principles of professional ethics, hence affirming
management as a profession and aligning all academic and
practitioner institutions.
Can Management Be Considered a Profession?
While some argue that management can be considered a
profession just like other established professions as medicine, law, and engineering, there is extensive debate about
whether management is a profession, or just a practice, or
even an academic discipline at all (Barker, 2010; Khurana,
Nohria, & Penrice, 2005; Knights, 2008; Mintzberg, 2004).
Professions have existed since the early days of civilization
as distinct areas of specialty that entailed a specific knowledge possessed only by those who exercised the profession,
and where not everybody was eligible to affiliate. Examining the three main characteristics of professions (Augier
& March, 2011; Greenwood, 1957; Trank & Rynes, 2003),
the following can be argued about whether or not management fits the bill:
Autonomous knowledge basis: Professions have a generalized, systematic, and abstract knowledge base that
is only accessible to those who belong to the profession. This knowledge base constitutes the fundamentals, and is delivered to new members by a
combination of theoretical learning, observation, and
clinical application. Medicine, law, and engineering
fit this requirement well, and so does management,
with its set of special knowledge, expertise, and teaching practices concerning a business organization.
Socially regulated selectivity: While professional
knowledge is only accessible to those who exercise it,
these individuals are selected into the profession by
thorough examinations and a rigorous set of rules and
regulations, enforced by professional organizations
and/or accreditation bodies. The expectation is that
those who exercise the profession are properly
selected, trained, and certified individuals, who otherwise would not be allowed to employ their special
knowledge. Again, medicine, law, and engineering fit
well within the picture, as they each have their special
schools coordinated with their respective organizations
that regulate the profession with all-encompassing
standards. Management, however, is a bit different: on
the one hand, it does offer specialized education in its
own schools; on the other hand, the coordination of
management schools with professional organizations
appears rather weak. Management as a profession
seems to be independently regulated from management education at the institutional level (as an
example, on the practice side, there is American
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Management Association; on the academic side, there
is Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, and Academy of Management), and it is hard to
talk about all-encompassing standards to define who
should qualify as a management professional.1
Social trustworthiness: One last characteristic of a
profession is its ideological or ethical component. In
addition to being selected into the profession after
thorough knowledge transfer and certification, a professional is expected to exercise the profession for the
greater social good, transcending anybody’s personal
interests or values, including an individual’s own.
This not only engenders a professional identity, but
also boosts the level of societal trust that the profession will be uniformly executed to the benefit of the
society. Often codified in written form, this ethical
component is perhaps the most crucial, because its
violation is a serious offense to the society, the profession, and the professional individual. Again, medicine, law, or engineering can be said to fit well within
this picture, as each profession requires its members
to take an oath, and any violation of the code is subject to prosecution. When it comes to management,
however, recognition of the need for an ethical code is
a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the corporate
scandals of the early 21st century, nobody gave serious thought into the fact that violation of ethics while
performing managerial duties could cause social
harm, unrest, and despair. Again, the lack of coordination among organizations that regulate management
education and practice makes it difficult to determine,
let alone enforce, the standards for a generally
accepted ethical code of conduct.
All in all, management falls short of being a profession
on a par with medicine, law, or engineering. As Khurana et
al. (2005) aptly put it, while management assumes appearances and privileges of being a profession, it evades the associated constraints and responsibilities. Extensive focus on
economic theory in management teaching and research
implicitly indoctrinated us that the greater good of the society will be best served if the business markets are left free
from intervention (Ghoshal, 2005; Smith, 2005)—when left
alone, all parties will pursue their self-interest, and while
protecting theirs, they will not allow another’s self-interest
to override it. Hence, the system will perfectly regulate and
balance itself. However, in reality, all it did was to breed
“greed”—although it sounded reasonable in theory, the system has not worked as anticipated, as control mechanisms
were also grounded in the same self-interested motivation.
That is, the system allowed the more aggressive and the
more greedy to gain more, and in doing so, take advantage
of others.
Adding to this all the teaching and research on how
to maximize profits, increase market share, and boost
447
competitiveness, management schools inadvertently legitimized the pursuit of self-interest, disregarding social consequences it may cause. Arguably, economic crises, social
unrest, unemployment rates, even environmental problems
are the outcome of this mindset motivated by insatiable
greed and self-interest.
As such, it seems among the greatest contributors to the
world’s current state of affairs are management schools,
and lack of coordination between academic and practitioner
organizations. If management schools and organizations
did not evade establishing their own set of professional
rules and regulations, and complied with their respective
constraints and responsibilities, the greed mindset would
not have prevailed so easily. A system of checks and balances would be in place where academia would inform and
have a more direct say upon management practice, which
in turn, would be more synchronized with academia. A true
collaboration would have existed between management
scholars and practitioners, and the academic-practitioner
gap would be avoided altogether, before it even came
about.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
Management schools are already recognizing and taking
steps to counter the problems they have contributed to, as
well as rectifying their negative image. For example, advocating the closure of the academic-practitioner gap on the
research front, Hughes et al. (2011) offered a framework
describing systematic ways in which academics and practitioners could come together. Tushman et al. (2007) proposed executive education as a suitable medium to translate
academic knowledge into managerial practice. Pearce and
Huang (2012) and Ireland (2012) discussed the concept of
“actionable research” as they argued that research based on
action could more easily inform teaching, and make better
sense for practice. On the teaching front, Rubin and Dierdorff (2009) argued for more emphasis be placed in the
master of business administration curriculum on the most
significant managerial competencies required outside academia, including managing human capital and decisionmaking processes. Further, Waddock and Lozano (2013)
advocated a more holistic management education relating
to softer aspects of managerial development, balanced with
self-awareness, global integration, and understanding of
broad implications of business decisions. Other studies
also support the need for more soft skills training in management education overall (Crawford et al., 2011; Gosling
& Mintzberg, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Robles,
2012; Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003).
Moreover, management schools collaborate with industry to conduct research that addresses actual industry issues;
offer a variety of professional development opportunities
whereby students gain hands-on experience through
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
448
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
internships, and service learning projects; and include
topics such as business ethics and sustainability in the curriculum. These examples demonstrate the fact that awareness is in place for removing the barriers between the
academic and practitioner worlds, and addressing each other’s needs and expectations. What is still missing, however,
is a shift of mind for a true turnaround to professionalize
management education. For doing so, this paper suggests
that management academic and practitioner organizations
start by questioning their true raison d’^
etre, and reorganize
around a new grand mission. A new and mutually agreedupon self-definition can act as a sound base for scholars and
practitioners to better align their fundamental purpose with
the needs of today’s society.
The following grand mission can be proposed: Developing management scholars and practitioners who have a
keen sense of responsibility to serve human, societal, and
economic needs, and who are adept at addressing the
same, with their repertoire of technical (functional) expertise, academic literacy, and experiential know-how.
The proposed mission can be said to entail the elements
of professionalism (specific knowledge base, regulated
selectivity, and social trustworthiness), and can promise
that the output of management school, scholar or practitioner, will be aware of the responsibilities invested in
them. On this basis, management academic and practitioner
organizations can further detail the shared principles of professional ethics that will help coordinate research, teaching,
and practice. Going back to the specific issues raised in this
article:
1) Regarding the issue of practical relevance, new organizational structures (e.g., research institutes) that
initiate joint discussions between academic and practitioner sides can be established to ensure that the
academic-practitioner involvement or engagement is
firmly instituted. Workshops can be held to elaborate
on what constitutes valuable research for practitioner
purposes, and develop projects to tackle shared
issues. Likewise, problems that practitioners experience on a day-to-day basis can help feed research in
these workshops. Furthermore, new journals can be
issued to publish the results of these collaborative
endeavors, in distribution for both academic and
practitioner communities. These efforts can hence
serve to engage practitioner communities to contribute to relevant research that will offer tools and solutions for their issues, backed up by sound academic
input.
2) For the issue regarding the lack of soft skills, recognizing the value of clinical teaching and experiential
learning is a must. The perception that the delivery
of knowledge regarding soft skills is easy and
straightforward with courses on organizational
behavior, interpersonal skills, or leadership, is
misinformed. Content of these courses can be
enhanced so as to incorporate activities simulating
real-life environments that can provide the opportunity to practice what’s learned in theory. Furthermore, within a “craft learning” perspective,
experiential opportunities can be incorporated in the
curriculum, including working together with a management professional on real-life management problems, shadowing a manager in his/her daily routine,
and decision-making in controlled environments.
These experiences can therefore provide a more complete picture of the intricate nature of management
practice.
3) Finally, regarding the issue concerning legitimacy,
management scholars and practitioners should finally
decide whether management is to be a profession. It
appears that this is a delicate point where scholars
and practitioners refrain from taking a clear-cut position; however, this is probably the gist of the whole
matter to change management education for better.
Academics and practitioners can develop standards
of professional ethics for management, with all its
rules, regulations, examinations, and ethical code in
place. This process requires contributions from existing academic and practitioner organizations, so that
a profession can be defined in its full extent, be
taught and practiced along its defined constraints and
responsibilities. Those elements can hence act as reference points against which the education and practice of management can be checked and kept in
order.
The collaboration of management scholars and practitioners is imperative in this process, not only to eliminate
the academic-practitioner disconnect, but also to prevent
management practice being misused by self-interested
managers. Management schools can further complement
this process by scrutinizing the economic theory background underlying their teaching and research, and studying its social implications (e.g., poverty, social injustice,
unemployment, organizational well-being, social welfare)
Admittedly, all these are easier said than done, as lots
of difficulties inside and outside management schools
curb the enthusiasm, ranging from funding structure to
school rankings, from tenure system to grade inflation,
and more (while fully recognizing the significance of
these issues, they remain to be discussed in a separate article). It seems essential that management schools and academic organizations recognize their responsibility in
creating today’s business world. From this recognition, it
is possible to make a positive turnaround, so long as management schools are ready and willing to challenge the
status quo, objectively criticize themselves, adopt a new
mindset, and re-open the borders between academic and
practitioner worlds.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
With management being a discipline so closely linked to
practice, two things seem obvious: (a) management
research is not supposed to sit in ivory towers—it is supposed to mean something for ordinary people, and do something to make their life better; and (b) management
teaching is not supposed to teach greed—it is supposed to
develop well-rounded individuals who will join the workforce fully aware and considerate of all dimensions of
human life. The most important step toward the turnaround
will be made only when management education, with all its
academic and practitioner institutions, is reorganized
around professional ethics. As Pirson and Lawrence (2010)
suggested, the ideal of a balanced society will be reached
through a balanced management education where humanism is put back in place.
NOTE
1. This is less true for the disciplines of accounting,
finance, or marketing, where the academics and practitioners seem to be more closely connected at institutional level.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (2006). The art & leadership: Now that we can do anything,
what will we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5,
486–499.
Anonymous. (2009, June 4). The Gordon-Howell report of 1959—The
more things change. A seminal critique of American business education,
five decades on. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.
com/node/12762453
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of
change: North American business schools after the Second World War.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barkema, H. G., Baum, J. A. C., & Mannix, E. A. (2002). Management
challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 916–
930.
Barker, R. (2010). No, management is not a profession. Harvard Business
Review, 88(7/8), 52–60.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner
publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and
concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1013–1019.
Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton, R., & Fielitz, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of soft skills: What is important for new graduates? Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.
Drucker, P. F. (1992). The new society of organizations. Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 95–104.
Eisner, S. P. (2011). Teaching generation Y college students: Three initiatives. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(9), 69–84.
Estrada, R., & Schoenfeld, G (2013). Application trends survey
report. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/market-intelligence-andresearch/research-library/admissions-and-application-trends/2013-appli
cation-trends-survey-report.aspx
449
Fischer, K., & Glenn, D. (2009, August 31). 5 college majors on the rise.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.
com/article/5-College-Majors-On-the-Rise/48207/
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
4, 75–91.
Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st
century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 415–420.
Goodrick, E. (2002). From management as a vocation to management as a
scientific activity: An institutional account of a paradigm shift. Journal
of Management, 28, 649–668.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both
matter. Management Learning, 37, 419–428.
Goudreau, J. (2012, May 15). The 15 most valuable college majors. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/
05/15/best-top-most-valuable-college-majors-degrees/
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3),
45–55.
Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013). From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research.
Journal of Business Research, 66, 1377–1388.
Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011).
Scholarship that matters: Academic-practitioner engagement in business
and management. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
10, 40–57.
Ireland, R. D. (2012). Management research and managerial practice: A
complex and controversial relationship. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 11, 263–271.
Jarzabkowski, P., Giulietti, M., Oliveira, B., & Amoo, N. (2013). “We
don’t need no education”–Or do we? Management education and
alumni adoption of strategy tools. Journal of Management Inquiry,
22, 4–24.
Khurana, R., Nohria, N., & Penrice, D. (2005, February 21). Is business management a profession? Op-Ed. HBS Working Knowledge.
Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/
4650.html
Knights, D. (2008). Review of the book From Higher Aims to Hired
Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools
and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management As a Profession, by
R. Khurana. Academy of Management Review, 33, 1019–1022.
Leavitt, H. J. (2000). The old business school and the new world: Real
trouble ahead? Selections, 16, 32–34.
Leavitt, H. J. (2007). Big organizations are unhealthy environments for
human beings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6,
253–263.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes,
and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 543–558.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at
work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23, 857–861.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity—What
managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37, 39–44.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 64–76.
Mondello, J. (2011, September 8). Undergraduate business enrollment
declines in the United States. AACSB International Business Education
Data and Research Blog. Retrieved from http://aacsbblogs.typepad.com/
dataandresearch/2011/09/undergraduate-business-enrollment-declines-inthe-united-states.html.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
450
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to
management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 247–262.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78–95.
Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Humanism in business—Toward
a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 553–565.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills
needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75,
453–465.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA?
Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
8, 208–224.
Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral
coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy
crisis. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 269–283.
Schmotter, J. W. (1984). An interview with Professor James E. Howell.
Selections, 1(2), 8–16.
Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. NAWA: Journal of Language and Communication, 2,
146–154.
Shoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking
management education. California Management Review, 50, 119–139.
Smith, A. (2005). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations. In J. Manis (Ed.), The electronic classics series. Hazleton, PA:
The Pennsylvania State University.
Spender, J. C. (2007). Management as a regulated profession: An essay.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 32–42.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: The
design challenge for business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 576–586.
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming
professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 189–205.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation
Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58–75.
Tung, R. L. (2006). Of arts, leadership, management education, and management research: A commentary on Nancy Adler’s “The arts & leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?” Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5, 505–511.
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M., &
McGrath, D. (2007). Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a
lever in shaping practice and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 345–362.
Waddock, S., & Lozano, J. M. (2013). Developing more holistic management education: Lessons learned from two programs. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12, 265–284.
Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education
and greed. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10,
643–660.
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students:
Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31, 46–53.
Zhu, Y. (2009). Philosophical underpinnings for equilibrium of values
and implications for management education: A response to Harold
Leavitt. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8,
290–296.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
To cite this article: Ozen Asik-Dizdar (2015) To Be or Not to Be… a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents, Journal of Education for Business, 90:8, 443-450, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
Published online: 14 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
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: 19:44
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 443–450, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1087370
To Be or Not to Be. . . a Profession: Management
Education and Its Discontents
Ozen Asik-Dizdar
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The author discusses the criticisms directed at management education and argues that the
causes of today’s problems are rooted in the apparent disconnect between management
academics and practitioners. It starts with an examination of management education and its
discontents from past to present. Then, existing problems are analyzed in the categories of
(a) relevance, (b) analytical versus soft skills, and (c) legitimacy. It is asserted that the
problems can be overcome when management scholars and practitioners reconcile and exert
their joint efforts on redefining management as a professional discipline. Suggestions are
offered as to how to carry out this endeavor.
Keywords: analytical skills, academic-practitioner gap, legitimacy, management education,
professional ethics, relevance, soft skills
Management schools, while recognized for their contributions in leading the way toward today’s fast-paced globalized business world, have been under close scrutiny as to
the consequences they produced. This paper posits that the
source of the current problems is the apparent disconnect
between management as an academic discipline and management as practice, and the solution can be found in working toward establishing management as a sound profession.
Criticisms that highlight the problems currently experienced (or perhaps, caused?) by management schools are
more pronounced today (Adler, 2006; Drucker, 1992;
Leavitt, 2007; Spender, 2007). Against a background of
dynamic and unpredictable business environment, business
practitioners struggle to cope with ongoing change by
establishing new forms of business (e.g., alliances, network
organizations), utilizing new communication technologies
(e.g., interactive websites, social networking), developing
new products and services, and competing on a worldwide
scale (Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002). In this regard,
management schools are criticized for being just a follower
of the changes, and not ahead of them in teaching and
research.
Correspondence should be addressed to Ozen Asik-Dizdar, Fairleigh
Dickinson University, Department of Management, 842 Cambie St.,
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 2P6, Canada. E-mail: o_dizdar@fdu.
edu
Moreover, it seems management is no longer a favorite
major among the college-going population, as evidenced by
the decline in management school enrollment since 2008
(Fischer & Glenn, 2009; Goudreau, 2012; Mondello, 2011).
Although some increase has recently been observed at
MBA-level (Estrada & Schoenfeld, 2013), the growth is yet
slow and figures remain much lower than those before the
economic crisis of 2008–2009. In addition to increased
costs, another potential cause may be characteristics of the
younger college population, Generation Y (Eisner, 2011;
Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Martin, 2005; Weiler,
2005). Born into the global era of fast information and communication technologies, Generation Y is highly technology-literate, and their acute awareness of the social and
environmental problems feeds into their skepticism about
the morals of the business world (Loughlin & Barling,
2001). They are skeptical even about the necessity of education (Jarzabkowski, Giulietti, Oliveira, & Amoo, 2013),
especially under the influence of popular culture of fasttrack careers and success obtained in nonconventional
ways by role models such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. In this regard, management schools are criticized for
having remained ineffective in attracting this young group
of individuals, and retaining them in the school system
throughout.
Therefore here I deal with whether management can or
should be organized around principles of a profession, and,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
444
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
if so, what measures can be taken to ensure that management schools overcome the issues and criticisms they are
facing. As mentioned previously, it is imperative that social
institutions adapt to change, move away from rigidity, and
enhance flexibility (Spender, 2007; Starkey & Tempest,
2009). Furthermore, by virtue of their relentless questioning
and search for meaning, the more skeptical and unconventional young generation implicitly encourage social institutions to change (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010). Hence,
it is no surprise that management schools, considered one
of the prime builders of today’s society, are under close
scrutiny.
Here I first talk about past improvement efforts in management education; then, I categorize current issues in three
grand areas that can be addressed by interweaving management education and professional ethics.
MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN PERSPECTIVE
Management schools have been the focus of interest for
various improvement efforts since their inception (Augier
& March, 2011). Early critics observed that management
education was not as strongly positioned as the established
professional areas of study, such as medicine, law, or engineering. Rather, management schools were instituted to
serve as trade or vocational schools primarily based on
practice, where the first few professors were themselves
practicing managers and entrepreneurs (Mintzberg, 2004).
Regarding teaching, it was observed that instructors structured the course material based on personal experience.
Although not an immediate negative, such an approach
lacked sound research to substantiate theory and feed into
teaching.
Weaknesses in teaching and research in management
schools were addressed in the recommendations of GordonHowell and Pierson Reports, both dated 1959 (Augier &
March, 2011; Goodrick, 2002). These reports asserted that
management schools were too narrow-minded in their
trade-focused approach to education, which was insufficient
for the scientific scrutiny needed for scholarly activity, let
alone a profession. Both reports criticized management
education stating that academic standards were low and the
curriculum full of vocational courses with little value to
build analytical and managerial competencies. The reports
further maintained that should management schools wish to
gain the respectable status of an academic institution, they
should engage in more theory and research driven endeavors with more scientifically oriented faculty (Anonymous,
2009; Augier & March, 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer
& Fong, 2002).
Concurring with others (Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer
& Fong, 2002; Shoemaker, 2008), Augier and March
(2011) argued that the reports did create the impact sought,
and many reforms helped gradually transform management
schools, by enhancing their scientific rigor with thorough
research and theory development, their academic standing
within the university system, and their status in the business
world. Recently, however, management schools are back
under close scrutiny, as present-day criticisms question not
only their tools and approaches in teaching and research,
but also their underlying philosophy.
One common criticism from past to present is that management schools have been unable to lead the change in
business practice. It appears that while past criticisms
mainly aimed for elevating management studies on the
premise that lack of scientific perspective was the main
cause for management schools’ inability to lead the change
(Augier & March, 2011; Shoemaker, 2008), today’s
criticisms seem to say the opposite, that management
schools have been unable to predict and lead the change (or
incorporate the change in their teaching and research),
because they have become too “scientific,” to the extent of
losing connection with business practice, and becoming
detached from reality (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
Renewed criticisms, therefore, point to three potential
detriments for the future of management schools: (a) that
management school, with its current teaching and
research, has lost its connection to the real world; (b) that
the output (graduates) produced by management schools
have primarily been greedy, self-interested, materialistic
individuals looking to maximize their own benefit; and (c)
that management school, placing such greed at the root of
its educational philosophy, has been one of the prime contributors to the current world problems. The most immediate implications include the declining enrollment figures,
and the public taking for granted that business world is
“dirty,” driven by extreme profit motive. Furthermore, the
academe is perceived to be unable to offer relevant solutions to business-related issues, as their work is seldom
directly available to the world of practice and general
public.
Given these, I analyze today’s criticisms to management
schools in the following dimensions:
1) Relevance: Criticism that questions the extent to
which management schools have been detached from
reality and immersed in their own world, such that
they have lost the practical relevance of their
research (Ireland, 2012; Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007).
2) Analytical versus soft skills: Criticism that management schools have trained students as experts in business functions with deeply entrenched analytical
skills, often accompanied by lack of interpersonal
skills, resulting in an inability to see the big picture,
take initiative, make effective decisions, and be a
leader (Adler, 2006; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Minzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
3) Legitimacy: Criticism that scrutinizes the predominant rational economic model of the society adopted
by management schools, stating that this focus has
promoted the pursuit of self-interest, and therefore
legitimized amoral behavior, where the thin line
between self-interest and greed could easily (and justifiably) be crossed (Augier & March, 2011; Ghoshal,
2005; Wang, Malhotra, & Murnighan, 2011).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
The Issue of Relevance
The first issue concerns how relevant the research conducted by management scholars is (Augier & March, 2011;
Hubbard & Lindsay, 2013; Ireland, 2012; Spender, 2007).
Just like in medicine, law, or engineering, the expectation
in fields of professional study is that research be conducted
under systematic study, and the results obtained inform and
improve the practice of the field (Hughes, Bence, Grisoni,
O’Regan, & Wornham, 2011; Tushman et al., 2007). If
management is a profession, we can similarly expect that
academic research conducted in management schools feed
into practice, and help advance the knowledge base of
practitioners.
However, the concern is that management research has
gradually become preoccupied with peripheral topics that
may or may not be interesting or useful to management
practice (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011).
Further, it appears that management research has been concerned with the rigor of its scientific scrutiny, with excessive focus on quantitative methodology (Ireland, 2012;
Pearce & Huang, 2012; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006),
more than the significance of the results within the larger
context they are part of.
Admittedly, this issue has multiple dimensions:
Management research seems to focus on narrow problems or topics that may be easily quantified for academic purposes, but trivial for practical purposes
(Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Hughes et al., 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Tung, 2006).
Therefore, no matter how valuable and sound it is,
research does not create impact on management practice. Furthermore, although scholarly articles published in academic journals almost always elaborate
on managerial implications of research findings, it is
hard to say that these publications reach widespread
audience outside academia, which undermines the
usability of results by practitioners. On the other
hand, publications such as the Economist, Harvard
Business Review, Forbes, or California Management
Review, addressing both academic and practitioner
audiences, can be said to act as intermediaries where
authors and readers from either background can meet
(Cohen, 2007; Pearce & Huang, 2012).
445
Young scholars (mainly referring to full-time, tenuretrack faculty in management schools) are essentially
expected to “publish” their research, and most often
their venue is academic journals. The system therefore
perpetuates its own problem as it is established in such
a way that publication pressure outweighs the concerns about usefulness of research results. Scholars
may therefore consider practical relevance as a secondary concern, and getting published as primary.
Another interesting observation by Pfeffer and Fong
(2002) and Trank and Rynes (2003) is that publications that exert influence over management practice
are rarely produced by academics—the majority of
top-selling business and management books are often
authored by practitioners. Perhaps because of their
apparent disconnect, there’s not much flow of information between academia and practice, and hence
practitioners are coming up with popularized self-help
books, methods of analysis (e.g., Boston Consulting
Group’s growth-share matrix), and other treatise that
may or may not be backed up by scientific scrutiny.
As a result, academic-practitioner gap has grown wider
over time, and it is almost as if management scholars and
practitioners operate in different realms, perhaps within
some feeling of mutual distrust, unbelieving of what they
can actually contribute to one another.
The Issue of Analytical Versus Soft Skills
Another issue concerns the dismissal of soft skills in teaching where students mostly forge their strength in developing analytical skills, coupled with quantitative techniques
(Hughes et al., 2011; Mintzberg, 2004; Tung, 2006). These
include analysis of financial markets, company market
share, operations research, strategy; that is, techniques that
usually relate to separate functions of business. In this
regard, management schools are designed in such a way
that teaching is segregated (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006;
Pfeffer & Fong, 2002)—separate departments deliver the
hard knowledge and develop expertise in their particular
field (function) of study.
The concern is that this functional segregation may lead
to an excessive focus on analytical skills, where students
easily lose sight of what exactly constitutes “management”
of a business organization (Mintzberg, 2004; Mintzberg
& Gosling, 2002). While management teaching has been
effective in delivering functional business knowledge and
developing analytical skills, it has done so mostly at the
expense of soft skills (e.g., communication, leadership, initiative-taking, and other interpersonal issues; Robles, 2012;
Schulz, 2008). Compared to hard (analytical) skills, soft
(interpersonal) skills are often dismissed as common sense
knowledge, or on the grounds that they are easy to acquire
at any point in time (Crawford, Lang, Fink, Dalton, &
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
446
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
Fielitz, 2011). This inattention or inability to instill soft
skills by management schools is severely criticized by
scholars (Mintzberg being the most prominent) arguing that
soft skills are essentially what make the practice of
management.
The exclusion of soft skills resulted in management education engendering a rational economic mindset in its partakers, and reinforcing individuals to ignore the emotional
aspect of human existence. The assumption is that rational
behavior must supersede everything, and everyone is
expected to remain objective and impersonal, disregarding
any emotions that may interfere with business practice. As
such, softer aspects such as interpersonal understanding,
moral judgment or empathy are undermined, or simply
viewed as secondary (Leavitt, 2007; Tung, 2006; Zhu,
2009). As a result, rational individuals have lacked the
ability to see the social implications of business decisions,
to think creatively in problem-solving situations, and to
understand the depth of social problems they may have
caused. In brief, the emphasis that economic grand theory
and rational perspective have placed on achieving profitability and competitiveness as the primary objectives of a
business organization overshadowed other viewpoints.
The Issue of Legitimacy
The last issue is perhaps the most fundamental, as it scrutinizes the very existence of management schools. Ghoshal
(2005) drew attention to the unintended consequences of
economic theory that lies at the basis of all business activity, as well as management teaching and research: economic theory has implicitly legitimized that homo
economicus, while relying on self-interest for all his activity, can easily turn greedy, abuse others, use unethical
behavior, and violate moral rules of society.
This criticism appears especially valid considering the
economic crises and corporate scandals of the recent decades. It is further supported by empirical studies, for example by Wang et al. (2011), who found that economics
education is associated with positive attitudes toward, and
increases the moral acceptability of greed. Similarly, Giacalone (2004) criticized business education for being unable
to instill the right virtues in students and help them think
beyond profits and self-interest. These findings and observations lead us to pause and reflect upon the educational
philosophy of management schools, and the contributions
that they have so far made to management practice. Management schools have long stagnated in their current educational system; however, as advocated by Howell in an
interview years after his influential report, they must continuously renew themselves in order to respond to the
changing needs of the society (Schmotter, 1984). Not only
the educational content, but also the structure and process
must be revisited (Leavitt, 2000). With the times changing,
there is an opportunity for management scholars to step up
and turn management education around to make it a thriving and engaging discipline again. What’s needed is a new
self-definition, which can be formulated around a new mission and principles of professional ethics, hence affirming
management as a profession and aligning all academic and
practitioner institutions.
Can Management Be Considered a Profession?
While some argue that management can be considered a
profession just like other established professions as medicine, law, and engineering, there is extensive debate about
whether management is a profession, or just a practice, or
even an academic discipline at all (Barker, 2010; Khurana,
Nohria, & Penrice, 2005; Knights, 2008; Mintzberg, 2004).
Professions have existed since the early days of civilization
as distinct areas of specialty that entailed a specific knowledge possessed only by those who exercised the profession,
and where not everybody was eligible to affiliate. Examining the three main characteristics of professions (Augier
& March, 2011; Greenwood, 1957; Trank & Rynes, 2003),
the following can be argued about whether or not management fits the bill:
Autonomous knowledge basis: Professions have a generalized, systematic, and abstract knowledge base that
is only accessible to those who belong to the profession. This knowledge base constitutes the fundamentals, and is delivered to new members by a
combination of theoretical learning, observation, and
clinical application. Medicine, law, and engineering
fit this requirement well, and so does management,
with its set of special knowledge, expertise, and teaching practices concerning a business organization.
Socially regulated selectivity: While professional
knowledge is only accessible to those who exercise it,
these individuals are selected into the profession by
thorough examinations and a rigorous set of rules and
regulations, enforced by professional organizations
and/or accreditation bodies. The expectation is that
those who exercise the profession are properly
selected, trained, and certified individuals, who otherwise would not be allowed to employ their special
knowledge. Again, medicine, law, and engineering fit
well within the picture, as they each have their special
schools coordinated with their respective organizations
that regulate the profession with all-encompassing
standards. Management, however, is a bit different: on
the one hand, it does offer specialized education in its
own schools; on the other hand, the coordination of
management schools with professional organizations
appears rather weak. Management as a profession
seems to be independently regulated from management education at the institutional level (as an
example, on the practice side, there is American
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Management Association; on the academic side, there
is Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, and Academy of Management), and it is hard to
talk about all-encompassing standards to define who
should qualify as a management professional.1
Social trustworthiness: One last characteristic of a
profession is its ideological or ethical component. In
addition to being selected into the profession after
thorough knowledge transfer and certification, a professional is expected to exercise the profession for the
greater social good, transcending anybody’s personal
interests or values, including an individual’s own.
This not only engenders a professional identity, but
also boosts the level of societal trust that the profession will be uniformly executed to the benefit of the
society. Often codified in written form, this ethical
component is perhaps the most crucial, because its
violation is a serious offense to the society, the profession, and the professional individual. Again, medicine, law, or engineering can be said to fit well within
this picture, as each profession requires its members
to take an oath, and any violation of the code is subject to prosecution. When it comes to management,
however, recognition of the need for an ethical code is
a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the corporate
scandals of the early 21st century, nobody gave serious thought into the fact that violation of ethics while
performing managerial duties could cause social
harm, unrest, and despair. Again, the lack of coordination among organizations that regulate management
education and practice makes it difficult to determine,
let alone enforce, the standards for a generally
accepted ethical code of conduct.
All in all, management falls short of being a profession
on a par with medicine, law, or engineering. As Khurana et
al. (2005) aptly put it, while management assumes appearances and privileges of being a profession, it evades the associated constraints and responsibilities. Extensive focus on
economic theory in management teaching and research
implicitly indoctrinated us that the greater good of the society will be best served if the business markets are left free
from intervention (Ghoshal, 2005; Smith, 2005)—when left
alone, all parties will pursue their self-interest, and while
protecting theirs, they will not allow another’s self-interest
to override it. Hence, the system will perfectly regulate and
balance itself. However, in reality, all it did was to breed
“greed”—although it sounded reasonable in theory, the system has not worked as anticipated, as control mechanisms
were also grounded in the same self-interested motivation.
That is, the system allowed the more aggressive and the
more greedy to gain more, and in doing so, take advantage
of others.
Adding to this all the teaching and research on how
to maximize profits, increase market share, and boost
447
competitiveness, management schools inadvertently legitimized the pursuit of self-interest, disregarding social consequences it may cause. Arguably, economic crises, social
unrest, unemployment rates, even environmental problems
are the outcome of this mindset motivated by insatiable
greed and self-interest.
As such, it seems among the greatest contributors to the
world’s current state of affairs are management schools,
and lack of coordination between academic and practitioner
organizations. If management schools and organizations
did not evade establishing their own set of professional
rules and regulations, and complied with their respective
constraints and responsibilities, the greed mindset would
not have prevailed so easily. A system of checks and balances would be in place where academia would inform and
have a more direct say upon management practice, which
in turn, would be more synchronized with academia. A true
collaboration would have existed between management
scholars and practitioners, and the academic-practitioner
gap would be avoided altogether, before it even came
about.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
Management schools are already recognizing and taking
steps to counter the problems they have contributed to, as
well as rectifying their negative image. For example, advocating the closure of the academic-practitioner gap on the
research front, Hughes et al. (2011) offered a framework
describing systematic ways in which academics and practitioners could come together. Tushman et al. (2007) proposed executive education as a suitable medium to translate
academic knowledge into managerial practice. Pearce and
Huang (2012) and Ireland (2012) discussed the concept of
“actionable research” as they argued that research based on
action could more easily inform teaching, and make better
sense for practice. On the teaching front, Rubin and Dierdorff (2009) argued for more emphasis be placed in the
master of business administration curriculum on the most
significant managerial competencies required outside academia, including managing human capital and decisionmaking processes. Further, Waddock and Lozano (2013)
advocated a more holistic management education relating
to softer aspects of managerial development, balanced with
self-awareness, global integration, and understanding of
broad implications of business decisions. Other studies
also support the need for more soft skills training in management education overall (Crawford et al., 2011; Gosling
& Mintzberg, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Robles,
2012; Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003).
Moreover, management schools collaborate with industry to conduct research that addresses actual industry issues;
offer a variety of professional development opportunities
whereby students gain hands-on experience through
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
448
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
internships, and service learning projects; and include
topics such as business ethics and sustainability in the curriculum. These examples demonstrate the fact that awareness is in place for removing the barriers between the
academic and practitioner worlds, and addressing each other’s needs and expectations. What is still missing, however,
is a shift of mind for a true turnaround to professionalize
management education. For doing so, this paper suggests
that management academic and practitioner organizations
start by questioning their true raison d’^
etre, and reorganize
around a new grand mission. A new and mutually agreedupon self-definition can act as a sound base for scholars and
practitioners to better align their fundamental purpose with
the needs of today’s society.
The following grand mission can be proposed: Developing management scholars and practitioners who have a
keen sense of responsibility to serve human, societal, and
economic needs, and who are adept at addressing the
same, with their repertoire of technical (functional) expertise, academic literacy, and experiential know-how.
The proposed mission can be said to entail the elements
of professionalism (specific knowledge base, regulated
selectivity, and social trustworthiness), and can promise
that the output of management school, scholar or practitioner, will be aware of the responsibilities invested in
them. On this basis, management academic and practitioner
organizations can further detail the shared principles of professional ethics that will help coordinate research, teaching,
and practice. Going back to the specific issues raised in this
article:
1) Regarding the issue of practical relevance, new organizational structures (e.g., research institutes) that
initiate joint discussions between academic and practitioner sides can be established to ensure that the
academic-practitioner involvement or engagement is
firmly instituted. Workshops can be held to elaborate
on what constitutes valuable research for practitioner
purposes, and develop projects to tackle shared
issues. Likewise, problems that practitioners experience on a day-to-day basis can help feed research in
these workshops. Furthermore, new journals can be
issued to publish the results of these collaborative
endeavors, in distribution for both academic and
practitioner communities. These efforts can hence
serve to engage practitioner communities to contribute to relevant research that will offer tools and solutions for their issues, backed up by sound academic
input.
2) For the issue regarding the lack of soft skills, recognizing the value of clinical teaching and experiential
learning is a must. The perception that the delivery
of knowledge regarding soft skills is easy and
straightforward with courses on organizational
behavior, interpersonal skills, or leadership, is
misinformed. Content of these courses can be
enhanced so as to incorporate activities simulating
real-life environments that can provide the opportunity to practice what’s learned in theory. Furthermore, within a “craft learning” perspective,
experiential opportunities can be incorporated in the
curriculum, including working together with a management professional on real-life management problems, shadowing a manager in his/her daily routine,
and decision-making in controlled environments.
These experiences can therefore provide a more complete picture of the intricate nature of management
practice.
3) Finally, regarding the issue concerning legitimacy,
management scholars and practitioners should finally
decide whether management is to be a profession. It
appears that this is a delicate point where scholars
and practitioners refrain from taking a clear-cut position; however, this is probably the gist of the whole
matter to change management education for better.
Academics and practitioners can develop standards
of professional ethics for management, with all its
rules, regulations, examinations, and ethical code in
place. This process requires contributions from existing academic and practitioner organizations, so that
a profession can be defined in its full extent, be
taught and practiced along its defined constraints and
responsibilities. Those elements can hence act as reference points against which the education and practice of management can be checked and kept in
order.
The collaboration of management scholars and practitioners is imperative in this process, not only to eliminate
the academic-practitioner disconnect, but also to prevent
management practice being misused by self-interested
managers. Management schools can further complement
this process by scrutinizing the economic theory background underlying their teaching and research, and studying its social implications (e.g., poverty, social injustice,
unemployment, organizational well-being, social welfare)
Admittedly, all these are easier said than done, as lots
of difficulties inside and outside management schools
curb the enthusiasm, ranging from funding structure to
school rankings, from tenure system to grade inflation,
and more (while fully recognizing the significance of
these issues, they remain to be discussed in a separate article). It seems essential that management schools and academic organizations recognize their responsibility in
creating today’s business world. From this recognition, it
is possible to make a positive turnaround, so long as management schools are ready and willing to challenge the
status quo, objectively criticize themselves, adopt a new
mindset, and re-open the borders between academic and
practitioner worlds.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
With management being a discipline so closely linked to
practice, two things seem obvious: (a) management
research is not supposed to sit in ivory towers—it is supposed to mean something for ordinary people, and do something to make their life better; and (b) management
teaching is not supposed to teach greed—it is supposed to
develop well-rounded individuals who will join the workforce fully aware and considerate of all dimensions of
human life. The most important step toward the turnaround
will be made only when management education, with all its
academic and practitioner institutions, is reorganized
around professional ethics. As Pirson and Lawrence (2010)
suggested, the ideal of a balanced society will be reached
through a balanced management education where humanism is put back in place.
NOTE
1. This is less true for the disciplines of accounting,
finance, or marketing, where the academics and practitioners seem to be more closely connected at institutional level.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (2006). The art & leadership: Now that we can do anything,
what will we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5,
486–499.
Anonymous. (2009, June 4). The Gordon-Howell report of 1959—The
more things change. A seminal critique of American business education,
five decades on. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.
com/node/12762453
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of
change: North American business schools after the Second World War.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barkema, H. G., Baum, J. A. C., & Mannix, E. A. (2002). Management
challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 916–
930.
Barker, R. (2010). No, management is not a profession. Harvard Business
Review, 88(7/8), 52–60.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner
publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and
concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1013–1019.
Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton, R., & Fielitz, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of soft skills: What is important for new graduates? Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.
Drucker, P. F. (1992). The new society of organizations. Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 95–104.
Eisner, S. P. (2011). Teaching generation Y college students: Three initiatives. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(9), 69–84.
Estrada, R., & Schoenfeld, G (2013). Application trends survey
report. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/market-intelligence-andresearch/research-library/admissions-and-application-trends/2013-appli
cation-trends-survey-report.aspx
449
Fischer, K., & Glenn, D. (2009, August 31). 5 college majors on the rise.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.
com/article/5-College-Majors-On-the-Rise/48207/
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
4, 75–91.
Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st
century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 415–420.
Goodrick, E. (2002). From management as a vocation to management as a
scientific activity: An institutional account of a paradigm shift. Journal
of Management, 28, 649–668.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both
matter. Management Learning, 37, 419–428.
Goudreau, J. (2012, May 15). The 15 most valuable college majors. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/
05/15/best-top-most-valuable-college-majors-degrees/
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3),
45–55.
Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2013). From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research.
Journal of Business Research, 66, 1377–1388.
Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011).
Scholarship that matters: Academic-practitioner engagement in business
and management. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
10, 40–57.
Ireland, R. D. (2012). Management research and managerial practice: A
complex and controversial relationship. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 11, 263–271.
Jarzabkowski, P., Giulietti, M., Oliveira, B., & Amoo, N. (2013). “We
don’t need no education”–Or do we? Management education and
alumni adoption of strategy tools. Journal of Management Inquiry,
22, 4–24.
Khurana, R., Nohria, N., & Penrice, D. (2005, February 21). Is business management a profession? Op-Ed. HBS Working Knowledge.
Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/
4650.html
Knights, D. (2008). Review of the book From Higher Aims to Hired
Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools
and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management As a Profession, by
R. Khurana. Academy of Management Review, 33, 1019–1022.
Leavitt, H. J. (2000). The old business school and the new world: Real
trouble ahead? Selections, 16, 32–34.
Leavitt, H. J. (2007). Big organizations are unhealthy environments for
human beings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6,
253–263.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes,
and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 543–558.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at
work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23, 857–861.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity—What
managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37, 39–44.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 64–76.
Mondello, J. (2011, September 8). Undergraduate business enrollment
declines in the United States. AACSB International Business Education
Data and Research Blog. Retrieved from http://aacsbblogs.typepad.com/
dataandresearch/2011/09/undergraduate-business-enrollment-declines-inthe-united-states.html.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:44 11 January 2016
450
O. ASIK-DIZDAR
Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to
management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 247–262.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78–95.
Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Humanism in business—Toward
a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 553–565.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills
needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75,
453–465.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA?
Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
8, 208–224.
Rynes, S. L., Trank, C. Q., Lawson, A. M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioral
coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy
crisis. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 269–283.
Schmotter, J. W. (1984). An interview with Professor James E. Howell.
Selections, 1(2), 8–16.
Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. NAWA: Journal of Language and Communication, 2,
146–154.
Shoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking
management education. California Management Review, 50, 119–139.
Smith, A. (2005). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of
nations. In J. Manis (Ed.), The electronic classics series. Hazleton, PA:
The Pennsylvania State University.
Spender, J. C. (2007). Management as a regulated profession: An essay.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 32–42.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: The
design challenge for business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 576–586.
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming
professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 189–205.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation
Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58–75.
Tung, R. L. (2006). Of arts, leadership, management education, and management research: A commentary on Nancy Adler’s “The arts & leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?” Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5, 505–511.
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M., &
McGrath, D. (2007). Relevance and rigor: Executive education as a
lever in shaping practice and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 345–362.
Waddock, S., & Lozano, J. M. (2013). Developing more holistic management education: Lessons learned from two programs. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12, 265–284.
Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education
and greed. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10,
643–660.
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students:
Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31, 46–53.
Zhu, Y. (2009). Philosophical underpinnings for equilibrium of values
and implications for management education: A response to Harold
Leavitt. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8,
290–296.