Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.82.1.3-10
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Linking Faculty Development to the Business
School's Mission
Leonardo Legorreta , Craig A. Kelley & Chris J. Sablynski
To cite this article: Leonardo Legorreta , Craig A. Kelley & Chris J. Sablynski (2006) Linking
Faculty Development to the Business School's Mission, Journal of Education for Business, 82:1,
3-10, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.3-10
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.3-10
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 42
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
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: 23:19
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Linking Faculty Development to
the Business School’s Mission
LEONARDO LEGORRETA
CRAIG A. KELLEY
CHRIS J. SABLYNSKI
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
ABSTRACT. Recently adopted standards by the International Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) require accredited schools to
define a set of specific goals and studentlearning outcomes from their mission statements. In addition, AACSB Participant
Standard 11 requires a school to design faculty development programs to fulfill the
school’s mission. What is missing in the
business education literature is a description of how the school can link its faculty
development efforts to the achievement of
its stated goals and student-learning outcomes. This article proposes a model to
foster the link between mission statement,
goals, student-learning outcomes, and faculty-development programs.
Key words: faculty-development, mission
statement, student-learning outcome
Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications
R
ecent changes by the International
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB, 2005) to
its standard herald a new perspective for
the accreditation process and business
school management. These changes provide an opportunity to align a school’s
mission with its practices. The AACSB
standards require that the business
school’s mission statement drive all
decision making, including faculty coverage of courses, learning objectives,
intellectual contributions, and facultydevelopment programs.
Implicit in the AACSB (2005) standards is the recognition that individual
faculty member’s contributions will differ. The AACSB standards are silent on
how to comply with the new aggregate
faculty goals and mission-centric perspective. Schools can tailor their plans
to suit their faculty profiles. This places
the faculty-development plan (FDP) in a
unique mediating position. A properly
construed FDP can aid the transition
from mission formulation to implementation in alignment with individual faculty members’ needs and aspirations,
can provide a systematic approach for
dealing with a complex and dynamic
problem, and can add transparency and
flexibility to the accreditation process.
Several studies have been published
on addressing several of the AACSB
standards (e.g., Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004; Smith & Rubenson, 2005;
Weber, Weber, Sleeper, & Schneider,
2004). Our purpose in this article is to
fill a gap in the literature by presenting
a process that links faculty development
to school goals and student learning
objectives. To accomplish this purpose
we (a) examine the relationship between
faculty development and school mission, (b) provide a tool for linking the
school mission to faculty development,
(c) explore how this tool fits with the
business education literature, thereby
opening opportunities for further developments, and (d) offer a top-down perspective that summarizes the merits and
challenges of this approach.
What Is Faculty Development?
The term faculty development has
been used in many ways in the businesseducation literature. Faculty development has been used synonymously with
the enhancement of teaching (Millis,
1994) and research (Bland & Schmitz,
1990). Festervand and Tillery (2001)
defined faculty development as a “set of
activities that promote the creation of
knowledge” (p. 109). They suggest that
the outcomes of faculty development
can be measured through each faculty
member’s teaching, research, and service. Blignaut and Trollip (2003) take a
narrower approach to defining faculty
development. They suggest faculty
development may take the form of speSeptember/October 2006
3
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
cialized training in how to use technology to teach an online course. DiLorenzo
and Heppner (1994) advise against taking such a narrow view of faculty development. They approach faculty development from a departmental perspective
and recommend grouping faculty development efforts under four categories:
(a) morale, (b) teaching, (c) research,
and (d) time and developmental growth.
Although faculty development efforts
can be very effective in enhancing
teaching, there is a need to expand these
programs into other areas of faculty life
(Millis, 1994). AACSB Assurance of
Learning Standards related to assessment have placed greater demands on
faculty to be accountable for how they
allocate their time teaching. It is no
longer sufficient to disseminate knowledge to students. Faculty members must
demonstrate that their students have
competence in the skills they must master to be successful in a business career.
Faculty development in the broadest
sense of the word encompasses teaching, research, career development, and
personal health and growth (as cited in
Millis, 1994). In this sense, DiLorenzo
and Heppner (1994) discuss the scholarships of discovery, application, integration, and teaching. Indeed, teaching,
research, career development, and personal health and growth can be integrated under the scholarship rubric. Therefore, the vitality of the school depends
on a holistic approach to faculty development (Bland & Schmitz, 1990).
AACSB standards have helped shape
the faculty development activities in a
variety of ways including the use of
study-abroad programs (Festervand &
Tillery, 2001), use of self-directed
teams in the structure of a business
school (Smith, Rubenson, & Bebee,
2002), and development of online teaching skills (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003).
The need for faculty development also
stems from the increased demands of
accountability, in particular AACSB
assessment. Millis (1994) identified
several changes driving this demand,
namely changing expectations about the
quality of education, changing societal
needs, changing technology, changing
student populations, and changing
teaching and learning paradigms.
Dynamic complexity now characterizes
4
Journal of Education for Business
higher education, forcing collegiate
schools of business to integrate and
account for resource allocation. The
more successful schools will be those
that make faculty development a key
strategic resource (Bartlett & Ghoshal,
2002).
The task of developing a model FDP
involves managing diversity of interests,
values, and stages in the professional
growth of the faculty members. A onesize-fits-all FDP is not realistic for most
schools. From the point of view of faculty, priorities change as their careers
develop (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994).
From the point of view of teaching and
research, different types of situations
require different skills and resources
(DiLorenzo & Heppner). However,
diversity gives the professoriate its
vitality. Thus, a model FDP must recognize different skills and needs of individual faculty members.
Different stages in academic careers
means specific faculty development
goals and programs must be adapted
from faculty member to faculty member. All professional life-cycle models
recognize that career paths vary greatly
and that the path dependencies matter
(DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). For
example, some faculty members may
find themselves transitioning into fields
other than their own, yet because of
their maturity as researchers, they will
not need the same level of support typically afforded to new faculty members
even though both are relatively new to
the field. The school administration
should know each faculty member’s
career objectives so it can provide the
appropriate level of faculty development to help the faculty members
achieve their objectives.
At a time when the rate of retirement
of business faculty is increasing in parallel with overall student population
growth and new faculty are being added
in large numbers, FDPs must recognize
that the needs of junior faculty differ
from those of more senior faculty members (J. Mondello, personal communication, August 16–24, 2005; Sorcinelli,
1994).
Given potential shortages of junior
faculty (Davis & McCarthy, 2005), a
school’s willingness to learn about and
to provide support for new faculty may
be critical to the school’s future success.
A honeymoon effect takes place initially when new faculty report high levels
of satisfaction—the relative autonomy,
the opportunities for intellectual discovery and growth, the opportunity to have
a high impact on others, and the sense
of accomplishment (Olsen & Sorcinelli;
Sorcinelli; Turner & Boice, as cited in
Sorcinelli, 1994). Over time, there is a
downward turn, particularly with extrinsic rewards (Sorcinelli, 1992). The following concerns arise: time constraints
in research and teaching; lack of collegial relations; inadequate feedback,
recognitions, or rewards; unrealistic
expectations; insufficient resources; and
lack of balance between work and personal life (Sorcinelli, 1994).
Shisler (1995) provides six ways for
research administrators to personalize
faculty development programs: (a) hold
an open house; (b) meet with new faculty; (c) manage by walking around; (d)
praise work well-done; (e) stage end-ofyear events to express appreciation; and
(f) show interest in the faculty members
as professionals. These activities are
uniquely germane to senior faculty
mentors with research interests closely
related to those of the junior faculty
members.
Good arguments are offered for allocating primary responsibility for faculty
development to the appropriate mentor
within the school (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). In general, primary faculty
development responsibility could reside
with the individual, with the department,
with the school, with the university, or
conceivably even at some interuniversity
level. Although some responsibility
should be distributed to all these levels,
the canonical place is the mentor level
because of the mentor’s understanding of
the shared subject matter, familiarity
with the discipline’s career cycle, and
proximity to the issues facing the school.
Moreover, vesting mentors with the
responsibility for faculty development
provides the school with (a) clarity and
purpose, (b) the means to define the
school’s future direction, and (c) occasions to take pride in the school’s accomplishments (DiLorenzo & Heppner).
For DiLorenzo and Heppner (1994),
the mentor comes from the individual
faculty member’s department. We feel
this restriction is unnecessary. Although
departments play a pivotal role in faculty development, an “appropriate” mentor is not restricted to the individual faculty member’s department. Whereas a
departmental mentor offers insights into
the research area, nondepartmental
mentors can provide valuable insights
into other aspects of the faculty member’s professional development.
School Mission
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
What Does AACSB International Mean
by “Mission”?
Since 1991, AACSB has made mission-linked standards and peer review
the cornerstones of its accreditation
process (AACSB, 2005). Despite this
strong reliance on mission, the AACSB
is notably silent on defining the term.
The most explicit statements are the following:
1. Mission Statement: The school
publishes a mission statement or its
equivalent that provides direction for
making decisions. The mission statement derives from a process that
includes the viewpoints of various
stakeholders. The school periodically
reviews and revises the mission statement as appropriate. The review process
involves appropriate stakeholders.
2. Mission Appropriateness: The
school’s mission statement is appropriate to higher education for management
and consonant with the mission of any
institution of which the school is a part.
The mission includes the production of
intellectual contributions that advance
the knowledge and practice of business
and management (AACSB, 2005).
3. To attain AACSB accreditation,
schools must start with a clear and compelling mission; but the missions will
vary according to localized business
needs and concerns, cultures and traditions, and the aims of governmental,
religious, or other sponsoring organizations (AACSB, 2005).
4. AACSB International accreditation
assures stakeholders that business
schools manage resources to achieve a
vibrant and relevant mission (AACSB,
2005).
The presumption is that the shift to
mission-linked standards would increase
AACSB accreditation access to institutions that historically focused primarily
on teaching (Jantzen, 2000; Yunker,
1998). Thus, AACSB may be flexible in
defining the term “mission” to allow for
individual variances needed to accommodate stakeholder diversity. Although
AACSB allows for individual variances,
it does not disregard the role research
(intellectual contributions) must play in
every accredited school. Schools have
the responsibility of defining that role.
For AACSB, a mission is a published
expression derived from a process that
includes the viewpoints of various
stakeholders and provides direction for
making decisions. It must be “vibrant
and relevant,” “clear and compelling,”
appropriate to higher education for
management, and “consonant with the
mission of any institution of which the
school is a part” (AACSB, 2005).
Linking Faculty Development and
the School Mission
A business school’s goals and student
learning outcomes only have meaning
when they are intimately linked to the
core values of the school (Dolan, Garcia, & Auerbach, 2003). Accordingly,
core values are used to link faculty
development with the school mission.
Witcher (2003) breaks the process of
linking faculty development and school
mission into four phases: focus, alignment, integration, and review (FAIR).
In the focus phase, the mission statement is converted into actionable steps.
The process begins by breaking the core
values inherent in the mission statement
into an explicit list. This is used to generate single-focus actionable goal statements. These are the goals of the school.
The goals are ranked and rated according to the current strategic intent. The
ordered list of goals with associated ratings is called the “ranked and rated
goals of the school.” The ranked and
rated goals of the school reflect the current strategic positioning of the school.
In the alignment phase, all resources
are directed toward the attainment of the
mission statement. The presumption is
that the resources available can effectively implement the mission statement.
The school initiates a request for proposals and provides a rubric for evaluat-
ing the proposals. This faculty proposal
rubric is the key link in the chain connecting faculty development and the
school’s mission. Rubrics are typically
used for assessing student work.
Extending rubrics to faculty development provides a common lens for all
AACSB documents. The faculty proposal rubric must be based on the
ranked and rated goals of the school.
Therefore, each proposal is evaluated in
light of the current strategic positioning
of the school.
In the integration phase, a desired
future is designed (Ackoff, 1981). This
is the crucial link between faculty development and the school’s mission. The
values embedded in the goals as rated
and ranked by the present strategic
intent will be meaningful to the faculty
only if they are widely shared. This
should provide direction and motivate
faculty toward the kinds of activities
most valued by the school. Here the role
of the departmental mentor is crucial in
helping individual faculty members
determine their individual needs and in
matching these to the call for proposals.
It falls on the mentor to ensure that not
only are the school’s current needs integrated with those of individual faculty,
but also that every faculty member’s
needs are being met from iteration to
iteration (Nathan, 1994). However, the
individual faculty member has responsibility to generate a proposal and to link
it to the school’s mission through the
use of the rubric. The faculty member is
intimately aware of how his or her
development needs are being played out
against the mission of the school. The
school then makes the assessment of the
proposals in an open forum and allocates the resources accordingly. The
open forum enables individual faculty
members to witness the alignment of
resources to proposals of the ranked and
rated goals of the school, enabling a
common vision of direction.
In the review phase, the process is
mastered through improved iterations
and disseminated best practices. First,
the school evaluates the allocation plan
in light of the ranked and rated goals of
the school in an open forum. The transparency of the process allows all to see
exemplary proposals in light of the current strategic positioning of the school
September/October 2006
5
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
as well as pitfalls in the process. To integrate this feedback into the learning
cycle, the school surveys the faculty to
elicit feedback from the process and
from the evaluation of the allocation
plan. The ultimate goal of this approach
is to generate faculty support of the
development and implementation of the
school mission. Hence, as a final step in
the review process, the school takes
inventory of faculty contributions so as
to assess the tool’s effectiveness in eliciting faculty buy in.
Although the process is iterative, the
iterations do not need to be done annually. The iterations can be carried out on
any predetermined time period (e.g.,
annually or once every 3 years) that
suits the strategic needs of the school.
Appendix A summarizes the implementation details of the four-phase FAIR
approach previously discussed.
Case Example
The following discussion details the
FAIR approach as used by the faculty in
the College of Business Administration
(CBA) at the California State University,
Sacramento (CSUS), to link its school
mission statement to its FDP. CSUS is a
public university and part of the 23 campus California State University system. It
has an enrollment of approximately
28,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The CBA has approximately 4,000
undergraduate and 250 graduate students.
Undergraduate business majors may
select from 11 concentrations, including
marketing, finance, accounting, management information systems, human
resources management, general management, and international business. The student body is very diverse, reflecting the
demographics of California.
The basic assumption made by the
college’s faculty was that faculty development would focus on programs that
advance the mission of the CBA. The
CBA’s mission statement is as follows:
The College strives to be an exemplary
regional educational institution graduating community-minded students with a
strong foundation in business knowledge,
skills, and values. We offer a business
education that is responsive to the changing regional, global, and technology-driven environment. We will fulfill our mission through the pursuit of excellence in
6
Journal of Education for Business
teaching and learning, scholarship and
service to our community as well as
through collaborative efforts among, faculty, students, staff, University, and community members. (California State University, Sacramento, n.d.)
Focus
Following the implementation
process outlined in Appendix A, the
CBA faculty developed a list of goals
for the college based on a value-based
analysis. The CBA faculty broke apart
the school’s mission statement into
component parts and then matched the
parts with the core values of the CBA.
The faculty then proceeded on to Step
1.2 of the process and developed 10
goals that captured the values inherent
in the school’s mission. These goals are
shown in Appendix B.
Each of the goals can be traced to a
part of the mission. For example, Goal 1
is central to the mission of being an
exemplary regional educational institution. In some cases the goals overlapped
different parts of the mission statement.
Goal 2, for instance, is seeking to develop sought-after students and Goal 10 is
encouraging students to engage in community activities to promote the welfare
of others. Both of these goals relate to the
part of the mission that involves graduating community-minded students.
Before proceeding on to Step 1.3, the
goals underwent further refinement to
generate single-focus subgoals. The subgoals are listed Appendix B. For example, Goal 1 states “To improve perception
of CBA from students, alumni, and
regional organizations.” Depending on its
current strategies, the CBA may choose
to focus on one of these stakeholder
groups over the others at a given point in
time. Accordingly, Goal 1 can be broken
down into three, single-focus goals:
Goal 1a: to improve student perception of the CBA;
Goal 1b: to improve alumni perception of the CBA; and
Goal 1c: to improve regional organization’s perception of the CBA.
Not all goals on the list break down as
easily. The actual breakout may depend
on particular circumstances. However,
the process is intended to be flexible so as
to permit revision and edits.
Further refinements to the singleaction goals are possible and should be
done as needed to adequately rank competing faculty-development proposals.
For Step 1.3 the single-action goals
need to be rated and ranked through a
consensus of the faculty and school
administration. Step 1.3 ensures that
competing faculty development proposals are adequately rated, selected, and
funded in alignment with the mission of
the college and the current strategic
intent of its leaders.
Align
The CBA’s Faculty Development
Committee compiled an exhaustive list
of all programs that can be made available for faculty-development purposes
at both the university and college levels.
For Step 2.1, the college administration
can select programs from this list to
implement. This list helps to ensure that
redundancies are minimized, given that
resources available at the campus level
can be used to relieve the college of part
of the responsibility for funding faculty
development programs.
The CBA’s current list of programs
can be extended to list programs beyond
the campus. Moreover, a policy can be
developed that guides faculty members
to seek support from the appropriate
level—college, campus, or external—
given the faculty members’ respective
stages of professional development.
Well-established researchers and teachers may be able to bid for campus and
external support more readily than a
junior faculty member can. Therefore,
junior faculty members may need to be
given priority over college-based
resources, if it fits the strategic intent of
the college.
In light of the ranked and rated goals
of the school and funding sources, the
school administration that makes
resource allocation decisions will provide appropriate resources through a
call for proposals. This call for proposals would list the available resources
and provide a rubric for evaluating the
proposals (Step 2.3). The rubric would
clearly link the resource allocation decision with the school’s mission, which
not only communicates the leaders’
strategic intent but also links the intent
to faculty development, thereby optimizing the alignment between strategic
intent and operations.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Integrate
Each individual faculty member
would prepare an FDP. The FDP would
address the need to accommodate individual differences among faculty members that may be in different stages of
their career. Per Step 3.1, a mentor
would assist the faculty member in
reviewing and updating the FDP and
help find points of commonality with
the strategic direction of the school as
set out in the call for proposals. The
mentor estimates how much support the
faculty member is likely to receive at
the college level and assist the faculty
member when the FDP is not in line
with the call for proposals.
Because there will be points of commonality between the strategic intent of
the college and the FDP of individual
faculty members, the individual faculty
members would be responsible for generating proposals and for making initial
assessments of the proposals on the
basis of the rubric developed in Step
3.2. The final evaluation would be carried out at the college level, Step 3.3 in
an open forum that makes the resource
allocation decision transparent.
Review
Business Administration (BSBA) program is to give the students the ability to:
own career opportunities. Goals 3, 4,
and 9 focus on this outcome.
1. Think with sufficient depth and
agility to make sound decisions based
on logical analysis and substantive, integrative knowledge of the business disciplines. This outcome directly relates to
Goals 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10.
2. Communicate clearly and effectively. Goals 4 and 7 are directly related
to this outcome.
3. Understand how local, regional,
national, or international circumstances
affect business decisions. Goals 3, 4, 6,
and 9 are related to this learning outcome.
4. Be proactive and anticipate changes
in the environment that affect business
decisions, current employment status, or
future career paths. Goals 3, 4, 6, and 9
are linked to this outcome.
5. Recognize ethical issues and develop a framework for appropriate resolutions. Goals 4, 9, and 10 are linked to
this outcome.
6. Apply information technology to
business problems. Goals 3, 4, and 9
directly relate to this outcome.
7. Appreciate diverse perspectives
and use them for mutual benefit. Goals
4, 6, 7, and 9 relate to this outcome.
8. Appreciate the importance of lifelong learning as a means of enhancing
their ability to add value to their
employers’ endeavors and expand their
From this point on, the FAIR process
at the program level follows the same
steps as at the college level. Should the
mission of the college or the learning
outcomes of the program change, the
above reconciliation between mission
statement and goals and between student learning outcomes and goals will
readily highlight the impacted goals.
The breakdown into single-focus goals
will facilitate linking strategic intent
with operational tasks at the facultydevelopment level.
The resource allocation plan maps
the resource allocation decision across
all proposals. As such it can be mapped
against the “ranked and rated goals of
the school” (Step 4.1). The school faculty as a whole would then be surveyed
to assess satisfaction with the resource
allocation decision (Step 4.2). It could
be that some faculty members might not
have participated in the request for proposals while others might not have been
awarded their requested resources.
Assessing faculty participation will
review the actual link between faculty
development and the school’s mission.
Linking Mission, Goals, and
Student-Learning Outcomes
The entire FAIR process can be carried out at the program level of analysis.
The goal of the Bachelor of Science in
Conclusion
The proposed framework illustrated
in Figure 1 places FDPs in a central role
in the process of linking standards to the
school’s mission. Figure 2 includes in
the framework the inputs and outputs of
the FAIR process.
The proposed framework presented
in this article seeks solely to support and
enable school leadership, not replace it.
The greatest challenge facing leadership
based on a school mission approach is
that of creating a mission that is “compelling,” (i.e., the mission must be
“clear,” and “vibrant and relevant,”
AACSB, 2005).
Operationalizing the notion of mission-driven processes is constrained by
Strategic
Management
Standards
Faculty
Development
Participants’
Standards
Learning
Standards
FIGURE 1. Faculty development as a central role in meeting Association
to Advance Collegiate School of Business (AACSB) standards.
September/October 2006
7
re
so
ur
ce
s
Learning
Standards
Learning
Outcomes
Assessment
School Mission
School Goals
Faculty
Development
Service
s
ce
or
rf
de
ol
eh
tak
ls
na
ter
ex
Strategic
Management
Standards
Participants’
Standards
Intellectual
Contributions
Qualifications
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Benchmarking for Continuous Improvement
FIGURE 2. Linking school mission to learning and participants’
standards.
the challenge of organizing myriad directives. Alluring visions are essential in all
organizations (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).
This dual aspect of a properly developed
school mission—alluring and compelling—ought to guide the development
of FDPs and vice versa. Under the proposed framework, the school’s leadership
decides what is important to it. Individual
faculty members are then guided to
develop their goals and to address their
needs given where they are in their
careers. Faculty mentors provide the critical link and, as such, need to be empowered to represent the college. This
approach will be successful to the extent
that appropriate mentors are identified
and supported. The merits of this
approach are a function of how well this
tool inspires the school leaders to create a
compelling mission and an alluring FDP.
The perspective driving the changes in
AACSB standards provides the leadership with an opportunity to align the values of the business school with its practices. The proposed tool capitalizes on
this opportunity. It uses the faculty development plan as a means to operationalize
mission-driven strategic initiatives while
recognizing variances in individual development needs. The proposed formulation
8
Journal of Education for Business
provides a systematic, transparent, and
flexible approach to the complex problem
of configuring faculty development programs to best meet the school’s mission.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Craig A. Kelley, Professor of Marketing and Sales Management, California State
University, Sacramento, 6000 J St., Sacramento,
CA 95819-6088.
E-mail: kelleyca@csus.edu
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate
future. New York: Wiley.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (2005). AACSB International. Retrieved February 4, 2005, from
http://www.aacsb.edu/
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building
competitive advantage through people. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 34–41.
Bland, C. J., & Schmitz, C. C. (1990). A guide to
the literature on faculty development. In J. H.
Schuster & D.W. Wheeler (Eds.), Enhancing
faculty careers: Strategies for development and
renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blignaut, A. S., & Trollip, S. R. (2003). Measuring faculty participation in asynchronous discussion forums. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 347–353.
California State University, Sacramento, College
of Business Administration. (n.d.). CBA Mission Statement. Retrieved February 4, 2005,
http://www.cba.csus.edu/AboutCBA/mission
Vision.asp
Davis, D. F., & McCarthy, T. M. (2005). The
future of marketing scholarship: Recruiting for
marketing doctoral programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 14–25.
DiLorenzo, T. M., & Heppner, P. P. (1994). The
role of an academic department in promoting
faculty development: Recognizing diversity and
leading to excellence. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 72(5), 485–491.
Dolan, S. L., Garcia, S., & Auerbach, A. (2003).
Understanding and managing chaos in organizations. International Journal of Management,
20(1), 23–35.
Festervand, T. A., & Tillery, K. R. (2001). Shortterm study abroad programs: A professional
development tool for international business faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
106–111.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked
standards: Effects on the accreditation process.
Journal of Education for Business, 75,
343–347.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Millis, B. J. (1994). Faculty development in the
1990s: What it is and why we can’t wait. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(5),
454–464.
Nathan, P. E. (1994). Who should do faculty
development and what should it be? Journal of
Counseling and Development, 72(5), 508–509.
Pritchard, R. E., Potter, G. C., & Saccucci, M. S.
(2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 152–154.
Shisler, C. (1995). Faculty development: The personal touch. Society of Research Administrators, 27(2), 31–34.
Smith, K. J., & Rubenson, G. C. (2005). An
exploratory study of organizational structures
and processes at AACSB member schools.
Journal of Education for Business, 80,
133–139.
Smith, K. J., Rubenson, G. C., & Bebee, R. F.
(2002). Using self-directed teams to achieve
quality education: An illustrative matrix model
for a business school structure. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 214–218.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). The career development
of pretenure faculty: An institutional study.
Amherst: Center for Teaching, University of
Massachusetts.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to
new faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(5), 474–480.
Weber, P. S., Weber, J. E., Sleeper, B. J., &
Schneider, K. C. (2004). Self-efficacy toward
service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 359–370.
Witcher, B. J. (2003). Policy management of strategy (hoshin kanri). Strategic Change, 12(2),
83–94.
Yunker, P. J. (1998). A survey of business school
heads on mission-linked AACSB accreditation
standards. Journal of Education for Business,
73, 137–143.
APPENDIX A
Implementation of the FAIR Process of
Linking Faculty Development to the School Mission
FOCUS
1.1 Break mission statement
into values.
2.1. Make resources
available.
1.2 Convert values into
goals of the school.
2.2. Request proposals.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
1.3 Rank and rate the goals
of the school per current
strategic intent.
REVIEW
INTEGRATE
ALIGN
2.3. Provide a rubric based
on the ranked and rated
goals of the school.
3.1. Mentors provide
support by reviewing and
updating individual faculty
development plans and by
linking them with the strategic intent of the school.
3.2. Individual faculty
members draft proposals.
3.3. School evaluates
proposals and allocates
resources in an open forum.
4.1. School evaluates
allocation plan against the
ranked and rated goals of
the school in an open
forum.
4.2. School surveys faculty
satisfaction with the process
and results.
4.3. School assesses faculty
APPENDIX B
College of Business Administration (CBA) Goals
and Single-Action Goals
Goals
Single-action goals
Goal 1: To improve perception of the college by students, alumni, and regional
organizations.
Goal 1a: To improve students’ perceptions of the
CBA.
Goal 1b: To improve alumni’s perceptions of the
CBA.
Goal 1c: To improve regional organizations’ perceptions of the CBA.
Goal 2: To graduate soughtafter students.
Goal 2: To graduate sought-after students.
Goal 3: To hire high quality
faculty and to provide continuous support for activities
that serve to maintain currency and academic qualifications of faculty.
Goal 3a: To hire high quality faculty.
Goal 3b: To provide continuous support for activities that serve to maintain currency of tenured faculty members.
Goal 3c: To provide continuous support for the
activities that serve to maintain currency of probationary faculty members.
Goal 4: To engage in activities that result in effective
teaching, research, and service to the community.
Goal 4a: To engage in activities that result in effective teaching.
Goal 4b: To engage in activities that result in effective research.
Goal 4c: To engage in activities that result in effective service.
Goal 5: To increase funding
from organizations, alumni,
and community members.
Goal 5a: To increase funding from organizations.
Goal 5b: To increase funding from alumni.
Goal 5c: To increase funding from community leaders.
Goal 6: To increase faculty
involvement with regional
organizations, alumni, and
community members.
Goal 6a: To increase faculty involvement with
regional organizations.
Goal 6b: To increase faculty involvement with
alumni.
Goal 6c: To increase faculty involvement with community leaders.
(appendix continues)
September/October 2006
9
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
APPENDIX B—(Continued)
10
Goals
Single-action goals
Goal 7: To increase collaborative curricular and research
activities within the college.
Goal 7a: To increase collaborative curricular activities within the college.
Goal 7b: To increase collaborative research activities within the college.
Goal 8: To improve staff
development and organization within the college.
Goal 8a: To improve staff development within the
college.
Goal 8b: To improve organization within the college.
Goal 9: To proactively incorporate relevant regional,
global, and technical
changes to the curriculum.
Goal 9a: To proactively incorporate relevant regional changes in the curricula.
Goal 9b: To proactively incorporate relevant global
changes in the curricula.
Goal 9c: To proactively incorporate relevant technical changes in the curricula.
Goal 10: To encourage students to engage in community activities to promote the
welfare of others.
Goal 10: To encourage students to engage in community activities that promote the welfare of others.
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Linking Faculty Development to the Business
School's Mission
Leonardo Legorreta , Craig A. Kelley & Chris J. Sablynski
To cite this article: Leonardo Legorreta , Craig A. Kelley & Chris J. Sablynski (2006) Linking
Faculty Development to the Business School's Mission, Journal of Education for Business, 82:1,
3-10, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.3-10
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.3-10
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 42
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
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: 23:19
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Linking Faculty Development to
the Business School’s Mission
LEONARDO LEGORRETA
CRAIG A. KELLEY
CHRIS J. SABLYNSKI
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
ABSTRACT. Recently adopted standards by the International Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) require accredited schools to
define a set of specific goals and studentlearning outcomes from their mission statements. In addition, AACSB Participant
Standard 11 requires a school to design faculty development programs to fulfill the
school’s mission. What is missing in the
business education literature is a description of how the school can link its faculty
development efforts to the achievement of
its stated goals and student-learning outcomes. This article proposes a model to
foster the link between mission statement,
goals, student-learning outcomes, and faculty-development programs.
Key words: faculty-development, mission
statement, student-learning outcome
Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications
R
ecent changes by the International
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB, 2005) to
its standard herald a new perspective for
the accreditation process and business
school management. These changes provide an opportunity to align a school’s
mission with its practices. The AACSB
standards require that the business
school’s mission statement drive all
decision making, including faculty coverage of courses, learning objectives,
intellectual contributions, and facultydevelopment programs.
Implicit in the AACSB (2005) standards is the recognition that individual
faculty member’s contributions will differ. The AACSB standards are silent on
how to comply with the new aggregate
faculty goals and mission-centric perspective. Schools can tailor their plans
to suit their faculty profiles. This places
the faculty-development plan (FDP) in a
unique mediating position. A properly
construed FDP can aid the transition
from mission formulation to implementation in alignment with individual faculty members’ needs and aspirations,
can provide a systematic approach for
dealing with a complex and dynamic
problem, and can add transparency and
flexibility to the accreditation process.
Several studies have been published
on addressing several of the AACSB
standards (e.g., Pritchard, Potter, & Saccucci, 2004; Smith & Rubenson, 2005;
Weber, Weber, Sleeper, & Schneider,
2004). Our purpose in this article is to
fill a gap in the literature by presenting
a process that links faculty development
to school goals and student learning
objectives. To accomplish this purpose
we (a) examine the relationship between
faculty development and school mission, (b) provide a tool for linking the
school mission to faculty development,
(c) explore how this tool fits with the
business education literature, thereby
opening opportunities for further developments, and (d) offer a top-down perspective that summarizes the merits and
challenges of this approach.
What Is Faculty Development?
The term faculty development has
been used in many ways in the businesseducation literature. Faculty development has been used synonymously with
the enhancement of teaching (Millis,
1994) and research (Bland & Schmitz,
1990). Festervand and Tillery (2001)
defined faculty development as a “set of
activities that promote the creation of
knowledge” (p. 109). They suggest that
the outcomes of faculty development
can be measured through each faculty
member’s teaching, research, and service. Blignaut and Trollip (2003) take a
narrower approach to defining faculty
development. They suggest faculty
development may take the form of speSeptember/October 2006
3
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
cialized training in how to use technology to teach an online course. DiLorenzo
and Heppner (1994) advise against taking such a narrow view of faculty development. They approach faculty development from a departmental perspective
and recommend grouping faculty development efforts under four categories:
(a) morale, (b) teaching, (c) research,
and (d) time and developmental growth.
Although faculty development efforts
can be very effective in enhancing
teaching, there is a need to expand these
programs into other areas of faculty life
(Millis, 1994). AACSB Assurance of
Learning Standards related to assessment have placed greater demands on
faculty to be accountable for how they
allocate their time teaching. It is no
longer sufficient to disseminate knowledge to students. Faculty members must
demonstrate that their students have
competence in the skills they must master to be successful in a business career.
Faculty development in the broadest
sense of the word encompasses teaching, research, career development, and
personal health and growth (as cited in
Millis, 1994). In this sense, DiLorenzo
and Heppner (1994) discuss the scholarships of discovery, application, integration, and teaching. Indeed, teaching,
research, career development, and personal health and growth can be integrated under the scholarship rubric. Therefore, the vitality of the school depends
on a holistic approach to faculty development (Bland & Schmitz, 1990).
AACSB standards have helped shape
the faculty development activities in a
variety of ways including the use of
study-abroad programs (Festervand &
Tillery, 2001), use of self-directed
teams in the structure of a business
school (Smith, Rubenson, & Bebee,
2002), and development of online teaching skills (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003).
The need for faculty development also
stems from the increased demands of
accountability, in particular AACSB
assessment. Millis (1994) identified
several changes driving this demand,
namely changing expectations about the
quality of education, changing societal
needs, changing technology, changing
student populations, and changing
teaching and learning paradigms.
Dynamic complexity now characterizes
4
Journal of Education for Business
higher education, forcing collegiate
schools of business to integrate and
account for resource allocation. The
more successful schools will be those
that make faculty development a key
strategic resource (Bartlett & Ghoshal,
2002).
The task of developing a model FDP
involves managing diversity of interests,
values, and stages in the professional
growth of the faculty members. A onesize-fits-all FDP is not realistic for most
schools. From the point of view of faculty, priorities change as their careers
develop (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994).
From the point of view of teaching and
research, different types of situations
require different skills and resources
(DiLorenzo & Heppner). However,
diversity gives the professoriate its
vitality. Thus, a model FDP must recognize different skills and needs of individual faculty members.
Different stages in academic careers
means specific faculty development
goals and programs must be adapted
from faculty member to faculty member. All professional life-cycle models
recognize that career paths vary greatly
and that the path dependencies matter
(DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). For
example, some faculty members may
find themselves transitioning into fields
other than their own, yet because of
their maturity as researchers, they will
not need the same level of support typically afforded to new faculty members
even though both are relatively new to
the field. The school administration
should know each faculty member’s
career objectives so it can provide the
appropriate level of faculty development to help the faculty members
achieve their objectives.
At a time when the rate of retirement
of business faculty is increasing in parallel with overall student population
growth and new faculty are being added
in large numbers, FDPs must recognize
that the needs of junior faculty differ
from those of more senior faculty members (J. Mondello, personal communication, August 16–24, 2005; Sorcinelli,
1994).
Given potential shortages of junior
faculty (Davis & McCarthy, 2005), a
school’s willingness to learn about and
to provide support for new faculty may
be critical to the school’s future success.
A honeymoon effect takes place initially when new faculty report high levels
of satisfaction—the relative autonomy,
the opportunities for intellectual discovery and growth, the opportunity to have
a high impact on others, and the sense
of accomplishment (Olsen & Sorcinelli;
Sorcinelli; Turner & Boice, as cited in
Sorcinelli, 1994). Over time, there is a
downward turn, particularly with extrinsic rewards (Sorcinelli, 1992). The following concerns arise: time constraints
in research and teaching; lack of collegial relations; inadequate feedback,
recognitions, or rewards; unrealistic
expectations; insufficient resources; and
lack of balance between work and personal life (Sorcinelli, 1994).
Shisler (1995) provides six ways for
research administrators to personalize
faculty development programs: (a) hold
an open house; (b) meet with new faculty; (c) manage by walking around; (d)
praise work well-done; (e) stage end-ofyear events to express appreciation; and
(f) show interest in the faculty members
as professionals. These activities are
uniquely germane to senior faculty
mentors with research interests closely
related to those of the junior faculty
members.
Good arguments are offered for allocating primary responsibility for faculty
development to the appropriate mentor
within the school (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). In general, primary faculty
development responsibility could reside
with the individual, with the department,
with the school, with the university, or
conceivably even at some interuniversity
level. Although some responsibility
should be distributed to all these levels,
the canonical place is the mentor level
because of the mentor’s understanding of
the shared subject matter, familiarity
with the discipline’s career cycle, and
proximity to the issues facing the school.
Moreover, vesting mentors with the
responsibility for faculty development
provides the school with (a) clarity and
purpose, (b) the means to define the
school’s future direction, and (c) occasions to take pride in the school’s accomplishments (DiLorenzo & Heppner).
For DiLorenzo and Heppner (1994),
the mentor comes from the individual
faculty member’s department. We feel
this restriction is unnecessary. Although
departments play a pivotal role in faculty development, an “appropriate” mentor is not restricted to the individual faculty member’s department. Whereas a
departmental mentor offers insights into
the research area, nondepartmental
mentors can provide valuable insights
into other aspects of the faculty member’s professional development.
School Mission
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
What Does AACSB International Mean
by “Mission”?
Since 1991, AACSB has made mission-linked standards and peer review
the cornerstones of its accreditation
process (AACSB, 2005). Despite this
strong reliance on mission, the AACSB
is notably silent on defining the term.
The most explicit statements are the following:
1. Mission Statement: The school
publishes a mission statement or its
equivalent that provides direction for
making decisions. The mission statement derives from a process that
includes the viewpoints of various
stakeholders. The school periodically
reviews and revises the mission statement as appropriate. The review process
involves appropriate stakeholders.
2. Mission Appropriateness: The
school’s mission statement is appropriate to higher education for management
and consonant with the mission of any
institution of which the school is a part.
The mission includes the production of
intellectual contributions that advance
the knowledge and practice of business
and management (AACSB, 2005).
3. To attain AACSB accreditation,
schools must start with a clear and compelling mission; but the missions will
vary according to localized business
needs and concerns, cultures and traditions, and the aims of governmental,
religious, or other sponsoring organizations (AACSB, 2005).
4. AACSB International accreditation
assures stakeholders that business
schools manage resources to achieve a
vibrant and relevant mission (AACSB,
2005).
The presumption is that the shift to
mission-linked standards would increase
AACSB accreditation access to institutions that historically focused primarily
on teaching (Jantzen, 2000; Yunker,
1998). Thus, AACSB may be flexible in
defining the term “mission” to allow for
individual variances needed to accommodate stakeholder diversity. Although
AACSB allows for individual variances,
it does not disregard the role research
(intellectual contributions) must play in
every accredited school. Schools have
the responsibility of defining that role.
For AACSB, a mission is a published
expression derived from a process that
includes the viewpoints of various
stakeholders and provides direction for
making decisions. It must be “vibrant
and relevant,” “clear and compelling,”
appropriate to higher education for
management, and “consonant with the
mission of any institution of which the
school is a part” (AACSB, 2005).
Linking Faculty Development and
the School Mission
A business school’s goals and student
learning outcomes only have meaning
when they are intimately linked to the
core values of the school (Dolan, Garcia, & Auerbach, 2003). Accordingly,
core values are used to link faculty
development with the school mission.
Witcher (2003) breaks the process of
linking faculty development and school
mission into four phases: focus, alignment, integration, and review (FAIR).
In the focus phase, the mission statement is converted into actionable steps.
The process begins by breaking the core
values inherent in the mission statement
into an explicit list. This is used to generate single-focus actionable goal statements. These are the goals of the school.
The goals are ranked and rated according to the current strategic intent. The
ordered list of goals with associated ratings is called the “ranked and rated
goals of the school.” The ranked and
rated goals of the school reflect the current strategic positioning of the school.
In the alignment phase, all resources
are directed toward the attainment of the
mission statement. The presumption is
that the resources available can effectively implement the mission statement.
The school initiates a request for proposals and provides a rubric for evaluat-
ing the proposals. This faculty proposal
rubric is the key link in the chain connecting faculty development and the
school’s mission. Rubrics are typically
used for assessing student work.
Extending rubrics to faculty development provides a common lens for all
AACSB documents. The faculty proposal rubric must be based on the
ranked and rated goals of the school.
Therefore, each proposal is evaluated in
light of the current strategic positioning
of the school.
In the integration phase, a desired
future is designed (Ackoff, 1981). This
is the crucial link between faculty development and the school’s mission. The
values embedded in the goals as rated
and ranked by the present strategic
intent will be meaningful to the faculty
only if they are widely shared. This
should provide direction and motivate
faculty toward the kinds of activities
most valued by the school. Here the role
of the departmental mentor is crucial in
helping individual faculty members
determine their individual needs and in
matching these to the call for proposals.
It falls on the mentor to ensure that not
only are the school’s current needs integrated with those of individual faculty,
but also that every faculty member’s
needs are being met from iteration to
iteration (Nathan, 1994). However, the
individual faculty member has responsibility to generate a proposal and to link
it to the school’s mission through the
use of the rubric. The faculty member is
intimately aware of how his or her
development needs are being played out
against the mission of the school. The
school then makes the assessment of the
proposals in an open forum and allocates the resources accordingly. The
open forum enables individual faculty
members to witness the alignment of
resources to proposals of the ranked and
rated goals of the school, enabling a
common vision of direction.
In the review phase, the process is
mastered through improved iterations
and disseminated best practices. First,
the school evaluates the allocation plan
in light of the ranked and rated goals of
the school in an open forum. The transparency of the process allows all to see
exemplary proposals in light of the current strategic positioning of the school
September/October 2006
5
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
as well as pitfalls in the process. To integrate this feedback into the learning
cycle, the school surveys the faculty to
elicit feedback from the process and
from the evaluation of the allocation
plan. The ultimate goal of this approach
is to generate faculty support of the
development and implementation of the
school mission. Hence, as a final step in
the review process, the school takes
inventory of faculty contributions so as
to assess the tool’s effectiveness in eliciting faculty buy in.
Although the process is iterative, the
iterations do not need to be done annually. The iterations can be carried out on
any predetermined time period (e.g.,
annually or once every 3 years) that
suits the strategic needs of the school.
Appendix A summarizes the implementation details of the four-phase FAIR
approach previously discussed.
Case Example
The following discussion details the
FAIR approach as used by the faculty in
the College of Business Administration
(CBA) at the California State University,
Sacramento (CSUS), to link its school
mission statement to its FDP. CSUS is a
public university and part of the 23 campus California State University system. It
has an enrollment of approximately
28,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The CBA has approximately 4,000
undergraduate and 250 graduate students.
Undergraduate business majors may
select from 11 concentrations, including
marketing, finance, accounting, management information systems, human
resources management, general management, and international business. The student body is very diverse, reflecting the
demographics of California.
The basic assumption made by the
college’s faculty was that faculty development would focus on programs that
advance the mission of the CBA. The
CBA’s mission statement is as follows:
The College strives to be an exemplary
regional educational institution graduating community-minded students with a
strong foundation in business knowledge,
skills, and values. We offer a business
education that is responsive to the changing regional, global, and technology-driven environment. We will fulfill our mission through the pursuit of excellence in
6
Journal of Education for Business
teaching and learning, scholarship and
service to our community as well as
through collaborative efforts among, faculty, students, staff, University, and community members. (California State University, Sacramento, n.d.)
Focus
Following the implementation
process outlined in Appendix A, the
CBA faculty developed a list of goals
for the college based on a value-based
analysis. The CBA faculty broke apart
the school’s mission statement into
component parts and then matched the
parts with the core values of the CBA.
The faculty then proceeded on to Step
1.2 of the process and developed 10
goals that captured the values inherent
in the school’s mission. These goals are
shown in Appendix B.
Each of the goals can be traced to a
part of the mission. For example, Goal 1
is central to the mission of being an
exemplary regional educational institution. In some cases the goals overlapped
different parts of the mission statement.
Goal 2, for instance, is seeking to develop sought-after students and Goal 10 is
encouraging students to engage in community activities to promote the welfare
of others. Both of these goals relate to the
part of the mission that involves graduating community-minded students.
Before proceeding on to Step 1.3, the
goals underwent further refinement to
generate single-focus subgoals. The subgoals are listed Appendix B. For example, Goal 1 states “To improve perception
of CBA from students, alumni, and
regional organizations.” Depending on its
current strategies, the CBA may choose
to focus on one of these stakeholder
groups over the others at a given point in
time. Accordingly, Goal 1 can be broken
down into three, single-focus goals:
Goal 1a: to improve student perception of the CBA;
Goal 1b: to improve alumni perception of the CBA; and
Goal 1c: to improve regional organization’s perception of the CBA.
Not all goals on the list break down as
easily. The actual breakout may depend
on particular circumstances. However,
the process is intended to be flexible so as
to permit revision and edits.
Further refinements to the singleaction goals are possible and should be
done as needed to adequately rank competing faculty-development proposals.
For Step 1.3 the single-action goals
need to be rated and ranked through a
consensus of the faculty and school
administration. Step 1.3 ensures that
competing faculty development proposals are adequately rated, selected, and
funded in alignment with the mission of
the college and the current strategic
intent of its leaders.
Align
The CBA’s Faculty Development
Committee compiled an exhaustive list
of all programs that can be made available for faculty-development purposes
at both the university and college levels.
For Step 2.1, the college administration
can select programs from this list to
implement. This list helps to ensure that
redundancies are minimized, given that
resources available at the campus level
can be used to relieve the college of part
of the responsibility for funding faculty
development programs.
The CBA’s current list of programs
can be extended to list programs beyond
the campus. Moreover, a policy can be
developed that guides faculty members
to seek support from the appropriate
level—college, campus, or external—
given the faculty members’ respective
stages of professional development.
Well-established researchers and teachers may be able to bid for campus and
external support more readily than a
junior faculty member can. Therefore,
junior faculty members may need to be
given priority over college-based
resources, if it fits the strategic intent of
the college.
In light of the ranked and rated goals
of the school and funding sources, the
school administration that makes
resource allocation decisions will provide appropriate resources through a
call for proposals. This call for proposals would list the available resources
and provide a rubric for evaluating the
proposals (Step 2.3). The rubric would
clearly link the resource allocation decision with the school’s mission, which
not only communicates the leaders’
strategic intent but also links the intent
to faculty development, thereby optimizing the alignment between strategic
intent and operations.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Integrate
Each individual faculty member
would prepare an FDP. The FDP would
address the need to accommodate individual differences among faculty members that may be in different stages of
their career. Per Step 3.1, a mentor
would assist the faculty member in
reviewing and updating the FDP and
help find points of commonality with
the strategic direction of the school as
set out in the call for proposals. The
mentor estimates how much support the
faculty member is likely to receive at
the college level and assist the faculty
member when the FDP is not in line
with the call for proposals.
Because there will be points of commonality between the strategic intent of
the college and the FDP of individual
faculty members, the individual faculty
members would be responsible for generating proposals and for making initial
assessments of the proposals on the
basis of the rubric developed in Step
3.2. The final evaluation would be carried out at the college level, Step 3.3 in
an open forum that makes the resource
allocation decision transparent.
Review
Business Administration (BSBA) program is to give the students the ability to:
own career opportunities. Goals 3, 4,
and 9 focus on this outcome.
1. Think with sufficient depth and
agility to make sound decisions based
on logical analysis and substantive, integrative knowledge of the business disciplines. This outcome directly relates to
Goals 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10.
2. Communicate clearly and effectively. Goals 4 and 7 are directly related
to this outcome.
3. Understand how local, regional,
national, or international circumstances
affect business decisions. Goals 3, 4, 6,
and 9 are related to this learning outcome.
4. Be proactive and anticipate changes
in the environment that affect business
decisions, current employment status, or
future career paths. Goals 3, 4, 6, and 9
are linked to this outcome.
5. Recognize ethical issues and develop a framework for appropriate resolutions. Goals 4, 9, and 10 are linked to
this outcome.
6. Apply information technology to
business problems. Goals 3, 4, and 9
directly relate to this outcome.
7. Appreciate diverse perspectives
and use them for mutual benefit. Goals
4, 6, 7, and 9 relate to this outcome.
8. Appreciate the importance of lifelong learning as a means of enhancing
their ability to add value to their
employers’ endeavors and expand their
From this point on, the FAIR process
at the program level follows the same
steps as at the college level. Should the
mission of the college or the learning
outcomes of the program change, the
above reconciliation between mission
statement and goals and between student learning outcomes and goals will
readily highlight the impacted goals.
The breakdown into single-focus goals
will facilitate linking strategic intent
with operational tasks at the facultydevelopment level.
The resource allocation plan maps
the resource allocation decision across
all proposals. As such it can be mapped
against the “ranked and rated goals of
the school” (Step 4.1). The school faculty as a whole would then be surveyed
to assess satisfaction with the resource
allocation decision (Step 4.2). It could
be that some faculty members might not
have participated in the request for proposals while others might not have been
awarded their requested resources.
Assessing faculty participation will
review the actual link between faculty
development and the school’s mission.
Linking Mission, Goals, and
Student-Learning Outcomes
The entire FAIR process can be carried out at the program level of analysis.
The goal of the Bachelor of Science in
Conclusion
The proposed framework illustrated
in Figure 1 places FDPs in a central role
in the process of linking standards to the
school’s mission. Figure 2 includes in
the framework the inputs and outputs of
the FAIR process.
The proposed framework presented
in this article seeks solely to support and
enable school leadership, not replace it.
The greatest challenge facing leadership
based on a school mission approach is
that of creating a mission that is “compelling,” (i.e., the mission must be
“clear,” and “vibrant and relevant,”
AACSB, 2005).
Operationalizing the notion of mission-driven processes is constrained by
Strategic
Management
Standards
Faculty
Development
Participants’
Standards
Learning
Standards
FIGURE 1. Faculty development as a central role in meeting Association
to Advance Collegiate School of Business (AACSB) standards.
September/October 2006
7
re
so
ur
ce
s
Learning
Standards
Learning
Outcomes
Assessment
School Mission
School Goals
Faculty
Development
Service
s
ce
or
rf
de
ol
eh
tak
ls
na
ter
ex
Strategic
Management
Standards
Participants’
Standards
Intellectual
Contributions
Qualifications
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
Benchmarking for Continuous Improvement
FIGURE 2. Linking school mission to learning and participants’
standards.
the challenge of organizing myriad directives. Alluring visions are essential in all
organizations (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).
This dual aspect of a properly developed
school mission—alluring and compelling—ought to guide the development
of FDPs and vice versa. Under the proposed framework, the school’s leadership
decides what is important to it. Individual
faculty members are then guided to
develop their goals and to address their
needs given where they are in their
careers. Faculty mentors provide the critical link and, as such, need to be empowered to represent the college. This
approach will be successful to the extent
that appropriate mentors are identified
and supported. The merits of this
approach are a function of how well this
tool inspires the school leaders to create a
compelling mission and an alluring FDP.
The perspective driving the changes in
AACSB standards provides the leadership with an opportunity to align the values of the business school with its practices. The proposed tool capitalizes on
this opportunity. It uses the faculty development plan as a means to operationalize
mission-driven strategic initiatives while
recognizing variances in individual development needs. The proposed formulation
8
Journal of Education for Business
provides a systematic, transparent, and
flexible approach to the complex problem
of configuring faculty development programs to best meet the school’s mission.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Craig A. Kelley, Professor of Marketing and Sales Management, California State
University, Sacramento, 6000 J St., Sacramento,
CA 95819-6088.
E-mail: kelleyca@csus.edu
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate
future. New York: Wiley.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (2005). AACSB International. Retrieved February 4, 2005, from
http://www.aacsb.edu/
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building
competitive advantage through people. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 34–41.
Bland, C. J., & Schmitz, C. C. (1990). A guide to
the literature on faculty development. In J. H.
Schuster & D.W. Wheeler (Eds.), Enhancing
faculty careers: Strategies for development and
renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blignaut, A. S., & Trollip, S. R. (2003). Measuring faculty participation in asynchronous discussion forums. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 347–353.
California State University, Sacramento, College
of Business Administration. (n.d.). CBA Mission Statement. Retrieved February 4, 2005,
http://www.cba.csus.edu/AboutCBA/mission
Vision.asp
Davis, D. F., & McCarthy, T. M. (2005). The
future of marketing scholarship: Recruiting for
marketing doctoral programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 14–25.
DiLorenzo, T. M., & Heppner, P. P. (1994). The
role of an academic department in promoting
faculty development: Recognizing diversity and
leading to excellence. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 72(5), 485–491.
Dolan, S. L., Garcia, S., & Auerbach, A. (2003).
Understanding and managing chaos in organizations. International Journal of Management,
20(1), 23–35.
Festervand, T. A., & Tillery, K. R. (2001). Shortterm study abroad programs: A professional
development tool for international business faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
106–111.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000). AACSB mission-linked
standards: Effects on the accreditation process.
Journal of Education for Business, 75,
343–347.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Millis, B. J. (1994). Faculty development in the
1990s: What it is and why we can’t wait. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(5),
454–464.
Nathan, P. E. (1994). Who should do faculty
development and what should it be? Journal of
Counseling and Development, 72(5), 508–509.
Pritchard, R. E., Potter, G. C., & Saccucci, M. S.
(2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 152–154.
Shisler, C. (1995). Faculty development: The personal touch. Society of Research Administrators, 27(2), 31–34.
Smith, K. J., & Rubenson, G. C. (2005). An
exploratory study of organizational structures
and processes at AACSB member schools.
Journal of Education for Business, 80,
133–139.
Smith, K. J., Rubenson, G. C., & Bebee, R. F.
(2002). Using self-directed teams to achieve
quality education: An illustrative matrix model
for a business school structure. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 214–218.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). The career development
of pretenure faculty: An institutional study.
Amherst: Center for Teaching, University of
Massachusetts.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to
new faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(5), 474–480.
Weber, P. S., Weber, J. E., Sleeper, B. J., &
Schneider, K. C. (2004). Self-efficacy toward
service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 359–370.
Witcher, B. J. (2003). Policy management of strategy (hoshin kanri). Strategic Change, 12(2),
83–94.
Yunker, P. J. (1998). A survey of business school
heads on mission-linked AACSB accreditation
standards. Journal of Education for Business,
73, 137–143.
APPENDIX A
Implementation of the FAIR Process of
Linking Faculty Development to the School Mission
FOCUS
1.1 Break mission statement
into values.
2.1. Make resources
available.
1.2 Convert values into
goals of the school.
2.2. Request proposals.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
1.3 Rank and rate the goals
of the school per current
strategic intent.
REVIEW
INTEGRATE
ALIGN
2.3. Provide a rubric based
on the ranked and rated
goals of the school.
3.1. Mentors provide
support by reviewing and
updating individual faculty
development plans and by
linking them with the strategic intent of the school.
3.2. Individual faculty
members draft proposals.
3.3. School evaluates
proposals and allocates
resources in an open forum.
4.1. School evaluates
allocation plan against the
ranked and rated goals of
the school in an open
forum.
4.2. School surveys faculty
satisfaction with the process
and results.
4.3. School assesses faculty
APPENDIX B
College of Business Administration (CBA) Goals
and Single-Action Goals
Goals
Single-action goals
Goal 1: To improve perception of the college by students, alumni, and regional
organizations.
Goal 1a: To improve students’ perceptions of the
CBA.
Goal 1b: To improve alumni’s perceptions of the
CBA.
Goal 1c: To improve regional organizations’ perceptions of the CBA.
Goal 2: To graduate soughtafter students.
Goal 2: To graduate sought-after students.
Goal 3: To hire high quality
faculty and to provide continuous support for activities
that serve to maintain currency and academic qualifications of faculty.
Goal 3a: To hire high quality faculty.
Goal 3b: To provide continuous support for activities that serve to maintain currency of tenured faculty members.
Goal 3c: To provide continuous support for the
activities that serve to maintain currency of probationary faculty members.
Goal 4: To engage in activities that result in effective
teaching, research, and service to the community.
Goal 4a: To engage in activities that result in effective teaching.
Goal 4b: To engage in activities that result in effective research.
Goal 4c: To engage in activities that result in effective service.
Goal 5: To increase funding
from organizations, alumni,
and community members.
Goal 5a: To increase funding from organizations.
Goal 5b: To increase funding from alumni.
Goal 5c: To increase funding from community leaders.
Goal 6: To increase faculty
involvement with regional
organizations, alumni, and
community members.
Goal 6a: To increase faculty involvement with
regional organizations.
Goal 6b: To increase faculty involvement with
alumni.
Goal 6c: To increase faculty involvement with community leaders.
(appendix continues)
September/October 2006
9
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016
APPENDIX B—(Continued)
10
Goals
Single-action goals
Goal 7: To increase collaborative curricular and research
activities within the college.
Goal 7a: To increase collaborative curricular activities within the college.
Goal 7b: To increase collaborative research activities within the college.
Goal 8: To improve staff
development and organization within the college.
Goal 8a: To improve staff development within the
college.
Goal 8b: To improve organization within the college.
Goal 9: To proactively incorporate relevant regional,
global, and technical
changes to the curriculum.
Goal 9a: To proactively incorporate relevant regional changes in the curricula.
Goal 9b: To proactively incorporate relevant global
changes in the curricula.
Goal 9c: To proactively incorporate relevant technical changes in the curricula.
Goal 10: To encourage students to engage in community activities to promote the
welfare of others.
Goal 10: To encourage students to engage in community activities that promote the welfare of others.
Journal of Education for Business