08832323.2013.763754
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson
To cite this article: Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson (2014) AACSB Accreditation
and Possible Unintended Consequences: A Deming View, Journal of Education for Business,
89:2, 103-109, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
Published online: 17 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 136
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:32
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 103–109, 2014
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
James Mueller
College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
Dan Benson
Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, USA
The AACSB accreditation process reflects basic quality principles, providing standards and
a process for feedback for continuous improvement. However, implementation can lead to
unintended negative consequences. The literature shows that while institutionalism and critical
theory have been used as a theoretical base for evaluating accreditation, W. E. Deming’s
philosophy has not. This article fills that void by examining possible negative consequences in
meeting faculty qualification requirements in institutions with a teaching mission.
Keywords: AACSB accreditation, Deming, profound knowledge
The mission of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB) is “to spread accreditation to advance
the quality of management education” (Runcieman, 2009).
AACSB has been so successful communicating the importance of its quality assurance mission, that many schools now
perceive the lack of accreditation as a competitive disadvantage (Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009; McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee,
2005). Revisions to its standards to include teaching institutions, combined with an ambitious international expansion
strategy, have resulted in a 42% growth rate in the number of
accredited schools overall (Runcieman, 2009), and a 300%
increase in accreditation of schools internationally (Kraft,
2006). As of July 2012, AACSB reported a total of 655 accredited institutions, of which 165 were outside of the United
States (AACSB, 2012).
The AACSB goals are laudable. Their guidelines follow
general quality processes in order to improve curricula, facilities, and faculty. And it has, as the literature review will attest,
made significant strides in improving business education. Accreditation assures that the faculty who teach subjects have
either academic or professional qualifications to teach those
subjects. It assures that a process is in place to monitor the
Correspondence should be addressed to James Mueller, College of
Charleston, School of Business, 9 Liberty Street, Charleston, SC 29424,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]
voice of the customers of higher education and to feed back
that voice to improve the program. It requires an assurance
of learning system, which utilizes continuous improvement.
However, as the literature will also attest, there are potential concerns, not so much with the intent of the AACSB
standards, but with the interpretations and implementation
within programs. This critique of the accreditation process
stems largely from two conceptual bases, institutional theory
and critical theory. The purpose of this article is to add a third
conceptual base, that of W. E. Deming’s Theory of Profound
Knowledge. Specifically, it will explore possible negative
unintended consequences related to the assurance of faculty
qualifications among institutions with a teaching mission.
We examine the literature on AACSB accreditation and
provide background on both Deming’s system and the relevant AACSB accreditation standards. Then, we explore the
possible negative implications, given the Deming view, to
raise issues of possible concern and discussion.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature leaves the impression that AACSB
is either the most important guarantor of the quality in business education, or that it is to be blamed for spawning a
tsunami of inferior research, destroying faculty morale, and
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
104
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
reducing innovation and autonomy in business school operations. The truth, at least as it is reflected in the literature, may
lie somewhere in between these two extremes. Nevertheless,
AACSB must be considered a force majeure, influencing the
lives of millions through its mission of quality assurance.
AACSB has a history of influencing curriculum development and programmatic changes in business schools. For
instance, AACSB is credited for being one of the first to
recognize the importance of the international dimension for
U.S. business education as early as 1959 (Thanopoulos &
Vernon, 1987). Teaching ethics has been a requirement since
1979 (Shannon & Berl, 1997), and information technology,
culture, diversity, and social responsibility all have taken
their turn at being promoted through white papers, and all
are incorporated into AACSB’s expected curriculum content.
Whether AACSB is responsible for initiating these major
thematic elements of business education is debatable, but the
organization is nevertheless credited with both positive (Ng
& Spooner, 2007) and negative (e.g., Albritton, McMullen, &
Gardiner, 2003; Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009) changes in quality
of educational programs. Navarro (2008) identified a problem in master of business administration (MBA) curricula,
emphasizing functional silos, quantitative skills, and lectures
over multidisciplinary integration, experiential learning, and
soft skills. He called for AACSB leadership to make the
shift, but complains that the peer-review process amounts to
the fox guarding the henhouse.
While AACSB’s impact on education quality is questioned by some, there is little doubt that a primary benefit
of AACSB accreditation is the perception of quality conveyed by the coveted seal, or stamp of approval. AACSB’s
chief accreditation officer posits that AACSB status helps
parents, prospective students, faculty, and employers shop
for quality education (Trapnell, 2007). Jantzen (2000b) took
an even stronger position, stating, “the accreditation status of
a business program is the sine qua non in determining how
prospective business students judge the quality of a program”
(p. 738).
Perceptions of quality appear to confer at least some financial benefits to the main educational participants (faculty and
students). Hardin and Stocks’s 1995 study found that accreditation enhanced the entry-level job prospects for accounting
students, and a number of studies report that faculty salaries
are higher at AACSB-accredited schools (e.g., Agarwal &
Yochum, 2000; Bertin, Prather, & Zivney, 1999; Levernier,
Miles, & White, 1992).
Higher faculty salaries, obviously, also add to the cost
of operations (and tuition), but are only a part of the total
cost associated with accreditation, another frequent criticism
of the organization’s impact (e.g., Mangan, 2003; Scherer,
Rajshekhar, Bryant, & Tukel, 2005). In a 2009 study of accreditation costs, the mean initial cost (e.g., self-study, documentation, surveys, training, infrastructure) was approximately $50,000 while the mean increase in operating expenses (e.g., faculty salary, recruitment, technology, library
holdings) was reported at approximately $400,000 per year
(Heriot, Franklin, & Austin, 2009).
As stated at the outset, improving the quality of management education is the organization’s prime directive, and the
literature is not particularly kind to AACSB in the evaluation
of this objective. AACSB’s present quality standards (interpreted by most as requirements) are mission based, and fall
into the general categories of strategic planning (standards
1–5), educational participants (standards 6–14), and assurance of learning (standards 16–21). A significant number of
recent studies on AACSB have investigated the impact of
AACSB’s shift to mission-based standards of accreditation
(e.g., Mangan, 2003; Yunker, 2000), and the motivation behind the change. Jantzen (2000a) and Lowrie and Wilmott
(2009) both conclude that this move was not based on improving business education, but was one of organizational
survival.
As the market for accrediting research institutions matured, several competing accrediting bodies (e.g., Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs and European Quality Improvement Council) were having increased
success at accrediting the non-tier one institutions. AACSB
does not accredit for-profit institutions (Linker, 2007), so
targeting the high growth online university market was not a
viable option. In order to maintain growth, AACSB revised
its standards to make accreditation more accessible to nonresearch, or teaching, institutions (Thompson, 2004), and also
began expanding internationally.
Accrediting on the basis of good teaching, however, is
not as simple as counting publications (Yunker, 2000), and
faculty at nonresearch institutions were simply not as prolific
as their tier I counterparts. In order to avoid the appearance
of diluting their accreditation standards, AACSB broadened
the types of research (or intellectual contributions) that count
for academic qualifications, and moved to mission-based,
not absolute, standards (Janzen, 2000a; Lowrie & Wilmot,
2009).
While many aspects of AACSB’s accreditation philosophy have been researched, the most resilient stream (and one
that predates mission-based accreditation) challenges the assumption that research output should be used as the main
standard for academically qualifying faculty. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between levels of research
output and AACSB accreditation (Srinivasan, Kemelgor, &
Johnson, 2000). While there have also been reports of a link
between research output and teaching effectiveness, student
evaluations are the most frequently used indicator of teaching effectiveness (e.g., Noser, Manakyan, & Tanner, 1996).
An extensive review of the literature of the link between
research and teaching is not in the purview of this article.
Instead, the relationship is best summed up in an AACSB
publication, where it is admitted that there is “no definitive
research linking research output with effective teaching . . .
yet AACSB clearly believes that interdependency exists and
is a positive aspect of effective business education” (AACSB,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
2008, p. 17). As a result, faculty at AACSB accredited institutions are directed away from teaching by being given reduced teaching loads so that they have more time to publish
(Hedrick, Henson, Krieg, & Wassell, 2010; Stark & Miller,
1976). Taylor and Stanton (2009), after acknowledging no
relationship between publishing and teaching, noted that the
“inevitable result can only be . . . a greater quantity of published research . . . regardless of the value or relevance of
that research” (p. 94). In addition, Lee and Quddus (2008)
found that accounting faculty, while publishing, were not
publishing in areas of their teaching.
Lack of evidence is a problem in other aspects of AACSB.
Romero (2008), in defending AACSB against a critique, admitted “a lack of published, hard, and systematic data on
AACSB’s positive strategic impact” (p. 246). And, this lack
of evidence is extended to business schools, in general, by
Pfeffer and Fong (2002), where they noted, “There is little
evidence that mastery of the knowledge acquired in business
schools enhances people’s careers” (p. 80). They referenced
the institutionalism argument that requirements can lead to
ritualized practices with no empirical evidence to support effectiveness. AACSB accreditation could fall within the realm
of institutionalized practices.
The lack of empirical evidence of quality has also opened
the door to criticism from constructionists and critical theorists. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) challenged the benefits
of AACSB. They point to the ambiguity of terms such as
high quality and usefulness in the goals. They warned that
such ambiguity opens the door to peer pressure through peer
review to force a one true way, namely, the American view of
business education. Kilpatrick, Dean, and Kilpatrick (2008)
argued that accreditation privileges a rational, analytical, and
linear view of education above the liberal model of holistic education. They warn that accreditation rewards conformity at the possible cost of creativity and life-long learning.
Barrow (1999) argued that any quality management system
will result in compliance with the elements of the system,
but not result in substantive improvements. He argued that
the system will result in (a) an instrumental, bureaucratic response; (b) an emphasis on efficiency, not effectiveness; and
(c) rational modes of behavior, with the corresponding presumption of objectivity and neutrality and a preference for
what is readily measurable. For Barrow, “Individuals are encouraged to become increasingly passive and to allow their
roles to be shaped by the technical, instrumental rationality of systems. . .” (p. 34). For critical theorists, power is a
central issue. The association of AACSB with elitism and legitimacy raises concerns. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) went
so far as to compare it to extortion: “Given the considerable burdens of accreditation, institutions may prefer not to
seek AACSB accreditation. But which of them can afford
not to pay the dues for protection afforded by this club”
(p. 416).
Thus, institutionalism and critical theory have been used
as a basis for critique of AACSB’s ability to add quality to a
105
business program. We propose a third base, that of Deming’s
System of Profound Knowledge.
DEMING’S SYSTEM OF PROFOUND
KNOWLEDGE
In The New Economics, Deming (1994) introduced his System of Profound Knowledge. Since then, it has been linked
to organizational transformation (Gapp, 2002), transformational leadership (Caldwell et al., 2012), learning organizations (Cavaleri, 2008; Khan, 2010; Moumtzoglou, 2003),
motivation (Linderman, Schroeder, & Choo, 2006), and human errors (Myszewski, 2012). The System of Profound
Knowledge consists of four parts: systems, variation, theory of knowledge, and psychology. Each part is described
here along with the implications for our critique of the accreditation process.
Central to Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is
the notion of a system. Seeing systems represents a dramatically different way of viewing the world. Indeed, for Ackoff
(1999), a system is not a concept, but a worldview. Senge
(1990) defined systems thinking as “a discipline for seeing
wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather
than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static
‘snapshots”’ (p. 68). Whereas analysis deals with complexity by stopping the action, breaking the problem into parts,
and working individually with those parts, systems thinking
is the opposite. Systems thinking approaches complexity by
allowing action and rising above the issue to see it as part of
a larger whole.
In this article, appreciating systems means recognizing
management education as a complex web of highly interactive problems, what Ackoff (1999) defined as a mess. Changing one part here at one point in time can have implications
for another part over there at a later point in time. There are
reinforcing and counter-balancing feedback loops operating
over time. There are nonlinear relationships that can cause
major shifts in responses. This complexity can often lead to
unintended consequences (Senge, 1990).
The second element of Deming’s System is understanding
variation and deals with how managers respond to changes in
performance data. Statistical process control theory demonstrates that systems and processes contain natural variation
caused by the complex interaction of system components.
Process control charts are used to indicate if a change in
performance is due to this natural variation and should be
ignored, or is due to a change in the system, in which case
the change should be investigated.
For our purpose, administrators and faculty need to apply
concepts from statistical process control in order to know if
aspects of the educational system are in control. Ideally, the
system should be producing consistent, predictable results.
In Theory of Knowledge, Deming emphasized the importance of knowledge, as distinguished from information
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
106
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
and facts. Knowledge is derived from theory and the testing
of a theory’s predictions (Deming, 1994). Theory and testing predictions are essential for sorting out cause and effect
and are, therefore, essential to management. Knowledge requires controlled experiments to provide predictive validity.
In an analytical sense, we need to isolate cause and effect and
design rigorous experimental studies to understand causal relationships. In a systems sense, we need to develop theories
of complex interactions for future testing.
The implication for our view of accreditation is that it
requires a model of the complex web of interactions affecting
management education. It requires a theory from which to
base experiments and evidence to support or refute the theory.
The last element, Psychology, recognizes that management is a social system, where one or more parts consist of a
conscious being. This makes the system that much more complex (Ackoff, 1999). This brings theories of human behavior
to the fore, especially as they relate to systems and variation.
Central to Deming’s concerns regarding psychology are concepts of intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Fear and
coercion reduce intrinsic motivation and drive out pride of
work. Perhaps more importantly, incentives and rewards also
reduce intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Here Deming
drew on a large body of psychological research on intrinsic
motivation (for a summary, see Deci, 1995).
For Deming, the research was clear: eliminate any concept
of Management by Objectives with the attendant incentive
programs to reward the accomplishment of individual objectives (Deming, 1994). Given that individual performance is
the result of the complex interaction of multiple causes, most
of which are outside the control of the individual, then individual performance evaluations, especially those that hold
individuals accountable for objectives, will do more harm
than good. They will serve to decrease intrinsic motivation
and pride of work. Decreasing intrinsic motivation and pride
will, in turn, reduce quality (Deming, 1994).
The implications for this article involve the appreciation
that humans are an important part of the system and their
feelings and motivations are of central concern. Intrinsic
motivation—the degree to which faculty, staff, and administrators care about their work—and the degree to which they
take pride in their work are vitally important to the system
and add to the degree of complexity in the system.
Last, these parts of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge form an integrated system where the elements are highly
interactive and interdependent. It is from this integrative systems standpoint that we apply Deming’s theory to AACSB
accreditation. Before we do, however, we need to review,
briefly, the AACSB standards we will address.
AACSB STANDARDS
There are three areas of focus within the AACSB accreditation process: strategic management, participants, and as-
surance of learning. Our focus will be on the second set of
standards. Regarding participants, the standard for faculty is
that a minimum of 50% of the faculty must be academically
qualified (AQ). A total of 90% of the faculty must be either
AQ or professionally qualified (PQ). To be considered PQ a
faculty member must have high level experience within their
field.
AQ status is based upon a rolling five-year period. To
become AQ, a faculty member must have a doctorate and have
a minimum number of peer reviewed journal publications
within the five-year period. The requirements for the number
of publications will depend upon the nature of the academic
institution. At a university just seeking accreditation with a
teaching orientation, the number will likely be two or more
for professors teaching undergraduate students and three or
more for professors teaching in an MBA program.
IMPLICATIONS
One violation of Deming’s principles, and perhaps the greatest opportunity for negative unintended consequences, lies
in the determination of the qualifications of faculty. For
AACSB, the justification for qualifications are tautological:
“Since the intent of academic qualifications is to assure that
faculty members have research competence in their primary
field of teaching, the existence of a current research record in
the teaching field will be accepted as prima facie evidence of
academic qualifications” (AACSB, 2008, p. xx). In this standard, faculty are labeled as either AQ, PQ, or other. At most,
10% of faculty can be in the other category. Our concern,
and what we address in this section, is that in the process
of determining faculty qualifications, competent, effective,
and professional faculty might be categorized as other and
potentially removed from a school of business.
The standard, as it is generally interpreted, requires at
least two publications in a peer-reviewed journal every five
years (Smith, Haight, & Rosenberg, 2009). Yet, there is no
conclusive evidence that meeting the standard will improve
teaching performance or the performance of the program. The
concern is that, for teaching institutions, effective teaching
does not factor into the AACSB’s criteria for qualification.
We examine three potential negative consequences of administrative actions to assure a qualified faculty: management by
objectives, salary inversion, and structural gaming.
Management by Objectives
One response is to establish incentive programs based on
publishing objectives. Indeed, the belief in the link between
teaching ability and publishing has spawned a wave of meritbased pay systems in member schools designed to reward research output. In effect, programs are implementing management by objectives whereby faculty members are rewarded
for meeting publication count objectives.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
Also, despite a strong teaching mission and a universitywide core value of small class size, departments, in our experience, have responded by encouraging faculty to teach
double sections, reducing the contact hours for faculty. Some
faculty responded by giving more multiple-choice tests and
requiring fewer written assignments, thus freeing more time
for research. In addition, there was an increase in the number
of intra-organizational multiple-author publications. These
were perfectly rational responses given that the program had
installed a merit-based pay system based mainly on publications. This was the only way to receive a pay increase because
cost-of-living increases had been eliminated.
Deming warned that if you use measurements, in this case
the publication count, to evaluate people, then you open the
door to possible abuse (Deming, 1994). People will start
fudging numbers or gaming the system. The publication requirement then becomes a game. For example, editors of
low-level journals now have significant power. Imagine a
nontenured faculty member who is such an editor, or who has
access to an editor. This member can make deals with senior
faculty who need publications. The quid-pro-quo agreement
becomes, “I’ll publish you if you support me for tenure or
promotion.” Or, as suggested previously, deals may be made
with the sharing of authorship. If two authors publish individually, they each get one hit. If, however, they agree to put
each other’s names on the papers, they each get two hits.
Another consequence could be to direct faculty into areas where publishing is easier, rather than to areas of faculty
interest. If cross-sectional empirical studies (surveys), as opposed to longitudinal or constructionist research, are easier
to conduct and easier to publish (more journals available),
then faculty may be more inclined to choose those types of
studies. If broad system-based studies fail to fit a journal,
they will be subject to more desk rejections. Faculty may be
encouraged to stick to narrow specialty fields where the contribution is incremental as opposed to venturing into broad,
perhaps controversial, and perhaps more fertile and effective
areas. Kilpatrick et al.’s (2008) concerns about accreditation leading to unjustified conformity apply here. These are
also examples of Barrow’s (1999) dramaturgical compliance,
where faculty will do the bare minimum to meet the letter of
the law, but not advance the quality of the program.
Salary Inversion
Another potential problem with emphasizing publications
occurs with hiring new faculty. In nonunion schools, new faculty members are often offered higher salaries. This can easily result in salary inversion. In one case, newly hired assistant
professors are brought in at salaries 20–30% higher than associate and full professors, who not only have 15–30 years of
teaching experience, but also have met or exceeded existing
publishing requirements. In union schools, where salaries are
restricted, new faculty members are often brought in at higher
107
ranks to accommodate a higher salary. In many cases, this
salary is still short of AACSB averages so the new faculty
members are also offered reduced teaching loads and guarantees of extra-pay opportunities. In both cases, nonunion and
union, experienced faculty members are treated inequitably.
Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) predicts that experienced professors will reduce their inputs to balance the inequity in
outcomes. There is the potential for the lower paid faculty to
reduce inputs in order to counter the lower salary.
Structural Gaming
Manipulation of the organizational structure, what we call
structural gaming, is another possible consequence of the
qualification standards. Consider a hypothetical school of
thirty faculty where half are new and active in research,
and half are older, tenured faculty who have not kept up
with publishing (nor had they been required or expected to
publish in the past). However, for the sake of argument, we
assume that these older faculty attend conferences, present
conference papers, read regularly in their field, and have
developed interests that have enhanced their teaching such
as learning new technologies and teaching techniques. In
addition, we will assume that they are committed and caring
faculty both to their institution and to students and they are
committed to mentoring the younger faculty.
The older faculty, in light of AACSB, are classified as
neither AQ nor PQ, but as other. A viable institutional response, and one that has developed, is to restructure the
school whereby unqualified faculty are placed in a separate
department and given a deadline by which to become qualified. There are two potential negative consequences. First, it
may be divisive, creating a caste system where some faculty
members are considered better than others based on their
publications. The faculty members in the other category may
feel publicly embarrassed in front of their university peers.
If so, commitment to the program would decrease. For example, this could lead to mentor inversion where younger
faculty members are coerced into helping older faculty publish. The younger faculty might resent the time this takes
away from their publishing and the older faculty might
resent being mentored by younger faculty.
Second, the older faculty could see the publishing requirement as coercive if they do not believe that publishing
is either relevant or a requirement for the teaching profession. Yet, tenured faculty could be removed from the school
of business for not publishing. Navarro (2008) cited this as
a concern in curriculum design, stating that radical change
cannot be expected as long as the emphasis is on publishing.
We would add that neither can significant improvements in
teaching.
Third, and last, the structure may hinder service and shared
governance by discouraging medium-term administrative
appointments, such as department chairs or interim roles
108
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
in the Dean’s office. It could also discourage university and
community service activities. Faculty may be less likely to
take on leadership positions in governance, the roles and
responsibilities usually taken on by tenured faculty. In this
structural gaming example, it is conceivable, and we know of
a case where this is so, that no tenured faculty in a department
are qualified.
Of course, the previous scenario is built on the assumption
of productive experienced faculty. In the case of generally
unproductive faculty, the coercion to publish may serve as
a convenient mechanism for forcing these faculty members
out of the program.
CONCLUSION
If we consider the possible consequences, there is a risk
that the qualification requirements in AACSB may not yield
an improvement in the teaching program. Indeed, they may
serve to reduce the quality. Management by objective programs shift emphasis away from teaching and service, foster gaming of the system, and decrease intrinsic motivation.
Salary inversion is potentially harmful to professionalism
and commitment while structural gaming could create a host
of consequences. We would ask: Will experienced teaching
faculty be as committed to the school? Will they care as much
as they had before about either the program or the students?
Will they be as likely to continue to explore new teaching
methods? Will they be inclined to mentor the younger faculty
who are paid more and who are ‘mentoring’ the older faculty
in research? In Deming’s terms, all of the them would have
contributed to reduced pride in work and reduced intrinsic
motivation, the degree to which they care about their work.
With all these problems, what would Deming suggest?
We believe his response would address the larger system.
Having faculty who are not publishing is part of the system.
Therefore, finding out why faculty members do not publish is
an important part of understanding the system. Perhaps one
reason that older faculty do not publish is that they have come
to realize that publishing, especially in lower tier journals,
does not contribute to knowledge. If the journal is not listed
in an online database, the articles are likely not read. If they
are listed, the articles are often not cited. Or faculty may
realize that the publications, in general, are not contributing
in the larger, global view of the world’s ills. If any aspect of
this is true, then qualification takes on new meaning.
While we are aware of many applications of the concerns
raised previously, we are also aware that the AACSB standards are not at fault. Programs have dealt effectively with
unpublished faculty without installing incentive systems, creating salary inversion, and encouraging gaming of the system. Our objective has been to draw attention to the potential
insidious side of improvement efforts based on Deming’s
System of Profound Knowledge.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advanced Experimental
Social Psychology, 62, 335–343.
Agarwal, V., & Yochum, G. R. (2000). The academic labor market for new
PhDs in business disciplines. Journal of Business & Economic Studies 6,
1–21.
Albritton, M. D., McMullen, P. R., & Gardiner, L. R. (2003). OR/MS content
and visibility in AACSB-accredited U.S. business programs. Interfaces,
33(5), 83–89.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2008).
Final report of the AACSB International impact of research task
force. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/resource centers/research/
Final/Impact of Research Report-FINAL.PDF
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012).
Schools accredited in business: Ordered by country/region, state, name.
Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=
AACSB&WebKey=00E50DA9-8BB0-4A32-B7F7-0A92E98DF5C6
Barrow, M. (1999). Quality-management systems and dramaturgical compliance. Quality in Higher Education, 5, 27–36.
Bertin, W. J., Prather, L., & Zivney, T. L. (1999). The new hire market
in finance for 1997–1998: Salaries and other market factors. Financial
Practice and Education, 9(2), 7–16.
Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas,
G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence.
Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 175–187.
Cavaleri, S. A. (2008). Are learning organizations pragmatic? The Learning
Organization, 15, 474–485.
Deci, E. L. (with Flaste, R.). (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding
self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economics: For industry, government, education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Educational
Services.
Gapp, R. (2002). The influence the system of profound knowledge has on
the development of leadership and management within an organization.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 17, 338–342.
Hardin, J. R., & Stocks, M. H. (1995). The effect of AACSB accreditation on the recruitment of entry-level accountants. Issues in Accounting
Education, 10, 83–90.
Hedrick, D. W., Henson, S. E., Krieg, J. M., & Wassell, C. S. (2010).
The effects of AACSB accreditation on faculty salaries and productivity.
Journal of Education for Business, 85, 284–291.
Heriot, K., Franklin, G., & Austin, W. (2009). Applying for initial AACSB
accreditation: An exploratory study to identify costs. Journal of Education
for Business, 84, 283–288.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000a). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on
the accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 343–
347.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000b). Price and quality effects on the demand for U.S. graduate business programs. International Advances in Economic Research,
6, 730–740.
Khan, M. A. (2010). Evaluation the Deming management model of total quality in telecommunication industry in Pakistan—An empirical
study. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 46–
59.
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns
about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17, 200–212.
Kraft, A. (2006, September–October). Growth and consequences. BizEd,
42–46.
Lee, B. B., & Quddus, M. (2008). AACSB standards and accounting faculty’s intellectual contributions. Journal of Education for Business, 83,
173–179.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
Levernier, W., Miles, M. P., & White, J. B. (1992). Effects of AACSB
accreditation on academic salaries. Journal of Education for Business,
68(1), 55–61.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Choo, A. S. (2006). Six sigma: The role
of goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management, 24,
779–790.
Linker, A. (2007). Strayer, brushing aside critics, growing in Triangle.
Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/
triangle/stories/2007/11/19/
Lowrie, A., & Willmott, H. (2009). Accreditation sickness in the consumption of business education: The vacuum in AACSB standard setting.
Management Learning, 40, 411–420.
Mangan, K. S. (2003, May 9). New accreditation rules give business schools
more leeway on faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
A15.
McKee, M. C., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Institutional field
of dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the new legitimacy of Canadian business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 22,
288–301.
Moumtzoglou, A. (2003). ‘Learning hospitals’ and quality. Knowledge and
Process Management, 10, 231–236.
Myszewski, J. M. (2012). Management responsibility for human errors.
TQM Journal, 24, 326–337.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business
schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 108–123.
Ng, S., & Spooner, K. (2007). From IR to HRM: Thank God for AACSB.
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 32, 69–86.
Noser, T. C., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. R. (1996). Research productivity
and perceived teaching effectiveness: A survey of economics faculty.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 199–221.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success
than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1,
78–95.
Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 245–255.
109
Runcieman, N. (2009). Organisation sets its sights on Asia. South
China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/article/
686436/organisation-sets-its-sights-asia
Scherer, R. F., Rajshekhar, G. J., Bryant, M., & Tukel, O. (2005). Challenges of AACSB international accreditation for business schools in the
United States and Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review,
17, 651–669.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the leaning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shannon, R. J., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Are we teaching ethics in marketing?: A
survey of students’ attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 1059–1075.
Smith, K. J., Haight, G. T., & Rosenberg, D. L. (2009). An examination
of AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual contributions and academic and professional qualifications of faculty. Journal of
Education for Business, 84, 219–227.
Srinivasan, S., Kemelgor, B., & Johnson, S. D. (2000). The future of business
school scholarship: An empirical assessment of the Boyer Framework for
U.S. deans. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 75–81.
Stark, B. J., & Miller, T. R. (1976). Selected personnel practices relating to
research and publication among management Faculty. The Academy of
Management Journal, 19, 502–505.
Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A. D. (2009). Academic publishing and teaching
effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accredited business school
faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 93–106.
Thanopoulos, J., & Vernon, I. R. (1987). International business education
in the AACSB schools. Journal of International Business Studies, 18,
91–98.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with Milton Blood: The new
AACSB standards (Interview). Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 3, 429–439.
Trapnell, J. (2007). AACSB International accreditation. Journal of Management Development, 26, 67–72.
Yunker, J. A. (2000). Doing things the hard way: Problems with missionlinked AACSB accreditation standards and suggestions for improvement.
Journal of Education for Business, 75, 348–353.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson
To cite this article: Paul Stepanovich , James Mueller & Dan Benson (2014) AACSB Accreditation
and Possible Unintended Consequences: A Deming View, Journal of Education for Business,
89:2, 103-109, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
Published online: 17 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 136
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:32
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 103–109, 2014
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.763754
AACSB Accreditation and Possible Unintended
Consequences: A Deming View
Paul Stepanovich
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
James Mueller
College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
Dan Benson
Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, USA
The AACSB accreditation process reflects basic quality principles, providing standards and
a process for feedback for continuous improvement. However, implementation can lead to
unintended negative consequences. The literature shows that while institutionalism and critical
theory have been used as a theoretical base for evaluating accreditation, W. E. Deming’s
philosophy has not. This article fills that void by examining possible negative consequences in
meeting faculty qualification requirements in institutions with a teaching mission.
Keywords: AACSB accreditation, Deming, profound knowledge
The mission of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB) is “to spread accreditation to advance
the quality of management education” (Runcieman, 2009).
AACSB has been so successful communicating the importance of its quality assurance mission, that many schools now
perceive the lack of accreditation as a competitive disadvantage (Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009; McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee,
2005). Revisions to its standards to include teaching institutions, combined with an ambitious international expansion
strategy, have resulted in a 42% growth rate in the number of
accredited schools overall (Runcieman, 2009), and a 300%
increase in accreditation of schools internationally (Kraft,
2006). As of July 2012, AACSB reported a total of 655 accredited institutions, of which 165 were outside of the United
States (AACSB, 2012).
The AACSB goals are laudable. Their guidelines follow
general quality processes in order to improve curricula, facilities, and faculty. And it has, as the literature review will attest,
made significant strides in improving business education. Accreditation assures that the faculty who teach subjects have
either academic or professional qualifications to teach those
subjects. It assures that a process is in place to monitor the
Correspondence should be addressed to James Mueller, College of
Charleston, School of Business, 9 Liberty Street, Charleston, SC 29424,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]
voice of the customers of higher education and to feed back
that voice to improve the program. It requires an assurance
of learning system, which utilizes continuous improvement.
However, as the literature will also attest, there are potential concerns, not so much with the intent of the AACSB
standards, but with the interpretations and implementation
within programs. This critique of the accreditation process
stems largely from two conceptual bases, institutional theory
and critical theory. The purpose of this article is to add a third
conceptual base, that of W. E. Deming’s Theory of Profound
Knowledge. Specifically, it will explore possible negative
unintended consequences related to the assurance of faculty
qualifications among institutions with a teaching mission.
We examine the literature on AACSB accreditation and
provide background on both Deming’s system and the relevant AACSB accreditation standards. Then, we explore the
possible negative implications, given the Deming view, to
raise issues of possible concern and discussion.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature leaves the impression that AACSB
is either the most important guarantor of the quality in business education, or that it is to be blamed for spawning a
tsunami of inferior research, destroying faculty morale, and
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
104
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
reducing innovation and autonomy in business school operations. The truth, at least as it is reflected in the literature, may
lie somewhere in between these two extremes. Nevertheless,
AACSB must be considered a force majeure, influencing the
lives of millions through its mission of quality assurance.
AACSB has a history of influencing curriculum development and programmatic changes in business schools. For
instance, AACSB is credited for being one of the first to
recognize the importance of the international dimension for
U.S. business education as early as 1959 (Thanopoulos &
Vernon, 1987). Teaching ethics has been a requirement since
1979 (Shannon & Berl, 1997), and information technology,
culture, diversity, and social responsibility all have taken
their turn at being promoted through white papers, and all
are incorporated into AACSB’s expected curriculum content.
Whether AACSB is responsible for initiating these major
thematic elements of business education is debatable, but the
organization is nevertheless credited with both positive (Ng
& Spooner, 2007) and negative (e.g., Albritton, McMullen, &
Gardiner, 2003; Lowrie & Wilmott, 2009) changes in quality
of educational programs. Navarro (2008) identified a problem in master of business administration (MBA) curricula,
emphasizing functional silos, quantitative skills, and lectures
over multidisciplinary integration, experiential learning, and
soft skills. He called for AACSB leadership to make the
shift, but complains that the peer-review process amounts to
the fox guarding the henhouse.
While AACSB’s impact on education quality is questioned by some, there is little doubt that a primary benefit
of AACSB accreditation is the perception of quality conveyed by the coveted seal, or stamp of approval. AACSB’s
chief accreditation officer posits that AACSB status helps
parents, prospective students, faculty, and employers shop
for quality education (Trapnell, 2007). Jantzen (2000b) took
an even stronger position, stating, “the accreditation status of
a business program is the sine qua non in determining how
prospective business students judge the quality of a program”
(p. 738).
Perceptions of quality appear to confer at least some financial benefits to the main educational participants (faculty and
students). Hardin and Stocks’s 1995 study found that accreditation enhanced the entry-level job prospects for accounting
students, and a number of studies report that faculty salaries
are higher at AACSB-accredited schools (e.g., Agarwal &
Yochum, 2000; Bertin, Prather, & Zivney, 1999; Levernier,
Miles, & White, 1992).
Higher faculty salaries, obviously, also add to the cost
of operations (and tuition), but are only a part of the total
cost associated with accreditation, another frequent criticism
of the organization’s impact (e.g., Mangan, 2003; Scherer,
Rajshekhar, Bryant, & Tukel, 2005). In a 2009 study of accreditation costs, the mean initial cost (e.g., self-study, documentation, surveys, training, infrastructure) was approximately $50,000 while the mean increase in operating expenses (e.g., faculty salary, recruitment, technology, library
holdings) was reported at approximately $400,000 per year
(Heriot, Franklin, & Austin, 2009).
As stated at the outset, improving the quality of management education is the organization’s prime directive, and the
literature is not particularly kind to AACSB in the evaluation
of this objective. AACSB’s present quality standards (interpreted by most as requirements) are mission based, and fall
into the general categories of strategic planning (standards
1–5), educational participants (standards 6–14), and assurance of learning (standards 16–21). A significant number of
recent studies on AACSB have investigated the impact of
AACSB’s shift to mission-based standards of accreditation
(e.g., Mangan, 2003; Yunker, 2000), and the motivation behind the change. Jantzen (2000a) and Lowrie and Wilmott
(2009) both conclude that this move was not based on improving business education, but was one of organizational
survival.
As the market for accrediting research institutions matured, several competing accrediting bodies (e.g., Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs and European Quality Improvement Council) were having increased
success at accrediting the non-tier one institutions. AACSB
does not accredit for-profit institutions (Linker, 2007), so
targeting the high growth online university market was not a
viable option. In order to maintain growth, AACSB revised
its standards to make accreditation more accessible to nonresearch, or teaching, institutions (Thompson, 2004), and also
began expanding internationally.
Accrediting on the basis of good teaching, however, is
not as simple as counting publications (Yunker, 2000), and
faculty at nonresearch institutions were simply not as prolific
as their tier I counterparts. In order to avoid the appearance
of diluting their accreditation standards, AACSB broadened
the types of research (or intellectual contributions) that count
for academic qualifications, and moved to mission-based,
not absolute, standards (Janzen, 2000a; Lowrie & Wilmot,
2009).
While many aspects of AACSB’s accreditation philosophy have been researched, the most resilient stream (and one
that predates mission-based accreditation) challenges the assumption that research output should be used as the main
standard for academically qualifying faculty. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between levels of research
output and AACSB accreditation (Srinivasan, Kemelgor, &
Johnson, 2000). While there have also been reports of a link
between research output and teaching effectiveness, student
evaluations are the most frequently used indicator of teaching effectiveness (e.g., Noser, Manakyan, & Tanner, 1996).
An extensive review of the literature of the link between
research and teaching is not in the purview of this article.
Instead, the relationship is best summed up in an AACSB
publication, where it is admitted that there is “no definitive
research linking research output with effective teaching . . .
yet AACSB clearly believes that interdependency exists and
is a positive aspect of effective business education” (AACSB,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
2008, p. 17). As a result, faculty at AACSB accredited institutions are directed away from teaching by being given reduced teaching loads so that they have more time to publish
(Hedrick, Henson, Krieg, & Wassell, 2010; Stark & Miller,
1976). Taylor and Stanton (2009), after acknowledging no
relationship between publishing and teaching, noted that the
“inevitable result can only be . . . a greater quantity of published research . . . regardless of the value or relevance of
that research” (p. 94). In addition, Lee and Quddus (2008)
found that accounting faculty, while publishing, were not
publishing in areas of their teaching.
Lack of evidence is a problem in other aspects of AACSB.
Romero (2008), in defending AACSB against a critique, admitted “a lack of published, hard, and systematic data on
AACSB’s positive strategic impact” (p. 246). And, this lack
of evidence is extended to business schools, in general, by
Pfeffer and Fong (2002), where they noted, “There is little
evidence that mastery of the knowledge acquired in business
schools enhances people’s careers” (p. 80). They referenced
the institutionalism argument that requirements can lead to
ritualized practices with no empirical evidence to support effectiveness. AACSB accreditation could fall within the realm
of institutionalized practices.
The lack of empirical evidence of quality has also opened
the door to criticism from constructionists and critical theorists. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) challenged the benefits
of AACSB. They point to the ambiguity of terms such as
high quality and usefulness in the goals. They warned that
such ambiguity opens the door to peer pressure through peer
review to force a one true way, namely, the American view of
business education. Kilpatrick, Dean, and Kilpatrick (2008)
argued that accreditation privileges a rational, analytical, and
linear view of education above the liberal model of holistic education. They warn that accreditation rewards conformity at the possible cost of creativity and life-long learning.
Barrow (1999) argued that any quality management system
will result in compliance with the elements of the system,
but not result in substantive improvements. He argued that
the system will result in (a) an instrumental, bureaucratic response; (b) an emphasis on efficiency, not effectiveness; and
(c) rational modes of behavior, with the corresponding presumption of objectivity and neutrality and a preference for
what is readily measurable. For Barrow, “Individuals are encouraged to become increasingly passive and to allow their
roles to be shaped by the technical, instrumental rationality of systems. . .” (p. 34). For critical theorists, power is a
central issue. The association of AACSB with elitism and legitimacy raises concerns. Lowrie and Willmott (2009) went
so far as to compare it to extortion: “Given the considerable burdens of accreditation, institutions may prefer not to
seek AACSB accreditation. But which of them can afford
not to pay the dues for protection afforded by this club”
(p. 416).
Thus, institutionalism and critical theory have been used
as a basis for critique of AACSB’s ability to add quality to a
105
business program. We propose a third base, that of Deming’s
System of Profound Knowledge.
DEMING’S SYSTEM OF PROFOUND
KNOWLEDGE
In The New Economics, Deming (1994) introduced his System of Profound Knowledge. Since then, it has been linked
to organizational transformation (Gapp, 2002), transformational leadership (Caldwell et al., 2012), learning organizations (Cavaleri, 2008; Khan, 2010; Moumtzoglou, 2003),
motivation (Linderman, Schroeder, & Choo, 2006), and human errors (Myszewski, 2012). The System of Profound
Knowledge consists of four parts: systems, variation, theory of knowledge, and psychology. Each part is described
here along with the implications for our critique of the accreditation process.
Central to Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is
the notion of a system. Seeing systems represents a dramatically different way of viewing the world. Indeed, for Ackoff
(1999), a system is not a concept, but a worldview. Senge
(1990) defined systems thinking as “a discipline for seeing
wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather
than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static
‘snapshots”’ (p. 68). Whereas analysis deals with complexity by stopping the action, breaking the problem into parts,
and working individually with those parts, systems thinking
is the opposite. Systems thinking approaches complexity by
allowing action and rising above the issue to see it as part of
a larger whole.
In this article, appreciating systems means recognizing
management education as a complex web of highly interactive problems, what Ackoff (1999) defined as a mess. Changing one part here at one point in time can have implications
for another part over there at a later point in time. There are
reinforcing and counter-balancing feedback loops operating
over time. There are nonlinear relationships that can cause
major shifts in responses. This complexity can often lead to
unintended consequences (Senge, 1990).
The second element of Deming’s System is understanding
variation and deals with how managers respond to changes in
performance data. Statistical process control theory demonstrates that systems and processes contain natural variation
caused by the complex interaction of system components.
Process control charts are used to indicate if a change in
performance is due to this natural variation and should be
ignored, or is due to a change in the system, in which case
the change should be investigated.
For our purpose, administrators and faculty need to apply
concepts from statistical process control in order to know if
aspects of the educational system are in control. Ideally, the
system should be producing consistent, predictable results.
In Theory of Knowledge, Deming emphasized the importance of knowledge, as distinguished from information
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
106
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
and facts. Knowledge is derived from theory and the testing
of a theory’s predictions (Deming, 1994). Theory and testing predictions are essential for sorting out cause and effect
and are, therefore, essential to management. Knowledge requires controlled experiments to provide predictive validity.
In an analytical sense, we need to isolate cause and effect and
design rigorous experimental studies to understand causal relationships. In a systems sense, we need to develop theories
of complex interactions for future testing.
The implication for our view of accreditation is that it
requires a model of the complex web of interactions affecting
management education. It requires a theory from which to
base experiments and evidence to support or refute the theory.
The last element, Psychology, recognizes that management is a social system, where one or more parts consist of a
conscious being. This makes the system that much more complex (Ackoff, 1999). This brings theories of human behavior
to the fore, especially as they relate to systems and variation.
Central to Deming’s concerns regarding psychology are concepts of intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Fear and
coercion reduce intrinsic motivation and drive out pride of
work. Perhaps more importantly, incentives and rewards also
reduce intrinsic motivation and pride of work. Here Deming
drew on a large body of psychological research on intrinsic
motivation (for a summary, see Deci, 1995).
For Deming, the research was clear: eliminate any concept
of Management by Objectives with the attendant incentive
programs to reward the accomplishment of individual objectives (Deming, 1994). Given that individual performance is
the result of the complex interaction of multiple causes, most
of which are outside the control of the individual, then individual performance evaluations, especially those that hold
individuals accountable for objectives, will do more harm
than good. They will serve to decrease intrinsic motivation
and pride of work. Decreasing intrinsic motivation and pride
will, in turn, reduce quality (Deming, 1994).
The implications for this article involve the appreciation
that humans are an important part of the system and their
feelings and motivations are of central concern. Intrinsic
motivation—the degree to which faculty, staff, and administrators care about their work—and the degree to which they
take pride in their work are vitally important to the system
and add to the degree of complexity in the system.
Last, these parts of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge form an integrated system where the elements are highly
interactive and interdependent. It is from this integrative systems standpoint that we apply Deming’s theory to AACSB
accreditation. Before we do, however, we need to review,
briefly, the AACSB standards we will address.
AACSB STANDARDS
There are three areas of focus within the AACSB accreditation process: strategic management, participants, and as-
surance of learning. Our focus will be on the second set of
standards. Regarding participants, the standard for faculty is
that a minimum of 50% of the faculty must be academically
qualified (AQ). A total of 90% of the faculty must be either
AQ or professionally qualified (PQ). To be considered PQ a
faculty member must have high level experience within their
field.
AQ status is based upon a rolling five-year period. To
become AQ, a faculty member must have a doctorate and have
a minimum number of peer reviewed journal publications
within the five-year period. The requirements for the number
of publications will depend upon the nature of the academic
institution. At a university just seeking accreditation with a
teaching orientation, the number will likely be two or more
for professors teaching undergraduate students and three or
more for professors teaching in an MBA program.
IMPLICATIONS
One violation of Deming’s principles, and perhaps the greatest opportunity for negative unintended consequences, lies
in the determination of the qualifications of faculty. For
AACSB, the justification for qualifications are tautological:
“Since the intent of academic qualifications is to assure that
faculty members have research competence in their primary
field of teaching, the existence of a current research record in
the teaching field will be accepted as prima facie evidence of
academic qualifications” (AACSB, 2008, p. xx). In this standard, faculty are labeled as either AQ, PQ, or other. At most,
10% of faculty can be in the other category. Our concern,
and what we address in this section, is that in the process
of determining faculty qualifications, competent, effective,
and professional faculty might be categorized as other and
potentially removed from a school of business.
The standard, as it is generally interpreted, requires at
least two publications in a peer-reviewed journal every five
years (Smith, Haight, & Rosenberg, 2009). Yet, there is no
conclusive evidence that meeting the standard will improve
teaching performance or the performance of the program. The
concern is that, for teaching institutions, effective teaching
does not factor into the AACSB’s criteria for qualification.
We examine three potential negative consequences of administrative actions to assure a qualified faculty: management by
objectives, salary inversion, and structural gaming.
Management by Objectives
One response is to establish incentive programs based on
publishing objectives. Indeed, the belief in the link between
teaching ability and publishing has spawned a wave of meritbased pay systems in member schools designed to reward research output. In effect, programs are implementing management by objectives whereby faculty members are rewarded
for meeting publication count objectives.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
Also, despite a strong teaching mission and a universitywide core value of small class size, departments, in our experience, have responded by encouraging faculty to teach
double sections, reducing the contact hours for faculty. Some
faculty responded by giving more multiple-choice tests and
requiring fewer written assignments, thus freeing more time
for research. In addition, there was an increase in the number
of intra-organizational multiple-author publications. These
were perfectly rational responses given that the program had
installed a merit-based pay system based mainly on publications. This was the only way to receive a pay increase because
cost-of-living increases had been eliminated.
Deming warned that if you use measurements, in this case
the publication count, to evaluate people, then you open the
door to possible abuse (Deming, 1994). People will start
fudging numbers or gaming the system. The publication requirement then becomes a game. For example, editors of
low-level journals now have significant power. Imagine a
nontenured faculty member who is such an editor, or who has
access to an editor. This member can make deals with senior
faculty who need publications. The quid-pro-quo agreement
becomes, “I’ll publish you if you support me for tenure or
promotion.” Or, as suggested previously, deals may be made
with the sharing of authorship. If two authors publish individually, they each get one hit. If, however, they agree to put
each other’s names on the papers, they each get two hits.
Another consequence could be to direct faculty into areas where publishing is easier, rather than to areas of faculty
interest. If cross-sectional empirical studies (surveys), as opposed to longitudinal or constructionist research, are easier
to conduct and easier to publish (more journals available),
then faculty may be more inclined to choose those types of
studies. If broad system-based studies fail to fit a journal,
they will be subject to more desk rejections. Faculty may be
encouraged to stick to narrow specialty fields where the contribution is incremental as opposed to venturing into broad,
perhaps controversial, and perhaps more fertile and effective
areas. Kilpatrick et al.’s (2008) concerns about accreditation leading to unjustified conformity apply here. These are
also examples of Barrow’s (1999) dramaturgical compliance,
where faculty will do the bare minimum to meet the letter of
the law, but not advance the quality of the program.
Salary Inversion
Another potential problem with emphasizing publications
occurs with hiring new faculty. In nonunion schools, new faculty members are often offered higher salaries. This can easily result in salary inversion. In one case, newly hired assistant
professors are brought in at salaries 20–30% higher than associate and full professors, who not only have 15–30 years of
teaching experience, but also have met or exceeded existing
publishing requirements. In union schools, where salaries are
restricted, new faculty members are often brought in at higher
107
ranks to accommodate a higher salary. In many cases, this
salary is still short of AACSB averages so the new faculty
members are also offered reduced teaching loads and guarantees of extra-pay opportunities. In both cases, nonunion and
union, experienced faculty members are treated inequitably.
Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) predicts that experienced professors will reduce their inputs to balance the inequity in
outcomes. There is the potential for the lower paid faculty to
reduce inputs in order to counter the lower salary.
Structural Gaming
Manipulation of the organizational structure, what we call
structural gaming, is another possible consequence of the
qualification standards. Consider a hypothetical school of
thirty faculty where half are new and active in research,
and half are older, tenured faculty who have not kept up
with publishing (nor had they been required or expected to
publish in the past). However, for the sake of argument, we
assume that these older faculty attend conferences, present
conference papers, read regularly in their field, and have
developed interests that have enhanced their teaching such
as learning new technologies and teaching techniques. In
addition, we will assume that they are committed and caring
faculty both to their institution and to students and they are
committed to mentoring the younger faculty.
The older faculty, in light of AACSB, are classified as
neither AQ nor PQ, but as other. A viable institutional response, and one that has developed, is to restructure the
school whereby unqualified faculty are placed in a separate
department and given a deadline by which to become qualified. There are two potential negative consequences. First, it
may be divisive, creating a caste system where some faculty
members are considered better than others based on their
publications. The faculty members in the other category may
feel publicly embarrassed in front of their university peers.
If so, commitment to the program would decrease. For example, this could lead to mentor inversion where younger
faculty members are coerced into helping older faculty publish. The younger faculty might resent the time this takes
away from their publishing and the older faculty might
resent being mentored by younger faculty.
Second, the older faculty could see the publishing requirement as coercive if they do not believe that publishing
is either relevant or a requirement for the teaching profession. Yet, tenured faculty could be removed from the school
of business for not publishing. Navarro (2008) cited this as
a concern in curriculum design, stating that radical change
cannot be expected as long as the emphasis is on publishing.
We would add that neither can significant improvements in
teaching.
Third, and last, the structure may hinder service and shared
governance by discouraging medium-term administrative
appointments, such as department chairs or interim roles
108
P. STEPANOVICH ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
in the Dean’s office. It could also discourage university and
community service activities. Faculty may be less likely to
take on leadership positions in governance, the roles and
responsibilities usually taken on by tenured faculty. In this
structural gaming example, it is conceivable, and we know of
a case where this is so, that no tenured faculty in a department
are qualified.
Of course, the previous scenario is built on the assumption
of productive experienced faculty. In the case of generally
unproductive faculty, the coercion to publish may serve as
a convenient mechanism for forcing these faculty members
out of the program.
CONCLUSION
If we consider the possible consequences, there is a risk
that the qualification requirements in AACSB may not yield
an improvement in the teaching program. Indeed, they may
serve to reduce the quality. Management by objective programs shift emphasis away from teaching and service, foster gaming of the system, and decrease intrinsic motivation.
Salary inversion is potentially harmful to professionalism
and commitment while structural gaming could create a host
of consequences. We would ask: Will experienced teaching
faculty be as committed to the school? Will they care as much
as they had before about either the program or the students?
Will they be as likely to continue to explore new teaching
methods? Will they be inclined to mentor the younger faculty
who are paid more and who are ‘mentoring’ the older faculty
in research? In Deming’s terms, all of the them would have
contributed to reduced pride in work and reduced intrinsic
motivation, the degree to which they care about their work.
With all these problems, what would Deming suggest?
We believe his response would address the larger system.
Having faculty who are not publishing is part of the system.
Therefore, finding out why faculty members do not publish is
an important part of understanding the system. Perhaps one
reason that older faculty do not publish is that they have come
to realize that publishing, especially in lower tier journals,
does not contribute to knowledge. If the journal is not listed
in an online database, the articles are likely not read. If they
are listed, the articles are often not cited. Or faculty may
realize that the publications, in general, are not contributing
in the larger, global view of the world’s ills. If any aspect of
this is true, then qualification takes on new meaning.
While we are aware of many applications of the concerns
raised previously, we are also aware that the AACSB standards are not at fault. Programs have dealt effectively with
unpublished faculty without installing incentive systems, creating salary inversion, and encouraging gaming of the system. Our objective has been to draw attention to the potential
insidious side of improvement efforts based on Deming’s
System of Profound Knowledge.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advanced Experimental
Social Psychology, 62, 335–343.
Agarwal, V., & Yochum, G. R. (2000). The academic labor market for new
PhDs in business disciplines. Journal of Business & Economic Studies 6,
1–21.
Albritton, M. D., McMullen, P. R., & Gardiner, L. R. (2003). OR/MS content
and visibility in AACSB-accredited U.S. business programs. Interfaces,
33(5), 83–89.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2008).
Final report of the AACSB International impact of research task
force. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/resource centers/research/
Final/Impact of Research Report-FINAL.PDF
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012).
Schools accredited in business: Ordered by country/region, state, name.
Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.net/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=
AACSB&WebKey=00E50DA9-8BB0-4A32-B7F7-0A92E98DF5C6
Barrow, M. (1999). Quality-management systems and dramaturgical compliance. Quality in Higher Education, 5, 27–36.
Bertin, W. J., Prather, L., & Zivney, T. L. (1999). The new hire market
in finance for 1997–1998: Salaries and other market factors. Financial
Practice and Education, 9(2), 7–16.
Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas,
G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence.
Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 175–187.
Cavaleri, S. A. (2008). Are learning organizations pragmatic? The Learning
Organization, 15, 474–485.
Deci, E. L. (with Flaste, R.). (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding
self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economics: For industry, government, education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Educational
Services.
Gapp, R. (2002). The influence the system of profound knowledge has on
the development of leadership and management within an organization.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 17, 338–342.
Hardin, J. R., & Stocks, M. H. (1995). The effect of AACSB accreditation on the recruitment of entry-level accountants. Issues in Accounting
Education, 10, 83–90.
Hedrick, D. W., Henson, S. E., Krieg, J. M., & Wassell, C. S. (2010).
The effects of AACSB accreditation on faculty salaries and productivity.
Journal of Education for Business, 85, 284–291.
Heriot, K., Franklin, G., & Austin, W. (2009). Applying for initial AACSB
accreditation: An exploratory study to identify costs. Journal of Education
for Business, 84, 283–288.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000a). AACSB mission-linked standards: Effects on
the accreditation process. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 343–
347.
Jantzen, R. H. (2000b). Price and quality effects on the demand for U.S. graduate business programs. International Advances in Economic Research,
6, 730–740.
Khan, M. A. (2010). Evaluation the Deming management model of total quality in telecommunication industry in Pakistan—An empirical
study. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 46–
59.
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns
about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17, 200–212.
Kraft, A. (2006, September–October). Growth and consequences. BizEd,
42–46.
Lee, B. B., & Quddus, M. (2008). AACSB standards and accounting faculty’s intellectual contributions. Journal of Education for Business, 83,
173–179.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:32 11 January 2016
AACSB ACCREDITATION: A DEMING VIEW
Levernier, W., Miles, M. P., & White, J. B. (1992). Effects of AACSB
accreditation on academic salaries. Journal of Education for Business,
68(1), 55–61.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Choo, A. S. (2006). Six sigma: The role
of goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management, 24,
779–790.
Linker, A. (2007). Strayer, brushing aside critics, growing in Triangle.
Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/
triangle/stories/2007/11/19/
Lowrie, A., & Willmott, H. (2009). Accreditation sickness in the consumption of business education: The vacuum in AACSB standard setting.
Management Learning, 40, 411–420.
Mangan, K. S. (2003, May 9). New accreditation rules give business schools
more leeway on faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
A15.
McKee, M. C., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Institutional field
of dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the new legitimacy of Canadian business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 22,
288–301.
Moumtzoglou, A. (2003). ‘Learning hospitals’ and quality. Knowledge and
Process Management, 10, 231–236.
Myszewski, J. M. (2012). Management responsibility for human errors.
TQM Journal, 24, 326–337.
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business
schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 108–123.
Ng, S., & Spooner, K. (2007). From IR to HRM: Thank God for AACSB.
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 32, 69–86.
Noser, T. C., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. R. (1996). Research productivity
and perceived teaching effectiveness: A survey of economics faculty.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 199–221.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success
than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1,
78–95.
Romero, E. J. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 245–255.
109
Runcieman, N. (2009). Organisation sets its sights on Asia. South
China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/article/
686436/organisation-sets-its-sights-asia
Scherer, R. F., Rajshekhar, G. J., Bryant, M., & Tukel, O. (2005). Challenges of AACSB international accreditation for business schools in the
United States and Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review,
17, 651–669.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the leaning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shannon, R. J., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Are we teaching ethics in marketing?: A
survey of students’ attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 1059–1075.
Smith, K. J., Haight, G. T., & Rosenberg, D. L. (2009). An examination
of AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectual contributions and academic and professional qualifications of faculty. Journal of
Education for Business, 84, 219–227.
Srinivasan, S., Kemelgor, B., & Johnson, S. D. (2000). The future of business
school scholarship: An empirical assessment of the Boyer Framework for
U.S. deans. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 75–81.
Stark, B. J., & Miller, T. R. (1976). Selected personnel practices relating to
research and publication among management Faculty. The Academy of
Management Journal, 19, 502–505.
Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A. D. (2009). Academic publishing and teaching
effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accredited business school
faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 93–106.
Thanopoulos, J., & Vernon, I. R. (1987). International business education
in the AACSB schools. Journal of International Business Studies, 18,
91–98.
Thompson, K. R. (2004). A conversation with Milton Blood: The new
AACSB standards (Interview). Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 3, 429–439.
Trapnell, J. (2007). AACSB International accreditation. Journal of Management Development, 26, 67–72.
Yunker, J. A. (2000). Doing things the hard way: Problems with missionlinked AACSB accreditation standards and suggestions for improvement.
Journal of Education for Business, 75, 348–353.