BizEd

MayJune2013

Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/124472

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 69 of 76

Tim Pan n e ll/Cor bis articles that explored the interdependence of business and society. But we know every school has a "cultural gestalt" that also shapes the student experience. The attitudes at a school are influenced by student-organized events and extracurricular activities, as well as institutional investments in research centers that focus on business and society issues. These influences are harder to measure. Fourth, there is a disconnect between what schools teach and what they say they teach. More faculty claim they are using case studies that examine the changing public expectations of business, but that claim isn't evidenced by a review of syllabi and course descriptions. This raises an important question: Are schools truly teaching students that their business decisions will have an impact on the community, the employee base, and the planet? If so, why aren't these issues part of the course description? When a marketing course considers the connection between soda advertising and obesity, it offers a new societal reference point for measuring business success. But if the social impacts of business aren't mentioned in the syllabus, they seem peripheral to the course's learning objectives. Our most important finding, however, is that business students are getting mixed messages. Too often, the values and decision rules taught in one class are undermined by the models and metrics taught in another. For instance, a course with "sustainability" in the title might consider the risks for both the business and its fence-line neighbors if the CEO ignores environmental impacts. In these courses, students may discuss critical decisions that will influence the availability of resources for following generations. But in finance and other classes, these same students are taught to externalize costs and discount the future. When MBA programs teach to the ideology of maximizing "shareholder value," measured solely by EBIT and stock price, they contribute to a culture of shortterm thinking with attendant economic, social, and environmental consequences. Students learn simplistic models that allow managers to make decisions at the firm level without concern for the broader implications. As executives, these students will be ill-equipped to consider the balance between private incentives and the public welfare. It's time to look hard at the domi- nant messages and to give students greater context and nuance for using the tools of finance. Moving Forward With these lessons in mind, Aspen BSP is moving to the next frontier. The Pinstripes survey and rankings cast a wide net and accepted a wide range of content. Now, it's time to narrow the focus and directly tackle this challenge of mixed messages. Moving forward, we seek to understand how business schools teach managers to explore the purpose of business and integrate measures of success that lead to both long-term sustainability and economic health. More important, we want to ensure that this learning happens across the curriculum. Progress is already under way. For instance, we have redefined the criteria for our Faculty Pioneer awards, which celebrate interesting approaches to examining the purpose of the corporation. We are also conducting forums at schools like UCLA, NYU Stern, Wharton, and Kellogg to discuss how scholars in business and law think about—and teach—the purpose of the corporation. Through initiatives like these, we hope to learn more about the courses and research that concentrate on business governance and the responsibilities of boards. We want to spotlight faculty who study business judgment and fiduciary duty. We are interested in case studies of ownership structures; we seek fresh approaches to valuation, incentive systems, and metrics that promote longterm thinking. And we want to illuminate teaching tools that help managers create business value without imposing costs on society. To help these critical analyses take root in business classrooms, we will need to engage even further with professors and scholars, especially in finance, strategy, and corporate law. It's too soon to know if we can capture the next generation of best-in-class teaching through a survey instrument, but we do know that business schools continue to shape the attitudes and values of future managers. That is reason enough to keep trying to shape business schools. Judith F. Samuelson is the executive director of the Aspen Institute's Business and Society Program. The institute is headquartered in Washington, D.C. BizEd May/June 2013 67

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of BizEd - MayJune2013