Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/201447
44 November/December 2013 BizEd students accepted these notions, others waited impatiently for me to get to the spreadsheets and hard data. I then spent time teaching a similar course at the World Learning/ SIT Graduate Institute's master's program in sustainable development in Washington, D.C. My new students were largely international development professionals and Peace Corps and CityYear alumni. Some embraced the idea that nonprofits can benefit from rigorously applied business metrics, but more wondered why we weren't focused solely on the empowerment programs and fieldworkers who would fight poverty one Bangladeshi village at a time. The question I've strived to answer is, how can the tree-huggers and the earth-destroyers be brought together in one classroom? Obstacles and Pitfalls I believe it's essential for business schools to offer courses that meld business and development perspectives. But they must be aware of some key challenges and be ready with creative solutions. The first challenge often is simply getting the course into the curriculum to begin with, as many faculty and students question the notion of blended value. One approach is to keep a hard-headed focus on the job market—noting, for instance, that "socially responsible" areas such as community investing, impact investing, and microfinance are among the fastestgrowing fields in the world of finance. Two other potential pitfalls must be faced head-on: I Keeping the class from getting too personal. I have found that students in these types of blended classes often want to relate their own experiences. These can be moving and valuable moments for the class, but tricky for the professor to handle. For example, in one of my classes, an Indian student began to explain that India had a higher development level than Pakistan because Indians have a higher cultural tone and native intelligence—a position that dismayed the Pakistani student seated next to her. In another class, students were debating the degree to which multinational companies (MNCs) should adhere to local customs. Some students argued that if a country failed to impose worker safety or child labor laws, the MNC shouldn't be responsible for worker protection. Some even suggested that a lack of environmental or labor protection laws could be a competitive advantage for a developing country, helping to lure foreign investors. Then a student from Vietnam, who had never before spoken up in class, began relating his experiences working in a textile factory. He described being beaten by overseers so that he would work harder and faster, and raised his shirt so that we could see the scars on his back. The class was profoundly moved, but also deeply disturbed. In each case, it was up to me to defuse the situation while still incorporating the lesson learned. In fact, in any blended value class, the role of the professor is much more ambiguous and challenging than it is in the traditional classroom. The teacher must ensure that the class is a safe environment for everyone AWO/G LOW I MAG ES I believe that, in a globalized economy marked by shrinking resources, schools must take a new approach to teaching students about the role of the corporation as well as the NGO. They must teach business students that the corporation has to produce value for society in addition to profits for stakeholders; they must teach development students that nonprofits rarely will thrive without the discipline and metrics employed by business. In essence, they must prepare students to function at the intersection of business and philanthropy. This intersection is a perilous place to teach, because the instructor risks losing all credibility with one world by advocating principles from the other. But it's also rewarding, because the potential benefits are so high. My adventures in negotiating this maze began when I taught globalization at Brandeis University's International Business School in the 1990s. While I mostly presented the Thomas Friedman version—the world is flat, globalization is both inevitable and glorious—I also noted that globalization increases income inequality, produces winners and losers, and operates on a far from level playing field. While some