Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/57464
Your Turn B-Schools' Broken Windows Urban decay, shattered windows, and boarded up buildings signal that a neighborhood is in decline. In the early 1980s, criminal justice profes- sionals advanced the idea that if a neighborhood simply cleaned up these signs of neglect, it could go a long way toward improving the way both citizens and criminals per- ceived the community. New York City subscribed to the same notion in the 1990s by cracking down on seemingly minor infractions such as graffiti painting, subway fare jumping, and wind- shield washing by panhandlers. In 2005, Michael Levine applied the idea to the corporate world in Bro- ken Windows, Broken Business, argu- ing that companies that do a good job of attending to their metaphori- cal broken windows often outper- form those that do not. We believe that business schools can benefit by applying the same concept to themselves. Administra- tors who promptly identify cracks in their foundations and repair their broken windows will increase both the actual and perceived quality of their business schools. Unfortu- nately, for many b-school insiders, the major challenge lies in seeing the cracks in the first place. Many schools suffer from what we term institutional myopia. This short-sightedness leads administra- tors to see and do things the way they've always been done. This behavior is particularly rampant in small regional schools, which are so prone to replicating their cultures that they don't realize how much they could grow if they would 70 BizEd SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 by Anthony F. Chelte and John Coulter expand their perspectives. But, in fact, institutional myopia is pervasive in all institutions of higher educa- tion, especially those where tenured faculty have no real incentives to identify areas that would benefit from change. Schools that suffer from institu- tional myopia exhibit one or more of these symptoms: n A lack of vision beyond their immediate region. n The tendency to settle for "good enough." n Little tolerance for change, with a strong culture built on preserving the status quo. n The tendency to follow proce- dure because that's the way some- thing has always been done. n Organizational processes that encourage people to lay blame instead of accept responsibility. n A culture of ambivalence, as opposed to one of accountability. These indicators are likely to manifest themselves in one of three areas: the strategic management of the school, the behavior of its partici- pants, and the process of determining assurance of learning. The Strategy Fundamentally, myopia strikes at the heart of a school's self-image. Since the mission statement pro- vides direction for decision making and continuous improvement activi- ties, a school that has defined its goals too narrowly is almost certain to become a victim of its own limi- tations. It's important for a school to have an image and an identity— but it's just as important that the school not allow that image to restrict its potential. For example, a college may see itself as a small teaching school. But this particular defining characteristic might preclude administrators from exploring meaningful opportunities, such as offering more international courses. Administrators also might be reluctant to revisit and revise the school's mission, fearing that if they overreach their stated ambitions, they might be penalized for failing to achieve them. Institutional myopia can lead to "paradigm paralysis." If admin- istrators are too paralyzed to con- sider new alternatives for expanding resources, the school won't have the wherewithal to launch new initia- tives. It will be stuck forever in its present incarnation. The People Institutional myopia can involve stu- dents, faculty members, and admin- istrators. Students are part of the problem when the school recruits them solely from the same regions where they've always been recruited. While this practice helps preserve the status quo, it also leads to a stagnant student body that matches previous demographics and exhibits the same level of academic ability. Administrators and faculty both show signs of myopia when they allow grade point averages to increase without a documented upgrade in student abilities. In this case, adminis- trators are guilty of complacency and a desire to show improvement in the school's quality—even when no such improvement exists. Faculty exhibit myopia in teach- ing when they do not stay current in their disciplinary knowledge and methods of content delivery. Faculty committed to continuous improvement will regularly update their course materials and pedagogy; conversely, instructors who hesitate