Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/59979
Those of us who know the issues, and who live with them every day, understand the shortcomings of management education that these authors address. Still, as leaders who operate b-schools in the trenches, we know that many of their solutions are impractical. We also know that the MBA and business education have never been stronger or more innovative than they are now, due to curricular revisions at business schools around the world. The question is:How can we continue this trend? How can we make improvements and implement changemost effectively as academic leaders— here, in the real world? The Rankings Reality Just as a CEO must create shareholder value, business school leaders are obligated to protect and enhance the quality and prestige of their schools to benefit their students, alumni, fac- ulty, staff, corporate partners, and society at large. Performing this duty—and performing it well—requires genuine concern for the institution and its long-term well-being. When the DeAngelos and Zimmerman characterize deans as driven by self-serving, short-sighted rankings myopia, they simply miss the mark. Like it or not, management education is a business, driven by market forces. Like it or not, we live in a world where consumers want and purchase school rankings, which is why the rankings have flourished. Like it or not, the rankings are a fundamental part of a school's reputation. They influence a school's capacity to attract top faculty, who in turn produce great research and provide excellent teaching. Yes, we could lean on top officials at the publications that sponsor rankings to persuade themto reconsider their criteria and methodology. We could beseech one another and the public to realize the nonsensical nature of using the rankings to judge a school's true benefit to its students and to the world. We could do so, but the impact of our efforts would beminimal. As long as there is market demand andmoney to be made for publications in the rankings, it's a fight we can- not win. The Truth About Research Bennis and O'Toole assert that the true problem with busi- ness schools lies not in the rankings, but in the scientific model business schools have adopted for their research. By relying solely on thismodel, they argue, business schools cater to the egos and research interests of faculty. In the process, they fail to teach future business leaders how to make good management decisions. All the authors, including theDeAngelos and Zimmerman, call for striking a balance between scientific and real-world 26 BizEd NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 teaching and research. Bennis and O'Toole state that, "In practice, business schools need a diverse faculty populatedwith professors who collectively hold a variety of skills and interests that cover territory as broad and deep as business itself." The DeAngelos and Zimmerman believe that "schoolsmust there- fore strike a balance between excessive vocationalism, on the one extreme, and pure science on the other." Their arguments are reasonable; but, at many schools, their proposed solutions are unnecessary. In fact, many busi- ness schools are doing exactly what these authors suggest and have been doing so for years. For example, in the 1990s, the University of Michigan Business School in Ann Arbor, now the Ross School of Business, implemented two curricular enhancements—the Executive Skills Program and the Multidisciplinary Action Program (MAP). Both programs provided students with an exceptional dose of hands-on, interactive learning and leadership skills development. This approach complemented the conceptual frameworks provided by Michigan's research-oriented faculty in the classroom. To implement these programs, school leaders focused not on rankings, but on relevance and excellence in business education, and on the need to effectively blend theory and practice. The Real Problem The fact that Michigan jumped four places, to No. 2 from No. 6, in the 1996 BusinessWeek rankings should not be held up as evidence of a rankings obsession. Rather, the improve- ment was the result of the University ofMichigan's curricular changes and its attention to relevant research and teaching. There are certainly other examples of business schools that have made positive changes, not as a rankings ploy, but as a way to better serve students, faculty, and recruiters. Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, for instance,