Following the steps of Pfeffer, Mintzberg and others, Profs. Bennis and O'Toole just joined the ranks of insider critics bashing the management education establishment (see their piece "How business schools lost their way" at HBR, May 2005). Management education may not be perfect, but the fatal flaws attributed by these authors may not only be unfair, they may provide support to current trends that threat to weaken what I consider one of the most important professional disciplines of our times. Here's a summary of some counterarguments by my colleague Prof. David Bowen and myself in an upcoming article discussing the professionalization of management education.Download jmecabrera_bowen.pdf
_____________________________
Bennis and O’Toole are right to advocate stronger ties
between management education and practice. But they make an unfair assessment of the achievements of business
education and research in the last decades. Even worse, if left unchecked, their recommendations may contribute to a
“de-professionalization” of management, quite the contrary to what they claim
to pursue.
Bennis and O’Toole erroneously circumscribe the scientific
method to what they call basic “academic disciplines” and exclude it from “professional
disciplines” like medicine, law or management. Yet, medical practice draws not just from scientific advances in the
basic disciplines, but from research in the very practice of the medical
profession. This is not very different from
what management scholars do when they test the effectiveness of a management
practice across firms in a given industry.
Professional practice is not incompatible with the
scientific method. Good science helps us
build and adjust a powerful toolset to the service of the practicing
professional. To reduce management to a
question of personal judgment not susceptible of scientific inquiry does not
only ignore the accumulation of relevant and informative research that is
available to date, it is also a disservice to the future quality of management
as a profession. Bennis and O’Toole do
make the disclaimer that not all science is to be ruled out, but their straw
man analysis of current management research risks being utilized to justify and
legitimize vocational versions of management education that will not contribute
to improving the service of business to society. Management research is relatively new and
immature compared with medical research. But this means that we need more and better research, not less.
The world’s leading accrediting body, AACSB now grants
schools significant flexibility to interpret research standards and instructor
qualifications. EFMD, its European
counterpart, has long recognized alternative ways to interpret “research”, perhaps
to accommodate the relatively low research productivity of the average European
school rather than to defend a still unclear alternative model of knowledge
creation and validation. Both these
moves may be weakening management as a profession, rather than strengthening
it.
Management
educators will surely benefit by engaging with professional managers. At Thunderbird (as in many other leading
business schools around the world) faculty members are encouraged (and
rewarded) to engage with corporations through executive education, advising and
case writing, in addition to their own academic (and unashamedly scientific)
research. The more connected instructors
are with real practice, the more relevant and useful their instruction will
be. But just like there is absolutely no
systemic incompatibility between rigor and relevance in management research,
there is no incompatibility either between solid research and engagement in
management practice. We need more of
both, not one at the expense of the other.
For management to grow as a true profession it needs, first
of all, a solid knowledge base that is both scientifically sound and instrumental
for practice, and this can and should be done through a variety of quantitative
and qualitative methods, multidisciplinary frameworks, grounded theory, case
research, validity generalization studies, etc.. Second, the management industry needs to protect
some minimum requirements for those interested in practicing it, by among other
things strengthening instruction and instructor accreditation standards for
business schools. And finally, the
management community (schools, accrediting bodies, scientific communities and
professional associations) needs to explicitly accept its overarching social
purpose and articulate a set of core values and principles. Management more than ever needs to build and
adopt its own “Hippocratic Oath” that will set its moral foundations of a true
professional discipline.