Journal of Management Development
Công bố khoa học tiêu biểu
* Dữ liệu chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
The purpose of this paper is to argue that recent changes in the wider contexts of universities and business schools signal a shift in their business model instead of a mere turn in their business cycle.
The paper reviews the position of those that hold a traditionalist view of the business model of business schools and comments on the extent to which such a model applies to the ever‐changing conditions that are a feature of the environment of institutions of higher learning.
The paper argues that the process of globalization augments the effects of five sector‐specific forces on the business model of business schools. Additionally, the paper identifies some structural factors that business schools might wish to address in order to cope with changes occurring in their wider environments.
In addition to structural measures, the paper proposes a number of specific actions that business schools may implement to maintain and/or gain competitive advantage.
This paper aims to review the evolution of management education primarily over the last 50 years and seeks to identify the challenges and lessons learned in management education and to assess the potential for change. To gain insight into these issues the authors draw on the perspectives of around 40 key individuals from academia, professional bodies, media, business and students.
The content of the paper is based upon a qualitative analysis of around 40 two‐to‐three hour interviews of key global players in the management education field.
The key stakeholders in management education are identified as students, business and employers respectively. But in terms of relative stakeholder influence faculty, business and students are the top three influencers. Faculty represent the supply‐side whereas business and students represent the demand side of management education. There is evidence that higher tuition fees may increase the power of students and business relative to faculty. The individuals who have had the greatest influence on management education are academics such as Mintzberg and Drucker rather than business school deans or administrators. Institutions such as INSEAD, IMD and Harvard have had the greatest influence. The main issues and challenges identified in Management Education include information technology, globalisation, the role of faculty, competition and business model performance. Few game changing innovations in curricula have occurred in management education raising the question of how change will occur in the future.
There are few in‐depth, open‐ended interview studies of key participants in the field of management education. It adds insights to a range of more reflective literature studies from writers such as Khurana, Mintzberg and Pfeffer.
The purpose of this paper is to further the debate on relevance in business education by sharing one business school's experiences.
A qualitative survey was carried out, reviewed by two independent collaborators. Conclusions drawn from interviews with more than 30 CEOs and HR Directors, from across all industries, provide findings on how business leaders think about higher education in business.
The results highlight their perspective regarding: how academic programs can add real value in business; what business schools should teach more; and what they should teach less in their MBA programs.
There was a limited sample size of 30 participants. Also. the research is used as a part of a case study being conducted about Business School Lausanne by Prof. Dr J.B.M. Kassarjian, Professor in Management at Babson College, Boston, USA.
A detailed account of an ambitious academic revision provides insights into how entrepreneurship can be applied and lived in the academic world.
This paper examines how a boutique business school in Switzerland has undertaken a profound program revision based on the input and perspectives of business leaders. It demonstrates how key learnings from personally‐conducted interviews were effectively translated into the school's MBA curriculum, thereby transforming not only the program but also the way the school interacts with program participants.
This article seeks to highlight the realities, myths and polarisation of western and Chinese management styles. The article establishes the need to develop an understanding of the underpinning culture and traditions which differentiate management styles. The article provides personal examples of the authors’ experience in straddling the cultural boundary of West and East. The article further advocates a model for establishing the training needs of western and Chinese managers in preparing them to deal with China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation. Internal disparity in China and Europe is briefly highlighted and the article suggests the need to focus on the potential for comparison in cross‐cultural negotiations and management. The article proposes a guiding principals model, which has been developed using three dimensions: “sense of belonging”, “culture and religion” and “management analysis and language”.
Reflects on the practical experience of the author in introducing competency‐based action learning into Australian public and private sector organizations. Contains a series of interviews with graduates of an action learning Masters programme in the Health industry. Suggests that early and consistent focus on participants′ self‐knowledge and self‐management significantly improves their learning ability, personal growth and management competence. Linkage between the project‐based experimental journey and with the consequent learning journey is both illustrated and discussed.
In the past 20 years, there has been a growing interest in the workings of Chinese management and organisation. Recent research has also focused on Chinese leadership. This paper examines an emerging issue uniquely important to the Chinese leadership setting – guanxi. A research process was initiated that included a ten‐case preliminary field study followed by a more extensive investigation of guanxi with 40 Chinese business leaders. Results revealed complex differences in the way guanxi is utilised in state‐owned and foreign‐invested enterprises. The differences are conceptualised using Falcione et al.’s notion of structuration, and developed into a “cross model” of guanxi usage.
The Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) has increasingly come to prioritise the provision of support to the development of public administration and public management in the Third World countries with which it co‐operates. This article by two of SIDA′s officials responsible for such support looks into issues which need to be taken into account when an international agency tries to provide support to improving public sector management. It considers the problems of institutional training and on‐the‐job training of managers, and proposes the conclusion that SIDA has drawn: that improving management has to be done through developing training institutions which also have a research and consultancy profile.
This paper aims to provide an overview of this special issue.
The guest editorial introduces the papers in this special issue, focusing on practical wisdom for management from the Chinese classical traditions.
Chinese culture increasingly will permeate international culture and move from peripheral to mainstream status. To ignore this in management education would be a grave oversight.
The issue offers insights into the value of practical wisdom from Confucianism, the origins of Chinese classical trditions and Daoism, and the various streams of thought within the classical Chinese traditions and their contemporary relevance.
This paper intends to shed some light on the relationship between leadership performance and corporate accomplishment through the aid of complexity sciences. The objective is to describe leadership performance in corporate accomplishment using different teleological approaches.
The paper discusses the underlying criteria of the relationship between leadership performance and corporate accomplishment. Case illustration and narrative analogy are also provided.
The authors believe that the discussion highlights a potential downside of leadership performance in corporate accomplishment and its precision rarely highlighted in practice and literature.
There is a reigning assumption in management practice that is based on the belief that a top‐down approach of leadership performance in management and business practices is superior to the bottom‐up approach. It proffers the assumed importance of strategic management issues, but neglects the knowledge, experience, competence and awareness inherent among employees at tactical and operational levels of business practices. It also proffers a mechanical view of employee performance and ignores the worth of the generation of ideas from subordinates in management and business practices that contribute to corporate achievements. Furthermore, it neglects the fact that it is not possible to know the future nor it is predictable.
The paper contends that the importance of top management tends to be inflated in respect to corporate achievements in the management/leadership literature. It also contends that it should be questioned as to whether the top management of corporations are largely responsible for the corporate results on which they attempt to justify their salaries and other benefits. Furthermore, the paper contends that it also should be questioned as to what extent corporate accomplishment may be derived from the performance of the top management in organizations.
The paper strives to contribute to the ongoing discussion of leadership performance in corporate accomplishment in various ways. The principal contributions are: a set of teleological sub‐processes of leadership performance and a case illustration and narrative analogies of teleological leadership performance patterns, in respect to corporate accomplishment in management and business practices. These contributions provide theoretical and managerial ideas and insights to anticipate and avoid deficient or erroneous grounds of leadership performance evaluation in corporate accomplishment.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 10