© Academy of Management Review
1997 Vol. 22, No. 2, 335-345.
1996 Presidential Address
REAFFIRMING OUR SCHOLARLY VALUES
i
r,;
RICHARD T. MOWDAY
University of Oregon
.
Perhaps the title ol my Presidential Address will strike some of you
as rather uninspired. In the context of our annual meeting, it may even
border on demonstrating a reassuring grasp of the commonplace. After
all, what is our annual meeting if not a celebration of scholarship and a
reaffirmation of our scholarly values? If I'm wrong about this, I have a lot
to explain to my family about why I've disappeared for one week each
August for the past 20 years.
The reason I have chosen this title is that I believe reaffirming our
scholarly values—although clearly important in and of itself—takes on
special significance in the broader context of the changing environment
and challenges confronting business education. Business schools—and,
by implication, each of us—are being challenged to change in a number
of important ways. We are being asked to expand our roles as faculty
members and to make greater contributions in a variety of different areas.
These demands have taken on a new sense of urgency with the publication
of the Task Force Report on Faculty Leadership by the American Assembly
of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), a report I'll refer to later.
In this address, I touch on two important themes. First, what are the
implications of the changing environment of business education for our
scholarly values? Do the changes taking place in our environment pose
a fundamental threat to our scholarly values? Alternatively, do they provide an opportunity for us to reaffirm our scholarly values? Second, what
are the implications of the changing environment of business education
for the Academy of Management? What is the role of the Academy of
Management as a professional faculty association in shaping the future
of business education? Presently, our association is not a key player.
Should the Academy of Management get involved and, if so, how?
THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS EDUCATION
That business education is undergoing fundamental changes might
have been a third theme of this address, but it almost seems too obvious
to mention. Beginning with the landmark report by Porter and McKibben
sponsored by the AACSB (Porter & McKibben, 1988), the need for members
of business schools to reexamine their roles has been actively discussed.
Porter and McKibben's report was a wakeup call for business schools and.
335
336
Academy ol Management Review
April
if anything, the pressures for change have intensified since its publication.
Moreover, this report has had a tremendous influence in initiating and
shaping the debate about the role of business schools and the adequacy
with which they are serving their constituencies. At a minimum, I suspect
there are a lot of us who have logged many more hours on curriculum
revision and strategic planning committees as a consequence of the report
than would otherwise have been the case. Thanks a lot. Port.
The current pressures facing business schools and faculty members
have been nicely summarized by Michael Moore and Michael Diamond
in a report prepared for the Ernst & Young Foundation Strategic Planning
Partnership (Moore & Diamond, 1996). I will not go into their analysis in
depth; however, they reported that business education is facing a period of
unprecedented competitive pressures. In describing the pressures driving
industry competition, Moore and Diamond suggested:
[T]here are relatively low entry barriers for new providers of
business education services and that there is an increasing
array of substitute educational vehicles for the traditional campus-based classroom setting. Additionally, there are high exit
barriers for existing business education programs. Although
it is feasible to drop specific programs and majors, it is uncommon to close a business school, whether publicly or privately
funded. So, while competition and substitutes whittle away at
the market shares of existing business education programs, the
increasing bargaining power of their customers and supplies
sustains the pressures to hold down prices even in the face
of rising costs. When we add to this formula the new demographics of the college-going population, and the declining
popularity of the business major, we find many business
schools faced with stagnation or even significant shrinkage in
enrollments. The result is excess capacity in current business
programs and intensive competition for student, employer and
donor attention. (1996: 2-2)
•
.
•
J .? .
This competition has been intensified by the business school rankings
published annually by Business Week and U. S. News and World Repoit.
Who among us works in a business school in which these annual rankings
are not a hot topic of discussion and concern, whether initiated by the dean,
the business advisory council, alumni, or students? Jim March reminds us
that when we lost the ability to rank business schools to the business
press, so ended the stable order of things we have enjoyed for so many
years (Schmotter, 1995). He also noted that the power of the research faculty
in business schools has diminished as a result. We can argue about the
validity of the business school rankings based on their methodology, but
few can deny that the rankings of business schools by the business press
have political significance that few schools can ignore.
An industry characterized by high exit and low entry barriers, easy
substitutability, and price and cost pressures? You don't have to be a
strategy professor to realize that these pressures—alone and in combination—pose a significant threat. Lest we think that this is an idle threat or
19g7
Mowday
337
something created by the business school deans to get the attention of
the faculty, it is useful to remind ourselves that the competitive pressures
are real. From 1968 to 1996, the number of corporate universities has grown
from around 400 to 1000. Although these corporate universities used to be
found primarily in the high technology industry, they now are found in
industries as diverse as financial services and health care (Newsline, 1996).
Another indication that we are under intense pressure to change
comes from within our industry. The AACSB recently released the report
of the Faculty Leadership Task Force. If you have not yet read this report—
and I suspect many of you have not—I recommend that you obtain a copy.
The report suggests that a number of symptoms reflect the underlying
problems of business schools. Among the symptoms and problems discussed in the report are (a) the lack of real world experience ol faculty
and the irrelevance of our research and courses; (b) new technology
being developed that the faculty is unfamiliar with and slow to adopt;
(c) the changing demographics of the faculty, including a bulge in senior
faculty members who are resistant to change. Regarding this last point,
the authors of the report consider that lack of a mandatory retirement age
and the absence of post-tenure reviews as exacerbating the problems.
The major problems confronting business schools are summarized in
the problem definition found in the report:
[T]he primary problem is that faculty skills are not aligned with
the rapidly changing needs oi business. Over time, business
practice has advanced rapidly (e.g., TQM, reengineering, cycle
time reduction, diversity in the work force, customer satisfaction incentives, global strategy and managing technology).
Although school and faculty competencies have advanced, the
gap between practice and academic research and teaching
has widened. The lack of business interaction, changing technologies, aging faculty and shortage of incentives to change
have inhibited faculty initiative to change that is necessary
to keep pace with a rapidly changing environment. Faculty
should be leading the next generation of industry knowledge
and practice, but in some schools this is not the case. (A Report
of the Faculty Leadership Task Force, 1996: 4)
In the report the authors make a number of specific recommendations,
including (a) developing closer links to business and technology, (b) improving faculty skill levels, (c) improving pedagogy and the learning environment, (d) revising Ph.D. program requirements, and (e) forming partnerships with professional and discipline-based organizations.
These are probably not words that any of us care to hear. If one wished,
there is certainly room to be critical of the AACSB task force report. The
report calls for faculty leadership, but aren't the business school deans
who belong to the AACSB the very people who are paid high salaries to
provide the kind of leadership the report implies is not coming from the
faculty? My own dean described the report as mildly offensive to business
school faculty. I questioned whether "mildly" was the appropriate adjective.
338
Academy of Management Review
April
In both conversations and written correspondence with the AACSB
personnel, I have been critical of the task force report. It is important to
note, however, that my criticism lies less with the report's major conclusions and recommendations than with the manner in which they were
developed and communicated. In fact, I find myself mainly, but not completely, in agreement with the report's conclusions and recommendations.
In important respects, they don't strike me as much different from some
of the recommendations made by Porter and McKibben, years earlier.
My concern is that the report seems to lay the problems facing business schools solely in the lap of the faculty. If challenges exist, I think
they are shared by the deans, business community, and faculty. Moreover,
if we are to form a successful partnership in meeting these challenges, it
can't begin with one group pointing the finger of blame at another group.
I also have been critical about the role of the faculty in writing the report.
One would have thought that the AACSB would have designed a process
in which the faculty had a meaningful role in the discussion and debate
from the outset. After all, successful implementation of the task force
recommendations is unlikely without widespread acceptance by the faculty. Implying we are a bunch of aging old geezers, whose sole mission
in life is to resist change, may not help in that respect. Of course, I could
be wrong about that.
IMPUCATIONS FOR OUR SCHOLARLY VALUES
As I suggested, the challenges and pressures for change faced by
business schools are great. What are the implications for our scholarly
values? On the one hand, we can view the pressures as a threat to our
scholarly values. On the other hand, the challenges we face might be
viewed as a golden opportunity to reaffirm our scholarly values. My personal belief is more consistent with the latter perspective than with the
former one. This may strike some as Pollyana-ish or naive in the extreme.
However, the perspective one takes on this question may depend on what
we mean by scholarship and scholaily values. Whether we define scholarship very narrowly, or more broadly, is critical in this regard.
I would argue, as have previous Presidents of the Academy, that our
definition of scholarship has narrowed over time. For many, scholarship
has come to represent publishing research in refereed journals rather
than the broader search for and dissemination and application of new
knowledge. I was struck by a conversation I once overheard between two
colleagues, one of whom had just returned from a sabbatical. When asked
how the sabbatical had gone, my colleague replied that it went great;
he'd gotten a couple of "hits." Of course, by hits he was referring to having
several journal articles published. One can think of a number of ways my
colleague might have described his successful sabbatical. He could have
reflected on the exciting research questions he investigated or he could
have talked about the intellectually stimulating research findings he uncovered. Instead, it all boiled down to "hits."
1997
Mowday
339
In an important monograph entitled Scholarship Revisited, Ernst Boyer
argued for a broader and more inclusive definition of scholarship (Boyer,
1990). He suggested that scholarship is really defined by four separate but
overlapping functions. The scholarship of discovery includes our traditional role as researchers to contribute to the stock of human knowledge
and to the intellectual climate of our universities. The scholarship of integration includes the importance of giving meaning to isolated facts by
integrating them and putting them in perspective. It involves "serious,
disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new
insight to bear on original research" (1990: 19). The scholarship of application challenges us to apply our knowledge in useful and meaningful ways.
In Boyer's words (1990: 21), "How can knowledge be responsibly applied
to consequential problems?" Finally, the scholarship of teaching focuses
on the crucial role of disseminating knowledge to others. Teaching both
educates and stimulates future scholars, and engages us too as learners.
Boyer (1990: 24) concluded by saying:
,
What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what
it means to be a scholar—a recognition that knowledge is
acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching.
I couldn't agree more about the need to broaden our definition of
scholarship. Boyer's definition is more inclusive of the many roles each
of us is called upon to play at different stages of our careers. Moreover,
it legitimizes the different roles instead of perpetuating the myth that
some roles are more important than others.
If you think about this in the context of the challenges facing business
education, Boyer's arguments place scholarship and scholarly values at
the center of what we as faculty members are being asked to contribute.
Recommendations that faculty develop closer links to business and technology, and improve pedogogy and learning, are consistent with the
broader view of scholarship that Boyer advocates. Moreover, if you accept
this broader view of scholarship, the recommendations that follow from
groups like the AACSB are less likely to be viewed as a threat than as
an opportunity to reaffirm our scholarly values.
I want to be perfectly clear about where I stand on this question. I
personally welcome the challenges facing business education. Confronting these challenges holds the promise of causing us to learn and grow
as individuals, increase our contributions as professionals, and allow us
to more comprehensively fulfill our role as scholars.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT
Let me turn to my second theme: What are the implications of the
changing business environment for the Academy of Management? I'm
sad to report that the world may be passing this organization by. In the
important debates that are taking place about the future of business edu-
340
Academy o/ Management Review
April
cation, the Academy of Management has not held a meaningful role.
In many respects, we are an insulated organization. This is not a new
observation. We have recognized our insulation with respect to the international arena and with respect to the impact of our work on the broader
business community (cf. Hambrick, 1993). Efforts to internationalize the
Academy and to hire a public relations firm to make our research more
accessible to the general public can be viewed as efforts to overcome our
insulation. Clearly, more work is needed.
With respect to the changing business school environments, however,
we remain insulated. As an organization, for example, the Academy of
Management has no relationships with other faculty professional associations. Similarly, we have only weak links to the AACSB and to the Graduate
Management Admission Council (GMAC). Our links to business, although
sometimes strong at an individual level, are nonexistent at the institutional level.
What alternatives does the Academy of Management have in the face
of the mounting pressures for change in business education? I believe our
organization has at least three options. First, we can hunker down and
hope that it all goes away. A "wait-and-see" attitude does have an attraction. A person I met recently at the annual meeting of the GMAC helped
me understand the logic of following this strategy. In his opinion—and
certainly not one shared widely in this room—the attention span of the
average business school dean makes a ten-year-old on sugar look focused
by comparison. In the movie "Field of Dreams," the mysterious voice advised Kevin Costner: "If you build it, he will come." The corollary of a
wait-and-see strategy might be: "If you ignore, they will forget."
Our second alternative might be to go on the offensive. Just as the
AACSB has been highly critical of the faculty, we can deny the fundamental premises underlying their report and aggressively take issue with the
very need for change. This strategy suggests we go to the barricades,
fighting the deans tooth and nail down to the last piece of chalk or computer disk, whichever comes first. This alternative also has a certain attraction. Don't we approach this potential fight from a position of strength
because we have the authority of science on our side? The authority of
science in public debates reminds me of a charming story told by Steven
Hawking in his book, A Brief Histoiy of Time (1988: 1):
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once
gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the
earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits
around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of his lecture, a little old lady at the back of the
room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The
world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.' The scientist gave a superior smile before replying:
'What is the tortoise standing on?' 'You're very clever, young
man, very clever,' said the old lady, 'but it's turtles all the
way down.'
So much for the authority of science to the general public.
;
1997
Mowday
341
Our third option is to recognize that the challenges we face are real
and that the Academy of Management has an important and positive role
to play in increasing the effectiveness of business education.
In my opinion, the first ivfo alternatives—hunkering down and going
on the offensive—pose significant risks. If the AACSB is serious, and my
friend's assessment of the attention span of deans is wrong, the threat we
face is real. The AACSB has a potential array of powerful allies: the
business community, state legislatures, parents, and students. Moreover,
the AACSB has some formidable weapons at their command. To name
just one, they are moving very aggressively to include doctoral programs
in the accreditation process. Doctoral programs are both close to our hearts
as scholars and at the heart of our scholarly values. Bringing doctoral
programs under the umbrella of the accreditation process is a powerful
way to shape who and what we are. How many business schools are
prepared to lose their accreditation over the question of whether our Ph.D.
students should take one more course in research methodology or more
interdisciplinary coursework in accounting, finance, and marketing? This
is not a fight we are likely to win, nor is it one in which I believe we
should engage.
Some may argue that whatever the Academy's purpose as an organization, it's not to engage in debates over the future of business education.
We are a scholarly organization, and we should stand above such mundane considerations. However, our constitution clearly states that our
primary objective is "[T]o foster the general advancement of research,
learning, teaching, and practice in the field of management and to encourage the extension and unification of knowledge pertaining to management." If we take our constitution seriously, it suggests that questions
concerning the future of business education, at least as they relate to
management, are central to our purpose. For those who remain skeptical,
let me ask you a simple question: Do you leally want to trust the deans
on this one?
It should be clear that I prefer the third alternative. I believe the
Academy of Management should play a positive, proactive, and influential
role in the ongoing debate about the future of business education. Not
only do I believe that it is in our vital interests to become engaged in
discussions about change, but I also think we have important contributions
to make in shaping the future directions of business.
Let me give just one example of how I believe we can make a useful
contribution to the ongoing debate. In the AACSB Task Force Report, reference is made to the "trade off" between rigor and relevance in faculty
research. In fairness, I don't think that's what they meant to say. However,
positioning rigor and relevance as opposite ends of a continuum is common in popular criticisms of business schools and faculty research. I
believe what we have to contribute is a constant reminder to anyone who
will listen that relevance without rigor is meaningless. Again turning to
Jim March, he reminds us that "Good scholarship is relevant, and bad
342
Academy of Management Review
April
scholarship is not" (Schmotter, 1995: 3). It is precisely because of our scholarly values that we have an important and positive contribution to make.
As I noted, though, the Academy of Management may not be positioned
to become an influential player in shaping the future of business education. We have taken several initiatives this year to change this fact. First,
the Board ol Governors has been engaged in a strategic planning process.
Before we can play an important role in the changing environment of
business education, we have to understand the environment and the
changes that are taking place.
Second, I have contacted the Presidents of the other faculty professional associations in an effort to build communication lines between our
organizations. Creating strategic alliances with our faculty colleagues
in the other associations may present interesting opportunities for the
Academy. This effort has met with only limited success to date. Although
our accounting and finance colleagues have expressed an interest in talking, I've yet to hear from other groups.
Third, I personally contacted both the AACSB and GMAC to express
our interest in becoming more involved as an organization. I should note
that a major recommendation of the Task Force on Faculty Leadership
was that the AACSB invite the faculty associations to be partners in the
discussion. Right before leaving my office for our annual meeting, I was
contacted by the AACSB about a meeting that will bring the various organizations concerned about business education together. It is a meeting that
I strongly encourage officers of the Academy to attend. I have also been
contacted by David Wilson, President and CEO of GMAC, to learn more
about our organization and to explore ways we might have greater cooperation.
Finally, with the help of Jack Viega and Kathy Dechant, Nancy Urbanowicz and I visited The Conference Board last fall to explore areas of mutual
interest. Although a relationship with The Conference Board may be a
long shot and would take time to develop, there appear to be several
areas in which our interests converge. The Conference Board has access
to the current generation of top-level business executives. What we have
to offer is access to the next generation of business executives who sit
before us in our classrooms. We would benefit from access to The Conference Board's members and the Board may be interested in access to our
students. That sounds to me like an interesting opportunity for a mutually
rewarding partnership. I'm not sure The Conference Board is the right
organization for a partnership, but it is an example of the types of partnerships we might explore.
One of the important priorities I had when I assumed the Presidency
of the Academy was to position our organization to play a more influential
role in shaping the future of business education. This will take time and
much work remains. However, I think clear progress has been made. We
have initiated a strategic planning process that will help position the
Academy for the future. In fact, I would like to invite all who are interested
19g7
Movrday
343
to become involved in this process by attending one of the Vision Task
Forces meeting tomorrow afternoon. The Vision Task Forces are an attempt
to broaden our strategic planning process beyond the Board of Governors.
Our goal is to include a s many members a s we can in discussions about
our future. Moreover, taking the initial steps to develop strategic alliances
with other organizations interested in improving business education may
pay important dividends down the road.
Change is never easy. Perhaps that is symbolized by a story told of
two radio voices speaking to each other at sea:
Voice 1 Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid
a collision.
Voice 2 Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to South to
T
:5;;
avoid a collision. ,•'•:: v\::«;i: ^>v-;:
Voice 1 This is the Captain of a U.S. Navy ship. I say again, divert
YOUR course.
Voice 2 No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Voice 1 THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER ENTERPRISE. WE ARE A
VERY LARGE WARSHIP OF THE U.S. NAVY. DIVERT YOUR
COURSE NOW!
Voice 2 This is a lighthouse. Your call.
This story illustrates that it is always a challenge to change course, to
look where you are and to decide where you really should be going. The
challenges we face and the pressures for change are daunting, but it
is important to recognize that the environment of business education is
changing a n d that we have a positive leadership role to play in shaping
the future.
In confronting the challenges of the future, we should not forget how
far we have come in increasing the effectiveness of business education.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Warren Bennis's description of the
state of business education in the 1950s (Bennis, 1966: 182):
•'
In American universities—the less said about European universities, the better—business education, where it did exist,
was disreputable, non- or antiscientific. It provided a haven
for fools, adventurers, and the anemic heirs of industrialists
who needed a college degree on the minimum of brains and
the maximum of tuition, and it was taught as conventional
wisdom cum moral uplift by successful, and hopefully, inspirational practitioners. Business education ranked in the academic hierarchy somewhere between football and a curiously
indigenous American course known colloquially as home economics, a curriculum cocktail of cooking, etiquette, and good
housekeeping.
Clearly, we have m a d e tremendous strides in business education. That
we face challenges today does not call into question our accomplishments
344
Academy of Management Review
April
of the past. Instead, it merely reminds us that in a world where our environment is changing, we also need to change to keep pace.
As we confront the pressures on business education, we should not
lose sight of what is best about business schools. For me, what is best
are the scholarly values we bring to our roles. In making their recommendations for change in business schools. Porter and McKibben (1988) warned
there is a real danger that the pendulum will swing too far in the other
direction. It is an admonition worth taking to heart. We want to build on
our strengths, not weaken our distinctive competence.
In closing, let me say that being President of the Academy of Management has been an honor. And it has almost always been a pleasure. I
leave office impressed by the dedication and commitment of the many
Academy members, and our staff members, who make this organization
so successful and belonging personally rewarding. It is the dedication,
commitment, and talents of our members that leave me very optimistic
about our future and the leadership role that the Academy of Management
can play in business education.
I said that being President was almost always a pleasure. All of us
who have served in this role have faced the Presidential Luncheon Address
with a certain degree of anxiety. In fact, I was talking with Mary Ann Von
Glinow about this the other day. She mentioned that her first thought after
learning of her election as Vice President and Program Chair was, "Oh
no, the Presidential Address." Her speech would not take place until four
years later, but she worried about it from the outset. So did I.
So to conclude, let me quote Yogi Berra on an occasion that also called
for him to make a speech: "I want to thank everyone who made this
day necessary."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Reflecting back on my year as President, there are far more people
to thank than the constraints imposed by a short acknowledgment allow.
Let me just say that I was fortunate to follow a President as outstanding
as Mary Ann Von Glinow because I could bask in her reflected accomplishments. And I am blessed to be followed by a President as talented as
Michael Hitt because he will clean up all the messes I've left. Working
with Nancy Urbanowicz and her staff in Briarcliff Manor has been an
absolute pleasure. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the support of my wife,
Mary, sons, Graham and Garrett, and faithful dog, Sophie, who paid the
price for all the travel and long hours in the office. Having me around the
house more often may be a mixed blessing for my family, but Sophie will
enjoy the walks.
REFERENCES
A report of the AACSB faculty leadership task force. April 1966. St Louis: American Assembly
of Collegiate Schools oi Business.
1997
;
• : :
Mowday
345
Bennis, W. 1966. Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hambrick, D. 1994. 1993 Presidential address: What if the Academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19: 11-16.
Hawking, S. 1988. A brief history of time. New York: Bantam Books.
Moore, M. R., & Diamond, M. A. January 1996. The challenge of change in business education.
New York: Ernst & Young Foundation.
Newsline. Spring 1996. The corporate university boom: B-school threat or opportunity? St.
Louis: American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 25(3).
Porter, L. W., & McKibben, L. E. 1988. Management education and deveiopmenf: Drift or thrust
into the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schmotter, J. W. Winter 1995. An interview with professor James G. March. Selections. McLean,
VA: Graduate Management Admissions Council, 11{2).