J Management Studies 2004 Starkey Rethinking The Business School

14676486, 2004, 8, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00485.x by Addis Ababa Uni, Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Management Studies 41:8 December 2004
0022-2380
Rethinking the Business School*
Ken Starkey, Armand Hatchuel and Sue Tempest

University of Nottingham; École des mines de Paris; University of Nottingham
 It is ironic that at a moment in history when the business school seems to
be enjoying unparalleled success, the role of the business school is being increasingly
questioned by some of its leading professors. We examine the debate about the
business school and its evolution. While sympathetic to the criticisms levied against
the business school we nevertheless suggest a positive future if the business school can
build upon its potentially unique position as knowledge space.
INTRODUCTION
The growth of the business school is one of the most important issues for the future
of higher education. In some ways, the business school has been the major success
story in the university in the last quarter of a century, if we measure this in terms
of the growth in demands for its services. But this success has consequences. Pfeffer
and Fong (2002) are to be congratulated for having brought the issue of the future
of the business school to the forefront of our thinking.
In the USA it was during the period after the second world war that the best
and the brightest chose degrees in business. In Europe this phenomenon has been
more recent. As the publicly funded university has been increasingly ‘marketized’
(Kirp, 2003), the consumers of higher education – ‘students’ in the old vernacu-
lar – have chosen with their wallets and opted for business rather other traditional
degree subjects. The MBA has emerged as the only global degree in the sense that
its model of education is relatively homogeneous worldwide (Mintzberg, 2004).
Business schools have proliferated and continue to grow at a rate faster than any
other part of the university.
In Europe, and in the UK in particular, the business school is the cash cow in
a university system increasingly squeezed of cash from the public purse. Overseas
Address for reprints: Ken Starkey, Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham,
Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK (kenneth.starkey@nottingham.ac.uk).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
14676486, 2004, 8, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00485.x by Addis Ababa Uni, Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1522 K. Starkey et al.
students flock to the UK to study for degrees in business and management, to the
extent that the financial health of many UK universities is heavily dependent upon
this activity, and, particularly, on the premium-priced MBA. If Pfeffer and Fong
(2002) are to be believed, the role of the UK business school will be to offer an
outmoded education to UK managers of the future and to export this model to
the developing world! And this is not just a UK issue. The figures continue to rise
in the UK and throughout the world (Okazaki-Ward, 2001). In Australia 33 per
cent of students in higher education are studying for business degrees.
Pfeffer and Fong’s (2004) contribution to this Point-counterpoint is also to be wel-
comed as it draws attention to what we too consider the main issue in the debate
about the business school. To use business school terminology – what is the busi-
ness school’s value-added? Here we share Pfeffer and Fong’s concerns. Is the busi-
ness school primarily about career and salary enhancements, factors that dictate
the position of the business school in the league tables of business performance?
Or is the business school to be considered as a social institution, a key player in
the history of the evolution of a revolutionary new idea and ideal – the profession
of management?
What we would like to contribute to this Point-counterpoint is a perspective that
sets the debate about the role of the business school in the context of debates about
the role of the university and the changing nature of knowledge production. For
us, the key question is what can the business school offer that cannot be found else-
where. We aim, in our contribution to the debate, to suggest a positive, albeit ten-
tative, image of the future of the business school as an arena in which the technical
and socio-cultural perspectives necessary for the exercise of the profession of man-
agement are developed and transmitted to students and society through business
school research and education.
IS THERE A CASE FOR THE BUSINESS SCHOOL?

Pfeffer and Fong do an excellent job in marshalling the case against the business
school which stands accused on two major counts: its contribution to knowledge
creation through research; and its contribution to management education through
teaching. On the knowledge front business schools are found wanting due to lack
of impact and relevance. This state of affairs has been much debated in the busi-
ness school community, with key contributions from Hambrick (1993) and from
Pfeffer (1995) himself.
As far as its educational contribution is concerned, the business school is again
found wanting – for a slavish commitment to narrow business values that has led
to a compromising of academic values and because the business school is con-
spicuously failing to generate critical thought and inquiry about business and
management. The business school has also been criticized because it lacks
practice fields. Mintzberg (2004) has been a long-time critic of the MBA degree,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004
Rethinking the Business School 1523
for privileging facts and case histories at the expense of experience and
knowledge grounded in practice. Business schools emphasize analysis rather than
synthesis.
This raises the question of whether we should be looking elsewhere for the man-
agers of the future, to the other social sciences or even to the arts and humanities,
or to providers outside the academy. The alternative is to experiment with differ-
ent forms of education provision within the business school, geared to developing
skills in reflective, collaborative, and analytic thinking as well as action mindsets
that enable managers to negotiate the complex tensions that exist between the con-
ceptual and the concrete (Mintzberg and Gosling, 2002).
There are also important questions about the models and values of manage-
ment that emanate from the business school. The business school champions the
interest of shareholder value at the expense of social capital (Putnam, 2000). Busi-
ness school research that has most impacted practice has been around financial
management – CAPM, efficient markets, options pricing – and the diffusion of
this ‘knowledge’ into practice via the medium of the MBA has been a major factor
in the market for mergers and acquisitions, leveraged buy-outs, the dot-com
bubble, the activities of management consulting firms, and, latterly, Enron (Salbu,
2002). The business school is judged ethically compromised because the values it
espouses have been implicated in recent corporate scandals, a point we return to
later.
ON THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS?

It is difficult, in the light of the case that Pfeffer and Fong make, to argue for the
business school in its current configuration. Here we try and play angel’s advocate
to argue the case for a reconfigured business school.
What different scenarios for the business school suggest themselves? One can
imagine a scenario of little change, the future as extended extrapolation of the
present with business as usual. Despite Pfeffer and Fong’s misgivings, US schools
muddle through. In Europe there is steady growth in demand. In the rest of the
world demand continues to rise on a steepening curve. New markets open up, in
Continental Europe, and, particularly, in the Far East. The key question here is
the degree to which the embracing of the US model of business school practice
can provide the intellectual capital to aid the development of regional and national
economies. If Pfeffer and Fong are right, and we see no major reason to disagree
with their analysis, then this is, at best, an untested assumption. But the crunch is
delayed because demand remains buoyant.
Alternatively we can imagine a change for the ‘worse’. (Whether you see this
change as good or bad depends on a number of factors!) This scenario might take
a number of forms. Pfeffer and Fong are proved right. The business school ideal
is increasingly seen as educationally, culturally and ethically bankrupt. We see a
sharp erosion of its basis for competitive advantage as other providers enter the
education arena. Corporate universities grow. Management consultants take over
management education and training. And demand plummets. Business studies
goes the way of Sociology in the UK after the heady days of demand in the 1960s.
Interest wanes.
Or we suddenly see a ‘change for the better’?! Here we agree with Pfeffer and
Fong that one can imagine, improbable as some might think it, a future in which
the business school plays a growing and influential role in developing knowledge,
as a reflective and reflexive site for inquiry about business and management. To
make this possible, we agree wholeheartedly with Pfeffer and Fong that business
schools of the future will need to rediscover their roots as university departments
and to become more like academic entities. The core competence of the acade-
mic department, we would argue, is the disinterested search for knowledge. In
today’s world, this will need to be knowledge that is seen to be relevant to the needs
of individuals and society. This raises the issue of the role of the business school
in knowledge creation appropriate to changing business conditions.
We have argued elsewhere that we need a different vision of business and of
research and teaching for a new era (Hatchuel and Glise, 2004; Starkey and
Tempest, 2004). Our argument is that the business school and management
research has a potentially central role to play in the context of a knowledge society
where education, training and research are core processes of social and economic
change. The current configuration of the business school implies that manage-
ment concepts and principles are well established. This assumption is embodied
in the MBA curriculum. Business reality suggests otherwise.
In an era when intensive innovation has become the prime driver of competi-
tive advantage, current models of management research and education lack a
model that adequately deals with the collective learning and un-learning neces-
sary for such innovation (Hatchuel and Glise, 2004). The important research ques-
tion here is: Can we invent new models in tune with our changing times? The
industrial revolution was driven by entrepreneurs who were also scientists and
philosophers (Uglow, 2002). This suggests that we need forms of knowledge that
span the scientific, the technological and the cultural.
New management models have never been created in the academy. The flow
of management knowledge tends to move from practice back to the academy and
not vice versa. This suggests that we need new research strategies that break down
the barriers between theory and practice, strategies based upon co-production
(Starkey and Madan, 2001; Jacob and Hellström, 2000). Management research,
like any other R&D, can only benefit from partnerships between the academy and
companies (Shani and Docherty, 2003). ‘This form of collective learning is in itself
emblematic of . . . new models of management. It is a sign of consistency that the
form of research advocated corresponds to the type of management model we
look forward to developing’ (Hatchuel and Glise, 2004, p. 20), i.e. collaborative
research betokens the forms of collective action we would espouse in our educa-
tion of effective professional managers.
The business school, like any educational enterprise, is engaged in issues of
socio-cultural design. Implicitly or explicitly it reflects in its practices an answer to
the questions: how have we become what we are and what possibilities of cultural
development are open to us (Owen, 1994)? One cannot isolate the business school
from the key questions of modernity – questions of meaning and of justice (Bern-
stein, 1995). The business school has, for better or worse, been complicit in the
shaping of new forms of practice and new social and mental habit integrated in
new forms of economic production and organization (Thrift, 1997). The MBA
graduate has been criticized as an undesirable mutation in the university world.
Leavitt (1989, p. 39) argues that the MBA degree ‘distorts’ those subjected to it
into ‘critters with lopsided brains, icy hearts and shrunken souls’. The MBA has
been identified by Bloom (1987, pp. 369–70) as a critical indicator of the closing
of the American mind’, ‘a great disaster . . . a diploma that is not a mark of schol-
arly achievement’.
The MBA has also been implicated in ‘enron-itis’. One of Enron’s lauded HR
practices was to recruit the best MBAs from the best schools – the best and the
brightest (Hamel, 2001). But what these recruits lacked was a broader perspective
of the role of business. ‘Too often we turn out ambitious, intelligent, driven, skilled
over-achievers with one underdeveloped aptitude. Too many of the business
leaders we graduate are hitting the ground running, but we have forgotten to help
them to build their moral muscles’ (Salbu, 2002, p. xiv). Again, it is ironic that a
major focus for criticism of Pfeffer and Fong’s (2002) paper was its assertion that
the MBA was not a good financial investment for its students!
Krugman (2003) sees a clear link between the theories of professors of corpo-
rate finance and what he calls the ‘great unravelling’ in corporate life of the last
quarter of a century. He blames this on the management theory taught in busi-
ness schools, with the result that ‘corporate America embraced its inner Gekko.
Or as Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago’s business school put it: “We
are all Henry Kravis now” . . . And no, we’re not talking about a few bad apples’
(Krugman, 2003, pp. 110–11). Ivan Boesky’s famous ‘greed is good speech’,
reprised in Irving Stone’s film Wall Street by the corporate raider Gordon Gekko,
was delivered to the Stanford MBA class. Krugman’s critique fits well with current
criticisms of the American business model to the extent that this reflects values of
unrestrained self interest, individualism, market fundamentalism, minimal state,
low taxation and other forms of economic dogma that are purveyed as truisms
rather than as working hypotheses (Kay, 2003).
Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2003, p. xii) develops a com-
plementary argument of the shortcomings of the market economy: ‘The intellec-
tual foundations of laissez-faire economics, the view that markets by themselves
will lead to efficient, let alone fair, outcomes, has been stripped away . . . Today,
the challenge is to get the balance right, between the state and the market, between
collective action at the local, national, and global levels, and between government
and non-governmental action’ (Stiglitz, 2003, p. xii). The business school is a prime
site where this challenge needs to be addressed.
THE BUSINESS SCHOOL AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY

The modern idea of the university was developed in Europe in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth century at a time when the university was on the brink of
extinction. The university at the time was seen as the last bastion of the ancient
regime and, as such, resistant to the need for the kind of revolutionary change that
was sweeping through society. Other players, radical salons and other professional
schools, seemed far more attuned to the intellectual needs of the day. Yet the uni-
versity was able to reinvent itself and became ‘the embodiment of modernity,
science and democracy’ (Nowotny et al., 2001, p. 94).
By the twentieth century the university had become the key knowledge-
production site in Europe and in North America, what Kerr (2001) calls the ‘City
of Intellect’, with the rise in eminence of the research university. The last half
century has seen major changes and disruptions. For Kerr the two major changes
have been universal access for students and the shift in faculty purpose from teach-
ing to research. The business school has been heavily impacted by both these
changes. Growth in student numbers has been accompanied by the inexorable rise
in popularity of business and management studies and by the MBA degree. Busi-
ness school faculty are constantly criticized for the irrelevance of their research.
During the modern era the university has been accorded a dual function – edu-
cation and, thus, the responsibility for the formation of the modern identity; and
the search for meaning and knowledge through research and critical reflection
(Delanty, 2001). However, according to its sternest critics, the university lies in
ruins, it is ‘a ruined institution that has lost its historical raison d’être . . . Henceforth,
the question of the University is only the question of relative value-for-money, the
question posed to a student who is situated entirely as a consumer, rather than
someone who wants to think’ (Readings, 1999, pp. 19, 27). The danger for the
business school is that it is seen as a prime example of this trend. The business
school has been most exposed to consumer voice, embodied in the proliferation of
league tables which now ‘measure’ and compare on a global basis. Its research
output has also been under fire as increasingly self-referential and irrelevant.
Stiglitz (2003) argues that one of the casualties of the ‘Roaring Nineties’ was
that many of the central institutions of society had their credibility greatly
damaged, including corporations, CEOs, the accounting profession and banks.
One might add business schools to this list. The ‘standard mantra’ of the time was
‘fear big government, trust the markets to take care of everything’ (Stiglitz, 2003,
p. 134). Sennett (1998) argues that the new management culture of flexible capi-
talism, purveyed by leading business school professors, leads to the corrosion of
individual and corporate character.
The extent that a system of education draws upon a culture for its ideological
resources will determine that system’s long-term viability. Habermas (1976) argues
that there is a symbiotic relationship between the cultural system, the educational
system and the occupational system. The cultural system provides the basis for the
legitimation of the economic-political by providing it with ideological resources.
If this link fails to function then institutions face a legitimation crisis. The business
school is a relatively recent invention. There is no guarantee that it will or should
survive.
The challenge to business school deans and to the senior managers of univer-
sities is one of re-legitimation. They have to look beyond the business school as a
honeypot to attract students and to start discussing the things that are supposed
to be the university’s core and distinctive competence and, indeed, its raison d’etre,
the nature of knowledge, the creation of knowledge and its dissemination. The
dual role of the business school should mirror the dual role of university. It is about
preparation of students for careers through education and, through research, the
generation of knowledge.
The business school stands at the fault line where the future of the university and
the future of society intersect. This is an important place, a site where, for better or
worse, thinking about the future of business and management will be shaped. The
university no longer plays the definitive role once allocated to it in the pursuit of
knowledge. We have seen a decline in the authority of science and a shift in the locus
of knowledge development to outside the academy, with the consequent opening
up of new knowledge spaces. We suggest that the business school has the potential
to become one of these new knowledge spaces – a new agora.
Nowotny et al. (2001, p. 203) use the term agora to describe ‘the new public
space where science and society, the market and politics, co-mingle, because of its
association with the original agora in the city-states of ancient Greece and also
because we needed a novel, and expansive term for a space that transcends the
categorizations of modernity’. The contemporary agora is populated by a diversity
of individuals and groups who combine the roles of ‘citizen’ and ‘consumer’, in a
context where markets and politics set the rules within which a ceaseless process
of negotiation about knowledge, its applications and its implications takes place.
Science and scientists now face an agora with multiple publics and plural institu-
tions, all with their own interests in knowledge to advocate and defend.
The new arena for knowledge production is increasingly a public space. ‘The
agora embraces much more than the market and much more than politics. As a
public space it ignites exchanges of all kinds, and creates a context in which wishes,
desires, preferences and needs can be articulated as well as demands’ (Nowotny et
al., 2001, pp. 203–9). It is also an area of challenges to conventional wisdom. Sci-
entists find their cognitive and social authority challenged.
One can imagine the business school not just as knowledge carrier (Sahlin-
Andersson and Engwall, 2002) but as, potentially, a new kind of knowledge space,
an example of the agora in action where different stakeholders and different disci-
plines interact and learn from each other. An interesting parallel here is the new
knowledge space in which the scientific and the policy debate about environmen-
tal issues has taken place. Here a range of different stakeholders – scientists, politi-
cians, company and industry representative, non-governmental agencies and
pressure groups, as well as the media and others – has come together to generate
a body of knowledge that has had an impact both upon research practice and
public knowledge, giving rise to the development of ‘a more publicly responsive
and accessible corpus of knowledge’ and the development of ‘a flourishing inter-
disciplinary field in the shape of environmental sciences, which continues to
produce new alliances (for example, between economics and ecology)’ (Nowotny
et al., 2001, p. 213).
One can imagine a business school as a knowledge space in which scientific and
policy debates about business and management takes place, giving rise to greater
public awareness of these issues and to an advance in knowledge about how to
make business and management practice more effective. This would not neces-
sarily need to be at odds with the university’s traditional roles – the training of
professionals and advancement of learning (Graham, 2002, p. 20). Indeed, one
can imagine that the latter might flourish in the context of the agora and that, in
this new knowledge space, the business school could resist the indictment that it
has grown by indulging in ‘sets of activities which are neither inductions to thought
nor to useful skills’ (Maskell and Robinson, 2002, p. 85).
In a newly configured knowledge space the business school might provide lead-
ership in the university’s potential role as the most important mediator between
producers and users of knowledge and thereby contribute to citizenship (Delanty,
2001, p. 102).
The demand here is for the business school to engage in the production, through
research and teaching, of ‘more socially robust knowledge’ (Nowotny et al., 2001,
p. 247). This will not be possible without the creation of new ‘narratives of exper-
tise’ of which the key characteristics in this context are ‘transgressive’ in the sense
that they go beyond the current framing of the business school role and respon-
sibility in a way that brings together ‘the many different and heterogeneous
practice-related knowledge dimensions that are involved’(Nowotny et al., 2001, pp.
247–9).
This will require more open interaction with other sources of knowledge and
expertise, building closer links with business and with other faculties of the uni-
versity. It is important for the future legitimation of the business school that it
expands its sphere of influence. This will require a greater openness to external
agents in the emergent of management research and management education
industry (Clark, 2004a, 2004b). Pfeffer and Fong quote John Reed of Citicorp. It
is in dialogue with John Reed that Jim March (2002) emphasizes what must remain
at the centre of the business school and of the university – the disinterested search
for knowledge. In March’s words, a key role of the business school ‘is not in trying
to identify factors affecting organizational performance, or in trying to develop
managerial technology. It is in raising fundamental issues and advancing knowl-
edge about fundamental processes affecting management’. The business school
must pursue a four-fold knowledge strategy – knowledge for management, knowl-
edge for society, knowledge about management and knowledge about society.
CONCLUSION
The business school stands at a pivotal point in its history and at a strategically
central point for the future of the university. We agree with Nowotny et al. (2001)
that we are faced with a deep crisis in the functional logic of the university and
its role in relation to the state and the economy. In Europe this crisis is exacer-
bated by the opening up of higher education to ever increasing participation and
by a lack of agreement about the role of the university as a producer of
knowledge and in a context where the state, because of the impact of post-
Thatcherite economics, is striving to reduce its exposure to expenditure on the
public sphere.
Yet universities retain many structures and modes of thinking more appropri-
ate to the twentieth or even the nineteenth century than the twenty-first. The busi-
ness school, as an invention of the twentieth century, coming to maturity – for
example, in the development and the global diffusion of the MBA degree during
the last twenty-five years – is in some ways an ideal site for the creation of a new
vision of the university, focused upon a new vision of knowledge production, some
of the elements of which we have traced in this paper.
The university has been a particularly resilient institution. In one study of insti-
tutions that have survived since the 1500s, 70 out of 85 were universities (Kerr,
2001, p. 220). The debate about the future of the university should be continued
in the context of the debate about what constitutes a nation of educated people.
Here we agree with Kerr (2001, p. 226), who endorses the scenario developed by
Bowen (1982) – a society characterized by people ‘taking better care of their
health, investing their wealth more effectively, behaving more efficiently as con-
sumers, developing more fully their economic skills, and participating more widely
and more wisely in political and cultural life’.
The debate about the future of the business school needs to engage with the
role of the business school in creating or hindering the development of an edu-
cated people and of an educated society, engaged with the purpose of the modern
university in developing a vision of a better world through the production of
knowledge and ‘knowledgeability’ – the university remains the most important site
‘where knowledge gains can be consolidated, stabilized and . . . institutionalized’
but it has to continuously justify this role and re-create ways of fulfilling it appro-
priate to our uncertain times (Nowotny et al., 2001, pp. 80–1, 94). One of its most
important tasks is to define, redefine and justify the role of education, manage-
ment and business in shaping economic, social and cultural bonds and to educate
managers for this task.
The present demands an increased rate of innovations, both technical and,
probably more important, social, to prepare us for the future. Business school fac-
ulties have to join together with other members of the academy to confront this
task and to create forms of management adequate to deal with the challenge of
the present and the future. We owe Jeff Pfeffer and Christina Fong a debt of grati-
tude for bravely confronting the uncritical growth of the business school which has
been too much and too unreflectively taken for granted. We have tried in this
article to argue that there is potentially more in business schools than currently
meets the eye. We look forward to an expanded debate about the future of the
business school in which the issue of education rather than the uncritical reaction
to market forces is the key driver. We urge others to heed Pfeffer and Fong’s
wake-up call!
NOTE
*The research upon which this paper is based was supported by an Award from the Economic and
Social Research Council (RES-334-25-0009), ‘The dynamics of knowledge production in the Busi-
ness School’.
REFERENCES
Bernstein, J. M. (1995). Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London:
Routledge.
Bloom, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bowen, H. (1982). The State of the Nation and the Agenda for Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Clark, T. (2004a). ‘Strategy viewed from a management fashion perspective’. European Management
Review, 1, 1, 105–11.
Clark, T. (2004b). ‘Controversies and continuities in management studies: Essays in honour of Karen
Legge; Guest Editor’s introduction’. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 3, 367–76.
Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging Knowledge. The University in the Knowledge Society. Buckingham: The Society
for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Graham, G. (2002). Universities. The Recovery of an Idea. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann.
Hambrick, D. (1993). ‘What if the Academy actually mattered?’. Academy of Management Review, 19,
11–16.
Hamel, G. (2001). Leading the Revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hatchuel, A. and Glise, H. (2004). ‘Rebuilding management: a historical perspective’. In Adler, N.,
Shani, A. B. and Styhre, A. (Eds), Collaborative Research in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Jacob, M. and Hellström, T. (2000). The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy. Buckingham:
The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Kay, J. (2003). The Truth About Markets. London: Allen Lane.
Kerr, C. (2001). The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education. Harvard,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Krugman, P. (2003). The Great Unravelling: From Boom to Bust in Three Short Years. London: Allen
Lane.
Leavitt, H. J. (1989). ‘Educating our MBAs: on teaching what we haven’t taught’. California Manage-
ment Review, 31, 38–50.
March, J. (2000). ‘Citigroup’s John Reed and Stanford’s James March on management research and
practice’. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 52–64.
Maskell, D. and Robinson, I. (2002). The New Idea of a University. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Developing Managers Not MBAs. London: FT Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. and Gosling, J. (2002). ‘Educating managers beyond borders’. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 1, 64–76.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age
of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.
Okazawi-Ward, L. J. (2001). ‘MBA education in Japan. Its current state and future direction’. Journal
of Management Development, 20, 197–234.
Owen, D. (1994). Maturity and Modernity. London: Routledge.
Pfeffer, J. (1995). ‘Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a
dependent variable’. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.
Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2002). ‘The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye’. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78–95.
Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2004). ‘The business school “business”: some lessons from the US experi-
ence’. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 8, 1501–20.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Reading, B. (1999). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Engwall, L. (Eds) (2002). The Expansion of Management Knowledge. Carriers,
Flows and Sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Salbu, S. (2002). ‘Foreword’. In Cruver, B. (Ed.), Anatomy of Greed. The Unshredded Truth from an Enron
Insider. London: Hutchinson.
Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Shani, A. B. and Docherty, P. (2003). Learning by Design. London: Blackwell.
Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001). ‘Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of
management research’. British Journal of Management, 12, Special Issue, December, S3–26.
Starkey, K. and Tempest, S. (2004). ‘Researching our way to economic decline’. In Adler, N., Shani,
A. B. and Styhre, A. (Eds), Collaborative Research in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stiglitz, J. (2003). The Roaring Nineties: Seeds of Destruction. London: Allen Lane.
Thrift, N. (1997). ‘The rise of soft capitalism’. Cultural Values, 1, 29–57.
Uglow, J. (2002). The Lunar Men. The Friends Who Made the Future 1730–1810. London: Faber and
Faber.

J Management Studies 2004 Starkey Rethinking The Business School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Management Studies 2004 Starkey Rethinking The Business School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14676486, 2004, 8, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00485.x by Addis Ababa Uni, Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2022].

Rethinking the Business School*

Ken Starkey, Armand Hatchuel and Sue Tempest

IS THERE A CASE FOR THE BUSINESS SCHOOL?

ON THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS?

THE BUSINESS SCHOOL AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004

You might also like