Mind the gap.
How does board experience
affect business school
students’ preparedness for
the workforce?
Abstract
This study provides insight into how board experience bridges the job-knowledge gap currently faced by business school graduates. A growing body of evidence validates management practices as the Holy Grail to deal with the challenges of the contemporary economy. Students that master the critical competencies needed to perform their managerial role are considered the backbone to organizational success. However, business schools are heavily criticized regarding their ability to adequately prepare graduates for the workforce, let alone providing graduates with a set of crucial managerial capabilities. This paper empirically investigates the role of students’ association board experience to address the gap between the managerial capabilities obtained through formal business education and the managerial capabilities needed for the workforce. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with former board members and business school alumni. The results of the study indicate that board experience enhances graduates’ managerial competency profile. Without the
presumptions of being exhaustive or definitie, board experience is indeed an effective way to improve employability and managerial competencies in addition to a formal business degree.
Florine de Hoog 10263128 BSc Thesis S. Pajic & E. Federici 02-07-2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction p. 3
2. Theoretical background p. 4
2.1 Welcome to the jungle: the business school landscape p. 5 2.2 Framing the critical managerial competencies p. 12
2.3 Extracurricular activities p. 16
3. Methodology p. 19
3.1 Research philosophy and approach p. 19
3.2 Data collection p. 20 3.3 Data analysis p. 21 3.4 Research context p. 22 3.5 Trustworthiness p. 23 3.6 Ethical considerations p. 24 4. Results p. 25
4.1 Perspectives on contemporary business schools p. 25
4.2 Perspectives on board experience p. 34
5. Discussion p. 42
5.1 Discussion of findings p. 42
5.2 Implications for individuals p. 45
5.3 Implications for business schools p. 45
5.4 Implications for managers p. 46
5.5 Implications for researchers p. 46
5.6 Limitations p. 47
6. Conclusion p. 48
7. References p. 49
1. Introduction
Worldwide, the global youth unemployment rate was estimated to be 12.6% in 2013, equivalent to 73 million young people (International Labour Office, 2013). As a matter of fact, the advanced economies should not expect youth employment to drop below 17% before 2016. In the U.S. the majority of college and university graduates struggle to find fulltime employment after graduation (Hurtado, Pryor, Palucki Blake, Eagan, & Case, 2013). Likewise in Europe, eager young people looking for employment are facing difficult times (European Commission, 2013). Employers are definitely not faced by a shortage of graduates, however, they argue that graduates nowadays do not possess the necessary entry-level skills for the job market (McKinsey, 2012). Thus corporate training programs are increasingly implemented in order to adequately develop the skills of graduates (O’Leonard, 2014). The European
Commission proposed several measures in order to reduce youth unemployment, including ‘’steps to ease the transition from education to work by boosting the supply of high- quality apprenticeships and traineeships and addressing skills shortages’’ (European Commission, 2013, p. 3). Similarly, at the International Labour Conference in 2012, the 185 International Labour Organization (ILO) member states identified five key policy recommendations including ‘’education and training to ease the school-to-work transition and to prevent labour market mismatches’’ (International Labour Office, 2013, p. 6). The current youth
unemployment situation strongly hints towards a job-knowledge gap: disparity between what is developed through formal business education and what is actually needed for performing one’s job.
Nonetheless, business schools have successfully become entrenched in the academic and corporate landscape over the past years (Starkey et al., 2004; Vinten, 2000). According to Rubin & Morgeson (2013), graduate management programs ‘’represent the central, most profitable, and most visible offering in a business school’s portfolio of programs’’ (p. 297). Individuals are increasingly turning to business schools to become better equipped to handle complex, managerial issues (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). But despite their tremendous growth (O’Brien, Drnevich, Crook, & Armstrong, 2010; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002), business school curricula have simultaneously been receiving a considerable amount of criticism. The relevance of the business school product is increasingly being called into question by both academics and the professional business world (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Porter & McKibbon, 1998). Pfeffer & Fong (2002) argue that business schools have become large and prominent institutionalized organizations with nobody
Based on both the escalating inducements towards business schools and the monstrous youth unemployment rates, this exploratory study aims to investigate whether pursuing a board position within a students’ association improves graduates’ readiness for the workforce, in particular the managerial practice. The managerial practice is an important source of
sustained organizational success and firms are desperately looking for graduates that can lead the way to extraordinary performance (Pfeffer, 1998). Numerous researchers have confirmed the importance of managerial competencies because of the positive relationship with
organizational performance (Dierdorff & Rubin, 2006; Winterton & Winterton, 2002) or even economic prosperity (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002, p. 92). However, the competencies taught in the business school classroom often differ from the competencies that are required by the actual management practice. So where can graduates accumulate the managerial competencies that are needed to face today’s work environment? There seem to be no clear guidelines. Few studies have explored the relationship between the knowledge obtained through
extracurricular and critical managerial competencies. The central research question that this study aims to answer is: How does board experience affect business school students’ preparedness for the workforce and the managerial practice? This question is addressed through an empirical qualitative study. The research takes place within the largest youth-run organization in the world, AIESEC, which envisions ‘’peace and fulfillment of humankind’s potential’’ through developing youth leadership potential.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section presents a comprehensive view of the literature. Summarizing the current debate on the purpose and relevance of business education and introducing the managerial competency framework that will guide this investigation. The methodological choices are reported in the third section, introducing the specific research context, how the data will be collected and analyzed, how trustworthiness will be established, and other ethical considerations. The fourth section presents and highlights the findings that emerged from the interview analysis. Section five provides a discussion of these results, including the theoretical and practical implications, and the limitations of the study. Finally, the research question is answered in the conclusion.
2. Theoretical background
The exploration of the potential influence of board experience on critical managerial
competencies is guided by an extensive review of the relevant literature. First, the criticisms that business schools are facing in today’s environment are discussed. Followed by a section about students’ underlying motives to pursue a business degree. Third, we will look at the
way in which the business school’s relevance is communicated to aspiring students. Then, we will look the comprehensive framework of managerial competencies that will guide our research. To conclude, the potential of extra-curricular activities, on-the-job training, and formal organizational training initiatives to address the competency-gap will be discussed.
2.1 Welcome to the jungle: the business school landscape
Business schools are the success story of current management education judging from their popularity and ever-growing enrollment rates (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004). However – to use scholastic terminology – it appears that we cannot judge a book by its cover. Business schools are facing increased criticism from scholars, students, organizations, the media, and other stakeholders (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). In this section, we examine the current debate around the business schools’ product, both from the academic and from the more popular press. Note that the exploration of this debate evolves around several ‘products’ of graduate business education: Master in Business Administration (MBA) programs, joint degrees, or more specialized and subject-specific master programs (e.g., MS in Marketing or Accounting).
Business school criticism
Recent indictments against business education span a variety of concerns. In general, however, the criticisms appear to converge around two main perspectives: (1) irrelevance to management, and hence, organizational outcomes; and (2) failure to create socially
responsible graduates (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2010).
Substantial attention has been attributed to business schools’ lack of impact and relevance. Scholars within this research stream essentially focus on business schools’ failure to prepare prospective graduates for the real business practice, and on the limited impact of academic research on the practice of management (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Doria, Rozanski, & Cohen, 2003; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). Among the most outspoken critics is Henry Mintzberg, expressing his critique towards conventional management education in his 2004 book Managers, Not MBAs. Mintzberg (2004), despite holding two graduate degrees in management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued how MBAs are a waste of time due to the distorted impression they give of the true managerial practice. He stated that MBA programs ‘’train the wrong people in the wrong ways with the wrong consequences’’ (p. 6). Various researchers have attributed the lack of practical relevance to the educational emphasis on functional areas (e.g., marketing, finance,
and accounting) and analytical decision-making (Bailey & Ford, 1996; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). The gloomy concerns about the current state of business education have sparked the debate about the future. The question is not whether the business school model needs to change – that train has left the station – but how business schools can
effectively redefine and justify their current approach to management education. There appear to be many ways leading to improved business education coming from all sides of the debate: redesigning the curriculum (Donaldson, 2002; Eberhardt, Moser, & McGee, 1997; Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Navarro, 2008; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Rousseau, 2006; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009; Simpson, 2006; Waddock, 1991), formulating agreed-upon professional standards (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Poldony, 2009; Trank & Rynes, 2003), changing the value proposition (Carnall, 1995; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Starkey et al., 2004), bridging academic-practioner gap of management research (Bartunek, 2007; Pasmore, Stymne, Shani, Mohrman & Adler, 2008; Burke & Rau, 2010; Rynes, 2007; Starkey et al., 2004), and hiring professors with more relevant experience (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Clinebell & Clinebell, 2008; Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006). Be advised these possible adjustments are merely a select few – discussing them all would be impossible for reasons of space.
Secondly, besides failing to prepare students for the broad practice of management, alarming indictments have been directed at business schools for creating graduates with a ‘’profits-first’’ mentality (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2010, p. 431). McCormack captured this mentality as follows: ‘’If Thomas Edison had gone to business school, we would all be reading by larger candles’’ (as cited in Vinten, 2000, p. 180). Business schools are, for better or worse, central to the development of the next generation of business leaders. Many critics therefore blame contemporary business education for recent executive misconduct, highly publicized corporate scandals, and even the financial crisis (Henle, 2006; Poldony, 2009). A notable example is former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling who graduated near the top of his class of Harvard Business School (Fusaro & Miller, 2002). Krugman (2004, p. 110) argued how American businesses are being hit by ‘’a wave of scandal’’ while no preventive measures are being undertaken. Jordan Belfort, serving 22 months in federal prison after being convicted of security fraud and money laundering, illustrates the corporate environment in his memoir The wolf of Wallstreet: “They were drunk on youth, fueled by greed, and higher than kites.” (p. 53). The scarcity of value-based, ethical decision-making, and leadership courses in the business classroom has resulted in the societal belief that business schools are ‘’ fostering self-interested, unethical, and even illegal behavior by their graduates’’ (Poldony, 2009, p.
63). In face of the heavy criticism, it is clear that business schools need to change in order to regain society’s trust. After interviewing former CEO Terry Broderick, Henle (2006)
concluded that business schools should partner with the business community in order to design curricula that effectively shape ethical leaders. Ethical education should be linked to all the courses in the curriculum instead of being taught as a separate entity, in order for students to understand ethical decision-making in each of the different business functions (Henle, 2006). Organizational and managerial outcomes are currently evaluated by the extent in which they maximize shareholder wealth rather than social capital (Khurana, 2007;
Putnam, 2000). The profit-driven mentally underpinning current business education has provoked students to undermine the importance of business ethics and social responsibility (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006). Khurana (2007) noted that ‘’grasping the nature of business education is therefore essential for our understanding of the function of management […] and of how the institution of management can be not only critically evaluated but also, if deemed necessary, reshaped to make for a better fit with overall social aspirations‘’ (pp. 5-6).
Business schools should integrate their curriculum with a more ethical-oriented view, thus making issues about social wellbeing and corporate responsibility more central, in order to forge more responsible students (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006). Another interesting point comes from Ghoshal (2005), who concluded that the theories or ideas about the shortcomings of management have in fact contributed to the unethical decision-making of practicing
managers: ‘’we – as business school faculty – need to own up to our own role in creating Enrons. Our theories and ideas have done much to strengthen the management practices that we are all now so loudly condemning’’ (p. 75) and ‘’by propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories, business schools have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility’’ (p. 76). Business schools need to eliminate current courses that extrapolate a pessimistic management perspective, because of the self-fulfilling prophecy in actual
management behavior, instead of trying to create new value-based courses (Ghoshal, 2005). Finally, several researchers have revealed that management itself – i.e., organizational pressures, instructions, or neglect of ethical issues from senior management – have caused managerial malfeasance (Webb & Badaracco, 1995).
Doing good versus looking good
So why would students want to sacrifice their precious time or carry the tuition burden if business schools do not deliver the managerial skills that they promise? How can business schools facing these serious accusations communicate the relevance of their educational
product to external stakeholders? Pfeffer & Fong (2004) pointed out how business schools’ own marketing efforts are often about the improvement in salary that graduates can expect, career counseling services offered, and career prospects after graduation. The overriding value proposition of business schools tends to focus on the economic benefits of attending rather than developing students’ critical thinking and integrative business skills (Pfeffer & Fong, 2004). So logically this also became the focus of students and organizations looking for ways in which to determine the quality of graduate management programs (Rubin &
Morgeson, 2013). A survey among prospective American college students points out that the institution’s academic reputation is the main reason for choosing a particular college, selected prior to getting good jobs, financial aid, or even the cost of attendance (Eagan, Lozano, Hurtado, & Case, 2013). The 2014 mba.com Prospective Students Survey likewise states that prospective students are first and foremost motivated by the ‘’reputation of the educational system’’ when selecting their preferred global study destination (GMAT2, 2014, p. 9).
Students and recruiters are increasingly viewed as ‘’customers’’ of business schools resulting in an embedded market-driven value proposition of contemporary business programs (Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Starkey et al. 2004; Trank & Rynes, 2003). The dominant value proposition is embodied in the way in which business schools promote themselves, yet, also through the way in which others value and compare business schools. Gioia & Corley (2002) argue how management education transformed drastically in 1988 when Business Week published its first top-20 business school ranking, soon to be followed by U.S. News and World Report. Business schools are forced to play the ‘’rankings game’’ because of the effect on quality applications, interest of companies in that business school’s graduates, donations, and other factors (Corley & Gioia, 2000). Enhancing ranking positions has forced business schools to devote resources and effort to the rankings criteria instead improving their educational programs (Gioia & Corley, 2002; Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008; Policano, 2001). Devoting energy toward boosting the economic benefits of attending has consequently compromised the business school’s primary value of providing knowledge and wisdom to students
(Mintzberg, 2004). For example, the U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) is responsible for one of the most prominent ranking of U.S. business schools. Their 2015 Best Business Schools Ranking depends on several assessment variables whereby placement success – divided into ‘’mean starting salary and bonus’’ and ‘’employment rates for fulltime master’s program in business graduates’’ – was weighted by an impressive 35% of the total score. The Financial Times publishes yearly rankings of business schools and management programs – i.e., the MBA, EMBA, Master in Finance, Master in Management programs, online MBA
programs, and non-degree executive education courses – where economic-related variables dominate their view on business school’s success. For the EMBA and MBA rankings the two most heavily weighted criteria are ‘’weighted salary’’ and ‘’salary increase’’, together
accounting for 40% of the total score. Morgeson & Nahrgang (2008, p. 36) empirically investigated the Business Week rankings and concluded that these ‘’ rankings are
fundamentally flawed’’. Media rankings appear to be a poor measurement of business school overall academic or educational quality and negatively influence the ability of business schools to fulfill their central educational missions (Rubin & Morgeson, 2013; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009; Starkey et al., 2004; Zimmerman, 2001).
“Education for life” or “education for work”?
As stated above, the way business schools present themselves to external stakeholders makes quite evident the accent they put on promoting their monetary rewards to students. John Reed, former chairman and CEO of Citigroup, concluded his acceptance speech for the Academy of Management’s Distinguished Executive of the Year Award in 1999 with a similar question: “The business community knows full well that business schools perform a useful function [in] sorting potential hires. The schools sort out from the general population those who are more ambitious, more energetic, more willing to subject themselves to two years without income…. But the real question is: Do you give these students a set of skills that is going to serve them well over their careers?” (as cited in Doria et al., 2003, p. 1). According to Reed, business schools are ought to radically transform in order to meet managerial and societal needs. However, the CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees report of 2013, a joint project between the Council of Graduate Schools and the Graduate Record Examinations Board, showed that applications to business graduate programs (including master’s, graduate-level certificate and education specialist programs) have been growing at an average annual rate of 6.5% between 2007 and 2012. GMAC (2014) reported that prospective business school students are increasingly considering the specialized master’s program (20% of
prospects in 2013), however, the MBA program remains the most popular (53%). So both the specialized master’s degree and the MBA programs succeed to attract students immediately following their undergraduate degree (although some MBA programs do require a minimum amount of work experience). As a matter of fact, at the master’s degree level, the broad fields of business and education accounted for the largest number of all students enrolled during 2011-2012 (Gonzales, Allum, & Sowell, 2013). The tremendous growth rates seem to indicate that students remain convinced of the added value of professional management education.
Sangeet Chowfla, current CEO of GMAC, stated: ‘’Making the decision to go to business school or take a graduate management degree is probably one of the most important
investment decisions any student will make’’ (GMAC News Center, 2013). Be that as it may, students tend to differ with respect to their motives for this important decision. Much
attention has been paid to the motivation and goals of students in the field of educational psychology. A particularly useful theory within this field is self-determination theory (SDT): examining ‘’the type of motivation that underlies learning behavior’’ (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006, p. 19). Extending students’ learning motivation to the contexts this research, i.e., students’ motivation to pursue a business degree, students’ motivation to go to business school will be classified using one of the most well known motivational dichotomies of self-determination theory: intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Of course, students can have several goals that motivate their learning efforts, implying that the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is probably more interactive than a single dichotomy (Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2001). However, viewing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as opposite ends of a
continuum allows us to highlight the differences in students’ motivation for the graduate business degree and sketch a picture of the current business school landscape.
Extrinsic motivation means ‘’doing something because it leads to a separable outcome’’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Extrinsically motivated students are thus primarily concerned with the tangible gains from graduate business programs such as the effects on employability, signing bonus, salary, social status, or personal network (Baruch et al., 2005; Buchanan, Kim, & Basham, 2007; Collins, 1996; Luker, Bowers, & Powers, 1990; Pfeffer, 2005). Courses that are not ‘helpful’ to their employability should not be included in their degree. Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Illies (2003) illustrated that students have become skeptical towards behavioral coursework because recruiters do not particularly value this knowledge in the selection procedure. The career-oriented motivation of students partially explains the business school’s lack of responsiveness to the critique of not supplying students with the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for effective management: ‘’What the students are mostly buying is not so much an education, defined as what they learn and the skills they develop, but rather a credential that will enhance their career prospects and salaries’’ (Pfeffer, 2005, p. 1093). Students will keep applying for business schools as long as the degree serves them well. The GMAC Prospective Students Survey (GMAC2, 2014) revealed that the primary motivations for obtaining a graduate management degree were respectively: increase job opportunities, increase salary potential, develop general business skills, accelerate career, and develop leadership skills. Morgeson & Nahrgang (2008) showed that students value
economic outcomes (such as network and connections, summer placement, placement before graduation, quality of recruiting firms, and independent job search) more than the content-aspect of their business school experience. Astin, Parrot, Korn & Sax (1997) also argued that students have become increasingly concerned with their financial well being over the past thirty years. However, the remuneration gains following MBAs appear to be a controversial topic. Some researchers confirmed the increase in salary post-MBA (Baruch & Pieperl, 2000; Baruch et al. 2005; Tracy & Waldfogel, 1994) whilst others painted a rather skeptical picture surrounding the much-praised salary premium (Connolly, 2003; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Pfeffer & Fong (2002) carried out an extensive review of empirical data – as well as contributing their own evidence – and concluded that the knowledge obtained in business schools, or the MBA credential for that matter, is neither related to graduates’ salary nor to the attainment of higher-level positions in organizations. Jalbert, Rao, & Jalbert (2002)
investigated the academic background of the CEOs of the largest U.S. firms and conclude that approximately half of the CEOs possessed a graduate degree. Of the world’s largest 500 listed companies by market capitalization – the companies featuring in the most recent FT500 ranking – 147 companies have CEOs with an MBA degree, which is almost 30% (Financial Times, 2014). Likewise, Rynes, Trank, Mullenix, and Ilies (in press) noted that previous work experience influenced recruiters’ screening decisions much stronger than business credentials (as cited in Trank & Rynes, 2003). Does the systematic evidence indicate that possessing a graduate degree is not an absolute necessity to obtain a prominent executive management position? The controversy of the business schools’ external value-added remains an
interesting topic for future investigation, yet, less relevant to those students examined in the next paragraph.
Intrinsic motivation implies ‘’doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable’’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Studying for a graduate business degree requires a serious investment with respect to commitment and money (Baruch, Bell, & Gray, 2005). Those students with an intrinsic motivation to learn are willing to invest time, self, and resources because they value their personal development. Pfeffer & Fong (2004) stated that business schools fail to attract students with ‘’an intrinsic interest in and curiosity about the subject matter, and who attend because they feel some degree of ‘calling’ for the career’’ (p. 1515). However, business schools alumni across the globe strongly agree (94%) that their graduate management education provides them with either good or outstanding value
(GMAC1, 2014). In fact, the personal reward was valued higher than the professional reward that are associated with the business school degree: ‘’business school alumni report that their
graduate management education was personally rewarding (94%), professionally rewarding (90%), and financially rewarding (77%)‘’ (GMAC1, 2014, p. 5).
2.2 Framing the critical managerial competencies.
The sustained challenges and critiques faced by graduate business programs converge especially around the (in)effectiveness of preparing graduates for the demands of the real business world. This allegation is not only crucial to scholars, students and organizations but to society at large because of the widely held belief that human resources are essential to successful organizational performance (Barney, 1991; Barney & Wright, 1997; Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Pfeffer, 1998; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2006; Schuler & MacMillan, 1984; Ulrich, 1991; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Firm success can be defined as ‘’attaining a competitive position or series of competitive positions that lead to superior and sustainable financial performance’’ (Porter, 1991, p. 96). And whilst many factors influence the firm’s competitive positioning, e.g., the industry structure or firm-specific circumstances, concrete managerial decisions ultimately shape the actions of the firm and following
organizational performance (Amason, 1996; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994; Porter, 1991; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2006; Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2010). As worded by Pfeffer (1998): ‘’Success comes from being able to effectively implement competitive strategy, not merely from having one’’ (p. xvi). Empirical evidence substantiates that individual managers indeed affect
organizational performance (Adams, Almeida & Ferreira, 2005; Bennedsen, Pérez-González & Wolfenzon, 2008; Betrand & Schoar, 2003; Kaplan, Klebanov & Sorensen, 2012).
Therefore, the issue of developing the capabilities required to perform managerial roles could not be more important. There are plentiful practical examples that illustrate how firms were able to flourish in competitive markets because of specific managerial decisions and actions. Without the out-of-the-box product vision of Steve Jobs, Apple would probably not have been as successful as it is today. Or Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, who changed the structure of the entire e-commerce industry and guided Amazon.com to become the world’s largest online retailer.
Contemporary graduate business education is ought to provide graduates with all the competencies necessary to operate in today’s turbulent and complex corporate environment. The term competency is widely used in the academic and organizational world and has subsequently been defined in many ways. The widely accepted constituents of personal competence, that are supposed to lead to superior job performance, are: skills, knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and underlying individual characteristics (Abraham, Karns, Shaw, &
Mena, 2001; Grzeda, 2005; Murray, 2003). According to Burgoyne, (1989, p. 56) ‘’competency approaches have a valuable part to play in management development’’. Managerial competencies refer to the competencies required for effective and successful managers (Abraham et al. 2001). Evaluating competency profiles helps to differentiate between average and superior individual or organizational performance (Levenson, Van der Stede, & Cohen, 2006; Moore, Cheng, & Dainty, 2002).
How can graduates pave the way to organizational excellence if current curricula inadequately teach the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to thrive on the work floor? And what exactly are the knowledge, skills and abilities that graduates need for real-life managerial functions? Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) presented a comprehensive empirical-based model of managerial competencies that captures the essential requirements of managerial roles. In order to label their model as comprehensive they included ‘’a broader spectrum of work role requirements (i.e., beyond simple managerial duties) across multiple managerial roles within the modern world of work’’ (Dierdorff & Rubin, 2007, p. 15). Thus Dierdorff & Rubin used the competency requirements from actual managerial occupations depicted on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET) as the foundation of their analysis. O*NET is a rigorous, nation-wide, continuously updated database that includes information on skills, abilities, knowledge, work activities, and tasks associated with over 900 different occupations (O*NET1). The O*NET database is built around the O*NET Content Model, which classifies occupational information into six major domains: worker characteristics, worker requirements, experience requirements, occupational requirements, workforce characteristics, and occupation-specific information (O*NET2). O*NET allows its users to explore occupations based on these key differentiating characteristics.
Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) adopted four general work role requirement domains as the conceptual foundation to their framework because ‘’these domains capture what managers need to know, what they actually do, how they prefer to do it, and how they are most effective’’ (p. 19). The four domains include the activities (general behaviors), and the attributes (knowledges, skills and work styles) necessary to perform managerial duties. Each of the individual domain items is subsequently reflected by a number of generic managerial competencies shown in Table 1. The behavioral-based managerial work requirements is compromised out of six generic behavioral competencies: Managing Decision-making Processes; Managing Human Capital; Managing Strategy & Innovation; Managing the Task Environment; and, Managing Administration Activities, Managing Tools & Technology. The knowledge-related managerial competencies are represented by four distinct knowledge-based
competencies: Knowledge of Technology, Design & Production; Knowledge of Human Behavior & Society; Knowledge of General Business Functions; and, Knowledge of Media Communications & Delivery. The individual based competencies that represent the skill-related managerial work requirements are defined as: Interpersonal Skills; Operational Skills; Strategic & System Skills; and, Foundational Skills. Finally, the work-style-based
competencies include four personality-based managerial competencies: Learning, Motivation, & Leadership; Interpersonal Orientation; Conscientiousness; and, Generative Thinking. In total Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) derived 18 general managerial competency factors that are critical to managerial work (Figure 1). The relative importance of each of these factors fluctuates between different managerial occupations, however, the work-style competencies were generally rated as the most important.
Table 1: Empirically Derived Model of Managerial Behavioral Competencies
Competency Category Examples
Behavioral Competencies
Managing Decision-making Processes Getting information; Judging the Qualities of
Things, Services, or People
Managing Human Capital Coaching & Developing Others; Resolving Conflicts & Negotiating with Others; Developing & Building Teams
Managing Strategy & Innovation Thinking Creatively; Developing Objectives & Strategies; Provide Consultation & Advice to Others
Managing the Task Environment Communicating with Persons Outside Org.; Establishing & Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships; Selling or Influencing Others
Managing Administration Activities Evaluating Information to Determine Compliance with Standards; Documenting or Recording
Information; Performing Administration Activities
Managing Tools & Technology Inspecting Equipment, Structures, or Material; Controlling Machines & Processes; Interacting with Computers
Skill-based competencies
Foundation Skills Reading Comprehension; Writing; Mathematics; Science
Strategic and System Skills Complex Problem Solving; Operations Analysis; Judgment and Decision Making; System Analysis; Systems Evaluation; Management of Financial Resources; Management of Material Resources
Operations Skills Technology Design; Equipment Selection;
Installation; Programming; Operation Monitoring; Operation and Control; Equipment Maintenance; Troubleshooting; Repairing; Quality Control Analysis
Interpersonal Skills Active Listening; Speaking; Critical Thinking; Active Learning; Learning Strategies; Monitoring; Social Perceptiveness; Coordination; Persuasion; Negotiation; Instructing; Service Orientation; Time Management; Management of Personnel Resources
Knowledge-based Competencies Knowledge of Media Communication & Delivery
Computers and Electronics; Geography; English Language; Fine Arts; Telecommunications; Communications and Media
Knowledge of General Business Functions
Administration and Management; Clerical;
Economics and Accounting; Sales and Marketing; Customer and Personal Service; Personnel and Human Resources; Mathematics
Knowledge of Human Behavior and Society
Psychology; Sociology and Anthropology; Medicine and Dentistry; Therapy and Couseling; Education and Training; History and Archeology; Philosophy and Theology; Law and Government
Knowledge of Technology, Product Design & Production
Production and Processing; Engineering and Technology; Design; Building and Construction; Mechanical; Physics; Chemistry
Work-style Competencies
Generative Thinking Independence; Innovation; Analytical Thinking
Conscientiousness Dependability; Attention to Detail; Integrity
Interpersonal Orientation Cooperation; Concern for Others; Social Orientation; Self Control
Learning, Motivation & Leadership Achievement/Effort; Persistence; Initiative; Leadership; Stress Tolerance;
Adaptability/Flexibility
Source: Adopted from Dierdorff, E.C. & Rubin, R.S., (2006). Toward a Comprehensive Empirical Model of Managerial Competencies: Implications for Management Education. Technical Report presented to the MERInstitute of the Graduate Management Admission Council. Chicago, IL: DePaul University.
Business schools in today’s environment are under fire regarding their irrelevancy and inability to prepare graduates for the workforce. Since CEOs and top-management teams are responsible for the strategic decisions of the firm (Amason, 1996; Mintzberg, 1978; Papadakis & Barwise, 2002) it is essential for business schools to deliver graduates with useful
knowledge, skills, or abilities for management. The managerial competency model from Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) conceptualizes what competencies need to be developed in order to deliver successful managers, and hence, to reduce the knowledge-gap between business school graduates and actual businesses. Drawing upon these findings, where can individuals develop these managerial competencies if not for business schools?
Figure 1: Comprehensive Model of Managerial Competencies
Source: Adopted from Dierdorff, E.C. & Rubin, R.S., (2006). Toward a Comprehensive Empirical Model of Managerial Competencies: Implications for Management Education. Technical Report presented to the MERInstitute of the Graduate Management Admission Council. Chicago, IL: DePaul University.
2.3 Extracurricular Activities
Today’s higher-education landscape is characterized by students’ fixation on efficient means to boost their employability and employers’ search for qualified new hires. These shifts in the contemporary work environment have pushed students to increasingly look beyond business school classrooms and textbooks to develop their skills, competencies, and qualifications (Baruch, 2009). The major growth in online recruitment processes has
overwhelmed organizations with applications and resumés (Boehle, 2000; Feldman & Klaas, 2002; Jansen, Jansen & Spink, 200). But despite this trend employers continue to struggle to
find graduates that adequately possess the skills necessary for the job and remain skeptical towards graduates’ entry-level skills (McKinsey, 2012; Peddle, 2000). This issue is daunting for organizations because they are increasingly realizing that business school graduates are a valuable source of innovative thinking. Employees’ creative ideas are especially valuable because they help organizations cope with the difficulties of the contemporary competitive environment (Hughes, O’Regan, & Wornham, 2008).
The intensification of the labor market has pressured graduates to demonstrate more than just educational credentials (Roulin & Bangerter, 2013). This section evaluates the ways in which business students can make their résumés more appealing, and hence increase their employability. Employability definitions differ remarkably from those concerning graduates’ realization of personal and academic skills to those with more measurable outcomes
(Andrews & Higson, 2008). For example, graduate employability is often wrongly measured as the propensity of obtaining a fulltime job within a certain amount of time (Harvey, 2001). Harvey (2001) argues that: ‘’If the notion of employability is to contribute to the quality of higher education, it is rather important to disentangle competing preconceptions about what it is, how it might be measured and promoted.’’ (p. 98). On these grounds, this study defines employability as the competencies possessed by graduates that better equip them for the workforce. Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth (2004) argue for a similar person-centered approach to employability and confirmed that the responsibility for acquiring important competencies has shifted from employers to employees. To investigate the extent to which activities outside the formal business curriculum can enhance students’ employability – i.e., enhance students’ competencies – a systematic definition of competencies necessary for organizational success is necessary. From this perspective, the managerial competency framework of Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) is used. This framework enables a systematic approach to evaluate whether extra-curricular activities are effective means to develop successful practicing managers.
Extra-curricular activity can be defined as a non-accredited activity over and above the formal curriculum for which participation is not mandatory (Muldoon, 2009). Graduates often engage in extra-curricular activities to differentiate themselves in the recruitment process. Roulin & Bangerter (2013) advocate for participation in extra-curricular activities ‘’as it allows students to demonstrate competencies not otherwise visible in their résumés due to limited job experience’’ (p. 21). Ward & Yates (2013) explored whether recruiters actually valued student participation in extracurricular activities, including parttime jobs (on and off campus), internships, athletics, study abroad, academic and professional clubs, volunteer activities, multicultural activities, the arts, student government, fraternities and sororities, and
honorary organizations. Their pilot study showed that recruiters selected ‘’internship/coop’’, ‘’parttime jobs related to their major’’, and ‘’community service‘’ as the top three
extracurricular activities that indeed influenced recruiters’ perceptions of students. Mudloon (2009) found that parttime (paid or voluntary) work is an effective way to develop numerous graduate skills and attributes and, hence, enhanced student’s attractiveness to employers. Overall, a growing literature confirms that parttime work experience is particularly useful to individuals looking for graduate employment (McNeilly & Barr, 1997; Neill, Mulholland, Ross, & Leckey, 2004).
Presumably, the importance of student participation in extra-curricular activities, parttime work in particular, can be traced back to the widely accepted notion that ability is developed through learning. On-the-job experiences yield relevant learning outcomes needed for organizations to stay competitive (Conrad, 2008; Tannenbaum, 1997). Baruch (2009) stated that ‘’training and education form crucial parts of learning processes and organizational development’’. Every year, organizations spend upwards of sixty billion dollar on employee training – primarily management-related training initiatives (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2013). Tannenbaum (1997, p. 438) stated that ‘’the learning experience helps develop new
competencies that can be applied on the job’’. More specifically, Dierdorff & Rubinn (2006) argue that informal work experiences typically induce the development of important
managerial competencies. However instead of going through years and years of chaotic work experience, ambitious individuals turn to business school in the hope to efficiently acquire the managerial capabilities that are ought to translate into successful organizational management (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2006). The literature confirms the value of on-the-job learning (Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Tharenou, Saks & Moore, 2007; Winterton & Winterton, 2002) along with the similar opinions stemming from the ‘real-world’ of business. For example Sir Richard Branson, notorious entrepreneur and founder of the Virgin Group, considers starting a business a better education than attending a business school (Schawbel, 2012). Engaging in extra-curricular activities proves to be effective way to develop
employability but the matter at hand remains: what activities in particular prepare graduates for the actual workforce?
This research explores students’ participation in the board of a students’ association. Recent literature suggests that business schools are no longer relevant. The knowledge obtained through formal business education differs substantially from the knowledge needed for performing one’s job. Especially the ability to develop successful managers is criticized because business schools teach compartmentalized programs instead of addressing the broad
practice of management (Mintzberg, 2004). However, it is essential that students graduate with various managerial competencies required for the workforce since managers are the firm’s primary decision makers. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to investigate whether fulltime (students’ association) student board experience effectively contributes to increasing managerial competencies. Board experience is proposed because it allows students to demonstrate individual competencies outside a university setting and because it is a context where students have to deal with important decisions and responsibilities, acquire and practice specific skills and knowledge, establish a professional network, and henceforward, increase their employability.
3 Methodology
This chapter includes a detailed description of the research methodology. Being an exploratory research, this investigation starts by looking at the phenomenon in broad, nonspecialized terms (Stebbins, 2001). The focus of this research is to achieve an in-depth understanding of the relatively broad question: How does board experience affect business school students’ preparedness for the workforce and the managerial practice? The exploration of board experience – a phenomenon about which relatively little is known and about which a thorough understanding is desired – called for a qualitative research design. Because
qualitative research is ‘’designed to be flexible and responsive to context’’ (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002, p. 723). The empirical data was collected by semi-structured, open-ended individual interviews with former board members from the international youth-run non-profit organization AIESEC. The upcoming paragraphs illuminate the research philosophy and research approach, the data collection approach, the data analysis, the research context, steps that were taken to ensure trustworthiness, and some ethical considerations.
3.1 Research philosophy and approach
The underlying philosophical assumptions will impact the choice of data collection
techniques, data analysis procedures and the interpretations of the findings (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012; Johnson & Clark, 2006; Crotty, 1998). The principal concern of this research is to discover the meanings (instead of objective hard data) that graduates attach to their board experience. This can be associated with an interpretive philosophy because ‘’researchers need to make sense of the subjective and socially constructed meanings expressed about the phenomenon being studied’’ (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 163). The
description and interpretation of subjective meanings can be captured by qualitative research (Fossey et al., 2002). Further, this study fits into the framework of ‘’naturalistic’’ ontology because the research was conducted within a natural setting.
Research will be conducted taking an abductive approach. This approach combines deduction (moving from theory to data) and induction (from data to theory) approaches (Saunders et al., 2012). This combined approach seemed the most appropriate because of the exploratory focus of this research, aimed at shedding light on the barely investigated role of board experience. The research philosophy and research approach influenced the research design, i.e., the way in which the research question will be answered, described in the following sections.
3.2 Data collection
Qualitative interviews were undertaken to gain a rich understanding of the meanings that students attach to their board experience within a natural research context. Relatively unstructured interviews were appropriate because of the exploratory nature of the research (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Therefore, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted on a face-to-face basis, guided by an interview schedule (Appendix). The open-endedness of the interview provided an in-depth understanding of the participant’s viewpoints and experiences and the opportunity to ‘probe’ answers to further explore interviewee
responses (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012; Turner, 2010). The interview guide consists of numerous questions divided into four sections: personal information, the job-knowledge gap, board experience, and work experience/internships. The interview guide seems very
structured in terms of the questions to be asked, yet, in reality, the exact wording of the questions varied depending on the flow of the conversation. Also the order and logic of questioning could be adjusted and additional questions could emerge where appropriate. For example, questions had to be adjusted because some participants completed their board experience before starting their masters while other participants decided to do a board year after completing their degree. Interview data were captured using audio recording and transcribed in their entirety (Appendix 2). The interviews were administered in Dutch to capture the participants’ views (who were all Dutch) as accurately as possible.
One pilot interview and five semi-structured interviews were conducted to gauge the effectiveness of board position experience on graduates’ managerial competency
characteristics. The pilot interview was primarily conducted to evaluate the first draft of the interview guide, i.e., to evaluate the flow of the interview and the time frame. After the pilot
interview, more interview questions were added and the interview guide was adjusted to its current state (Appendix 1).
The interviewees were selected by purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is a non-random sampling approach that allows the researchers to deliberately select respondents depending on the research question(s) and objectives (Saunders et al., 2012). Purposive sampling was used because the in-depth exploration of the ‘’board member experience’’ was more important than the ability to generalize their experience to a larger population. All research participants, except for the interviewee from the pilot study, satisfied the following criteria: (1) fulfilled a fulltime board position at AIESEC, (2) completed a master at a
business school, and (3) currently in employment. A description of the interview participants is included in Table 2. The pilot interview was conducted with a current EB member of AIESEC Amsterdam. He has been fulfilling a fulltime position at AIESEC for the past six months and completed two business masters before. The other interviews were held with former board members from different LCs throughout The Netherlands. The sample purposively selected participants from different fulltime functions.
The interviews, lasting between thirty and forty-five minutes, were carried out at a convenient and comfortable location for the participants. The participants were informed about the research question beforehand and that there was no need to prepare anything in advance. The research atmosphere was very pleasant. The fact that both the interviewer and the interviewee were ‘’AIESECers’’ broke the ice of the meeting. Secondly, the participants showed high interest in the research question and were very willing to meet.
Table 2: Description of Interview Participants
Participant Age Gender AIESEC Board
Position
Pilot 24 Male MaM CO
1 27 Male VP 2 27 Female OGX CO 3 25 Female OGX CO 4 57 Male VP 5 27 Male LCP 3.3 Data analysis
The analysis of the interview transcripts was guided by an abductive approach, combining both deductive and inductive research techniques. The deductive approach was employed to set the initial context for the research and to formulate the main research question: How does
board experience affect business school students’ preparedness for the workforce and the managerial practice? The existing managerial competency framework was used as a way to grasp whether students are adequately equipped for the real world of business. More
specifically, did the managerial competencies of the framework corresponded to the
competencies that the participants mentioned during the interview? Thus, the interview data were first analyzed, coded and interpreted based on the factors that constitute Dierdorff & Rubin’s (2006) managerial competency framework.
According to Patton (1980), an ‘’inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis’’ (p. 306). Theory building from case studies is very likely to generate novel theories and insights (Huberman & Miles, 2002). Conducting semi-structured interviews, leaving room to explore emerging insights and topics, reflects the inductive approach. The second round of analysis focused on different (new) codes emerging from the interview transcripts, complementary to the factors of the
managerial competency framework. The grounded theory method was employed to analyse data and develop analytical codes. More specifically, the Grounded Theory strategy of Strauss & Corbin (1998) identifying three coding stages was adopted: (1) open coding, (2) axial coding, and (3) selective coding. The process of constant comparison underpinned the coding process: every code was constantly compared to others to check for similarities, differences, and general patterns (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparison requires shifting between inductive and deductive thinking as it involves both the development of new codes as well as the reanalysis of existing codes when new data is collected (Saunders et al., 2012).
In sum, both the existing managerial competency framework and the grounded theory method were used to analyze, interpret and explain the meanings that participants attached to their board experience. The codes and concepts that emerged from this combined process were classified into overarching patterns that constitute the main findings of this research.
3.4 Research Context
A students’ association, or students’ union, is an organization led by students or recent
graduates, dependent or independently of the university. The overriding purpose of a students’ association can span a wide variety of contexts: offering study-related services (i.e.,
internships, study trips, and recruitment activities), improving social contacts (e.g., improving the contact between students and alumni), representing student interests on various issues, practicing a sport together, promoting a common principle (e.g., a political or philosophical
stance), or any another binding mission. Students’ associations can be found all over the world and often vary in terms of governance and structure depending on their home country. Some students’ unions, however, extend beyond national boundaries, for example: AEGEE (European Students Forum), AIESEC (The International Platform for Young People to
Explore and Develop their Potential), BBNM (Global Student Network for Collaboration with the Business World), Erasmus Student Network, WOSY (World Organization of Students and Youth), and many more.
AIESEC The Netherlands serves as this study’s research context. AIESEC (originally established as Association Internationale des Étudiants en Sciences Économiques et
Commercials in 1948) is the largest student-run organization in the world, currently present in 124 countries and territories and with approximately 100.000 active young members
(AIESEC, 2013). Educational systems are failing to prepare young people for the complex economical, social and technical developments shaping today’s world. Therefore, AIESEC has committed to providing leadership experiences to young people all over the world. AIESEC aims to develop leadership qualities by providing professional internships,
development internships, board opportunities and career activities. AIESEC places more than 20,000 students in professional or community development internships programs annually (AIESEC, 2013).
AIESEC The Netherlands is structurally organized as follows: one national board referred to as the Member Committee (MC) and 11 Local Committees (LCs) located in Amsterdam, Groningen, Delft, Leiden, Maastricht, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, Tilburg, Twente, Utrecht and Wageningen (AIESEC, 2013). The MC and LC board members are all students or recent university graduates. Every independent Local Committee has an Executive Board (EB) of fulltime members responsible for the LCs overall performance and for guiding their team of parrtime members (Figure 2).
3.5 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is established by following the ‘’general guidelines for conducting research interviews’’ identified by McNamara (2009). These guidelines were satisfied throughout the research design in order to assure the proper and professional collection of data.
The preparation stage was characterized by: (1) choose a setting with little distraction; (2) explain the purpose of the interview; (3) address terms of confidentiality; (4) explain the format of the interview; (5) indicate how long the interview usually takes; (6) tell them how to
Figure 2: Local Committee Structure of AIESEC The Netherlands
get in touch with you later if they want to; (7) ask them if they have any questions; and (8) don’t count on your memory to recall their answers (McNamara, 2009).
McNamara (2009) also guided the development of the effective research questions for interviews: (1) get the respondents involved in the interview as soon as possible; (2) before asking about controversial matters, first ask about some facts; (3) intersperse fact-based questions throughout the interview; (4) ask questions about the present before questions about the past or future; and (5) the last question might be to allow respondents to provide any other information they prefer to add and their impressions of the interview.
Recommendations were also provided for the wording of the interview questions: (1) wording should be open-ended; (2) questions should be as neutral as possible; (3) questions should be asked one at a time; (4) questions should be worded clearly; (5) be careful asking ‘’why’’ questions.
Finally, McNamara (2009) proposes several directions in the process of conducting the interview: (1) occassionally verify the tape recorder is working; (2) ask one question at a times; (3) attempt to remain as neutral as possible; (4) encourage responses; (5) be careful about the appearance when note taking; (6) provide transition between major topics; and (7) don’t lose control of the interview.
3.6 Ethical considerations
Ethical risks and concerns are more apparent in qualitative research than in quantitative research since researchers need to operate within a natural setting (Bowen, 2005). Therefore, attention was paid to the procedures for dealing with human respondents and adherence was paid to ethical guidelines for research. The participation in the research was voluntary, the respondent had the right to withdraw at any time, and respondent confidentiality was assured.
Teams (parttime) Executive Board (fulltime)
President
Vice President Nour/Amb/Meet a Mentor/Board Battle/OPT Nour/Amb/Meet a Mentor/Board Battle/OPT Team Outgoing Exchange Coordinator Outgoing Exchange Team Incoming Exchange Coordinator Incoming Exchange Team Make a Move Coordinator Make a Move Team
The associated risks for the participants were minimal since their responses would not compromise their current job, nor AIESEC, nor their prior university: it is about their own view on their board experience and the effectiveness of business schools in preparing them for the work floor.
As a researcher adopting a qualitative methodology, my task was more challenging. I needed to promote objectivity throughout the interview and make sure that I did not influence participants’ responses. The research was guided by my particular interest in the ability of board experience to close the job-knowledge gap, inspired by my current parttime board position at AIESEC Amsterdam and my business school education (bachelor Economics and Business at the University of Amsterdam). The participants were fully aware of my
background and while on the one hand, my identity established my credibility, on the other hand, I had to make sure that I was not engaging my own experiences and personal biases in the interview. The fact that I was conducting the research for my bachelor thesis ensured that I did not encounter any problems with researcher loyalty, funding sources, or use of results.
4. Results
This section presents the empirical findings from the five open-ended interviews conducted with AIESEC alumni throughout the Netherlands. A two-step method of analysis was adopted to determine how board experience affects business school students’ preparedness for the workforce (i.e., their employability). First, participants’ opinions on the usefulness and the relevancy of contemporary business education were explored. The patterns that emerged from utilizing both an inductive and a deductive analyzing approach were summarized respectively. Patterns, also referred to as categories or themes, represent relevant phenomena under which systematically related lower-level concepts are grouped (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Second, the participants’ opinions on the competencies that are obtained through board experience are investigated and discussed in like manner, using first a deductive and then an inductive approach. The patterns are illustrated with thick and rich quotes. Finally, the most important competencies that are developed through board experience and explicitly mentioned by the participants are summarized.
4.1 Perspectives on contemporary business schools
This section summarizes the opinions and views of the participants regarding contemporary business education. What are business schools currently offering? Which competencies are mainly developed through the business school curriculum? Should business schools change
their educational product? Patterns 1, 2 and 3 arose when analyzing the interview data utilizing the existing managerial competency framework of Dierdorff & Rubin (2006). After the deductive analysis, patterns 4, 5, and 6 emerged from the inductive approach.
Pattern 1: Business schools generally accentuate the development of the knowledge-based competencies.
All participants seemed to agree on the fact that business schools are principally about enhancing knowledge. More specifically, universities are about acquiring and applying knowledge at a scientific level. Thus with respect to the four managerial competency domains depicted by Dierdorff & Rubin (2006) – behavioral-based, skill-based, knowledge-based, and work-style-based competencies – business schools clearly stress the development of
knowledge-based competencies. The business school curriculum, representing the business school’s educational product, relies heavily on courses that promote the ‘’Knowledge of General Business Functions’’. This domain includes general business courses like
administration, accounting, marketing, management, human resource management, and so on. These so-called ‘core’ business specific courses are generally taught at all business schools and relate to hard knowledge and skills. According to Andrews & Higson (2008) hard knowledge is one of the components of graduate employability. And indeed, the graduates recognized the importance of studying business in terms of the specific business knowledge courses, however, primarily as a foundation to the broader spectrum of knowledge and skills needed for actual employment. Only participant one believed that his educational program developed more than academic knowledge. He considered his master to focus both on hard and soft skills.. However, he acknowledges that his university experience was different from most because his university employed a case-base learning approach, which encouraged class participation and discussion. Also, he had to work in groups intensively.
Table 3: Illustrative Quotes Business School View - Pattern 1
Participant Illustrative quotes
1 Because, at my master in Madrid they adopted a system of case-base learning.
[…] And then from these cases the different methodologies would be explained.
It was in fact really a combination of soft and hard skills.
2 In my opinion we did not have a lot of substantive courses. We had a lot ‘have
Because at the hotelschool you get a very specific set of skills: how do you run a hotel? […] At the university you would go one step further into depth for a particular subject. But then again also much wider.
With respect to knowledge those courses are obviously relevant up until a certain degree.
At a university you are operating on a very scientific level.
3 I think actually that it just stays very theoretical during your degree.
So even your theoretical knowledge is very broad. And I think that is a good foundation to learn how to think in a certain manner, so that is my appreciation for the university system here.
Well, I think that it is very relevant, I think that business schools really provide the opportunity to get in touch with commercial activities and organizational processes to people with our interests at a very young age. And I also think that the knowledge that you obtain there, even though you might not need it one on one anymore, certainly creates a foundation for the rest of your life. Look, it is indeed not the case that I have to cite business models at my job, but because I have learned all of this I have developed certain competencies and certain analytical skills which now allow me to do my job properly. So I think that they are very relevant, however, I think business schools need to acknowledge that they are not offering the total package.
4 Yes. The knowledge obtained through university is always useful. But look. If
you want to build a house, then you need to build the foundation first. If you do not build the foundation, then you cannot build a house. But as basic knowledge it is fine.
5 Yes and that knowledge was, is, a lot more comprehensive than just finance.
But my study surely proved useful. The emphasis is on knowledge of course.
Pattern 2: Business schools do not encourage the work-style competency ‘’Generative Thinking’’.
The work-style competency ‘’Generative Thinking’’ is characterized by independence, innovation and analytical thinking. Most graduates thought that the university experience did not encourage their ability to think in a creative and applied manner. With the exception of participant three, who states that her analytical thinking skills significantly improved through the business school experience (she does not mention the elements of independence and innovation). All participants seem to share the same view of business schools: institutions that are conveying knowledge-based competencies from their ivory towers while little attention is
paid to students’ opinions and personal development. The fact that there is not much room for an individualistic approach is reflected in the business school’s way of teaching. After you have chosen your field of study, you, and all the other students who opted for the same field, will follow the same set of courses and will take the same exams. Although personal interests could slightly be taken into account by elective courses, the structure and content of a course is never debatable or customized to the student’s individual interests. Overall, the university does not really promote the exploration of anything else besides the formal business
curriculum. Only those accredited courses contribute to obtaining your degree – any other form of individual development is not acknowledged.
Table 4: Illustrative Quotes Business School View - Pattern 2
Participant Illustrative quotes
1 It is also about what you consider important. And I think that universities are
neglecting this. They sketch an image of reality through the courses that they offer. But there is very little attention to what you really want to do as a person. Or what you think about something.
2 Then I went to university and all of the sudden I was more a number than a
person, or more a number than a name.
So the whole greatness and the ‘being’ of an institution, of a university, I did not like as much.
So to speak, my main motto is that at a university your whole creativity is smashed. And I consider that very dreadful.
At a university it is always just like: you get really good grades, thus you are doing well.
There is really no room for you to evaluate what you think of something personally at the university.
3 I do believe that I have developed certain analytical skills because of my
degree, which for example allows me to clearly distinguish main issues from side issues. I have a good tunnel vision, thus to clearly see the things that are really important, and then tackle these so that you can properly analyze the problem. And taking certain ‘thinking-steps’ in a structured manner. Hence, on an analytical level you are definitely developing yourself.
You know, I would consider it very well if universities would acknowledge points to going on a GCDP with AIESEC, so on a development internship, through which you experience not only culture in foreign countries, but also leadership experience through your internship, and international experience because you need to ground in a different country. Because then you are showing your students, as a university, that you think it is important that you
