Global Focus, Vol.13, Issue 2 - Making HR future proof by EFMD Global

The EFMD Business Magazine | Iss2 Vol.13 | www.efmd.org

Making HR future proof

STEM A root and branch problem

IBEA Travel broadens undergrads

Ecosystems Will you join the party?

B-schools Should we just close them down?

Not so neutral Students learn to live sustainably

Learning It may no longer be enough

In focus | Global Focus

In focus Global Focus Iss.2 Vol.13 | 2019

Writing In Focus is always a fun task. More ways to read Global Focus

It usually comes around the end of the editorial process, when articles have been polished (if needed!) and passed on to our design and production colleagues. It is also a first chance to review the magazine as a whole, allowing us to point readers to interesting juxtapositions of thinking and approach and alert them to new and innovative ideas. For example, Amber Wigmore Alvarez, Chief Innovation Officer, Highered EFMD Global Career Services, argues (page 6) that we are witnessing the unravelling of traditional HR selection processes and that this is something to be welcomed “The time has come to disrupt this model and reverse the mindset. Much like switching to a new routine or changing a workflow coaxes the brain into making new connections (neuroplasticity), we need to rethink the concept of ‘placement’. “Only by having a complete grasp of organisations’ hiring needs, campaigns and profiles with their multitude of intricacies, can we successfully be exposed to a new set of triggers and then design programmes that truly match the needs of business.” This theme of the central role of business schools in further education is picked up and developed in several subsequent contributions. For example, Chengyi Lin and Nikolaj Plagborg-Møller look back at (page 12) the brief and so-far somewhat chequered history of technology in management education though they remain sanguine about its future. They quote a chief learning executive from a FMCG company: “We understand the power of face-to-face interactions and the magic of the classroom. We will continue to use the classic format. “But the environment is very uncertain and volatile. Our employees are diverse – [thus] the amount of new knowledge required is diverse and increasing in diversity. Everybody is busy and they need flexibilities. The traditional model doesn’t work for everything.” The story beginning on page 24 recounts the difficulties involved in re-orienting a flagship programme for senior executives; and Dean Chris Pitelis (page 34) calls for a re-imagining of business education and business schools so they can help build a better and brighter future. But just when you thought it was safe to leave the bunker, on page 76 Bert van der Zwaan points that throughout history people have thought that theirs was a truly transformative time. In hindsight they were often wrong but now there are reasons to believe that the world of higher education is changing more profoundly than ever.

You can read Global Focus in print, online and on the move, in English, Chinese or Spanish

Go to globalfocusmagazine.com to access the online library of past issues

Or search iTunes for your iPad edition

Your say We are always pleased to hear your thoughts on Global Focus, and ideas on what you would like to see in future issues. Please address comments and ideas to Matthew Wood at EFMD: matthew.wood@efmd.org

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Contents

Global Focus The EFMD Business Magazine Iss.2 Vol.13 | 2019

Executive Editor Matthew Wood / matthew.wood@efmd.org Advisory Board Eric Cornuel Howard Thomas Consultant Editor George Bickerstaffe / georgebickerstaffe@gmail.com Contributing Editors Amber Wigmore Alvarez Nana von Bernuth Ingo Bayer Rick Cotton Edna Diez Ralph Eastman Mackenzie Ford Michael Haenlein Yvonne Hall Nikki Huyer Simon Linacre Chengyi Lin Antonia Lütgens Jens Meyer Simon Pek Chris Pitelis Ishwar Puri Revathi Raghavan André Sobczak Richard Straub Ken Starkey Howard Thomas Leonard Waverman Christina Vonhoff Harwin de Vries Luk Van Wassenhove Bert van der Zwaan Design & Art Direction Jebens Design / www.jebensdesign.co.uk Photographs & Illustrations © Jebens Design Ltd / EFMD unless otherwise stated Editorial & Advertising Matthew Wood / matthew.wood@efmd.org Telephone: +32 2 629 0810 www.globalfocusmagazine.com www.efmd.org EFMD Rue Gachard 88 – Box 3, 1050 Brussels, Belgium ©

Making HR future proof Amber Wigmore Alvarez asks if we are educating tomorrow’s talent effectively

Digital augmented education - are you ready to experiment? Chengyi Lin looks back on the so far somewhat chequered history of technology in management education but is sanguine about its future

Do business schools have a Plan B for Plan S? For those involved in STEM research and the publishing industry, the last year has been all about Plan S and its potential impact on both constituencies. But what are the consequences, unintended or otherwise, for business schools and their research programmes? Simon Linacre lifts the lid on Plan S and what might be in store for the sector

Crafting a successful executive education programme Harwin de Vries, Jens Meyer, Luk Van Wassenhove and Nana von Bernuth recount the difficulties involved in re-orienting a flagship programme for senior executives

The power of ecosystems Richard Straub tracks the growing interest in ecosystems and their profound implications for management education and research and development

Contents | Global Focus

Much ado about … scientific research Defining a sustainable research and development strategy gives many business schools a headache. Michael Haenlein suggests some cures

Sustainable education Antonia Lütgens describes how an education geared to sustainability is proving itself as sustainable

62 34

A future for business education: why business as usual is bad business Chris Pitelis calls for a re-imagining of business education and business schools so they can help build a better and brighter future

Harnessing disruption – a glimpse into the future An innovative executive programme is showing how cooperation between academia and business can profit both. By Ralph Eastman

The future of business schools: shut them down or broaden our horizons? Ken Starkey and Howard Thomas report on a ground-breaking workshop that debated the mounting criticism of business schools and where they might go from here

Preparing students for the world outside the classroom Ishwar Puri and Leonard Waverman describe how a new programme at a top Canadian university breaks down academic barriers and allows students to pursue their interests across the campus in collaborative and experiential ways

Will learning get you there? It may not be enough, argues Nikki Huyer. She believes that more attention needs to be paid to learning transfer

Positive learning on carbon neutrality A leading Canadian school helps students to live their sustainable curriculum. By Simon Pek, Rick Cotton and Mackenzie Ford

Interweaving internationalisation and corporate relevance Germany, the US, Singapore, Brazil may sound like an exciting world trip but they are also places where lucky students are IBEA undergraduates. By Ingo Bayer, Yvonne Hall and Christina Vonhoff

The challenge of change Throughout history people have thought that theirs was a truly transformative time. In hindsight they were often wrong but, says Bert van der Zwaan, the world of higher education at least is changing more profoundly than ever

The quest for effective performance management Edna Diez and Revathi Raghavan argue that to work properly performance management needs to shift from being an evaluative tool to one that grows and develops people

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

WINNERS

EFMD Case Writing Competition 2018 Rewarding innovative cases in management development African Business Cases VITALITE Zambia Ltd: The intersection of solar energy technology and mobile money in Zambia (case A & B)

Continuous Improvement: The Journey to Excellence SEAT: Achieving excellence in production and quality

WRITTEN BY:

Vimendree Perumal, Peter Munthali, Ralph Hamann & Sarah Boyd UCT GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ZA and John Fay VITALITE, ZM

Cristina Giménez Thomse & Susanna Salvador-Iborra ESADE BUSINESS SCHOOL, ES and Cristina Sancha OBS BUSINESS SCHOOL, ES

SPONSORED BY:

China Europe International Business School (CEIBS)

Instituto Internacional San Telmo – Cátedra Mayoral de Mejora Continua

Bringing Technology to Market Evaluating the Cognitive Analytics Frontier WRITTEN BY:

Adam Pah & Alanna Lazarowich KELLOGG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, US SPONSORED BY:

Corporate Social Responsibility

Entrepreneurship

Family Business

The Carrot Rewards Wellness App: Innovating in the Behaviour Change Market

Yes Bank - The Case of Unrecognized Promoter

WRITTEN BY:

Pooja Gupta & Semila Fernandes, Symbiosis Institute of Business Management-Bengaluru, IN

WRITTEN BY:

Pierre Chandon, INSEAD, FR and Shilaan Alzahawi, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, US

SPONSORED BY:

EMLyon Business School

Suliman S. Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut

Euro-Mediterranean Managerial Practices and Issues

Finance and Banking

SPONSORED BY:

An App You Can't Refuse WRITTEN BY:

Tata Motors (A): A History of Service in a New Era of Corporate Social Responsibility - Tata Motors (B): More from Less for More WRITTEN BY:

Craig Smith, INSEAD, FR and Erin McCormick, US

ESMT Berlin SPONSORED BY:

ESC PAU Business School

Guillermo de Haro & Guillermo Velasco, IE University, ES SPONSORED BY:

Montpellier Business School

Credit Suisse: Building an Impact Investing Business in Asia WRITTEN BY:

Jasjit Singh, INSEAD, SG and Joost Bilkes, Credit Suisse, SG SPONSORED BY:

IE Business School

Inclusive Business Models For&From: Inditex Group’s Social Franchise WRITTEN BY:

Ezequiel Reficco, EGADE Tecnológico de Monterrey, MX and Alfred Vernis, ESADE Business School, ES SPONSORED BY:

IMD

Indian Management Issues and Opportunities Turning sand into gold – Service Transformation A Case of Delhi International Airport WRITTEN BY:

Gandhali Divekar & Prachee Javadekar, Parigha Research and Consultancy, IN and D.V.R. Seshadri, Indian School of Business, IN SPONSORED BY:

Curtin Business School

Latin American Business Cases LATAM: A Latin American Airline’s Emergence as a Global Player

MENA Business Cases Fashion Forward Dubai (FFWD): Digitally Transforming the Fashion Industry?

Supply Chain Management

Sustainable Production Systems

Eliminating Modern Slavery from Supply Chains: Can Nestlé Lead the Way?

Dalmia Bharat: Social Return on Investment

WRITTEN BY:

Felipe Monteiro, INSEAD, FR and Katia Kachan, Mediaquest, AE

WRITTEN BY: WRITTEN BY:

Debapratim Purkayastha & Syeda Maseeha Qumer, ICFAI, IN

SPONSORED BY:

HEC Paris in Qatar

SPONSORED BY:

University of San Diego - School of Business Administration

The Case Centre & EFMD

Urban Transition Challenges The Greater Manchester Waste Development Authority – Challenges in Sustainable Waste Management WRITTEN BY:

K B S Kumar, ICFAI Business School, IN and Indu Perepu, IBS Case Research Center, IN SPONSORED BY:

Case Centre & EFMD

SPONSORED BY:

Universidad Externado de Colombia

For more information on the EFMD Case Writing Competition visit https://efmdglobal.org/awards/case-writing-competition/

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Making HR future proof Amber Wigmore Alvarez asks if we are educating tomorrowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s talent effectively

Making HR future proof | Amber Wigmore Alvarez

cross the globe, we are witnessing the unravelling of traditional HR selection processes. Until now, much of the design of academic institutions’ Career Services has been around Career Education and Career Advising only then to be followed by Recruiter Relations. The time has come to disrupt this model and reverse the mindset. Much like switching to a new routine or changing a workflow coaxes the brain into making new connections (neuroplasticity), we need to rethink the concept of “placement” . Only by having a complete grasp of organisations’ hiring needs, campaigns and profiles with their multitude of intricacies, can we successfully be exposed to a new set of triggers and then design programmes that truly match the needs of business. Recruiter (“Talent Spotter”) Perspective The once widespread practice of companies’ and organisations’ HR departments targeting and working with the same small group of academic institutions is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And while some top employers target Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools (their words) to identify exceptional candidates in less competitive environments, achieving the right balance between “talent potential” and “competition ratio” is still a struggle. Simply put, using traditional HR methods, companies find themselves lacking the resources to target every school on their radar. Add to that the key terms recruiters across all industries and cultures have incorporated into their hiring objectives (STEM, talent and diversity, and inclusion) plus stringent work authorisation requirements (the US and UK being the most relevant at this time) and the potential for success requires complex orchestration and profile positioning. All this is underlined by HR tech, which is no longer an emerging trend but rather has mushroomed in the past few years so that entire conferences around the world are dedicated to this aspect of HR.

Simply put, using traditional HR methods companies find themselves lacking the resources to target every school on their radar

Tier 2&3 While some top employers target Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools (their words) to identify exceptional candidates in less competitive environments, achieving the right balance between “talent potential” and “competition ratio” is still a struggle

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Interestingly enough, most of the HR tech providers come from a non-HR background. In fact, sourcing and recruiting is considered by some to be one of the least complex areas and where it is easiest to demonstrate value creation (cost/time/quality of hire). Academic Perspective Given the strategic relevance of academic institutionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; overall missions and goals, it is important that professionals and staff are equipped to liaise with and effectively cater to key stakeholders, including students, alumni, faculty and others as well as companies and organisations that are both corporate partners and recruiters. Career Services need to become aware of the established providers in the assessments arena (Cut-e, Arctic Shores and Pymetrics to name a few) in order to best prepare their talent, understanding that HR functions must match the success their companies have seen in the Customer Experience arena. There is a need for academic institutions to seek to partner with HR functions. All key stakeholders in higher education management should learn how the future of selection processes and the candidate experience is more data-driven, flexible, continuous and development oriented.

It is crucial to assess recruitment cycles and candidate job search behaviours. Summarising 1,907 internship and part-time job postings on the Highered EFMD site during 2018 with nearly 240,000 position views from candidates, we find that Q1 (January to March) is the peak season for companies posting opportunities. While academic institutions frequently cluster their campus recruitment activities in Q4, available job ads on the Highered EFMD platform were more than twice the number of ads in Q1 versus September to November. Correspondingly, Q1 also attracts the most candidate views of positions. With regards to internships/part-time opportunities, students are most actively searching for these in March, followed by February, with the highest conversion rates of position views/applications taking place in March, followed by April, as reflected in Figure 1.

The Talent Perspective While at times struggling to get closer to the student mindset, recruiters appreciate insight into candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; job search behaviour and preference in order to devise their strategy in the global war for talent. After a detailed analysis of nearly 100,000 active student/graduate users located in 98 countries and from 387 business schools using the Highered EFMD Career Services platform in 2018, we have gained valuable insight into candidate job search behaviour on a global basis. Our findings support the optimisation of campus recruitment strategies to attract top talent in 2019. Figure 1 Internship and part-time positions performance in 2018

Making HR future proof | Amber Wigmore Alvarez

Although a notable number of job opportunities are posted during September and December, candidate engagement is relatively low. Yet between April and July, high conversion rates with regards to applications can be seen, despite the fact that fewer jobs are posted. This provides a hiring opportunity for companies as overall fewer new jobs are posted during the period, translating into less risk of cannibalisation from competitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; job ads. Also, as students show relatively strong interest in searching for roles, a higher engagement rate is expected. Therefore, companies demanding interns should continue to focus on Q1 in order to increase their employer brand awareness while attracting more students to apply and, in the meantime, explore opportunities in Q2. Following an analysis of 3,612 graduate and full-time job postings on the Highered EFMD platform during 2018, with nearly 250,000 position views from candidates, we find that graduate jobs are available throughout the year, with season peaks around April to June and August to September. Q2 is the busiest season, followed by Q3, with both quarters accounting for 75% of all full-time job postings during the year, as reflected in Figure 2.

Interestingly enough, most of the HR tech providers come from a non-HR background. In fact, sourcing and recruiting is considered by some to be one of the least complex areas

Figure 2 Graduate and full-time positions performance in 2018

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Average conversion rates are relatively stable throughout the year. Candidates appear to be most actively seeking in March and May, browsing across different positions while a critical mass of new opportunities appear on the Highered EFMD platform. Candidates are also aware of the autumn recruitment season, showing an increase in job search activity in October. Interestingly, while few full-time job ads are posted in February, students show strong intent to apply for jobs that month, posing an opportunity for companies with less rigid recruitment schemes to avoid intense competition with other employers during peak seasons. Therefore, rather than lapsing repetitively into their usual recruitment calendar by default, we urge employers to align whenever possible with candidates’ job search behaviour – start earlier, optimise the spring recruitment season and increase engagement with talent during autumn. Following an analysis of the recruitment cycle and its relevance to job search behaviours, we now shift to assess candidates’ job search preferences. Among all position postings on the Highered EFMD Global Career Services platform in 2018, 20% are finance and accounting, 12.6% are Marketing and Communications and 11.7% are Sales, as reflected in Figure 3. Positions viewed by students follow the same trend – with the greatest number of views being for Finance and Accounting, Marketing and Communications, Sales, IT/Tech, HR, Operations, Supply Chain and Strategy. Roles demanding IT skills are on the rise. However, Strategy-related roles, while low on the demand side, prove to be a popular candidate search on the Highered EFMD platform globally.

Figure 3 The top 8 in-demand roles

Recruiters are increasingly asking for recommendations to set themselves apart from other employers. In order to stand out from the multitude of similar roles in organisations competing for the same talent pool, we suggest companies rework job titles to make it easier for candidates to both search for and understand the specific functions of a role. As for employer branding, while an increase of brand exposure and awareness is a top concern for companies when posting vacancies on career portals, the ability to attract relevant applications is more critical. Within the top eight sectors identified, Supply Chain, Strategy and Marketing positions experience the highest conversion rates with regards to applications made, as reflected in Figure 4.

20%

20% of positions on the Highered platform are Finance and Accounting, 12.6% Marketing and Communications and 11.7% Sales

Making HR future proof | Amber Wigmore Alvarez

Conclusion How do these findings resonate with the talent of tomorrow? Are they future ready? Fundamental change is taking place in HR, which translates into initiatives with and for talent rather than to them. This yields a dismantling of traditional selection processes and the embrace of those reflecting employer branding strategies, talent spotter initiatives, and a hunger for diversity and inclusion. HR divisions are rapidly getting on-board the “leading with talent analytics” train and Career Services are leveraging the power of alliances to gain strength, momentum and visibility for their talent. There is an implicit importance in having the right questions and the right data to make the right decisions as well as understanding how algorithms can allow for the acceleration of matching global vacancies and top talent. A continuous, strategic dialogue between all stakeholders – recruiters, talent and academic institutions – is the only way to forge a path that will allow talent spotters to tap into global pools of candidates who have been educated and positioned to secure opportunities in line with their aspirations and their motivations, values, and need for continuous learning and professional development.

There is an implicit importance in having the right questions and the right data to make the right decisions as well as understanding how algorithms can allow for the acceleration of matching global vacancies and top talent

Figure 4 Conversion rates of the top 8 sectors

About the Author Dr Amber Wigmore Alvarez is Chief Innovation Officer (CIO), Highered EFMD Global Career Services

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Digital Augmented Education Are you ready to experiment? Chengyi Lin looks back on the so far somewhat chequered history of technology in management education but is sanguine about its future

Digital Augmented Education - Are you ready to experiment? | Chengyi Lin

100m In 2018, total registered learners in the top MOOC platforms passed the 100 million mark

n 2018, total registered learners in the top MOOC platforms passed the 100 million mark. The total number of online courses was over 11,400. Roughly 18.2% of the courses are business related, a number that closely follow the 20.4% on technology. (Source 1) After seven years, the MOOC movement is starting to bear fruit from its root philosophy: providing education access to those who could not afford otherwise. Even at this prototyping stage, the impact on many traditional bricks-and-mortar business schools can hardly be ignored. Recent shutdown of some US MBA programme indicates that MOOCs strongly challenge the business model of classic incumbents. (Source 2) On the other hand, “the open classroom door”, so to speak, also give a false impression to the general public that the MOOC experience captures all the values a traditional business school brings to its students. If the impact continues as digital education technologies evolve, what will become the future of business education? The ultimate impact of digital technology on education remains to be seen. What is becoming clearer, however, is the converging trends from the consumers. “I hesitated before applying to business school", was a statement made by an MBA student during a conference panel discussion. “My friend and I took many Coursera courses and loved them. We decided that we could start our own company and take the MOOC courses when we needed them. Why should we pay the large tuition fees, spend time in business school only to come out in debt?” Both my Dean and I sat very uncomfortably on the panel listening to this. Then it took an interesting turn. “After the first month, I was so happy that I [had] decided to come to business school. The professors, my peer students, events with companies and leaders… all these enriched my learning experience. And I still use MOOCs to broaden my knowledge in my spare time.”

With a sigh of relief, we were happy to be re-assured on the value proposition of business school and, by extension, the value of me as a professor. The curriculum design, the direct access to faculty, the proximity to cutting-edge research, the exchange with peers, and the exposure to business leaders and organisations were just a few added-values of a business school. At the same time, I couldn’t help but feel concerned about this “slippery slope” we were riding with the new disruptive technologies. Similar trends were observed in my conversations with learning professionals in the executive education market. Many companies have revamped their learning management systems in the past two to four years. The new internal learning systems aim at providing sustained, flexible and personalised learning in addition to the episodic skill- or strategy-based training contents. “We understand the power of face-to-face interactions and the magic of the classroom. We will continue to use the classic format,” commented a chief learning executive from a FMCG company. “But the environment is very uncertain and volatile. Our employees are diverse – [thus] the amount of new knowledge required is diverse. [In addition,] Everybody is busy and they need flexibilities. The traditional model doesn’t work for everything.” It seems that our consumers (and customers) have started to embrace the new technologies and, more importantly, the new digital world. And what about the conversations on the supplier side - the educators and educational institutions? I started to reflect on my interactions with colleagues across various institutions. To my own surprise, the conversations tend to be more polarised. The classroom camp often highlights the benefits of F2F (face-to-face) interactions, the magic of P2P(peer-to-peer) learning in the classroom and the control we have as educators to craft the impactful learning journey for all the participants.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

You may have variations of the different elements or sequence but the overall logic is quite universal. However, this plan is very difficult to implement if we only use tools from either camp. Simply put, the execution of the classroom camp would be costly; while the digital camp might be less effective. What would the execution look like in a digital augmented future? • Based on the existing and accumulative learner data, AI-powered (artificial intelligence) algorithms could extract: 1) learners’ baseline understanding of the strategy concepts and frameworks (for example, past training programmes, education background, performance data, assessment results and so on) and 2) learning style (for example, behaviour pattern from previous digital training, past assessment and learning impact data, etc) • Leaners and educators could use this information to inform their decision on personalised learning paths, including content, format and pace • New training materials could be distributed digitally to allow personalised consumption. Individual exercises and social interaction could be conducted asynchronously. In-classroom sessions could be introduced to deepen the knowledge, share experience and conduct team activities • Participants can be encouraged to experiment with the new learning via simulation or applied activities digitally or in-person • Follow-up project works could be continued in the digital platform, where business and leadership impacts could be monitored and measured • Any new learning needs could be gathered to inform future learning needs As you can see, digital technology could augment traditional in-classroom formats and create a seamless integrated learning journey. At each step, educators could have the choice of digital or in-person delivery as well as the

80%

Pre-assessment, or the lack thereof, is one of the weaknesses of the MOOC offerings. We continue to see a high drop-out rate of up to 80% at the beginning of a course

PICTURE COURTESY OF INSEAD

On the opposite side, the digital camp often raves about the flexibility for the learner, the personalisation based on learner style, the “time-saving” for educators and the incredible scale advantages. When both sides cannot agree, the conversations typically shifts to the disadvantages, which are also plenty on both sides. The clear difference between the two formats often becomes the source of debate: which one is better? Interestingly, if one starts to look at this debate from a different perspective, one could argue that the differences between the two worlds can make them extremely complementary. Although many research and opinion articles have discussed the benefits of “hybrid” models that tries to combine the two, more often than not we still hold on to our mental model and position digital and in-person as archenemies. I ask myself if instead of letting the two battle it out until one winner is left standing, wouldn’t we all be better off imagining a world benefiting from both formats as the students and executive participants rightfully describe? A digital technology augmented learning future for all? What would this new world look like? Let’s image a simple scenario – designing a learning intervention for strategy. In an ideal world, we may start with the baselining – assessment of learners’ understanding of strategy concepts and frameworks. Based on the results, we may provide individuals with personalised learning materials to set the foundation. We may also try to understand their “motivation to learn”, learning objectives and individual learning styles. Once we have all the information, we can proceed to introduce new concepts and frameworks around digital strategy before we ask the participants to reflect, exchange and experiment in a low-risk or risk-free environment. To measure impacts, we may want the participants to apply the knowledge to their actual work and measure the improvements in results.

Digital Augmented Education - Are you ready to experiment? | Chengyi Lin

insight generated from learner data. The journey also moves away from episodic training and provides continuity that could extend to lifelong learning. Most importantly, the vast amount of data generated by digital technologies could be harvested to inform individual and organisational learning strategy design. How do we get there? This seamless integrated learning future may sound too far from reach. The exciting news is that many educators, institutions and “edtech” enthusiasts have already started prototyping and piloting such an approach in many areas. Here we share a few promising experiments: Knowledge and learning style assessment Pre-assessment, or the lack thereof, is one of the weaknesses of the MOOC offerings. We continue to see a high drop-out rate of up to 80% at the beginning of a course. One factor accounting for this significant drop-out rate is the lack of appropriate assessment to match the course and participants. Part of the complications comes from the fact that knowledge assessment does not directly corelate to skilful applications. Inspiration could be drawn from many learninggaming apps such as Duolingo or Lumosity, which attempted to use various assessments to approximate “skilful applications”. With the further advancement of AI technologies, we can expect neuro-nets that do a better job at providing information that helps match courses and learners. Personalised learning Without a reliable pre-assessment tool, we are operating in darkness when it comes to designing personalised learning. Before we have the insight, one possible interim design to achieve a similar goal of baselining is to introduce flexibility and choices in content design to allow “personalised uptake”. Recently, I had an exciting opportunity to design such a programme for the INSEAD MBA students – a digital introduction course offered to all incoming students before they come on campus.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

We took full advantage of the digital format and used a real-life INSEAD case – BlaBlaCar -- to illustrate how the subjects we teach in business school help entrepreneurs and leaders manage their businesses and organisations. The design was very flexible so that each participant could tailor his or her own learning based on their individual background. Cascade – serving business needs beyond simple hybrids Similar to our experiments in the degree programmes, I have run multiple pilots (some at fairly large scale) with executive education clients. The designs go beyond a simple hybrid model to reduce cost and increase learning outcomes; they also have a heavy focus on business needs and strategic impact. The design for each level tailors the objectives, content and format to participants’ needs linked to strategy. The strategic, business, leadership and organisational impact of such programme are visible and measurable (For details, see EFMD case studies - links to Microsoft, Telenor EiP Global Focus articles). Learner engagement and immersive experience Explicitly linking learning to impact through design is the first and key step to engaging learners. Once we unlock the internal motivations and understand the learner profiles, we can select the relevant technologies to make the content more engaging – gamification, simulation, social learning and the like. There remains great challenge in the area of social learning and application. At the same time, technologies could present exciting opportunities to change in the future. Another experiment was run by my colleague at INSEAD Professor Ithai Stern. He has introduced Virtual Reality into the MBA core classes. This new technology transforms the traditional case teaching into an immersive experience. Follow-up and measuring impact This is another exciting area that is often mentioned and is in dying need of new development. Digital could open up opportunities to integrate training platforms with performance management system (such

as API) to allow better data analytics. Some platforms started to experiment such integration in limited scope. The development of data analytic tools could further advance these developments. But the central challenge remains on how to select the right metrics to monitor and measure. Having analysed disruptions at various times in the history of business and humanity, one conclusion is clear: it is not just the technologies that disrupt; the huge impact comes from new business models, way of working and mindsets based on disruptive technology. If we extend the logic, digital alone will not necessarily disrupt business education. It is how we, collectives of educators and education managers, apply technologies to re-image business education will evolve and/or revolutionise our industry. It takes vision, courage and means to disrupt. If we learned anything from the start-up world, especially the digital start-ups ,we need to start with experimentations focused on the consumer and boldly introducing new technologies. Naturally, some succeeded; some failed. But most importantly, many are on-going. I had the great opportunities to lead our experiments at INSEAD for the past five years with the support of the dean. Along the process, I also enjoyed the many exchanges with peers in similar positions and with similar mindset across different institutions. I’d like to summarise (with my twist) and share some lessons learned from these experiences. First, let’s define a few guiding principles for the experiments. Here are some of ours: • Put learning and the learners at the centre • The experience of the educator is important but secondary to the learner experience (as you could imagine, this is quite provocative and generates some debate) • Be obsessed with relevance and impact • Connect to learners’ individual career goals as well as to the company business goals

Digital Augmented Education - Are you ready to experiment? | Chengyi Lin

• •

Make no compromise on quality; look for opportunities to delight Technology should be seamless; experience should be the highlight

Second, engage your key stakeholders in a collaborative innovation process • Break the polarising view; collectively imagine the “ideal programme” • Focus on value creation before value capture • How can we collectively create more value for the business, organisation, participants and the provider(s) – Factor in the learning from experimentation in the cost-benefit equation • Be open to digital and other technology; understand that they are only means to an end – Technology is neither your friend or enemy – there should be another tool you could provide – Technology is far from perfect but it is evolving – no platform can do everything you want, focus on the features that align with your main objectives – Technology is only as important as the learner needs it supports • Focus on the process more than the outcome itself; pivot as needed and keep improving your solution Third, keep evolving the solution as you periodically assess your progress • Keep in mind that there may not be a single secret ingredient to success; success comes from the balance of multiple elements – A mix of interactions and formats could help make the overall solution more dynamic and interesting; learners may engage differently with the various interactions and delivery formats

PICTURES COURTESY OF INSEAD

• Beyond knowledge transfer and absorption, focus on application and contextualisation • Push for meaningful social interactions whenever possible • Engage the wisdom of the crowd; mobilise peer experts • Use data to inform decision making Finally, carefully manage the transformation beyond the new digital solution • Apply the change management process and adapt it to the digital context • Showing not telling • Stay frugal but work diligently on the resources to support the transformation • Measure and communicate impact In five short years, we have come a long way from the initial philosophy of MOOCs. Many continue to be sceptical about them as they show signs of stagnation; while others paint a gloomy future for the traditional business schools. The reality is that we are still at the infant stage of digitalisising education, especially business education. But the lessons are clear: • obsess over the value creation for learners • focus on impact enabled by technology • innovate through associating and collaborating • change mindsets and challenge the status quo Happy experimenting for the digital augmented future!

About the Author Professor Chengyi Lin is Affiliate Professor of Strategy at INSEAD. His research and teaching focus on digital transformation and innovation. He is a board member of multinationals and a member of the European Executive Council. He advises various global organisations on digital execution and mentors start-ups. In 2014 he successfully launched INSEAD Online Education with a unique strategy focusing on customised programmes for transformation. He has grown the business significantly globally. He holds a PhD from Northwestern University in the US, a business certification from Kellogg School of Management and a BSc from Tsinghua University. Sources (1) https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2018/ (2) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/universitywisconsin-considering-future-mba-program

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Do Business Schools have a Plan B for Plan S? For those involved in STEM research and the publishing industry, the last year has been all about Plan S and its potential impact on both constituencies. But what are the consequences, unintended or otherwise, for business schools and their research programmes? Simon Linacre lifts the lid on Plan S and what might be in store for the sector

Do Business Schools have a Plan B for Plan S? | Simon Linacre

nyone who has spent substantial time in the business school sector will be aware of a familiar trope that occurs every so often. It goes something like this: science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) researchers demand something; universities move heaven and earth to satisfy them; business schools are left to tidy up the mess it creates as no one thought about the consequences for them. This may be slightly cynical but there have been numerous examples of unintended consequences that have impacted negatively on the business school community. Because, from governmental policy to local politics business schools are regarded as “different” (often a euphemism for “rich”); no one seems to look out for them in the same way as other core departments. There could be another case of this heading the way of business schools in the shape of “Plan S”. This is an initiative co-ordinated by Science Europe, a group of heads of national research funding organisations, and backed by 14 major funding agencies in Europe (and increasingly further afield), which have formed cOAlition S to ensure that all published research they fund is made open access from 2020. Agencies include UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France) and the Wellcome Trust, which are demanding that the articles they fund are not only made open access but are done so in compliant journals or on compliant platforms. Open, not closed The initiative was launched in September 2018 and is the latest significant step in the push to move academic articles from behind publisher paywalls into an open environment. In the early 2000s a number of declarations were made defining what open access meant and promulgating its adoption. Recent years have seen governments in different countries legislate in favour of open access publication in some form or another although these are often at odds with each other, causing some confusion among scholars and publishers alike as to what constitutes open access in which country.

Fundamental to the arguments of all those pushing for open access is that publicly funded research should be made accessible to all

Even so, ever since the internet came of age in the 1990s, research has been shared more openly as some of the barriers to publication were removed. Add to that market disruption in the shape of Sci-Hub, a website that claims to give free access to the vast majority of academic articles, then it is fair to say that there is a significant degree of turmoil in publishing at the moment. At Cabells – which provides academics with accurate information and reputable outlets for publication – we hear a lot about this from customers, journal editors and researchers concerned about the future of the scholarly publishing environment they depend on. Fundamental to the arguments of all those pushing for open access is that publicly funded research should be made accessible to all, which is why the national funding agencies have been so keen to push forward as they have seen a significant proportion of tax payers’ money fund research that has remained behind publishers’ paywalls. While this has changed somewhat in recent years as open access has gained traction, a recent report by Clarivate Analytics’ Institute for Scientific Information showed that while over 80% of research articles funded by the Wellcome Trust had been made open access, only around a third of the articles funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche in France were openly accessible.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Research impact In addition, the same report predicted that up to a half of all the published output for some EU countries could be open access following implementation of Plan S. There is much to rejoice about here as this will mean a much greater percentage of scientifically important work will be accessible to non-scientists who do not have the luxury of belonging to an institution with multiple subscriptions to academic journals. For anyone who has felt the annoyance of coming up against a paywall for a newspaper or magazine article, this must be increased tenfold if you are trying to find research about a disease affecting a loved one. But it is surmountable. Currently there is a vast EU research fund called Horizon 2020 that has been sharing out €80 billion for research in member states and which will be superseded by Horizon Europe, which will have an even bigger pot. It is already an established mechanism for STEM authors to use some of their funding to pay for their articles to be made “Gold OA”, which comes in the form of an article processing charge (APC), which ranges from $500 to $5,000. Increasingly, authors are being mandated by funders and governments alike to make their articles OA and therefore use funding (if they have any) to pay publishers an APC. If they do not have funding, they can opt for what is known as ‘Green OA’, which is to make a version of their article available as OA on an institutional repository or elsewhere while the final “article of record” is published in a journal. So, what has all this got to do with business schools? Well, various mandates have allowed both Green and Gold OA routes to develop over time while making allowances for publishers to gradually think of new business models and alternatives to the traditional paywall model, none have gone so far and on such a scale as Plan S. Crucially, it currently does not allow for any member-funded research to be published in a so-called “hybrid’ journal”, that, is a journal that publishes OA articles alongside paywall articles, unless there is a statement from the journal and

its publisher to the effect that it is committed to transitioning to pure OA by a certain date. Many STEM journals are already pure OA or are making the transitions but here is the rub: what about the long tail of non-STEM journals that may publish a funded article or two each year in among the majority non-funded articles? To formulate an example, let’s say we have a well-regarded, highly-ranked marketing journal that publishes 50 articles a year. In 2019, one of those articles has been funded by a cOAlition S signatory and the author requests it be made OA, which the publisher does on payment of a $2,000 APC. If the same thing happens in 2020, when Plan S comes into effect, the author(s) will not be allowed to publish in the journal of their choice, bound as they are by their funding conditions. Their research will be lost to the journal community they chose to share it with, the publisher will lose some high-impact research and the article may appear in a less relevant, more STEM-focused journal that is pure OA. The reason the marketing journal in this example cannot transition to OA is because 98% of its articles are unfunded and, with little or no means to pay an APC, publication has to be paid for through a subscription model. If that 2% balance rises to 5%, 10% or 25%, the paywall model comes under threat as subscription prices have to be reduced; and caps placed on APCs means that costs cannot be recovered through the funding channel.

€80bn Currently there is a vast EU research fund called Horizon 2020 that has been sharing out €80 billion for research in member states and which will be superseded by Horizon Europe, which will have an even bigger pot

Do Business Schools have a Plan B for Plan S? | Simon Linacre

But, don’t publishers have double digit profit margins? Couldn’t they swallow some reductions in revenue to maintain the equilibrium? Well, yes, some can and some do. Larger publishers have already looked to offset any impact and diversify their activities, while experimenting with new OA models. However, a STEM-based push into OA could put at risk many journals that have neither a big name or ranking to sustain them through high-quality paywall articles nor the community of authors with funding to pay for OA. Such journals may see quality submissions drop and cease to become viable for the publishers or societies that operate them – and as such the outlets for business school academics could narrow quite significantly. For the majority of business school scholars where you publish still matters. If you publish in top management journals then you as an author are happy, your head of department is happy, and perhaps most importantly your deans are happy. If you are unable to find a suitably ranked journal for your article then despite the decadesold railings of the “publish or perish” culture, no one is happy, least of all those tracking publication performance targets. Should Plan S come to fruition, there will undoubtedly be changes in the scholarly communications landscape that will have ramifications for business schools. Some of these may well be for the better as increased openness can lead to greater engagement and collaboration with business. Whatever the changes, whether the business school community like it or not, they should look to their friends across campus in STEM for some pointers and plan for what a new open research environment could mean for them.

For the majority of business school scholars where you publish still matters

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Plan S is based on ten principles based on the premise that on January 1st 2020 scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access journals or on compliant Open Access platforms. In addition: 1. Authors retain copyright of their publication with no restrictions. All publications must be published under an open license, preferably the Creative Commons Attribution Licence CC BY. In all cases, the license applied should fulfil the requirements defined by the Berlin Declaration 2. The Funders will ensure jointly the establishment of robust criteria and requirements for the services that compliant high-quality Open Access journals and Open Access platforms must provide 3. In case such-high quality Open Access journals or platforms do not yet exist, the Funders will, in a co-ordinated way, provide incentives to establish and support them when appropriate; support will also be provided for Open Access infrastructures where necessary; 4. Where applicable, Open Access publication fees are covered by the Funders or universities, not by individual researchers; it is acknowledged that all scientists should be able to publish their work Open Access even if their institutions have limited means 5. When Open Access publication fees are applied, their funding is standardised and capped (across Europe) 6. The Funders will ask universities, research organisations and libraries to align their policies and strategies, notably to ensure transparency The above principles shall apply to all types of scholarly publications but it is understood that the timeline to achieve Open Access for monographs and books may be longer than 1 January 2020 7. The importance of open archives and repositories for hosting research outputs is acknowledged because of their long-term archiving function and their potential for editorial innovation 8. The “hybrid” model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles 9. The Funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-complianceSource: https://www.coalition-s.org/10-principles/ 22

Want to learn more about Open Access and Plan S? Look up the following for deeper insight: • The cOAlition S website is at https://www. coalition-s.org/ • An open letter signed by nearly 2,000 researchers voicing concern about Plan S is at https://sites.google.com/view/ plansopenletter/home • Overview of Plan S from research industry expert Rob Johnson on UKSG website (https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/ uksg.453/) • Report from Institute for Scientific Information on impact of Plan S (https://lnkd. in/eQwCqgK) • Interview with European Commission’s former open access envoy on status of Plan S in research (https://www.researchresearch. com/news/article/?articleId=1380142)

About the Author Simon Linacre is Director of International Marketing and Development at Cabells having spent 15 years in publishing at Emerald, where he had direct experience in journal acquisitions, open access and business development. His background is in journalism and he has been published in academic journals on the topics of bibliometrics and knowledge transfer. He holds masters degrees in philosophy and international business and has global experience lecturing to researchers on publishing strategies.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Crafting a successful executive education programme Harwin de Vries, Jens Meyer, Luk Van Wassenhove and Nana von Bernuth recount the difficulties involved in reorienting a flagship programme for senior executives

Crafting a successful executive education programme | Harwin de Vries, Jens Meyer, Luk Van Wassenhove and Nana von Bernuth

dults learn from situations of immediate relevance to them; from utilising their experience and problem-oriented learning rather than from content-oriented teaching. Based on these adult-learning principles, grounded in neuroscience, CEDEP, an exclusive, executive education club, created and co-run by its member organisations, rethought and redesigned its flagship General Management Programme (GMP) several years ago. Teaching made room for learning; reflection replaced information overload; and participants’ Strategic Challenges (SCs) became the red thread through the leadership development programme. Before coming to CEDEP each participant submits a one-page description of his/her current SC, a core strategic issue the participant or company is facing. Instead of working on finding solutions, the first module of the programme (P1) starts by asking participants to take several steps back. What is the “real” problem we are trying to solve? What is the ecosystem in which the challenge lives? Answering these questions is important, as participants tend to focus on tackling symptoms rather than searching for root causes. Peers and professors challenge participants to broaden their view, to question the obvious and to unlearn flawed assumptions. After this phase of divergence, participants set out to converge again by reframing, redefining and rewriting their challenges. Equipped with their redefined challenge, participants are then tasked to apply or experiment with lessons from P1 to drive their SC forward during the months in-between the two programme modules.

The second module (P2) starts with a reflection on the difficulties encountered and the progress made on the SC since the first module. Moving an SC forward is challenging and learning how to tackle such issues is the focus of the remainder of the module. As in P1, participants are required to internalise course contents and apply them to their SC. Dedicated sessions push participants to reflect again on their SC, both individually as well as in small groups, and apply what they are learning. This whole journey encourages participants to develop essential leadership capabilities and provides tools and a process they can apply to similar challenges in the future. “The outcome of the specific SC is not what matters most. The SC creates a mindset, a philosophy for reflection. It is a tool that leads to change,” says one participant. The success of integrating SCs into the GMP was far from obvious from the beginning. Though many participants saw the overall benefit of directly applying course content to their business context, execution was imperfect. Defined challenges were too broad and often outside a participant’s sphere of influence. Participants spent relatively little time defining and redefining them.

This whole journey encourages participants to develop essential leadership capabilities and provides tools and a process they can apply to similar challenges in the future

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Many tended to jump to conclusions and solutions instead of first trying to understand the real problem. Furthermore, participants complained about limited applicability of course content to their SC, particularly in P1. Only 38% of the participants were satisfied with the progress they made during this module and only two submitted a redefined SC. CEDEP then decided to practice what it preaches: to be agile and travel the journey of continuous improvement. Programme team developed a questionnaire to keep track of the state of the SCs and reinforce the link with the programme. For the first cohort, this yielded a list of 17 concrete actions. Sessions were moved or replaced to ensure a better fit with the “divergence - convergence moving forward journey”. Time slots for reflection and discussion were included. Interviews before the start of the GMP made participants and their superiors aware of the importance of a well-defined SC and provided guidance. Peer groups consisting of participants with similar challenges were introduced to improve feedback. Satisfaction with progress during the first module rose to 95% among the cohort that followed. Perceived applicability of course content rose by 26%. Appreciation of peer group work increased by 28%, and SCs were better defined on arrival. Moreover, 14 participants submitted a redefined SC. Though this proved that the GMP was on the right track, feedback also showed the process to be far from finished. Whereas the ultimate objective is to provide the tools and a process to tackle business challenges in the VUCA world, SCs were too often positioned and perceived as a specific problem to be solved. Moreover, the connection between programme content and SCs was somewhat lost in P2. Communication about the SCs prior to this module was weak. Participants therefore made few preparatory efforts. Faculty were also reported to put too little effort into linking content to the SCs of the participants and there was still not enough time for reflection and discussion. Consequently, difficulties with applying contents to SCs persisted and participants remained overwhelmed with the quantity of new inputs.

A list of 15 concrete action points followed. More time for reflection and discussion was integrated into the second module. Communication about the role and objectives of SCs as well as their link with programme content improved. The GMP director and faculty team started visualising the programme. A simple drawing was used to depict the transformation journey as well as the role of each programme element therein. Faculty were asked to continuously remind participants of their position in the picture and how the current subject would help them move forward on their journey. The SC was repositioned as a vehicle helping participants to reflect and develop an approach, rather than a specific problem to be solved. To sustain the momentum between the two programme modules, participants were given the task of applying or tinkering around with their learnings. Newly introduced regular “Buddy Group” telephone calls between two to three participants were instrumental, helping participants drive their SC forward during this period. These actions had their intended effects. Participants understood the role of the SC in the programme much better and shifted their focus from solving a problem to acquiring an approach to problem solving. Satisfaction with the progress made on the SCs during the second module increased from 40% to 75%. Scheduled Buddy Calls between modules were adhered to by 79% of participants and peer group work appreciation increased by 23%. Satisfaction with progress between both modules also increased. Most notably the extra time for reflection substantially boosted learning. Though the quantity of formal content decreased, what remained substantially gained value -- less turned out to be more. Not all proposed actions had their intended effects. In contrast, some were outright counterproductive. Yet, daring to experiment, soliciting rigorous feedback and willingness to change drove the success of the new programme design.

PICTURE COURTESY OF CEDEP

Programme team developed a questionnaire to keep track of the state of the SCs and reinforce the link with the programme. For the first cohort, this yielded a list of 17 concrete actions

Crafting a successful executive education programme | Harwin de Vries, Jens Meyer, Luk Van Wassenhove and Nana von Bernuth

Feedback shows this process is working out well. Today, more than ever, the GMP is CEDEP’s flagship programme for senior executives. It has become a programme that strikes a delicate balance between being directive and letting participants discover things. The GMP is well-aligned with how adults learn and equips them to face future strategic challenges. Finally, it is a programme that provides them with leadership skills needed to manage their teams and collaborate with others in order to get things done in a dynamically changing environment. Adults learn by experience; and exploiting this principle requires executive education to be agile. Participants face rapidly changing environments and so does executive education. The GMP therefore needs to continuously evolve, not only during the programme itself but most certainly across programme cohorts. Sensitivity towards participants’ needs and flexibility to react have been key competences driving the transformation and will remain crucial in the foreseeable future.

One such experiment was to make the definition of a SC the co-responsibility of a participant and his/her manager. This replaced the guidance and follow-up provided by CEDEP prior to the first module. The change created buy-in from the manager and pressure to take the SC seriously. However, the consequence was that many SCs were either too broad and outside the participant’s sphere of influence or too close to business as usual and therefore insufficiently stretching. This process of reflection and action is still ongoing. Evaluation of the last cohort again yielded 13 action points. For example, to further improve the continuation of the journey between both modules, participants are now tasked to write a “new script” – a narrative of their SC that integrates learnings from the first module – to be shared with their superiors and team.

About the Authors Harwin de Vries conducted research for CEDEP on the Strategic Challenges and is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at INSEAD. Jens Meyer is Dean of Programmes at CEDEP. Jens led the transformation of the GMP programme, together with CEDEP’s member companies. Luk Van Wassenhove is Professor of Technology and Operations Management at INSEAD and is a Member of the CEDEP Academic Council. Nana von Bernuth is Visiting Professor and Fellow at CEDEP. She is the project leader of the Strategic Challenges and has been extensively involved in the transformation of the GMP programme. About CEDEP CEDEP is an exclusive, executive education club where minds meet, grow and succeed together. CEDEP is a close and collaborative learning community of like-minded international members who understand the value of open exchange and collective intelligence. Rooted in the real world and driven by the real-life challenges of their members, CEDEP brings together experts and faculty from the world’s top business schools and their extensive network of partners. CEDEP co-creates highly-personalised programmes, challenges conventions and inspires new thinking from the inside out. CEDEP is co-run by its member organisations who believe in a humanist philosophy and approach, focusing on long term and lasting organisational development.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

The Power of Ecosystems Richard Straub tracks the growing interest in ecosystems and their profound implications for management education and research and development

The Power of Ecosystems | Richard Straub

By spotting emerging trends, managers could act on and shape these forces to the benefit of wider society

eter Drucker always said that his interest in management was an offshoot of his preoccupation with the evolving relationship between people and societal institutions – what he came to call the discipline of social ecology. For Drucker, social, as opposed to biological, ecology, was about a new, man-made ecology of organisations and institutions. And it had a practical aim: to craft a balance between continuity on one side and change and innovation on the other. By spotting emerging trends, managers could act on and shape these forces to the benefit of wider society. As usual, Drucker was ahead of the game. But the game has moved on as digital technology reshapes, resizes, speeds up and “complexifies” the networks that make up the ecology we exist in today. Interacting in complicated, non-linear, hard-to-predict ways, those forces are stretching the ecology in unexpected directions and dimensions. The complexity scientist Brian Arthur has written of a hidden semiautonomous “second economy”, powered by an external algorithmic intelligence, that is steadily encroaching on the physical economy and the jobs it provides . As we struggle to make sense of these developments, the concepts of ecology and ecosystems can be doubly helpful. First, they give us a new means of plotting what is happening to organisations and industries as technology dissolves traditional boundaries and forges new links between them. A whole new research literature is growing up to describe and theorise this.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Second, the biological metaphor opens up new avenues for both understanding business as a dynamic, evolving force in society and reframing our thinking about management, replacing the mechanistic, Newtonian assumptions that have long dominated. In this view, organisations regain their longsuppressed identity as evolving human organisms rather than engineered machines. The implications for management education, research and development are profound.

Defining a new paradigm The first essential in this new world is to establish a common language with robust and widely accepted definitions. For global consultancy McKinsey, an ecosystem is â&#x20AC;&#x153;a complex network of interconnected businesses that depend on and feed on each other to deliver value for their customers, to the end users, and their key stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;?. Taking it further, in a recent article John Fuller, Michael Jacobides and Martin Reeves speak of multi-entity groups of companies not belonging to a single organisation. They involve networks of shifting, semi-permanent relationships, linked by flows of data, services and money. The relationships combine aspects of competition and collaboration, often involving complementarity between different products and capabilities (for example, smartphones and apps). Finally, in ecosystems, players co-evolve as they redefine their capabilities and relations to others over time. Clusters, groups of partly competing, partly collaborating small firms in the same area and industry, may have been the first identifiable proto-ecosystems. Appleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s IOS app community (now a multibillion dollar business) showed how fast an ecosystem could scale from a digitally enabled platform, paving the way for many others.

The Power of Ecosystems | Richard Straub

We already perceive some of the emerging dangers. The network effects that underpin developing ecosystems to the benefit of both consumers and producers drive a selfreinforcing winner-takes-all dynamic that has already resulted in a few huge firms dominating swathes of the digital economy. The ecological lens tells us that an entity that cannot stop growing at the expense of others is a cancer that eventually kills the larger system it is part of. Could the same lens help us to develop smart regulation that would manage network effects without throwing the baby out with the bathwater – allowing the rapid scaling that is intrinsic to its value at the same time as preserving and promoting the vibrancy of a diverse ecosystem?

Mobility, in which cars are one small on-demand component of the business of getting people from A to B, or C to X, is a much-discussed current example along with health, education and other services that meet the basic needs of individuals and organisations. Over time, McKinsey sees traditional industry groupings and value chains collapsing into a smaller number of “multitrillion-dollar-large ecosystems with a few large orchestrators, big winners, and a huge shift of wealth and value creation”’. Yet novel man-made ecosystems bring threats as well as opportunities. Like all major shifts, they create winners and losers. Whether natural or social, ecologies can develop pathologies or run out of control; whether we like it or not, they need managing, and in the case of man-made ones, managing them to minimise the bad and maximise the good is a moral duty.

The challenge for management What does all this mean for the practice of management in the 21st century? As we have noted, management theory and practice have long been based on a mechanistic view of the economy peopled by utilitymaximising individuals working for profitmaximising companies – human robots and organisational machines. Yet one of the laws of ecology is that there is no free lunch and all debts have to be paid. Human beings with their emotions, aspirations, dreams and idiosyncrasies do not take kindly to being treated as cogs in a machine; the price paid at organisation level is disengagement, distrust and poor performance and at the level of the individual in stress, unhappiness and unfulfilled potential. The rationalist dream of a truly scientific management is a mirage. Recall Drucker’s definition of management as a “liberal art” – a far cry from the dry technocratic discipline of management research and education.

Whether natural or social, ecologies can develop pathologies or run out of control; whether we like it or not, they need managing, and in the case of man-made ones, managing them to minimise the bad and maximise the good is a moral duty 31

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

What applies at an individual level also holds good as we move up the systems ladder. This is unfamiliar and challenging territory for most managers. Yet it is at the higher system levels that the greatest prizes beckon. For example, an economy will function better as a system if incentives, regulations and the social technology of management are aligned with the interests of the broader society – which is manifestly not the case when the stock-market ecology in which large corporations operate is oriented wholly to shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders. More tangibly, much attention these days focuses on the idea of innovation ecosystems, conceptualised as a kind of man-made evolutionary process. Fast-growing, constantly evolving internet giants such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, Alibaba and Tencent embody this idea. Yet “analogue” and manufacturing firms are also learning to play on the terrain, leveraging brand and reputation assets to pivot towards ecosystems-based opportunities. Apple, Haier and BMW are good examples. As in a natural ecology, mid-sized and smaller firms can profitably create their own unique niches within the larger ones, using specialisation and deep skills to outflank the data-based, algorithmic brute force of the giants. At regional level, Silicon Valley is the ur-innovation ecosystem that every country would like to emulate, so far with varying success. But the examples of Shenzen in China and Tel Aviv in Israel show that epicentres for innovation can be nurtured in very different environments. “Smart city” initiatives to improve the lives of citizens are springing up everywhere. Understanding and building the capabilities to direct these novel entities is a formidable challenge for management. It demands a multi-stakeholder effort – an ecosystem in itself, in which the Drucker Forum is determined to play a part. Major contributions will also be needed from academia in the shape of both economics departments and business schools, for which

exploration of these new areas should provide a huge research impetus. In the end it is not regulators and bureaucrats who will save the world but innovators and explorers in business, universities and the public sector aligning with society to shape a balanced, dynamic, social ecology for everyone to flourish in, not just wealth for a few – a historic challenge that we cannot afford to flunk.

About the Author Richard Straub is Founder and President, Global Peter Drucker Forum and Associate Director, EFMD Sources Brian Arthur, ‘’Where is technology taking the economy?’, McKinsey Quarterly, October 2017 https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/ our-insights/where-is-technology-taking-the-economy As sector borders dissolve, new business ecosystems emerge’, McKinsey Quarterly podcast, October 2017 https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/as-sector-bordersdissolve-new-business-ecosystems-emerge John Fuller, Michael Jacobides and Martin Reeves, “The Myths and Realities of Business Ecosystems”, MIT Sloan Management Review Frontiers, 25 Feb 2019 https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-myths-and-realities-ofbusiness-ecosystems/

A-B

Mobility, in which cars are one small on-demand component of the business of getting people from A to B, or C to X, is a much-discussed current example of ecosystem scale

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

A future for business education: why business as usual is bad business | Christopher Pitelis

Business schools themselves kept improving in numerous ways and gaining academic credibility, often drawing on their disciplinary foundations

1 in 5 Circa one in five students in the US are enrolled in a business education programme

usiness education is relatively young, about 140 years old. It started as a case studybased approach with little by way of a conceptual foundations. Nevertheless, it has become very successful. Circa one in five students in the US are enrolled in a business education programme. Over time, there emerged prestigious specialised conferences, journals, accreditors and other bodies and metrics that have helped foster a diverse and seemingly robust ecosystem. Things were not always so good. The author studied economics in the UK and recalls the disdain with which business faculty and studies on “the floor below” were regarded by economists - as little more than glorified consultants. In some ways that was deserved. Emerging business and management schools would normally tend to attract the scholars who could not succeed in their field by being too applied and/or too heterodox and/or simply not good. Few fields, such as marketing and accounting partly escaped the stigma of being compared to scholars and departments of a founding discipline; others such as international business aimed to be multidisciplinary to start with, partly escaping the founding discipline “curse”, yet struggled to convince the wider academic community of its rigour and sometimes even its raison d’etre. In this context the subsequent success of business schools was neither self-evident nor, to my knowledge, has it been adequately understood and explained. There are a few possible related reasons. A key reason in my view is that business education has gradually served as a “general purpose technology” (GPT). GPTs, such as the internet, are technologies/innovations that have multiple applications and are scalable (consider

Google algorithms). Business education imparted knowledge shares in part, these characteristics. Business schools themselves kept improving in numerous ways and gaining academic credibility, often drawing on their disciplinary foundations of economics, sociology, psychology and quantitative methods while increasingly aiming to adapt to business reality and develop and improve new theories for their own purposes. The need for and pursuit of scholarly legitimacy also drove the emergence of “elite” journals with demanding conceptual and methodological rigour. Books, meanwhile, have been delegated to practitioners and hobbyists. As in other subjects, notably economics, the focus on “research” gradually gave rise to diminishing returns. The pressures for publication in elite journals with the almost excessive reward in terms of promotion, tenure and overall gravitas has raised concerns about the potential trade-off between research, teaching, leadership and engagement. Many a top publication is seen as largely irrelevant to real-life business and practitioners. While a number of top schools had the resources to hire individuals who could excel in elite and relevant research (as well as on teaching and leadership) usually with supporting structures and business models and procedures, not everyone could follow. And the impact on life-work balance gradually started become excessive. Students paying high fees began questioning the relevance of top-tier research to their learning experience. Similarly, many businesses and business people questioned the relevance and usefulness of business degrees. All this led to calls for change with a gradual re-balancing and more focus on engagement, impact and teaching.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

It could be argued that the evolution of business education has gone from practice to theory and back to practice. I think, however, that the reality is more nuanced than that. What we see is a re-emergent focus on teaching, engagement, relevance and impact, taking place from stronger conceptual foundations -- that of â&#x20AC;&#x153;engaged scholarshipâ&#x20AC;?-- that could be imparted to and co-developed with the student body and other stakeholders. The return to practice in the form of engaged scholarship is, in this sense, at a higher plane than before. It has been co-constituted through public policy innovations such as the REF (Research Excellence Framework) and the T(eaching) EF and now the K(nowledge) EF in the UK as well as the role of business school dean associations such as CABS (UK) and ABDC (Australia) and accreditation bodies such as the EFMD, AACSB and AMBA providing rules and metrics to measure and improve sustainable performance. Today business education is a multi-billioneuro sector. But it is also looking rather tired and ill-adapted to todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s realities. MBA numbers are declining in many countries and the cost-benefit calculus of business degrees is under question. Popular magazines, such as Fortune, wonder what is killing business education in the US. Factors such as immigration and neoprotectionist policies by governments contribute. And so does increasing supply and competition from numerous sources including new national markets and alternative providers. All these are widely acknowledged and discussed. The question whether competition harms or helps expand the market remains an open one. Here I wish to focus on some aspects that can benefit from more attention. These relate to the student experience, the role of business in the global financial crisis, the 4th industrial revolution and the rise of big tech. Starting with students, the success of business education led to business schools often becoming the cash cows of financially challenged institutions. Gradually this has led to lop-sided (as compared to other schools and departments) staff-student-ratios (SSRs), unhealthy life-work balance and high salaries.

Dealing with social and economic sustainability requires a focus on ethics and morality

A future for business education: why business as usual is bad business | Christopher Pitelis

At the same time, increasing fees and even a rather self-defeating approach by some institutions to treat students as “customers”, have led to those customers demanding value for money and sometimes expecting to “buy” what they paid for (a good degree) one way or the other. Combine this with increasing demands on academics for research output as opposed to teaching excellence and things gradually came to a head. During the years of “irrational exuberance” business scholars like many economists, have gradually come to believe in the self-correcting properties of markets and the ability of business to help address societal problems. That led to a suspicion of public policy and a sharp decline in the perceived need for government involvement in terms of antitrust action, regulation, competition and other policies.

The focus on business has also been prejudicial on engagement with the “third sector”. That has helped undermine economic sustainability and in many ways business education became complicit on practices that helped bring about the global financial crisis. It was not rare for business school cases to heap praise on the acumen and practices of businesses that were later involved in the major scandals; consider Enron and Theranos. In the meantime, the failure to seriously consider antitrust legislation helped the currently dominant tech monopolies, a concurrent worsening in income distribution, little regard for the environment and basically an institutional failure of unprecedented dimension. Not surprisingly, many a commentator, including numerous documentaries and dramatisations of the crisis, questioned the role and legitimacy of business education. With business schools depending more than others on business engagement, executive education/ consulting and business-related research, and the emergent conflict of interest is not too hard to see. It is hard to be critical of your funder even at the most basic personal level. Increasingly that led to demands for more arm’s length engagement and the inclusion of ethics, governance and sustainability–related issues in the business curriculum. Yet its is clear that this follows than leads. Different pressures emerged from the 4th industrial revolution. This includes developments such as artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, blockchain, internet of things, self-driving and electric vehicles, smart cities and so on. None of those plays to the current provision of business education. They are simply too science and engineering based for the current business model of business schools. Business education needs to adapt and to lead. For this it needs to enhance its provision with subjects that are able to address the key challenges cited above and others. Dealing with social and economic sustainability requires a focus on ethics and morality --this can come from philosophy. The influence of philosophy and epistemology on business has so far been minimal.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

It is important that power becomes a major subject in business curricula -- hence politics and geo-politics as well

Antitrust action requires incorporating law. Law and economics have found applications in the corporate governance debate but here, too, business scholars mostly followed the economists’ emphasis on shareholder value. Things are changing, but slowly. Incorporating law into the curriculum can help. The same applies to politics. The current power of big tech is much more than market power -- it has morphed into political power. It is important that power becomes a major subject in business curricula -- hence politics and geo-politics as well. The above has focused on social sciences. The 4th industrial revolution calls for expanding the curriculum to science and engineering. Business schools need to do with relevant science subjects what they before achieved with (selected) social sciences. If all the above sounds a bit like “business education imperialism” and a very tall order indeed, it is because it is. It cannot be readily achieved by individual schools, even the most resourced and resourceful ones. It requires collaboration, intra and inter-university, close and arm’s length collaboration, and partnerships with business but also with the public sector, with the polity (the third sector) and with all key constituents of the supporting ecosystem, such as accreditors. It also requires discipline-based interdisciplinary. Despite praise heaped on multi and interdisciplinary behaviour, the reality on the ground remains that these are not rewarded, incentivised or facilitated. They are very few if any inter-disciplinary journals, conferences and accreditation bodies. Arguably, inter-disciplinarily works best when each participant is an expert in his or her discipline and learns from each other -- not when everyone is a jack-of-all trades and knows a little about everything. While there is need for the rare neo-renaissance multi-expert individual and for “communication facilitators”, more often than not reality and expanding knowledge calls for specialisation, division of labour and co-operation. It is unlikely that the above can be effected with the same modalities as before. For one, the scale may be prohibiting to all but the very few. This requires genuine intra- and inter-university

partnerships and deep thinking about what makes good for purpose structures and business models. It also requires accreditors adapting to the new reality. And it requires business education itself not committing euthanasia by undermining the development of the very subject matters on which its continuing sustainable success depends. The closures of liberal arts, philosophy, economics and sociology departments on financial grounds kills the goose that lays the golden egg. Business educators should be prepared and willing to keep subsidising the subjects that helped them succeed . I will close with a call to bring back the good old book. In my area (strategic international business and organisation) virtually most key ideas emanated from a handful of classic books on economics by Joe Bain, Edith Penrose, Cyert and March, Nelson and Winter, Oliver Williamson and Stephen Hymer. In part this is because exploring adequately a single overarching and fungible argument and its implications requires space, time-frame and method that are poorly aligned to elite journal publications. With few exceptions, such as the resource and capabilities based view, the record of management scholars in coming up with new theory is lamentable. There are, for sure, very many good ideas and advances but no new overarching general theories like those proposed by the aforementioned economics scholars. Here again we are followers. Bringing the book back in, developing our own theories and methods can help end this dependence on fields such as economics that are increasingly becoming irrelevant yet paradoxically the dominant source of theory. We can and should do better. Business education and the business schools need to be re-imagined, adapted to and help shape the (a brighter) future. Business as usual is bad business. It is hoped that this article may help by inviting a debate.

About the Author Professor Christos Pitelis is Dean of the College of Business, Abu Dhabi University

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Harnessing disruption â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a glimpse into the future

An innovative programme in Canada is showing how co-operation between academia and business can profit both. By Ralph Eastman

Harnessing disruption – a glimpse into the future | Ralph Eastman

This technology provides an auditor with far more access to client’s data than ever before. To analyse this massive amount of data requires new tools and skills

here are few business sectors that are not being affected by disruptive technologies in one way or another. From web-based video changing how we access news and entertainment to 3D printing changing the way we design and manufacture products, emerging technologies are transforming the modern workplace. It is no different for the professional services industry and that’s the impetus behind an innovative new partnership between Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business in Vancouver, Canada, and KPMG in Canada. The first program of its kind in Canada, Digital University provides KPMG audit professionals the opportunity to build their skills for the future through specialized courses on the latest advancements in technology and data and analytics, and prepares them for an era of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other digital advances. “We’re a people-based business and there’s been a huge explosion of disruptive technology that is changing how we need to work with our clients in an audit,” says Kristen Carscallen, Canadian Managing Partner for Audit at KPMG in Canada. “This technology provides an auditor with far more access to client’s data than ever before. To analyse this massive amount of data requires new tools and skills.”

In April 2019, the first cohort of 80 KPMG in Canada participants began the Graduate Certificate programme

Historically, audits were sampling-based and would produce an extrapolated, statistically valid audit result. Now, as new capabilities increasingly allow an auditor to process large amounts of data, all data can be analysed. This now includes more than just the numbers as an auditor now can access and analyse unstructured data, such as e-mails, invoices and memos exchanged between companies. An audit of the future will run all client data through new audit tools that will flag anomalies and outliers allowing more complex risk assessments. “This is the future,” says Andrew Gemino, Associate Dean, Graduate Programs, at Beedie School of Business. “Cognitive analytics and our ability to work with computers in very sophisticated analytical frameworks are emerging and that’s why KPMG is investing in the programme. This is about changing the way auditors think and work. This will help them get there.” SFU Beedie was selected to deliver the programme through a rigorous competitive process during which the school demonstrated its ability to design and deliver the specialist courses to support the auditors’ growth. “This programme is not about learning content, it’s about changing practice,” Gemino explains. “We are creating an experience for them that allows them to innovate and do it with the confidence of knowing that they have data and analytics expertise. But as important to us is leading that change through the organisation.” Carscallen says that KPMG also sees the new credential as not only a differentiator with its clients but also a factor that will increase the appeal for people to work at the firm.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

“This is a big investment in our people,” she says. “It is hard to measure the cost of turnover but it can be big. You can’t always keep people for their entire careers but if we can keep them even a couple of years longer, it is hugely beneficial for us. This programme is part of KPMG’s commitment to invest in our people and develop our emerging leaders. We are really excited about the momentum it will create.” The programme is designed to be completed with stackable credentials in two phases. Participants can earn a Graduate Certificate in Accounting with Digital Analytics in year one and have the option of continuing and gaining a Master of Science in Accounting with Cognitive Analytics in phase two. It is open to qualified CPAs with three to six years’ experience in KPMG’s Audit Practice. (KPMG and Beedie collaborated on the admission and selection process, ensuring SFU Graduate Studies Policies are followed.) The programme will integrate four skills dimensions: advanced auditing techniques; data and visualisation skills; statistical and analytical capabilities; and advanced leadership/team building skills. It will teach participants not only technical knowledge in data analytics but also how to combine these skills with critical thinking to derive meaningful business insights from data. The courses will provide a valuable complement to KPMG auditors’ core abilities, setting them apart in the industry. Starting in April 2019, the first cohort of 80 KPMG participants will begin the Graduate Certificate programme, which is largely held on-line, but is also blended with face to face interactions through a combination of interactive online learning through an advanced interface and four in-person teaching sessions, including hands-on use of leading-edge software tools to solve real-life problems. In both the Graduate Certificate and Master of Science programmes, participants will take five courses, each course delivered over an eight-week period. The final required course will cap off the year in the form of a major project where the skills developed in the programme can be leveraged to provide greater insight and value to clients.

CERTIFICATE PROGRAMME COURSES

MSC PROGRAMME COURSES

- Foundations of Business Systems and Data

- Data Mining and Business Intelligence

- Analysing and Visualising Accounting Data

- Predictive Analytics for Accounting

- Collaboration, Teaming and Leading Change

- Fraudulent Financial Reporting

- Applied Project (year-end)

- Data and Analytics for Auditing Practice

- Advanced Analytical Auditing

Harnessing disruption – a glimpse into the future | Ralph Eastman

“It has been a very collaborative process between Beedie and KPMG in designing and developing the programme,” says Ali Dastmalchian, Dean of Beedie School of Business. “They’ve been a great partner. They didn’t tell us what to put in the course or how to teach it. They shared what the issues are and the applications needed and the kind of people who are going to be in the programme and what the outcomes need to be, all while respecting our abilities on how to best deliver that.” The collaboration included a needs analysis by SFU Beedie following which Beedie and KPMG worked closely together to develop the process and programme content. “No one else is doing this in Canada,” Dastmalchian says. “A number of universities in Canada have developed data analytics courses but they are more generic. This is designed to meet a specific need and will be delivered within the company as opposed to on-campus in a full-time programme. KPMG wanted a much more interactive programme for their people that could be taught on their premises and built on their challenges.”

This type of programme is in SFU Beedie’s DNA, Dastmalchian adds. “We were the first school in Canada to develop an Executive MBA programme in 1968. And we’ve had relationships with a number of companies over the years. We have a knowledge and understanding of delivering masters-level courses to companies that address their issues and give their people a broader education.” Though the programme is only being offered to employees in KPMG’s audit practice, Carscallen sees the potential to expand it to other practices. “We’ve started in audit but going forward there will be opportunities to create certain electives that would be of interest to our tax and risk professionals,” she says. “There would absolutely be enough flexibility to open this up more broadly.” For SFU Beedie, this programme is just the beginning of other similar opportunities. “This programme is a glimpse into the future,” Dastmalchian says. “People are looking for programmes that really have an impact. The ties between industry and business schools are growing closer as we try to meet their needs. “For example, specialising in particular areas instead of more general programmes and more flexibility in the way programmes are offered. All of these trends are embodied in this programme. The future is merging executive/management development programmes with our degree programmes.”

About the Author Ralph Eastman is a freelance business author.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

The future of business schools: shut them down or broaden our horizons? Ken Starkey and Howard Thomas report on a groundbreaking workshop that debated the mounting criticism of business schools and where they might go from here

The future of business schools: shut them down or broaden our horizons? | Ken Starkey and Howard Thomas

Inequality and austerity regimes are persistent reminders of a financial crisis brought on by particular practices of management

e live in turbulent and complicated times and business schools are not immune to the uncertainties that now afflict so many aspects of our social and economic lives. The quality of today’s leaders poses some serious philosophical and strategic questions for business schools such as what are we, what do we want to be, should we be satisfied with what we are? Top business schools often describe their mission as educating leaders yet many think that the world is currently experiencing a crisis of leadership that has helped create our current problems. The students we educate, particularly MBAs, accountants and finance professionals, are implicated in current criticisms of corporate behaviour. We hear criticisms of globalisation (by, for example, a US President educated at one of the world’s leading business schools). Inequality and austerity regimes are persistent reminders of a financial crisis brought on by particular practices of management (for example, the use of leverage), endorsed in the research and teaching of top business schools. Perhaps the critics of business schools are correct and we are not fit for purpose. A much-discussed recent criticism was that of UK business school professor, Martin Parker (2018). His book, Shut Down the Business School: What's Wrong with Management Education (Pluto Press), was written from a European (particularly UK) perspective. Alongside such well-known writers as Henry Mintzberg, he argues that business school education is framed in terms of a winner-takes-all managerialism.

Students are taught that the purpose of management is to promote market values and to maximise their returns at the expense of others. Human resource management theory suggests that human beings are no more than rational egoists seeking to maximise their own interests by developing their human capital. Marketing teaches how to manipulate consumer desire. If we are judged by the current standing of business and the quality of business leadership then, as Parker suggests, we have questions to answer. Parker’s is a vigorous and entertaining restatement of criticism that has been voiced before, perhaps most convincingly by Harvard Business School’s Rakesh Khurana (2007) in his institutional history of the evolution and transformation of US business schools (From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession (Princeton University Press). Khurana’s central argument is that business schools began with a great promise of contributing to public value through developing management as a profession. This promise was unfulfilled because business schools have become the hired hands of business and reneged on these higher aims. In essence they have sold out to the highest bidders. In November 2018, the authors convened a workshop at Nottingham University Business School in the UK in collaboration with the Research Committee of EFMD to discuss such criticisms and to debate where business schools might go from here. The speakers at the seminar are listed on page 49 and this article summarises the debates at the workshop and sets out what we think are the urgent issues we need to address if we are to react proactively rather than defensively to criticism.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

First, we have to recognise the truth of some of the criticisms of business schools. There is much in business that deserves condemnation and can be traced back to certain aspects and principles of management education that business schools have promulgated, some would say “indoctrinated”, their students into. Indeed, the late Sumantra Ghoshal eloquently pointed out that teaching “amoral” theories led to questionable managerial practices that advocated shareholder value and profit maximisation over responsible corporate management. Parker’s positive contribution is that we need to shift our focus to new forms of management education, on different ways of organising to create outcomes for a broad range of stakeholders rather than just financial value for shareholders. As he also recommends closing down business schools, this work will need to be done in social science and humanities departments, which have the perspectives needed to help redefine business in terms of its broader potential contribution to value and society. We need a greater diversity of perspectives to improve/challenge what is in essence an ”anglo-saxon” model of capitalism. Of course, some business schools are already trying to achieve this and as Chinese schools mature they will, with due regard to their political masters, have to develop a different, more culturally contextual model. For the moment, though, schools that aspire to be “world class” have chosen to play a game defined by top US schools and embodied in league tables dominated by schools such as Harvard and Stanford. The challenge is for business schools to reconceive their purpose, to reflect on the hegemony of management education rooted in the dominance of finance and economics, and to offer a new vision that helps define a cure for our current ills rather than contributing to their continuing effects. This is vital in achieving a positive, more sustainable identity and legitimacy for the business school. It will also call into question the role that is frequently allocated to business schools of being a university’s cash cow. In the

The future of business schools: shut them down or broaden our horizons? | Ken Starkey and Howard Thomas

We need a greater diversity of perspectives to improve/challenge what is in essence an ”anglo-saxon” model of capitalism

UK, this has reached epic proportions, leaving many wondering if their main role is to teach business English to Chinese students who represent a disproportionately large part of the UK postgraduate population. China will not save us in the long term. Indeed, it might well be that in the fullness of time our complicity with the economic miracle of China comes to be seen as a major strategic mistake. We need to justify our existence and our role in more sustainable ways and with more of a local contextual regard. As Sue Cox reminded us, some business schools have an excellent story to tell in terms of their significant contributions to local and regional economies. Business school faculty also need to reflect on the contribution they are supposedly making to business and society. For many faculty, the main focus of their existence is the search for the holy grail of publishing in A* journals. This has become a major industry in its own right, prompted by the advent of the rankings era that shaped business schools as “ businesses” with the rules of their game framed by the Gordon/Howell US studies. Many now think there are too many business schools, too many students studying business and management, and too many journals publishing too much research, most of which is barely read except by a few other academics and has no impact whatsoever. The unpalatable truth

is that it is finance research that has really changed the world but only for the benefit of a minority. The impact of most management research is minimal. We are complicit in creating a publishing system that serves our purposes but has very little value beyond that except for the journal publishers and for the minority who publish at the highest level. We produce case studies that are widely read and used in teaching but our case studies too often focus on fashionable companies that enjoy all too brief success, followed sometimes by spectacular falls from grace. Enron, various dot.coms, Royal Bank of Scotland and now Facebook spring to mind. These are hardly examples that inspire much confidence in our ability to back winners that will change the world for the better! Wallace Donham, the second Dean of Harvard Business School, during the depression of the 1930s, argued that business schools needed to broaden their horizon. They do not exist just for the benefit of an elite minority. They have the potential to make a broad contribution to the economy and society and, he argued, should think in terms of broad social problems and effective social systems instead of focusing only on individual companies. Sadly, his wise words did not change the trajectory of business school development. However, there is emerging evidence in the US and the UK of a student shift from a sole focus on shareholder value to one on stakeholder value encompassing issues of sustainability, inequality and inclusive growth. This should certainly stimulate the creation of more balanced, holistic models of management education. Donham’s ideas are still very relevant to our current situation. Perhaps the most interesting example of how we might embed them in current business school practice was the argument by Martin Kitchener, former Dean of Cardiff University Business School in the UK, that our focus should be on creating “public value” business schools. As Cox reminded us, this will require critical dialogue with business and other stakeholders -- local, regional, national and international.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Kitchener argues that what we need is more imaginative and entrepreneurial business schools that combine four qualities: philosophical; political; managerial; and technical. These qualities give us a framework for analysing what we currently do, what we might want to do in future, and what we might have to do to survive and prosper when the business school gravy train hits the buffers at the end of its current line. It also gives us a basis for rethinking the current governance of business schools. The public value business school concept gives us compelling alternatives to the current state in which we find ourselves. While unlikely to appeal to all, it has the capacity to help us redefine our purpose and for addressing the pervasive criticisms of business schools concerning their self-centred approach to knowledge creation, the particular values embedded in their teaching and their modes of engagement with stakeholders. As Julie Davies of Huddersfield Business School in the UK pointed out, it will require forging a new social contract with the communities we profess to serve and a new commitment to deliver public value social science. To understand and prepare for the future of business schools and management education we need to understand better why we are where what we are and what we have become in the light of a history that possessed a number of alternative paths. The key message of our workshop was that we need to think critically about where we are and what we might become. We also need to recognise what he have lost in terms of pursuing a particular path that is embodied (some might say â&#x20AC;&#x153;embalmedâ&#x20AC;?) in leagues and ranking tables such as those of the Financial Times and Business Week. In the end, while sensitive to some of Parkerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s criticisms, we were unwilling to follow him all the way to his conclusion that we needed to shut down the business schools. In our development, as Khurana points out, there has been much to praise and much promise. Our challenge is that much of the promise has not been fully realised and we are losing legitimacy as a result.

The choices we make in the next few years will have huge consequences -- for individual schools and for the very idea of what a business school is and might be. For example, as many have pointed out, it is important to recognise the global phenomenon and success of the undergraduate business programme and the relative inattention afforded it compared to the MBA in curriculum development. Therefore, it was argued that renewed attention should be given to liberal education models. These propose that rather than focusing on specific management and technical skills there should be greater curriculum breadth with the humanities and the social sciences as a core foundation of learning in management education. This would enable students and faculty to converse in the great traditions of thought and expression before instruction in specific management training.

The future of business schools: shut them down or broaden our horizons? | Ken Starkey and Howard Thomas

List of seminar speakers He is also Martin Parker (Bristol University) Sue Cox (Lancaster University) Howard Thomas (EFMD, SMU, Boston University, Coventry University) Ken Starkey (Nottingham University) Julie Davies (Huddersfield University) Simon Collinson (C-ABS, Birmingham University) Sue Tempest (Nottingham University)

We suspect that market forces will inevitably lead to the closure of business schools. We cannot envisage more growth of the kind we have experienced over the last quarter of a century. The challenge for those schools that want to survive and prosper is redefining what a quality business school looks like. There are likely to be various models of this, national and international, but it is our belief that one of the qualities they will have in common is an emphasis on value creation that speaks to both our economic and our social needs. On this positive and optimistic note, we will continue the discussion of how we might broaden our horizons at a series of follow on workshops during 2019/20. We believe that such discussions and collaboration in the areas of best teaching and research practices across schools will produce worthwhile dividends in the development of a stronger management education ecosystem, particularly in the UK but also across the rest of Europe. Please let us know what you think we need to discuss and if you would like to be involved.

About the Authors Professor Ken Starkey graduated in modern languages and literature. He studied for a psychology degree while working as a Special Needs Teacher and worked as Research Fellow in the School of Modern Languages, Aston University, while pursuing a PhD. He joined the University of Nottingham in 1988 and is a professor at Nottingham University Business School. Professor Howard Thomas is Emeritus Dean and LKCSB Distinguished Professor of Strategic Management, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University. He is also He is also Visiting Professor of Global Leadership at the Questrom School of Business , Boston University, and also a Visiting Professor of Strategy at GIBS, South Africa, and Coventry University, UK. List of seminar speakers Martin Parker (Bristol University) Sue Cox (Lancaster University) Howard Thomas (EFMD, SMU, Boston University, Coventry University) Ken Starkey (Nottingham University) Julie Davies (Huddersfield University) Simon Collinson (C-ABS, Birmingham University) Sue Tempest (Nottingham University)

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Preparing students for the world outside the classroom | Ishwar Puri and Leonard Waverman

t Canada’s McMaster University, hundreds of undergraduate students are embarking on an educational adventure. As they pursue their core programmes – in, say, civil engineering or European history -- they are also doing a deep dive into how to start a company, tap venture capital and perform technology marketing. These experiences are part of a new minor in innovation, launched this academic year by McMaster’s engineering and business faculties. It aims to deliver a strong grounding in aptitudes and attitudes that can yield new companies, hatch new ideas, and develop high-value managers and employees for dramatically changing workplaces. Not the least, it aims to develop leaders who can work together to strengthen their communities amid climate change, political upheaval and human migration. The new programme is not targeted exclusively at engineering majors and business students but is available to undergrads across the university – to musicians, political scientists, molecular biologists and many others. As deans of engineering and business at McMaster, we are the founders of this programme – the latest in a series of collaborations to prepare our students for the lives they will lead. There will be more crossfaculty brainstorming as we break down academic barriers and allow students to pursue their interests across the campus in collaborative and experiential ways. It is one small but significant tremor in a self-disruption that we predict will shake universities to their core but ultimately defend them from irrelevance. As academic leaders in a major Canadian university, we aim to be in the vanguard of an onrushing revolution. There has been progress on many campuses worldwide but academic leaders have to push even harder if they are to make a successful transition to a new model of learning.

...as students move through their final year, “courses” will be a series of problems to be solved in cross-disciplinary teams through interaction not one-way monologues by an instructor

We foresee necessary changes that will touch every area of university life. In the future, the undergraduate classroom will be very different – perhaps, a small studio with a table, a few chairs and a comfy couch. The “class” will comprise a diverse grouping drawn from across the university – possibly a geography student, a chemistry major, an aspiring electrical engineer and a future corporate auditor -- thrust together on a voyage of discovery. Their purpose would be to find a solution to a real problem – a water project for a community in Northern Canada or better approaches to refugee settlement and opioid addiction prevention. An instructor will be present but he or she will not be the conventional “sage on a stage” but a “guide on the side”, assisting students in their interactive search for solutions. Students will not experience traditional lecture halls, elevated podiums and classrooms. Required courses will be cut to a minimum. The old chalk-and-talk approach to learning will become a relic. More and more, as students move through their final year, “courses” will be a series of problems to be solved in crossdisciplinary teams through interaction not one-way monologues by an instructor. We are taking steps along this road, knowing if we do not blow up the university from the inside, the disruption will come from outside – from technology, alternative learning sources, employers and students.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

We still see too much of what Sir Ken Robinson, the UK education visionary, calls the industrial model of education, a mass teaching of often staggering content with no sense of how to apply it to personal growth and human interaction. The modern university puts incoming students in an education box and keeps adding a jumble of things until the box is tied up at the end and the graduate is supposedly ready for the job market. The sad reality is that many students are not really ready for the world outside the classroom. They are often turned off, alienated and staying away from classes that only repeat information available online. This numbing experience leaves them unprepared for their working lives, which will increasingly reward personal and creative aptitudes ahead of narrow technical skills that can be replicated by an algorithm or a robot. Instead of focusing solely on job-ready skills for the short term, the university should also be providing attributes that can carry through a lifetime – leadership, creativity, innovation and collaboration. That is because innovators in the corporate world are moving towards selfcreating teams of diverse talents from across or among organisations. The working world will increasingly require leaders to pull together disparate skill sets and together find solutions. Our new minor programme aims to bolster this leadership acumen. We are not necessarily going to turn out armies of entrepreneurs – although we expect there will be some -- but the programme is about producing people who can help organisations of all kinds change. Students learn the fundamentals of innovation from seasoned entrepreneurs and absorb how to develop, prototype, test and market ideas. They have the opportunity to work at an existing start-up company or team up with fellow students to develop or support a new business venture. The new thinking extends beyond this one programme. Within McMaster’s business faculty there is an exploration of new frontiers. For example, commerce undergraduates will be engaged in “discovery” projects in their fourth year, working with students from other faculties on real-world projects.

In this new approach, there will not be any short-changing of fundamental skills and knowledge --in chemical engineering or corporate finance, for example – or any obstacles to hamper students in qualifying for professional credentials. But there are many ways to deliver this foundational knowledge, from online courses, web sites, blogs and games, that can be more efficient than the classic classroom. We are confident that fundamental skills will be learned. The mastery of a specialisation is still critical but we worry about super-specialisation whereby students become focused entirely on a narrow discipline and ignore the collaborative and interpersonal skills that can bring these specialities to life in a work or community environment. The more specialised the skill, the more risk of being rendered irrelevant by a future algorithm that can replicate the processes in the specialist’s head.

Preparing students for the world outside the classroom | Ishwar Puri and Leonard Waverman

But human skills of integration and creativity are still beyond the reach of machines. And, in addition, a growing body of research points to a new economics of careers. Salary data show that narrower specialist degrees do indeed earn higher initial salaries than “liberal arts” or more general degrees. But a half-dozen years into careers, the salary differential is eroded. Job-specific skills diminish over time as the discipline itself changes, while skills obtained through problem-based learning do not erode as significantly. With the rise of new AI applications, graduates will be valued less for specific disciplinary skills – in, say, metallurgy or structured finance instruments -- and more for their creativity, teamwork and leadership. However, today’s university students must be engaged in different ways. In seeking to solve real-world problems, they will experiment, over and over again, before hitting on solutions. But they will not “fail”. There is no failure in a world of problem solving and experimentation as we move towards the joy and satisfaction of discovery.

The competitive advantage of the university or college lies in its diversity of thought – under one roof you get the medieval panorama of Chaucer, the richness of indigenous studies, the intricacies of quantum physics and the potential from putting young minds together. No other institution offers such a powerful preparation for life. We just have to flex this muscle of diverse thought by breaking down barriers between disciplines and faculties. At McMaster, the engineering and business faculties are striding out into this new world. They are taking their direction from Canadian ice hockey superstar Wayne Gretzky, who once explained his mastery as an ability to skate to where the puck is going to be not where it is now or has been in the past. The puck – in business and society -- is moving towards human flexibility and interdisciplinary approaches. That is where the university is uniquely placed to deliver meaning and value – if it can create its own self-disruption.

About the Authors Ishwar Puri is the dean of engineering at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Leonard Waverman is the dean of the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster. An earlier version of this article was published in the Globe and Mail April 27 2019.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Much ado about â&#x20AC;Ś scientific research Defining a sustainable research and development strategy gives many business schools a headache. Michael Haenlein suggests some cures

Much ado about… scientific research | Michael Haenlein

f there is one thing most, if not all, business school deans can agree on it is that research is an expensive activity. Several years ago, Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in the US estimated the cost of creating an A-Journal article at approximately $400,000 (about €350,000) The logic is simple: assume the average faculty member spends 50% of his or her time on research and, in doing so, publishes three articles every four years (or 0.75 articles per year). If an article has on average two co-authors then the cost per article can be determined by multiplying the annual salary cost per faculty (including benefits and overheads) by 0.50 x 2.0 / 0.75 = 1.33. With annual salary costs of $300,000 the result is a total cost of $400,000 per article. This value can easily be customised to any business school by applying the assumptions relevant to that institution. These significant investments are usually justified, at least in part, by the importance of research for national and international rankings. Yet, when looking at the relationship between research and ranking position this assumption becomes questionable. For example, the Financial Times Business School Rankings, which represent an important yardstick for many institutions in Europe, does not consider the FT research rank (which measures the number of publications in A-journals weighted for faculty size) in its Masters in Management ranking. And even in the full-time and executive MBA rankings, where research plays a role, its impact is only small. (A simple linear regression model using the 2018 FT Executive MBA ranking results in an adjusted R2 value of 93.6% including research and 90.3% excluding research. For the 2019 FT Global MBA ranking the corresponding values are 92.2% and 91.1%.) While this may be different in some national rankings, which can play a pivotal role for business schools in their local markets, it still raises the question whether rankings alone are sufficient to justify the focus many institutions place on research these days.

Confronted with all this most deans would argue that research has benefits that go beyond a mere improvement in rankings. Three points are frequently named in this context: • First, research on important issues can help gain press coverage and hence improve their brand awareness and brand equity, which in turn positively influences applicant numbers. • Second, having expertise in cutting-edge fields can help to position a business school in the lucrative and increasingly vital executive education market by offering knowledge that cannot easily be found elsewhere. • Finally, being research focused is often seen as a necessary condition to attract new, top-notch faculty members, especially those with strong logical reasoning, communication and teaching skills. Yet, again though, these arguments are in many cases less obvious than they may appear at first glance. A big proportion of research published in leading peer-reviewed journals suffers from the weakness of being on topics managers generally care little about. This issue has become more pronounced in recent years. More and more researchers are either not aware of the issues that have true importance for managers and/or do not have the ability to study those issues or the motivation to do so. This limits the way in which such research can be leveraged in public relations or marketing activities. In addition, more and more business schools have started to separate, in one way or another, research and teaching faculty, in part due to the large cost of research-active faculty. This leads to the fact that research-active faculty teach substantially less and in turn, that the majority of classroom teaching is done by teaching or adjunct faculty who frequently are less research active. This challenges the notion that research can be translated into an improved classroom offering.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

How can business school deans deal with this struggle, especially in times where resources are increasingly scarce and where many fundamental aspects of the business school model are under question? How can they define a research and development strategy that makes â&#x20AC;&#x153;an impact on the constituencies that are important to and part of the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategyâ&#x20AC;? as required by the EQUIS accreditation framework? And most importantly, how can they facilitate the transition from a traditional European research model, which places strong emphasis on outputs such as books (monographies and textbooks) and case studies as well as qualitative and interdisciplinary research in general to an anglo-saxon one where the key benchmark for evaluation is peer-reviewed journal articles? I am frequently confronted with questions like these at my own institution as well as at universities and business schools where I serve as a research advisor. And my answer is usually that measuring the quality or success of a research strategy by simply counting the number of publications in peer-reviewed or impact-factor journals is often a slippery slope. In most cases it is not necessary that every individual faculty member starts to engage in research that can be published in such journals and neither is it advisable to completely discount alternative outlets such as academic journals in local languages, monographies, managerial articles, or even textbooks and case studies. Instead, it is important to define a research strategy that allows schools to achieve their main mission of educating a new generation of managers and entrepreneurs. This can be achieved either by engaging in research that allows schools to attract better talent (for example, through improved ranking positions or improved marketing/ PR activities) or in research that translates into an improved teaching experience for both degree programmes and executive education. Research for research sake or for the mere sake of publications is something that fewer and fewer schools should and will be able to afford in future.

Based on this logic there are four actions that deans should focus on: First, ensure your research-active faculty has the awareness, ability and motivation to study important topics Research conducted at business schools is usually managerially relevant in the sense that it pertains to a problem of concern for some managers. Yet some problems are clearly more important than others because they affect more managers, managers at a higher hierarchical level or lead to stronger belief shifts among those managers. These are the problems that research should focus on. This requires that faculty are aware of such problems, have the conceptual and methodological abilities to study them, and that business schools implement incentive systems that provide a motivation for doing so. Second, incentivise the transmission of research outcomes instead of mere publication A research project on an important topic does not stop once an article has been accepted in an academic journal. Instead, at this stage researchers should help to diffuse the knowledge created to as large an audience as possible. This includes crafting managerial versions of their work that can be leveraged in marketing and PR activities, generating teaching materials such as slides or case studies around the project that can be leveraged in the classroom, giving interviews on their area of expertise or engaging in social media activities.

Instead, it is important to define a research strategy that allows schools to achieve their main mission of educating a new generation of managers and entrepreneurs

Much ado about… scientific research | Michael Haenlein

Third, accept that research is a skill that changes dynamically and needs to be developed Standards for publication in leading journals evolve constantly over time and what used to be acceptable a decade ago may no longer be so today. This implies that faculty members who have not been active in research for a certain period may need to be trained in the “rules of the game”. Otherwise they risk applying the principles they learned in the past, which will be a source of ongoing frustration. Finally, understand that each faculty member should contribute to research output, even if it is in different ways Let’s be realistic – it is not likely that an entire faculty team that used to be focused on publishing one type of research can be transformed into one that publishes another type of research. In addition, the interest and focus of faculty may change after the tenure process compared to before. Focusing exclusively on articles in peerreviewed journals while neglecting all other

forms of output is therefore unlikely to be efficient. It will force some part of the faculty to run behind a train which they will never be able to catch, which again leads to frustration and inefficiencies. Deans should realise that many forms of research output matter and leverage each faculty member in the best possible way to achieve this goal. Multiple strategies exist for this and it is important to choose the one that is most adapted to the context of an individual institution. I want to finish this article on a personal note by saying that I love research. I have spent my entire career working on questions that I am passionate about. I have published in the leading journals of my field and am involved in most of them, either as former editor-in-chief, associate editor or as a member of the editorial review board of an advisory panel. But doing research is more than simply publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals that few practitioners care about. It is about working on topics of true importance and ensuring the knowledge created is translated into the classroom and beyond.

About the Author Michael Haenlein is Professor of Marketing at ESCP Europe, Director of the ESCP Europe Research Center on Big Data and Associate Dean of the ESCP Europe Executive PhD Program. He holds Visiting Positions at Trinity Business School (Dublin, Ireland) and Kozminski University (Warsaw, Poland). References and further reading Christian Terwiesch and Karl T Ulrich (2014), “Will video kill the classroom star? The threat and opportunity of Massively Open Online Courses for full-time MBA programs”, Working Paper, The Wharton School Ajay K Kohli and Michael Haenlein (2019), “Factors influencing the likelihood of studying important marketing issues: Implications and recommendations”, Working Paper Kaplan, Andreas M (2018), "A School is a Building that Has 4 Walls - with Tomorrow Inside”: Toward the Reinvention of the Business School," Business Horizons, 61 (4), 599 – 608; Pucciarelli, Francesca and Andreas Kaplan (2016), "Competition and Strategy in Higher Education: Managing Complexity and Uncertainty," Business Horizons, 59 (3), 311 – 20; Kaplan, Andreas M and Michael Haenlein (2016), "Higher Education and the Digital Revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, Social Media and the Cookie Monster," Business Horizons, 59 (4), 441 - 50 Kaplan, Andreas M (2014), "European management and European business schools: Insights from the history of business schools," European Management Journal, 32 (4), 529 - 34.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Sustainable education Antonia LĂźtgens describes how an education geared to sustainability is proving itself as sustainable

Sustainable education | Antonia Lütgens

730

The number of business school signatories of the UN PRME initiative

any business schools are now numbered among the 730 global signatories of the United Nations’ PRME initiative. PRME aims to raise the profile of sustainability - including equipping students around the globe with a deeper understanding and better developed skills to deliver "change tomorrow". “Quality Education”, Goal 4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, has the target that by 2030 learners around the globe will acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development. This article will explore ways to reach these learners. Not only do business schools show a commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but they also respond to a key theme in EFMD standards – Ethics, Responsibility and Sustainability. This theme makes up one of the overarching dimensions in the EQUIS framework. According to the EQUIS Standards and Criteria, a school should have a clear understanding of its role as a "globally responsible organisation" and its contribution to ethics and sustainability. This includes the integration of the theme into the school’s educational offerings and the commitment to encourage and promote the ethical and responsible behaviour of its students. It leads us to the question of best practice examples for teaching sustainability. The EFMD Online Course Certification System (EOCCS) pursues the sharing of good practice in online management education and can draw on lessons learned in the first three years of EOCCS’ operation. In answer to the question: "Is online learning a suitable format to teach sustainability?". The answer is a resounding yes! Is it sustainable? – well, that is a key question for EOCCS but the current evidence is that it certainly appears to be.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Online learning provides key advantages for both learners and business schools. Learner benefits include self-paced learning and high levels of flexibility regarding time and location of studying. Online learning can also accommodate the needs of different types of learners and a more inclusive and engaging approach with techniques such as peer-to-peer learning. Business schools have the opportunity to innovate online and modernise the educational process. Schools that have adopted MOOCs demonstrate institutional learning and digital skills development among their faculty. Furthermore, MOOC and other online provisions can also widen access to management education and reach out to a larger, more diverse and potentially global audiences - a strategic objective for many schools. Happily, this strategic objective mirrors the spirit of SDG Quality Education, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Indeed, online business education can provide affordable education worldwide, expand the availability of training and support lifelong learning. So not only is there evidence to suggest that online education is sustainable in itself, but EOCCS community members, GEM and ESADE, which are featured in this article, have shown that topics centred on global sustainability provide excellent content for online courses.

About the Author Antonia LĂźtgens is EOCCS Administrator, EFMD Global Network

EOCCS CASE - Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM) Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM) is an EOCCS pioneer and was one of the first schools in France to specialise in intercultural management with a strong internationalisation of its programmes and a belief that managers must be equipped to view the world and business with an informed international perspective. The school experimented with early MOOCs and developed a series of courses on subjects considered important for the development of individuals, companies and society in general. The creation of their geopolitics MOOC Penser Global is totally in line with this objective. Its content aims at examining the ways in which the world evolves and identifying different ways to achieve international harmony. "Penser Global" was developed to offer highquality and relevant subject matter not widely taught in some regions of the world (including francophone countries in parts of Africa -a key target audience for GEM). With this first MOOC, and in alignment with the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deeply rooted belief in the importance of intercultural awareness, GEM was also looking to reinforce the importance of geopolitics as it believes that a keen understanding of this dimension has become pertinent to decision making for managers and companies. The MOOC itself has evolved to a suite of three MOOCs, which now form a programme entitled: Global studies: international relations and world politics.

Sustainable education | Antonia Lütgens

EOCCS CASE - ESADE Business School Another excellent EOCCS-certified MOOC that demonstrates this practice is Geopolítica y gobernanza global: riesgos y oportunidades from ESADE in Spain. ESADE Business and Law School’s online learning strategy is guided by its “Student First” initiative, which creates innovative learning ecosystems that place students at the centre of the learning experience through accessibility, flexibility and personalisation. The aim of the MOOC is to bring students from all over the globe closer to some core concepts of geopolitics and global governance, working from historical overviews and broad, overarching trends to very specific and applied examples from the past and present. The MOOC’s content draws on the expertise of the institution, specifically of the team involved in “ESADEgeo”, the Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics and its President, former EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana.

According to ESADE, this online course adds value to students’ learning experiences in several ways. First, it is accessible, providing students all over the world with the possibility to access world-class content free of charge. Second, the geographical and cultural diversity among the students enriches the learning experience, providing multiple perspectives on the issues being debated. In this sense, peer-to-peer interaction is encouraged consistently throughout the course. This MOOC has reached over 25,000 learners, including more than 2,300 participants in a single intake, the learners coming almost equally from South America, Europe and North America.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Will learning get you there? It may not be enough argues Nikki Huyer. She believes that more attention needs to be paid to learning transfer

Will learning get you there? | Nikki Huyer

s the nature of work continues to change, the need for learning continues to grow. The business of organisational learning has increased so much that the annual spend is now estimated to be in the billions. With the learning space continuing to offer a plethora of learning options with new approaches regularly introduced, the positive image of learning is easily identifiable as the “learning mindset”, with learners enthusiastically sharing information about course attendance and the next learning event. While learning as a subject is well developed, “learning transfer”, defined as the degree to which learners effectively apply the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained in a learning event to the workplace, continues to be neglected. This is despite its being studied for over a century, with a range of literature available in the public domain and the fact that learning transfer focuses on the application, use and effectiveness of learning. Some organisations approach learning transfer from the perspective of “applied learning” or apprenticeship programmes to build skills, although most organisations continue to use short-term learning programmes. While there is an argument that learning for the sake of learning adds value in some form, learning does not always, in itself, translate to application or use of learning and behavioural change. While there is some debate on the numbers, most literature suggests the transition of learning to the workplace runs between 10% to 30%. In one study, Saks and Belcourt found that the transfer of learning dropped dramatically from 62% applying learning immediately after a learning event, to 44% after six months, down to 34% after a 12-month period. This implies that organisations and individuals reap little ongoing benefit from the resources spent on learning interventions. Learning may not be as effective as intended and learning may not get us there. Other studies that include interventions to address low transfer rates have improved these numbers, suggesting that adding learning transfer practices to learning may get us further. Given these numbers what value would result

from an increase in retention of even 10%? How would this impact your organisation? To understand the framework of learning transfer, we begin with Baldwin and Ford’s 1988 study, which identified three key factors influencing learning transfer: the workplace; the training; and the learner. Since then numerous researchers have examined an extensive range of sub-factors and also identified additional factors that impact and influence learning transfer. It is interesting to note that the factors influencing learning transfer extend beyond learning interventions. The short and by no means definitive list below provides an example of the range of topics found to influence learning transfer: • Workplace sub-factors include workplace and transfer climate, organisational communications and the connection between learning and transfer as well as the need to support learners in identifying opportunities to transfer, time to transfer, supervisor support and post-training interventions • Training sub-factors include the need for examples that are closely related to the learner’s work situation, the need for learning to be taught in a way that supports transfer, key time periods before, during and after training, training framing, course attendance decisions, course attributions, training instruction and content, perceived content validity as well as transfer design and post-training support • Learner sub-factors include motivation, ability and personality – which all impact transfer -- motivation to learn and motivation to transfer, learning and transfer mindsets, learner transfer skills, a high level of topic knowledge and ability to identify transfer opportunities, the construct of the “Transfer Ready Learner”, goal orientation, self-efficacy, specific characteristics learners use to effectively transfer learning as well as personal capacity to transfer • Other factors include near and far transfer, which relates to the distance between the learning and the application as well as the transfer process itself

10-30% Most literature suggests that transition of learning to the workplace runs between 10% to 20%

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

As practitioners we see learning transfer, while influenced by learning, as distinct, with its own requirements and benefits and that these requirements extend beyond just learning. However, this view seems to differ from that of Learning and Development specialists. For example, during a recent learning technology conference, when probed, learning specialists shared their belief that transfer is addressed within the focus on learning and that the material they provide and how they teach addresses learning transfer. Perhaps it does. Yet with the current low rate of transfer and the range of factors and sub-factors shown to influence learning transfer this perspective may need to be re-evaluated. Looking at the topic of measurement; while many are familiar with the measurement of learning and the use of models such as Kirkpatrickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to assess learning events, the measurement of learning transfer has different requirements. This includes the need to understand what part of the learning is transferred, how it is transferred and the effectiveness of the transfer as well as the ability to measure that against the initial learning transfer needs analysis. In addition, there is the belief that, in the case of transfer, the individual involved in the transfer is best suited to provide a meaningful measurement of transfer. These measurements may also be extended beyond the learning event to other factors influencing transfer so that measurement reflects transfer and the entire system that supports or detracts from it. With these requirements, learning transfer is measurable, has been measured and can provide a metric for those interested in understanding learning effectiveness. It also tangibly affects the ROI related to learning initiatives and the ability to grow and change. As we continue to operate in marketplaces that are highly competitive and require rapid change, organisations will experience an increasing need for new approaches and individuals with abilities to adjust. This will require that organisations are able to change regularly and provide learning to individuals who

are able to learn and consistently apply or use the new learning. Ultimately, this means that learning needs to be applied, in some form, and it will need to be applied at a fairly high rate. The problem with this is that current practice results in low rates of transfer and transfer rates that decay quickly. To deal with this, learning transfer and the factors found to support transfer should be understood and addressed. While organisations may initially begin to address low transfer rates by assessing learning initiatives for transfer and then adding learning transfer supporting factors, this in itself may not be enough. The factors that support learning transfer extend beyond learning events, to organisational practice and the capacity of people. In the future, to build an organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capability to learn, adjust, take action and do things differently, the current low rate of transfer needs to increase and be sustained. This means efforts to support transfer are beyond those of a learning initiative. Efforts to engage and support learning transfer will need to extend to developing an organisation that is transfer friendly, transfer ready and transfer supportive as well as developing learners who are ready to transfer and skilled at transfer -- all supported by appropriate measurement and systems.

Will learning get you there? | Nikki Huyer

Given that learning transfer requires a great deal of topic knowledge and learners need to be skilled at transfer and supported to transfer, those organisations and individuals capable of positively influencing transfer will gain true value and true advantage. How an organisation engages in learning transfer may well extend to competitive advantage and improved ROI. Adding learning transfer practices to organisational practice may just help us get there in the end.

Learning transfer research has indicated that providing examples of how a topic might be applied assists with application. With that in mind, you will find suggested actions you may take to begin to understand and work with learning transfer. • Consider the constructs of the “Transfer Ready Learner”, and “Learner Transfer Readiness” and the benefits of introducing a programme to develop learner transfer understanding and skills. Transfer Ready learners will be key in the future to improving low transfer rates. • Attending or giving a speech? Consider what part of the information might be transferred to the workplace. Providing information in a form that supports application improves learning transfer. • In your daily activities, note how often the topic of learning stands on its own and how often learning it is associated with application. Note motivation to learn and motivation to transfer statements. This will help you understand the learning and transfer mindset, yours and your organisation’s. Mindsets are linked to behaviour. • Consider what actions are taken in your organisation to support learning transfer. The workplace is one of the factors identified in influencing transfer. • Review the measures used for learning initiatives, identify those associated with learning and those associated with transfer. What is the mix? Understanding how we measure learning transfer may provide an insight as to how transfer is managed. • Determine what the average rate of transfer is in your organisation. Ask what a 10% increase in learning transfer would accomplish. Understanding the rate of transfer may assist decision making in the future.

About the Author Dr Nikki Huyer has been studying and working with learning transfer for over a decade. She works as a consultant to lead organisations and individuals through change and transformation.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Positive learning on carbon neutrality A leading Canadian school helps students to live their sustainable curriculum. By Simon Pek, Rick Cotton and Mackenzie Ford

Positive learning on carbon neutrality | Simon Pek, Rick Cotton and Mackenzie Ford

rowing a world-class, competitive business school and being a leader in sustainability may seem like two juxtaposed goals but the University of Victoria’s Peter B Gustavson School of Business, in Victoria, BC, has found a way to do both. In fact, not only is the school a leader in teaching sustainability curriculum, it is believed to be the first carbon neutral business school in the world. How has Gustavson accomplished this feat? The answers lie in the four pillars that are the foundation of the business school: international, integrative, innovative and socially responsible/ sustainable. Gustavson students are taught that a holistic perspective on business is valuable and they realise that their impact within business cannot be limited to pursuing financial goals while ignoring impacts on people and the planet. The school raises leaders—not the kind who are looking to be titans of Wall Street but the kind who think outside the box and truly want to affect change across sectors and geographic locations; they recognise that one way to do so is through sustainability efforts. This focus on sustainability is reinforced for both students and faculty through in-class content and discussion. In the 2017/2018 academic year, 92% of required Bachelor of Commerce courses, 84% of required Master of Business Administration courses and 100% of required Master of Global Business courses included sustainability-related content. In accounting courses, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports are analysed in combination with annual reports. In marketing courses, students are taught that transparency is valuable, and that greenwashing should be avoided.

2009

Realising that carbon emissions play a large role in sustainability efforts, Gustavson started seriously examining its carbon footprint in 2009 with guidance from Dr Basma Majerbi

For students in the Bachelor of Commerce programme, there is an entire sustainability course that includes content related to human rights, ethics, cultural sustainability, biomimicry and, in recent years, managing one’s own carbon footprint. Realising that carbon emissions play a large role in sustainability efforts, Gustavson started seriously examining its carbon footprint in 2009 with guidance from Dr Basma Majerbi. In that year, the school began collecting data on its carbon footprint by tracking the scope of its emissions: Scope One (natural gas for heating); Scope Two (electricity); and Scope Three (paper, travel and commuting) emissions. In 2010, to further analyse this footprint, Gustavson began gathering data on its annual greenhouse gas emissions. In tandem with this research, grassroots sustainability efforts and a series of behavioural changes were encouraged within Gustavson, including: the creation of Bike to Work Week teams; the installation of water fountains to replace bottled water bottles; Earth Day meat-free diet awareness campaigns; and plastic reduction initiatives. The school was also a leader in implementing a comprehensive recycling programme. These initiatives helped track and reduce the school’s emissions. In 2010, the University of Victoria was mandated by the provincial government of British Columbia to offset its Scope One and Two carbon emissions. However, it was not until

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

the launch of Gustavson’s Centre for Social and Sustainable Innovation (CSSI), that the business school formally set a goal to offset its Scope Three emissions and become completely carbon neutral. In 2017, the school received faculty approval to create the Carbon Neutrality Plus (CN+) committee, comprising students, faculty and staff with the goal of off setting and finding novel ways of reducing Gustavson’s carbon emissions. In taking this on the school realised three things: • carbon neutrality could not be achieved by carbon reduction efforts alone, meaning that carbon offsets needed to accompany reduction efforts • the initiative had to have buy-in from all of the school’s stakeholders, including its students • the initiative had to be positioned and perceived as a strategic investment rather than a “sin-tax”. These conclusions gained urgency when Gustavson realised that over 80% of its carbon footprint was Scope Three-related—largely due to travel. As an international business school, global engagement is woven into the fabric of the schools identity. After all, Gustavson faculty members regularly collaborate with researchers around the world while each year 80% of undergraduates and 100% of masters students participate in international exchange. Exchange has become a key differentiator for the school and a crucial factor in developing internationally focused and culturally sensitive stakeholders. As these programmes gained momentum, higher numbers of students were admitted to the school while associated faculty and staff support increased as well, resulting in a ratcheting up of emissions. So the question became: “How does Gustavson maintain its international focus and connections while also remaining true to its sustainability and social responsibility values?”

80%

Each year 80% of undergraduates and 100 of masters students participate in an international exchange

Positive learning on carbon neutrality | Simon Pek, Rick Cotton and Mackenzie Ford

PICTURE COURTESY OF GUSTAVSON

The school sought to find a strategy that would offset these emissions without demonising travel itself. It was through this thinking that Gustavson and the CSSI saw the potential for a carbon offset competition, which would focus on offsetting the costs of travel, and would involve the students—key contributors to the school’s carbon footprint—in the process. In 2017, the CN+ committee launched its first initiative to involve Gustavson faculty, staff and students in the carbon off set selection process. In its inaugural year, the initiative presented these groups with an opportunity to vote for their favourite carbon offset projects from a set of projects identified by the committee. While this was a great strategy to engage Gustavson’s faculty, staff and students to have a voice in addressing the school’s carbon footprint, the committee and the dean, Dr Saul Klein, felt there was a larger opportunity for experiential learning for the students. With this in mind, in 2018 the CN+ committee announced its first annual Carbon Offset Pitch Competition. Here, students learned about off setting by evaluating different projects and then creating a portfolio summary description that they pitched to the voters in a 90-second video proposal. All students were invited and encouraged to participate. Teams of one to five students from Gustavson’s undergraduate, masters and PhD programmes offered their portfolio recommendations from a list of 26 off set projects, from four different off set providers that were selected using rigorous criteria developed by the CN+ committee. The portfolio considerations and the reasoning behind the committee varied greatly. Each of the final teams took a different approach to carbon mitigation and reduction, piecing together different projects from a reforestation on Quadra Island, to more efficient cooking stoves in Uganda, to a wind power project in New Caledonia. In the end, after the votes were tallied among the five competing portfolios, the winning team selected two offset projects for their portfolio, allocating 65% to a Bundled Solar Power Project in India and 35% to The Great Bear Forest Carbon Project in British Columbia, Canada.

Each of the final teams took a different approach to carbon mitigation and reduction, piecing together different projects from a reforestation on Quadra Island, to more efficient cooking stoves in Uganda, to a wind power project in New Caledonia

This winning portfolio offset Gustavson’s previous calendar year’s carbon footprint of 796 tonnes. Mikiya Hobbs, a member of the winning team, spoke about her desire to participate:. “As a group, we decided to take part in the competition because of our passion for the environment. This competition was also a unique way for us to engage with Gustavson and an opportunity for students to have a say in how the school spends its money. Personally, I wanted to gain experience learning about sustainability initiatives and making pitches.” Seven-hundred-and-ninety-six tonnes of off set carbon is an incredible number that the school can be proud of. But equally important, the school can be proud of the international, integrative, innovative and socially responsible mindset reflected by Gustavson students throughout the competition. Two initiatives, the solar power project in India also has ancillary benefits including boosting economic activity in the region. And The Great Bear project will provide jobs for local Indigenous communities while acknowledging their deep-seated cultural knowledge that has protected the coastal land for centuries. These initiatives are closely aligned with Gustavson’s pillars, and in choosing these initiatives as part of their portfolio recommendation, the students demonstrated how they are truly looking to make a difference by considering the benefits to both people and the planet while also considering the per tonne project costs to the school. This is an example of what Gustavson calls “triple bottom line thinking”.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

But even with the tremendous success of the 2018 competition Gustavson continues to look for opportunities to deepen engagement and increase its alignment with its pillars. In 2019, the CN+ committee has developed plans to have students connect their portfolios to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and hopes to see even more portfolio submissions and a larger voter turnout. In the future, the committee would also like to explore the possibility of creating its own carbon offset projects that students could include in their portfolio submissions. Another learning outcome for the committee is that carbon off setting must include individual accountability. This led them to conduct research into what small daily changes can be made by students, faculty and staff to have the largest impact on carbon reduction. They have studied flight path emissions, looked into sustainably sourcing supplies and brainstormed campaigns to reinforce the notion that carbon offsetting and sustainability require everyone’s ownership and commitment. Although Gustavson is proud to be a leader in this field, the school hopes that it can provide other organisations, schools and businesses with guidance to launch similar types of value-driven initiatives in the hopes of accelerating positive, sustainable environmental change.

Making sustainable business decisions has always been a key focus of Gustavson but the school truly believes that these changes cannot simply come from the top down or pursued as a fad. The school recognises that its staff, faculty and — most importantly students—play an instrumental role in offering unique insight into important global issues, including carbon neutrality. By harnessing and rewarding ideas such as the ones offered by the students during the Carbon Offset Pitch Competition, the school can propel a generation of open-minded and visionary business leaders into the world. By continuing to foster a collaborative problemsolving environment, Gustavson believes that together we can create a positive social and environmental impact on a global scale.

About the Authors Dr Simon Pek, is Assistant Professor and Co-Chair Carbon Neutrality Plus Committee, University of Victoria’s Peter B Gustavson School of Business, Canada Dr Rick Cotton is Associate Professor and Co-Chair Carbon Neutrality Plus Committee, Gustavson Mackenzie Ford is a 4th year BCom student at Gustavsin

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Interweaving internationalisation and corporate relevance

Germany, the US, Singapore, Brazil may sound like an exciting world trip but they are also places where lucky students are IBEA undergraduates. By Ingo Bayer, Yvonne Hall and Christina Vonhoff

Interweaving internationalisation and corporate relevance | Ingo Bayer, Yvonne Hall and Christina Vonhoff

he International Business Education Alliance (IBEA) allows students to obtain a bachelors degree studying in Asia, Europe, and North and South America. Intercultural understanding and hands-on management experience play an important role in this innovative programme offered by Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina, ESSEC Business School, the School of Public and Business Administration (FGV-EBAPE) and the Business School of the University of Mannheim. With ESSEC’s newly inaugurated campus in Singapore, the IBEA programme spans campuses in Asia, Europe, and North and South America. Most of today’s problem solving in business is only successful if it incorporates the multinational dimension of international markets, laws, customers, logistics and other factors, all of which are closely intertwined. Moreover, business is more and more driven by data rather than physical assets. A company’s competitor can spring up from a garage anywhere and anytime around the globe before it is even identified as a potential opponent. Organisations must therefore be prepared for an environment that changes overnight. And this will only happen if an organisation is the promoter of constant change and embraces it based on a thorough understanding for the new demands of business and a solid trust in its own abilities. Business schools cannot ignore this development. They must re-think how they educate students for the challenges of a fast-changing, complex and globally connected business environment. For the University of Mannheim Business School in Germany, one way to inculcate the skills and competences students need to meet this kind of business environment is to offer students the possibility of participating in the International Business Education Alliance. This innovative international student exchange adds a new dimension to regular exchange programmes through the

incorporation of real-life company projects aligned with a curriculum taught in four different international settings. The underlying idea of IBEA, which started in 2015, is to give students the chance to study at four top business schools where they develop academic and professional skills in different global settings and enhance their interpersonal and intercultural skills as well as their language competence. IBEA students study four semesters as one cohort and stay one semester at each of the four participating institutions. Three elements are crucial for student learning during the IBEA program: • provide students with the opportunity to experience different academic, cultural and social environments in four international contexts • boost student learning through studying in an internationally diverse student cohort • challenge students by exposing them to different business worlds and corporate settings IBEA students study on four different continents at four different business schools and, compared to regular student exchange programmes that last for one or two semesters at one institution, IBEA students’ experiences and learning are intensified as they have to adapt quickly to new cultural environments that differ enormously. Intercultural classes help students to process and reflect on their experiences: At each of the four schools, the cohort has to attend a cultural class on the hosting country’s culture and economy. As a result, intercultural understanding becomes part of students’ conversations in and out of the classroom, which intensifies their learning. Compared to regular exchange programmes, where intercultural learning is often delayed, IBEA students are “forced” to respond to their experiences at the time when they are actually exposed to them. This can avoid the emergence of cultural misconceptions and accelerates the acceptance process.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Students complete the IBEA programme in an internationally diverse cohort, which consists of eight to 10 students from each participating school. This second important element of the IBEA programme, the cohort structure, has the goal of facilitating the academic and social integration of students and to intensify student learning inside and outside of the classroom. The cohort structure provides many academic and extracurricular occasions for participants to bond and trigger intercultural learning and understanding. For example, the class “Globalisation in business” benefits from the fact that the IBEA students, representing six or seven nationalities, bring their perspectives and discuss them openly. In addition, through group work in diverse teams, students are forced to deal with the challenges and experience the benefits of diversity within teams. Lena Rudat, a Mannheim student of the first IBEA cohort, says: “Diversity is not a buzz word. It is hard work and you do not necessarily overcome these challenges within one day”. Outside the classroom, IBEA students also experience different business worlds and corporate settings in each country, which is the third important element of IBEA. Besides a strong local and regional exposure, the students gain hands-on global management experience by working closely with a corporate partner from each school in a company project, which is aligned with the respective IBEA courses of each school. In Mannheim, for example, IBEA students attend a class in international taxation and tax-planning. Based on this class, a corporate project with PricewaterhouseCoopers or Ernst & Young gives students the opportunity to acquire practical skills first hand from a leading globally active firm. A company project is considered an outstanding feature of the programme and offers great value for both students and companies. Ernst & Young GmbH confirms: “The IBEA company project represents an extraordinary way to co-operate with highereducation institutions. It gives us the possibility

to interact with students and get to know them in a real-life business situation. During our first company project with IBEA, students we were deeply impressed by the students, their engagement and eagerness to learn”. Designing an “integrated” and cohort-based programme across four schools located in three continents and offering classes on four continents is a complex endeavour. As a result, IBEA does not only enhance student learning but also organisational learning. A multilateral co-operation and co-ordinators with different institutional backgrounds are a tremendous challenge for even experienced international relations managers. Because of their different missions and ethnographical settings, each school has a different perspective on things as well as different decision processes. It starts with the motivation (marketing, recruitment, philosophy/strategy) to be part of the programme and ends by divergent opinions about how to react to student complaints or parents who want to be involved and informed about their children’s life abroad. Situations occur, which are for one school “normal business” but for partners very uncommon. Thus, the problem-solving approach of each school differs and staff have to learn about these differences and – even more importantly – to understand them. At Mannheim, we learned that in a multilateral project effective communication is essential. Furthermore, workflows and hierarchies have to be considered. In fact, each institution has its own approach and its own philosophy and other partners have to understand and accept that. It is helpful to have at least one person at each partnering institution who has worked in international relations for a couple of years and who has the necessary experience to enhance intercultural understanding among other staff involved and to guide younger professionals through the project. There is a big need for coherency as well as mutual trust on personal level in order to succeed and to keep the whole project on the right track. Partners must learn that there is more than one approach to lead a project to success, which is exactly what IBEA students learn.

Besides a strong local and regional exposure, the students gain hands-on global management experience by working closely with a corporate partner from each school in a company project

Interweaving internationalisation and corporate relevance | Ingo Bayer, Yvonne Hall and Christina Vonhoff

2015 IBEA started in 2015, to give students the chance to study at four top business schools

About the Authors Dr Ingo Bayer is Managing Director, Business School, University of Mannheim. His main interest lies in the international strategic positioning of public business schools and the transformational processes necessary to compete successfully with private competitors. Yvonne Hall is Head of International Affairs, Business School, University of Mannheim. She began working with the school's accreditation team in 2003 and has been in charge of the school's international partnerships since 2004. Christina Vonhoff is Accreditation Manager, Business School, University of Mannheim. She holds a masters degree in Higher Education Administration from the City University of New York (Baruch College). Since 2008, she has co-ordinated the Mannheim's national and "triple crown" accreditations. More information on IBEA can be found on the following websites: â&#x20AC;˘ http://www.ibea-bachelor.org/ â&#x20AC;˘ https://www.bwl.uni-mannheim.de/en/international/ibea/

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

The challenge of change Throughout history people have thought that theirs was a truly transformative time. In hindsight they were often wrong but, says Bert van der Zwaan, now there are reasons to believe that the world of higher education at least is changing more profoundly than ever

The challenge of change | Bert van der Zwaan

800% A For over 800 years the university has remained basically unchanged

30%

In most Western countries we now see a participation in higher education of over 30%whereas 50 years ago it was less than 5%

s an institution the university is being forced to adapt to the changing demands of society and to new technologies that are rapidly emerging. For over 800 years the university has remained basically unchanged (although, of course, the reason for its successful survival is that it has been able to meet changing demands) and as a consequence developed from a small institution, serving church and/or a feudal lord, to the independent bulwark of teaching and research of the Humboldtian university model. What has changed, however, since the Enlightenment is that the elitist university of Von Humboldt’s day transformed into the modern university in which mass education is the norm. In most Western countries we now see a participation in higher education of over 30% whereas 50 years ago it was less than 5%. That significantly affects the nature of the university and leads to many challenges that are more and more difficult to meet since the budgets for higher education are not keeping pace with the growth in student numbers. In some countries the budgets are even shrinking due to the pressing demands on governments imposed by the costs of an ageing population or the growing budgets needed for sustainable development. A number of recent developments potentially form a considerable threat to the conventional Western university. The first is the rapidly changing economic balance in the world, in which Asia and in particular China are taking a leading role much more rapidly than predicted. We can expect that in the wake of the shift of economic power the point of gravity in science will likewise shift. It is rather easy to predict now that Chinese universities will become much more visible and influential at the expense of, in particular, North American dominance. As a consequence, the “war for talent” will inevitably lead, and in fact is already leading, to a flow of talent towards Asia at the expense of the US and Europe.

In addition, student streams to Australia, the US and the UK will diminish, certainly from China, which might have serious consequences for universities in these Western countries, whose business models are heavily dependent on foreign students. The second trend is the increasingly visible impact of digitisation on education, which forms the basis for what is called the “unbundling of the curriculum”. Digitisation stimulates the offering of teaching in the form of modules. But while modularisation is a prerequisite for digitisation, digitisation in its turn helps to make customised teaching possible. But what is less visible is that digitisation also facilitates the rise of private providers of tertiary education. Using internet-based distant learning they offer profitable chunks of education to a potentially large market. The price of this education, therefore, is competitive, and the providers operate in the profitable parts of the market where digital mass education is easily realised, ie a low degree of supervision and no expensive research. All these developments stimulate “lifelong learning” and a tendency to pay-per-course and thereby gather microcredentials, which possibly (but not necessarily) eventually lead to a degree. The third important trend is related to the fact that the knowledge agenda of governments and universities is increasingly and rapidly shifting to give the “grand societal challenges” a higher priority. This is due to the fact that society is demanding that universities contribute to solving the huge challenges society is facing such as global climate change, migration and the availability of food and water. In addition to changing the research agenda, this trend stimulates interdisciplinary research because most societal problems are intricate and rarely disciplinary by nature. In turn, this stimulates trends in education known as teaching in a “T-shaped” way, by providing students with an interdisciplinary top (the horizontal bar of the T) on a disciplinary basis (the vertical bar).

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

While most university leaders are very busy attempting to keep abreast of all these changes, it can easily escape their attention that around them society is changing significantly. Looking back, the financial and monetary crisis of 2008-2011 was an important turning point in recent history because at that time the cracks in the neoliberal and capitalist veneer came to the surface. All of a sudden large groups in Western societies realised that the policy of open trading and internalisation, while bringing home many positives also brought a number of negatives. In reaction, populist and protectionist policies became increasingly prominent, leading, for example, to the election of President Trump in the US. Everywhere, dissatisfied segments of the population voted against traditional and established parties. From 2014 onwards it became clear that this undercurrent generated by dissatisfied people had already been long present and signified a still-growing social divide mainly caused by higher education. Research shows convincingly that over time higher education has produced a wealthier and globally oriented segment of the population, which potentially has many opportunities within the labour market. In contrast, those without higher education earn less and are more often the victim of economic decline. They are feeling increasingly dissatisfied and threatened by the outside world. Dutch research shows that these groups are also operating increasingly within their own bubbles and that communication between the bubbles of the higher- and lower-educated parts of the population is difficult, each group becoming more and more encapsulated. The result is that once in a bubble the chances are that you are destined to live there, marking an end to the American, or any other, dream of equal opportunities. This social divide threatens the university since most of the people without higher education favour cutting the budgets of research and education and are opposed to internationalisation and globalisation, mostly out of fear of losing their position.

For the same reasons they vote against immigration even of talented young people. In all dimensions, this has impact on the very foundation of the university and requires a fundamental revaluation of higher education. The first and obvious paradigm to rethink, of course, is the dogma that higher-educated workers should automatically have higher salaries whereas blue-collar production workers should earn less. This is the very root of the dissatisfaction. But fixing it requires long-term changes to the labour market. In the short term, the university needs to regain the trust of society by showing that it is to the good of everyone in society and not a burden for which lower-educated people have to pay while receiving nothing in return. This requires that the university changes from an ivory tower to a really engaged organisation that solves the

The challenge of change | Bert van der Zwaan

problems society is struggling with instead of constantly asking for more money to do so. In the midst of all these changes, there is a third level of change that might easily threaten the university even more than the developments summarised above. This concerns the rapid and possibly even disruptive development of digitisation and artificial intelligence (AI). Over the last two years we have seen staggering examples of the potential of AI from which it is clear that the impact of robotisation could be disruptive. Research will have a substantially higher pace due to the ability to read and digest data automatically and big data systems will turn into valuable sources from which robots -- at unprecedented speed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; can extract solutions and answers to new research questions. But also, knowledge transfer and teaching will change dramatically since large parts of routine teaching can be taken over by robots. However, instead of regarding this as another threat, this could also be an opportunity because it might give the overburdened staff of the modern university more time to focus on what is really important to the future: creating leadership and critical citizenship, which builds on the ability to think independently and creatively. The latter competencies require the use of very experienced and very good teachers and constitutes a domain in which the robot is not able to perform satisfactorily.

In these times of unprecedented change, the university can only survive if its leadership is able to point the way to the future. It is clear that we are entering uncharted waters and good leaders should be blunt in pointing this out. But, as always, it is good to realise that over time people have considered barriers to be insurmountable but in the end concluding that they have succeeded in overcoming them. But this is only do-able if leadership respects a careful balance between top- down and bottom-up change. At the same time, universities need to realise that it is impossible to define the course to the future in detail; there are simply too many unknowns. That pleads for a university that is constantly tinkering, adapting to the changing conditions but at the same time keeping a keen eye on the larger issues at stake: that the university is unbundling and that digital and flexible learning will become the norm. Also, that the university could profit tremendously from AI, if it is used to free-up capacity for face-to-face contact between teachers and students. But the use of knowledge in a creative way will be key in and to the future. Skills in leadership should be as much a part of university education as disciplinary knowledge. And perhaps, most of all, the university should remain open to the demands of society so that society is prepared to support and finance tertiary education.

About the Author Professor Bert van der Zwaan is professor of Biogeology and former Rector Magnificus of Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He is author of the book "Higher Education in 2040 - A Global Approachâ&#x20AC;? (AUP, 2017). Email: G.J.vanderZwaan@uu.nl

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

The quest for effective performance management | Edna Diez and Revathi Raghavan

To deliver on our organisational objectives we need our people to be engaged, focused on the right activities and highly productive

rganisations are constantly in search for that one idea that will solve their ailments. Buzzwords such as agile, feedback culture, team versus individual performance, check-ins and so on take centre stage as the performance process is refreshed. But one thing is fundamentally clear about why making the performance process meaningful matters. It’s because of our people. To deliver on our organisational objectives we need our people to be engaged, focused on the right activities and highly productive. In this article we explore some key concepts that organisations are introducing to shift the focus of performance management to what really matters. Taking a step back let us acknowledge that there is no system or innovative process that will unilaterally solve performance management. A one-size-fits-all solution does not work, so you need to choose what works best for your organisation. The focus in our organisations is on revisiting our performance processes and emphasising behaviours and interactions. This means honing in on improving staff behaviours and habits and enabling authentic and intentional feedback within an environment built on trusting relationships between staff and managers. Performance management done well can provide a constant source of feedback to help staff learn and grow.

When we talk about feedback, we are focused on building a culture of feedback where we have requestors, givers and receivers. We are moving from incidental to intentional feedback. Feedback should happen organically, and not be forced through checkpoints or timelines. We are emphasising not only giving and receiving feedback, but shifting mindsets to asking for feedback. According to Dr David Rock, Director of the NeuroLeadership Institute, a leading global research organisation, and pioneer in the neuroscience of leadership: “Giving and receiving unsolicited feedback can be a threatening experience due to the high sensitivity of the social brain. That makes it difficult for the receiver to efficiently process feedback and for the giver to share quality feedback. Asking for feedback can lower the threat for the receiver, allowing for greater cognitive capacity to process information…[it] enables neurological processes that accelerate learning”. This research shows that feedback pull is more effective than feedback push. Instilling this culture of feedback is a challenge for any organisation. Our own organisations reflect a multitude of nationalities, each exemplifying a deep commitment towards achieving business priorities and organisational goals, and each bringing their diversity of thought, experiences, and cultural backgrounds.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Thus, our challenge of building a culture of feedback is compounded by the need to define a common feedback culture that all managers can consistently leverage and all staff can trust. A behavioural shift, and a key enabler of effective feedback, is investment in the growth mindset, which embraces continuous learning where challenges are seen as opportunities and life and work are “learning rooms” to try new things and continuously improve. In our organisations, we are placing a greater emphasis on progress and less on perfection. As we all know, performance management, has been all about evaluation. Every year, staff cycle through feeling judged, reviewed, and evaluated – and as a result, threatened by the process and with little if any learning or growth. Subconsciously, they conclude that perfection is rewarded. We are stressing the importance of measuring progress, leveraged through ongoing interactions between staff and managers. The intent is to become more deliberate towards growth and development and move beyond perfection. Finally, enabling an impactful feedback culture requires ownership by managers. Managers need to take accountability and create an environment of psychological safety where staff can all trust each other and collectively deliver. Staff should feel free to verbalise their thoughts and take moderate risks without feeling scrutinised. So how do you build a culture of feedback? It starts with skill-building for feedback givers, seekers, and receivers. Our organisations have invested considerable time and effort in supporting managers on providing constructive, honest, and timely feedback and for staff to actively seek feedback and have the right mindset and attitude for getting the best out of it. Fortunately, these skills can be built through training, continuous coaching and rewarding the right behaviours. Some key takeaways to get started to build into your training and communications are:

As a feedback provider 1. Balance your feedback so that it addresses appreciation, coaching, and evaluation. Always start with a constructive opening of what is going well. Separate evaluation from appreciation and coaching. It’s more than just telling a staff member they are doing a great job or they are good at something. Be specific on what you have observed that is working well. As a manager, continue coaching in the areas where staff have met goal expectations, or not, and discuss where certain behaviours or actions could have been better 2. Finally, move to evaluation. Are they on track to achieving the goal and, if not, what else needs to be done differently? Since you are continuously giving feedback, you can separate the types of feedback provided. It should not all be reserved to quarterly, semi-annual or annual reviews 3. Be specific. Explain what you have observed and what you would like to see. Explain where they are coming from and where they need to go. You are the mirror of that person’s behaviour or style. So, give examples of the impact their behaviour has on you, the clients, or peers

The quest for effective performance management | Edna Diez and Revathi Raghavan

As a feedback requestor 1. Ask explicitly what you need to build on and where you may need to refocus 2. Ask broadly from several colleagues to mitigate unconscious bias in the feedback giver 3. Ask often. Frequent feedback helps you iterate and adapt in the face of change As a feedback receiver 1. Own your feedback. Actively seek feedback from your manager, your peers, or clients. Feedback gives you the information you don’t know about your own behaviours. Only others can see the impact of what you do. It’s through feedback that you can actually hear and see who you are 2. Act on your feedback. After you have internalised it. Yes, your first reaction will be to disregard it, the second to analyse it, and then absorb it after you have removed the emotional reaction triggered by the feedback. You’ll be able to reflect on the feedback and act on what you would like to do next 3. Be very clear on what you want from feedback. Are you seeking: a) appreciation (I’ve worked so hard for six months and I haven’t heard a word from you) b) coaching (I would like to see what else I can do to get unstuck on this goal) c) evaluation (did I meet the results or standards and what else can I do to improve and grow)?

If you are not getting the type of feedback you want, be specific and ask clarifying questions. In a feedback session, do not leave without understanding what is next or what the expected behaviour/interaction looks like. Most of these concepts may not sound new but our drive is to build new habits and internalise these behaviours. Without question, this will take time. At the core, performance management needs to shift from being an evaluative tool to one that grows and develops people. Motivating staff today means investing in them and revealing their talents in those areas that energise them. To the organisation, this translates into a better understanding and utilisation of the workforce, thereby increasing staff productivity, innovation, and engagement. Complacency in the current paradigm will not cut it anymore. It is time to evolve. Feedback, coaching, and openness to staffs’ possibilities will move us in the right direction. Is your organisation willing and ready to make a shift?

...our challenge of building a culture of feedback is compounded by the need to define a common feedback culture that all managers can consistently leverage and all staff can trust

About the Authors Edna Diez is Director of Performance, Careers and Learning at the World Bank Group and previously the Director of HR Policies and Programs at the Asian Development Bank. She helps organisations and individuals increase their effectiveness and specialises in performance and career management, leadership development, coaching, diversity and inclusion, learning and employee engagement. Revathi (“Rev”) Raghavan is currently the lead for Organizational Performance and Assessments at the World Bank Group. Rev develops and implements innovative approaches to performance management and engagement surveys incorporating best industry practices. She embodies the belief that intentional investment in an organisation’s people equates to endless success. This article is based on a presentation the authors gave at the AHRMIO Annual Conference in September 2018.

EFMD Global Focus_Iss.2 Vol.13 www.globalfocusmagazine.com

Upcoming events Global Focus Iss.2 Vol.13 | 2019

June 2019

September 2019

October 2019

November 2019

Event

Innovation in Leadership SIG webinar 3/3

2019 EFMD – HUMANE Summer School

2019 EFMD Job Fair

2019 EFMD Conference on Bachelor Programmes

2019 EFMD Career Services Conference

Dates / Venue

4 Jun / Web-based Host

Dates / Venue

15-20 Sep / Berlin, Germany Host

Dates / Venue

5-7 Jun / Carcavelos (Lisbon), Portugal

Host

NEOMA BS

2019 EOCCS Learning Community Symposium Dates / Venue

26-27 Sep / Paris, France Host

HEC Paris

Dates / Venue

6-8 Nov / Oslo, Norway

Dates / Venue

18-20 Nov / Rome, Italy Host

Host

Luiss Business School

BI Norwegian Business School

In Partnership With

Dates / Venue

Event

7-11 Oct / Prague, Czech Republic

2019 EFMD GN Asia Annual Conference

Event

Host

Dates / Venue

Event Event

2019 EFMD Annual Conference

4-6 Oct / Paris, France

Freie Universität Berlin

EFMD Event

Dates / Venue

November 2019

2019 Executive Academy

EFMD GN

7-8 Nov / Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Highered

2019 EFMD Middle East & Africa Conference Dates / Venue

20-22 Nov / Casablanca, Morocco

Host

Event

NOVA School of Business

EQUIS XXL Accreditation Seminar

Host

CFVG

EMLYON Business School

Event

Dates / Venue

Event

EPAS XXL Accreditation Seminar

16-17 Oct / Brussels, Belgium

Event

Dates / Venue

Host

26-27 Jun / Brussels, Belgium Host

EFMD

EFMD Event

Sharing Best Practice Workshop

2019 EFMD Executive Development Conference Dates / Venue

11-13 Nov / Barcelona, Spain Host

IESE

Host

2019 EFMD GN Americas Conference Dates / Venue

20-22 Nov / Miami, Florida, USA Host

Miami Business School

Dates / Venue

17-18 Oct / Boadilla del Monte, Spain Host

Grupo Santander Event

More information For more information, visit our website: www.efmd.org or email info@efmd.org

Strategic Leadership Programme for Deans Dates / Venue

22-25 Oct / Brussels, Belgium Host

EFMD

Event

EQUIS & EPAS Accreditation Seminars Dates / Venue

13-15 Nov / Rome, Italy Host

Luiss Business School

December 2019 Event

2019 EFMD Conference on Master Programmes Dates / Venue

9-11 Dec / Madrid, Spain Host

IE Business School

Thrive in this hypercompetitive environment

Recruitment solutions Reach and evaluate the largest qualified global candidate pool interested in pursuing an MBA or Business Master’s degree. From driving brand or program awareness to lead generation right through to conversion, we will tailor a solution that addresses your school’s marketing and recruitment goals.

Media Reach global candidates early in the decision-making process with customized marketing and advertising

CONTENT MARKETING

DIGITAL DISPLAY

QUALIFIED LEADS

EMAIL MARKETING

LIVE BROADCASTS

FAIRS

NATIVE ADVERTISING

SOCIAL MEDIA

Lead generation Tailor your marketing message to the right candidates with our database of 500,000+ leads

Engagement Personalize your candidate interactions on and offline MEETUPS

To schedule a consultation, email us at gmacmedia@gmac.com