Researcher
Warren Bennis and James O’Toole in “How Business SchoolsLost Their Way” writes, “Instead of measuring themselves in terms of the competence of their graduates, or by how well their faculties understand important drivers of business performance, they measure themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research….Today it is possible to find tenured professors of management who have never set foot inside a real business, except as customers…..These professors are brilliant fact collectors; but despite their high level of competence, they are too often uncomfortable dealing with
multidisciplinary issues in the classroom. They are ill at ease subjectively analyzing multifaceted questions of policy and strategy, or examining cases that require judgment based on wisdom and experience in addition to—and sometimes opposed to—isolated facts”.
Alike fellow, Management Professors hardly get invited based upon their research output for advising Industry or sharing their output with practicing Managers.
Trainer
Executive Development Programs or Management Development Programs came as revenue earner due to the new found philosophy that an employee in organization should undergo specific number of training days. This trend came primarily out of MOU system of PSUs and Japanese management system. This philosophy restricts even scientific finding of training needs.EDPs and MDPs are largely not the bye product of Faculty Consultancy and Research to disseminate it across the Industry or further strengthen Corporate Practices. Most MBA Faculty as Trainer think it is yet another session of MBA
program and make no effort to develop separate competence or skill-set. B-school hype allows this business to grow and survive, since participant claim to be alum of the school based on this participation. One can hardly find college alum sitting through any MDP offered by their alma mater.
Executive Educator
Pressure to show growth resulted into B schools entering into Executive MBA education. To start with format was 3-year part time MBA on all week days’ classes and then it assumed different formats ending with weekends and that too on alternate weekends. In some cases, it turns out to be training ground for young Teachers who first time hone their teaching skill and hopefully learn from practitioners. Faculty or B-schools have made no effort to develop skill-set desired by participants. Little exposure to current Business Practices, job at supervisory to HOD level makes the Faculty and his delivery
inappropriate for the participant. The participant pursues only goal of acquiring the Certificate.
Faculty Development
FDPs
As Learners and Employers started getting seriously concerned about the output of B-schools,it was thought that the remedy was Faculty Development. Funds were allocated. The development started with FDPs on Case Method by one and sundry with no commitment to ensure that the attendee faculty demonstrate skills for a pedagogy. Nor B-schools had any intention to adopt the method as defined pedagogy of theirs. Attending an FDP at a fancy international locatio became a favour. It became a signature to demonstrate qualification. FDPs on simulation resulted into making students
learn gaming and faculty of all background teaching strategic management in B-schools. It is now swarmed by FDP on tools and techniques to churn out ‘scientific’ research.
Industry Immersion
Another area of Faculty Development was deputing the Faculty to Industry so that Faculty is able to impart professional MBA education. Neither Industry is keen to make these investments nor Faculty is comfortable to occupy the Executive position and be there. At times Faculty has returned without completing the tenure agreed for. The system of independent Board member did result into an opportunity to get insight into business practice. What has resulted this to add to professional MBA education is not visible.
Faculty-driven B-schools
In case of poor Industry Connect, it was thought that the remedy is to ask faculty to run MBA School as an enterprise. Bschools created Faculty Council. Faculty Councils turned into Director’s meeting. The system thought it is endorsement of decisions by Faculty, whereas it is only Director who informs his or otherwise decisions. Earlier if Director was not a faculty, he refrained to attend these meetings. Director took his one of the tasks to carry out the decision taken by FC.
Some schools limit Faculty Council discussion to frame policies. Others have appointed Faculty as notional heads. The execution is left to specialist department. The consequence is, “For a hundred years and more the enlightened Harvard gurus haven’t been able to manage their own parking space problems on campus” (The Class Act- Learn. Teach. Be. by Debashis Chatterjee). Faculty is hardly aware of the consequences of these actions.For instance, Management of Admission and Placement is hardly made known to most of B-school faculty which are vital aspects of business of MBA education. The concept of Faculty-driven B-school is hardly understood. The process has not made Faculty as responsible Managers.
The expected role of B-school faculty is thoroughly mauled. What you have is either a Scientific Researcher or Teacher who is primarily information deliverer or a Soft-skills Trainer for seasoned Manager and hardly a Consultant. The need is to have an Integrator who can bring Research, Teaching, Consulting and Training skills to deliver a truly professional MBA education. |
