Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1 dx.doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-31-1-12

Chris Laszlo

Robert Sroufe

Chris Laszlo Ph.D., is the Char and Chuck Fowler Professor of Business as an Agent of World Benefit at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management, where he is the Faculty Executive Director of the Fowler Center. He is currently working with Fred Chavalit Tsao on a new book, Quantum Leadership: New Consciousness in Business. Contact: [email protected]

Robert Sroufe is the Murrin Chair of Global Competitiveness, and Professor of Sustainability & Supply Chain Management at Duquesne University’s Palumbo Donahue School of Business, developing pedagogy within the globally top ranked MBA Sustainable Business Practices program, producing future change agents. Contact: [email protected]

Sandra Waddock Sandra Waddock is Galligan Chair of Strategy, Carroll School Scholar of Corporate Responsibility, and Professor of Management at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management. Winner of numerous awards, she has published about 140 papers and multiple books. Current research interests include system change, corporate responsibility, intellectual shamanism, and management education. Contact: [email protected]

Feature Choice Torn Between Two Paradigms: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools Business schools today are torn between two paradigms: the dominant neoliberal narrative of free markets, profit maximization, free trade, endless growth and laissez-faire government, and an emergent paradigm of an economy in service to life that supports wellbeing and dignity for all. The article articulates what the emergent paradigm looks like and argues that schools will need to incorporate both traditional academic disciplines while incorporating some of the major threats, and opportunities, facing businesses and society.

B

usiness schools today are torn between two paradigms, with a resulting struggle about the nature and value of both teaching and research. Today’s dominant neoliberal paradigm pervades the vast majority of

schools with its narrative of profit maximization, free markets, and limited government. Its proponents view competition, growth, and consumerism as the defining characteristics of society. By contrast, the emerging and inchoate “economy in service to life” narrative aims at freedom and dignity for all achieved through shared well-being on a healthy planet. Business schools are increasingly caught between these narratives or paradigms. This results in confusion for students, tensions among faculty members, and discontinuity in institutional leadership when successive deans oscillate from one to the other.

The neoliberal narrative Today’s dominant business paradigm derives from the neoliberal narrative (Waddock, 2016) articulated in the wake of World War II by a group of economists, historians, and philosophers at a mountain retreat in Switzerland called Mont Pèlerin (Mont Pèlerin, undated; Hartwell, 1995). This paradigm is now deeply embedded in business practice. It pervades the news cycle, and shapes how business leaders, faculty and students perceive the purpose of economic activity. It also permeates business schools’ teaching and research agendas, and is most obviously manifest in economics and finance curricula. Its tenet underpins

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

108

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Some business schools are taking tentative steps to incorporate new scholarship and pedagogy underpinned in part by the search for an alternative theory of business.

virtually every course including business in society, ethics, organizational behavior and strategy, often without explicit recognition of that fact. One of neoliberalism’s most ardent proponents was Milton Friedman (2009, 1970), who famously argued that the social purpose of business is to maximize shareholder wealth. In other words, business as an institution exists to enrich its shareholders. From this perspective, business activity takes place in the context of unconstrained markets and free trade, in which an “invisible hand” efficiently guides the allocation of resources through the decisions of self-interested, rational, utility-maximizing individuals. Globalization is seen as an inevitable consequence of this set of beliefs, as is some degree of inequality. Broadened to the neoliberal narrative as articulated by the Mont Pèlerin group (Mont Pèlerin, undated), this paradigm argues for individual responsibility, organizational efficiency and the same rights for corporate organizations as those accorded to people. Other chief elements include unrestrained competition and freedom from government intervention (also known as laissez-faire government) (see Cassell & Nelson, 2013; Waddock, 2016). Note that the word “liberal” here does not have the connotation of social democracy found in its US usage but draws its meaning from the European use of the word. “Liberal” in this framing emphasizes freedom from restraints, particularly governmental restraints. It promotes individual but not collective responsibility, and a lack of belief in collective or public good, since it is believed that the invisible hand, through the agency of rational and self-interested decision makers operating in efficient markets, will lead to desired social outcomes (Cassell & Nelson, 2013). This usage contrasts with usage of the word “liberal” in the US, where it tends to be characterized by social liberalism or progressive ideas, as evidenced in civil liberties, equality, support for social justice, and endorsement of governmental regulations and spending on, for example, issues of inequality, welfare, healthcare, and similar issues. Neoliberalism as used in this paper is associated with the tenets of neoclassical economics and is often associated with conservative values and ideas as expressed in the US. Because the dominant narrative’s assumptions are so pervasive, most of us accept them unquestioningly. Like Monsieur Jourdain in Molière’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who is surprised to find he has been speaking prose all his life, most of us “speak” neoliberalism’s tenets without necessarily knowing that we are doing so. Its ideas have been so widely disseminated into our culture – into textbooks, economic thinking generally, and the news cycle, following a narrative-building strategy outlined in a memo by Lewis F. Powell to the US

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

109

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

True freedom and success depend on creating a world where individuals flourish and we all prosper. Leading for Wellbeing

Chamber of Commerce in 1971 (Powell, 1971) – that we hardly recognize it as a story we tell ourselves. Its ideas also define the agendas for both academic research and business school curricula, with some exceptions. As we will argue below, these tenets are now being challenged by a number of major, potentially existential crises for civilization as we know it: environmentally unsustainable growth (manifest at the aggregate level by climate change) and increasing inequality (c.f., Diamond, 2005), not to mention a looming employment crisis (World Economic Forum, 2016). As a result, some business schools are taking tentative steps to incorporate new scholarship and pedagogy into their curricula, underpinned in part by the search for an alternative theory of business (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015).

An emergent economy in service to life narrative The counterpoint to neoliberalism is the nascent “economy in service to life” narrative as defined in this paper’s opening paragraph. It is an alternative that attempts to deal with the complex realities of today’s world. It is taking many different forms, ranging from a raised sustainability imperative (IPCC, 2014; Gilding, 2011) to entirely new terminology such as flourishing (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laszlo, Brown, et. al., 2014). This emergence is leading some business schools to incorporate new ideas into their curricula about business as a force for good (Muff, Dyllick, Drewell, North, Shrivastava & Haertle, 2013; PRME, 2017). Further, questions about research impact and relevance are encouraging at least some faculty to pursue research deemed relevant, in that it impacts the so-called real world and is actionable by design (e.g., Bartunek & Egri, 2012; Gulati, 2008; Worrell, 2009 as examples). What does this emerging narrative of an economy in service to life look like? One group, called Leading for Wellbeing1 , is explicitly working to shape this narrative by bringing the ideas of many different and largely independent initiatives together into a coherent whole. A draft of this narrative reads as follows:

True freedom and success depend on creating a world where individuals flourish and we all prosper. Governments serve humanity best when they recognize our individual dignity and enhance our interconnectedness. To thrive, businesses and society must pivot toward a new purpose: shared well-being on a healthy planet. Leading for Wellbeing, 2017

Businesses are deeply embedded in societies.

The new narrative provides a counterpoint to neoliberalism by recognizing that businesses are deeply embedded in societies and in the natural environment, and that the sustainability of businesses depends on the ability of the natural 1 http://leading4wellbeing.org/

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

110

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Today, only a few progressive business schools are picking up elements of the new narrative.

Practitioner

environment and human societies to support them. The emerging narrative also acknowledges the deep interconnectedness that exists among human beings, and with other living beings and healthy socioeconomic systems. It argues for fair markets guided by responsible legislation and regulation; for human institutions working in harmony with nature rather than simply exploiting her gifts. It argues for well-being and dignity for all, or what some have called “flourishing enterprise” (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laszlo, Brown, et. al., 2014), a “sustainable enterprise economy” (Waddock & McIntosh, 2011), or “prosperity without growth” (Jackson, 2011).

Business schools torn between the two narratives The new narrative exists today in multiple forms that have yet to be consolidated into a powerful core set of ideas and memes (Blackmore, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Waddock, 2015) like the ones that have helped to shape the neoliberal narrative and that resonate broadly with the public. Further, unlike the neoliberal narrative, the new narrative has yet to be deeply incorporated into business school curricula and research, despite the need, obvious to some, for systemic change. Today, only a few progressive business schools are picking up elements of the new narrative, with program offerings such as a Green MBA. Even these schools are mostly tacking them on to the neoliberal paradigm (for exceptions see Pinchot University, Bard, Duquesne and the University of Vermont’s Sustainability MBA). As a result, both teaching and research on topics related to sustainability, business responsibility and ethics, and social justice are seen as peripheral to the core of what business schools are about, or as some deans tell us, “not business central”. Business schools, by and large, remain stuck in the clutches of neoliberalism, failing to recognize the imperative posed by the need for significant system change. Mindsets are focused primarily on an antiquated way of thinking, with courses, research agendas, and student and faculty beliefs revolving around an earlier narrative that no longer serves us well. The more complex narrative of well-being, dignity and economy in service to life, which arguably could powerfully shape business school theory and practice, is still emerging. Mindsets, belief systems, attitudes and values shape practices. As Meadows (1999, p. 19) pointed out, shaping mindsets is a powerful leverage point for change. In her 1999 revision of the paper she added the observation that it is not just the power to affect mindsets or paradigms that creates the most powerful leverage point for change; it is the power to transcend paradigms. Finding the

Business schools face a fraught environment.

place to transcend paradigms has led some business schools to begin integrating the need for sustainability-as-flourishing, social equity, and a very different economic paradigm to the one that is currently dominant. That is what we believe

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

111

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

The opportunity to include more information in decision analysis and management dashboards provides a more dynamic understanding of multidisciplinary impacts across core disciplines.

is needed for business schools to cope effectively with the tension of being torn between two paradigms.

A fraught business school ecosystem Business schools face a fraught environment today. For example, there are many long-standing questions about the nature, relevance and impact of management research (Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009; Kieser & Leiner, 2009; Lorsch, 2009; Oviatt & Miller, 1989; McKenzie & Swords, 2000), and demands to make research more “actionable” (Rousseau, 2012; Bartunek & Egri, 2012; Pearce & Huang, 2012). Some business schools, faced with a major decision on curriculum or with the selection of a new dean, encounter a quandary related to the two paradigms discussed above. To what extent should the school focus on A-level journal research with high citation counts and impact factors? Seemingly alternatively, to what extent should it emphasize what Van de Ven (2007) calls “engaged scholarship” – scholarship aimed at having social impact? A choice for the latter was described by a colleague at one institution as “focusing only on the icing on a cake while neglecting the main ingredients”, that is, emphasizing sustainability and design thinking to the neglect of “core disciplines” such as finance, accounting, economics, operations and marketing. But this distinction creates a false dichotomy: why should there be a need to choose between important cutting-edge curricular and research areas such as sustainability and abductive thinking, both of which are unquestionably vital to business success and core disciplines? The opportunity to include more information in decision analysis and management dashboards provides a more dynamic understanding of multidisciplinary impacts across core disciplines.

Pedagogical and institutional considerations It is now widely recognized that top business schools are hard to dislodge in the rankings game. Other schools try to emulate them, yet the only way to move forward is through differentiation. You cannot win with a “me too” strategy in management education. Past efforts to highlight and encourage differentiation can be seen in the Aspen Institute’s Beyond Grey Pinstripes rankings of MBA programs (1999–2012). This organization was trying to influence business education using rankings of business schools with weighted criteria including: business impact (30 percent), student exposure to content (25 percent), faculty research (25 percent), and relevant courses (20 percent). The rankings were suspended for several reasons. Laurie Ginsberg, Senior Program Manager, believed the ranking had lost relevancy and lacked the meaning it held at an earlier time when few people were living sustainable lifestyles and schools were not jam-packed with sustainability classes, cases and clubs.

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

112

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Millennials ... appear visibly interested in responsible and purpose-driven businesses.

Practitioner

“We’re claiming victory,” she says. “The things we were celebrating and highlighting have become baseline in many programs across the globe.” (Di Meglio, 2012). Given the sorry state of actual integration of these issues into business schools, however, the “victory” is pyrrhic at best. The Aspen Institute is still influencing both management education and practice by offering information and collaboration around a variety of topical areas: business in society, communication and culture, education, energy and the environment, health and sport, justice and civic identity, opportunity and development, philanthropy and social enterprise, along with security and global affairs. By gathering a diverse group of nonpartisan thought leaders, cultural creatives, scholars and members of the public, they try to address some of the world’s most complex problems. The goal is to have an impact beyond merely convening stakeholders, with programs designed to provoke, further and improve actions in the real world (Aspen Institute, undated). Since the turn of the century, business education has been changing, with some calling for more transformational initiatives. In particular, millennials, an important stakeholder group, appear visibly interested in responsible and purpose-driven businesses. A 2015 global study surveying 3,700 business school students conducted by Yale’s Center for Business and the Environment and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, along with the Global Network for Advanced Management (Franceschini, 2015), found 44 percent of students willing to work for less at a company with a strong sustainability record, with 20 percent of students stating they do not want to work for an environmental laggard, no matter what the financial incentive. More than two-thirds want to include environmental sustainability in their careers, 84 percent would choose to work for a company with good environmental practices. Further, business students asked for more action from their schools. Sixty-one percent thought their schools should hire more faculty and staff with expertise in sustainability and 64 percent asked for more career services and counseling on sustainability-related jobs. They also found that students at top business schools prefer to work at companies taking action on climate change. Information from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (2016a, 2016b); and Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) (2016a, 2016b) reveals several important trends in business school education:

•• The most preferred specialized programs are accounting and finance. •• Enrollment in full-time one year MBA, professional MBA and specialized business master’s programs has seen no change or is declining.

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

113

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Our beliefs and assumptions about business in business school curricula and research are limited by a narrative more appropriate to an earlier era.

•• Application Trends Survey Report found: Some survey participants suggest the slow economic recovery has dampened students’ perspectives about their future. Said one respondent, “Students are less sure about their professional futures and therefore many are not willing to commit to investing in an MBA program at this time.”

•• Application trend shows full-time, part-time, flexible and executive program applications trends leveling off for almost five years, while application to master of accountancy and master of finance programs has declined since 2012, with some leveling off in the last two years.

•• The largest growth over five years has been for business ethics programs at a 60 percent increase.

•• Many seek graduate education to increase available job opportunities. The choice facing business schools is to accept business school ecosystems and MBA programs for what they are – functional training grounds – or to see them as leadership development opportunities. The systemic reality, however, is that it is hard to deal with entrenched interests (think faculty expertise, research agendas and norms). For example, the metrics of A-level journals and citation counts are often accepted unconditionally as setting the standard for professional advancement – even though they can be largely meaningless from a socioecological perspective. Also, promotion and tenure systems, along with university administrators, tend to reward scholarship at the expense of pedagogy. Program strategies to fill seats and change enrollment trends overlook substantive attempts to measure the long-term return on investment found in innovative pedagogy, live projects (Sroufe and Ramos, 2011) and experiential learning. Can business schools pivot to meet the opportunity of the new narrative? We have argued that a new narrative about the roles, purposes and functioning of business is emergent – and that business schools need to respond to this challenge sooner rather than later. Many observers believe that business schools have not dealt effectively with such an imperative. As ecologist Paul Hawken (1993) pointed out, and as has been argued here, our beliefs and assumptions about business in business school curricula and research are limited by a narrative more appropriate to an earlier era. Hawken noted that, “Despite our management schools, thousands of books written about business, and despite multitudes of economists who tinker with the trimtabs of a world economy … our understanding of business – what makes for healthy commerce, what the role of such commerce should be within society – is stuck at a primitive level” (Hawken, 1993, p.1; c.f., Donaldson & Walsh, 2015). Accommodating this emergent paradigm may be the biggest moral imperative of our era, since not doing so poses existential threats, not just for businesses

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

114

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Are business schools providing the development of mindsets and content relevant to students facing today’s challenges?

and business schools but for humanity as whole, given the twin crises of climate change and rising inequality (Diamond, 2005). The institutional role of business in this context increasingly needs to help address social and global issues by creating prosperity for all (not just the top 1 percent) while contributing to a healthy natural environment and improving human well-being. Without acknowledging such a transformation in the role of business, management researchers are blindly building – with no thought to relevance and leadership opportunities – on today’s theories and practices that, at best, tangentially reduce social harm or ecological footprints and, at worst, explicitly contribute to growing social crises and environmental disaster. Paradoxically, while business schools ask students to learn about leadership and management from multiple functional perspectives, the programs themselves are not integrated. For a new narrative of an economy in service to life to be a meaningful part of their curricula, business schools must redesign their course content while riding new waves of innovation. Schools must rethink content delivery to ensure that it is truly integrated, and include experiential learning (Sroufe and Ramos, 2015), rather than simply providing traditional siloed courses punctuated by a few electives of nontraditional course content (Sharma and Hart, 2014). A fully integrated curriculum that transcends the two paradigms will be one that aligns with the needs of a sustainable society. Such a curriculum, and associated research agendas that emphasize significant real-world problems, will go a long way toward fulfilling the need for business leaders who have a better grasp of their global responsibilities as future generators of sustainable value for businesses and society.

The opportunity to transcend We contend that our educational systems offer ample opportunity to transcend these two warring paradigms, yet that for the most part they are not yet doing so. On the one hand, we have business-as-usual and the neoliberal paradigm of profit maximization, free markets, consumerism and unfettered competition. On that hand, we have technical disciplines, functional specializations, and “soft” courses like organizational behavior (and sometimes strategic management) that focus on actual managing (c.f., Mintzberg, 2004). Business-as-usual management education is terrific at educating analysts and functional specialists, but not so good at preparing them for real leadership roles or the complexities of the world they will actually face. Yet we have the tools and knowledge to make the new narrative take hold in business education. Steps are already being taken in finance, agriculture, energy and business, to name just a few domains in transition. From true costaccounting and regenerative agriculture to supply chains designed for a circular economy and financial market incentives for long-term value rather than

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

115

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Practitioner

fractional trading, the building blocks already exist for an economy in service to life. What is needed now is a concerted worldwide effort to seriously incorporate these ideas into business school curricula and research agendas, restoring such pedagogy and scholarship to powerful avenues for economic transformation toward a greater good. How can business education begin to transcend and incorporate the neoliberal narrative into one centered on an economy in service to life? A first step is to think about the business of the future, which is likely to be smaller, more entrepreneurial, more networked, and with more emergent business strategies and operations than the hierarchical organization structures on which much management theory is built today. Thinking about how such enterprises can be managed and led might lead to business schools designed around the organization of the future, potentially incorporating required or core courses or modules on issues like sustainability, social justice, the integrated (financial and socio-ecological) purposes of the firm, ethics, human rights and dignity, collaborative and servant leadership, design thinking, integrated reporting, and incorporation of environmental, social, and governance issues into operational, financial, and strategic decision-making, as some of many possible examples. Ensuring that management students learn about the ecological limits to growth and understand business responsibilities with respect to climate change, sustainability, and human and labor rights as outlined, for example, by the UN Global Compact’s ten principles, including exploring what actual companies are doing to improve the world (as Case Western Reserve University’s Fowler Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit does), might also be feasible. Pedagogy, too, might shift away from relying on standard lectures on the traditional topics of accounting, finance, operations, economics, marketing, human resources and strategy, as examples, toward more integrated approaches that embrace project-based, action-, and/or service-learning, along with reflective practices that allow learners to think about both what they have learned and why it is important, along with considering impacts on the world. Engaging students in future problem solving and systems-thinking, not to mention collaborative engagement with others, is also possible using techniques like Open Space technology (Owen, 2008), Future Search (Weisbord, Weisbord & Janoff, 2000), Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005), or Theory U (Scharmer, 2009; 2013). These ideas only scratch the surface of curricular shifts that would bring about not only a more systemic perspective in management education but would also ground it in notions of well-being, flourishing, dignity for all and ethical

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

116

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

considerations that are at the core of the emergent economy in service to life approach. In the spirit of emergence and innovation that is at the heart of this approach, we recognize that each institution will have to grapple with such ideas in its own unique way and come up with its own solutions. Nonetheless, we believe that such a transition toward the more encompassing new paradigm is vital if business schools of the future are to serve the highest purposes, that of making the world a better place, that we believe needs to be at their cores.

References AACSB (2016a) A Collective Vision for Business Education. AACSB International. http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/ManagementEducation/docs/collective-vision-for-business-education.ashx. AACSB (2016b) Business School Data Guide. AACSB International. http://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/publications/data-trends-booklet/2016.ashx?la=en Aspen Institute. (2009) Aspen’s Global 100: Beyond Grey Pinstripes 2009–2010. New York, NY: Aspen Institute Centre for Business Education. Aspen Institute (undated, viewed 2017) Our Impact. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/about/#our-impact. Bartunek, J. M. and Egri, C. P. (2012) Introduction: Can Academic Research Be Managerially Actionable? What Are the Requirements for Determining This? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 244–246. Blackmore, S. (1997) The Power of the Meme. Skeptic, 5(2), 43–49. Blackmore, S. (1998) Imitation and the Definition of a Meme. Journal of Metrics, 2(2), 1–13. Blackmore, S. (2000a) The Meme Machine (Vol. 25). Oxford, UK: Oxford Paperbacks. Blackmore, S. (2000b) The Power of Memes. Scientific American, 383(4), 64–73. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1000-64 Cassell, J. A., & Nelson, T. (2013) Exposing the Effects of the “Invisible Hand” of the Neoliberal Agenda on Institutionalized Education and the Process of Sociocultural Reproduction. Interchange, 43(3), 245–264. Di Meglio, F. (2012) Beyond Grey Pinstripes Rankings: R.I.P., Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/2012-10-01/beyond-grey-pinstripes-ranking-r-dot-i-dot-p. Diamond, Jared (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin. Donaldson, T., and Walsh, J. (2015) Toward a Theory of Business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.002 Ehrenfeld, J., & Hoffman, A. (2013) Flourishing: A Frank Conversation about Sustainability. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Franceschini, L. et al. (2015) Rising Leaders on Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change: A global survey of business students. New Haven: Yale Center for Business and the Environment, Global Network for Advanced Management, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://cbey.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Rising%20Leaders%20on%20Environmental%20Sustainability%20 and%20Climate%20Change%20Nov_2015.pdf.

Feature Choice: Laszlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

117

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

Practitioner

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Friedman, M. (2009, first published 1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 122–124. Hartwell, R. M. (1995) A History of the Mont Pèlerin Society. Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund. Hawken, P. (1993) The Ecology of Commerce. New York: Harper Collins, 1993. Hawken, P. (2007) Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw it Coming. New York: Penguin. Hodgkinson, G. P. and Rousseau, D. M. (2009) Bridging the Rigor–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546. Hoffman, A. (2011) Thirty-Five Years of Research on Business and the Natural Environment. ONE Website: http://oneaomonline.blogspot.com/2011/07/thirty-five-years-of-research-on.html. IPCC (2014) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Eds. Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1–32. Jackson, T. (2011) Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Abington, UK: Routledge. Laszlo, C., Brown, J., Ehrenfeld, J., Gorham, M., Barros-Pose, I., Robson, L., Saillant, R., Sherman, D., & Werder P. (2014) Flourishing Enterprise: The New Spirit of Business. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business Books. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009) Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research is Unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533. Leading for Wellbeing (May, 2016) Zero Draft New Narrative. Presented at Leading for Wellbeing Coalition meeting, New York City. Lorsch, J. W. (2009) Regaining Relevance Lost. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 108–117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492607313088 Mahler, Daniel. (27 October, 2015) An Emerging Retail Trend is Key for Attracting Millennials. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-important-is-sustainability-to-millennials-2015-10?IR=T McKenzie, J. and Swords, D. (2000) Maintaining Relevance in Business Education: A framework for exploring alternative teaching paradigms. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 13(3), 273–295. Meadows, D. H. (Winter, 1997) Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth. Meadows Memorandum V7 (2017) Draft Meadows Memorandum. Leading for Wellbeing Coalition working document. Available from author. Mintzberg, H. (2004) Managers, not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Mont Pèlerin Society (undated) Statement of Aims. https://www.montPèlerin.org/statement-of-aims/ Muff, K., Dyllick, T., Drewell, M., North, J., Shrivastava, P. and Haertle, J. (2013) Management Education for the World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Feature Choice: Lazlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

118

Spring 2017

Volume 19 Number 2

ISBN 978-1-907549-31-1

Practitioner

Oviatt, B. M. and Miller, W. D. (1989) Irrelevance, Intransigence, and Business Professors. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 304–312. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1989.4277409 Pearce, J. L. and Huang, L. (2012) Toward an Understanding of What Actionable Research Is. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 300–301. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0130 Powell, Lewis F. (1971) Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise System. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ PRME (2017). Principles for Responsible Management Education website. http://www.unprme.org/ Rousseau, D. M. (2012) Designing a Better Business School: Channeling Herbert Simon, addressing the critics, and developing actionable knowledge for professionalizing managers. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 600–618. Sharma, S. and Hart, S. (2014) Beyond “Saddle Bag” Sustainability for Business Education. Organization Environment, 27, 10–15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026614520713 Sroufe, R. and Ramos, D. (2011) MBA Program Trends and Best Practices in Teaching Sustainability: Live project courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3), 349–369. Sroufe, R., and Ramos, D. (2015) The Un-balanced Sheet: A Call for Integrated Bottom Line Reporting. New Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. 249–273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06794-6_13 Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waddock, S. (2015) Reflections: Intellectual Shamans, Sensemaking, and Memes in Large System Change. Journal of Change Management, 15(4), 259–273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1031954 Waddock, S. (ca. 2016) Foundational Memes for a New Narrative about the Role of Business in Society. Humanistic Management Journal. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41463-016-0012-4 Waddock, S. and McIntosh, M. (2011) SEE Change: Making the Transition to a Sustainable Enterprise Economy. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. World Economic Forum (2016) The Future of Jobs: Employment skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum, posted at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ Future_of_Jobs.pdf

Back to Table of Contents

Feature Choice: Lazlo, Sroufe and Waddock: A Struggle for the Soul of Business Schools

More articles at www.aipractitioner.com

119