THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION FACULTY

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER:

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY

by

Nancy E. Naramore

ALLAN PEVOTO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

JEAN GORDON, PhD, Committee Member

DEBRA STERN, DPT, DBA, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2012
 UMI Number: 3517111

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3517111
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Nancy Naramore, 2012
 Abstract

There is an abundance of research confirming that organizational practitioners now appreciate the

significance of intangible assets to their success. Managers and employees must be cognizant of

their role in the use and reuse of knowledge; however, college graduates are not arriving to the

business environment with an understanding of the importance of knowledge to a competitive

advantage (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994; Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004).

One suspected reason for this outcome is the individualistic nature of our current higher education

system. In this phenomenological study, the researcher explored the lived experiences of faculty,

both tenured and non-tenured, in one College of Business and Economics to determine if they

perceive the curriculum keeps pace with the business environment and cultivates the knowledge

worker who is prepared to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries. Appropriately

designed curriculum, collaboration amongst faculty members, and interaction with business

professionals were discovered to be critical variables in the development of the knowledge worker.

While it was concluded that individualism does exist within higher education to a certain degree, a

collective strength is also necessary to sustain a collaborative environment that understands the

needs of society and ensures the curriculum is designed to meet those needs because higher

education is well placed to engender the changes taking place in society.

 Dedication

Life experiences often take us in unexpected directions in the pursuit of success. In

realizing how important education is to both personal and professional achievements, continuing my

education was the clear choice. Still, this was not a simple decision because of my responsibilities

to my sons, but this was also the primary reason for returning to school. Therefore, I dedicate this

work to Sam and Ryan for their patience and support. I hope that with this accomplishment I have

shown them how important it is to work hard and fulfill their dreams. I will always be there to

support their pursuit of success.

I also dedicate this work to my sister Cheryl, my best friend, who cheered me on when this

accomplishment seemed unachievable. Thank you for having faith in me and providing words of

encouragement again and again.

iii
 Acknowledgements

While the road was bumpy at times, I want to acknowledge my mentor, Dr. Allan Pevoto,

for taking up my cause and helping me through to the end. Also, I would like to acknowledge my

committee members, Dr. Jean Gordon and Dr. Debra Stern, for their valuable feedback and support.

Another full-hearted acknowledgement goes to Renee at the participating university who provided

insight to potential participants and gave me a healthy perspective of the research ins and outs. You

all helped in making this ambitious goal a reality. Thank you!

iv
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………........ix

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 4

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 8

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10

Rationale ........................................................................................................................... 12

Research Question ............................................................................................................ 21

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 22

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 26

Assumptions and Limitations ........................................................................................... 27

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................... 27

Organization of the Remainder of the Study .................................................................... 29

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 31

Theoretical Influences ....................................................................................................... 38

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 75

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 78

Research Design................................................................................................................ 79

Sample............................................................................................................................... 80

Setting ............................................................................................................................... 82

v
 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 82

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 83

Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................. 86

Validity ............................................................................................................................. 88

Ethical Consideration ........................................................................................................ 91

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 92

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 93

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 93

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 94

Demographic Description of Participants ......................................................................... 95

Recruitment of Participants............................................................................................... 96

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 97

Data Coding .................................................................................................................... 100

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 102

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 103

Data Findings .................................................................................................................. 105

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 119

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 120

Summary and Discussion ................................................................................................ 120

Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................... 120

Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 128

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 137

Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 138

vi
 Implications..................................................................................................................... 140

Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................ 141

References ................................................................................................................................... 144

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .................................................................................. 144

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Higher Education Structure Necessary for Effective Curriculum ……………….…. 14

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 The Life Cycle of the Knowledge Worker ……………………………………. . ….11

Figure 2 The Effect of Social Capital in Higher Education …………………………… . ..… 41

Figure 3 Model of the primary variables involved with creating the knowledge worker… . .103

Figure 4 Creating the Knowledge Worker……………………………………………. . ..….105

Figure 5 Collaborative Efforts…………………………………………………………… . ..115

Figure 6 Organizational Structures that influence the development of the………………....137

knowledge worker.

ix
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Knowledge produces more knowledge, which leads to innovation. If properly applied,

the effective use of knowledge can contribute to a firm‟s success. Based on the literature,

today‟s organization values knowledge not funding as the most strategically important, precious

resource and learning as the most strategically important capability for business success (Liao,

2006; Zack, 2003). This sentiment has been, and continues to be, affirmed; researchers now

agree that the assets critical to the competitive advantage are the intangibles (Sussland, 2001;

Heiens, Leach, & McGrath, 2007; Baruch, 2009). For instance, Aaker and Jacobson (1994) even

regarded the customers‟ perceptions of perceived quality as an intangible and a key strategic

asset, and Tissen, Andriessen, and Deprez (1998) reported that the fastest growing companies are

those with intangible assets. It is the intangible assets that are of greatest value (Lev, Urich, &

Smallwood, 2004). In 2001, the Economist reported, “workers are the new capitalists . . .

knowledge has become the key resource, and the only scarce one” (“The new workforce,” para.

5).

Kanter (2009) looked to an individual she referred to as the most admired management

guru of his times – Peter Drucker – who saw people as assets to be empowered not machines.

This is significant to this study because the business school faculty are one of the first stages of

empowerment. In his own collection of writings on the discipline of management, Drucker

(2001) explained that knowledge is specialized, and by itself, produces nothing. None of the

highly knowledgeable people employed by an organization will produce anything unless the

knowledge is effectively managed because “knowledge derives from information as information

derives from data. However, if information is to become knowledge, humans must do all the

1
work” (Nguyen, 2002, p. 24). Baruch (2009) explained that the common denominator to

intangible assets that create value for organizations are people and their management.

In 1969, Drucker predicted that the major changes in society would be brought about by

information. He argued that knowledge has become the key resource that knows no geography.

Given the impact of technology, he was certainly visionary. According to Drucker, the largest

working group would become what he called the knowledge workers. The defining characteristic

of these knowledge workers is the level of their formal education. More recently, Drucker

(1991) again stressed that the “single greatest challenge facing managers in the developed

countries of the world is to raise the productivity of knowledge and service workers” (p. 69);

and, he asserted that the first country to do this would dominate the 21st century economically.

He attributed “working smarter” as the primary impetus for increased productivity.

Drucker (1969) supported his position, writing that the great switch from manual work to

knowledge work occurred during the post WWII years; employment of educated men followed

in great numbers (1965). Almost five decades later, the commitment of scholars and

practitioners to this principle is questionable. Many organizational authorities have failed to

heed Drucker‟s advice that “tomorrow‟s management jobs will demand knowledge and skills in

areas which are totally beyond the scope of today‟s executives” (1965, p. 51). More recently,

Kanter (2009) interpreted Drucker‟s ideas as a call for executives to operate differently in the

information age; they needed to embrace ambiguity and create an organization that could thrive

in a rapidly changing world.

Furthermore, business leaders are obliged to inspire performance that promotes

collaboration, creating a work environment that supports knowledge sharing and converts

fundamental tacit knowledge held by employees to valuable explicit knowledge that is usable.

2
The sharing of valuable information by organizational members at all levels is essential to this

process and is significant to the success of an organization because “individual knowledge is not

transferred into organizational knowledge until it is shared and transferred to others across an

organization” (Jun Jo, 2008, para. 1). Kidwell, Vander Linde, and Johnson (2000) explained that

more efficient use of knowledge can result in the improved ability to support decentralized

strategic planning and decision making, improved sharing of internal and external information,

enhanced ability to develop up-to-date strategic plans, and shared knowledge from a variety of

constituents. Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) further added that the goals of effectively employing

knowledge are to gain a competitive advantage, to increase market effectiveness, to develop a

customer focus, and to improve product innovation.

As in business organizations, knowledge is a critical asset to higher education. Besides

being its reason for existence, the effective use of knowledge can benefit a number of higher

education processes, including the research process, curriculum development, student and alumni

services, administrative services, and strategic planning (Kidwell et al., 2000). However,

administrators and faculty are not immune to errors in the management of knowledge, and to

improve in meeting their mission objectives, business school leaders must emphasize the

importance of knowledge sharing and collaboration as well as model these essential behaviors.

If they are not already addressing their higher education environments, these leaders must

seriously consider doing so.

This introductory chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem,

purpose of the study, rationale, research question, significance of the study, definition of terms,

and conceptual framework for studying the faculty of business schools, the environment in which

they exist, and the role they play in providing the business world with knowledge workers. It is

3
the goal of this qualitative study to enhance knowledge regarding the role of academia,

specifically in the management and business curricula, in developing knowledge workers as well

as to explore the faculty‟s perception as to the accumulation and use of the requisite social

capital, ensuring the collaborative efforts necessary to improve upon the curriculum. Oviatt and

Miller (1989) asserted, “while the cultural expectations and values of the university setting may

lead professors in professional schools to wish to be left alone, they cannot reasonably expect

that to happen” (p. 307). On the contrary, Kidwell et al. (2000) suggested that the culture of

higher education is transforming from “what is in it for me?” to a new culture of “what is in it for

our customer?” They believed faculty could be ready to embrace collaboration, internally and

externally.

Background of the Study

Knowledge is the common element to every organizational asset. Organizational theorist

Nonaka (1991) declared that knowledge is the one lasting source of a competitive advantage, and

later, Geng, Townley, Huang, and Zhang (2005) and Baruch (2009) explained that knowledge

and other intangible assets are the driving force in the global economy as managers and scholars

use knowledge to increase organizational performance. Nonaka (1994) has developed a theory

of knowledge creation as it applies to organizational behavior, and application of his theory

provides managers with the necessary organizational elements to create and utilize knowledge;

knowledge must be managed.

Organizational changes

There have been many social and business changes that motivate the need to become a

company that is more reliant on information, intelligence, and other intangible assets. Daft and

Becker, in 1978, referred to organizational changes as “cataclysmic,” specifically identifying the

4
discontinuities created by an interdependent global economy, heightened volatility,

hypercompetition, demographic changes, knowledge-based competition and demassification of

some sectors accompanied by enormous growth in others. Focusing on globalization and

competition, Parry and Proctor-Thompson (2003) asserted that these organizational features

combine to produce an environment more turbulent and volatile than ever before. This is

especially true in the areas of technological development and globalization as observed by Bates

and Khasawneh (2005) who provided several reasons to be more mindful of organizational

culture and learning: technological advancements, dynamic customer demands, increasing

globalization, the blurring of organizational boundaries, and increasing competition. Freeman

and Newkirk (2008) stated that geography has begun to disappear and boundaries between

markets have become more permeable.

In the last few decades, there has been significant transformation: intensive global

competition, higher customer expectations, and greater focus on quality (Nguyen, 2002; Alas,

2004). Nonaka (1991) referred to this environment as an economy where the only certainty is

uncertainty. In this environment of growing complexity and volatility, Staškevičiūtė and

Neverauskas (2008) determined that employees are now being asked to be innovative, to care for

customers, to work in teams, and to figure out their own jobs and coordinate with others rather

than only follow orders. They explained that while researchers have observed an organizational

revolution sweeping industry after industry and management undergoing a paradigm shift,

mainstream research on organizations does not appear to be undergoing a parallel paradigm shift.

This realization suggests that academia and research should focus more on the changes occurring

in the business world to provide up-to-date information to students and practitioners.

Consequently, managers must advance teamwork between members of different units, in

5
business and in higher education, to improve the use of knowledge within the organization. This

can be accomplished through the accumulation and use of social capital, a primary component of

knowledge workers. Instead, existing literature depicts higher education institutions as

individualistic, founded on the principle of personal accomplishments with a primary example

being “publish, or parish” (McFarland, 1965; French & Grey, 1996; Mintzberg, 2004; Ghoshal,

2005; Louis, Holdsworth, Anderson, & Campbell, 2007).

Social Capital

Gosling and Mintzberg (2004) echoed this sentiment of individualism asserting that

MBA programs encourage strictly personal learning, resulting in a product with self-serving

tendencies. These researchers offered that education should promote that the individual‟s

obligation is to diffuse his or her learning into the organization. Additionally, Jarvenpaa and

Staples (2000) suggested that information should be viewed as a resource that should be shared

openly and freely without regard to the other person's hierarchy, function, or class. While the

maxim “knowledge is power” has legitimacy, the real power lies in what organizational members

do with the knowledge they hold. Administrators of higher education institutions must realize

their obligations to produce knowledge workers that value social capital and can exist

collaboratively in an organization that inspires it. Higher education curricula must highlight that

the more an institution leverages social capital, the more viable it can be. Ipe (2003) also

emphasized this point, stating “leveraging knowledge is only possible when people can share the

knowledge they have and build on the knowledge of others” (p. 341).

This concept is the foundation of social capital. Sociologist James S. Coleman (1990)

defined social capital as the value embodied in relations among persons that facilitate productive

activity, and he implied that while it appears to operate with a bias towards individualism, this

6
appearance is fictional. To support this declaration, Coleman (1990) further asserted that this

myth is propagated by the belief that society consists of independent individuals who act to

achieve goals independently. However, individuals do not act independently, goals are not

independently arrived at, and interests are not wholly selfish – a conclusion he arrived at by

using a multidisciplinary approach.

It is formal education that develops the knowledge worker (Drucker, 2001). Moreover,

education is one of the primary factors that make people the best in their fields, and education is

the bedrock upon which our society is built (Richard, 2007). Baruch‟s study in 2009 sought to

bridge the gap in the understanding of the value of a MBA and to reveal that the MBA can

generate significant tangible and intangible inputs to organizations and the society as a whole;

intangibles resulting from the knowledge shared because managers realize that collaboration is

an important management strategy.

Management education evolved from the concept of liberal education starting with the

school of commerce, then the school of business to the school of business administration, to the

current school of management (Nodoushani & Nodoushani, 1996). During the business

administration years (post World War II to the 1980s), business educators began to understand

the implications of research in the behavioral sciences, the postwar interest in decision-making,

innovations in the techniques of problem analysis, and methodological contributions that upset

older doctrines of business education; the Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation studies are

recognized for providing this new direction to business education (Nodoushani & Nodoushani,

1996).

7
 Statement of the Problem

Yet, Pfeffer and Fong (2004) asserted that the existing state of management education is

not well. Management schools are not graduating knowledge workers to the degree required by

a knowledge-driven workforce. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) asserted that

employees were not arriving with crucial survival skills that include an appreciation for an

organizational culture that endorses a knowledge management agenda, or who understands the

importance of the use of social capital. Organizational reform must begin with academe

(Richard, 2007). And, while there is a constant stream of research regarding the importance of

organizational culture and the need to value knowledge, little research focuses on the importance

of modeling the appropriate appreciation of knowledge in a business school environment.

Management education reform is championed by many organizational theorists, including

Drucker (2001) who described management in most business schools as simply a bundle of

techniques; additionally, he asserted (albeit many years ago, it is quite possibly still applicable)

that in no other discipline are practices so unaffected by their own principles or where

practitioners contribute less (1965). He insisted that management is more than just techniques

and that the essence of management is to leverage social relationships and make knowledge

productive. In their description of how management education turned to a more functional

approach, Nodoushina and Nodoushina (1996) also criticized management education as having

reduced its content to a bag of techniques and a bundle of analytical tools.

Mintzberg (2004) supported the contention that learners are not prepared for the business

of managing, and from a survey of students, he found that students felt they needed more

instruction in “soft skills,” skills required for working with people, doing deals, processing vague

information, and so forth. These are skills that are promoted through collaborative behaviors

8
such as knowledge sharing. However, to teach knowledge sharing, logically, one must exist in an

environment that practices these standards, and Mintzberg (2004), referring to management

education, asserted that “soft skills simply do not fit in” (p. 41). He further explained that most

professors do not care about soft skills and that these skills are difficult to teach; moreover,

students are not ready to learn them. These competencies get lost in techniques of analysis.

Mintzberg discovered that business schools “cover” the soft skills by reviewing them and

obscuring them. He admitted that instruction on soft skills includes theoretical-based discussions

and case study applications, but the problem is that faculty do not embrace them or internalize

them. Allee (1997) claimed the most powerful way to foster an effective use of knowledge is to

model the behaviors ourselves.

In his extensive research published in Managers, Not MBAs, A hard look at the soft

practice of managing and management development, Mintzberg (2004) concluded that

management education is unbalanced, and that students take this imbalance with them into their

careers. This imbalance prevents collective behaviors that allow collaboration. Without

collaboration and interdisciplinary interaction, business school faculty might be asking

themselves how they are expected to teach an appreciation for the value of knowledge sharing

and collaboration.

In the absence of collaboration, innovation is problematical because knowledge

acquisition is linked to improved performance through innovative activities (Nguyen, 2002).

Nguyen‟s research revealed that organizational knowledge is transferred most effectively in the

best practices of a collaborative and process-oriented environment (2002). He reviewed the

work of Davenport and Prusak (2000) who insisted that regardless of efforts to manage

knowledge, knowledge will be transferred daily in organizational life. However, the transfer

9
does not take place in the most efficient and effective manner, and these researchers insisted that

it is time to shift attention to the more human aspects of knowledge transfer. Managers must let

go of the traditional management attitude of “Stop talking and get to work,” and instead,

embrace “Start talking and get to work!” The latter is more suited to a knowledge-driven

economy (Nyugen, 2002). Determining if this attitude resonates through business schools

provides value by identifying if the business school fulfills its mission to meet the needs of the

business environment, namely the development of knowledge workers.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore the lived experiences of faculty in developing

knowledge workers who value social capital to cultivate collaboration. Through this research,

challenges can be identified, and administrators and faculty can implement solutions. The result

is improvements to curricula that focus more on the needs of the business environment specific

to a knowledge-driven global economy.

In his 1996 Presidential Address to the Academy of Management, titled “Reaffirming

Our Scholarly Values,” Richard T. Mowday addressed the changing environment and challenges

confronting business education, and he asked if the changes pose a fundamental threat to

faculty‟s scholarly values (1997). He cited the publication of the Task Force Report on Faculty

Leadership by Porter and McKibbin in 1988, which was sponsored by the American Assembly

of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and he underscored the debate about the role of

business schools and the adequacy with which they are serving their constituencies.

Mowday (1997) summarized the contribution of this report as symptoms and issues that

reflected the underlying problems in business schools: the lack of real-world experience of

faculty and the irrelevance of research and courses, faculty unfamiliar and slow to adopt new

10
technology, and the changing demographics of faculty, highlighting the swelling senior ranks.

He called for stronger leadership to face these challenges; he claimed that the pressures for

change are daunting and asserted that business schools need to change to keep pace.

Criticisms of higher education asserted that management education fails to teach

competencies such as: change management skills, employee recruiting skills, team-building

skills, and the importance of ethical behavior (Burrell, 2006). This is where institutions of higher

education fall short, but where these same institutions can also lead the change. Higher education

administrators can resist institutionalized opposition and can call attention to how managers

should value intangible resources and collaborative efforts, and therefore, advance social capital

potential in the educational environment with the goal that it will become the norm and follow

graduates into the business environment.

Figure 1. The relationship of higher education to the knowledge worker and the knowledge

worker to an innovative business firm. This model is essential to the understanding of the value

of knowledge and social capital.

11
 To attain an understanding of how effective use of knowledge is important in both

business and higher education and how the use of social capital helps to inspire the essential

collective behavior that results in collaboration, it is necessary to determine if social capital is

accumulated and used in higher education and if the resulting collaboration diffuses to the

changing business environment. The hypothesis is that a more collectivistic environment in both

higher education and business leads to a more effective use of knowledge and increased

collaboration across both internal and external boundaries.

Rationale

Concentrating on economic and political changes, organizational scholars Rynes,

Bartunek, and Daft (2001) suggested that the business environment has been altered to the point

that collaboration between academe and practice is more imperative, and that empirical data is

essential to establishing the actual academic-practitioner relationship. This is indicative of the

need for the present study.

The relationship between academia and practice

Rynes, Bartunek and Daft (2001) examined the apparent gap between academia and

practice, which would immediately suggest that present day curricula might not be designed to

fit the practical, real-world challenges. They applied Nonaka‟s (1991/1994) theory and proffered

reasons for the continuing academic-practice gap; they suggested that the current academic

knowledge generation processes are likely to be sub optimal even when viewed from a purely

academic perspective. Yet, managers are finding the pressure to perform is overwhelming

regardless of the rapidly shifting environments, and they learn not to turn away any possible

advice involving organizational improvement. Contrary to some reports, academicians and

administrators appear to be more motivated to partner with practitioners to produce knowledge

12
that has commercial value (Press & Washburn, 2000). While interdepartmental academic

relationships are now essential for multi-disciplined approaches to curricula, just as important are

the relationships between academia and practice.

There must be educational programs that provide business leaders with the tools to

improve knowledge sharing capabilities (Burrell, 2006). To better understand these “tools,” the

relationship between academia and practice must allow for the generation and dissemination of

knowledge across boundaries (Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001). Nodoushani and Nodoushani

(1996) debated the contributions of liberal and vocational education in determining the

importance of theory and practice, and they concluded that in combining both theory and

practice, we can effectively address the educational crisis.

To identify the barriers to collaborative activity between academicians and practitioners,

Rynes et al. (2001) studied knowledge transfer between these groups and alleged that within

academia there is an “incestuous, closed loop” as the faculty publish and share their research

findings with other faculty. The President of the Academy of Management, Donald Hambrick,

in his 1993 Presidential Address titled “What If the Academy Actually Mattered?” used those

very words – “an incestuous, closed loop” (1994, p. 14) – in his description of the nature of

research and writing by the academy members. It seems undeniable that the knowledge

discovered through academic research is not shared with an authority who could debate the

findings – authority in the form of actual managers who experience the issue. The fact remains;

the academic and practitioner relationship is essential, and it must become more productive.

Table 1suggests a possible structure to provide for effective curricula in management education,

curricula that keeps pace with the business environment.

13
Table 1

Higher Education Structure Necessary for Effective Curriculum

Faculty Administrators
Multidisciplinary Interaction Establish Organizational Culture
 Cross Internal  Cross External  Encourage the accumulation and use of
Boundaries Boundaries social capital.
 Create a collective group identity
 Between  Interacting with  Establish Policies for Multidisciplinary
Departments Firms Interaction/ Relationships with
Practitioners
 Between  Interacting with  Support collaborative efforts
Colleges Intervention  Encourage cross-disciplinary integration.
Agents (i.e.
conferences,
etc.)

To magnify their reserved image, Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and

Trow (1994/2005) explained that academicians often resist change, and their authority is rooted

in their academic guilds and their traditional monopoly of certifying competence in defined areas

of knowledge. They pointed to financial constraints as one issue threatening their capacity to

keep up with the growth and rapid increase in the costs of the traditional forms of science. One

way universities can adapt is by surrendering their perceived monopoly on knowledge

production, and invite institutions outside of higher education (Gibbons et al., 1994).

Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft (2001) also pointed to the deeply embedded assumptions and

beliefs as to why these relationships remain insubstantial. They referenced earlier research from

Beyer and Trice (1982) who studied how to improve the utilization of organizational research.

They echoed the view that the flow of information between researcher and user is problematic,

and they suggested that researchers need to vigorously establish linkage with the many

communities in which the information was meant to support. This arrangement would constitute

14
knowledge sharing and collaboration – the underlying rationale of the present study. However,

Beyer and Trice (1982) did emphasize that “researchers and users belong to separate

communities with very different values and ideologies . . .” (p. 608).

Still, it is believed that while practitioners and researchers exist in different settings, they

have a common goal – to develop effective and efficient workforces that improve organizational

performance. Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft (2001) asserted that organizational scientists and

practitioners should develop a strategy to increase the pace and quality of knowledge creation

and dissemination through collaborative efforts. They further suggested that academic

researchers seek, rather than avoid, the tensions inherent in academic-practitioner interactions

because many of the kinds of tensions have been found to enhance knowledge creation also tend

to characterize academic-practitioner relationship. Examples of these tensions include the

emphasis placed on thought versus action, particularism versus generalization, tacit knowledge

versus explicit knowledge, and problem solving versus theory building; higher levels of direct

contact with practitioners should improve the quality of academic research, and consequently,

curriculum.

This is where the investigation of academia‟s role becomes so important. Ronald B.

Richard (2007) asked in his commencement address to the Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea,

Ohio: “What does education owe business?” His answer is applicable to this research: “Like the

old expression „physician, heal thyself,‟ educators, we need you to reinvent our educational

system, to make it relevant so that our businesses can have the kind of quality workers they need

to compete in the global market place. . . .We need our educators to integrate the curriculum . . .”

(p. 302).

15
 Pfeffer and Fong (2002) paid particular attention to the barriers to changing the current

MBA education model; they emphasized cost, current business school faculty, the status-based

system, and institutionalization of business education as reasons for the current ineffectiveness of

management education. They stressed that the ability of business school faculty to change their

environment is severely constrained. Addressing the lapse in the evaluation of business schools

and management programs, Pfeffer and Fong (2002) adamantly pointed out that “it is striking

that business education and business schools can be so large and so prominent for such a long

time without attracting much outcome evaluation or assessment. At a minimum, much more

research is needed to address the various questions [they posed] as well as other questions that

speak to the organization and effects of business school curricula, faculty staffing patterns, and

research practices” (p.17); again, indicative of a gap in the knowledge of effective business

school curricula.

Later, in 2004, after asserting that the expansion in business education was achieved by

sacrificing educational quality and academic standards, Pfeffer and Fong made a reasonable

argument for improving the current state of business education. They admitted that growth does

not have to be harmful; in fact, it encourages innovation, improvement, and higher levels of

performance. To reach this level of quality in business education, Pfeffer and Fong (2004)

implied more systematic, substantive evaluations of business school products are necessary.

Burriss‟ research of 2010 highlighted another strategy for increasing the quality and

relevance of management education; applying Eckel‟s (2003) concept of the curricular joint

venture (CJV), “strategic alliances between higher education institutions or between higher

education institutions and other partners such as corporations or non-profit or non-governmental

organizations that result in new academic programs each partner alone does not offer” (Eckel,

16
2003, p. 300). Like a bridge, this model allows disciplines to connect productively and channel

the flow of ideas and innovations.

While the assertion that some managers do not understand the value of knowledge is

espoused throughout the science of organizational behavior, there is also an indication that this

concept is not understood by recent college graduates either. Essentially, business firms are not

afforded with knowledge workers who comprehend the need to share and manage knowledge;

business school curricula do not develop the knowledge worker. If business school curricula are

as outdated as research suggest, then the current research seeks to discover why. This study

underscores the objective of business schools – to produce employees and managers who

contribute to the success of business firms. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to

determine if current curricula should change to more accurately meet needs of the business

environment; indeed, curricula must keep pace with the economy, technological advancements,

and other changes in the business environment.

Humanism, not individualism

Many theorists have attributed the scientific approach to the decline of management

education, and Freeman and Newkirk (2008) agree and call for reform. They stated that what

business schools get wrong is business itself; specifically, they asserted that it lacks the

incorporation of the human spirit. Management is the management of individuals not groups.

Yet, Hofstede (2005) asserted that most Americans feel that individualism is good for the

nation and results in greatness. And, they concluded that a strong relationship exists between

wealth and individualism. Perhaps this is the connection between the lack of collaboration in

both the educational and business environments. The short-term successes are attributed to an

individualistic culture; therefore, this credence in individualism has become self-perpetuating.

17
To illustrate this point, Mintzberg (2004) remarked on a comment made by John Kotter, in

response to being asked if the Harvard class of 1974 were “team players.” Kotter responded that

“I think it fair to say that these people want to create the team and lead it to some glory as

opposed to being a member of a team that‟s being driven by somebody else” (as cited inVogel,

1995); Mintzberg‟s reaction was, “that is the very antithesis of teamwork and underlines the

central problem with the MBA: its self-centered individuality” (p. 103).

Many theorists believe this individualistic culture to be outdated and harmful to today‟s

business world. Gregg and Stoner (2008) asserted in their Introduction to Rethinking Business

Management, Examining the Foundations of Business Education, “Humans are social and

develop within society, of which business is an integral part” (p. 2). They added that business is

now influenced by the larger world as are the business schools and the executives and managers

whom they train. In addition to the strong focus on ethics, this initiative stems from the changes

taking place in the modern world. Carlos Cavellé (2008), the President of Social Trends

Institute, which partnered with the Witherspoon Institute, explained that these changes are faster

than ever before and management has a tough time keeping up, although many management

principles have remained essential and foundational.

First and foremost, Cavellé (2008) stated, business management is a human enterprise;

business management is about people. He believes, “scholars and educators should develop a

model of business management suitable for current times” (p. ix). Collaboration is critical to

effective higher education curricula. The primary resource to achieve collaborative behavior is

social capital, which includes customs, language, manners, and morals. The promotion of social

capital appears lacking in business school curricula. Efforts toward collaboration must also be

practiced in business schools; this would be observed as interdisciplinary cooperation as well as

18
collaborating with entities outside of the university – other institutions of higher education,

executives, and practitioners.

The increased use of technology has changed our perspectives, and both business and

education is losing the all-important human touch (“The brains business,” 2005). Sveiby (1997)

asserted, “People are the only true agents in business. All assets and structures – whether

tangible or intangible – are the results of human actions. All depend ultimately on people for

their continued existence” (p. 8). This assertion was reiterated by Davenport (1997) who

analyzed how to master the information and knowledge environment and concluded that

“information and knowledge are quintessentially human creations, and we will never be good at

managing them unless we give people a primary role” (p. 3).

Freeman and Newkirk (2008) made a strong argument for the need to establish

collaboration through human interaction in business and business education. They reminded us

that business education should focus on the basic human interactions that make business a

profoundly human institution. Business is about creating value for each other through

cooperation as well as the specialization of labor. While business is fundamentally about value-

creation and trade, business simply does not work outside of some interpersonal-social-cultural-

ethical context. Freeman and Newkirk (2008) supported cultivating and employing social capital

as a resource that can nurture this deficient humanism within a social environment. Once the

human element is reestablished, individuals can commit to collaboration through knowledge

sharing, joint ventures will be practicable, and organizations will augment their stock of

intangible assets. Development of curricula that supports these essential components will

advance management education towards the goal of providing the business environment with

employees who understand the value of a collective focus.

19
 Ghoshal (2005) adamantly proposed that the management theories taught in business

schools are harmful to business environments, pointing the finger at the economic basis of the

management discipline. Pfeffer (2005) also suggested that there is a need to question of the

effect of business school and economic education on values and behavior. To address these gaps

in the efficacy of business schools, he raised two main concerns in his article “Why Do Bad

Management Theories Persist? A Comment on Ghoshal.” First, there is disagreement regarding

the focus of business research and business management – that being economic. He described

this focus as an interest in the economic performance of business, increasing shareholder value.

The second concern is the lack of the professionalization of management and management

education; there has been a shift from the professional to a market rhetoric.

Staškevičiūtė, Neverauskas, and Čiutienė (2006) suggested that for organizations today to

find their way in the market, it requires respect for the new management paradigms of

community, networks, feedback, self-organization, and learning organizations. These

researchers explained that many leaders conclude, “their universities lack the collective

intelligence needed to weather the total transformation of the industries and professions they

represent” (p. 63). Could it be, as Staškevičiūtė and Neverauskas (2008) suggested that

organizational intelligence is controlled by the few heads at the top of the chain of the command,

or can it be a matter of the collaborative choices of all faculty members? Is knowledge

effectively created, transferred, and managed in universities, or for the most part, does the typical

university culture limit knowledge sharing? Pfeffer and Fong (2004) indicated that there is

innovation in business schools, explaining that the business schools that have achieved

prominence have done so by finding a different, innovative, and presumably better, path.

20
 Research Question

Knowledge workers are essential to companies in today‟s knowledge-intensive business

environment. To examine the phenomenon of the role of management education in producing

the knowledge worker, there are two avenues of exploration: through the business school faculty

who educate these future employees and through the corporate leaders who receive them. The

former is the focus of this research although evidence is provided to support that there is an

opinion among company leaders that business schools are not providing acceptable knowledge

workers. To enhance information available on this topic, a phenomenological study will be

conducted to explore the faculty‟s lived experiences.

The primary research question that guided this study was: Does the lived experiences of

the business school faculty reveal that the curriculum keeps pace with the business environment

in developing the knowledge worker who is prepared to share knowledge across internal and

external boundaries? In addition, three secondary questions were considered:

 What are the underlying themes and contexts that shape the lived experiences of the

faculty?

 How does each faculty member view that he or she fulfills this role?

 And, what are the organizational structures that influence the role of faculty members in

producing knowledge workers?

The goal is to attach meaning to the faculty‟s lived experiences, meaning that once interpreted

can provide explanation of this phenomenon.

21
 Significance of the Study

Freeman and Newkirk (2008) provided another perspective of the current state of

business education, describing that the challenges that business education is facing stems from a

“fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of business itself: business is a thoroughly human

institution, but business schools and business scholars rarely recognize this” (p. 131). As these

theorists review the history of business schools in the United States, they end at the fourth period

that takes us to what they refer to as its current state of chaos. They explained that as business

schools evolved to become more “scientific,” business schools were actually alienated from both

practice and the university; additionally, they provided a thorough assessment of the current

changes in business and the response of business schools to these changes. The list of business

changes included industries becoming more global, the influence of technology, more

outsourcing with the fall of communist and socialist regimes, and several waves of scandals.

The responses from business schools have been to take classes abroad, make an attempt to put

ethics in the curriculum, and to adopt new technology for “distance learning.” Their critique

ends with the conclusion that what they identify as malaise continues and the causes are difficult

to ascertain, which suggests a need for research. Researchers must seek to identify the problems

leading to complacency, perhaps even malaise, in business education.

In the information age currently upon us, the need for knowledge sharing and other

collaborative efforts has become the driving force in developing a knowledge society. The

importance of this concept to higher education represents the expectation that universities

produce “knowledge workers” and that the faculty and their students understand the significance

of social capital to the effective use of knowledge. Therefore, the current research will explore

22
the lived experiences of faculty at a collegiate business school to determine if as Freeman and

Newkirk (2008) asserted, business schools are merely concealing their shortfalls.

Freeman and Newkirk (2008) stated a gap exists in academic literature that focuses on if

the business school is innovative and supportive of curriculum change to meet the demands of

the new workforce. They stated that we need a deeper understanding of the nature of

management, justifying the necessity of the present study. Freeman and Newkirk (2008) actually

presented a five-item agenda for changing the educational processes for businesspeople. The

five areas of focus they suggested are: 1) Lead a Conversation on the Connection Between

Business and the Humanities, suggesting that scholars need to become literate of the real world

of business as well as engage in more interdisciplinary activity; 2) Rethink the Business

Disciplines; 3) Rethink the Disciplinary Matrix of Business Schools; because the world has

changed so much that the traditional functionally defined subjects may no longer be appropriate;

4) Rethink Research, suggesting that theory needs to look more like narratives and less like

science; and 5) Rethink Teaching, adding high-engagement experiences.

The new workforce

In describing the “new workforce,” the seminal theories of Princeton economist Fritz

Machlup were applied to further assess the implications of concepts such as “knowledge

industries,” “knowledge work,” and “knowledge worker,” and the consequences “for human

values and human behavior, for managing people and making them productive, for economics

and for politics” (“The new workforce,” 2001, para. 4). These concepts are often perplexing for

both practitioners and scholars, but the important point made by the present study is that the

emerging knowledge society and knowledge economy will be radically different from the society

and economy of the late 20th century. This reinforces the rationale for examining if higher

23
education modifies its curriculum to prepare students for this new environment. Additionally, a

majority of the literature available to support this research was developed in the late 20th century

but little since. Given the rapid change in the business world (Miles, 1985; Tsang, 1997), even

this literature could be as close to obsolete as is the curriculum of the business schools. The

present research is an opportunity to determine if this pause in studying the relationship between

academia and practice was premature.

However, in a recent study, Pfeffer and Fong (2002) admitted that there has been little

evaluation of the impact of business schools on either their graduates or the profession of

management and suggested that the data denotes business schools are not very effective and the

criticisms remain relevant. And, make no bones about it many of these criticisms have been

contemptuous from distinguished scholars such as Henry Mintzberg and Sumatra Ghoshal.

Pfeffer and Fong (2002) offered an account of the empirical evidence reflecting what business

schools actually do and what their effects are, focusing on the careers of their graduates and the

knowledge they produce.

The latter is connected to the focus of the present research, and Pfeffer and Fong (2002)

specifically addressed this topic by asking “if what someone learns in business school helps that

person be better prepared for the business world and more competent in that domain – in other

words, if business schools convey professionally useful knowledge – then a measure of how

much one has learned or mastered the material, . . . should be at least predictive of various

outcomes that index success in business” (p. 4). However, they asserted that having an MBA

degree often has no effect because the mere possession of the credential may not be strongly

related to the individual‟s mastering of business knowledge. One reason for this current state of

ineffectiveness is what Pfeffer and Fong (2002) attributed to the unique degree of separation

24
management education has from the practice of management and the extent in which the

curricula are or are not linked to the concerns of the profession and directly oriented toward

preparing the students to practice that profession.

If management education exists to equip managers with the knowledge and skills needed

to perform effectively in the business environment, then given the evidence presented, today‟s

managers require a very different education then the traditional one offered (French & Grey,

1996); these researchers claimed that emphasis must be given to human and analytical skills,

“learning to learn,” and flexibility. They identified two broad contemporary perspectives on

management education: first, the content and methods of management education need to equip

managers with the ability to work effectively in a complex and rapidly changing world; and,

secondly, that management is an illusory activity, and management educators must abandon their

pretensions to be able to provide managers with management skills in any traditional sense. The

latter is difficult for administrators and faculty to accept, but French and Grey (1996) qualified

their statement by explaining that management is predicated on a model of professional training

in which there exists a body of knowledge which is understood to be central to effective practice;

produced, guarded, and transmitted by universities, this knowledge is concerned with achieving

organizational aims in the most efficient and effective manner – but this, too, is quite subjective.

Knowledge workers will need formal education and continuing education to keep their

“knowledge” up-to-date (“The new workforce,” 2001), which should certainly concern

universities, and more specific to this study, Colleges of Business and Economics. Burriss

(2010) amplified the rationale for examining higher education – it is significant to the economic

survival of our nation as a world superpower, which depends on the ability to evolve into a

higher-value knowledge economy. Leaders must understand their roles have changed, and

25
higher education can further this realization through “innovative governance structures that yield

collaborations among academia, business, government and philanthropic partners, and by better

leveraging scarce resources through strategic collaborative means” (p. 9). Burriss (2010) further

asserted that the very nature of innovation invites interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or

transdisciplinary inquiry.

Nodoushani and Nodoushani (1996) argued that because knowledge has become a form

of globally competitive capital, education has become a key issue in contemporary society,

which has been influenced by the corporate restructuring movement. Therefore, the theory of

knowledge in management education must be redefined; it is time for business school

administrators and faculty to rethink the purpose of their establishment.

Definition of Terms

In this section, the following definitions of conceptual terms used in this study

having multiple meanings are provided for clarity and continuity of thought:

Curricula Joint Venture (CJV). Strategic alliances between higher education institutions

or between higher education institutions and other partners such as corporations or non-profit or

non-governmental organizations that result in new academic programs each partner alone does

not offer. (Eckel, 2003)

Intangible asset. Resources other than the physical products and services that add value to

an organization.

Knowledge sharing. Individuals sharing organizationally relevant information, ideas,

suggestions, and expertise with one another. (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002)

Knowledge worker. A worker who is capable of integrating into an organizational setting

that leverages social capital to sustain the present-day knowledge-driven environment.

26
 Social capital. As the value embodied in relations among persons that facilitate

productive activity. (Coleman, 1990)

Soft Skills. Skills required for working with people, doing deals, processing vague

information, and so forth. (Mintzberg, 2004).

Assumptions and Limitations

This research only examines the perceptions of faculty at one mid-major School of

Business and is, therefore, limited in its application to all Schools of Business and so lacks

generalizability. It was an opportunity to consider the faculty and administrators‟ opinions of

their role in the innovativeness of the curriculum to determine if adequate attention is placed on

the needs of the business environment, specifically knowledge workers. The actors involved in

providing an adequate business education are varied and numerous.

Also significant to the meaning of this research is that it occurred at a specific time on a

continuum that is often changing. The premise behind this research is that the business

environment in our global society is continuing to change and that the curriculum of business

schools must change as well. Therefore, a similar examination in the future might reveal quite a

different picture of both the business environment and the business school.

Nature of the Study

Collaboration is as critical to the success of higher education as it is to businesses. The

goal is for students to be able to tie in their educational experience with the work environment

(Mintzberg, 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the lived experiences of the faculty to

discover the existence, or lack of, collaboration and to determine if collaboration is practiced in

the College of Business and Economics. The research will examine the lived experiences of the

faculty to determine if social capital and knowledge sharing occur across internal and external

27
boundaries as well as other collaborative behaviors to provide for curriculum that adequately

develops the knowledge worker.

Nguyen (2002) asserted that collaboration is among the key enablers for knowledge

generation, but there is little empirical investigation into how organizational knowledge is used

and transmitted between individuals, within work groups, and between organizations. Building

on Nguyen‟s (2002) theory of knowledge transfer and Burriss‟ (2010) theory of curricular joint

ventures, business school faculty must reconsider the culture of individualism in which they exist

and that which they perpetuate, and they must adapt their curricula to concentrate on the

obligatory social capital and collaboration to develop knowledge workers necessary to the

business world.

Burriss (2010) studied collaboration in higher education on a much larger scale, looking

at how a collaborative effort between two major institutions of higher education produced

exemplary results and addressed specific needs in this age of globalization. She elaborated on the

affect of globalization stating that this phenomenon has made change a constant, but these

changes were especially disruptive in higher education, which she noted has been an industry

stable for centuries. She also offered a theory of using the curricular joint venture concept to

improve collaboration amongst institutions of higher education. When this model was applied to

improving collaboration efforts within institutions of education, amongst departments internal

and external to business schools, Burriss (2010) addressed two important issues:

 It would be useful to consider how leaders in higher education adapt to change.

 Could collaborations be the new competitive advantage for America‟s research

universities to leverage?” (p. 3).

28
From successful collaborative endeavors, institutions of higher education can create knowledge

needed to navigate through the often unfamiliar developments of the business world prompted by

the advances of globalization.

The current research project seeks to examine the lived experience of faculty in the

development of knowledge workers. Burriss (2010) alluded to the potential of exploring

variations of the CJV model, perhaps leveraging global academic collaborations through joint

research and degree programs. Her exploration is similar to the goal of the current research

except on a smaller scale, specifically if the participating school of business has ventured into

curricular joint ventures at any level, even interdepartmentally, and to what degree this

institution has endeavored to enhance its knowledge of the business environment and bridge the

gap between academia and practice – all in an effort to develop the knowledge worker.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Beyond this introduction, the study continues with a summarization of the relevant

literature that focuses on the current state of business education and if the curricula keeps pace

with the business environment. Studies in this area are limited; however, the literature presented

provides existing debate on the significance of social capital to collaborative behaviors,

including knowledge sharing; the need for knowledge workers; and the importance of a strong

academician/practitioner relationship in fulfilling the demand of the business world.

In Chapter 3, the author details the actual research conducted to give the reader a full

understanding of the elements that were considered in developing the conclusion. The

Methodology section provides information pertaining to research design methodologies as well

as data gathering and analysis methods. Chapter 3 also discloses the sampling strategy,

information on coding and bracketing, verification through member checking, and ethical

29
considerations for the study. Chapter 4 presents and describes the findings of the research, and

Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and applies them to the research questions. Additionally,

implications of this research and recommendations for future research related to the innovation

of business school curriculum to meet the needs of the business environment are provided.

30
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Freeman and Newkirk (2008) stated there exists a gap in academic literature to further

determine if the business school is innovative and supportive of curriculum change to meet the

demands of the new workforce. Few studies are available in current literature regarding the role

of higher education in providing the business environment with knowledge workers who

understand the importance of accumulating and using social capital for the necessary

collaboration. Yet, the researcher finds it necessary to use the literature available to emphasize

the effective use of knowledge and the role of social capital as well as the significance of

strengthening relationship between academia and practice. Accounts of how both scholarly

works and popular press discuss the role of higher education in affording the business world with

qualified knowledge workers is presented to provide evidence that a collaborative, collective,

and multidiscipline approach to research and curriculum is necessary to meet the exigency for

knowledge workers.

From their research, Daft and Becker (1978) discovered that little is known about how

ideas enter the organization, who proposes them, or why. The outcome of their exploration

supports the current study, specifically, the important contribution that educational innovations

tend to percolate from the bottom of the organization. There is a positive correlation between

teacher professionalism and the percentage of innovative ideas. They also determined that a

decentralized organizational structure allows for more bottom-up flow of these innovative ideas.

Knowledge is an intangible asset, and Zack (2003) provided a comprehensive definition

of intangible assets. By negation, he explained that a firm‟s products and services are only what

are visible or tangible to customers, but most of what enables a firm to produce anything is

concealed in the invisible assets of the organization – it is the knowledge, knowledge about what

31
the organization does, how it does it, and why. It is imperative to focus on the driving forces that

result in a productive organization. Lev, Ulrich and Smallwood (2004) provided the following

additional defining concepts of intangible assets: training, research and development, and brand

building. More specifically, they stated that the skills and esprit of individuals and groups; the

strategies, methods, processes, ideas, and intellectual property that are the harvest of their

thinking; the bonds of culture, experience, trust, and even love among employees, suppliers, and

customers are what separate productive companies from lagging companies.

Within the past decade, organizational actors have started realizing the importance of

intangible assets and the need to effectively use the knowledge that originates from various

capital: human capital and social capital, organizational capital, and intelligent capital.

Furthermore, the world is experiencing a “soft revolution” in which knowledge is replacing

physical resources as the main driver of economic growth (“The brains business,” 2005). This

notion of intangible assets is not exactly new in organizational thinking; in 1980, Michael Porter,

a renowned business strategy theorist, remarked that intangible interrelationships involve the

transference of management skills among separate value chains. Intangible assets include the

talent of the workforce and involve dedication, imagination, and loyalty. Hall (1992) had

defined intangible assets as “resources [that] range from the intellectual property rights of

patents, trademarks, copyright and registered design; through contracts; trade secrets; public

knowledge such as scientific works; to the people dependent, or subjective resources of know-

how; networks; organizational culture, and the reputation of product and company” (p. 135).

Essentially, intangible assets are resources other than the physical products and services that add

value to an organization.

32
 Knowledge is an intangible asset that if managed properly adds value to an organization.

Also referred to as organizational knowledge, this concept was defined by Cabera and Cabera in

2002 as being rare because it is path dependent, and the paths of each organization are uniquely

based on their history of learning experiences. This definition alone evokes the potential

difficulty in diffusing organizational knowledge. Cabera and Cabera (2002) also contributed

another key element, collective knowledge, which they defined as being hard to appropriate,

difficult to imitate, and embedded in a complex network of formal and informal interpersonal

relationships. Again, the definition speaks to the complexity of knowledge and the need to

motivate knowledge sharing to leverage both individual and collective knowledge.

Benefits of social capital

Social capital was also defined by sociologist James S. Coleman (1990) as the value

embodied in relations among persons that facilitate productive activity. In applying social

capital to today‟s business environment, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995) claimed that a company‟s

survival depends on its ability to capture intelligence, transform it into usable knowledge, embed

it as organizational learning, and diffuse it rapidly throughout the company. Information is a

source of competitive advantage. For information to have value, it must first be linked to other

knowledge; only then can it be valued as knowledge (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1995). To achieve

this effect, knowledge sharing must take place. Knowledge sharing is defined by Bartol and

Srivastava (2002) as “individuals sharing organizationally relevant information, ideas,

suggestions, and expertise with one another” (p. 65). Sharing knowledge among faculty

members and practitioners can enlighten both faculty and administrators of the need to adapt the

curriculum.

33
 Print and Coleman (2003) asserted that the level of social capital indicates the

effectiveness of a society because social capital enables people to engage with each other more

effectively by building trust, networks, and cooperation. In their research, these theorists asked

fundamentally important questions: What is the relationship between education and social

capital? How may social capital be accumulated through education? They concluded that

because education has been identified as a power generator of social capital, educated individuals

are more likely to express social trust in others, trust societal institutions, bond within groups,

bridge between groups, and cooperate in their communities. The latter benefit of cooperation is

of specific interest to the current research. Cooperation inspired through social capital will result

in the requisite collaborative behaviors that cross both internal and external boundaries, again

enlightening faculty and administrators to the need for curriculum adaptation.

During a 2004 symposium, theorist Robert Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin professor

of public policy at Harvard University, introduced three new forms of capital: human capital,

cultural capital, and significant to the present study, social capital. He also defined social capital

as “relationships of trust embedded in social networks” (p. 146), and he emphasized that this

embedded social trust enables action wherever it is present. To illustrate how social capital is

imperative to higher education, Putnam (2004) acknowledged a gap between social theories and

social practice, to the disadvantage of both. Disciplinary boundaries have been become less

permeable as the jargon and methods of each discipline have become more specialized. He

further suggested that to reverse these trends, management education should provide a

conceptual platform on which mutually profitable exchange among disciplines and between

theorists and practitioners can be enhanced. The lack of coming together is the challenge.

34
Putnam clearly recommended that scholars translate this concept from a framework of

description to a framework of action.

Xavier de Souza Briggs (2004) distinguished between two types of social capital:

individual and collective. The “personal face” of social capital that serves the individual good

was characterized as a resource that is necessary to solve problems because to provides for

reaching out along networks, drawing on norms of trust and reciprocity. This type of social

capital is commonly accumulated in institutions of higher education among faculty and

administrators. However, the “community face” of social capital that is built into social systems

and serves the collective good is less common. A positive store of social capital is critical for

social and economic development (Hutchinson, 2004); social capital can provide a useful

framework for exploring the development of a collective unit.

At this same symposium, Michael Woolcock (2004), culminated this analysis of social

capital and argued that scholars and practitioners have much to learn from active dialogue, but

these exchanges take place too frequently because of the discipline-specific training and closely

guarded professional identities, discourses, assumptions, and agendas. Consequently, he

asserted that too often opportunities for innovation are squandered. Woolcock‟s view is

suggestive of a significant gap between academia and practice as he asserted that solutions can

only be found through informed discussion and constructive debate across both academic and

vocational divides. In his conclusion, he emphasized the importance of connecting empirical

findings across the social sciences, of speaking to the general public, and harnessing different

agents to tackle complex issues. Social capital, he asserted, provides a framework for building

shared solutions through negotiations and dialogue, processes that are inherently social.

35
 Inkpen and Tsang (2005) have also examined conditions that promote knowledge sharing

in organizations, proposing that it is the membership in a network and the resulting repeated and

enduring exchange relationships that create the opportunities for knowledge transfer. They

identified a gap in existing theory where networks, social capital, and organizational knowledge

transfer intersect. They acknowledged that networks provide access to knowledge, but posited

that access is not a sufficient condition to facilitate knowledge transfer. Therefore, their specific

interest was how social capital actually affects knowledge transfer between network actors.

Zack (1999) provided that the most valuable knowledge is the tacit knowledge existing

within peoples‟ heads, and emphasized that this knowledge must be augmented or shared via

social relationships. As employees interact repeatedly over time, they develop social capital.

Few managers grasp the true value of the knowledge-creating company or how to manage it

(Nonaka, 1991). They do not recognize that knowledge sharing is essential to success (Zack,

1999; Lev, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2004).

Even more grievous, many managers choose to ignore the link between the effective use

of knowledge and business strategy (Zack, 1999). Lev, Ulrich, and Smallwood (2004) asserted

that there are consequences to not understanding the importance and value of intangible assets.

They insisted that the non-management of intangible assets has measurable costs. If these

resources have not been managed effectively in the past, then developing a fundamental respect

for knowledge and its value to an organization must be nurtured in the classroom.

Tortoriello and Krackhardt (2010) studied how the interplay between social structure and

formal organizational boundaries affects the ability to generate innovations. They introduced

Simmelian ties, social connections represented by a common third party. They underscored how

employees must have access to diverse knowledge and information, which can be provided by

36
these bridging ties. This concept was advanced earlier by Ronald Burt (1999, 2004) who

accentuated the organizational benefits of bridging structural holes using social capital. He

asserted that when organizational members broker relationships across structural holes, they are

more likely to gain several advantages that lead to the expression and acceptance of ideas.

Contrary to Burt‟s deduction of social factors that result in knowledge sharing that leads

to innovative practices, other research has indicated that information systems, incompatible

information architectures, and political and cultural differences impede information flow

(Davenport, 1997). Keyes (2008) also conjectured that when managers discover how to

overcome resistance to knowledge sharing, this development could translate to innovation,

productivity, and a competitive advantage.

Similarly, the concept of Simmelian (bridging) ties translates to institutions of higher

education by presenting the necessity for cross-discipline interaction to allow for the flow of

diverse knowledge that leads to innovative curriculum. Furthermore, interfirm collaborative

linkages that build academic and practice relationships can provide the benefit of resource

sharing, allowing firms to combine knowledge, skills, and physical assets. They can also provide

access to knowledge spillovers, serving as information conduits (Auhja, 2000).

Yet, in their study of the conditions under which knowledge-sharing ties spanning internal

boundaries contribute to individuals‟ ability to generate innovations, Tortoriello and Krackhardt

(2010) argued that the mere access to diverse knowledge provided by bridging ties may not be

enough to enhance individuals‟ innovative capabilities, but concluded that Simmelian ties

significantly improves the individuals‟ ability to generate innovations. The organizational

structure must permit the bridging of structural holes through Simmelian ties and motivate

37
knowledge sharing by establishing a common language and shared meaning and providing for

the opportunity and incentive to share knowledge.

Theoretical Influences

Theories of the organizational significance of the effective use of knowledge as well as

the accumulation and use of social capital have rarely been applied to institutions of higher

education. Nevertheless, they can be used to discover if the faculty and administrators

understand the need to develop knowledge workers in institutions of higher education and the

role social capital plays in adapting the curriculum to keep pace with the business environment.

Research into the significance of knowledge in the past four decades progressed to the

current emphasis on the importance of social relationships. Institutionally, the function of social

capital can result in improved knowledge sharing (Alas, 2004). According to Heyneman (n.d.),

there are two elements that make cooperation in an organization possible: institutional rules and

the stabilizing traditions. He also listed educational organizations, schools, and universities as

one of the four basic categories of organizations and demonstrated how the social functions of

education contribute to social cohesion in all organizations; the emphasis is on the willingness of

individuals to honor the social contract – a willingness to fulfill public obligations, which take

precedence over private opinion. This, Heyneman (n.d.) stated that social cohesion is more

likely to occur if people do not consider each other as “cultural „strangers,” suggesting that it is

important that managers monitor the organizational norms that encourage knowledge sharing

through the development of social relationships.

Ipe (2003) supported the need for the formation of social relationships to encourage

knowledge sharing, believing that more knowledge is shared informally than through formal

channels. Managers that employ this concept can influence the work environment and

38
accumulate social capital. Beyond the cultural transmission of citizenship, Heyneman (n.d.)

supported the need for institutions of education to contribute to social cohesion by decreasing the

„distance‟ between individuals.

University faculty members are obligated to socialize students at all levels about the

importance of knowledge sharing and the dangers of knowledge hoarding. However, the policy

to assess faculty based on their research achievements can create a culture of individualism that

undermines the cross-discipline interaction that is essential to success in both higher education

and business institutions.

McCarthy (2006) discussed how the effective knowledge management can help

academia realize its goals of preserving resources, understanding the knowledge it possesses,

sharing knowledge with its community, and most important to the current research,

understanding its internal processes to increase the institution‟s administrative and scholarly

activities. McCarthy found the research of Kidwell et al. (2000) applicable. In applying

corporate knowledge management practices to higher education, these researchers argued that

“sharing knowledge is their raison d‟etre” (p. 28). However, they viewed knowledge

management as experimental in higher education. Higher education institutions should employ

their varied and extensive resources to capture the knowledge held by organizational members

and use it to their competitive advantage by exploring new ways to prepare learners for their

future in the business world.

The premise of Ipe‟s (2003) research is that knowledge is the most important

organizational resource, and she presented a conceptual framework that substantiated this

premise. The foundation of her argument is based on Drucker‟s (1993) explanation of the

evolution of our economy from capital to knowledge. He emphasized how the role of knowledge

39
changed seemingly overnight to become virtually the sole factor of production and how the

creation of knowledge shifted from experience-based to disciplines – something that can be

taught.

Ipe (2003) made an important point regarding the use of the word sharing,

explaining that knowledge sharing involves some conscious action on the part of the individual

who possesses the knowledge. Knowledge sharing is a voluntary act (Davenport, 1997), which

implies a relationship between at least two parties (Hendriks, 1999). Ipe (2003) believed that

the intrinsic reward that comes from the work itself motivates professionals to share their

knowledge. This assertion is supported by other research efforts; Tissen, Andriessen, and

Deprez (1998) provided a comprehensive description of the how effective knowledge

management can be an asset to an organization, including its effect on global companies. They

offer “Smart Strategies” that result in mega-opportunities such as: connecting the company‟s

goals to their professionals by giving them a clear sense of purpose, thereby creating

commitment to share knowledge. They focused both internally and externally, offering a

metaphor of these smart strategies as an engine that keeps the company moving forward.

However, Davenport (1997) asserted sharing is problematical because it is generally held

that those who control the information have the most power. This issue is relevant to the present

research in that institutions of higher education in general and business schools in particular must

provide opportunities for staff and faculty to establish a professional relationship that supports

knowledge sharing and other collaborative practices.

Duffy (2001) reaffirmed this theory by stressing the need to capitalize on intellectual

capital by encouraging knowledge transfer through knowledge sharing. Again, the power in

knowledge is how it is used – and reused. One of the critical elements of profitable knowledge

40
management is the diffusion of knowledge. The primary mechanism essential for knowledge

diffusion is knowledge sharing; it is crucial to organizational success for all members to have a

comprehensive understanding of their obligations to share knowledge.

Knowledge is the most critical asset for businesses of the post-industrial, information age.

Ipe (2003) stated that Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) are recognized as being among the first to

appreciate the importance of the individual in the knowledge creation process. They asserted

that organizations cannot create knowledge without individuals who share their knowledge with

other individuals and groups. One of the critical elements to the diffusion of knowledge

throughout an organization is channeling the energies of those having the knowledge. It is clear

that organizations must create conditions for knowledge sharing communities to emerge

(Brazelton & Gorry, 2003). This requirement is certainly applicable to institutions of higher

education whose very existence is the transfer of knowledge.

Figure 2. Social capital among faculty and among academicians and practitioners is fundamental

to the innovation of management education curricula.

41
Knowledge workers.

The need for the knowledge worker, simply defined as “people whose jobs require formal

and advanced schooling” (“The new workforce,” 2001, para. 4), is paramount to an

organization‟s success. This same editorial emphasized that because of their significance to

business success, knowledge workers see themselves as equal as “professionals” rather than just

employees (“The new workforce,” 2001). Drucker (2001) explained why this attitude has

developed – knowledge workers now understand their value because they own their “means of

production.” They can leave a company and take their knowledge with them.

Since Drucker‟s seminal works (1965, 1969), there has been a great deal of focus on

knowledge and the knowledge worker. In 1991, Argyris reported that more jobs are taking on

the contours of “knowledge work,” combining the mastery of some highly specialized technical

expertise with the ability to work effectively in teams, form productive relationships with clients

and customers, and critically reflect on and then change their own organizational practices. Still

contributing to advancing the significance of knowledge in 2001, Drucker applied this concept to

managing people in an historical context and describing how management practices have

changed, stating that “in no other area are the basic traditional assumptions held as firmly –

though mostly subconsciously – as in respect to people and their management. And in no other

area are they so totally at odds with reality and so totally counterproductive” (p.77). In

comparison to today‟s practices, Drucker asserted that fewer people are subordinates but instead,

knowledge workers. He explained that knowledge workers know more about their job than

anybody else including their boss, a fact that defines them as knowledge workers.

This distinction is perhaps the most notable change to organizational behavior, and one

that must drive organizational structure. In fact, this situation is perpetuated as employees are

42
more and more educated. Organizational culture must also adapt to this situation, and Bartlett

and Ghoshal (1995) explained that this occurs as managers are given more and more autonomy;

the framework is loosened and there is less top-down management – leaders become more

supportive instead of dominating.

Certain practices are ingrained in the organizational culture of institutions of higher

education; they are what binds together faculty and provides for a system that allows for a certain

type of participatory management. Still, the need to appreciate the value of collaborating across

institutionally defined borders remains unsettled. In his extensive application of organizational

culture to higher education, Masland (1985) explained how saga, heroes, symbols, and rituals are

unique to organizations, especially colleges and universities by providing stability and a sense of

continuity that can affect student life, administration, and curriculum.

Porter and McKibbin (1988) emphasized how teaching is a complementary activity to

research and scholarship, but that the quality of teaching must be improved. They

recommended, and the accreditation standards have followed, that more attention be given to the

performance of faculty. Still, given the value placed on the research of faculty members – to

establish promotion merit – business school research should consist of quality information that

has a substantial impact on the management profession. However, Porter and McKibbin (1988)

asserted that if impact is measured in terms of its affect on managers and their day-to-day

operations, then one could conclude that the affects are virtually nil.

Drucker (1969) warned that the new information industry would deeply affect the field of

education more than any area of human life. He insisted that the “information revolution” will

most impact education, teaching, and learning, claiming that there is a great demand for new

teaching methods to increase the productivity of learning. The new knowledge base had

43
emerged and consisted of what Drucker referred to as the human knowledges. Humanities and

sciences could no longer be split, and every emerging industry was now based on knowledge

rather than experience.

Townley (2003) examined if the “Academy” will learn to manage knowledge – if these

organizations will understand that the management of knowledge can lead to meeting its two

greatest challenges of effectiveness and accountability. They point to the decentralized nature

of these organizations as the impediment achieving this goal. However, Townley also reported

the constraints to the effective use of knowledge that are inherent to higher education can also be

opportunities; opportunities in the form of creativity and academic freedom.

Senge et al. (1994) suggested that relationships should be encouraged because learning

occurs between people, and a collective intelligence evolves in the community – in the case of

the present research, higher education institutions. Soller (2004) strengthened this debate by

adding that organizational success in the information age requires the constant generation,

transfer, and understanding of knowledge; furthermore, collaboration is an essential and highly

valued process – individual knowledge is adapted into organizational knowledge.

Researchers and company leaders who have an appreciation for the significance of

knowledge have offered that inventing new knowledge is not a specialized activity, it is a way of

behaving; indeed, a way of being in which everyone is a knowledge worker (Nonaka, 1991).

Yet, a comprehensive understanding of the need to develop the knowledge worker in this

rapidly-changing business world escapes us. Garvin (1993) blamed scholars. David A. Garvin,

the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School,

focused on the general manager‟s role in a successful change process, and acknowledged that

many of our questions remain unanswered.

44
 Managers must take a more active role by demonstrating a willingness to entertain

alternative points of view of employees; employees will in turn feel emboldened to offer new

ideas (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). But, do graduates leave college feeling informed and

trained to listen to their employees; and, if not, do they instead have an elevated self-image that

prevents them from entertaining alternative points of view? Can this be taught?

Curriculum, faculty, and other institutional issues

In comparing Canadian and U.S. faculty, Peterson and Wiesenberg (2006) presented

current issues regarding faculty in higher education. In response to their open-ended survey

question “What has presented the greatest challenge to your sense of personal fulfillment as

faculty in AdEd or HRD?” The most common response was time, and other common responses

included administrative relationships. Additional challenges for faculty making the list were

politics; lack of innovation and systems thinking, financial and moral support for research; being

valued, recognized, and respected as a field; and balancing research and writing with other

responsibilities. These criticisms are not a new concept, McFarland (1965) explored the lack of

genuine management theory in management education, and reported that the role of the professor

has expanded beyond that of the tradition European universities, pointing to the large-scale

research made more efficient by technological innovations, the great hordes of students, and the

increasing demands for consulting work. These situations, McFarland explained, have created

multiple and conflicting demands on university professors and administrators.

More recently, Peterson and Wiesenberg (2006) suggested that finding satisfaction

through meaningful work is more challenging, particularly in the face of the changes in the

business world and the emerging interdisciplinary field of workplace learning. They stressed

that academia is facing changes that have been and will continue to be brought on by broad

45
economic and societal shifts (Peterson & Wiesenberg, 2004), and their research revealed that

poor administrative and organizational support is the most common reason for faculty job

dissatisfaction.

Additionally, the basic ideas of what constitutes adequate performance by faculty and

administrators in higher education appear to have remained constant since McFarland‟s 1965

article. He stated:

We hear much today about the publish or perish policies of the better universities: For the

creative teacher-scholar this poses no great problem because he has a compulsive need to

communicate with students and colleagues in every way he can. Arthur Mizener talks

more sense on this subject than anyone I know of when he points to the central issue:

turbulence surrounding the university's promotion policies and related problems of

determining the potentially promotable professor and the standards by which he is to be

judged. Mizener states that "the idea that universities select their faculties on some

mindless principle of publish or perish is so ludicrously childish that it ought not to take

in even a foolish undergraduate.” (p. 10).

This criticism suggests that the organizational policies of many institutions of higher education

create barriers to innovative impulses. In fact, the pressure to publish dominates faculty to the

point innovative curriculum is relegated. In 1983, Daft recognized another consequence of this

practice, pointing out the preoccupation with the idea of publication and that faculty will do

whatever is necessary to publish; in this environment, failure to publish is failure of an academic

career.

Even more consequential, some institutions encourage faculty to stay within the

boundaries of their discipline, constructing another barrier to the interdisciplinary approach to

46
teaching and research. These imposed barriers work in contrast to the lessons that are

fundamental to the business environment. To develop knowledge workers academically, a

multidiscipline approach is necessary; knowledge sharing is essential across internal and external

boundaries. Hence, Daft and Lewin‟s (1993) questioned, “How can scholars contribute to

knowledge?” They suggested that atypical academic research approach can result in new

organizational theory to accommodate these new paradigms. However, Louis et al. (2007)

implied that higher education organizations might not fit neatly into this model because of the

atmosphere of individualism.

Nguyen‟s (2002) theory of knowledge transfer justifies the need to be innovative in the

business school curriculum. A substantial part of his study involved analyzing the literature

available on knowledge management initiatives – daily practices, work processes, and

organizational best practices. He found no consensus on knowledge, organizational knowledge

and management, learning organizations, or management approaches used in today‟s industries;

in academia, Nguyen found that the points of view on these topics were split among the various

disciplines. This perspective is the fundamental premise for the current research – higher

education institutions lack consensus and collaboration on curriculum development because of

the individuality inherent to the disciplines.

In the data collection and analysis part of his research, Nguyen (2002) surveyed

participants on collaborative teams, the transfer of organizational knowledge in a collaborative

and process-oriented environment, and the attitudes about the transfer of organizational

knowledge in these environments. In his quantitative study, Nguyen used random cluster

sampling to randomly select three teams from 21 collaborative aerospace organizations. The

47
instrument he employed consisted of closed-end items with a five-point Likert Scale order, and

the Number Cruncher Statistical System was used to process the data.

From the analysis of data, Nguyen (2002) determined that a more systematic

interpretation of knowledge and knowledge management is needed, implying that authorities

from the various disciplines should come together. This finding is suggestive of the need for

scholars and academicians to cross institutionalized boundaries and share knowledge on subject

matter that is critical to the business world. Additionally, Nguyen concluded that workers are

aware of the need to collaborate, both internally and externally, and that collaboration is essential

to getting work accomplished. He emphasized that collaborative efforts include knowledge

sharing and information exchange, and this finding was supported by a more than 90% positive

response to the attitudinal surveys. A final implication observed was that human factors affect

knowledge transfer in a process-oriented and collaborative environment. This, Nguyen noted,

confirmed the research from Davenport and Prusak (2000) who suggested that companies shift

their attention to human interaction. From his research, Nguyen concluded that with knowledge

workers, the workforce has changed, and management must manage differently. He underscored

that the successful use of knowledge will be the responsibility of all workers.

Burriss (2010) offered a theory of using the curricular joint venture concept to improve

collaboration amongst institutions of higher education. Burriss (2010) asserted that globalization

is a force that is restructuring not only the American economy but also American higher

education. She identified collaboration as both the new competition and the new competitive

advantage, stating that “collaboration means that higher education leaders are coping with

change at new orders of magnitude through innovative colleagueship manifesting

transdisciplinary trajectories. Collaborations are of particular importance to research universities

48
where knowledge creation is mission-critical and research grants are a primary resource” (p. 4).

She concluded that her theory of curricular joint venture (CJV) works and that collaboration

provides the competitive advantage necessary for universities to cope with the changes brought

on by globalization, market shifts, and diminished resources. Its innovative governance structure

acts as a bridge that connects disciplines, creating a neutral zone where change can be embraced

– the essence of effectively using knowledge. CJVs work through change leadership, built on a

structure of peer-to-peer social networks; and, collaboration provides a means for mission-

centered higher education to achieve competitive advantages (Burriss, 2010).

According to Silver (2003), “a commitment to expanding and sharing knowledge, to

scholarship and academic discourse, has sometimes been confused with the values of a university

simply because that is where academics conduct their daily academic lives, as though the

institution and its structures and amenities were simply the higher education system writ small”

(p. 162). Jucevičiene (2008) echoed Silver‟s sentiment and also asked what the values are that

the university should nurture in order to perform its mission and, at the same time, help develop

the knowledge society by properly educating the professionals to work in the knowledge society.

This is the very question the present research seeks to answer, and previous research revealed

that some institutions have already considered this question.

Almost two decades ago, Wharton‟s Business School administrators realized a need for

restructuring their MBA program, what they referred to as “Inventing a New Paradigm.” Dean

Gerrity (1991) remarked that the leadership at Wharton was developing the most unique and

innovative changes to the MBA curriculum in nearly three decades to firmly demonstrate its

position as the preeminent business school in the world. With this inspiration, they went forward

developing their new curriculum adding new disciplines, introducing cross-functional

49
integrations, and strengthening the international component of its program. Curiously, this

modification took place when the Wharton School was ranked number one in the nation in the

Business Week’s survey. In 1991, the Wharton School Almanac provided the motivation to

create this new model:

But with rapid changes in business, which have placed new demands on managers, there

was growing concern inside and outside the School that the current MBA curriculum of

business schools may not be enough to meet the needs of future business leaders.

Corporate studies and surveys indicated that executives in the future would need more

international knowledge and experience, a cross-disciplinary focus, and stronger

interpersonal skills. (p. 1)

Looking into the 21st century, Wharton‟s SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management

identified key requirements for business leaders but did not specifically list knowledge-related

initiatives. However, there were outcomes to the effective use of knowledge listed: networked,

customer driven, innovative, entrepreneurial, and learning.

This article in the Wharton‟s School Almanac reported that at the same time that

business was defining a new role for managers, management education itself was engaged in

assessing its own relevance. The author cited Raymond E. Miles‟ 1985 article “The Future of

Business Education” in the California Management Review, who pointed out how business

schools were in danger of slipping out of synchronization with emerging business and

organizational need and identified a new organizational form that was on the rise with new

managerial roles. Miles further emphasized a specialist/generalist controversy, concluding that it

is unlikely that the current business education would prove sufficient. After exploring what the

curriculum should look like at the various levels of business education, Miles offered

50
improvements to curricula, including at least one case study per semester using real “living”

organizational problems and that business schools and other departments would benefit from

closer working relations. He stated that narrowness was the nemesis of professional education.

An additional gap was identified by the research team Smith Ducoffe, Tromley, and

Tucker (2006), whose study “Interdisciplinary, Team-Taught, Undergraduate Business Courses:

The Impact of Integration” was designed to measure the students‟ and alumni‟s perceptions of

integration and team-taught courses. Following the recommendation of the American Assembly

of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International Board of Directors Management

Education Task Force of 2001 that business schools should blur the boundaries between

educational disciplines to enhance relevance, their study addressed elements such as

interdisciplinary, integration, team teaching, collaboration, and student perception. Applicable to

the current study, Smith Ducoffe et al. (2006) looked at problems associated with the

overspecialization of faculty in higher education and how the current disciplinary structure

functions in the face of changes occurring in the business world. They asserted that

interdisciplinary education is more effective in teaching how to gain and use knowledge, rather

than just transmitting information. Furthermore, interdisciplinary education provides

comprehensive, broad problem-solving skills that correspond more closely to the

interdisciplinary nature of most professions.

Mintzberg (1973) had already described the management curricula as simulation of

practice using the case-study method, conjecturing that this pedagogical style developed after

focus on theory had been discarded and from the belief that specific managerial talents could not

be taught. However, he claimed that management school will only influence management

practice when it becomes capable of teaching skills specific to managing. For example, looking

51
at what managers do, Daft (n.d.) discovered that effective communication is necessary; a

majority of managers‟ time is spent in communication. There is value to integrating the

development of effective communication skills into the curriculum of business schools.

While there was a rise in enrollment during the 1980‟s, there were also critics focusing on

the relevance and impact of business education. Two major studies provide a timeline of the

examination of the need to “reshape” business education: the 1959 study sponsored by the Ford

Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation that called for more academically trained faculty and

rigorous course work and the 1988 study by Porter and McKibbin sponsored by the AACSB

(The Wharton School, 1991). Oviatt and Miller (1989) emphasized how the Ford and Carnegie

reports (also known as the “Foundation” projects) noted the generally poor quality and

vocational emphasis of American business schools.

The “Future of Management Education and Development Project” or “Futures” project

was sponsored by the AACSB, and it was not reactionary but instead proactive, motivated by

three issues: (1) the Foundation project studies were 25 years old, (2) criticisms of business

education, and (3) increasing interest in management development and lifelong learning (Porter

& McKibbin, 1988). Porter and McKibbin (1988) were tasked with three broad objectives: (1)

evaluation of current status and condition of management education and development (MED);

(2) analysis of future MED directions in the absence of major changes; and (3) recommendations

for future action.

Porter and McKibbin (1988) evaluated management education for its ability to prepare

leaders for the “world of tomorrow.” Based on their in-depth quantitative study, they interpreted

the data to reflect that many U.S. business schools had become complacent. This is based on the

data that reflected deans and faculty members were satisfied with the status quo although some

52
participants desired limited changes. There were specific criticisms about faculty; specifically,

that they are too narrowly educated in a functional specialty and they lacked work experience;

therefore, they lacked soft management skills.

Following the perspectives of Porter and McKibbin (1988), Nodoushani and Nodoushani

(1996) also argued there was a need for restructuring management education by asserting that

most business schools still fail to meet their two major tasks: to generate scholarship the

enhances the understanding of how business works and training future managers. They

advocated for more focus on “soft” subjects because of the growing concern among managers

and academicians that indicated to be successful managers, there is a need for two sets of skills:

technical and socio-cultural skills.

Porter (1997) later published an article titled “A Decade of Change in the Business

School: From Complacency to Tomorrow,” and he presented that the initial observations of the

1988 Porter and McKibbin study was that the data hardly showed business education to be in an

obvious state of crisis. That was the good news; the bad news was summed up as

“overwhelming complacency.” This is the reason they subtitled their report “Drift or Thrust into

the 21st Century.” In the original study, it was reported that there was little evidence to suggest

efforts were being made to improve the curriculum with the exception of communication skills.

They posited that the consequences of the success of business education since the Ford

Foundation and Carnegie Foundation report were a lack of external pressure to make significant

improvement and a relative lack of internal motivation to make changes to meet the needs of the

future. They also discovered that in regards to research, the concern was on expanding the

volume of output then on increasing the impact of the research. Additionally, their examination

of the affect of accreditation revealed that some schools sought to meet the minimum standards

53
while other schools, especially the top-rated schools, wanted to avoid any problems with

accreditation.

Because of the 1988 study, Porter (1997) observed that many changes were made to

business education. Foremost, Porter claimed there has been a major decline to complacency,

the shift is more towards the need for change. Also, the herd mentality has decreased; more

schools are willing to be innovative regardless if others follow. Another important change noted

by Porter was that more schools are engaged in strategic planning. In 1988, Porter and

McKibbin found it ironic that “while nearly all schools had a capstone course in business

strategy, very few deans and faculty members were involved in strategic planning activities for

their own schools” (p. 3). Both strategic planning and implementation appeared to be

problematic to business schools. However, business programs are developing a stronger

international/global emphasis as well as a greater flexibility in program delivery. Porter (1997)

reported that a stronger practicum and program emphasis in practice applications had been

implemented. And, finally, more applied focus in research was realized; greater attention had

been given to the potential implications of research to real-world practice.

Three fundamental factors led to these changes: the epochal changes that have occurred

in the external world of business, the rankings of business schools in the national media, and the

new approach to accreditation adopted by the AACSB, which Porter (1997) asserted placed an

obligation on schools to clearly state their specific mission and to justify the processes used to

implement that mission and to measure how well goals are being met. This is one reason for the

more individuality among schools and their willingness to be more innovative with curricula and

programs. Porter‟s subsequent report provided evidence that business schools cannot become

54
torpid; they must adapt to the pace of the changes in the business environment, which has been

established to be rapid.

But, even after the Porter and McKibbin report was published in 1988, many areas

requiring change were found to have remained constant, most notably, the degree of integration

of the business school with other parts of the university. This hinders efforts to affect cross-

functional changes to the curriculum. Porter (1997) asserted that the challenge is to find ways to

“bring different areas together in such a way that they form the basis for an exciting synergy

rather than for unceasing (and, at time, petty) turf wars” (p. 6). This same turf-war mentality

follows learners into business environments hindering efforts to share knowledge and work

across organizational boundaries. Since Porter and McKibbin‟s comprehensive and influential

study, there has been little examination of business school effectiveness, and the few studies

since have identified areas of the business school that still need improvement. This evidence

suggested that the pause in research was premature.

In 1999, Rynes and Trank of the University of Iowa focused on the lack of behavioral

sciences in business school curricula and suggested that empirical evidence supports the need for

a focus on human resource (HR) practices. These researchers examined what they determined to

be three of the most important components of business schools: (1) the business community, (2)

business students, and (3) higher education in general. Cautioning against complacency, as did

Porter and McKibbin in 1988, Rynes and Trank (1999) offered that there is a need to use

knowledge of the changing organizational fields to increase the perceived relevance and

legitimacy of behavioral science in business students‟ eyes.

Oviatt and Miller (1989) had also examined how the collegiate business education and

research industry has both a low level of competition and a high level of professorial discretion,

55
and that these factors may encourage academic complacency. Complacency prevents the pursuit

of innovation, and, again, the effective use of knowledge is significant to the solution to

developing or regaining an innovative spirit, which can improve performance in the classroom

and beyond. Porter and McKibbin (1988) presented complacency as the prevailing issue in the

quality of management education. They stressed their concern for the general absence of

awareness of looming changes in the environment, and they encouraged business schools to take

account of these changes or face aimless drift or eventual irrelevance. They essentially blamed

business schools for America‟s loss of its competitive edge.

Hitt‟s 1998 article looked to the future into the year of 2010, and considered the

characteristics of business, strategies, structure, and management of human capital. He further

contemplated the changes that will occur in research and predicted that dramatic changes may

occur in business schools because of the significant changes to the external landscape. As he

explored the number, size and quality of schools globally, he also examined the role of corporate

universities and the changes occurring within the International Association for Management

Education (AACSB); the named changed in 1997. The present research should provide evidence

to support some of Hitt‟s predictions.

The new Wharton Business School curriculum supported this need to prepare students for

the new global economy and other significant transformations within the business environment.

It was reported in the 1991 Almanac that Wharton‟s courses will adopt a global perspective and

address global issues, focusing primarily on: global business policy, geopolitics, and managing

cross-cultural teams. In fact, a four-week off-campus program outside the U.S. was added to the

curriculum described as courses at universities and meetings with government and business

56
leaders to gain direct experience in the social, economic, political, and cultural environment of

world business.

In 1998, four years following the entering of the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Kling, Alexander, Martinez, and McCorkle revisited the role of business educators

and examined aspects of the Mexican business culture and economy that are overlooked in

international business courses. These researchers also insisted that as trade expands – more

appropriately the global economy expands; therefore, academicians, politicians, and of course,

business executives will need to have a better understanding of Mexico‟s economy and business

culture (para. 3). This statement reflected the global transformation and the demand to

modernize business education as well as the need for collaborative efforts.

Kling et al. (1998) presented a view of Mexico‟s economy and culture as being

inefficient and anti-business. To provide a better understanding of the partners NAFTA brings,

students will need to comprehend many of the social characteristics of Mexico, including: its

class system, how management decision-making takes place, its legal system, and the

government‟s role in business. For this comprehension to be effective, these researchers called

for “universities and colleges that want to provide the best opportunities for their students must

quickly take NAFTA and Latin America beyond an occasional passing in-class reference to a

more integrated approach” (Addressing NAFTA: Recommendations for Business Educators,

para. 1). They offered suggestions for minor to major curriculum modifications, primarily that

foreign language courses and instructors with NAFTA expertise will be significant to success;

these are two more common themes found in examining the effectiveness of business education.

The bottom-line is that business educators must provide our students with insight into how to

navigate a business environment that is radically different from their own. These differences go

57
well beyond general behavioral patterns of consumers typically the focus of business courses, to

basic business systems that are legally, politically, and in some cases, morally different from

what U.S. students are accustomed (King et al., 1998). Later, Cardon (2007) resonated this

sentiment, stating that business education rests on an understanding of the business environment,

and globalization increasingly defines the business environment.

Cardon (2007) examined the importance of teaching about globalization in business

education. He distinguished between globalization and international trade, discussing the range

of relevant business activities and minimizing the importance of borders, which are increasingly

arbitrary in a truly global economy. He further presented evidence that business schools are not

focused on globalization and adamantly suggested that globalization from a business schools

perspective is critically needed.

Cardon (2007) also cited prominent scholars to support his argument that the impact of

globalization must be incorporated into curriculum. Ohmae (2005) documented that the global

economy is a reality and to survive this new world, the emphasis must be on learning – through

novel ideas and building relationships with the rest of the world. He stressed that human beings

and societies are now interdependent, and that there is now a global business culture. Friedman

(2006) credited success in the new global economy to culture. He stated that as the world gets

flatter, those who use the tools of collaboration and companies and countries having cultures that

absorb foreign ideas and global best practices will have a greater advantage. Because of these

changes, traditional business paradigms are increasingly irrelevant; hence, there is a need to

adapt business education curriculum to account for these globalizing forces including

intercultural communication and collaboration skills.

58
 Adapting curriculum to focus more on cultural diversity is essential to advancing the

education of globalization, and language could be the barrier to producing workers who are

prepared to face specific global challenges. Cardon (2007) explained that Americans may think

that they need little training in other cultures as they easily operate in business because English is

the global business language. This ethnocentric attitude towards their position in the global

economy actually places Americans at a disadvantage. Cardon, too, suggested that American

students are drifting behind students in other countries and that American education is

complacent (2007); this seems to be a common theme.

Berrell, Teal, and Gloet (2005) furthered this idea and its implications for curriculum

development. Also focusing on the globalization of the economy, these researchers suggested

that cross-cultural studies is a necessary ingredient to the curriculum of management

development. In their research into the dissatisfaction with current approaches in management

development education, Berrell et al. (2005) discovered a survey by the London Business School

that suggested the corporate stakeholders of business education have not been entirely pleased

with the outcomes of management development in business schools.

Significance of academician and practitioner relationship

In their study of conducting this type of collaborative research, Mohrman, Gibson, and

Mohrman Jr. (2001) emphasized that knowledge is created and shared through social interaction

between individuals and by access to storage systems. Concerted efforts among deans and CEOs

and the faculty and workers are necessary to actualize the potential of the academic-practitioner

relationship. If the academic-practitioner relationship is not cultivated, efforts to identify the

needs of the business environment and to embrace these needs in higher education could be

impeded. Research conducted by academics must be useful, especially if they hope to gain

59
access to organizations to conduct active research – where academics work closely with

practitioners to bring about change (Mohrman et al., 2001). This collaboration is essential for an

understanding of the organizational phenomenon, and practitioners value research that they can

apply to their organization.

Porter and McKibbin (1988) suggested that it would be worthwhile for faculty to interact

more with the business community to discover how their own particular disciplinary area of

knowledge and interest ties in with the current business trends. Business school faculty must

deploy themselves to meet the needs of students, the university, and the profession. Higher

education administrators and faculty should embrace these opportunities and use them to

enhance their curriculum. If higher education institutions adopted this approach, the plausible

outcomes would include more connectiveness to the business environment and more awareness

of the major changes in the environment. This, in turn, should instigate an immediate response

to modernize curriculum.

Colleges and universities are assessed on their ability to research and develop new

knowledge that enhances our social existence. Kanter (2009) stated, “If the twentieth century

gave rise to knowledge workers with deep expertise, the twenty-first century requires leaders

who can foster integrative thinking and collaboration across fields and specialties.

Collaboration, not coordination, will be the task of management” (p. 69). In fact, many of the

grants awarded to institutions are based on the ability to collaboratively conduct research, using

interdisciplinary teams.

In 1990, in the first article written for the now widely held journal Organization Science

(OS), Daft and Lewin wrote regarding the issue of organizational redesign, “yet these redesigns

seem far removed from academic research, and they do not typically utilize the academic body of

60
knowledge. . . . they do not seem adequate when the subject of study is multidimensional and

complex, the needs of practitioners are ignored, and there is premature focus on a limited set of

topics” (pp. 1-2). As the title of their article suggested, the goals of Daft and Lewin was to help

loosen the buckles on the normal science straitjacket that they believed the field of organization

studies to exist. Oviatt and Miller (1989) had also discovered similar complaints that business

executives and business professors have little in common and communicate infrequently; they

even wrote that there is a wide rift between top managers and business professors. They called

for pedagogical reform with a focus on goals, rewards, and leadership. These are the perceptions

of higher education more than two decades earlier, and more must be done to change the

perceptions of management education.

Oviatt and Miller‟s (1989) research also discovered similar issues - that much of the

business research is inapplicable to "real" business problems and that too many abstract models

are taught in business classes. These researchers asserted that professors are unlikely to break

out of the old academic model and, thus, businesses may themselves be increasingly forced to

develop career-long education programs. In fact, because knowledge has become such an

important resource for businesses, the dollar value of corporate investment may surpass that of

the universities (Oviatt and Miller, 1989). They predicted that more attentive response to

relevant teaching and research may be “too little, too late.” If this scenario occurs “corporations

will no longer be weak buyers, but will have become powerful rivals that provide their own

business education and research” (p. 311). The threat of businesses educating their own

employees should cause business school administrators to evaluate their curriculum and adapt to

the needs of the business environment.

61
 In 1993, Daft and Lewin advocated that research be informed by problems of practice for

application of research to be used to improve organizational performance and business

competitiveness through design innovations. Their decision was to explore the phenomena of

creeping parochialism and migration of academic ideas. Years later, Daft and Lewin (2008)

revisited their position on this subject. They admitted that their original mission was unrealistic

and argued that OS should publish research that informs diverse academic communities. One of

their focuses was how knowledge flows across academic subcommunities, emphasizing that,

once codified and published, it migrates across communities. They advised that in the present

environment, business schools are under pressure to act as professional schools that teach

materials that have immediate practical relevance.

Van Maanen (1995) stated there has been a decrease in the number of personal reflections

in organizational studies by academicians and described academic research as impoverished,

stiff, sanitized, and humorless. However, knowledge is created through a course of action that

can be realized by academicians debating their colleagues‟ assumptions. In doing so, new

combinations of knowledge will be created; equally, the agonistic culture of academe does not

provide the best path to truth and knowledge (Tannen, 2000). Argysis (1991) raised Tannen‟s

argument earlier and suggested that when organizational behavior in the way group dynamics

influence knowledge creation is ignored, executives and managers can lead to their own demise.

He advocated that to offset these counterproductive consequences, scholars must provide

feedback to make other academicians aware of the gaps in published research, therefore,

furthering the production of knowledge. This collaboration in the form of dialogue and

knowledge sharing is essential to achieving a more comprehensive understanding and productive

use of research and building a collaborative relationship between academe and practice.

62
 The debate regarding the source of academic knowledge and the contents of such

information continues with Daft and Lewin (2008) who distinguished between academic

relevance and practical relevance. They asserted that academic knowledge should be high

quality without regard to its relevance to the world of practice. Eventually, subcommunities will

determine what information is useful. As the knowledge published in academic journals or

source journals reaches practitioners, it is absorbed and transformed into innovative practices.

Daft and Lewin (2008) asserted that these source journals are intended to serve the purpose of

giving voice to new ideas.

Research that focuses specifically on how to ensure a strong connection between the

curriculum and the actual practice will enhance organizational effectiveness and the potential for

student success. Dhar and Sundararajan (2007) of the Stern School of Business, New York

University, justified this requirement by underscoring the value that will be added to intellectual

foundations, pointing out that the management of educational goals will later prove essential to

managing business goals. Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) suggested the purpose of an

educational experience, whether it is online, face-to-face, or a blending of both, is to structure the

educational experience to achieve defined learning outcomes. In this context, interaction must be

more structured and systematic. Interaction in such an environment goes beyond social

interaction and the simple exchange of information. Today‟s workforce demands more of

educational institutions that train their incoming employees.

In fact, Burrell (2006) reported that practitioners have called for universities to prepare

students to solve complex problems in the business world. Managers want employees who can

captivate knowledge, apply knowledge to solving problems and innovation, and then they must

be willing to share their new knowledge. Therefore, universities are the frontline mentors of

63
those who will work in and change business firms. Higher education programs must bridge the

current gap between the development of high level intellectual thinking skills and the practical

and complex leadership skills that are vital for managing today‟s volatile international and

diverse business climate (Burrell, 2006); a climate that demands deference to the value of

intangible assets and the need to communicate and share knowledge throughout the organization.

An example of the gap between higher education and practice has been exemplified by

The American Accounting Association. In 1999, this organization published a monograph of the

efforts of the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC), providing an historical

background and the impact the commission had on the accounting profession. The stakeholders

affected by the AECC include: accounting faculty and administrators, accounting practitioners

(public, business, industry, and governmental), and accrediting agencies, especially the AACSB.

The AECC discovered from a 1991 survey that practitioners wanted more emphasis on

specialized courses and real-world case studies; educators wanted emphasis on conceptual focus,

critical thinking, and communication skills. Other impacts from this study focused on the hiring

of new accounting graduates and that firms have an obligation to make known the knowledge,

skills, and abilities they want in accountants they hire. These impacts speak to the need to

extend the relationship between higher education and industry. From tracking the early

employment experiences of accounting graduates, this study revealed that the education

production was best left to the colleges and universities, but that new methods must be explored

including changes in textbook-based, rule-intensive, lecture/problem style and more

encouragement of the team approach. Furthermore, the commission inferred that academicians

are sometimes too involved to see the flaws in their own educational processes. Perhaps,

64
through collaborative interaction with business professionals, academicians can become more

aware of the deficiencies in their curricula.

This monograph further provided information from a 1994 study sponsored by the

Institute of Management Accountants and the Financial Executives Institute titled “What

Corporate America Wants in Entry-Level Accountants: Executive Summary" by Siegel and

Sorensen. Their report added support to the AECC‟s initiative, but was misunderstood by the

media and used to chastise accounting education programs. Still, the report did highlight

changes needed in the education of management accountants. It cited some of the failings of

graduates as: lack of practical experience, little understanding of the “big picture” or how the

“real world” works, and poor communication and social skills.

As already suspected, few university presidents and provosts knew of the commission‟s

work because it was reported that these gatekeepers would forward the AECC publication to the

accounting chairs without reading them. Therefore, for change to transpire, it was more

incumbent for faculty to sell the suggested changes to their administrators. The impression of

the commission was that the deans were not opposed to changes sought by the commission, but

the changes did not warrant their attention. The commission proffered that lessons learned from

this study of accounting education could be applied to other business school curricula as well.

The goals of the AECC‟s Task Force were to recognize the wide variety of business

programs; encourage improvement, innovation, and experimentation in programs; and relate

accreditation to an institution‟s goals. Some success was attained; some colleges and universities

used changes in accounting as leverage in generating changes across the entire business school

curriculum. This resulted in great synergy between departments (AECC Task Force, 1999).

Ironically, this is the very activity the present study seeks to encourage.

65
 Another study provided a similar outcome. In November 2001, the Association to

Advance Collegiate Business Schools International‟s (AACSB) Board of Directors created the

Management Education Task Force to help business schools meet the needs of the future. This

task force was composed of individuals from both business and academia, and their report

contained issues that face business schools and recommendations in response to these challenges.

Business school administrators view their role in the management education marketplace as

research institutions that develop new knowledge that shapes the content of business curricula;

however, this role is being challenged by the turbulent marketplace in which they operate

(Management Education Task Force, 2002). The key players in confronting these challenges and

instituting the necessary change are deans, faculties, and business partners. Members of this task

force insisted that management education is shaped by many variables, including the needs and

preferences of consumers of business education; the knowledge, abilities, and skills employers

expect graduates to possess; the choice of providers available to those interested in pursuing

management degrees; and the resources business schools need to serve their customers.

This Task Force (2002) reported that business schools have taken measures to prepare

students to work in a global business environment by adapting their curricula to train students for

markets and operations around the globe, and business schools have responded to the demand for

technologically facile graduates, technology-enriched pedagogy, technology-wired facilities, new

curricula, and distance delivery by generating significant new financial and human resources.

However, the Task Force (2002) summarized their perspective on challenges in management

education in regards to the current situation of faculty. The scholarship role of business faculty

is an essential and irreplaceable function because societies and markets turn to business schools

for knowledge advances that reflect academic traditions of theory and method. It was concluded

66
that there is a shortage of qualified faculty that has been intensified by the median registration

time to earn a doctoral degree as well as the issues within the traditional academic career such as

promotion, tenure, and market rewards. The current supply and demand trends for Ph.Ds have

escalated in the demand and competition for qualified faculty.

Most doctoral students are placed in traditional departmental tracks and are trained in

narrowly defined research agendas with few instances of cross-departmental appointments

because they are inherently challenging the structure of most business schools. However, the

Task Force emphasized that advancement in business knowledge and thinking requires research

frameworks that can span functional and industry boundaries, and businesses continue to call for

more cross-functional education in undergraduate and MBA programs. Consequently, “unless

some shifts are instituted, the training ground for researchers in business will become less

relevant to the knowledge advances the marketplace needs and demands and to the teaching and

learning needs within business schools” (Management Education Task Force, 2002, p. 16).

In examining how to attract individuals to doctoral programs, the Task Force (2002)

pointed out that a relevant factor is how well Ph.D. programs respond to the increasing

convergence of industries and functions. Their report underscored how much of the management

education today is located within the vertical silos of traditional departments and emphasized

how the general absence of intellectually respected business research publications that cross

functional silos or extended beyond the narrowest of business research traditions is exacerbating

the problem of faculty shortages and cross-functional expertise.

The members of the Management Education Task Force (2002) urged scrutiny by

business education leaders in the areas of relevance, program innovations, and provider

networks. They stated, “the goal is for business schools to adjust dynamically to the shifting

67
agendas of the global marketplace with strong scholarship that both informs what is taught and

connects with current and emerging business issues and practices” (p. 19). In their report, the

Task Force members urged business school officials to revise curricula as necessary to keep

pace with the changes in the business environment.

One specific area addressed by the Task Force (2002) that is relevant to the current study

was the blurring of disciplinary boundaries. It was emphasized that actual business problems or

solutions rarely present themselves in neatly organized, vertical silos like the structure of

business school curricula. The lines among business functions, industries, and markets have

blurred, and solutions to many of the challenges currently facing business schools demand

innovative solutions.

Geng, Townley, Huang, and Zhang (2005) further described how university knowledge

needs differ from corporate needs in that universities seek to share scholarly knowledge for the

good of society whereas corporations seek a profit. However, Santoro and Gopalakrishnan

(2000) emphasized that industry is relying more heavily on relationships between industrial firms

and university research centers to broaden and enhance their existing knowledge base. These

researchers confirmed that knowledge transfer is associated with different facets of

organizational characteristics, like structure and culture. Therefore, university faculty and

researchers must be willing to establish the necessary collaborative relationships, both internal

and external, to propagate knowledge transfer across recognized boundaries.

Steven Pharr (2000) stated that in response to industry demands and accreditation

standards, business schools are developing integrated courses that demonstrate the

interrelatedness of business functions. These courses will provide learners with skills necessary

to be more adept at making decisions that benefit the organization as a whole. His study

68
explored the resources necessary to establish these integrated courses, and he concluded that

administrator‟s motivation must be the better serving of the business and governmental

customers who hire their graduates by providing products highly desired by the marketplace.

They will also need to re-examine the balance of teaching and research expectations at their

institutions. Moreover, faculty must be willing to let go of their functional “fiefdoms” and

expand beyond their areas of specialty.

In 2008, Peter Navarro examined the MBA Core Curricula of Top-Ranked U.S. Business

Schools to ascertain the major features of the ideal MBA curriculum and how many of these

schools actually exhibit these features. After studying the available literature, including widely

held studies on this topic such as Porter and McKibbin (1988), Pharr (2000), and Smith Ducoffe,

Tromley, and Tucker (2006), he summarized the top six features: 1) multidisciplinary

integration, 2) experiential learning, 3) soft skills development, 4) a global perspective, 5)

information technology focus, and 6) ethics and corporate social responsibility focus. He

concluded that this ideal curriculum remains far from reality. Navarro (2008) then explored

these institutions to determine barriers that must be broken down to reform business school

curricula.

A major barrier identified by Navarro (2008) was the “functional silo centered core

curriculum” of most business schools. He recommended that to better prepare MBA students for

the future, curricula requires more multidisciplinary exercises to include the use of team-taught

cross-disciplinary courses, integrative general management courses, and guest lecturers as well

as experiential exercises that range from real-world business projects to management game

simulations and business plan competitions. Additionally, he highlighted the lack of various

69
general management themes such as soft-skill development, globalization, and social

responsibility being adequately developed in the core curricula of MBA programs.

Just as Pharr (2000) cited that faculty must be willing to explore content beyond their

areas of specialty, Navarro (2008) suggested that when faculty lack sufficient breadth, it is

difficult for effective functional integration to take place. One possible way to address this

barrier would be for schools to require that new tenure-track faculty take classes in the school‟s

core curriculum to acquire at least some of the appropriate breadth for a functionally integrated

approach in their own teaching.

Again, Pharr (2000) alluded to the need for administrators to be more committed to better

serving customers of their institutions, and Navarro (2008) followed with a similar

corresponding recommendation asserting that measures for breaking down identified barriers to

institutional change in the business school establishment boils down to a simple resource

allocation issue or a simple philosophical choice, or both. He stated that the current dominant

design exist in large part because of a set of organizational and individual behaviors that shape

and drive the process. And, he further pondered if that dominant design reflects a desirable

result that meets the needs of all stakeholders. Navarro (2008) continued to point the finger at

those who resist reforming the functional silo power centers. He concluded that absent some

“strong exogenous shock” to the business school system, curriculum innovation will occur

slowly, if at all; he questioned if the trend of the MBA market to move towards more non-

traditional forms of education is the beginnings of this requisite shock. For business schools to

survive and prosper into the future, Navarro (2008) compellingly advocated for curriculum

innovation.

70
Is corporate America receiving the workers it needs?

Evidence from literature, both scholarly and popular press, confirmed that the business

environment is not receiving workers with managerial potential who understand these

fundamental organizational matters. Blake (n. d.) offered a CEO‟s perspective and explained

that American business culture needs to change to accommodate developing American

technological creativity. While the research and development is provided by higher education,

Blake insists it is also higher education that can lead the way to cultural change in organizations.

In the Harvard Business Review in 1992, Linder and Smith presented a debate titled

“MBA: Is the Traditional Model Doomed?” Many of the issues communicated in this debate

echoed the sentiments of the present research, and are offered by experts who comment on

whether business schools are delivering what businesses really need. Some of the academic

positions include:

 Louis E. Lataif, Dean of the School of Management, Boston University, explained:

Schools of management must change. They must begin teaching the practice of

management as it should be, not as it has been. Certainly, we must continue teaching the

basic functions of business, but in a context that produces an understanding of the

interdependencies of organizational functions. We must develop the financial control

tools and the organizational structures that encourage individual behavior benefiting the

entire system. (p. 129).

 Henry Mintzberg, Professor of Management at McGill University in Montreal,

Quebec, Canada, asserted that business education is undermining U.S. businesses. The

more prestigious the business school, the more businesses fail. Supporting this claim, he

stated that business schools are committed to no company and no industry but only to

71
 personal success, which they pursue based on academic credentials that are almost

exclusively analytic, devoid of in-depth experience, tacit knowledge, or intuition.

 Edgar W. Leonard, Associate Professor of Marketing and Director of Executive and

Evening Programs at Emory Building School in Altanta, Georgia, presented evidence of

dissatisfaction in the business world: decreasing tuition reimbursement, increasing of in-

house training, more students choosing foreign programs, and decreasing subscriptions to

academic journals. He insisted that the issue is “whether management education

programs address the changes in ways that affect business practitioners‟ notion of

relevance” (p. 130).

 Ian I. Mitroff, Harold Quinton Distinguished Professor of Business Policy, Director,

USC Center for Crisis Management, Graduate School of Business, University of

Southern California and C. West Churchman, Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of

Business, University of Southern California, both questioned the contribution of research

through positivist method, widespread in business schools, and they raised the issue of

implementation.

 John Hendry, Director of the MBA Course at The Judge Institute of Management

Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, stated:

[Most faculty and deans know that] management is about working with other people

to do a job effectively. . . . Yet these institutions continue to put forward as their

primary products MBA programs that do little or nothing to address interpersonal

skills and merely provide inexperienced youngsters with a two-year escape from the

practical experience they need most. And, industrialists continue to pay premium

prices for the graduates of these schools, for people whose training, even in the best

72
 schools, has been 90% analysis and 10% implementation. No wonder they are

disappointed. (p. 136).

These comments suggest that even prestigious business schools might not prepare

learners to be better managers because they are not teaching implementation and the effective

interaction with workers.

 B. Joseph White, Dean of the School of Business Administration, The University of

Michigan, Ann Harbor, Michigan, agreed with the need for MBA curriculum reform.

He did not believe the University of Michigan‟s MBA is broken but instead

underachieving and should be dramatically improved. He indicated that “[they] are

making innovations in the Michigan MBA program today [1992] at an unprecedented

rate because [they] are committed to delivering much greater value than ever before

to our key customers: students and the companies that hire them. . . . program

innovation and change are the keys to delivering it” (p. 137).

These testimonies offer a glimpse at the perception of higher education approximately two

decades ago.

It is imperative for higher education executives to understand their role in meeting the

needs of their customers. Research revealed a corporate effort to enhance the workforce; the

need for managers to train themselves and their employees suggested that business schools did

not fulfill their obligation. Accounts of the need for additional training following business

school included:

 Diznik (2010) reported for The Wall Street Journal that for years, companies have

suggested changes to traditional business school courses. They have recommended

the curriculum move beyond case studies that are quickly becoming outdated. One

73
 example, Dave Stangis, Vice President of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and

Sustainability at Campbell Soup Company, pushed forward an effort to integrate

social responsibility, which is being met with gratitude and skepticism from business

schools because they don‟t believe it is not a priority when students are recruited.

Stangis stated, “My goal in this [role] is to mature the curricula.” He maintained that

“many M.B.A.s – even those studying the subject – need to better understand how to

implement CSR-related initiatives so they can have a real impact and business tie-in.

„I don‟t think we are turning out the kind of students that we need to in this field.‟”

(para. 7).

 John Seely Brown, the Chief Scientist and Director of the Palo Alto Research Center

for the Xerox Corporation, conceded that “so many of our hard-earned nuggets of

knowledge, intuitions, and just plain opinions depend on assumptions about the world

that are simply no longer true (1993, p. 192). The debate centered around how we get

our folks to see the world differently. His answer was discovered in collaboration

with the Institute for Research on Learning – they must want to see the world

differently before they can see it differently.

In the debate presented by Linder and Smith (1992), some of the experts were business

executives who provided the following noteworthy testimonies regarding their own

business/management education:

 Barbara Saka, Senior Financial Analyst for Silicon Graphics, Inc. in Mountain View,

CA, explained that how to manage people is lacking in business education, and she

highlighted issues such as absenteeism, employee morale, productivity, downsizing,

and how to manage the poor performers as well as the fast trackers.

74
  Lorraine Steele, Senior Financial Advisor for Polaroid Corporation, Waltham, MA,

testified, “As a recent MBA, I can state that my previous work experience and MBA

program left me unprepared to contribute much for the first three years in the

company. My MBA program served to develop my analytical skills but did not

emphasize the development of managerial skills” (1992, p. 132). She called for

practical experience based research and asserted that academia has an important role

to play as the agent of change.

 Akihiko Haruyama, Manager, Airlines and Aerospace, The Long-Term Credit Bank

of Japan, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, explained that one of the expectations of the Japanese

company-sponsored MBA graduates is that they build a network with their colleagues

in the classroom, which will eventually result in beneficial associations for the

company.

Haruyama (1992) spoke of the value of social capital and knowledge sharing, a concept not yet

rooted in American business schools and corporations. These testimonies by the products of

business schools offer evidence that the curriculum is lacking in preparing students for the

business world demands.

Conclusion

In March 2010, Phillips offered his prediction that “sometime between now and 2017

organizations will be assaulted to [the] core by change in [the] business environment and,

therefore, forced to make unparalleled changes . . .” (p. 34). He stated that most disruptive will

be the velocity of change, and organizations that succeed will have the capacity for adaption.

He communicated a sense of urgency and insisted that think that their strategies, business

75
models, competencies and core values are perpetual and what is actually temporary is perceived

as timeless.

In the 2005 article “Secrets of success,” this assertion was echoed in that “most

academics pay more attention to research than to teaching, and most universities continue to

neglect their core curriculums in the name of academic choice. . . . The biggest rewards in

academic life are reserved for research rather than teaching, not least because research is easier

to evaluate; and most students are willing to put up with indifferent teaching so long as they get

those vital diplomas” (paras. 18 & 19). This is a dim commentary regarding the value and

meaning of education. If credible, this attitude of meritocracy must change so that business

schools can keep pace with the demanding business environment and a strong position in global

economics. Huff (2000) explained that globalizing competition has necessitated the

development and reconfiguration of new knowledge assets; in fact, in their model of Mode 2

knowledge production, Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow (1994)

called for an interdisciplinary institutional structure that is balanced in a way that allows for

disciplinary identity and the capacity to cooperate with experts from other disciplines. These

theorists envisioned the new mode of knowledge production will be profound and multifaceted.

Students are being educated for a professional career that, as revealed, requires

knowledge workers for organizational efficiency, and they must enter the job market knowing

the importance of social capital. Within the last decade, organizational science has focused on

the value of knowledge sharing. They further discovered that direct reciprocity is not expected -

another reason for contributing to these discussions. Institutions of higher education must absorb

the need for knowledge workers, and modify their curriculum to fulfill their obligation to

business firms.

76
 Business schools must keep pace with the changes occurring in the business world. It is

the expectation that the lived experiences of the faculty will provide insight into the importance

of the curricula of business schools changing as swiftly as the business environment. There will

be value afforded to both the student and business firms as improvement in curricula advance

best practices and offers knowledge workers to the business environment.

77
 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Qualitative research now enjoys a more reputable status among social scientists, and this

methodology is often employed to study social issues that are emotionally laden, close to people,

and practical (Creswell, 2007). For more usable research, Beyer and Trice (1982) recommended

that researchers should conduct more qualitative research or supplement quantitative data

collection techniques with qualitative methods. Daft (1983) first declared that qualitative

research is concerned with meaning rather than measurement, and later explained that to

understand an issue, the investigator may need to use qualitative as well as formal modeling

methods to develop new theoretical explanations. He further asserted that researchers should do

whatever it takes to learn about organizations.

The trend to promote qualitative research as an effective means to examine organizations

continues, and Peterson and Wiesenberg (2006), who examined the nature of faculty work,

suggested that performing a qualitative study might provide a richer context for describing

faculty work. More recently, editors for the Academy of Management Journal asserted that there

have been important strides made on the qualitative frontier, allowing for strong norms to

emerge in the research published (Bansal & Corley, 2011). For the current research to make the

most of this guidance, a phenomenological study was employed to describe the meaning of the

lived experiences of the faculty at a mid-size state university business school (Creswell, 2007).

In the present study, the phenomenon that was explored was the lived experiences of the faculty

regarding their role in the development of the knowledge worker.

Qualitative research methods involve the systematic collection, organization, and

interpretation of textual material derived from talk or observation (Malterud, 2001). The present

research effort sought to explore the lived experiences of the participant business school faculty

78
in regards to their development of knowledge workers; knowledge workers that have been

regarded as necessary for the business environment. Creswell (2007) emphasized the goal of the

research, then, is to rely as much as possible on the participants‟ views of the situation and

formed through interaction with others. This phenomenological study employed interview data

collection strategies that provided a clear depiction of the business school faculty‟s overall

impression of their role in preparing students for their future career as well as their experiences

working within the university‟s curriculum; the objective is to capture the faculty‟s lived

experiences in relation to the curriculum under which they teach and the real world.

Research Design

This phenomenological study employed the use of in-depth interviews to capture the

lived experiences of the faculty members‟ involvement in curricula development and if they

perceive the curriculum under which they teach meets the needs of the business environment,

namely knowledge workers. Furthermore, their perception of different aspects to curriculum

development was also explored, specifically the use of social capital to collaborate across

internal boundaries and the significance of the academician and practitioner relationship.

Themes emerged from the interviews with faculty, and the data was used to address what the

faculty lived experiences are regarding challenges and barriers to preparing the learner to engage

in valuable knowledge sharing and other collaborative behaviors. Existing theoretical

perspectives were used to study the effect of social capital on the faculty‟s ability to adequately

development the knowledge worker.

The researcher‟s use of semi-structured and open-ended interview techniques allowed for

the shift in the direction of the interviews in the case of unexpected answers. This activity is

desired, and the researcher encouraged candid responses. In fact, Bansal and Corley (2011)

79
explained that qualitative researchers have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions and

even challenge the questions already asked; they stated that new questions can reveal deeper

insights into the phenomenon under study.

Nevertheless, the researcher relied on the use of an interview protocol to progress through

the interviews (see Appendix). The purpose of the interviews is to allow the participants to

construct the meaning of their lived experiences (Creswell, 2007). The data obtained was

reduced into interpretative patterns. The researcher looked for themes and patterns of behaviors

or other commonalities of the phenomenon under study – if the curriculum of the College of

Business and Economics keeps pace with the business environment and develops the requisite

knowledge worker; and if not, the researcher sought to determine the barriers and challenges that

faculty experience.

Sample

This phenomenological study involved the use of human participants, namely a sample of

the faculty of a business school at the mid-size state university. The goal was to examine the

lived experiences of the faculty and their perception of the development of the business school‟s

curriculum to determine if it is keeping pace with the business environment, cultivating the

knowledge worker who is prepared to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries.

The participating organization is described as a College of Business and Economics of a mid-

major state university in the Pacific Northwest. This AACSB accredited College of Business

and Economics offers graduate degrees in MBA, Master of Business Administration; MBA,

Executive Master of Business Administration; MS in Accountancy; and, MS in Accountancy,

Taxation Emphasis. Undergraduate degrees include varieties of Accountancy, Economic,

Information Technology, Management, and Marketing and Finance degrees. This school also

80
offers a BBA, BA, BS and Minor, in International Business. The college‟s mission statement

states: “Our mission is to provide a high quality learning environment with a faculty and staff

dedicated to delivering innovative academic programs, conducting meaningful research, and

supporting regional economic development” (2011, para. 2).

It is possible for faculty to teach the need for a knowledge-friendly organization;

however, there may be challenges to this objective if the faculty does not exist in an environment

that functions as such. It was important to consider the normal organizational traditions of

higher education to examine this phenomenon. It is, after all, the function of phenomenological

studies to “identify the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by

participants” (Creswell, 2009, p. 13).

To produce information that could be shared and applied to similar settings, the

researcher followed the advice of Malterud (2001) and employed a relevant sampling strategy,

one that moves beyond procedures but stills accommodates scientific quality and keeps the

principles of the research in mind. Using the college‟s faculty roster, participants were

purposively selected to represent the faculty assigned to the College of Business and Economics

at the subject state university in order to assemble the desired composition of both status and

demographics: tenured faculty, tenure-tracked faculty, and clinical or lecturing faculty as well as

varying longevity and gender.

Since theory creation is not the goal of the current research. The study proceeded with a

“sampling to redundancy” strategy (Meadows & Morse, 2001). Interviews were conducted until

no further insight could be provided on the research topic, until the point of saturation of data

(Meadows & Morse, 2001; Creswell, 2007). And, although it was difficult to predict how many

participants it took to reach saturation, the number depended on other factors as well: the quality

81
of interviews and the appropriateness of participant selection (Meadows & Morse, 2001).

Furthermore, following Cooper and Schindler‟s (2008) advice, the participants of individual

depth interviews (IDIs) were chosen not because they follow the dominant opinion, but instead

because their experiences and attitudes that reflected the full scope of the issue under study.

Setting

The setting for this study was the College of Business and Economics at a mid-size state

university in the Pacific Northwest. The interviews took place on campus in the faculty offices,

and when participants desired to meet outside of the campus, accommodations were made. The

setting was quiet and clear of distractions to ensure the participants could focus on the questions

and the recording of their responses was audible. The goal was for the participants to feel

comfortable sharing their lived experiences so that their responses revealed accurate data to

develop the story of the phenomenon.

Research Questions

This research sought to examine the phenomenon of the role of management education in

producing the knowledge worker through analyzing faculty‟s lived experience. The primary

research question that guided this study was: Does the lived experiences of the business school

faculty reveal that the curriculum keeps pace with the business environment in developing the

knowledge worker who is prepared to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries.

In addition, three secondary questions were considered:

 What are the underlying themes and contexts that shape the lived experiences of the

faculty?

 How does each faculty member view that he or she fulfills this role?

82
  And, what are the organizational structures that influence the role of faculty members in

producing knowledge workers?

These three central research questions and a number of follow-on questions were asked to also

explore this phenomenon. The specific research questions were developed from the available

literature on this subject, and as proposed by Creswell (2009), the specific research questions

were intentionally broadly stated to allow for the experiences of the phenomenon to emerge in

the participants‟ own words. Soliciting answers to these questions through in-depth interviews

provided data that could be codified to reveal themes.

Data Collection

Researchers employ various qualitative methods of data collection including: archival

sources, interviews, and observations (Bansal & Corley, 2011). While each of these methods

yield valuable information used to understand a social issue, the interview is the principal data

collection technique for gathering data (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Additionally, according to

Bansal and Corley (2011) interview data develop from dialogue that embodies some of the

character of qualitative research such as exhibiting the authors‟ voice, illustrating context, and

demonstrating transparency. Researchers must be transparent in their connection to the

phenomenon and provide thorough evidence for their conclusions; this can be accomplished by

providing rich description of the patterns and trends discovered in the data (Bansal & Corley,

2011). Masland (1985) also suggested observing concurrently with interviews as well as

analyzing written documents to learn about which issues receive close scrutiny. Examples of

documents provided insight into a business faculty‟s lived experience include: the school

catalog, mission statement, presidential annual reports, campus newspaper, and other documents

memorializing important events.

83
 The interviews followed the in-depth interviewing approach, which Lofland, Snow,

Anderson, and Lofland (2006) supported since talk is the key to understanding human

interaction. Creswell (2007) suggested starting with open-ended research questions to shape the

questions further after exploring initial data. Furthermore, responses to open-ended questions

resulted in more meaningful data.

Bracketing

In an attempt to set aside subjectivity regarding the curriculum in higher education

institutions, the researcher participated in bracketing, or what Husserl called epoche (Creswell,

2007); Malterud (2001) referred to this practice as “reflexivity.” Meadows and Morse (2001)

defined bracketing as “the information learned about prior work is simply put on hold and is not

used as a framework or conceptual scheme for the proposed study or observations” (p. 192).

These theorists add though that bracketing does “provide an impetus for the ongoing inquiry –

wheels need not be reinvented” (p. 192). The researcher identified preconceptions brought into

the project that were based on personal and professional experiences. In practicing bracketing,

the investigator provided a full description of any personal experiences so that biases could be

set aside, and she could have a fresh perspective toward the research phenomenon (Creswell,

2007).

Additionally, Malterud (2001) suggested that the effect of the researcher on the study

should be assessed and later shared, and that the researcher should understand that

preconceptions are not the same as bias unless the researcher fails to mention them. In fact,

Malterud stated that personal issues can be a valuable source for relevant and specific research.

The experiences of the researcher could not be disregarded; therefore, for methodological rigor,

84
the researcher ensured the authenticity and candor of the text (Bansal & Corley, 2011). It was

further elaborated that researchers are obliged to describe how they discovered their insights.

Coding

A “short list” of codes based on perspectives from the literature were used as a

preliminary classification system. Codes are used to systemically categorize data for constructs

and illuminate the relationships between the constructs (Bansal & Corley, 2011). For that

reason, added memos to interview and observation notes reflect initial impressions and served in

the development of additional codes. Furthermore, by employing open-ended interviews of

participants, the questions proposed could depart from the interview protocol and supply

additional valuable data. All interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed verbatim.

After all the data had been collected and organized, Creswell (2009) suggested that researchers

read through the entire database several times to get a sense of the completed investigation. He

stated that phenomenology, along with grounded theory, has the most detailed and explicated

procedures for data analysis. Malterud (2001) has also been a champion of the phenomenology

methodology, stating it is suited to the development of descriptions and notions related to human

experiences. To obtain this data, researchers identify meaning units, abstract the contents of

individual meaning units, and summarize their importance. Because of its multifaceted nature,

the essence of the data emerges and the researcher began classifying the information through the

development of more extensive categories and create a more substantial code list.

NVivo 9 Software

The use of qualitative research software was beneficial in not only creating the code list

but also organizing the data for use in interpretation, ease its retrieval, and storage as well as the

creation of any explicatory graphs. Specific to the current study, and as suggested by Creswell

85
(2007), the template for coding the data consisted of the epoche material, significant statements,

meaning units, and textural and structural descriptions. Textural descriptions included what the

participants experienced, and structural descriptions were accounts of how the participants

experienced the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). The goal was to determine the “essence” of the

phenomenon as lived by the participants.

For this study, the researcher used NVivo9 qualitative research software to conduct an in-

depth analysis of the data collected. Malterud (2001) explained that computer programs are

beneficial for storing, ordering, and retrieving information; however, QSR International‟s

website explains that the NVivo software can do more than import and sort information, but also

analyze data; work with transcripts and audio; conduct searches; and graphically display data

(QSR International, 2010). An additional benefit to using NVivo software was the security it

provided by protecting the data using password-protected.

Data Analysis Procedures

To analyze the interview data, researchers conduct three concurrent activities including

data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

This study sought to understand the faculty‟s lived experiences regarding their role in the

development of knowledge workers.

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), the words collected from the interviews must

be processed before accessible for analysis; these data are obtained by humans who also

participate and must interpret the data. During the processing stage, the data becomes what

Miles and Huberman (1994) referred to as a second-order conception of “what‟s going on.”

Bansal and Corley (2011) asserted that data increasingly relies on coding; this will give the

research direction, and the analyst will have a sense that the research is effective. This does not

86
mean that there will not be a significant analysis stage, but with preliminary analysis along the

way, the results should not be completely disappointing.

The data collected from interviews was codified using a developed codebook based on

the potential varied responses to the questions, and inferences were drawn from the responses.

For administrative information (e.g. status, longevity, and gender), pre-coded, closed-ended

questions were used to assist in data entry. For open-ended question, scales were used to fit

responses into predetermined categories. Unexpected responses were annotated in a journal and

later coded. Content analysis was assisted by the use of the NVivo 9 software.

Miles and Huberman (1994) explained that from existing literature and the researcher‟s

experience, he or she knows what information is likely to come into play in the study. Creswell

(2007) echoed this sentiment, stating that researchers bring their own worldviews to the research,

which shapes the elements of the research including those being studied. As data was collected

and sorted, a conceptual framework emerged including the dominant variables and the

importance of the relationship between these variables.

To examine the faculty‟s lived experiences as to their role in promoting social capital and

developing the knowledge worker, each transcript was analyzed for significant words, phrases,

and statements. The classification of this data reflected individual experiences, and formulated

meanings, or themes, were constructed. The synthesis of these descriptions resulted in the

“essence” of this social phenomenon, which indicated the effectiveness of the business school‟s

curriculum in providing the business environment with knowledge workers. With these

capabilities, the researcher was able to develop the raw data and materials into rich information

by exploring trends and arriving at answers to the research questions (QSR International, 2010).

First, the NVivo9 software allowed the researcher to code the data, and then examined the data

87
for themes and trends as they emerged. Once the data was coded and examined, the researcher

concluded the research by disclosing the lived experiences of the faculty, and how application of

past research and theoretical perspectives might improve the preparation of learners for the real-

world business environment.

Validity

When an interview only method of data collection is used, results and conclusions will

not be as transferable to similar social circumstances as it would with the use of triangulated

methods; after all, using multiple sources and modes of evidence provides for the verification

process during the course of data collection (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Furthermore, Scandura

and Williams (2000) suggested that all research designs have inherent flaws. Therefore, it was

important to be attentive and gather data in any form that it presented itself and capture the

meaning of the phenomenon from a small number of individuals who had experienced it

(Creswell, 2007). This was the intention of the researcher – to be observant and explore the

phenomenon of the faculty‟s lived experiences in any form that is present.

Member checking

Lincoln and Guba (1986) describe member checking as taking data, analyses,

interpretations, and conclusions back to the participants to judge for accuracy and credibility

Meadows and Morse (2001) explained that member checks provide an opportunity for the

researcher to examine summaries of interpretations, open them to lay scrutiny, and reexamine

their analytic process as one of the many steps in the research process; however, they also warn

that relying on this lay scrutiny can result in shallow data. Still, Lincoln and Guba (1986)

consider member checking to be the most credible technique for establishing credibility. Miles

and Huberman (1994) also stated that “one of the most logical sources of corroboration is the

88
people you have talked with and watched. . . . Feeding findings back to informants is a

venerated, but not always executed, practice in qualitative research” (p. 275). Requesting

feedback from the participants has long since been known to attribute to validity (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). In fact, Bronfenbrenner (as cited in Miles & Huberman, 1994) referred to

feedback from informants as “phenomenological validity.” Still, while this activity is “crucial,”

Miles and Huberman (1994) further explained there is a chance this strategy could lead to the

rejection of the analysis and conclusions for many reasons. This possible outcome is worth the

risk because the result is a quality conclusion – validity in the research.

The use of interview participants and documents for sources of data advanced the validity

of this study because the questions are focused on the specific phenomenon under study

and the opportunity participants had to share their lived experiences was built into the interview

strategy. Qualitative validity is evaluated by use of equally sound and rigorous criteria, and

Lincoln and Guba (1986) promoted the use of a naturalistic paradigm rather than the more

conventional or objective paradigms. Their stance is that this epistemological approach provides

greater power of inquiry because social phenomena take their meaning from context, and similar

context results in the capacity to generalize or transfer the conclusions to similar phenomena.

Malterud (2001) credited Lincoln and Guba for first introducing the alternative criteria for

qualitative validity as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Trochim

(2006) also considered these principles as key to substantiating validity in qualitative research.

First, to build credibility, the researcher considers if “the results of the research are

credible or believable from the perspective of the participant[s] in the research” (Trochim, 2006,

para. 3). The researcher takes into account if the participants indicate that they are comfortable

89
with the description of their experience of the phenomenon. This must be verified through the

feedback stage of data analysis.

Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of this qualitative research can be

generalized or transferred to similar contexts or settings (Malterud, 2001; Trochim, 2006).

Judgment on behalf of the researcher will determine if the conclusions of the present research are

transferable to other schools of business. However, Miles and Huberman (1994) asserted that the

goal of qualitative research is not to generalize to the population, but instead to existing or new

theories. They cited Firestone from 1993, emphasizing “the most useful generalizations from

qualitative studies are analytic, not “sample-to-population” (p. 28).

Dependability is the third criteria essential to the validity of qualitative research, and it is

akin to the quantitative reliability – that is, would results continue to be the same. Does the

research offer replicability and repeatability? Given the rapid change in the business

environment, the subject of the current research, measuring the variable again and again would

be a concern; essentially, the continued research efforts would not be measuring the same thing.

Therefore, dependability is applied to qualitative research to emphasize the need to account for

the “ever-changing context within which research occurs” (Trochim, 2006, para. 6).

The fourth and final feature of qualitative research that ensures validity is confirmability,

which refers to the degree to which the results could be corroborated by others (Trochim,

2006). The researcher provided copies of the analysis of each interview to the respective

participants so that they could participate in “member checking,” defined by Cohen and

Crabtree of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2008) as “the data, analytic categories,

interpretations and conclusions are tested with members of those groups from whom the data

were originally obtained, which can be performed either formally or informally as the

90
occasion presents itself” (para. 1). Lincoln and Guba (1986) are also credited for this activity

of conformability to obtain validity.

Furthermore, the researcher encouraged feedback from the participants, which was the

main source of confirmation, and as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994), it provided the

most logical form of corroboration. This research was conducted applying an unconditional

ethical approach to its validity and reliability using the practices of credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability to the greatest extent possible. Furthermore, efforts to

substantiate the data improved the validity of this study.

Ethical Consideration

Before the researcher engaged in interviewing any participants, the research proposal was

submitted to the Institution Review Board (IRB) of the researcher‟s sponsoring university for

approval. Additionally, informed consent was obtained from the participants by use of a form

that notified them that the information from the interviews would remain confidential. With the

assurance of anonymity, full participation was more likely. Creswell (2007) further offered that

before the analysis of the data collected through the interviews, the names of the respondents

should be carefully masked, but still let their voices speak.

The research phase first began with complying with the institution‟s Review Board.

Once permission to proceed was obtained, the researcher visited the purposively selected faculty.

During the recruitment stage, an Agreement with Study Participant was provided and explained

to each potential participant. This “meta-agreement” introduced the researcher and provided a

synopsis of the study, including: the time and effort involved, what information would be

collected, the voluntary nature of participation, the anonymity and confidentiality measures,

information regarding the results of the study, and the availability of the study for their review as

91
well as request for their feedback. In regards to confidentiality, the researcher ensured the

participants understood that their identity would be coded and that the results would be published

by referring to the group instead of individuals. This agreement also incorporated the Informed

Consent Form for the participants‟ signature upon consent to participate.

Summary

This chapter has presented evidence in support of the method of data collection and

analysis for this study, specifically a qualitative research methodology known as a

phenomenological study. The researcher intention was to collect data primarily through in-depth

interviews but also through the content of other materials that represents the lived experiences of

the faculty at the participating College of Business and Economics.

Once data was collected, coded, and organized, the researcher used software to

electronically aid in its analysis. NVivo9 is regarded as well-designed software that can support

the analysis of the data collected as well as ease in the organization, coding, and retrieval of the

data. Not only did this process provide a more comprehensive analysis of the information

collected, it facilitated developing the data into more practical configurations.

From using this methodology, the researcher was able to ascertain the perspectives of the

faculty participants and reveal their actual lived experiences teaching under the current

curriculum, if the curriculum keeps pace with the rapid changes in the business, and if the

curriculum develops the necessary knowledge worker. The essence of their lived experiences

was illustrated and the phenomenon of if the business school faculty perceive their environment

within the College of Business and Economics as conducive to knowledge sharing and the

development of intangible assets, or as literature suggests, that higher education in general is

inherently structured in a way that impedes collaborative efforts was explored.

92
 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

Drucker (1965, 2001) revealed that business had made a great switch from manual to

knowledge work, and that the success of businesses will depend on the performance of the

knowledge worker. Physical capital and technology will not be enough to prevail; knowledge as

well as service work is the key to working smarter and increasing productivity. Drucker‟s

theories were further advanced in the book The Drucker Difference (2010), and editors Pearce,

Maciariello, and Yamawaki acknowledged that knowledge work requires a significant

investment in intellectual capital and that knowledge work is a team-based task. The knowledge

worker is at the center of this business revolution.

Management education faculty can play an essential role in the development of the

knowledge worker; however, literature has implied that management education is not up to the

task (Freeman & Newkirk, 2008; Goshal, 2005; Pfeffer, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Mintzberg,

2004; Drucker, 2001). Other literature has been more supportive of management education

(Kidwell et al., 2000; Press & Washburn, 2000; Burriss, 2010). At the risk of implying that

management faculty is not collaborating, the debate behind this study explores if management

faculty is now ready to embrace collaboration, both internally and externally?

There is one part of this research problem that is not being debated; the literature

unanimously established that the business world is changing more rapidly than ever before, and

that managing this dynamic environment is dependent upon managing knowledge: recognizing

the value of intangible resources and creating a more collectivistic environment. If a culture of

individualism does exist in business schools as literature implies, management education faculty

must recognize its effect and adapt accordingly. Curricula should concentrate on the obligatory

collaboration necessary to develop knowledge workers essential to the business world. This
93
chapter presents the data collection, data coding, and data analysis for this phenomenological

study. Patterns and themes were discovered through both the manual coding of transcripts and

the use of NVivo 9 qualitative analysis software.

The reasonable perspective would suggest that being a college professor is an

autonomous position: developing curriculum, teaching students, and conducting the obligatory

research – all individual in nature. However, this profession is no more unambiguous and

individualistic than the business environment for which it prepares learners. It is the

management school faculty who prepare learners to be the knowledge workers responsible for

the success of organizations in a knowledge-intensive business environment. Faculty must not

only teach the importance of valuing and applying intangible assets, they must also model these

concepts. To adequately achieve the objective of fully integrating knowledge into management

education and to keep pace with the business environment, faculty members should comprehend

the emergence of the knowledge worker and the significance of knowledge to their positions, the

practical use of their research, and the integration of business professionals into the learning

process. This invitation of business professionals serves many purposes, but primarily, it bridges

the gap between academicians and practitioners.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of faculty in developing

knowledge workers who value social capital to cultivate collaboration. The faculty members‟

definition of knowledge worker varied, yet the application of knowledge to their position was

more consistent. The individualism of higher education and the integration of business

professionals were hypothesized to be key factors to this study. Mowday (1996) addressed the

problems of business schools and claimed that there was a need for management education to

94
reassess the adequacy in which they support their constituents: both the students and the business

environment. This study applied an interpretation of the data to the development of knowledge

workers.

Demographic Description of Participants

A “sampling to redundancy” strategy (Meadows & Morse, 2001) was used to decide

when an adequate sample had been obtained, meaning interviews were conducted until no further

insight could be provided on the research topic, until the point of saturation of data (Meadows &

Morse, 2001; Creswell, 2007). Each interview was informative; the participants were willing,

and they openly described their experiences and points of view. That is, with one exception.

The researcher interviewed one would-be participant who agreed to the meeting, but this faculty

member was at first only reluctant to being audiotaped. After extensive discussion of the

interview questions, the faculty member decided to withhold consent to using the responses.

While the responses were informative, without informed consent, they cannot be included in the

data.

The faculty members‟ status, either tenured or non-tenured, was an important detail

essential in determining the various perceptions of individualism and collaboration. The original

diversity desired included tenured, tenure-tracked, adjunct, and lecturer faculty as well as male

and female participants. The diversity of gender leans more to the male with three female

participants and ten male participants. The diversity of status posed some challenges as well.

Tenure-tracked faculty members were limited in numbers, and of the potential tenure-tracked

respondents, only one responded to the invitation to be interviewed. However, diversity was

achieved by reducing the diversity differentiation to tenured and non-tenured faculty members.

95
Of the participating faculty members, seven were tenured and six were non-tenured: one tenure-

tracked, two lecturers, and three adjunct faculty members.

Recruitment of Participants

This study followed the advice of Peterson and Wiesenberg (2006) that performing a

qualitative study might provide a richer context for describing faculty work. Therefore, this

qualitative phenomenological research involved the in-depth interviews of 13 faculty members

from the participating mid-major state university‟s College of Business and Economics. Carolyn

Egri, of Simon Fraser University, recently introduced how to develop conversations about

management education, focusing on essays, dialogue, and interviews; she asserted that

interviews are conversations with interesting people about important topics (2012). Her

statement sums up the experience of interviewing these faculty participants. And, as her insights

suggested, the interviews for this study were with people who are leading new initiatives in

management education and are innovative thinkers who challenge the status quo in management

education.

While an acceptable level of diversity of faculty members was achieved, the population

sampled was relatively homogeneous. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) asserted that a certain

degree of homogeneity contributes to saturation because “in purposive samples, participants are,

by definition, chosen according to some common criteria [management education faculty]. The

more similar participants in a sample are in their experiences with respect to the research

domain, the sooner we would expect to reach saturation” (p. 76). The most apparent distinction

between participants was their status of tenure and non-tenure, and the most obvious distinctions

between participants‟ lived experiences pertained to this variable. Otherwise, participants‟

experiences were formed within a common environment.

96
 Recruitment of faculty members occurred through email. The researcher used the

designed email to invite their participation. First, the researcher contacted the 15 potential

participants provided by an administrative staff member. Six of these initial faculty members

agreed to be interviewed; a response rate of 40 percent. The researcher then began contacting

faculty made known through the college rosters. Over the course of two months, using the same

recruitment email, 54 faculty members were contacted. Seven of these 54 faculty members

agreed to be interviewed, totaling 13 participants and resulting in an overall 19 percent response

rate.

Coding of the participants‟ identification was completed as faculty members were

interviewed. The researcher simply used the acronym COBE for College of Business and

Economics, and added 01 to 13 to correspond to the individual participants. Specific statements

from the interviews were cited using the participants‟ identification code to ensure anonymity.

Data Collection

Bracketing

In an attempt to set aside subjectivity regarding the role of management education faculty

members in the development of the knowledge worker, the researcher bracketed her taken-for-

granted assumptions and usual ways of perceiving (Lester, 1999) this topic. It is difficult to

ignore what is already known about a topic, so instead the researcher simply put this information

on hold, placed aside for later use as a comparative template if necessary (Creswell, 2007). This

activity will make it possible for a separate and distinct empirical world to become an objective

reality (Gubrium & Holstein, 2003).

The researcher identified and compiled ideas on the topic that were brought into the

project based on her personal and professional experiences. Since the researcher‟s experiences

97
are limited to working in one institution of higher education (on a much smaller scale) for

approximately six years and other professional environments as well as the information gleaned

from relevant literature, the ideas were minimal. Again, as suggested by Creswell (2007), the

researcher stayed focused on learning the meaning that the participants held about the topic,

letting their views and lived experiences become known.

Interviews

To gain adequate information that reveals the lived experiences of the faculty of the

participant business school, in-depth interviews were conducted. The most common setting for

interviews was on campus in the faculty members‟ office of the Business Building. However,

for the adjunct faculty who did not have assigned office space, one interview took place in a

vacant classroom and the other two at the residences of the two faculty members. The primary

concern was to ensure that the setting was quiet and clear of distractions to ensure the

participants could focus on the questions and the recording of their responses were audible.

An interview protocol (see Appendix) was also used to provide for the same approach to

each participant; data was gathered about the role of faculty in developing the knowledge

worker. Using semi-structured and open-ended interview techniques to allow for the shift in the

direction of the interviews, the participants revealed deeper insights into the phenomenon under

study. Candid responses were encouraged, and the interviews frequently moved in different

directions leading to supplementary questions and even more insightful information. The

interviews lasted an average of 37 minutes.

As the researcher interviewed participants, evidence in the form of responses came into

focus. Responses communicated information that was directly connected to the research

problem, and themes began to emerge. As the interviews progressed, the researcher began

98
coding information and developing ideas for interpreting the data. Given the use of a customary

interview protocol and the homogeneity of the faculty members, the researcher considered

saturation was met with ten interviews; however, the researcher interviewed three additional

participants to help in achieving diversity and because these faculty members were willing to

participate.

Mason (2010) asserted that qualitative research samples must be large enough to assure

that most or all of the perceptions that might be important are uncovered, but samples that are too

large can also be problematic. Saturation, when the collection of new data does not shed any

further light on the issue under investigation (Mason, 2010 citing Glaser & Strauss, 1967), is

meant to achieve this purpose. However, Mason further explained that reaching saturation can

be difficult to prove. In fact, Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested that new data can always

emerge. These theorists suggested that saturation, an elastic notion, should be more concerned

with reaching a point that when the new does emerge, it does not necessarily change the story.

In the present study, the story had taken shape after ten interviews: five tenured and five

non-tenured faculty members. It had become clear how faculty members defined the knowledge

worker and how they valued knowledge in their positions, and themes of collaboration and

interaction with business professionals had also come into view. New information did emerge

late in the interview process relating to the academician and practitioner relationship that

enhanced the story, but it did not change the story.

Other Documents

While visiting with faculty members on campus, the researcher discovered documents

that related to this study, including: program course requirements; brochures on programs

sponsored by the College of Business and Economics, and a brochure on the new Executive

99
MBA program. Additionally, the researcher was provided with a brochure representing one

department‟s event that invited 27 Chief Financial Officers to meet with students. Analysis of

these documents revealed how the faculty members have established a relationship with business

professionals to collaborate on meeting the needs of the business environment.

Member Checking

The interviews were transcribed, to some extent summarized, then emailed to the

participant faculty members for review. Each participant was asked to validate the

summarization to ensure that he or she was not misrepresented in any way. Referred to as

member checking, this activity resulted in clarifications, updates, edits, and corrections by the

interview participants to ensure they were accurately represented. While there were some edits

for clarification and minor corrections, no major concerns were raised by the participants.

Member checking was accomplished to ensure accuracy and enhance credibility of the

interview transcripts. As Miles and Huberman (1994) asserted, one of the most logical sources

of corroboration is the people you have talked with. Once the interview data was accepted by the

participants, the transcripts were ready for manual coding as well as import into the NVivo 9

software.

Data Coding

NVivo 9

Following the member checking process, the accepted transcripts were imported into

NVivo qualitative research software and other source materials were scanned as pdf documents

and also imported into NVivo 9. To analyze responses and identify themes and patterns among

the participants, the researcher utilized the coding capabilities of the NVivo 9 software. Sources

of information included:

100
  accepted transcripts of the interviews,

 program course criteria,

 brochures for programs sponsored by the College of Business and Economics:

o Design Thinking, Creating Economic Impact

o The Centre for Entrepreneurship

o Business Research and Economic Development

o A Look Into Successful Careers of Local CFOs brochure

 the College‟s new Executive MBA program brochure

These sources were obtained through informal observation of available materials around campus

and offered by interview participants as evidence to their responses. They contained raw data

from which conceptual frameworks formed regarding the faculty members‟ lived experiences

(Bazeley, 2007).

The researcher extracted “significant statements” from the interview transcripts to

develop a coding system. A preliminary coding system (list of nodes) was established based on

relevant information discovered in the literature. As the interviews progressed, new points of

view came into focus, confirming some points in the literature and countering others. From this

data, the researcher developed new coding.

Coding of relevant information was accomplished by examining the source material,

identifying meaningful words and statements, and summarizing their importance. As the essence

of the data came into focus, the researcher coded the information through the development of

more extensive categories and creating a more substantial node list. The coding of this data

allowed the researcher to develop raw data and materials into rich information that can be further

101
analyzed through queries and models to reveal patterns and themes of the participants‟

experiences.

To be more specific, thematic coding involves identifying and recording one or more

passages of text that exemplify the same theoretical or descriptive idea. Usually, several passages

are identified and they are then linked with a name for that idea – the code (Gibbs, 2007). How

this coding unfolded is further validation of saturation. Guest et al. (2006) (as cited in Glaser

and Strauss, 1967) explained that when no additional data are being found whereby more

categories or codes – or nodes in NVivo 9 – are created because similar responses appear over

and over again, the data become empirically saturated. Of the 38 nodes created, a majority were

developed within the first eight interviews. Furthermore, while NVivo 9 produced frequency

and matrix queries to illustrate themes, the researcher conducted line-by-line analysis of the

interview transcripts; the sort of analysis that some research experts believe only humans can do.

Research Questions

The primary research question and supplemental questions addressed were as follows:

Do the lived experiences of the business school faculty reveal that the curriculum keeps pace

with the business environment in developing the knowledge worker who is prepared to share

knowledge across internal and external boundaries?

 What are the underlying themes and contexts that shape the lived experiences of the

faculty?

 How does each faculty member view that he or she fulfills this role?

 And, what are the organizational structures that influence the role of faculty members in

producing knowledge workers?

102
Specific interview questions, or Interview Protocol (see Appendix) were developed to collect

data that, once analyzed, could be applied to these inquires. The questions were intentionally

broadly stated to allow for the experiences of the phenomenon to emerge in the participants‟ own

words. From the responses of the participants, the following concept map was developed

revealing the three variables Collaboration Amongst Faculty Members, Interaction with Business

Professionals, and the Curriculum Inspires Values of the Knowledge Worker as essential to the

development of the knowledge worker and subsets of variables that influence them.

Figure 3. Model of the primary variables involved with creating the knowledge worker.

Data Analysis

The purpose of this phenomenological qualitative study was to explore the lived

experiences of the business school faculty and to obtain a clear depiction of the management

education faculty members‟ perception of their role in developing the knowledge worker. This

103
research sought to capture the faculty‟s lived experiences in relation to the curriculum under

which they teach and the extent to which they collaborate with each other as well as

professionals in the business environment as these variables influence the faculty‟s role. The

researcher found that as the data was presented apparent themes and patterns in the lived

experiences of the faculty emerged.

Following Creswell‟s (2007) guidance, the researcher identified the steps necessary to

analyze the data collected from the interviews and other source material. First, the data was

reviewed and organized for analysis. Codes were developed to use in the identification of

themes; using the coded data, inquiries were ran and graphs were generated to reveal

commonalities: patterns and themes.

Queries

The researcher ran a variety of queries available in NVivo to explore the data and

discover the contextual relationships and themes. Matrix queries were used to gather data into

graphic representations of the themes and patterns that emerged through the interviews and other

sources.

104
Figure 4. Creating the Knowledge Worker – this graph represents how these three primary

variables were substantiated as significant compared to the variables that emerged as less

important.

Data Findings

In addition to using NVivo 9, the researcher further analyzed each interview transcript to

extract data necessary to realize the meanings of actual experiences, and from this step in the

data analysis process, the following interpretations of the faculty‟s lived experiences were

revealed:

Defining the Knowledge Worker

The knowledge worker is a concept created by the renowned organizational theorist Peter

Drucker (1965, 1969, 1991, 2001). While many of the faculty members were familiar with Peter

Drucker as an organizational theorist, their definitions of a knowledge worker varied

considerably from a broad application to a specific use – commonly misunderstood as

105
information technology and in the manufacturing of products. Knowledge workers were defined

specifically as using knowledge obtained through formal education or instruction to being

peripheral in nature to some disciplines – routinized rules versus human skills.

One participant offered a definition of knowledge worker that was on point and germane

to this study: “A knowledge worker in a broader sense would be someone who simply says I‟m

working in an organization; I have some knowledge that might benefit somebody else within the

organization . . . this is what we ought to be doing, and they share that with other people”

(COBE09). Another participant was very close to Drucker‟s (2001) characterization of the

knowledge worker and responded that it is “someone who has the broad range of business skills

so that they can go out and solve problems whether it be in finance, marketing, whatever, and

understand what it is to make organizations effective” (COBE01). And, yet another faculty

member responded with valuable insight as someone being personally responsible for continuing

to learn throughout their career (COBE03).

The value of knowledge to faculty members.

How faculty members valued knowledge to their position was more consistent – it‟s all

about knowledge; it is their “raison d‟etre.” Knowledge is used to convey information about a

subject area, some practical ability that they would like to see transferred to the future knowledge

workers, their students (COBE09). The obvious answer is this knowledge is part of the

contribution that faculty members, as the subject matter experts, make to students.

However, one faculty member acknowledged that while knowledge is important, what is

more important is learning – the focus should be more on the questions and not just the answers.

Faculty members do not have a monopoly on asking questions (COBE04). Another faculty

member offered a similar response. It is “the ability to continue to learn and to grow and

106
understand so that what I impart reflects what it is the students need, and . . . help people even

discover the questions and engage in the learning process. . . . answer the questions for

themselves and providing them the environment to do that and some of the tools to do that”

(COBE12). Moreover, another response also tied in the substantial changes to the business

environment, stating “we are also trying to help people learn how to learn and to evaluate the

information that they receive. . . . people are bombarded with so much information – much of it

incorrect or slanted that a lot of what we as educators need to do is help people learn to take a

balanced approach to evaluating what they hear, see, and read” (COBE03).

Important to the current study, another participant included that knowledge is valuable in

how faculty members know the information that is important to the profession, evaluating what

the industry desires. One participant asserted in a discipline-specific response, “You have to

have a good knowledge base. Everything I do and everything I look at basically is a problem. . .

I have to use knowledge to help solve problems and make decisions” (COBE05).

Does the curriculum inspire these values?

The overall theme was that faculty members want their students to learn from the courses

they teach. One participant reported that faculty members have been looking at the needs of the

students and the classes offered, the sequences that are offered, and the learning that comes from

those classes as well as how they relate to what the employers want. So, there has to be a

practical aspect of making sure that students have the knowledge that is expected for their field

(COBE03).

Some disciplines are more technical than others, so some faculty members explained that

their curriculum did not inspire values of the knowledge worker while others would champion

their curriculum for inspiring the values of a knowledge worker because their disciplines deal

107
with human behavior (COBE12): knowledge, learning, and problem solving are inherent to

human behavior. Another put the accountability for accomplishing this on accreditation

requirements. One faculty member described the role of developing knowledge workers as a

personal philosophy of each faculty member. If they viewed their role as developing managers of

tomorrow, they will provide them with whatever they see as important, whether it‟s the content

or some other skills (COBE12). But, the focus seemed to be more on technical skills than the

value of intangible assets, managing knowledge, building social capital, and other “soft skills.”

Evidence of this can be found in review of the course requirements. Outside of Business

Communication and leadership courses, the titles indicated that most courses are technically-

oriented. Yet, course titles do not indicate that in these courses the students are not developed as

knowledge workers, but it does imply that soft skills are not the focus.

Faculty members realized that when learners join the workforce, they will have to make

judgments, defend decisions, represent people (COBE09), but little was mentioned about soft

skills. However, what was mentioned was on point and included:

 One participant stated, “The curriculum encourages students to develop both specific

knowledge and more general knowledge about how to function in a business environment

and practical knowledge about how to interact with people and that sort of thing as well as

specific training in a discipline” (COBE10).

 Another participant recognized the importance of the soft skills, stating, “Ultimately, the

place where things trip up in an organization tends to be at that level [interpersonal

communication], and because we are sending students out into the world, we should have

them equipped with some of those skills” (COBE11).

108
 An interview also revealed some information related to the development of social capital in

that there is great value in face-to-face interaction, which was considered in redesigning the

MBA program (COBE03).

However, the emphasis on or ambiguity surrounding soft skills is a two-way street. Literature

underscores the importance of focusing on soft skills in higher education and that is what

employers say they want. But, they often hire the technical skills. They say they want the

leadership skills, the communication skills, the team skills, and so on. But, when they hire, they

tend to go after the technical – are you a CPA, or do you have a certificate or a specific skill set

(COBE06).

In regards to the Executive MBA program, which is more integrative and more focus on

leadership (COBE06), one participant revealed that the curriculum was designed to ensure

learners obtain competencies of the knowledge worker – COBE01 stated “as you get at a higher

level and move up in an organization, they‟re not finance problems, they‟re not accounting

problems, they tend to be business problems. And, so that collaboration becomes much more

important, and that‟s where the executive program, where we are dealing with senior level

managers, you have to have all the dynamics on the table pretty much all the time.”

The Executive MBA program was described as co-created, faculty with business people,

co-delivered with faculty members and business people, and in that program there is a three-day

session on knowledge-intensive industries. One of the courses taught is called “Creating

Competitive Advantage.” As a four-month course, it is broken down into four weekends: the

first weekend is on mature industries, the second is on knowledge intensive, the third on

transition industries, and the fourth on global issues. This faculty member claimed it is

important enough to devote three days from 7 in the morning to 7 at night focusing on issues

109
related to knowledge work, knowledge-intensive industries, which means not only having the

participants read about it, write about it, but we also listening to a lot of business people and

other organizational professionals – not just from businesses – talk about those issues (COBE02).

One non-tenured faculty member explained how a live case study from an organization

that the faculty member interacts with daily was presented to the class. A class focus group was

formed to discuss issues of the case and ideas started “bubbling up.” To illustrate principles of

the course, these ideas were presented to the organization in which some were adopted. This

same faculty member stated, “in developing the knowledge worker, . . . that is part of what I do

and to get them to internalize the knowledge I require them to apply it in their workplace and

report what happened” (COBE11).

Other examples of how the curriculum inspired values of the knowledge worker included:

faculty members who supervise student organizations such as Beta Alpha Psi, mentor student

leaders in these organizations, and advise students on course selections. Additionally, faculty

members participated in organizing events such as “CFOs Exposed, A Look into Successful

Careers of Local CFOs,” where business leaders addressed student groups to present information

about the business world.

Individualism and the extent of collaboration among faculty members.

The responses to the question if faculty members believed higher education to be

individualistic were mixed. While there appeared to be a theme of collaboration in the college,

there also appeared to be a division between tenured and non-tenured faculty. In fact, lecturers

and adjunct faculty members did not appear to be invited to the table of committees, some

committees perhaps, but it was mentioned that others were for tenured faculty only.

110
Additionally, these two groups do not have the same expectations of publishing, nor do they

appear to share knowledge regarding successful practices in the classroom.

Through the in-depth interviews, tenured faculty participants revealed a theme of

collaboration in the College of Business and Economics through interaction with and integration

of business professionals, joint publishing, and team teaching. Administrators encouraged and

supported collaborative efforts. This was evidenced by:

 Strong showing of team teaching in the new Executive MBA Program: designed with a

course head who teaches a segment, then five or six other faculty members who teach

sessions within a segment (COBE12).

 There is also a good deal of collaboration built into the MBA program; one participant

stated that the MBA program has been redesigned to further integrate all of the classes

relating to a specific project that‟s ongoing – that there is always something that bridges

every class (COBE03).

 At the undergraduate level, the college has an Undergraduate Task Force. A professor

leads this group and faculty members who want to join in are invited to do so. From this

committee, they‟ve spun off a lot of faculty implementation teams; these teams develop

curriculum proposals and take them back to their departments. One of the things that

have come out of these teams was the need to have an introductory course that would be

an integrative experience for students. Out of that collaboration a new course was

developed called “Business for a New Generation” (COBE06).

 Representatives from every department are on committees to try and make sure the

demands of the marketplace are being met by graduates. And, while many committee

111
 meetings are subject-matter driven, they also discuss ethics and social responsibility as

other requirements (COBE01).

 Joint publishing – both within the college and externally with individuals in the

community and faculty at other institutions of higher education. One department

developed “pods” to organize research efforts. With lead researchers, ideas are

brainstormed and faculty members come together to conduct the research (COBE08).

Another participant attested to the frequency in which faculty members say let‟s get

together and co-author a study. It happens a lot within the department and within the

college – most studies are collaborative in terms of shared authorship (COBE12). And,

still another participant admitted that “from the perspective of research, yes, research

itself can often be individualistic because you focused on area of personal interest plus

writing is a singular task often times. That said, I‟m currently working on a survey with

another professor here and another in [another state]” (COBE03).

 One tenured faculty member described team teaching as more serial team teaching than

both of faculty members in the classroom bouncing off of each other at the same time

(COBE02).

 The new business building has been designed to provide meeting areas that will function

as a place where faculty members can come together to collaborate. Furthermore, the

faculty spaces are more open to inspire group interaction and discussions (COBE06).

While collaboration appears to be a constant among tenured faculty, it was less apparent with

non-tenured faculty:

 Although “there are some opportunities that the college makes available for some

collaboration, working with the Career Center representatives and Conflict Resolution

112
 program representatives, . . . I don‟t get together with other faculty members to talk about

what we‟re teaching and to coordinate curriculum or anything” (COBE11).

 There was little indoctrination for new professors.

 If co-teaching occurred, it was designed for faculty members to teach separate days,

teaching “discreet and insular” topics. The faculty members who co-teach do not have to

collaborate (COBE09).

 Non-tenured faculty members stated that they rarely get together and talk about teaching

or coordinate curriculum with other faculty members, nor do they attend periodic

meetings to discuss issues. Some non-tenured faculty members admitted that they do not

request support, nor is it offered to them; they appear to prefer it that way.

Accreditation requirements played a strong role in collaboration in publishing and

curriculum review. Many participants implied there is a point system that is used to satisfy the

accreditation publishing requirements and that they were obligated to participate on the

curriculum review committee. To some degree, sharing knowledge about teaching occurs

voluntarily (COBE10). On the other hand, other reasons were presented why higher education is

more individualistic:

 Teaching particular subjects is specific to individuals who are experts in that field. Few

areas are interchangeable.

 Time to organize collaborative efforts. One participant noted that it takes a lot of time to

participate on committees and that‟s time taken away from preparing for class or working

on publications necessary to maintain standings in the profession (COBE01).

 Budget cuts. One tenured faculty member stated that “we don‟t tend to collaborate

within the classroom because if you have to put two faculty members in classroom, then

113
 the college would need to cut back on the number of classes that can be covered; the

school just can‟t afford to do that (COBE13).

 Focus of research. COBE13 also offered that one department tends not to collaborate

outside of the department because research areas are specific to the discipline.

 Difficulty in replicating the business world in the classroom. Isolation is more likely to

occur in higher education because faculty members do not feel the demands of deadlines

and profit motives nor do they exist in the unstructured nature of problem solving

(COBE10).

Individualism is more likely among non-tenured faculty because they:

 Do not have the same pressures to publish or perish.

 They are not “allowed” to participate on some committees.

 Resource issue: they have primary commitments to other employment.

 One participant self-identified as “not a real proponent of collaborative effort”

(COBE05). Although, it was conceded that collaborating with one or two colleagues on

research is of some value – it allows for the exchange of ideas back and forth.

However, one adjunct faculty, who networks with tenured faculty, adamantly asserted

that higher education was not individualistic, stating that “there is no point in publishing

something that you thought of in a cubby hole; it is only applicable if it relates to the outside

world or if it relates to the community that you‟re in or it relates to the subject matter. And, the

only way you are going to find out if it is, is if you are collaborative. You can‟t produce

something in a vacuum” (COBE07). Another participant summed it up as “faculty members

certainly are encouraged to collaborate, but some still work individually. It‟s just a personal

preference” (COBE06).

114
Figure 5. Collaborative Efforts. This graph represents how participants responded positively to

collaborative efforts amongst faculty members at the participating college.

Challenges to changing the curriculum.

Outside of academic freedoms within their individual classes, non-tenured faculty

members presented a pattern of being unsuccessful in instigating and changing the curriculum.

Evidence of this was presented in the following responses:

 One participant felt that as a non-tenured faculty member, one is not in a position to

change curriculum.

 Another non-tenured faculty member had presented a tool that in the faculty member‟s

opinion would have been fabulous, but it appeared there was no money for it and it really

didn‟t go any further.

115
  One participant explained how a course was changed without conferring on the change; a

change that the faculty member did not consider was in the best interest of the MBA

program.

Tenured faculty also presented issues with curricula changes. One participant stated that

a course was taught for two disciplines, but that the faculty member felt was not appropriate to

one discipline. A change was initiated, and after some disagreement, the curriculum was

changed to separate, more focused courses for each discipline.

Integration with business professionals.

There was strong evidence of a pattern of integration of business professionals into the

learning process for both tenured and non-tenured faculty; in fact, the adjunct faculty members

were the business professionals who interacted as the faculty member with their class (COBE07;

COBE11). Faculty members do pull people in from the community to help augment their

classes, frequently retired professors and business people. There were several examples of how

faculty members attend meetings with business people who have ideas about curriculum

changes. Furthermore, community-based projects and student and company collaborations,

which are monitored by the supervising faculty members, provide students with relevant

experience. Specific examples of integration with business professionals include:

 The Executive MBA has a huge emphasis on live case studies, and many companies are

willing to utilize students in implementing new strategy. One faculty member described

a new initiative as “an incubator-like support center for companies, especially young

companies” (COBE07).

 Mandatory live case studies in the MBA Capstone Course.

 One credit hour for participation in the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA).

116
  Several faculty members invite guest speakers into their classes.

Further details regarding the role of faculty members in developing the knowledge worker.

One participant explained that in most institutions of higher education there are three tiers

that faculty members are evaluated on: research, teaching, and service. At the participating

college, there are research, teaching, service, and community engagement. This faculty member

thought that the fourth element of community engagement is important and helps to validate

connections that faculty have made with business professionals. They share a problem that is

then solved through classroom interaction or business speakers are invited into the classrooms to

share their experiences. But, it‟s that recognition that it‟s important to do that.

However, this way of assessing faculty members, depending on their status, can create

both positive and negative consequences. Research can be important, begin with less so on the

service and the connection within the community, and then those things increase more as faculty

members get more senior. So, if a course is taught with the least amount of effort and time, that

provides faculty members more time for other areas. So, at some level, there‟s an incentive not

to reinvent the wheel or not to spend time bringing in new cases or to find the latest example of a

principle (COBE12).

A common theme amongst non-tenured faculty members was that their experience in the

business environment contributes added value to the business programs. Many non-tenured

faculty members are hired because of their business experience. Non-tenured, especially

adjunct, have a degree of street credibility; they can bring authentic business experiences to their

class (COBE04). Another non-tenured faculty member shared that practical ability is important

and should be transferred to the future knowledge workers, their students, and added that

practical ability, actual work in the field, may not necessarily be possessed by the average tenure

117
or tenure-track professor (COBE09). Furthermore, there are benefits to being non-tenured as

well; non-tenured faculty members do not have to deal with the challenges of finding people who

have the interest, time, and energy to devote to a project.

A final theme involved the academia-practitioner relationship. One participant stated that

the academia and practitioner relationship is important so that faculty members really know what

they [business employers] need. It was acknowledged that there is a belief that the research that

happens really happens for other academicians, but it was also asserted that “the real authorities

are out there [in the business environment], the ones out there who would use that information –

saying yes, it‟s valid or it‟s not” (COBE12). The discussion continued on how the blame points

one way, towards academicians. This faculty member asserted that the arrow goes the other

direction as well and that “management doesn‟t do a good job in finding out what the research

literature has to say about how they can be useful, so they tend to be sort of narrow-minded . . .

and not avail themselves of the knowledge and information that‟s there.” Conceding that

assigning blame is not important, COBE12 championed that the successful organizations have

managers who recognize the need to discover this information and bridge the gap between

academicians and practitioners.

Another participant (COBE04) echoed this sentiment and stated that academics do “an

atrociously poor job.” Research is presented in a way that is difficult for practitioners to

understand; and, practitioners also do a poor job seeking out and utilizing management research

(COBE04). This faculty member has been researching more effective ways to communicate

research to the practitioner. Furthermore, this sentiment was echoed by another participant who

stated “a lot of academic research is totally useless; . . . at the end of the article, I want to say so

118
what – what difference does it make, would this make a difference in my decision making. And,

most of the time it doesn‟t” (COBE03).

Summary

The objective of this research was to explore the lived experiences of faculty members to

determine if the curriculum keeps pace with the business environment in developing the

knowledge worker who is prepared to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries.

In examining underlying themes, it became evident how each faculty member views that he or

she fulfills this role and how organizational structures influence the role of producing the

knowledge worker. The semi-structured interview questions provided data that, once interpreted,

developed into meaningful themes and patterns in the lived experiences of the management

faculty regarding their role in developing the knowledge worker.

119
 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Discussion

The current knowledge-intensive society is radically different from that of the late 20th

century; hence, examination of management education is necessary to determine if the

curriculum has adapted to prepare students for this new work environment. The purpose of this

study was to explore the lived experiences of business school faculty in one academic institution

developing knowledge workers who value social capital and cultivate collaboration.

The purpose of a phenomenological methodology as described by Lester (1999) is “to

illuminate the specific, to identify phenomena through how they are perceived by the actors in a

situation. In the human sphere this normally translates into gathering „deep‟ information and

perceptions through inductive, qualitative methods such as interviews, discussions and

participant observation and representing it from the perspective of the research participant(s)” (p.

1). In exploring faculty members‟ role in developing the knowledge worker, in-depth interviews

were conducted and other source materials gathered to identify the lived experiences of faculty

members.

Chapter 5 consists of a discussion on how information related to previous research as

well as how the study findings related to the primary and secondary research questions. The

limitations of this study are then noted. Recommendations for future research based on

information that emerged from this study as the participants responded candidly to the interview

questions follow, and the chapter concludes with implications of study results.

Discussion of Results

According to Burrell (2006), criticisms of higher education asserted that management

education fails to teach competencies such as: change management skills, employee recruiting

120
skills, team-building skills, and the importance of ethical behavior; graduate programs focus too

much on business and too little on employees and organizational development. Burrell (2006)

was advocating for an option for studying management at the doctoral level; he was promoting

the Doctor of Management (DM) because it:

encompasses advanced leadership training that is practical and focused on leadership‟s

complex impact on improving organizational culture and human resources development. .

. . DM looks at management almost in an interdisciplinary way by blending leadership

courses that touch on psychology, human resources management, communications,

human relations, employee development, organizational behaviour, and traditional

management science. (p. 13)

Interdisciplinary studies are necessary to provide the knowledge necessary to work across

acknowledged boundaries within the business environment. Additionally, education should

inspire social capital that leads to collaborative efforts. The hypothesis presented was that a

more collectivistic environment in both higher education and business environments lead to a

more effective use of knowledge and increased collaboration across internal and external

boundaries. While Burrell (2006) did not develop his thesis with empirical research, he did

explore several graduate programs. In support of his claim, he asserted that MBA programs

from Harvard University, John‟s Hopkins University, University of Maryland, University of

Phoenix, and others have responded to the needs and the interest of students from corporations

who want practical applications of theory.

Drucker (2001) stressed that it is formal education that develops the knowledge worker,

and management education must produce executives who operate differently in the information

age, embracing ambiguity and creating an organization that could thrive in a rapidly changing

121
world. Management school officials have the responsibility to engender knowledge workers and

incorporate into the curricula if the businesses of our society are to maintain economic power.

Yet, while knowledge is their “raison d‟etre,” the concept of knowledge worker has not found a

“commonplace” in the participating College of Business and Economics even though its mission

statement does espouse a faculty dedicated to delivering innovative academic programs and the

university‟s strategic plan, published in April 2006, outlined the four key areas of academic

excellence, exceptional research, public engagement, and vibrant culture.

Davenport and Prusak (2000) insisted that regardless of efforts to manage knowledge,

knowledge will be transferred daily in organizational life. However, the transfer of knowledge is

not always a conscious act, and while this study presented evidence that knowledge is at the

center of the lived experiences of the faculty members at the participating college and

collaboration does exist, participants‟ responses indicated they do not consciously realize they

are transferring knowledge. For instance, faculty members stated that they do not get together

with other faculty members to talk about what they are teaching and to coordinate curriculum.

These are, however, the very behaviors that will facilitate the development of the knowledge

worker.

Additionally, Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft (2001) suggested that the business environment

has been altered to the point that collaboration between academe and practice is more imperative,

and that empirical data is essential to establishing the actual academic-practitioner relationship.

This theme resonated throughout the data in response to the question: do you interact with

business professionals in your community? As earlier suggested, interdepartmental academic

relationships are now essential for multi-disciplined approaches to curricula as are the

relationships between academia and practice.

122
 This study revealed that, in fact, faculty members, in general, are diligent in the

integration of business professionals into their curriculum, many of whom are in executive

positions. Based on the present research, Press and Washburn (2000) were correct in their

analysis that academicians and administrators are more motivated to partner with practitioners to

produce knowledge. It is possible that faculty and practitioners do not live in such separate

communities after all, and their values and ideologies are not so different as suggested by Beyer

and Trice (1982).

One plausible explanation regarding the recent relationship building between

academicians and practitioners is that perhaps academicians have heeded the recommendation of

Rynes, Bartunek, and Daft (2001) for organizational scientists and practitioners to develop a

strategy to increase the pace and quality of knowledge creation and dissemination through

collaborative efforts. However, a few faculty members responded less positively about the

subject of the academician and practitioner relationship citing various reasons why they do not

facilitate this type of relationship: the time required attending meetings, the purpose of higher

education is to teach, and they personally were not social.

Rynes et al. (2001) also studied knowledge transfer between academicians and

practitioners and alleged that within academia there is an “incestuous, closed loop” as the faculty

publish in professional journals with intentions of sharing their research findings with the core

audience: academicians, not business professionals, going back to the assertion that faculty and

practitioners do live in separate communities (Breyer and Trice, 1982). To further ascertain how

research conducted supported the development of the knowledge worker, the question of who

academicians publish for was explored during the in-depth interviews. The impression that the

knowledge discovered through academic research is not shared with an authority who could

123
debate the findings, authorities in the form of actual managers who experience the issue, was

nullified as one faculty member expressed a more professional audience.

Also, on the subject of publishing, a tenured faculty member stated, “We have drifted or

by design gone to more emphasis on publication because that is where the money comes from,

from grants and stuff. That has never been my professional focus; I got into teaching because I

wanted to teach, not to publish something that no one would ever read” (COBE03). Still another

faculty member revealed a professional focus, stating “I actually publish for the business

professionals . . . and that is not the most prestigious place within the academic circles. . . .

AACSB, if you want to be at the top of the heap in AACSB circles and you know – well-known

and highly regarded, you are actually publishing for other academics in the leading . . . journals.

And, it turns out the kind of questions they look at I am not particularly interested in and . . . I

have sort of carved out a niche and I have always been interested in the professional side rather

than what other academics are thinking . . . “ (COBE01).

In addressing Oviatt and Miller‟s (1989) claims that much of the business research is

inapplicable to "real" business problems and that too many abstract models are taught in business

classes, forcing businesses to develop career-long education programs, the current study revealed

a perception that few corporate training programs exist the way they did in the past, insinuating

that corporations did at one time provide the training they deemed necessary for professional

growth within their company. However, this advanced training in management might now fall

to the individual employee. One participating faculty member stated a perception: “they‟re [the

corporations] not providing it – they‟ve cut back so much on their training programs that it is a

vacuum that the business schools need to jump in and do. . . . It‟s fallen to the individuals to train

124
themselves, which means it‟s fallen to the business schools to provide the kind of management

training or business training that a person can take back to their job” (COBE07).

Based on some interview responses, there was a discipline-specific point of view towards

the role of faculty in developing the knowledge worker: how they defined knowledge to their

field and their role in teaching soft skills. For some, it was less important because their

discipline was exceptionally technical, such as the accounting field, and that the learner was most

likely not going to work as a manager in the business environment. At the other end of the

continuum, some faculty members felt that teaching soft skills – interpersonal communication,

conflict management, and leadership skills – was actually fostered in their curriculum because

their discipline is about human behavior.

Faculty‟s interaction with the business community is important to gaining an

understanding of what the business world actually needs in employees, or knowledge workers.

This research revealed that considerable interaction takes place between academicians and

practitioners; there is considerable use of business professionals in the classroom as well as

activities outside of the classroom. The following were reasons identified for this open

relationship:

 Faculty members seek opportunities for students in their programs to interact with

business professionals as a way to confirm the curriculum aligns with community needs,

for networking opportunities and future employment prospects.

 Innovative outlets – the use of business firms for live case studies

 Geographical proximity. One faculty participant conjectured that the isolated geographic

area in which the university is located might affect the interaction with the business

environment because the degree of separation is so small and options are limited, stating

125
 “it‟s kind of a special area where you would likely find a lot more synergy and

collaboration and momentum” (COBE07).

 Adjunct faculty members work in the local business community and their experiences are

brough into the classroom; this inclusion of relevant and real-time experiences results in

maintaining pace with the business environment.

 Culture of the business school. One participant focused on how knowledge sharing and

coming together as a team is a function of the organizational culture that can motivate

individuals to create power in different ways. Technology has also made the business

world much more competitive and information more available. Therefore, “if you are

going to make a difference, if you are going to be competitive, . . . to be successful, you

are going to have to move toward that area of sharing information and making that part of

your culture” (COBE12). Yet, the current researched revealed this is not consistently

practiced by the faculty members interviewed.

 In addressing the influence of the organizational culture on co-authoring research, one

faculty member implied that if research crossed external boundaries, it was perceived by

some as being unwilling to collaborate with colleagues. This faculty member questioned,

“when work is conducted with people outside of the college, does that make it

individualistic? Lots of faculty members do lots of projects together, and so it is not

actually an individualistic culture” (COBE02).

Five of the thirteen faculty members, three of them tenured, indicated little interaction with

business professionals, also for a number of reasons. The primary reason was their available

time to attend meetings as well as the time it takes from academic preparation. Time is a critical

126
resource that does not distinguish by status. Another reason provided for not interacting often

with business professionals is that some faculty members prefer not to be social. Still, faculty

members are collaborative with practitioners at least to some extent in order to stay current in

their discipline. Interestingly, the reverse seemed to be true for non-tenured faculty; one adjunct

faculty member cited working as a business school faculty member helped in staying current in

the profession (COBE09).

Steven Pharr (2000) stated that in response to industry demands and accreditation

standards, business schools are developing integrated courses that demonstrate the

interrelatedness of business functions. These courses will provide learners with skills necessary

to be more adept at making decisions that benefit the organization as a whole. Some faculty

members cited using group projects and application of concepts to current work activities to

create an environment that supported knowledge sharing. The key factors to the use of valuable

information and, in turn, organizational success were identified as group work and collaboration

amongst business professionals.

Burriss‟ research in 2010 highlighted another strategy for increasing the quality and

relevance of management education by applying Eckel‟s (2003) concept of the curricular joint

venture (CJV). Evidence was presented that strategic alliances do exist between the participating

College of Business and Economics and other partners within the university and community

through programs such as Design Thinking, Creating Economic Impact; the Business Research

and Economic Development Center; the Center for Entrepreneurship; and other projects both

internally and externally.

In the examination of the individualism that exists in management education, Gosling and

Mintzberg (2004) asserted that MBA programs encourage strictly personal learning, resulting in

127
a product with self-serving tendencies. Instead, these researchers offered that education should

promote that the individual‟s obligation is to diffuse his or her learning into the organization; this

suggestion is a primary characteristic of knowledge work and the principle behind the current

research. Evidence suggested that the participant business school has taken major steps in

accomplishing the promotion of this obligation; evidenced of fulfilling this obligation is

persuasive, especially in programs such as the newly created Executive MBA program. The

issue now is the extent to which this obligation has been fulfilled.

Summary of Findings

While Pfeffer and Fong (2004) asserted that the existing state of management education is

not well and that management schools are not graduating knowledge workers to the degree

required by a knowledge-driven workforce, since then, the literature indicates there has been

little examination of business school effectiveness. However, Freeman and Newkirk (2008)

sought to bridge this gap in the academic literature that focuses on how business schools are

innovative and supportive of curriculum change to meet the demands of the new workforce as

did Baruch‟s study in 2009, revealing the value of the MBA to generate significant tangible and

intangible inputs to organizations and the society as a whole. This phenomenological study

revealed that the management education provided by the participating business school might be

healthier than these theorists envisaged. The findings relevant to the research questions are as

follows:

Primary research question:

Do the lived experiences of the business school faculty reveal that the curriculum keeps

pace with the business environment in developing the knowledge worker who is prepared

to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries?

128
Findings.

The answer to this primary research question is yes because of the strong connection that

many of the faculty members of this specific business school have with the business community

for which they provide graduates. One of the premises behind this study was that faculty

members lose touch with the rapidly changing business environment. In general, the research

indicates the contrary; that:

 There is significant initiative to interact with the business environment in this specific

academic institution. Out of the 13 participants, 7 faculty members regularly work with

business professionals by bringing them into their classroom to augment curricula,

holding special events with business professionals to speak to students regarding what

they are looking for in employees, and incorporating professionals from the community

into programs sponsored by the college.

 Of the 13 faculty members, 6 were adjunct faculty who brought their own experiences

from the workplace into their classrooms. They were hired for their business experience

(COBE11).

 Participants provided evidence as to how they frequently crossed boundaries, both

internally and externally. One faculty member indicated that “Whenever I‟ve tried to do

things across the disciplines [the various disciplines within the college], I find I‟ve had

really good luck. I‟ve worked with really great people; we‟re all after the same sort of

thing, so there has not been “turf” that we hear about” (COBE02).

129
 o Internally, curricula changes were supported. In the college, there is some cross-

discipline focus in problem solving, sustainability, ethics, those kinds of topics

that cross boundaries; they‟re not focused on any one major (COBE06).

o Externally, “there is an initiative for the business school to be tied more to the

community and more useful to community problem solving” (COBE07). Another

participant stated regarding working with business professionals, “I do it selfishly

to give them exposure to our program and our students and make them aware of

some of the resources coming on line, so to speak, the people they can draw from,

and to give the participants, particularly the senior MBAs, exposure to what‟s

going on in the community because they will be the community” (COBE02).

 As earlier presented, collaboration between faculty members and among faculty members

and business professionals is critical to effective higher education curricula. The primary

resource to achieve collaborative behavior is social capital, which includes customs,

language, manners, and morals. From the responses to interview questions, the

promotion of social capital appeared lacking in the business school environment. Still,

there is an abundance of efforts toward collaboration; this was observed as

interdisciplinary cooperation as well as collaborating with entities outside of the

university – other institutions of higher education, executives, and practitioners.

While participants, for the most part, involved themselves in the proper activities that

kept them knowledgeable regarding the changes in the business environment, they were not fully

informed regarding the concept of the knowledge worker; furthermore, interview responses

reflected that some faculty members did not feel there was a strong sense of collaboration. This

130
sense of individualism could simply transfer to the workforce since those are the behaviors they

are being socialized to emulate.

A good deal of interview responses supported that across the disciplines throughout the

college the curriculum is designed to prepare learners for the business environment. Through

interaction with business professional and active participation with professional associations

(although in varying degrees), the faculty members maintain an awareness of changes in the

business environment and what the business environment needs in future employees. Faculty

members also indicated that they read both academic and professional journals (journals were

scattered about many office spaces) and attend conferences to stay current in their field.

Another premise of this study was that faculty members should understand the need for

knowledge workers in the business environment, and they should not only design curriculum to

develop knowledge workers, but also model knowledge work through collaboration and

knowledge sharing. Participants responded that there is some knowledge sharing among

colleagues in the form of assisting with curriculum or administrative issues (COBE07). It can be

concluded that individualism does exist in varying degrees; one participant asserted that “It‟s a

mix; it partly has to be individualistic. . . . it also has to be part of a team, part of a flow in terms

of you are working in groups, and also part of it has to be part of society” (COBE08). This

statement is fundamental to the core of this study – higher education is important to society, and

administrators and faculty members must be aware of the practical needs of society and ensure

the curriculum is designed to meet those needs. Furthermore, higher education is well placed to

engender change. This same faculty member (COBE08) also confirmed that to effectively

develop the knowledge worker, the faculty members must work together, to share information so

131
they can collaborate more. Faculty members are not only for individual gain, but for collective

gain as well. In defining the value of knowledge to the faculty position, another participant

added, “we are generating new knowledge to help improve organizational performance and

individual performance and country-level performance, so it‟s number one” (COBE02). This

confirms Richard‟s (2007) assertion that education is one of the primary factors that make people

the best in their fields, and education is the bedrock upon which our society is built.

Supplemental research question 1:

What are the underlying themes and contexts that shape the lived experiences of the

faculty?

 Collaboration. While many interview responses indicated that higher education involves

individualistic activities, there is evidence of collaboration at the participating college,

especially for tenured professors. However, one non-tenured faculty member confirmed

interaction with tenured faculty members, and knowledge of collaborative research across

the disciplines not just within the school but also in the community (COBE07).

 Collaboration is also evident in the MBA capstone course. Faculty members join forces

to evaluate the curriculum and team teach many classes. It was stated that “committees

are working together for the capstone class. They are working together to iron out their

differences and try to make sure that the capstone class is doing what it is supposed to do.

. . . We use our capstone class to do a lot of things, to evaluate not only our capstone but

the entire college for accreditation purposes to see what our college is doing correctly.

This is our collaborative effort” (COBE08). Many faculty members are included in this

process.

132
  Community problem solving/live case studies. Faculty members take initiative to bring

business professionals into their classrooms and make live case studies part of the

learning process, and the administration encourages them to do so. In fact, it is

mandatory in some courses. Again, this activity occurs at varying degrees, but a majority

of the participant faculty members perform well in this area, especially in the new

Executive MBA program.

 Initiating or supporting necessary curricula changes. If redundancy within the curricula

and programs exists, changes to the curricula happen with little resistance. However,

when faculty members have initiated changes to curricula, it is often met with resistance,

especially across disciplines. Also, tenured faculty members seem to have a stronger

voice for curricula changes than non-tenured faculty members.

Another premise of this research was that without collaboration and interdisciplinary interaction,

business school faculty might be questioning how they are expected to teach an appreciation for

the value of knowledge sharing and collaboration. The data reflected throughout this study that

collaboration did exist, especially in the MBA programs. Yet, there was little evidence that

faculty members put forth much effort to amass social capital within the college, but it does

accumulate naturally both within the college and in the field, as faculty are helpful and

collaborative at a general level (COBE12).

Supplemental research question 2:

How does each faculty member view that he or she fulfills this role?

 Recognizing the value of their knowledge is to teach students the necessary skills to be

successful in the business environment; this is the primary role of faculty members.

However, throughout all of the disciplines, the evidence did not reveal that this

133
 knowledge included valuing intangible assets or training in soft skills. Although the

Executive MBA program is again an exception to this finding.

 Relating to the Executive MBA program, one participant explained, “They realize that it

is the interaction with people, it is the ability to see the white space around our

organization because we don‟t know where the environment will take us and what‟s

going to be there, so being able to imagine and scan the environment for what‟s going on

– you can‟t easily quantify it. This part is little more of an art, so they [students]

recognize later that this is what a strategic thinker/manager/senior person is going to

need” (COBE02).

 This focus on what managers need to know is the approach for the regular MBA‟s as

well; it is what the capstone course, the final class, is about. These students are going to

be leaders in their field, leaders in their community, they have to have an understanding

across the organization, and they still have to be able to understand enough of the depth

of the silo to shift back and forth (COBE02).

 Advisory Boards that consist of representatives from various stakeholder groups beyond

the faculty (AACSB International Accreditation Coordinating Committee & AACSB

International Accreditation Quality Committee, 2007). Faculty members‟ attendance at

Advisory Board meetings for their specific programs and discussion of professional

requirements desired by the members of the community also facilitates efforts to keep

pace with the business environment.

 Many of the tenured faculty members listed memberships in a number of professional

associations and added other organizations that they regularly interact with that helps

keep faculty members current.

134
  Engaging in relevant research and participating in professional association events.

Tenured faculty members are engaged in research and participate in many professional

association events.

Through observation, there appeared to be a dedication amongst both tenured and non-tenured

faculty members to ensuring that learners are trained with the skills necessary to be successful in

the business world. Faculty members seem to realize their success is dependent on doing so.

However, there was still little recognition of the skills necessary to be knowledge workers from

both tenured and non-tenured faculty members.

Supplemental research question 3:

And, what are the organizational structures that influence the role of faculty members in

producing knowledge workers?

In higher education in general, some organizational structures result in a strong influence

in the development of knowledge workers while others produce challenges to these efforts; the

participating college is no exception and has organizational structures that perpetuate the

production of knowledge workers:

 Strong encouragement to collaborate.

 Push to make the courses relevant, making sure they are integrated with the community.

 Accreditation.

 Organizational culture – the sense of loyalty towards the college.

The college also has organizational structures that hinder the development of knowledge workers

that were identified as:

135
  Lack of resources. Time to get together is hard to find. An obvious theme resonated

throughout the data that involved limited resources available to allow for integrative and

collaborative activities; this issue of limited resources significantly impedes efforts in

developing the knowledge worker.

 Status of faculty members – tenure versus non-tenure: tenure-tracked, lecturers, and

adjunct faculty. It was remarked that there is no leverage with tenured faculty members

(COBE04), an insinuation that supports a common criticism of tenure: “opponents argue

tenure is an outmoded institution that encourages low productivity among faculty and is

responsible for many of higher education's ills and inefficiencies” (Antony & Hayden,

2009, para. 5).

 The flexibility and autonomy inherent to institutions of higher education in terms of

research and academic freedoms in the classroom.

On the topic of how resources such as time and budgetary concerns limit the amount of

reasonable collaboration among faculty members, one faculty member indicated in that faculty

members are not motivated by individual profit, but another faculty also admitted that there are

only so many hours in the day and that this is a job not life itself. Furthermore, the literature

revealed academicians often resist change, and their authority is rooted in their academic guilds

and their traditional monopoly of certifying competence in defined areas of knowledge.

136
Figure 6. Organizational Structures that influence the development of the knowledge worker.

Financial constraints are just one issue threatening their capacity to keep up with the

growth and rapid increase in the costs of the traditional forms of science (Gibbons, Limoges,

Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, & Trow, 1994). One way universities can be more effective in

the development of the knowledge worker is by surrendering their perceived monopoly on

knowledge production and invite institutions outside of higher education into this process

(Gibbons et al, 1994). The participating college has demonstrated positive effort in this area.

Limitations

A phenomenological study is good for exploring issues in depth and making voices heard

(Lester, 1999). This study was designed as an exploratory research investigating the faculty‟s

137
perception of their role in producing the knowledge worker needed by the business environment.

While many participants were particularly candid in their response, using their responses

verbatim could jeopardize confidentiality. Therefore, many of the responses were summarized in

an attempt to protect anonymity.

Additionally, this study was limited to business school faculty members, and because of

this limitation, it did not include the perspective of the authorities on the business environment:

executives, managers, even customers. Additionally, since this study only explored one business

school, there are limits to its generalizability.

Other concerns that might have limiting effects include the replication of the current

research – it might be problematic because the business environment continues to change at a

rapid pace. Even though the same interview questions can be asked, this research and landmark

studies sit on a time continuum; variables and settings are likely to change. Additionally,

responses may differ by program, geographic area, employment status, and other variables.

Another limitation was realized in the methodology and sampling process. There was

difficulty in gaining access to participants. The response rate was 19 percent of the faculty

members contacted; even more difficult, achieving the diversity, particularly, the status of

tenured or non-tenured, desired. Asking for an hour of time from potential participants limited

faculty members‟ willingness to be interviewed. After all, lack of time was identified as a

limiting factor to collaboration. Although, the topic itself might have been a deterrent, an

incentive may also make a difference in participation rate.

Recommendations for Future Research

Pfeffer and Fong (2002) pointed out that business schools have been prominent for a long

time without producing much outcome evaluation or assessment within the literature. There can

138
only be speculation for this lack of assessment of management education, but replication of this

study with an increased sample size and time frame, and opening the study to other business

schools may allow generalizations of the findings.

Many participants pointed to accreditation as the driving force behind many of the

collaborative efforts; however, this study did not focus on the role accreditation plays in

establishing college standards and ensuring that the business environment receives the products it

needs, namely knowledge workers. Future research should investigate the influence of

accreditation standards and the pressures involved in maintaining accreditation such as

publishing requirements for tenured faculty.

Another perspective that could substantiate that management education is preparing

learners for the business environment is the business environment itself. From this point of

view, literature has not been favorable towards business schools. However, this research

provided testimony of how the academician and practitioner gap has been narrowed at the

participating college. Therefore, exploring this issue from the perspective of management

professionals could close the loop.

Additionally, relationships are established with the willing participation of each party;

therefore, when studying the importance of the relationship between academicians and

practitioners, examining the willingness of practitioners to initiate partnerships with

academicians will further develop this topic. It is not necessary to assert blame for the minimal

interaction that exists (COBE12); instead, redirecting the focus to include practitioners could

result in bridging the gap between academician and practitioner.

Moreover, future research should explore the importance of organizational culture to

higher education. One participant suggested that motivational theory could be used to explore

139
this area further. Looking at how culture of both institutions of higher education and business

organizations alike motivate individuals to accrue power by hoarding knowledge or through a

reward system could add to the base knowledge of this subject matter. Is this cultural

perspective initiated in higher education?

Implications

The conclusions of this study address Pfeffer and Fong‟s (2002) finding that what

someone learns in business school should help that person be better prepared for the business

world and more competent in that domain. They pointed to the unique degree of separation

management education has from the practice of management and the extent in which the

curricula are or are not linked to the concerns of the profession and directly oriented toward

preparing the students to practice that profession. Drucker (1965) had also made the assertion

that in no other discipline are practices so unaffected by their own principles or where

practitioners contribute less. Over a half of a century later, this remains a concern. One

participant also addressed this issue stating that for applied sciences, including business, it is

very important to keep in touch with the outside world – for instance, the value of this

connection is apparent in medicine and law. The academy of management recognizes the

importance of improving the connection with the business world and that validation will need to

go beyond accreditation (COBE12); furthermore, management education has made great strides

in working to improve the academician and practitioner relationship, but there was a consensus

that it is not yet where it needs to be.

Similar to Baruch‟s 2009 study, this study supported the concept that the MBA can

generate significant tangible and intangible inputs and that collaboration is an important strategy

for both management faculty and management practitioners. Moreover, Burriss (2010) presented

140
a strong justification for the current study, asserting that the very nature of innovation invites

interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary inquiry. The participating college has

benefitted from a solid relationship with the local professionals, but more activity across

disciplines could be advantageous in modeling, and hence, developing the knowledge worker.

Summary of Conclusions

Drucker (2001) described management in most business schools as simply a bundle of

techniques as did Nodoushina and Nodoushina (1996) who criticized management education as

having reduced its content to a bag of techniques and a bundle of analytical tools. Mintzberg

(2004) concluded that management education is unbalanced, and that students take this

imbalance with them into their careers. If management education is as imbalance as he asserted,

it continues to prevent collective behaviors that allow collaboration among faculty and between

faculty and practitioners. While a strong theme of collaboration emerged in this study, it still is

not to the level that it could, and actually should be.

The essence of management is to leverage social relationships and make knowledge

productive (Drucker, 2001). Mintzberg (2004) concluded that management education needed to

focus more on “soft skills,” which primarily include the use of collaboration and knowledge

sharing. He was highly critical of the lack of a soft skills focus in the management education

curricula, stating that business schools “cover” the soft skills by reviewing them and obscuring

them. Staškevičiūtė, Neverauskas, and Čiutienė (2006) also suggested that for organizations

today to find their way in the market, it requires respect for the new management paradigms of

community, networks, feedback, self-organization, and learning organizations – essentially the

softer skills as opposed to the technical skills. Just as significant, Drucker‟s concept of a

141
“knowledge worker,” a stronger focus on knowledge work must find its way into the curricula of

management education at all levels.

The goal of this qualitative study was to enhance knowledge regarding the role of

management education faculty in developing the knowledge worker. This study highlighted that

in the past decade and a half, administrators and faculty from one business school have heeded

Mowday‟s (1996) counsel, and changes have occurred; however, are these changes enough to

meet the needs of the current knowledge-intensive business environment? This chapter provided

some insight to answer this question through a discussion of the research findings. Implications,

limitations, recommendations for future research, and conclusions were also presented.

There is an overall impression that the faculty members of the participating college are

aware of the needs of the new workforce. Some faculty members suggested that the discipline

for which they teach is driven by procedural rules and regulations; because this technical focus is

so strong, the skills of the knowledge worker are lost. For others, this awareness comes from an

extensive involvement with business professionals, both in the classroom or in the business

environment. In general, it can be concluded that the faculty members at the participating

university get it, but gaps remain. In fact, the gap between tenured and non-tenured faculty

mimics the gap between the academician and practitioner.

In the most recent edition of Academy of Management Perspectives (February 2012),

Bansal, Bertels, Ewart, MacConnachie, and O‟Brien present a position on the research-practice

gap. They provide an abundance of reasons why the gap exists: research is “arcane,‟ its

implications for practice “ceremonial,” relevance, and differences in norms, rules, and goals

between academicians and practitioners. These researchers suggest that both researcher and

practitioner should be aware of these challenges and work to bridge this gap. Researchers should

142
produce information that is less challenging and practitioners should put forth more effort to

overcome their challenges by seeking information and applying it to actual organizational issues

– the exact advice provided by participant COBE12.

While interpretation of the data both confirms past information and diverges from it

(Creswell, 2009), it is clear, even obvious, that the proper use of knowledge is vital to higher

education as in any other organization. For this management of knowledge to come to full

fruition, collaborative relationships, both internal and external to the organization, are necessary.

The focus on developing the knowledge worker in management education is pivotal to the

success of learners, businesses, and the society.

143
 REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. & Jacobson, R. (1994). The financial information content of perceived quality.

Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 191-201.

Alas, R. (2004). Factors influencing learning in Estonian organisations and the implications

for management education. Organizacijų Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai: 31, 7-17.

Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence.

Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

The American Accounting Association. (1999). The accounting education change

commission: Its history and impact. Retrieved from: http://aaahq.org/AECC/history/

chap7.htm.

Antony, J. A. & Hayden, R. (2009). North America: Are tenured faculty slackers?

University World New: The Global Window on Higher Education, 97, Retrieved from

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091017135338946

Argyris, C. (1991, May-June). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review.

99-109.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2002, August). International Board of

Directors. Management education at risk. Retrieved from: http://www.gfme.org/

issues/pdfs/Management%20Education%20at%20Risk.pdf.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2009, November). AQ/PQ status:

Establishing criteria for attainment and maintenance of faculty qualifications – an

interpretation of AACSB standards; AACSB White Paper No. 4. Retrieved from:

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation.

144
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (Revised 2010, January 31).

Accreditation. Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business

Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International Accreditation

Coordinating Committee & Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB). (2007, November). International Accreditation Quality Committee. AACSB

assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. Retrieved from

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/whitepapers/AACSB_Assurance_of_Learning.pdf

Auhja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal

study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425-455.

Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O‟Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the

researcher-practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73-92.

Bansal, P. & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the

diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 233-237.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. (1995). Changing the role of top management beyond systems

to people. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1995, 132-142.

Bartol, K. M. & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of

organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,

9(1), 64-76

Baruch, Y. (2009). To MBA or not to MBA. Career Development International, 14(4),

388-406.

145
Bates, R. & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate

and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations. International Journal of Training

and Development. 9(2), 96-109.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data Analysis with NVivo. Washington, DC: Sage.

Berrell, M., Teal, G., & Gloet, M. (2005). Culture and globalization in the curriculum:

theory, cases and practice. Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, 3(10), 1-8.

Beyer, J. M. & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and

synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591-622.

Blake, S. G. (n. d.). American industry needs American universities. Management Review,

p. 56.

Brazelton, J. & Gorry, G. A. (2003, February). Creating a knowledge-sharing community: If you

build it, will they come? Communication of the ACM, 46(2), 23-25.

Burrell, D. N. (2006). Emerging options in doctoral study in management for international

executives. Vikalpa, 31(3), 13-17.

Burriss, A. H. (2010). One mission-centered, market-smart globalization response: A case

study of the Georgia Tech-Emory University Biomedical Engineering Curricular Joint

Venture. Dissertation (UMI No. 3438378). Retrieved July 29, 2010 from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Burt, R. S. (1999). The contingency value of social capital. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 42, 339-365.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology,

110(2), 349-399.

146
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organizational Studies,

23(5), 687-710.

Cardon, P. W. (2007). The importance of teaching about globalization in business education.

Journal for Global Business Education, 7, 1-20.

Cavellé, C. (2008). Foreword. In S. Gregg & J. R. Stoner, Jr. (Eds.). Rethinking business

management:Examining the foundations of business education (pp. ix-x). Princeton, NJ:

Witherspoon Institute.

Cohen, D. & Crabtree, B. (2008). Qualitative research guidelines project – member

checking. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeMemb-3696.html

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press

of Harvard University Press.

College of Business and Economics (2010). About us. Retrieved from participating college‟s

Web site.

Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods. Boston, MA McGraw-

Hill Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research redesign: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daft, R. L. (n.d.). M.B.A. admission criteria, communication skill and academic success:

An unexpected finding. Academy of Management Review, 48-52.

Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management

Review, 8(4), 539-546.

147
Daft, R. L. & Becker, S. W. (1978). Innovation in organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier

North-Holland, Inc.

Daft, R. L. & Lewin, A. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the

normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1(1), pp. 1-9.

Daft, R. L. & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the “new” organizational

forms? An Editorial Essay. Organizational Science, 4(4), i-vi.

Daft, R. L. & Lewin, A. Y. (2008). Rigor and relevance in organizational studies: Idea

migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19(1), 177-183.

Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology; Mastering the information and knowledge

environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what

they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

de Souza Briggs, X. (2004). Social capital: Easy beauty or meaningful resource? In

J. Hutchinson and A. C. Vidal (Eds.). Using social capital to help integrate planning

theory, research, and rractice. Journal of American Planning Association, 70(2),

142-143.

Dhar, V. & Sundararajan, A. (2007). Information technologies in business: A blueprint for

education and research. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 125–141.

Diznik, A. (March 4, 2010). Sustainability is a growing theme, corporations work with schools

to training potential employees, but jobs are scarce. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved

from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541304575099514203847

820.html.

148
Drucker, P. F. (1965). Is business letting young people down? Harvard Business Review,

November-December 1965, 49-55.

Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity; Guidelines to our changing society.

New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Drucker, P. F. (1991, November-December). The new productivity challenge. Harvard

Business Review, 69-79.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Collins.

Drucker, P. F. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York, NY: First Collins Business Essentials.

Duffy, J. (2001). Managing intellectual capital. The Information Management Journal, April

2001, 59-63.

Eckel, P. D. (2003). Capitalizing on the curriculum. American Behavioral Scientist, 46,

865-882.

Egri, C. P. (2012). Introduction: Developing conversations about management education.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 124.

Freeman, R.E. & Newkirk, D. (2008). Business as a human enterprise: Implications for

education. In S. Gregg & J. R. Stoner, Jr. (Eds.). Rethinking business management:

Examining the foundations of business education (pp. 131-148). Princeton, NJ:

Witherspoon Institute.

French, R. & Grey, C. (Eds.) (1996). Rethinking Management Education. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat; A brief history of the twenty-first century.

New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

149
Garrison, D. R. and Cleveland-Innes (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:

Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3),

133-148.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, July-

August 1993, 78-91.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?

Harvard Business Review, March 2008, 109-118.

Geng, O., Townley, C., Huang, K., & Zhang, J. (2005). Comparative knowledge

management: A pilot study of Chinese and American universities. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(10), 1031-1044.

Gerrity, T. P. (1991). Dean of Wharton School of Business. In The Wharton School Almanac

(April 2, 1991). The restructured Wharton MBA: Inventing a new paradigm, 1-3.

Ghoshal, S. (2005), Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P, & Trow, M. (1994,

Reprinted 2005). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and

research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Gosling, J. & Mintzberg, H. (2004). The education of practicing managers. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 45(4), 18-23.

Gregg, S. & Stoner, J. R. (Eds.) (2008). Rethinking business management: Examining the

foundations of business education. Princeton, NJ: Witherspoon Institute.

150
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (2003). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal,

13, 135-144.

Hambrick, D. C. (1994). 1993 Presidential Address: What if the academy actually mattered?

Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11-16.

Heiens, R. A., Leach, R. T., & McGrath, L. C. (2007). The contribution of intangible assets

and expenditures to shareholder value. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15, 149-159.

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for

knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.

Heyneman, S. P. (n.d.). Social cohesion and education. Periodical Unknown – Research,

2243-2250.

Hitt, M. A. (1998). Twenty-first century organizations: business firms, business schools, and

the academy. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 218-224.

Hofstede, G. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. Berkshire, England:

McGraw-Hill.

Huff, A. S. (2000). 1999 Presidential Address: Changes in organizational knowledge

production. The Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 288-293.

Hutchinson, J. (2004). Introduction. In J. Hutchinson and A. C. Vidal (Eds.). Using social

capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice. Journal of American

Planning Association, 70(2), 142-143.

151
Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.

Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human

Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for

information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 9, 129-154.

Jun Jo, S. (2008). Toward a conceptual model for social mechanisms enabling knowledge

sharing: Dynamic relationships among three dimensions of social capital. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED501666.pdf

Jucevičiene, P. (2008). University culture: quis es? quo vadis? Social Sciences /

Socialiniai mokslai, 4(62), 13-20.

Kanter, R. M. (2009). What would Peter say? Harvard Business Review, November 2009,

64- 70.

Keyes, J. (2008). Identifying the barriers to knowledge sharing in knowledge intensive

organizations. Dissertation. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database.

Kidwell, J. J., Vander Linde, K. M., & Johnson, S. L. (2000). Applying corporate knowledge

management practices in higher education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4, 28-33.

Kling, N., Alexander, J. Martinez, R. & McCorkle, D. (1998). NAFTA revisited: The role of

business educators. Journal of Education for Business, 73(6), 336, Retrieved from:

Business Source Complete database.

152
Lataif, L. E. (1992). MBA: Is the traditional model doomed? Harvard Business Review,

November-December 1992, 128-140.

Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Retrieved from

http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf

Lev, B., Ulrich, D. & Smallwood, N. (2004). Intangible assets. Harvard Business Review,

82(6), 108.

Liao, L. (2006). A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm

innovation. Human Systems Management, 25, 227-236.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. E. (1986). Research, evaluation, and policy analysis: Heuristics

for disciplined inquiry. Policy Studies Review, 5(3), 546-565.

Linder, J. C. & Smith, H. J. (1992). The complex case of management education. Harvard

Business Review, September-October 1992, 16-33.

Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide

to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2007). Becoming a

scientist: The effects of work-group size and organizational climate. The Journal of

Higher Education, 78(3), 311-336.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet,

358, 9280, 483-488.

Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. Review of

Higher Education, 8(2), 157-168.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Article 8. Retrieved from http://nbn-reolving.de

153
McCarthy, A. F. (2006). Knowledge management: Evaluating strategies and processes used in

higher education. Dissertation (UMI No. 3221289). Retrieved October 18, 2010, from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

McFarland, D. E. (1965). Theory as an angle of vision in management education. Academy of

Management Proceedings, 1-10.

Meadows, L. M. & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within the qualitative project.

In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative

evidence (pp. 187-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Miles, R. E. (1985). The future of business education. California Management Review, 27(3),

63-73.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and

management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman, A. M. (2001). Doing research that is useful

to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal,

44(2), 357-375.

Mowday, R. T. (1997). Reaffirming our scholarly values. The Academy of Management

Review, 22(2), 335-345.

National Business Education Association (2001). National standards for business education:

What America’s students should know and be able to do in business. Reston, VA:

National Business Education Association.

154
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-Ranked U.S. business schools: A study

in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 108-123.

Nguyen, T. V. (2002). Knowledge management: Literature review and findings about

perceptions of knowledge transfer in collaborative and process-oriented teams.

Dissertation. (UMI No. 3061233). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database.

Nodoushani, O. & Nodoushani, P. A. (1996). Rethinking the future of management education.

Human Systems Management, 15(3).

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review. November-

December, 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization

Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Ohmae, K. (2005). The next global stage: Challenges and opportunities in our borderless

world. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Wharton School Publishing/Pearson Education.

Oviatt, B. M. & Miller, W. D. (1989). Irrelevance, intransigence, and business professors.

The Academy of Management Executive, 111(4), 304-312.

Parry, K. W. & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. (2003). Leadership, culture, and performance:

The case of the New Zealand public sector. Journal of Change Management, 3(4),

376-399.

Pearce, C. L., Maciariello, J. A., & Yamawaki, H. (2010). The Drucker difference. New York,

NY: McGraw Hill Books.

155
Peterson, S. L. & Wiesenberg, F. (2004). Professional fulfillment and satisfaction of US and

Canadian adult education and human resource development faculty. International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(2), 159-178.

Peterson, S. L. & Wiesenberg, F. P. (2006). The nature of faculty work: A Canadian and US

comparison. Human Resource Development International, 9(1), 25-47.

Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghosal.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 96-100.

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets

the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1).

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school „business‟: Some lessons from the

U.S. experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501-1520.

Pharr, S. W. (2000). Foundational considerations for establishing an integrated business

common core curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, September/October

2000, 20-23.

Phillips, P. (2010). Culture and strategic leadership: Part II. Business Corner Strategies &

Analysis. Retrieved from www.coatings world.com

Porter, L. W. (1997). A decade of change in the business school: From complacency to

tomorrow. Selections, Winter, 1-8.

Porter, L. W. & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management Education and Development: Drift

or Thrust into the 21st Century. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy, techniques for analyzing industries and

competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press, Macmillian.

156
Press, E. & Washburn, J. (2000). The kept university. The Atlantic Monthly, March 2004,

39-54.

Print, M. & Coleman, D. (2003). Towards understanding of social capital and citizenship

education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(1), 123-149.

Putnam, R. D. (2004). Preface. In J. Hutchinson and A. C. Vidal (Eds.). Using social capital to

help integrate planning theory, research, and practice. Journal of American Planning

Association, 70(2), 142-143.

QSR International (2011). Getting Started. Retrieved from www.qsrinternational.com/

gettingstarted.html

Richard, R. B. (2007, May 5). Reflections on America‟s education system and the corporate

sector. Vital Speeches of the Day, 299-302.

Rynes, S. I., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. I. (2001). Across the great divide: knowledge

creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(2), 340-355.

Rynes, S. I. & Trank, C. Q. (1999). Behavioral science in the business school curriculum:

Teaching in a changing institutional environment. The Academy of Management Review

24(4), 808-824.

Santoro, M. D. & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The institutionalization of knowledge transfer

activities within industry-university collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management, 17, 299-319.

Scandura, T. A. & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current

Practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management

Journal, 43(6), 1248-1264.

157
Secrets of success. (2005, September 10). Economist, 376(8443). Retrieved from Academic

Search Premier database.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline

fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY:

Bantam Doubleday Dell.

Silver, H. (2003). Does a university have a culture? Studies in Higher Education, 28(2),

157-169.

Smith Ducoffe, S. J., Tromley, C. L., & Tucker, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary, team-taught,

undergraduate business courses: The impact of integration. Journal of Management

Education, 30(2), 276-294

Soller, A. (2004). Understanding knowledge-sharing breakdowns: a meeting of the quantitative

and qualitative minds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 212-223.

Staškevičiūtė, I. & Neverauskas, B. (2008). Forward changes towards intelligent university.

Economics and Management, 13.

Staškevičiūtė, I., Neverauskas, B., & Čiutienė, R. (2006). Applying the principles of

organisational intelligence in university strategies. Engineering Economics, 3(48),

63-72.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sussland, W. A. (2001). Creating business value through intangibles. The Journal of

Business Strategy, 22(6), 23-28.

Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth. San Francisco, CA Berrett-Koehler.

158
Tannen, D. (2000). Agonism in the academy: Surviving higher learning‟s argument culture.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(30).

The brains business. (2005, September 10). Economist, 376(8443). Retrieved from Academic

Search Premier database.

The new workforce. (2001, November 3). Economist, 361(8246). Retrieved from Academic

Search Premier database.

Tissen, R, Andriessen, D. & Deprez, F. L. (1998). Creating the 21st century company:

Value-based knowledge management. Nederland, BV: Addison Wesley Longman.

Tortoriello, M. & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of

Simmelian ties in the generation of innovation. Academy of Management Journal,

53(1), 167-181.

Townley, C. T. (2003). Will the academy learn to manage knowledge? EDUCAUSE

Quarterly, 2, 8-11.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative validity. Research methods knowledge base.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy

between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73-89.

Van Maanen, J. (1995). Fear and loathing in organizational studies. Organization Science,

6(6), 687-692.

The Wharton School Almanac (April 2, 1991). The restructured Wharton MBA: Inventing a

new paradigm, 1-3.

159
Woolcock, M. (2004). Why and how planners should take social capital seriously. In

J. Hutchinson and A. C. Vidal (Eds.). Using social capital to help integrate planning

theory, research, and practice. Journal of American Planning Association, 70(2),

142-143.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review. 41(3),

125-145.

Zack, M. H. (2003). Rethinking the knowledge-based organization. MIT Sloan Management

Review, Summer 2003, 67-71.

160
 APPENDIX: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION FACULTY

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER; A phenomenological study

INTERVIEWER: Nancy Naramore

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

First, thank the interviewee for his or her participation.

Interviewee: Coded to:

Date: Location:

Gender:

Description of highest level of education achieved:

At this higher educational institution, what is your title?

How long have you held this position?

Status: TENURED TENURE-Track ADJUNCT VISITING LECTURER

What is your research area of focus?

Provide explanation of the research and reveal primary research question and secondary

questions:

Does the lived experiences of the business school faculty reveal that the curriculum keeps

pace with the business environment in developing the knowledge worker who is prepared

to share knowledge across internal and external boundaries?

 What are the underlying themes and contexts that shape the lived experiences of the
faculty?
 How does each faculty member view that he or she fulfills this role?
 And, what are the organizational structures that influence the role of faculty members
in producing knowledge workers?

161
Questions to ask to get collect data that addresses these questions are as follows:

Directions to the interviewee:

The following questions were designed to explore your lived experiences as a faculty at this

institution of higher education and your role in developing the knowledge worker regarded

in literature as essential for the business environment. Please feel free to freely answer the

questions and elaborate when you feel it is necessary.

1. How do you define a knowledge worker?

2. Describe the value of knowledge to your position.

3. Does the curriculum you teach inspire these values?

4. Do you believe higher education to be individualistic in nature?

5. How would you describe the collaborative efforts of faculty within the college?

162
6. Have you ever instigated changes to the curriculum? If so, please explain the process,
specifically what challenges you experienced.

7. As a faculty member, do you interact with business professionals in the community?

8. Please provide any further details that describe your role in developing the knowledge
worker who understands the value of intangible assets and the use of collaboration and
knowledge sharing through the use of social capital.

163