Have been following the ongoing discussion on this list about the state of
education in higher education, especially in business schools. Having
developed a taste of Edward de Bono (Lateral Thinking), Laurence Peter
(Peter's Principle), Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) in the
formative years (high school followed by degree in engineering - about 15
or so years back), hadn't realized at that time that I was developing a
taste for learning. Later on during the course of consulting for Fortune
100 and multinationals over the world, and returning to academia to work
on the MBA and the ongoing PhD, have been reflecting about the purpose the
approach and the essence of academic practice, especially in the realm of
business. OVer the last two years, had been following the discussion
spanning hundreds of articles - both in 'scholarly' and practitioner media
- about the growing irrelevance of business research and education. More
recently, had been researching the concept of Andragogy and its relevance
to business education. Based upon my current perspective (which in Kuhn's
terms hasn't yet got 'indoctrinated' in a particular paradigm), I am more
and more perplexed by the state of academia in business - in several
schools, both well-known and lesser known, in states on both east coast
and west coast. Time and again, some of the questions that occur to me
baffle and perplex me. Time and again, what amazes me is the turmoil in
the American industry in this country, the country regarded for its
management education around the world. Sometimes, I think of scholars
like Deming who were more recognized [and in some cases worshipped] for
the impact they had on the practice of business across countries around
the world. Maybe, the academia in business is loosing its relevance,
maybe it's not? Maybe, it is like the process described in Senge's "Fifth
Discipline" - the "parable of the boiling frog" - the changes have been
creeping around for a long time and may be we have failed to notice the
systemic nature of these changes - of course we believe in our 'fields'
and 'disciplines' and so strongly defend 'our knowledge' that sometimes we
tend to forget that why we exist. We teach Peter Senge's Learning
Organizations and in the same sessions we avoid/prevent any dissenting
opinions? We exhibit Milgram's 'Obedience' and happen to subdue anyone
who happens to offer an alternative explanation? We preach theory Y, but
happen to practice theory X? We talk about globalization, without
appreciating its philosophy? We are always in the catch 22 situation,
hoping that the things will be different once we achieve that holy-grail
of tenure? The questions we pose to ourselves and others: "Do you want to
get published or do you want to change the world?" Are the two things
mutually exclusive? When questioned if all the discussions on the covers
of business/academic magazines around the world about the decaying state
of education are smokes and mirrors or anything else, we vehemently argue
that they are nothing but smoke and mirrors? We "teach" MBAs about the
integrative issues and complexity, but we donot have much of an
inclination of using such "complex" issues for our research? We focus on
the relevance of information, yet in most (maybe) research we strip all
the situations of their contextual information to develop a clinical model
which might not make any sense to the real world (refer Boulding). We
talk of the relevance of Information Technology, but are totally averse to
using or knowing the advances in the field and how they impact our future
life - thinking (maybe - for not most people on the net) and believing
that 'typing' is for secretaries only. And so on ... and on ...
My question is "WHY?" We already know of theories-in-action and theories-
in-practice, yet have we ever tried to do a self-analysis? Or do we in
most cases think that we are beyond such measures since we have already
achieved our worth in the field. We teach of Drucker's Theory of the
Business and criticize the models that GM and IBM held valid in face of
changing assumptions, yet are we willing and ready to question our
assumptions? We teach of Fuzzy Logic (Bart Kosko, etc.) and Philosophy of
Science and the contextual nature of truth (ref. school of thought of
cognitivist theories of learning), yet we believe in the determinacy of
most of the studies we do. Even, with respect to the traditional research
school, we train students to seek falsification of the hypotheses, yet we
are seeking confirmation of our own assumptions not in the case of
research, but also academic practice. We see the process of tenure being
questioned, not only in the academic circles, but also in other (such as
political) \ circles, yet we want to believe that tenure is going to last
(if not for infinity, than at least for next 20-25 years). We teach cases
about Core Competences, but do we know our core competences or have we
consciously tried to analyze them? We teach the Value Chain concept and
the impact of technologies in various industries, but have we analyzed how
those issues are slowly, but steadily encroaching "our industry."
One can go on and on? I would like to believe that it is my personal
perception and would like to dismiss the "smoke and mirrors" of the
hundreds of artilce on various kinds of media criticizing such issues. I
would like also to dismiss the views of other similar persons who haven't
yet bought into "one school of thought" and who share similar views. I
wish I could get my mind off these issues to focus on more "immediate"
issues of preparing for tomorrow's class or for the next conference.
But, coming from a practitioner background - having told in the first
management training seminar (1984) that "Real Education begins after
School" and having taken up my first job as an Engineer in a Japanese
company which believed in "life-time training" - and further having
transcended the boundaries of the discipline - training myself in Computer
languages (1984) [knowing at that time that most computer professionals
are self-trained - from a Datamation article] - joining a multinational
consulting company - having done very well in the areas of Production and
Production Engineering - having maxed in the Japnaese language training
course (boy, that was fun ... the competition was intense) - moving onto
Information Systems, then onto Banking. Maxed in Banking exams too
....and so on.
After the previous journey - may be I developed a good perception of what
"systems thinking" or "learning" is, perhaps maybe I still ahve to
discover. Since, when I began writing this message, I was looking at the
whole stack of readings for tomorrow morning's class and didnot intend to
write anything so long? May be I might have rambled a bit (or too much)
in relfecting on my lifetime's experiential learning and trying to make
sense of the philosophy of business education. Yet, maybe, the question
about the inconsistencies, that I perceive about the business academia and
research, could be resolved... maybe I make some sense to the ongoing
debate. Maybe, I might be able to contribute to what I perceive to be a
paradigm in transition.
Wish something could be done to bring the relevance and significance of
these issues ... the issues of continuous "self-directed" learning to
academia ... in hope of disproving Laurence Peter's quote: "All
dissertations are ashes... taken out of one grave... and buried into
another."
Well maybe...I wish...
(In case I have tried your patience too much, apologize for that...just could
not stop myself ... from bringing these questions that have been ringing
inside my head for last two years ... or maybe more).
Thank you [and admire] you for having read until this point. Yet, the
debate may not still be over ... hopefully all of us will learn and perhaps
we will "learn" not to "teach" but to "learn."
Sincerely,
Yogesh Malhotra
(malhotra@vms.cis.pitt.edu)
University of Pittsburgh