New Business Graduates Can Talk the Talk: But Can They Walk the Management Walk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive Summary There are those who contend that we may be teaching the wrong things in the wrong way to students in colleges of business administration and management. If this is true, the cause may be a flaw in the pedagogy that drives management education for traditional students. Research in the sciences describes systems theory as a holistic paradigm that may be used as a foundation to be applied in the areas of learning processes and managerial practice. In this article, the author posits a model to describe a learning process that may be applied to the education of business students in academic courses related to the of management in organizations. The premise of the model is found in the academic disciplines of science and philosophy as they relate to management and learning theories. The author concludes the article with examples to support the application of the model in practical settings. It would seem impossible for an individual to graduate from a college of business administration without being fluent in the lexicon of management, inclusive of the latest buzzwords and nouveau paradigms. However, more than one business executive has anecdotally noted that some of these new grads lack the ability to what they have been taught to preach. The impetus for this article is partially based on the contention of noted management research scholar, Henry Mintzberg (2002), who suggests that we may be teaching the wrong things to the wrong people in the wrong way on a global level. In a recent meeting at the Academy of Management Annual Conference in Denver, Mintzberg shared this viewpoint with professors in an appeal to re-think the way management is taught to business school students. This concept is reinforced in the current literature (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002). Since educators in other professional programs (health care and public administration, for instance) possess the responsibility of teaching management practices as part of the overall curriculum, these comments have implications for them, as well. While business professors provide instruction in management aimed at in general commerce, other professions-based educators profess these same concepts in an industry-applied manner (Tesone, 2000). Mintzberg's contention seems to support the belief that management is not an independent academic discipline, but instead a professional practice based on theories derived from the disciplines of science and philosophy (Tesone, 2001). A comparison could be rendered from the field of medicine, in which the physician has been described as a practicing technician of pre-ordained scientific findings in the areas of biophysics and biochemistry (Zukav, 1979). Just as the physician hones a from applications learned in residency, the manager attains proficiency from trial-and-error applications as a professional practitioner. Mintzberg, a self-professed scholarly renegade, most recently suggests that professors implement experientially based approaches to develop knowledge and skills in the of management. He identifies ongoing collaborative learning projects in Europe, in which he is currently engaged to provide examples of this approach, which he suggests is a radical departure from the more traditional Harvard Business School pedagogy (2002). Mintzberg, who hails from McGill University in Canada, implies that this approach to teaching managerial skills is appropriate for institutions on a global level, which leads the author of this article to further articulate the application of his premise. In this article, the author posits a model to describe a learning process that may be applied to the education of business students in academic courses related to the of management in organizations. The premise of the model is found in the academic disciplines of science and philosophy as they relate to management and learning theories. The author concludes the article with examples to support the application of the model in practical settings. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".