Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:04:16.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the prevalence of linear versus nonlinear thinking in undergraduate business education: A lot of rhetoric, not enough evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Robert D. Costigan  and
Kyle E. Brink
Robert D. Costigan*
Affiliation:
St. John Fisher College, St. John Fisher College School of Business, Rochester, NY, USA
Kyle E. Brink
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA
*
Corresponding author: rcostigan@sjfc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the undergraduate learning goals of business programs and determine if these goals are skewed in the directions posed by critics of undergraduate business education. The underlying theme of many critiques is that nonlinear-thinking processes are underrepresented in undergraduate business curricula, whereas linear-thinking processes are overrepresented. The learning goals of 208 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International-accredited business programs were coded into two goal categories: linear thinking and nonlinear thinking. The results support the contention that nonlinear-thinking processes have a lesser presence in the typical undergraduate business program’s curriculum. These findings are consistent across research and teaching universities.

Keywords

linear thinkingnonlinear thinkinglearning goals
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 535 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Authorship order was determined randomly; both authors contributed equally.

References

Alves, J. C., Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F., & Ke, K. (2006). A cross-cultural perspective of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 338–359.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265–1281.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271.Google Scholar
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) (2012). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-revised-jan2012-final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/Standards/2013-business-standards.ashxGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203.Google Scholar
Ben-Menahem, S. M., Kwee, Z., Volberda, H.W., & Van Den Bosch, A. J. (2013). Strategic renewal over time: The enabling role of potential absorptive capacity in aligning internal and external rates of change. Long Range Planning, 46, 216–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.Google Scholar
Blaylock, B. K., McDaniel, J. L., Falk, C. F., Hollandsworth, R., & Kopf, J. M. (2009). A borrowed approach for a more effective business education. Journal of Management Education, 33, 577–595.Google Scholar
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employer’s perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. USA: The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for working Families, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, The Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cheit, E. F. (1985). Business schools and their critics. California Management Review, 27, 43–62.Google Scholar
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W. M., & Dolle, J. R. (2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Costigan, R. D., & Donahue, L. (2009). Developing the great eight competencies with leaderless group discussion. Journal of Management Education, 33, 596–616.Google Scholar
Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the MBA: Business education at a crossroads. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Ford, R. C., Edvardsson, B., Dickson, D., & Enquist, B. (2012). Managing the innovation co-creation challenge: Lessons from service exemplars Disney and IKEA. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goltz, S. M., Hietapelto, A. B., Reinsch, R. W., & Tyrell, S. K. (2008). Teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently. Journal of Management Education, 32, 541–562.Google Scholar
Groves, K. S., Vance, C. M., Choi, D. Y., & Mendez, J. L. (2008). An examination of the nonlinear thinking style profile stereotype of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16, 133–159.Google Scholar
Hall, C. P. Jr. (1968). The maligned business school: What is a liberal education? Journal of Risk and Insurance, 35, 597–601.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Javidan, M., & Bowen, D. (2013). The ‘global mindset’ of managers: What it is, why it matters, and how to develop it. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K. L., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 200–212.Google Scholar
Korn, M. (2012). Wealth or waste? Rethinking the value of a business major. Wall Street Journal 5 April, B.1.Google Scholar
Koys, D. J. (2008). Judging academic qualifications, professional qualifications, and participation of faculty using AACSB guidelines. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 207–213.Google Scholar
Lawler, E. E., & Worley, C. G. (2012). Designing organizations for sustainable effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 265–270.Google Scholar
Livingston, J. S. (1971). Myth of the well-educated manager. Harvard Business Review, 49, 79–89.Google Scholar
Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2014). Bridging the sustainability gap. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55, 18–21.Google Scholar
Mentkowski, M. (2000). Le arning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Mentkowski, M., & Sharkey, S. (2011). How we know it when we see it: Conceptualizing and assessing integrative and applied learning-in-use. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149, 93–107.Google Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. Roeper Review, 15, 135–139.Google Scholar
Petkus, E. (2007). Enhancing the relevance and value of marketing curriculum outcomes to a liberal arts education. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 39–51.Google Scholar
Porter, L.W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Reneman, M. F., Brouwer, S., Meinema, A., Dijkstra, P. U., Geertzen, J. H. B., & Groothoff, J. W. (2004). Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen work systems functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14, 295–305.Google Scholar
Roller, R. H., Andrews, B. K., & Bovee, S. L. (2003). Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of alternative costs, benefits, and motivations. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 197–204.Google Scholar
Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. (2007). Developing intuitive awareness in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 186–205.Google Scholar
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management, 36, 941–973.Google Scholar
Schlossberg, H. (1990). Satisfying customers is a minimum: You really have to delight them. Marketing News, 24, 10–11.Google Scholar
Silvester, J., & Dykes, C. (2007). Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK general election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 11–25.Google Scholar
Spender, J. C. (2007). Management as a regulated profession: An essay. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 32–42.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H.A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a ‘hyperdimensional’ taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance, 13, 205–251.Google Scholar
Vance, C. M., Groves, K. S., Paik, Y., & Kindler, H. (2007). Understanding and measuring linear-nonlinear thinking style for enhanced management education and professional practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 167–185.Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., & Korbar, T. (2004). Student assessment center performance in the prediction of early career success. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 151–167.Google Scholar
Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: Focus on the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar