It’s not just in finance that the inquests have begun. What part have the business schools and business academics played in the implosion of the world’s banking system? That was the question posed in a letter to the Financial Times last week by Ken Starkey of Nottingham University Business School in England.
Hedge funds, private equity, investment banking, venture capital and consulting — the high priesthood of financial capitalism — were overwhelmingly MBAs’ preferred job destinations, he said. Now the schools needed to “reflect on the role of the MBA and MBAs in the carnage of Wall Street” and consider “how management education has contributed to the mindset that has led to the excesses of the last two decades.”
UNSUSTAINABLE
This isn’t the first time that theory and theorists have been called into question. Three years ago the London Business School’s late Sumantra Ghoshal caused a furor by writing that business schools did not need to do a lot more to prevent the emergence of future Enrons; they just needed to stop doing a good deal of what they were doing already.
But the questioning takes on a fresh urgency as the crises grow bigger. In this context, the issue is not just the implication of economics-dominated MBA courses in practices that are now seen to be unsustainable.
“There seems to be no sense of history,” Starkey said. “How come we haven’t learnt anything from Enron, the dotcoms and Long Term Capital Management?”
Trapped until now in a stampede to emulate the US model, business schools elsewhere need to step back and see how they could, and should, frame the issues differently, he said. The Holy Grail is not to turn them into professional institutes (as two Harvard professors proposed in another Financial Times article the same day) but the more modest one of “doing better social science.” They should move away from unquestioned US positivism and the dominance of neoclassical economics toward a broader perspective allowing insights from other areas, including history, literature and art.
NEW DIRECTION
Could it happen? Starkey is not the only one who senses an opportunity for the market to move in a new direction. The “elite” business schools are doomed to remain locked in increasing competition for a (presumably) shrinking pool of apprentice masters of the universe. But for others, says James Fleck, dean of the UK’s Open University Business School, Europe’s largest, the time is ripe to go beyond the fake certainties of the Anglo-American version, with its emphasis on analytics and separate functions, to develop a more inclusive, less lopsidedly right-brain approach to management.
INNOVATION
Most of the world is not well served by the structures or assumptions of financial capitalism. If we could lift our eyes from the financial chaos, Fleck said, we would see that the world is at the start of a huge technological upswing. As a consequence, there is terrific, unsatisfied demand for people to manage this innovation in ways that benefit more than a tiny financial elite.
Management, in the sense of “making a difference,” could be the enabling technology of the 21st century. Who better placed to undertake such a project and rethink the intellectual underpinnings of capitalism than European business schools?
Many would welcome such a move. At Leicester School of Management in Leicester, England, Martin Parker notes that, though long submerged under the “there is no alternative” discourse, an undercurrent of resistance to the market managerialism of the past 30 years has always subsisted — and not just in the public sector (where, duly adapted, it has ironically been practiced with terrifying thoroughness). The surprising rage and venom hissing through the blogs commenting on a recent Economist magazine leader about bankers’ pay show just how deep it runs in the private sector too.
NARROW VIEW
Little of this surfaces in formal management research, however. Analyzing 2,300 articles published in prominent journals in 2003 and 2004, Parker and two colleagues found business-school researchers overwhelmingly concentrating on narrow technical questions rather than the larger social and political issues — the environment, war, workers’ rights, the distribution of wealth — which business has signally failed to provide answers to.
While the piece, Speaking Out: The Responsibilities of Management Intellectuals, pre-dated the financial crash, in one sense it reinforces it — underlining that in terms of what academics actually publish, little seems to have changed since Enron, or even the dotcoms.
The underlying question is whether business schools can contribute to the solution rather than the problem, Parker said. One way of doing this, he suggested, would be to reformat themselves as “Schools for Organizing” that can teach and learn from a multiplicity of different forms — “and do not simply reproduce the ideology of people called managers.”
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS