Wilson, David C. (David Charles), 1951- and McKiernan, Peter. (2011) Global mimicry : putting strategic choice back on the business school agenda. British Journal of Management, Vol.22 (No.3). pp. 457-469. ISSN 1045-3172

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Business schools(1) are subject to strong institutional pressures. In this paper we examine university-based business schools in the UK. We argue that the result of such pressures has been to render business schools isomorphic in a number of ways and to diminish the potential voice of business school research in social and economic issues. We detail the range of institutional pressures and then suggest that schools have choices in the ways they might adapt their strategies to counter normative, coercive and mimetic pressures. Drawing on Oliver's notion of strategic behaviours, we suggest that business schools should adopt a wider scholarly lens and turn its theoretical perspectives and empirical research toward 'big' social and economic questions. The difficulties, advantages and implications of changing strategic behaviours are discussed.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor > HD28 Management. Industrial Management H Social Sciences > HF Commerce L Education > LC Special aspects of education
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Faculty of Social Sciences > Sociology Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Business schools -- Great Britain, Business education, AACSB—the International Association for Management Education
Journal or Publication Title:	British Journal of Management
Publisher:	Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ISSN:	1045-3172
Date:	2011
Volume:	Vol.22
Number:	No.3
Page Range:	pp. 457-469
Identification Number:	10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00765.x
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
References:	AACSB (2007). ‘Final report of the AACSB International: impact of research’, www.aacsb.edu. Adler, N. and A.-W. Harzing (2009). ‘When knowledge wins: transcending the sense of and nonsense of academic rankings’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, pp. 72–95. Baden-Fuller, C., F. Ravazzolo and T. Schweizer (2000). ‘Making and measuring reputations: the research ranking of European business schools’, Long Range Planning, 33, pp. 621–650. Bordieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Borokhovich, K., R. Bricker, K. Brunarski and B. Simkins (1995). ‘Finance research productivity and influence’, Journal of Finance, 50, pp. 1691–1717. Brown, K. G. (2011). ‘Do we ignore our own research? Is it useful?’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, pp. 6–8. Child, J. (1972). ‘Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice’, Sociology, 6, pp. 1–22. Cornuel, E. (2005). ‘The role of business schools in society’, Journal of Management Development, 24, pp. 819–829. Crainer, S. and D. Dearlove (1998). Gravy Training: Inside the World’s Top Business Schools. Oxford: Capstone. Currie, G., D. Knights and K. Starkey (2010). ‘Introduction: a post crisis reflection on business schools’, British Journal of Management, 21, pp. 1–5. Devinney, T., G. Dowling and N. Perm-Ajchariyawong (2008). ‘The Financial Times business school ranking: what quality is this signal of quality?’, European Management Review, 5, pp. 195–208. Di Maggio, P. and W. Powell (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, pp. 147–160. Duesenberry, J. (1960). ‘Comment on ‘‘an economic analysis of fertility’’’. In Universities National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (eds), Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Durand, R. and J. McGuire (2005). ‘Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: the case of AACSB’, Organization Studies, 26, pp. 165–196. Fishe, R. (1998). ‘What are the research standards for full professor of finance?’, Journal of Finance, 53, pp. 1053–1079. Gabriel, Y. (2002). ‘Essar on paragrammatic uses of organization theory: a provocation’, Organization Studies, 23, pp. 133–151. Golembiewski, R. T. (1989). Men, Managers and Morality: Toward a New Organizational Elite. New york: Transaction Publishers. Granovetter, M. (1985). ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem with embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91, pp. 481–510. Grey, C. (2004). ‘Reinventing business schools: the contribution of critical management education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, pp. 178–186. Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman (1977). ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 929–964. Hopwood, A. (2008). ‘Comment: the rankings game: reflections on Devinney, Dowling and Perm-Ajchariyawong’, European Management Review, 5, pp. 209–214. Kelly, A., H. Morris and C. Harvey (2009). Modelling the Outcomes of the UK Business and Management Studies RAE 2008 with Reference to the ABS Journal Quality Guide. London: Association of Business Schools. Khurana, R. (2007). From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kogut, B. (2008). ‘Rankings, schools and final reflections on ideas and taste’, European Management Review, 5, pp. 191–194. Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch (1967). ‘Differentiation and integration in complex organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, pp. 1–30. Lowrie, A. and H. Willmott (2009). ‘Accreditation sickness in the consumption of business education: the vacuum in AACSB standard setting’, Management Learning, 40, pp. 411–420. Mangematin, V. and C. Baden-Fuller (2008). ‘Global contests in the production of business knowledge: regional centres and individual business schools’, Long Range Planning, 41, pp. 177–139. Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan (1977). ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340–363. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers Not MBAs. London: Pearson Education. Mizruchi, M. S. and L. C. Fein (1999). ‘The social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 609–630. Monnet, B. and P. Very (2010). Les Nouveaux Pirates de L’Enterprise. Paris: CNRS Editions. Montgomery, D. B. and C. A. Ramus (2011). ‘Calibrating MBA job preferences for the 21st century’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, pp. 9–26. Morris, H., C. Harvey and A. Kelly (2010). ‘Journal rankings and the ABS Journal Quality Guide’, Management Decision, 47, pp. 1441–1451. Navarro, P. (2008). ‘The MBA core curricula of top-ranked US business schools: a study in failure?’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, pp. 108–123. Oliver, C. (2001). ‘Strategic responses to institutional process’, Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 145–179. Ozbilgin, M. A. (2009). ‘From journal rankings to making sense of the world’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, pp. 1–9. Parker, M. (2008). ‘If only business schools wouldn’t teach business’, The Observer, Sunday 30 November. Podolny, J. (2009). ‘The buck stops (and starts) at business school’, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 906–915. Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C. and Pearson, H. (eds) (1957). Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economics in History and Theory. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company. Reed, M. (2009). ‘The theory/practice gap: a problem for research in business schools?’, Journal of Management Development, 28, pp. 685–693. Saunders, J., V. Wong and C. Saunders (2011). ‘The research evaluation and globalization of business research’, British Journal of Management, 22, pp. 401–419. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). ‘The future challenges of business: rethinking management education’, California Management Review, 50, pp. 119–139. Skapinker, M. (2011). ‘Why business still ignores business schools’, Financial Times, 25 January. Slack, T. and C. R. Hinings (1994). ‘Institutional pressures and isomorphic change: an empirical test’, Organization Studies, 15, pp. 803–827. Starkey, K. and S. Tempest (2008). ‘A clear sense of purpose? The evolving role of the business school’, Journal of Management Development, 27, pp. 379–390. Starkey, K. and N. Tiratsoo (2007). The Business School and the Bottom Line. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoddard, M. (2010). Business Leadership Review V11:1. London: Association of MBAs. Thomas, H. and A. D. Wilson (2009). ‘An analysis of the environment and the competitive dynamics of management research’, Journal of Management Development, 28, pp. 668– 684. Thrift, N. (2005). Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage. Trieschmann, J., A. Dennis, G. Northcraft and A. Niemi (2000). ‘Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 1130–1141. Vaara, E. and E. Fay (2011). ‘How can a Bordieusian perspective aid analysis of MBA education?’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, pp. 27–40. Wedlin, L. (2007). ‘The role of rankings in codifying a business school template: classifications, diffusion and mediated isomorphism in organizational fields’, European Management Review, 4, pp. 24–39. Wensley, R. (2009). ‘Research in UK business schools or management research in the UK?’, Journal of Management Development, 28, pp. 718–727. Wensley, R. (2011). ‘An assessment of the efficacy of the applied innovation in management (AIM) research programme’. Presentation to the Fellows of the British Academy of Management, 19 April, Oxford. Wilensky, H. L. (1964). ‘Mass society and mass culture: interdependence or independence?’, American Sociological Review, 29, pp. 173–197. Zucker, L. G. (1987). ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, pp. 443–464.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/38402

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item