no plagiarize, spell check, and check your grammar –150 words for each respective article should be summarized, and each annotation should also include at least 150 words that demonstrate the applicability of the article .Annotated Bibliography1. Ahn, J., Lee, S., & Yun, S. (2018). Leaders’ core self-evaluation, ethical leadership, and employees’ job performance: The moderating role of employees’ exchange ideology. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 457-470. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy- library.ashford.edu/10.1007/s10551-016-3030-02. BADEN, D., & HIGGS, M. (2015). Challenging the Perceived Wisdom of Management Theories and Practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 539–555. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.5465/…3. Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2017). COMPETENCIES PROFILES OF SUCCESSORS IN CONTEMPORARY FAMILY FIRMS. Journal of Positive Management, 8(3), 69-81. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.127…4. El Din, H. F., & El Ghetany, H. (2016). The relationship between organisational culture and job satisfaction: An international perspective. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/docview/1779263420?accountid=325215. Frazier, E., D.M./I.S.T. (2015). The leadership, culture, job satisfaction relationship. Roswell: The Academic Forum. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/docview/1709291783?accountid=325216. LLAMA’S 14 foundational competencies for library leadership and management. (2017, Library Leadership & Management (Online), 31, 1-8. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/1898633294?accountid=32521
contentserver.pdf
out__1_.pdf
out__2_.pdf
out__3_.pdf
out__4_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Q Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2015, Vol. 14, No. 4, 539–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0170
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Challenging the Perceived
Wisdom of Management Theories
and Practice
DENISE BADEN
MALCOLM HIGGS
University of Southampton
We consider criticisms of business school education and the values it propounds in the context
of wisdom. We ask whether the perceived wisdom relating to what business should be is
“wise,” and whether the models and frameworks used in management education enable
wisdom to flourish. The distinction between means and ends (i.e., terminal goals, such as
human welfare and instrumental goals, such as money) is highlighted. We argue that
management models that measure success in purely financial terms demonstrate foolishness
by conflating the means with the end. If business is to retain its legitimacy and benefit society,
profit needs to be seen as a means to the end of sustainable business not an end in itself. This
should in turn be reflected in the metrics used to measure success in management models and
theories. Cross-cultural comparisons with economies based on different value systems offer
insight into alternative approaches. We highlight examples of how business schools are
adjusting their curriculum and conclude that changes need to go beyond superficial inclusion
of ethical issues. Recommendations include updating the business curriculum with more
prosocial management theories and a reprioritization of the goal of social welfare over
individual business profit maximization.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
school education and the values it propounds and its
contribution to the development of future leaders.
We ask whether the current “perceived wisdom”
relating to what business is or should be is in fact
so wise, and whether the predominant models and
frameworks used in management and leadership
education embody wisdom or foolishness. We suggest what a wiser approach might entail and finish
by presenting some positive examples of where
progress is being made in transforming business
school education.
There have been challenges to the perceived wisdom of the last 50 years of management and leadership education and the dominant hegemony of
free market economics with its preeminence of
shareholder value. There are now increasing calls
for responsible management benchmarks, such as
at the recent Rio 120 Earth Summit (www.50plus20.
org/rio20), that contest the very nature of management and leadership education and practice and
the underlying philosophies that drive it. Indeed
the role of leaders in many of the ethical scandals
and corporate collapses associated with the 2008
financial crisis have been seen as having their roots
in “bad” leadership (Furnham, 2010). In turn it has
been asserted that one aspect of this bad leadership
relates to the way in which we develop leaders and
the role that business schools play in this process
(Higgs, 2012; Mintzberg, 2004).
In the context of notions of wisdom, we consider
some of the criticisms of business and management
WISDOM
Wisdom is an age-old concept transcending Western philosophy and modern psychology. Philosophers and theologians have long discussed the
topic—the Bible highlights wisdom as “better than
rubies” (Job, 8.11), and wisdom is seen in Eastern
thought as living a virtuous life in harmony with
539
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
540
Academy of Management Learning & Education
one’s environment, with knowledge being combined
with action (Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000).
When invoking the concept of wisdom, scholars
typically refer to Aristotle, who in his Nicomachean
Ethics counted wisdom as one of the cardinal virtues. Aristotle writes that the wise “can see what is
good for themselves and what is good for men in
general: we can consider that those who can do
this are good at managing households or states”
(Aristotle, 2000: 1140a: 9–10).
Many have distinguished wisdom from knowledge; for example, Aristotle distinguishes between
three types of knowledge, epistémé which is theoretical, techné which is instrumental and practice
related; and phronesis, knowledge that is normative,
experience based, context specific, and related to
common sense—also known as practical wisdom
(Aristotle, 2000). In modern thought, an oft-cited distinction is made by Ackoff (1988) in his DIKW hierarchy, which distinguishes between data, information,
knowledge, and wisdom—a pyramidal model, illustrating the scarcity of wisdom in contrast to the
abundant data. The prevalence of notions of wisdom
suffers a similar scarcity in texts on knowledge–
information management and research (Rowley,
2006). The apparent focus on data and knowledge
as opposed to wisdom is suggested by several
scholars to account for the poor performance of
many knowledge–information management initiatives (Bierly et al., 2000; Jashapara, 2005), and Rowley
(2006) highlights the benefits of wisdom in terms of
enhancing management theory and practice.
Many modern thinkers tend to define wisdom in
terms of expert knowledge (Baltes & Staudinger,
2000; Baltes, Staudinger, Maercker, & Smith, 1995), or
as a property of a person and the integration of
cognitive, affective, and reflective characteristics
(Ardelt, 2011). However, the psychologist Robert
Sternberg (Sternberg, 1998, 2001) sees wisdom not
just as expert knowledge, but as tacit knowledge
infused with values, that is, the way in which tacit
knowledge is creatively used in pursuit of the common good, considered both in the short- and the long
term. This perspective has particular resonance in
the context of management learning, as managers
and leaders typically make decisions that affect
others; therefore, their ability to balance multiple
stakeholder needs is key to wise and ethical management. This focus on tacit knowledge has also
been associated with Aristotle’s concept of practical
wisdom or phronesis, particularly in the sense that it
is experience based. Wisdom has also been related
to the quality of knowledge, and most important, to
December
knowing what we do not know (Ames, 2010). Here we
present the view that according to any or all of these
views, wisdom has been lacking in current business
school pedagogy. However, we also argue that this
position is beginning to change.
Wisdom as Knowing What We Do Not Know
When considering the way business schools discuss
the concept of leadership, there is little evidence
of consideration of how leaders deal with what they
do not know. The dominant model of leadership
adopted in discussions of this topic in business
schools is the “heroic model.” This model of leadership encourages confidence and the suppression of
fear—frequently presented as “courage.” However,
Solansky (2014) argues that accepting the “fear of
foolishness” is essential to wisdom, and thus, an
important component of “wise leadership.” It can be
argued that accepting and being unimpeded by
a fear of foolishness, along with the ability to express personal vulnerability (Rowland & Higgs,
2008), are leadership practices that give rise to real
requirements for courage. The heroic model also
posits that the leaders are “all knowing” and that
any indication of uncertainty or lack of knowledge is
a danger to be avoided. However Confucius claimed
that wisdom comprises in part knowing what we do
not know (Ames, 2010), a view echoed by recent
scholars. For example Frické (2009: 131) claims that
that “wisdom is the possession and use, if required, of
wide practical knowledge, by an agent who appreciates the fallible nature of that knowledge.”
Management and leadership education, particularly insofar as it draws upon pseudoscientific
economic models, has been criticized by several
scholars on these grounds. In a prize-winning lecture, Hayek (1989) attacked economic theorists for
trying to apply a scientific method designed for use
with the physical sciences to a social science. In
doing so, he argues that economists have tended to
focus on factors that are amenable to measurement
and disregard as irrelevant factors that are by their
nature difficult to quantify. He cautions that we
should be skeptical of assertions that appear to be
scientific simply because they have been based on
mathematical models and scientific methods, as
they are false knowledge based on unsound foundations. Ghoshal (2005) persuasively argues that
this preference for scientific explanations and
quantifiable criteria can help account for an excessive focus on shareholder rights over those of other
stakeholders.
2015
Baden and Higgs
Feminist critiques of quantitative methodologies
have also argued that the greater status accorded to
positivistic and quantitative modes of explanation
are to the detriment of understanding of the complexity of felt experience and values (Campbell &
Wasco, 2000). Thus we need to distinguish “objective” data from useful knowledge. It is wiser to pursue incomplete, messy, contextualized, uncertain
knowledge that enriches our understanding of how
to promote human welfare than to amass lots of
clean data that is easy to manipulate and present,
but yet is based on false assumptions. Leaders may
fear that this would undermine their authority;
however, recent research has indicated that leaders
disclosing their lack of certainty can invite greater
engagement with others and a broader discussion of
the organization’s purpose, focus, and determinants
of success (Higgs & Rowland, 2011).
“It is wiser to pursue incomplete, messy,
contextualized, uncertain knowledge that
enriches our understanding of how to
promote human welfare than to amass lots
of clean data that is easy to manipulate and
present, but yet is based on false
assumptions.”
Implications of Scientific Modes of Explanation
Ghoshal (2005) accuses management academics for
inappropriately adopting objective, quantitative
“scientific” modes of explanation, which entails
ignoring subjective mental phenomena such as
intentionality. He argues that causal modes of explanation downplay free will and allow actors to
free themselves from moral responsibility for their
actions. Management theory and classic economic
models tend to take a deterministic perspective,
undervaluing the role of individual intentions and
focusing on models based on pessimistic assumptions about human nature that assume all behavior is based on self-interest. For example, agency
theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Williamson, 1975)
assumes that managers are self-interested, and
unless richly incentivized, will put their needs before those of the shareholders. The issue is that beliefs about human nature that become enshrined in
theories and institutions can themselves through the
double-hermeneutic become self-fulfilling (Ghoshal,
541
2005). Not only do such beliefs help to norm selfinterest as acceptable, or even desirable (Miller, 1999),
they help to justify unethical behavior through the
common rationalization that “everybody does it”
(Green, 1991).
Questions about the deeper roots of self-serving
business behavior have also been raised. To what
extent is such behavior grounded in human nature
itself, and how pliable is this to contextual influences such as sociocultural assumptions about
the role of business in society and beliefs regarding
human nature? Keynes (cited in Ghoshal, 2005) argued back in 1953 that the influence of economic
theorists was much more powerful in affecting the
normative framework in society than we consciously realize, legitimizing certain activities and
mind-sets and delegitimizing others through cultural discourses, education, media, laws, and so on.
For example, businesses may be seen as stewards
of society’s economic resources or as self-interested
organizations with a legal duty to maximize profits.
Ghoshal (2005) argues that these contextual assumptions are self-fulfilling and play a crucial role
in unethical management behavior. Recent research into the newly emerging business sector in
the socialist island of Cuba provides empirical
support for the contention that ideologies and cultural norms are a major determinant of the conduct
of business leaders. Recent research indicates that
the prevailing norms of solidarity, communal
values, and equity in Cuba are clearly reflected in
both the teaching and conduct of business leadership (Baden & Wilkinson, 2014).
Wisdom as Balancing Societal Needs
From a psychological perspective, wisdom can be
defined as the application of tacit knowledge as
mediated by values toward the achievement of
a common good through a balance among multiple
(a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests to achieve a balance among (a)
adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of
existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments (Sternberg, 1998).
The notion of the “common good” refers to what is
considered good for a specific community or society
as a whole. In the context of business practices the
notion of “society” can be broken down into those
members who are affected or can affect what
the organization does, that is, the stakeholders
(Freeman, 1984). This definition highlights the need
to consider the impacts of business practices upon
542
Academy of Management Learning & Education
those who will be affected by them, with typical
stakeholders including employees, shareholders,
customers, managers, suppliers, and community.
Currently, stakeholder theory has gained considerable currency in academic debate, although there is
limited evidence that it is applied in practice. It is
uncommon in most countries for stakeholders to
have any real say in corporate governance (Crane &
Matten, 2010), and evidence based on interviews
with corporate social responsibility (CSR) managers
in a range of multinational corporations indicates
that stakeholders’ interests are considered only insofar as they accord with business interests (Bondy,
Moon, & Matten, 2012).
Sternberg’s view of wisdom also highlights the
importance of the environment. Here too, criticism
has been directed at the inadequacies of business
school curricula in terms of preparing future business leaders to deal responsibly with environmental challenges, such as climate change and resource
depletion (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006; Waddock,
2007). The foolishness of our current paradigm is
highlighted by Shrivastava (1995), who accused
business curricula of demonstrating a bias toward
production and consumption that ignores environmental externalities: “The basic logic of continually
producing new products for limitless consumption
has remained unquestioned by proponents of the
traditional management paradigm” (p.126).
Thus we need to question what good business
leadership is. While some authors (Porras & Collins,
1997) suggest that leaders should align people
within the organization to a “purpose beyond profit,”
the dominant view of “good” leadership is to focus
people on financial performance and delivering
shareholder value (Higgs, 2012). Solansky (2014) argues that historically, leadership and wisdom are
deeply rooted together, but points out that “the emphasis of leadership effectiveness has drastically
shifted from an age old assessment of leadership
that aspires to wisdom to a current day assessment
of leadership that aspires to compete to achieve
market efficiencies and maximum organisational
profits” (p. 40).
However, there is evidence that influential authors within the field are increasingly challenging the profit maximization approach (Hart, 2005;
Mackey & Sisodia, 2014). The prominent management thinker Charles Handy made the important
point that “the purpose of a business is not to make
a profit, full stop. It is to make a profit so that the
business can do something more or better” (Handy,
2002: 51). Porter and Kramer (2011) also point out that
December
the dominant focus on shareholder value creation is
not only bad for society, but ignores important factors that impact on longer term success. They propose an alternative view around the concept of
shared value as a paradigm that “involves creating
value in a way that also creates value for society by
addressing its needs and challenges” (p. 2). Furthermore they exhort companies to refocus on
building shared value, suggesting that “companies
must take the lead in bringing business and society
back together” (p. 2).
In exploring wisdom and leadership in more detail, Sternberg (2003) defines leadership wisdom by
taking a broader view of the purpose of an organization. He sees leadership wisdom as being “intelligence, experience, creativity and values … to
reach a common good which occurs when the interests of individuals, others, and organisations or
institutions are considered in both the short and
long terms” (p. 42). This thinking is pulled together in
his WCIS model within which wisdom, intelligence,
and creativity are synthesized. Thus it is asserted
that to be wise is to know and to do. This view of
leadership wisdom can be seen to dovetail with
other perspectives of leadership, such as authentic
leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003) and servant
leadership (Greenleaf, 2002).
Wisdom: Knowing the Difference
Between Ends and Means
Both Eastern and Western conceptions of wisdom
include a conception of the “good life” as the ultimate end to which knowledge and judgement
should be used. For example, in the Analects, Confucius sees wisdom as following the “way” (Tao),
which entails living righteously and in accordance
with one’s environment (Ames, 2010). From Aristotle’s conception of wisdom, we can construe the
difference between wisdom and knowledge as
knowing to what end to apply our knowledge, in
other words the distinction between ends and
means. This inevitably leads to discussions of
values—to what end are we exerting our efforts? We
argue that the prevailing wisdom of profit maximization as the ultimate goal of economic endeavor—a
view typified by the famous statement by Milton
Friedman (1970) that the social responsibility of
business is to make a profit—has confounded the
means with the end. Indeed, the raison d’être for this
view, dating back from Adam Smith’s Wealth of
Nations (1776/1976) was that profit maximization was
for the benefit of all society. Therefore the goal of
2015
Baden and Higgs
profit maximization is historically subordinate to
the goal of societal welfare. Thus, the moment that
profit maximization comes into conflict with social
good (e.g., due to externalities of business) then the
means have become mistaken with the ends.
There is a sense in which the wider institutions
governing society, setting its norms and standards
and entrusted with the goals of pursuing the common good, have also fallen into the trap of mistaking
the means for the ends, accepting too uncritically the
idea that business self-interest maximization serves
the interest of all society. This mind-set or “perceived wisdom” that profit is the ultimate end goal is
apparent even in articles and phrases that come
from the proponents of CSR (Baden & Harwood, 2013).
Kreps and Monin (2011), for example, highlight the
popularity of the phrase “doing well by doing good,”
which by its use of the preposition “by” indicates
that the goal of doing good is subordinate to the goal
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
