What's wrong with our business schools MONEY

A CORRESPONDENT

There are four main publics for business educa- tion in Britain. These are the business com- munity, the British academic world, the Govern- ment and the multi-national community of business academicians. These four publics repre- sent divergent points of view and it is difficult to strike a balance between the respective needs of each.

With exceptions, 'post-experience' courses in Britain relate very closely to current British business practice and are distant from the other three publics. Postgraduate programmes, on the other hand, are influenced greatly by the tradi- tional British academic community and to some extent by the Government and by the business community. They, too, are distant from the multi-national business academic community.

This situation places such institutes as the Administrative Staff College at Henley-on- Thames and the Ashridge Management College in a position of comparative strength over the London Graduate School of Business Studies, the Manchester Business School. and other insti- tutes which grant university degrees. Although the former suffer from the paucity of contact with academics in other disciplines and the intellectual stimulation that stems from cross- pollination of ideas between disciplines, they are free to teach business to businessmen; where- as the latter frequently teach such disciplinewts economics, statistics and psychology rather than the academic discipline of business itself.

Britain's postgraduate business schools cer- tainly need support from University staffs in other disciplines. However, at present they are being dominated by those other depart- ments.

The relationship of Britain's business schools to the Government is generally one of healthy independence. It is only in the power which the

Government gives to some of Britain's most traditional academics who serve on the Univer- sity Grants Committee that the Government's influence over business education could be un- healthy.

It is in their relationship to business schools across the world that Britain's institutes give most cause for concern. A small minority of the teaching staff hold graduate degrees in business administration and not many more have PhDs in related disciplines.

The business academic community has been impressed with the success of Henley in replac- ing the academic discipline of business as prac-

tised elsewhere with something of value which is unique and which has been developed to, a high level of competence. Whether the syndicate approach is an efficient means of transferal; knowledge and nurturing decision-making skills on the part of individual managers is contro- versial, but the integrity of the college is beyond question and it is universally respected. The adaptability of Ashridge and the speed with which it changes its course offerings in response to the needs of British industry is renowned: There has been a great deal of interest in and initial support for the brave new ventures in London and Manchester but questions are being

Nicholas Davenport is on holiday.

asked as to whether they are in fact succeeding in replacing the academic discipline of business as taught in North America and Europe with something unique and valuable. Over the past sixty years so much has been done in the post- graduate field in North America that it is diffi- cult to see how business schools which so largely ignore these developments can ever catch up. No one expected London and Man- chester to duplicate Harvard and ma, because the British environment is distinct from the American one and because new business schools could be expected to learn from the mistakes of older schools and so avoid some of their warts. However, it is difficult to explain London's and Manchester's unusual character in environ- mental terms because they seem to be removed from the reality of British business. So far from starting off with a sixty-year advantage over Harvard Business School when it began, London Business School appears to be very close in "'character to the Harvard of the first decade of this century.

Postgraduate students of business are a dis- criminating segment of the population, and British firms are being forced by multi-national market conditions to become discriminating employers. If Britain's business schools are to compete effectively with the leading American schools, with the European Institute of Business Administration at Fontainebleau-Avon and even with the enterprising management course at Cranfield College of Aeronautics (which suffers from staff shortages), they must become more professional; not by the standards of doctors, lawyers, economists or accountants but by the standards of professional business educators throughout the western world.

What is needed, therefore, is a threefold plan of action.

First, members of a business faculty who do not possess graduate degrees in businesss administration must drop their pride and attend courses, to the doctorate level if possible but to the one-year International Teachers' Programme level at least. Short courses are fine for practis- ing managers but for academics they are not enough. Flying visits are of little value without a shared base of common knowledge. At the same time Britain's business schools should open their doors far wider than they have done to visiting foreign academics.

Second, Britain's business schools must study British industry at the individual firm level. Case studies (which are quite different from case histories) must be written to contain all the facts available to an executive faced with a significant decision, as a basis for analysis and as a teach-

ing tool' Business schools must base' their analysis on the reality of current management and must sacrifice the beauty of pure logic.

Third, the curriculum should contain the main facets of the administrative point of view —which is the overall name given to the aims of business education almost everywhere else. These facets are the functional areas of market- ing, finance and production; the cross-functional areas of human relations, managerial economics and operational research; and the integrative course of business policy. Courses other than those in these areas (which include specialist advanced courses within each area) have no place at business schools.

This is not to say that London, Manchester et al should swap dependence on other disci- plines for dependence on North American and European business schools. Rather, they should change domination by other disciplines into support from these disciplines, and they should seek the support of business educators every- where for a new, exciting and distinctly British venture into business education. Henley, Ash- ridge and their cohorts, while being less to blame, should aim for less domination by British business -while retaining its support and the present strong ties.