Author: Mr Brian Harney, DCU Business School
Published by: The Irish Times, 19th June 2009

The finger of blame has been waving continuously throughout the current global financial crisis – at the smart-suited bankers, complacent governments, inept regulators and at the seemingly cosy cartels that existed between them all.

In business school, case studies of companies that were previously used to illustrate exemplary business models founded on growth and risk-taking (read Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS) are being quietly moved from strategy modules to be creatively reapplied in classes on business ethics.

This progression is not completely novel. At the height of its success, Enron was the darling of the business school case examples only to find itself on the strategy scrap heap following its dramatic fall from grace.

The finger of blame has been waving continuously throughout the current global financial crisis – at the smart-suited bankers, complacent governments, inept regulators and at the seemingly cosy cartels that existed between them all.

In business school, case studies of companies that were previously used to illustrate exemplary business models founded on growth and risk-taking (read Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS) are being quietly moved from strategy modules to be creatively reapplied in classes on business ethics.

This progression is not completely novel. At the height of its success, Enron was the darling of the business school case examples only to find itself on the strategy scrap heap following its dramatic fall from grace.

While keen to contribute to the detailed analysis of the emerging crisis and its aftermath, business schools may be less comfortable in assessing their own role in facilitating and perpetuating the ideals and modes of thinking that are now recognised as deficient.

John Maynard Keynes for one recognised that practitioners could easily become captive to the persuasive influence of academic ideas, however right or wrong.

That most of the big financial houses now so despised were run by managers proudly armed with MBAs and happily refuelling on diets of executive education supplied by some of the world’s leading business schools would not have come as a surprise to Keynes.

Arguably, key concepts and theories promoted in business schools reinforced the managerial practice and egotism now so loudly criticised.

Some, such as the late Sumantra Ghoshal, a professor at London Business School, long predicted these events, although his voice was among the minority.

Whether business schools can really offer a cure for managerial ill-practice or will simply revert back to prescribing more of the same medicine, including emulating the Enrons and Royal Bank of Scotlands of tomorrow, is an open question.

To avoid this plight, perhaps it is time business schools reflected inwards to ask the key questions so often demanded of students. What business are we in? How do we deliver value in that business?

In the absence of such critical reflection, business schools risk simply accepting and perpetuating the status quo, filling pails but not lighting any fires. Experience would suggest universal solutions and simplistic ideals are not a formula for delivering value but are more likely a prescription for failure.

The business of business schools should not centre on the mass dissemination of knowledge but on fostering greater understanding. This is perhaps one lesson we have yet to learn.