• Integrating sustainability in business schools: The possibility of harmonic response across heterogenic landscapes?

      Wall, Tony; Hindley, Ann; Mburayi, Langton; Cregan, Karen; Evans, Vicky (Research in Management Learning and Education (RMLE), 2019-07-31)
      One of the ongoing critiques of management learning and education, and higher education more broadly, relates to how it promotes ethics and responsible managers of the future (Ghoshal, 2005; Snelson-Powell et al 2016). Indeed, the United Nations’ established the Principles of Responsible Management Education initiative in 2007 to help promote and deliver the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as part of its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, over a decade on, the integration of sustainability into management learning and education remains limited (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015; Mburayi & Wall, 2018), and is beset with obstacles ranging from accreditation drivers to leadership challenges (Painter-Morland et al 2016). Adopted strategies have included the addition of sustainability content to existing modules; the creation of standalone sustainability modules; cross-curricula integration and cross-disciplinary course provision for business students, and a recommendation for a whole institution approach that develops capacities, builds connectedness and supports systematic leadership (Rusinko, 2010; Painter-Morland et al 2016). One conceptualisation of the issue posits that the organisation of the business school needs to direct and reflect sustainability values such that it inculcates sustainable behaviours across organisational units (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015) – and as such, providing a harmony to direct and guide behaviour at the business school level. In contrast to the need for this harmonic response, there is evidence of emerging heterogenic responses across sub disciplines, for example: there seems to be comparatively little integration in the context of accounting and finance curricula or seemingly ‘bolt on’ approaches (Mburayi & Wall, 2018); tourism and events seemingly embed responsibility in the nature of place and space (Hall et al, 2015); and marketing, which is sometimes portrayed as a contributor to over-consumption, often questions its ability to market sustainability which creates its own tensions (Carrington et al 2016). Beyond this, others may purposively not engage in the education for sustainability agenda for a range of reasons including indifference, confusion, or the belief that it is not the concern of a business school (Rasche et al 2013). Therefore, this QIC aspires to examine the possibility of harmonic response across the heterogenic landscapes of business schools, with a view to exploring alternative pathways in practice and research. References Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222-240. Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory, 16, 1, 21-38. Ghoshal, S. (2005), “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 75-91. Hall, C. M., Gossling, S., & Scott, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge. Mburayi, L. & Wall, T. (2018) Sustainability in the professional accounting and finance curriculum: an exploration", Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 8 (3), pp.291-311. Rasche, A., Gilbert, D.U. and Schedel, I. (2013), “Cross-disciplinary ethics education in MBA programs: rhetoric or reality?”, Academy of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-85. Rusinko, C.A. (2010), “Integrating sustainability in management and business education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 507-519. Snelson-Powell, A., Grosvold, J. and Millington, A. (2016), “Business school legitimacy and the challenge of sustainability: a fuzzy set analysis of institutional decoupling”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 703-723. Painter-Morland, M., Sabet, E., Molthan-Hill, P., Goworek, H. and de Leeuw, S. (2016), “Beyond the curriculum: integrating sustainability into business schools”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 139 No. 4, pp. 737-754.
    • Organisational resilience of business schools: exploring the possibilities of adaptation

      Cregan, Karen; Wall, Tony; Evans, Vicky; Marshall, Julie; Hindley, Ann; University of Chester (Research in Management Learning and Education, 2019-07-31)
      Organisational resilience of business schools: exploring the possibilities of adaptation The organisational landscape of business schools in some countries is in a state of fragility, plagued by an ongoing relevance critique, increasing competition from non-traditional private providers, demographics which intensify the competition for typical undergraduate students, increasing pressure for greater economic and environmental responsibility, a need to respond to technological advances, and a different political posture to the financial support of universities (Stokes et al 2018). As such, within this morphing landscape, the organisational resilience of business schools has perhaps become more pertinent in modern times than in recent history. Indeed, the UK is said to be experiencing an unprecedented market shake out of business schools with at least three facing imminent closure. Within this practice setting, organisational resilience has been conceptualised as (1) the capacity of an organisation to 'bounce back' (to survive) after an adverse or traumatic event, (2) the capacity of an organisation to adapt to circumstances and events before they are experienced as adverse, as traumatic or as a crisis, and (3) the aggregated capacities of people to absorb crises and operationally adapt to new situations (Koronis and Ponis, 2018; Evans, Cregan, & Wall, 2019 forthcoming). With this in mind, the first part of this QIC therefore explores how we might re-organise university-based business schools in ways which develop the adaptive capacities which are seemingly pertinent to contemporary circumstances. At the same time, organisational re-configurations are likely to, whether intended or unintended, shape the pedagogic practices of business schools (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015) as well as have the potential for wider consequential tensions in a neo-liberal marketplace which emphasises individualism (Wall and Jarvis 2015). For example, a business school that develops strong employer involvement in curricula design, delivery and assessment may have a wider network of positive ties to sustain itself during difficult times, but adopting team based assessment practices (which can inculcate the wider social impact awareness of students) can create student experience challenges. So the second part of this QIC is to explore how the changes which are created for organisational resilience might shape pedagogic practices, and in turn, the possible consequences of organising in such ways. References Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222-240. Evans, V., Cregan, K., & Wall, T. (2019 forthcoming) Organizational resilience, in Leal Filho, W. (ed) Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Good Health & Wellbeing, Springer, Cham Koronis, E., & Ponis, S. (2018). Better than before: the resilient organization in crisis mode. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(1), 32-42. Stokes, P., Smith, S., Wall, T., Moore, N., Rowland, C., Ward, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2018). Resilience and the (micro-)dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: Implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, , 1-36. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1474939 Wall, T. & Jarvis, M. (2015). Business schools as educational provocateurs of productivity via interrelated landscapes of practice. Leadership & Policy Series. The Chartered Association of Business Schools, London.
    • Organizational Resilience and Sustainable Development

      Evans, Vicky; Cregan, Karen; Wall, Tony; University of Chester (Springer, 2019-03-08)
      Organisational resilience has been conceptualised in a variety of ways. Koronis and Ponis (2018) have articulated this as three distinct concepts: (1) the capacity of an organisation to 'bounce back' (to survive) after an adverse or traumatic event, (2) the capacity of an organisation to adapt to circumstances and events before they are experienced as adverse, as traumatic or a crisis, and (3) the aggregated capacities of people to absorb crises and operationally adapt to new situations. As yet, there is no consistently used terminology or conceptual foundations. Nevertheless, four key drivers of organisational resilience are highlighted in the literature – preparedness, responsiveness, adaptability and learning – which can be used as a starting point to identify associated interventions which may develop those drivers (Koronis and Ponis, 2018). Maturity models of organisational resilience suggest how these drivers develop progressively, interacting and reinforcing one another to the fullest extent in organisations which manage resilience holistically, achieving an “anti-fragile” stage of maturity where an organisation improves, prospers, and/or thrives in conditions of volatility, change or disruption in the wider environment (e.g. Leflar and Siegal, 2013; Ruiz and Martin et al, 2018).
    • Pedagogies for resilience in business schools: Exploring strategies and tactics

      Rowe, Lisa; Wall, Tony; Cregan, Karen; Evans, Vicky; Hindley, Ann; University of Chester (Research in Management Learning and Education (RMLE), 2019-07)
      The capacity to bounce back after challenge or disruption and positive adapt to new circumstances has recently become more pronounced because of market volatilities, technological advances at work, as well as the ubiquitous and relentless use of social media (UNESCO 2017; Stokes et al 2018). Indeed, such changes have highlighted the strategic importance – and concern for the lack of – the resilience capacities of business school graduates at all levels (Robertson et al 2015; King et al 2015). Within this context, evidence indicates how the capacities for managerial resilience can be developed through various pedagogical aspects including strategies and tactics for promoting personal flexibility, purposefulness, self-confidence, and social networks (Cooper et al 2013). However, such capacities are curbed and contained by wider forces such as the broader organisational structure and culture of the business school itself and of the graduate employer, both of which limit potential flexibility (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015; Robertson et al, 2015; Cregan et al 2019). To add further complexity, recent research has also highlighted the contextualised nature of resilience, whereby its meaning and manifestation vary across occupational settings (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016). Within this context, therefore, a critical challenge for contemporary business school education is to develop pedagogical interventions which might generate resources for resilience which are not only relevant to be able to express and mobilise resilience in a diverse range of occupational settings, but which are also sensitive to wider influences which shape resilience (e.g. employer organisational structures). Such a challenge needs to reflect the deeply pragmatic question of how to develop or integrate a pedagogical response in a context whereby (1) that response is culturally located in a business school organisational structure and culture which might limit capacity development, and (2) the curricula may already be heavily prescribed due to accreditation requirements or is already multi-layered from other agendas such as employability, responsibility, or sustainability (Wall et al, 2017; Cregan et al, 2019). Therefore this QIC aims to explore the strategies and tactics of how to inculcate the resilience capacities of business school learners where the expression of that capacity itself may manifest differently across occupational settings and which is organisationally bound in its development. References Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222-240. Cooper, C. L., Flint-Taylor, J., and Pearn, M. (2013). Building resilience for success: A resource for managers and organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cregan, K., Rowe, L., & Wall, T. (2019 forthcoming) Resilience education and training, in Leal Filho, W. (ed) Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Good Health & Wellbeing. Springer, Cham. King, D. D., Newman, A., & Luthans, F. (2015). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace: Workplace resilience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, n/a. Kossek, E. E., and Perrigino, M. B. (2016). Resilience: A review using a grounded integrated occupational approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 729-797. Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., and Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 533–562. Stokes, P., Smith, S., Wall, T., Moore, N., Rowland, C., Ward, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2018). Resilience and the (micro-)dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: Implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-36. UNESCO (2017). Six ways to ensure higher education leaves no one behind, Policy Paper 30. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002478/247862E.pdf (Accessed 20th Nov, 2018). Wall, T., Russell, J., Moore, N. (2017) Positive emotion in workplace impact: the case of a work-based learning project utilising appreciative inquiry. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 9 (2): 129-146.
    • Resilience Education and Training

      Cregan, Karen; Rowe, Lisa; Wall, Tony (Springer, 2019-10-01)
      Gilligan (2000) describes resilience as process which engenders a sense of strength and confidence to succeed despite individual challenges faced and Noble and McGraph, (2011a; p.79) define it as "the ability to persist, cope adaptively and bounce back after encountering change, challenges, setback, disappointments, difficult situations or adversity and to return to a reasonable level of wellbeing". It has been suggested that these challenges can be controlled by an individual’s behaviours, thoughts and actions which, can be taught (American Psychological Association, 2018). However, Wu et al (2013) argue that developing resilience in individuals requires several ‘factors’ not least, an understanding of the genetic, epigenetic, developmental, psychological and neurochemical processes, as these can contribute to how an individual can cope with and develop resilience in the face of stress and trauma. In this way, resilience education and training is about building the capacities to cope as well as adapt to changes in generative ways, and includes a diverse range of strategies to develop personal purpose, confidence, flexibility and social support networks.