Many full-time MBA programs limit their effectiveness by clinging to functionalism. At best, they have made incremental changes to meet the market demand for MBA graduates. These changes, in most cases, have failed to integrate the various functional facets of complex business challenges. For insights into how to do so, many business schools need look no further than their own executive programs. Executive programs typically emphasize the synergistic use of core competencies and delivery systems in a way that enables one to truly master business administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barker, R. T., Gilbreath, G. H., & Stone, W. S. (1998). The interdisciplinary needs of organizations. Are new employees adequately equipped? Journal of Management Development, 17(3), 219-232.
2.
Bell, C. R. (1995). Customers as partners: Building relationships that last. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
3.
Bickerstaffe, G. (1994, April).Lesson of the masters. International Management, 49(3), 54-55.
4.
Brealey, R. A., & Myers, S. C. (1996). Principles of corporate finance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy andstructure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Colbert, A., Levary, R. R., & Shaner, M. C. (2000). Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 125(3), 656-669.
7.
D’Aveni, R. A. (1996). A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational mobility of faculty and input-output competition among top business schools. Organization Science, 7(2), 166-189.
8.
Donaldson, L. (1982). Divisionalization and diversification: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 909-914.
9.
Donaldson, L. (1996). For positivist organization theory: Proving the hardcore. London:Sage.
10.
Donaldson, L., & Hilmer, F. G. (1998). Management redeemed: The case against fads that harm management. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 7-20.
11.
Dulek, R. D., & Fielden, J. S. (1992), Why fight the system? The non-choice facing beleaguered business faculties: Business schools. Business Horizons, 35(5), 13-24.
12.
Elliott, C. J., Goodwin, J. C., & Goodwin, J. C. (1994, July/August). MBA programs and business needs: Is there a mismatch. Business Horizons, 37, 55-60.
13.
Gordon,R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher educationfor business. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
Kedia, B. L., & Harveston, P. D. (1998). Transformation of MBA programs: Meeting the challenge of international competition. Journal of World Business, 33, 203-218.
17.
Latham,G. P., Daghighi,S., & Locke, E. A. (1997).Implicationsof goalsetting theory for faculty motivation.In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Teaching well and liking it: The motivation of faculty in higher education (pp. 125-142). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 212-247.
19.
Latham, G. P., & Sue-Chan, C. (1999). A meta-analysis of the situational interview: An enumerative review of reasons for its validity. Canadian Psychology, 40, 56-67.
20.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research.
21.
Leith, S., Kovacheff, J., & Price, C. (1994). Reengineering the MBA in Canada. Canadian Business Review, 21, 32-35.
22.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.
23.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
Lorange,P. (1994).Back to school:Executive educationin the U.S. Chief Executive, 92, 36-39.
25.
McCloskey, D. N. (1983, June). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21, 481-517.
26.
McDougall, G. H. G., Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (1992). Marketing. Scarborough, ONT: Prentice Hall.
27.
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. New York: Harper Collins.
28.
Mitchell, V., & Zmud,R. W. (1999).The effects of coupling IT & work process strategies in rede-sign projects. Organization Science, 10, 424-438.
29.
Moreland, P. A. (1977). A history of business education. Toronto, ONT: Pitman Publishing.
30.
Neelankavil, J. P. (1994). Corporate America’s quest for an ideal MBA. Journal of Management Development, 13, 38-52.
31.
O’Reilly, B. (1994, January 24). Reengineering the MBA. Fortune, 129, 38-47.
32.
Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Pinsonneault, A., & Rivard, S. (1998). Information technology and the nature of managerial work: From the productivity paradox to the Icarus paradox? MIS Quarterly, 22(3),287-311.
34.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
35.
Robbins, S. P. (2000). Organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). How to manage the white space on the organizational chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
38.
Showalter, M. J. (1992, December/January). Integration of P/OM and MIS research. Decision Line, 23(4), 17-17.
39.
Sommers, M. S., Barnes, J. G., Stanton, W. J., Etzel, M. J., & Walker, B. J. (1995). Fundamentals of marketing (7th ed.). Toronto, ONT: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.
40.
Stalk, G. (1993). Time-based competition and beyond: Competing on capabilities. Planning Review, 20(5), 27-29.
41.
Taylor, J. C., & Felten, D. F. (1993). Performance by design: Sociotechnical systems in North America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
University of Toronto,School of Graduate Studies. (1953). University of Toronto calendar 1953-1954. University of Toronto, School of Graduate Studies, 65/63 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2Z9.
43.
University of Toronto,School of Graduate Studies. (1956). University of Toronto calendar 1956-1957. University of Toronto, School of Graduate Studies, 65/63 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2Z9.
44.
Waldman, D. A. (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 19, 510-536.
45.
Wallace, J. B. (1999). The case for student as customer. Quality Progress, 32, 47-51.
46.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
