Untangling Faculty Misinformation From an Educational Perspective: Rejoinder to “The Menace of Misinformation: Faculty Misstatements in Management Education and Their Consequences”

Abstract

In their thought-provoking article, Giacalone and Promislo point to some problematic ideas in management education such as the adoration of materialism and competition or the notion of the economic model as a natural law. But do students really develop such ideas because they were misinformed by their teachers? Misinformation implies that what is taught is not the truth or at least not the whole truth. We suggest that the question of how to design future management education cannot be answered by only looking at what should be taught. Rather, we suggest that debates about the future of management education should not only be concerned with content but also the epistemology and the teaching of management theory. Not only does the current mainstream of management education misinform students by painting a one-sided picture of economic realities. Rather, and even more importantly, it leads students to develop misconceptions of knowledge in management science as being objective and unambiguous. Teaching students how to reflect on the assumptions behind management theories as well as their own assumptions and values might be a possible way to tackle the challenge of misinformation.

Misinformation or Misconceptions

Yes, the way in which management is taught today has its issues. As Ghoshal (2005) points out, “[O]ur theories and ideas have done much to strengthen the management practices that we are all now so loudly condemning” (p. 75). We commend Giacalone and Promislo (2019) for their thought-provoking article in which they point to some of those problematic ideas in management education such as the adoration of materialism and competition or the notion of the economic model as a natural law.

But do students really develop such ideas because they have been misinformed by their teachers? Misinformation implies that what is taught is not the truth or at least not the whole truth. It also implies that if the “right story” was told, management education would lead to better professionals. But what if teachers do not share Giacalone and Promislo’s views? What if they consider the current economic model of capitalism to be “the truth” or at least the most beneficial truth to be taught to their students? We suggest that the question of how to design future management education cannot be answered by only looking at what should be taught. Rather, we believe that how management is taught is an equally important part of the problem which should be added to the discussion: Management education often espouses a positivist educational model, presenting theories and concepts as objective truths (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). This omits the fact that economic realities are socially constructed and based on negotiable ideas (Chia & Holt, 2008).

As a consequence, we suggest that debates about the future of management education should not only be concerned with content but also the epistemology of management theory. Not only does the current mainstream of management education misinform students by painting a one-sided picture of economic realities; rather, and even more important, it leads students to develop misconceptions of knowledge in management science as being objective and unambiguous.

The challenge for business education is to equip students (as well as educators) with capabilities that allow them to question the viability of theories, models, and concepts for solving specific management tasks. They need to recognize that if certain concepts do not fit a current situation or problem, they may need to modify the rationale for their management actions. Future managers need to develop the capabilities and the willingness to constantly reflect on which assumptions, theories, and models they act on and whether these are adequate for a given situation. We consider reflection ¹ as both an important mode of learning, that is, reflecting on what is being learned, as well as a major goal of business education, that is, developing the skills and attitudes in order to act reflectively in management practice (Raelin, 2001). It is, for instance, obvious that a theory about the purchasing behavior of individuals cannot and does not aim at explaining actions, feelings, and needs of a person as a whole. The theory focuses on a specific economic situation, is based on certain assumptions, and is thus limited in its explanatory power. A reflective approach to covering such topics means that lecturers and students disclose such a theory’s prerequisites, hidden assumptions, and values and reason on its appropriateness. This idea is also in line with the notion of critical reflexive practice as it is used by Holmes, Cockburn-Wootten, Motion, Zorn, and Roper (2005) to describe both critical thinking, that is, question as well as detecting hidden tensions—as in the sense of critical theory (see also Hibbert, 2013).

Understanding Management as a Socially Constructed Practice

As Giacalone and Promislo (2019) rightly posit, management education is often conveyed as if the mechanisms involved worked like cause and effect in the natural sciences. An example might be that “competition increases effort, and as such, can increase output compared to non-competitive work” (Giacalone & Promislo, 2019, p. 8). This misinformation—as Giacalone and Promislo (2019) name it—is rooted in a certain conception of management education that is based on a rather positivist view of the world (Clegg & Ross-Smith, 2003). In fact, one could identify that management education is rooted in a “fundamentally positivist paradigm of power based on hierarchical structures, with the ability to drive out competing discourses through steadfastly ignoring them or, more insidiously, appropriating and accommodating potentially threatening agendas such as sustainable development to fit the business-as-usual paradigm” (Kearins & Springett, 2003, p. 191). However, the question then is how management education can be structured and conveyed in a way that can tackle this issue. A more sustainable way might be to turn to the (educational) literature on students’ and faculty’s epistemologies that can enhance our understanding of management education. Epistemic cognitions are defined as “individuals’ underlying assumptions about knowledge and how it is gained” (King & Kitchener, 2004, p. 6). Teaching students how to reflect on the assumptions behind management theories as well as their own assumptions and values might be a possible way to tackle the challenge of misinformation.

Reflection has been conceptualized with reference to different epistemic traditions, leading to distinct theoretical strands (for a review, see Mann, Gordon, & MacLeod, 2007). One branch of theories has developed from Dewey’s (1910/1997) pragmatist philosophy and conceives reflection as a mode of dealing with practical situations. Reflection is regarded as a cognitive process, that is, a mode of thinking where a practical problem is addressed by linking current observations with theoretical knowledge and past experience. A second branch of theories has developed from Mezirow’s (1991, 1997) transformative learning. Putting a stronger focus on self-development, reflection is seen as a process through which people reconsider, adjust, and develop themselves, their value systems, their assumptions, and finally, their action strategies. Often, conceptual models of reflection do not explicate which epistemic tradition they are based on (Erlandson & Beach, 2008; Rogers, 2001). Different models also build upon each other (e.g., Schön’s, 1987, concept of reflective practice directly links to Dewey’s theory of reflective thought), address different aspects of reflection, and use different terminology.

A model directly addressing ill-structured problems that are often part of management decisions is King and Kitchener’s (2004) model of reflective judgment. Complex “[p]roblems are what business students will ultimately grapple with in their professional lives” (Sherwood, 2004, p. 536). The reflective judgement model (RJM) is rooted in Dewey’s pragmatist tradition, starting from the notion that “reflective judgements are initiated when an individual recognizes that there is controversy and doubt about a problem that cannot be answered by formal logic alone” (King & Kitchener, 2004, p. 6). From our point of view, it would be a goal of management education to equip students with the ability to identify controversies and problems, and to use reflective judgments in the following. As the RJM is also seen as a developmental model, it could be used to enhance our understanding of how to support students in developing reflective judgement capabilities. Since a detailed description of the model is available elsewhere (King & Kitchener, 1994), the focus in this rejoinder is on its transfer to management education.

The model distinguishes three levels—prereflective, quasi-reflective, and reflective thinking—with each of the levels representing a different epistemological perspective (King & Kitchener, 1994). The prereflective level is characterized by the assumption that knowledge is certain, that is, a correct answer exists to all questions. This is the case, for instance, when successful executives are depicted as icons (Giacalone & Promislo, 2019, p. 7). During this level, evidence is not used to reason toward a conclusion. Accordingly, students in this level would simply believe the professor. The quasi-reflective level recognizes that uncertainty is part of the learning process and that knowledge is socially constructed. In consequence, evidence is now used in the learning process and there is a growing awareness of different perspectives on controversial issues. From our point of view, the first suggestion Giacalone and Promislo (2019) propose to deal with the menace of misinformation, that is, that “faculty need to discuss the limits of our existing knowledge” (p. 19) could be located in the quasi-reflective level, since in such a discussion, the professor would still be in the role to convey the particular context in which certain knowledge is developed. The suggestion can be interpreted that it is the faculty’s responsibility to critically evaluate the methods and theories underlying knowledge creation.

To reach the goal “to develop socially responsible inhabitants of the world and keyholders of the future” (Giacalone & Promislo, 2019, p. 19), management education should aim to reach the reflective level in the RJM where students are themselves capable and self-confident to use evidence to support their own judgements but also to criticize both their own and other’s judgements (King & Kitchener, 2004). This idea is comparable to the notion of reflexivity proposed by Duarte (2009), which “encourages students to challenge particular versions of “truth” that are promoted and sustained through organizational practices and discourses” (Duarte, 2009, p. 67). With such an approach, students are challenged to deeply question their own values and also to deconstruct underlying assumptions of management, for example, the notion to see people as a company’s asset (e.g., Lawler, 2005). Thus, the reflective level goes beyond Giacalone and Promislo’s (2019) approach to deal with misinformation as students are themselves responsible for questioning faculty’s statements as well as their (mis-)conceptions.

Reflective Pedagogies in Management Education

How can we teach students conceptions of management theory in a way that helps them acknowledge the epistemic nature of management theory? It is not sufficient to simply confront students with practical problems as suggested in experiential learning or case-study approaches. As long as students act on the assumption that there is one way to “do things right,” even the most realistic case study or field experience will not necessarily help learners reach the reflective level as intended by King and Kitchener (1994, 2004).

One powerful pedagogical approach may lie in the way scholars present management theory, especially at the very beginning of management education. Chia and Holt (2008) call this aspect of management education “knowledge-by-exemplification: one that is demonstrative, creative and unreflectively performative, transmitted directly through the demeanor, style, and mannerism of management educators” (p. 741). Management scholars themselves could present alternative theories alongside each other (as done, e.g., in The Economics Anti-Textbook; Hill & Myatt, 2010) and have students share their opinions on them. Online voting systems allow such participation even in large course settings.

In any way, a management education that acknowledges management theory as a social construction rather than an objective truth needs to involve students in exemplary construction and negotiation processes. Hibbert (2013) highlights important prerequisites (e.g., class climate, tools for reflection) as well as mechanisms (identify structural inequalities, minimize power asymmetries) for enabling such critical dialogue. To move beyond the pre- and quasi-reflective levels (King & Kitchener, 2004), students and lecturers need to realize that they themselves are part of the creation and further development of management theory by positioning themselves to the conceptions and enacting them in their practice.