The history of management education shows the rigor and relevance gap has been around for centuries, well before its appearance in the United States. Nor is it peculiar to management. It is neither germane to our discipline's present difficulties nor an appropriate focus for our critics. Rather, history suggests we finally parted company with managers after the 1959 Ford and Carnegie reports, as we presumed rationality alone was the sufficient basis for understanding them and their doings. These reports helped us turn management education into a profession even as management itself has yet to become one. To return closer to managers, the author suggests rationality captures one dimension of their practice, whereas the notion of business as an art form might capture its complement. Reformed art education, covering art's history, aesthetics, criticism, and production, provides a framework for studying the managerial art, and leads us to a rich, dynamic theory of the firm.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Alberti, L. B. (1991). On painting. London: Penguin Books.
3.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Bennis, W., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
5.
Boal, K. B., & Hirsch, P. M. (2004). Editors' introduction. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 85–86.
6.
Boettinger, H. M. (1975). Is management really an art?Harvard Business Review, 53(1), 54–64.
7.
Chandler, A. D., & Redlich, F. (1961). Recent developments in American business administration and their conceptualization. Business History Review, 35(1), 1–27.
8.
Clark, T. (2004). Controversies and continuities in management studies: Essays in honour of Karen Legge. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 367–376.
9.
Coleman, J. S. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton.
10.
Commons, J. R. (1924). The legal foundations of capitalism. New York: Macmillan.
11.
De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
12.
DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2005). What's really wrong with US business schools. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=766404
13.
Engwall, L., & Zamagni, V. (1998). Introduction. In L. Engwall & V. Zamagni (Eds.), Management education in historical perspective (pp. 1–18). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
14.
Fehling, A. W. (1926). Collegiate education for business in Germany. Journal of Political Economy, 34, 545-545.
15.
Fehling, A. W. (1928). Collegiate education for business in Germany. In L. C. Marshall (Ed.), The collegiate school of business (pp. 305–361). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Fernandes, J. (2005). The world's most popular degree—the MBA—is alive and well. AACSB eNewsline, 4(6), 1–2.
17.
Forrester, D. A. R. (1990). Rational administration, finance and control accounting: The experience of Cameralism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 285–317.
18.
French, R., & Grey, C. (1996). Rethinking management education. London: Sage.
19.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
Gordon, R., & Howell, J. (1959). Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press.
21.
Grey, C. (2001). Re-imagining relevance: A response to Starkey & Madan. British Journal of Management [Special issue], 12, S27–S32.
22.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 178-178.
23.
Hambrick, D. (1994). 1993 Presidential address—What if the academy actually mattered. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.
24.
Hancock, P. (2005). Uncovering the semiotic in organizational aesthetics. Organization, 12(1), 29–50.
25.
Haskell, T. L. (2000). The emergence of professional social science: The American Social Science Association and the nineteenth-century crisis of authority. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
26.
Hatch, M. J., Kostera, M., & Koźmiński A. K. (2005). The three faces of leadership: Manager, artist, and priest. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
27.
Heaton, H. (1968). A scholar in action: Edwin F. Gay. New York: Greenwood.
28.
Horwitz, M. J. (1992). The transformation of American law, 1780–1860. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Huff, A. S. (2000). 1999 presidential address—Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 288–293.
30.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. I & II). New York: Dover.
31.
Jarausch, K. H. (Ed.). (1982). The transformation of higher learning: Expansion, diversification, social opening and professionalization in England, Germany, Russia and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Liedman, S.-E., & Persson, M. (1992). The visible hand—Anders Berch and the University of Uppsala chair in economics. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S259-S259.
34.
Light, D. W. (1983). The development of professional schools in America. In K. H. Jarausch (Ed.), The transformation of higher learning 1860–1930 (pp. 345–365). Stuttgart, Germany: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Lindenfeld, D. F. (1997). The practical imagination: The German sciences of state in the nineteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Linder, J. C., & Smith, H. J. (1992). The complex case of management education. Harvard Business Review, 70(5), 16–33.
37.
Livingston, J. S. (1971). Myth of the well-educated manager. Harvard Business Review, 49(1), 79–89.
38.
Locke, R. R. (1996). The collapse of the American management mystique. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Locke, R. R. (1998). Management education. Guilford, UK: Ashgate.
40.
Locke, R. R., & Schone, K. (2004). The entrepreneurial shift: Americanization in European high-tech management education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Lowell, A. L. (1923). The profession of business. Harvard Business Review, 1(2), 129–131.
42.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems (J. Bednarz & D. Baecker, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
McGlade, J. (1998). The big push: The export of American business education to Western Europe after the second world war. In L. Engwall & V. Zamagni (Eds.), Management education in historical perspective (pp. 50–65). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
44.
Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (1976). Sociological ambivalence. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays (pp. 91–120). New York: Simon & Schuster.
45.
Metcalf, H. C. (1927). Business management as a profession. Chicago: A. W. Shaw.
46.
Meyer, H.-D. (1998). The German Handelshochschulen, 1898-1933: A new departure in management education and why it failed. In L. Engwall & V. Zamagni (Eds.), Management education in historical perspective (pp. 19–33). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
47.
Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the left side, managing on the right. Harvard Business Review, 54, 49–58.
48.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
49.
Mowday, R. T. (1997). Reaffirming our scholarly values. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 335–345.
50.
Parker, M. (2002). Against management. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
51.
Pearce, J. L. (2004). What do we know and how do we really know it?Academy of Management Review, 29, 175–179.
52.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advancement of organization science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.
53.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 78–95.
54.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school “business”: Some lessons from the U.S. experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1501–1520.
55.
Pieper, R. (1990). The history of business administration and management educucation in the two Germanies—A comparative approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(2), 211–229.
56.
Pierson, F. C., et al. (1959). The education of American businessmen: A study of university-college programs in business education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
57.
Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137–145.
58.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
59.
Redlich, F. (1949). The business leader in theory and in reality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 8(3), 223–237.
60.
Redlich, F. (1957). Academic education for business: Its development and the contribution of Ignaz Jastrow (1856–1937). Business History Review, 31, 35–91.
61.
Revans, R. W. (1967). Professor Simon on business schools. Journal of Management Studies, 4, 168-168.
62.
Richardson, H. G. (1940). Business training in medieval Oxford. American History Review, 46, 259-259.
63.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
65.
Sass, S. A. (1982). The pragmatic imagination: A history of the Wharton School 1881–1981. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
66.
Sawyer, R. K., et al. (2003). Creativity and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
Shackle, G. L. S. (1972). Epistemics & economics: A critique of economic doctrines. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
68.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (1st ed.). New York: Macmillan.
69.
Simon, H. A. (1967). The business school: A problem in organizational design. Journal of Management Studies, 4, 1–16.
70.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 25–44.
71.
Small, A. W. (1969). The Cameralists: The pioneers of German social policy. New York: B. Franklin.
72.
Smith, R. A. (Ed.). (2000). Readings in discipline-based art education: A literature of educational reform. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
73.
Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1521-1521.
74.
Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12(Suppl. 1), S3–S26.
75.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (n.d.). The world-class business school: A UK perspective. London: Council for Excellence in Management & Leadership.
76.
Veblen, T. (1965). The theory of the business enterprise. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.
77.
Volkmann, C., & De Cock, C. (2005, July). The Bauhaus and the business school: Analogies and antinomies. Paper presented at the Critical Management Studies 2005 conference, Cambridge, UK.
78.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Gapping the relevance bridge: Fashion meets fundamentals in management research. British Journal of Management, 12(Special), S71–S75.
79.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–220.
80.
Zimmerman, J. L. (2001). Can American business schools survive? (Administration Working Paper FR01-16). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, William E. Simon Graduate School of Business.
