Abstract
This paper challenges eight “givens” that seem to form the dominant pedagogical
worldview held by students and academics alike in management. While experience
and reflection of the author is the foundation of this paper, it is buttressed
by thoughts and findings expressed by scholars and thinkers from diverse
fields. These eight “givens” are posed along with alternatives that fit with
what a knowledge society demands resulting in eight dialectics.
The eight dialectics are
• Prescriptive vs. Descriptive
• Seeking others’ examples vs. Seeking own theories
• Dichotomized vs. Dialectical thinking
• Perpetrating Action vs. Transforming Action
• Knowledge getting expended on supply vs. Knowledge enhancing on sharing
• Referencing: Begrudged recognition vs. Finding kindred souls
• Language as instrument vs. Language as reality
• Conceptual Self vs. Existential self
This paper is meant to trigger reflection and deeper discussion on Pedagogical
assumptions and practices in management education. While the paper is “shaped”
by management education, it is hoped that the insights gained here have
application to other areas of higher education, and through a “backward domino
effect”, on early education pedagogies too.
Challenging Certain Pedagogical
Givens in MBA Education
It is cliché to state that we are entering a new age where old assumptions are
constantly being challenged. But, perhaps, it is no cliché to state that the
area where the challenge is most trying is “education”, the simple reason being
that the educational arena is where the most intangible, and yet the most
powerful, of all resources (human knowledge) reconditions, redefines,
recreates, and entirely reshapes human beings.
And today’s educational efforts cannot be free from the techno-social context
in which we operate. How do we prepare our students to take on the challenges
in world where their values, cognitive means, thoughts and will are all being
constantly shaped and defined by bionic men and women, cyber artefacts, object-oriented lingo, seamless communication,
and unimaginably new forms of stimuli and response demands?
Briefly, and most generally, we see three dominant forms of responses.
Deliberately I draw the differences amongst them sharply to highlight the
extreme points to view to drive the point home:
a) The first group of individuals responds to these changes with nostalgia
towards the past and scorn towards the future. This fatalistic group may,
typically, invoke theories of “Pralaya” to believe
for themselves (and make efforts to convince others) the futility of human endeavour that has produced, and is producing, the kind of
changes we are now being seized with.
b) The second response is one of scorn for the wisdom of the past. For this
group all solutions of mankind would be technological. A corollary of such
thinking is that human values are entirely contract-based, ethics is purely
relativistic and technology shall emancipate humans.
c) The third typical response understands that we need to break from the past;
a past that was conditioned by instincts of power grabbing, communication
through rhetoric rather than reason, pandering to human fears and the
justification of the use of force. It also admits that there are huge
difficulties with most alternatives that have been conjured up by us, we
humans. It admits of the limitations we have placed on ourselves, but
ultimately believes that humans are transitional beings (Sri Aurobindo, 1952) with an evolutionary future in them.
Objectives
It seems that responsible education should now shift focus from getting
students to think, act and feel the “right” way, to seeking ways that will make
students taking “ownership” for their education - A self-driven approach
towards learning wherein the students feel deeply that is something in here
(the university, college and the campus) that should be worked upon eagerly and
passionately that will help him/her in life to be fuller and happier
individuals and social beings. For this we need to
a) Create a climate of greater intellectual excitement where discovering,
creating and re-creating oneself, others, and the world around, become a
passion.
b) Encourage a more holistic/ integrative approach to learning so that student
can bring to bear what he/she learnt to the task of living and working (and in
fact, being oneself and being a social entity) well after leaving formal
education.
This will require a tremendous amount of a) intellectual freedom b) hard work,
c) self-discipline and d) maturity on the part of students. And, as educators, we
have to provide the direction, guidance and an enlightened space within which
such freedoms, potentiality identification, character and skills development
would blossom.
In short, the efforts of educators would be to influence and mould student
action and reflection to liberate the young minds from the prisons that have
been erected by societal conformism where the locus of control lay outside the
person.
What are the governing aspects of this malaise? In paper identifies eight of
them. Each of these is presented with the possible shift that should take place
to move away from conformist education. For instance, the first one is about
prescriptive vs. descriptive. This paper posits that there has been an
excessive prescriptive orientation and the “pendulum” should now swing more
towards the descriptive. And so on with the other seven points.
1: Prescriptive vs. Descriptive
Management learning has sunken to being viewed as a series of prescriptive
guidelines. There is inadequate ability and appreciation of description. On the
other hand, education should encourage the student towards seeing reality, the
world out there, in greater clarity and help him or her represent (describe) it
in terms of symbols - language or mathematics - in a better way. Education is a
constant process of creating and recreating the symbols to match (as best as
possible since the reality cannot be the symbol itself) the reality out there.
After all no description can ultimately match the richness of reality and all
human efforts are knowledge gathering, irrespective of discipline, admits of
multiple reality. (McWhinney, 1997)
Excessive preoccupation with the “prescriptive” is a sign of expediency,
impatience and treatment of the student as “the other” whose job is to only “do
as I tell you.” The prescriptive mindset, which the student imbibes, would
spill out to their practices in industry too.
Freire (1970) says, “Every prescription represents
the imposition of one individual’s choice upon the other, transforming the
consciousness of the person prescribed into one that conforms the prescriber’s consciousness.”
There has to be model-building efforts such as in Operations Research with one
clear optimal solution. Certainly, given certain conditions, there are rational
ways to arrive at optimal solutions that do not vary across decision-makers.
Such models are useful in the right hands but we should be aware of the
potential of models and theories that generate convergent thinking to become
vehicles for reinforcing the prescriptive mind-set. We should not miss
opportunities to convey to the students that these models are only a few among
many descriptive possibilities.
The sharp distinction made here between the “prescriptive” and the
“descriptive” is only to highlight the relative neglect of the former. The two
should actually be complementary. Ideally managers have to start with the
descriptive and move onto the prescriptive. Corner (1997) explains how
decision-makers should start with the descriptive and then move on to the prescriptive.
2: Seeking others’ examples vs.
seeking own theories
There is
a tendency on the part of the student to “seek others’ examples” rather than
“seek own theory”. He or she values information rather than meta-understanding
from the information.
By seeking the so-called practical example, the student obtains a surface
confirmation for the argument on hand in the class, but misses out on how the
“variables” in the meta-model indeed work amongst themselves, and makes sense
to oneself. In the final analysis, value of education lies in creating rich conceptualisations of reality as models with the modeller having the flexibility to tweak these models when
new data comes in. This argument ties in with the what Hatano
and Inagaki (1992) tell us. For them true learning happens only when cognition
has been “desituated” through construction of
conceptual knowledge.
In seeking others examples and not working out (in the mind) the theory behind
the phenomenon, the student implicitly treats the knowledge as context-free.
Unless the mind works out the logic of why an event took place, there is no
real learning. Without understanding the underlying logic, learning through
anecdotal stories may correspond to sitting in front of a TV with a rabid
rhetorician holding the viewer hostage... intellectually speaking!
3: Dichotomized vs. Dialectical
thinking
In emphasizing management decision making, reinforced by the nature of the
decision-making models that we bring into the classroom, we are inadvertently
reinforcing an “OR” mentality, or dichotomised
thinking. A mind trained exclusively on the decision-making paradigm precludes
possibilities of “this AND that” or dialectical thinking. Examples of the AND
thinking that have generated useful idea in management (that now has become
truisms) are for instance, the idea that a firm simultaneously, and without
conflict, can serve the customer AND the shareholder, or that growth and
stability could BOTH be had at the same time etc. This is the essence of
entrepreneurial thinking (Zander & Zander, 2000) which applies irrespective of the objectives
(whether for material gain, super-ordinate goal fulfilment
or something else) pursued.
For creating solutions to new problems, a healthy “AND” mentality is useful. It
brings in appreciation of variety, healthy attitude towards pluralism and it
generates an inclusive mind-set. When we look carefully we also can see that dichotomised thinking precludes the student from seeing
shades of grey, or in other words, seeking “intrapolative”
solutions.
There is also the issue of creativity. While creativity would be touted as
out-of-box thinking (some kind of lip service), there is, as it is, plenty of
scope for “intrapolative thinking” that would
generate interesting solutions. This can come only with dialectical thinking
that incorporates, as much as humanly possible, the benefits of both
“extremes.”
“AND” thinking does not mean being able to achieve both ends all the times.
“AND” thinking is dialectical thinking wherein one is opening up to the
possibility of BOTH ends as a historical progression aided by human
intervention; for instance, progression of firm’s responsibility towards
different stakeholders as a continuum from historical shareholder include the
customer too, to employee, to the environment etc.
4: Perpetrating Action vs.
Transforming Action
Perpetrating action seeks not to disturb the status quo while transforming
action busts the boundaries. Perpetrating action is acutely conscious of the
boundary (roles of persons, their political power, resource constraints etc.).
Transforming action is sharply targeted on results.
Perpetrating action is inward looking which transforming action is outward
looking. Perpetrating thinking and action neatly circumscribes situations into
prisons of constraints while transforming action challenges existing
constraints and moves on to achieve results.
The circumscribing nature of existing pedagogy is apparent in the way students
use some of the models in projects etc. For instance, in many assignments we
see students trying to neatly fit a theory to the reality they are supposed to
describe. In other words, reality viewing is circumscribed to the model or
theory on hand. The student does not see the model as yet another way to
further understand the confusing reality out there. Used wrongly, theory is an
instrument for suffocation. Perhaps when we overemphasize the precise use of
models we are forcing our students to think with blinkers. This may
inadvertently be forcing our students towards a habit of choosing abstract
models and mechanically applying them to situations, which finally, be
promoting boundary-respecting thinking and action.
Implications on risk averseness, entrepreneurship and getting things done under
adverse circumstances etc. are obvious. Fortunately, in some quarters there is
awareness of the limitations of old mental models that perpetrate the status
quo [See Turner (2000).]
5: Knowledge getting expended on
supply vs. Knowledge enhancing on sharing
All true learnings are ultimately about a)
development from within and b) greater ability to negotiate with the
environment. These goals are lost out while treating knowledge as commodity
that is lost out on being parted with. One way to overcome this problem is to
get students to spend more time on mind-expanding activities rather than
techniques acquisition. The argument is that with an expanded mindset, skills
will automatically be acquired when occasion demands. While we can’t take this
idea beyond a certain point, it is quite clear that, at present, the importance
attached to techniques is excessive.
Mind expansion that seeks to share knowledge and sees knowledge expanding on
sharing will have positive impact on the ability to give and take in group
projects, and by extension, in development of team skills. A commoditised view of knowledge seriously hampers the
development and nurturance of knowledge-based social systems.
6: Referencing: Begrudged recognition
vs. finding kindred souls
We need to convince students that while writing papers etc. referencing should
not a matter of begrudged recognition but a process of finding kindred souls
who are thinking in a manner akin to oneself.
We need to convey that intellectually getting a handle on anything is a
difficult pursuit and that in assignments even if the students can come with a
very small new angle (or even nothing new) it is still worthy of something. By
educating the students on how to reference and write a decent paper we will be
conveying a strong message. At least for some, writing from “within” rather
than copy from here and there should become second nature.
One cannot but recall the acknowledgement graciously bestowed by the celebrated
Harvard scholar, Lin Yutang (1937) upon the friendly
squirrel that regularly darts by at the place where the author did most of his
writing of the book, “Importance of Living.” Not all persons may show such
sensitivity, but a certain recognition would make pursuit of knowledge (and
actions) much more worthwhile. Who can forget Albert Einstein’s words, “If I
have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of
giants.”
7: Language as instrument vs.
Language as reality
I think management educators, in the name of practicality, has unwittingly reduced
language as pure instruments for communication. Language is something “outside”
oneself that has only advocacy value. We have to get the students to understand
that language is, in fact, reality itself. Through words we develop our own
conception of reality. And that reality is the truest reality for each one of
us.
Communication is only a small aspect of language. Its sense-making role has to
be re-emphasised (Weick,
1979; Morgan, 1998)
There are major implications. For instance, we could conclude that while Power
Point slides are useful to trigger points in a presentation, it cannot
substitute language. Excessive emphasis on presentation sends the signal that
form is everything and that in Management knowledge is reductionistic.
The pain and joy of constructing images with uniquely human endowments, of
crafting possibilities with the aid of language and symbols, and of creating
culturally-enduring long-term consequences may simply be overlooked.
8: Conceptual Self vs. Existential
Self
Conceptual self (Neisser, 1997) is the “rational
actor” in social situations, who is driven mainly by normative orientation
(Gone, et al, 1999). It corresponds to the role and image ascribed to the
individual (by oneself and influenced by others). This self is in constant
interaction with others belonging to various social groups. The consistency in
roles and images brings stability to social situations. Give and take are
expected of, developed and completed, based upon the conceptual self. Excessive
preoccupation with only the conceptual self brings about an excessive
preoccupation with judgment, evaluation, playing the “politically correct”,
playing the martyr, playing the victimised, playing
the contrarian etc.
As opposed to this, the existential self (Kotarba et
al, 1987) is a bundle of subjective experience of the person concerned. In the
individual, the rational and the non-rational mix lending subjective meanings
to situations the individual faces. The world out there may be anything, but it
is the experience of the individual persons that bring authenticity to the
experience. In other words, the essence of the collective reality is nothing
but the subjective experience of the individuals.
The American Indian poet sought the understanding of the existential self
through the following”
It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living.
I want to know what you ache for, and if you dare to dream of meeting your
heart’s longing.
It doesn’t interest me how old you are.
I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love, for dreams,
for the adventure of being alive.
……..
(The Invitation, inspired by Oriah Mountain Dreamer,
Native American Elder, May 1994; Quoted from SQ: Spiritual Intelligence the
Ultimate Intelligence by Danah Zohar
and Ian Marshall)
Both the conceptual and existential selves have to co-exist in harmony so that
a healthy mix of what is and what ought to be are present in communication and
social exchanges. These two apparently opposing realities (or indeed, selves)
require nourishment and encouragement in education. It appears the latter is
forgotten in most of our educational endeavours.
Let us see how the idea applies to life for aspiring MBAs. Take the
“Objectives” Section of Placement Application Form of some MBA students. Every
one of the students talks about the “contribution” he or she would make to the
organization etc. which no discussion, whatsoever, on what oneself wants. It
appears that despite all inputs on psychology etc. there is little discussions
possible through the application vis-à-vis the existential self. I believe this
lack of opportunity for self-specific discussions is true within and outside
classrooms too.
Individual aspirations, and dreams (nay, individual differences and
angularities themselves) are things to be discussed and appreciated within
oneself and in others. This requires unveiling the real self. One of the
purposes of education is to provide an arena for such unveiling. Open
discussion about oneself can generate awareness and bring out of conflicts that
each of live with.
This is what liberation education should do. Let individuals articulate
themselves better. We will not be creating more selfish persons this way. We
would be creating self-confident and tolerant individuals. Not letting off the
steam of existential secrets creates pathological self-absorption.
This lack of focus on self in any deep sort of way has major implications for
managerial action and performance. For instance, in negotiations those with
such hesitations would be able to inadequately conceptualise
their true needs and communicate the needs effectively. This may unnecessarily
break down negotiations.
Ability to respect and shift focus onto existential self when required has also
implications on individual autonomy, maintenance of internal locus of control,
self-confidence, learning ability and positive attitude towards oneself and
others.
Concluding Remarks
Education is a life-long process that should liberate humans from the bondage
imposed by habits and hubris. This has been the challenge of education in the
past and will continue to be so in future. However the elements that will need
to be addressed would change from time to time. We are at a threshold of
epochal changes, and as management educators we have to embrace positive change
brought about by post-industrialism and information technology. There is no way
to do this than by questioning the existing fundamentals that have long
outlived their usefulness, identifying alternatives and working proactively on
them.
References
Corner, J.L. 1997. “Teaching Decision Analysis.” Interfaces - 27:6, Nov-Dec,
Page 131-139.
Freire, Paulo, 1970. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” Penguin, London.
Gone, J.P., P.J. Miller, & J. Rappaport,1999. Conceptual Self an normatively
Oriented: The Suitability of Past
Personal Narrative for the Study of Cultural Identity” Culture and
Psychology - Vol. 5(4).
Hatano, Giyoo & Kayoko Inagaki, 1992. “Desituating Cognition through the Construction of
Conceptual Knowledge.” In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.) Context and
Cognition: Ways of knowing and learning, Pages: 115-133.
Kotarba, J.A., A. Fontana, S. M. Lyman, 1987. The Existential Self in Society,
McWinney, W. 1997. Paths of Change: Strategic Choices for Organisations
and Society.
Morgan, G., 1998. Images of Organizations.
Neisser,U & D.A. Jopling,
1997. The Conceptual Self in Context: Culture Experience Self Understanding,
Sri Aurobindo, 1972. “The Life Divine.” Sabda Press, Podicherry.
Weick, K. E., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organising.
Yutang, Lin, 1998. The Importance of Living. William Morrow & Co:
Zander, Rosamund, S &
Benjamin Zander, 2000 “The Art of the Possible;
Transforming Professional and Personal Lives.” Harvard Business Press: