GBSN CEO

The Tragedy of the Commonsense Morality

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

And What We Can Do About It

Writing about the climate challenge, French economist Jean Tirole frames the problem brilliantly: “The benefits of reducing climate change remain global and distant in time, while the costs of that reduction are local and immediate.” (Economics for the Common Good, p. 199) Why would any country take costly steps to attenuate global warming, when almost all the benefits go to other countries? Many of us see it the same way, as an example of the “Tragedy of Commons” or, more generally, a free rider problem.

If we know what the problem is, we ought to be able to solve it, right? Political scientist, Elinor Ostrom, has demonstrated how different combinations of incentives and sanctions have been used to effectively address the commons problem in small, stable communities. (Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action) Unfortunately, these strategies don’t apply to a planet of 8.2 billion people across nearly 200 countries.

To understand the problem differently, I often turn from economics and go back more than a decade to book written by philosopher turned psychologist, Joshua Greene, who takes a different approach and introduces the “Tragedy of Commonsense Morality.” (See Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them)

Greene starts with the tragedy of the commons and argues, not unlike Ostrom does for institutions, that our moral instincts evolved to help us cooperate within small, close-knit groups (tribes). Morality, he wrote, “is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation.” It helps us to address the “Me” vs “Us” problem and helped early humans to survive. Along with a host of other factors (such as our tendency to maintain local ties even within a larger society), our moral instincts made it possible for societies to expand.

The point, according to Greene, is that (like biological traits) our moral beliefs adapt over time—shaped by the environment or context. What works/evolves to promote cooperation in one community does not necessarily work/evolve in another. The tragedy of the commonsense morality occurs here, in the larger setting within which different solutions intersect. “Me” vs “Us” problems become “Us” vs “Them” problems. Once we have locked into tightly reasoned moralities, they become more “automatic,” acquire real moral weight, and begin to resemble “rights.” That is one reason why we are often surprised by the intensity with which individuals know others are wrong.

Why does any of this matter? Going back to where we started, humanity faces a growing number of global challenges that cannot be solved by individual nations (or groups within them) acting alone. Climate change, global health, and economic inequality are just a few examples of problems that require cooperation across borders, cultures, and ideologies. Yet, as Greene argues, our moral instincts often prioritize the needs of our immediate group over those of others, especially more distant others. (Frankly, even basic economic opportunities, such as trade based on comparative advantage, also depend on cooperative solutions that elude us at the moment.) Solutions will require us to switch from “automatic” mode to “manual” mode (System 1 and System 2 in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow) and consider a “metamorality,” which I won’t expand on here.

Of course, there are many factors at work which make finding solutions challenging. Take social media platforms, for example. Because we tend to interact longer with content aligned with our beliefs (think confirmation bias) and because advertising income depends on attention, algorithms are built to serve us more information consistent with our pre-existing beliefs—causing the platforms to act as digital echo chambers, where people primarily interact with others who share their views and values.

What can we do about the tragedy of the commonsense morality? Honestly, I don’t know how the solve the problem. Nobody seems to know (there is considerable debate about the philosophical way out outlined by Greene), and that is a source of great stress for many people. For now, however, I want to share a few thoughts about what we can do as individuals, managers, and educators.

Each of us are citizens of a country and world, as well as various communities. Individuals and organizations have responsibilities that go beyond their local or national communities, beyond political parties and other segments, and must begin to think about themselves as part of a broader interconnected world. Of course, doing that is more difficult than it might initially seem, especially since some of the biggest differences and most passionate stances are about questions related to immigration and inclusion. How do we widen the circle of “Us” when the whole point of some people is to limit the size and diversity of their groups?

One straightforward strategy I always recommend is to collect information not only from multiple sources, but also from diverse ones. It is time consuming, but it helps us to gain a fuller picture, reduce bias, and improve objectivity and decision-making. And it enhances empathy and social awareness. In the old days, I made a habit of reading about the same topics in both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Nowadays, I often use AI to compare across many different outlets leaning left and right, identify biases and gaps, and summarize divergent content into more holistic narratives.

About climate, for example, I can see a common core emerging, that the scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is largely driven by human activity, while contrasting narratives are about interpreting the policy implications, rather than the underlying data. Sure, I have a stance—the urgency to act is critical—but I also understand the economic and practical challenges of transition cannot be ignored, especially considering differences across economies at different stages of development. Indeed, I like to utilize regional and language filters to retrieve more local views on global issues.

Besides working on ourselves, as managers and educators, we can multiply our efforts by also helping others to think more broadly and across groups. We can encourage them to use diverse sources like we do. We can work harder to develop cross-cultural appreciation and agility in our colleagues and students, and not shy away from the complexities of global challenges. We can take on moral disagreements, as well as business and economic ones, in the workplace and classroom. We can encourage colleagues to think beyond individuals, organizations, and markets to consider how the political, economic, and environmental parts of the systems interact.

It is not only about the content but also about the pedagogy. I believe the best way to truly be exposed to and embrace different perspectives is through experience. Put your students into simulations, role-plays, and real-world project teams that force them to confront the most difficult issues and work together across borders, disciplines, and sectors to solve problems. Because diversity matters to innovation and learning, we’re excited at GBSN about our new Global Business Student Changemaker program in partnership with How to Change the World.

The tragedy of commonsense morality is a fundamental challenge in today’s interconnected world in which our (tribal) instincts clash with the need for broader cooperation. The tensions will only get stronger, but we can each do our part as global citizens, managers, and educators. Together our challenge is to bridge the gap between “us” and “them,” as well as “me” and “us.” Management education has a crucial role to play in developing the next generation of leaders who can navigate moral complexities and work toward a more cooperative, sustainable future.

What Does Winning Look Like Today?

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

When I was an economics professor (which was a long time ago), I often invited students in introductory classes to play a simple game. They were instructed to choose “Heads” or “Tails” and secretly write their choice on a sticky note, while I randomly sorted the class into pairs. If the choices made by any pair of students turn out to be the same (i.e., Heads/Heads or Tails/Tails), according to the rules, I would give them both chocolate bars. Otherwise, they would receive nothing.

What would you choose?

After playing things out and recording the results, I worked with the class to model the game using a simple 2×2 payoff matrix (see below). Then we talked about what happened.

I recall getting a lot of mileage out of this simple exercise. We frequently talked about the inadequacies of our model. For example, it fails to predict the outcome or recommend a particular strategy to players. Both Heads/Heads and Tails/Tails are (pure strategy) equilibria and neither is superior (the payoffs are the same). The point is that Tails/Tails is just as good as Heads/Heads.

Yet, over time, nearly all my students chose Heads. And I gave away a lot of candy! It’s reasonable to ask why economists have a difficult time explaining such a simple and obvious outcome. In advanced classes, we turned to repeated games and refinements to our definition of equilibrium.

For our class, however, the observation most often led to a discussion about the importance of norms, conventions, standards, and rules (e.g., driving on the right side of the road in the U.S.) in generating better results (e.g., not crashing into each other). We talked about the importance of information and communication, and how uninteresting the game would be if choices were made sequentially, with perfect information about the choices already made.

Besides being an easy and fun discussion starter, I was anxious to include the exercise for another reason, which was to show students that in business and life, one person’s gain does not have to mean another’s loss, as so many of our models seem to suggest. I noted that by then, we considered zero-sum games, as well as prisoner’s dilemma type games and more standard models of oligopoly. Look, I would explain, it’s still about winning the game and maximizing your payoff, but the winning strategy and behavior can be very different depending on the rules of the game. Coordination games, like the one we played, gave students a fresh way to think about business.

I have been thinking about the differences a lot lately, especially in a world that seems to be getting more complex and unpredictable. Where it is getting harder to distinguish friends from enemies and to stress long-term needs as well as short-term interests. In recent months it seems politics and economics are colliding to make underlying assumptions less universal. It’s getting harder to tell what winning looks like.

But it is also a world in which “coordination” and generating mutual benefit by aligning strategies is more relevant than ever. The digitalization of the economy, globalization of value chains, and expansion of platform-based business models have created environments where the payoffs for businesses are more interdependent. Success in these markets often depends on aligning actions with others, including competitors and consumers, as well as collaborators. Take technology standards, for example. The adoption of a common protocol benefits all firms that follow it, as it enhances interoperability and customer satisfaction.

The world economy is more interconnected than ever. Businesses, even small ones, no longer operate in isolated markets but as part of vast networks that span across geographies and sectors. Coordination across these networks can lead to collective gains. For instance, multinational corporations need to cooperate with local partners, governments, and other stakeholders to enter new markets and create value—and to increase visibility into their value chains.

A big motivator for me, and the work we do at GBSN, is that coordination, as well as competition, paves the way to more inclusive and sustainable growth. Transformation requires systems-level thinking and platforms that facilitate collaboration across sectors, as well as within industries. My favorite chapter in a book titled Net Positive is called “It Takes Three to Tango.” In it, Paul Polman (former Unilever CEO) describes the need for governments, the private sector, and civil society to “dance a complicated tango.” Businesses, consumers, and society can all benefit over the long term from pre-competitive standards and coordinated action to reduce environmental impact.

Yes, it’s getting more complicated and difficult. As I explained to my students, it’s not only about winning but also the implications of winning for society—the planet and its people. It’s not only about the present, but also about the future. And, as I tried to demonstrate using the simple game, enabling mutually beneficial solutions is not only about strategy and competition, but also about shared mindsets.

Business schools can play an important role. We can transform people and mindsets, convene leaders across sectors and borders, and create new insights that illuminate the path forward. We can continue to build platforms that bring together different people from different places to create shared experiences that enhance future cooperation—and provide learners across generations with the knowledge skills to build industry-wide frameworks and public-private partnerships to establish common goals and frameworks, as well as transform their companies. Most fundamentally, we can each take steps to reduce zero-sum, short-term thinking in favor of win-win-win, long-term thinking in our classrooms.

The Future of Globalization May be Uncertain. The Need for Innovation is Not

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

Over the past few decades, globalization—the closer integration of countries and peoples—has been a powerful engine of economic growth, improving global health and lifting millions out of poverty, as well as increasing efficiency. Expanding cross-border collaborations and knowledge exchanges have empowered countries to address critical societal issues.

However, globalization has also been blamed for widening income inequality within and between countries, weakening communities, and fueling social and economic discontent. Some people connect environmental degradation and climate change at least partially to the rise of global supply chains and the increasing mobility of people. Dissatisfaction with globalization opened the door to nationalism, trade wars, and geopolitical tensions between major powers, contributing to the fragmentation of global cooperation. Many countries have been reconsidering their roles in the world economy, prioritizing domestic interests over international cooperation. While the world is more connected than ever and globalization remains a powerful force, what will happen next is unclear.

Like other organizations, business schools will be affected in myriad ways by the changing global landscape. The path of globalization shapes what business schools teach and the way they organize to teach it. It impacts the distribution of internationally mobile students, markets for executive education, faculty hiring, research collaborations, financial models, and more. Navigating the uncertainty and changing environment will require schools to be agile, entrepreneurial, and resilient.

Now, while the future of globalization may be uncertain, the need for innovation is not. As technological advancements, climate change, and social inequality continue to shape the global landscape, innovation will be crucial to addressing relevant challenges. In this period of increasing uncertainty, I encourage business schools to continue channeling energy and resources towards innovation.

We know that innovation thrives when ideas and talent flow freely across borders, enabling communities and organizations to leverage diverse perspectives, skills, and resources of people around the world. By capitalizing on globalization, business schools have equipped students with the skills and mindsets needed to collaborate across borders, generated useful research, and strengthened connections between industries and communities. But what happens if international mobility shrinks, and the world economy becomes more fragmented?

What can business schools do to maintain and grow their impact on innovation even while the future of globalization is uncertain, and potentially in retreat? I offer three suggestions, which taken together offer new perspectives on the role organizations like GBSN.

First, business schools are of course engaged locally as well as globally. They catalyze innovation by fostering local entrepreneurship that meets the specific needs of their communities. With international mobility shrinking, business schools can increase their focus on building strong local networks that connect students, faculty, and businesses. Through incubators, accelerator programs, and partnerships with local industries, schools support entrepreneurs in developing innovative solutions tailored to local challenges, such as healthcare, sustainability, and education. By empowering local talent, business schools help build resilient economies that are less dependent on global markets.

Second, even in a fragmented global economy, business schools still play a key role in bridging the gap between private enterprises, governments, and civil society organizations. By creating platforms for collaboration between these sectors, schools can drive innovation in areas that require collective action, such as environmental sustainability, digital transformation, and social equity. Schools can facilitate dialogue, joint research projects, and problem-solving initiatives that bring together diverse stakeholders, encouraging the development of innovative solutions that can address complex, multi-dimensional challenges at the local level.

Third, even as international mobility shrinks, business schools can use digital tools to maintain global collaboration and knowledge exchange. By adopting online learning platforms, virtual exchange programs, and remote research partnerships, business schools can continue to connect with global experts and thought leaders. This approach allows schools to sustain a global perspective, despite geographic constraints, while also enabling students and faculty to access international insights and innovative practices that can be adapted to local contexts. Leveraging digital connectivity ensures that schools remain a catalyst for innovation even in a more fragmented world.

Taken together, the three strategies offer new perspectives on the role of organizations like the Global Business School Network (GBSN). Perhaps counterintuitively, the focus on innovation even as globalization retreats makes our work more important rather than less. Organizations like GBSN build bridges between local entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems, helping them to share knowledge that can accelerate progress. GBSN cultivates important partnerships across sectors at an international level. For example, collaborations with the International Labor Organization (ILO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have contributed vital teaching resources for local contexts. Finally, through programs such as the Africa Business Concept Challenge, GoTrade Fellowship Program with DHL, new Global Business Student Changemakers, and a range of faculty impact communities and development activities, GBSN provides the infrastructure and support to virtual connections across schools.

By strengthening their focus on local innovation systems, building multi-sectoral partnerships, and supporting virtual programs, while participating in global networks and maintaining robust international collaborations, business schools can continue to thrive and make a positive impact and a complex, ever-changing world.

Finding Truth in an AI World: The Power of Human Connection

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

In the car, halfway to school, my son lifted his eyes from the phone long enough to say, “Did you know, in Japan, workers who get to the office early park farther away, leaving the closer spots for others that come later?” I didn’t know. And, because I’m never quite sure where my son gets his content, my first question was, “Is it true?” We arrived at school just after settling on an answer.

Later in the day, reflecting on the experience, I felt that I missed an opportunity. A better conversation would have started with a different question, such as, “Why is this interesting to you?” Or, “Do you think such a practice could have evolved in the United States?” Maybe, “How might this behavior benefit companies?” I could go on. It’s not that the truth no longer mattered to me, it just should have been less urgent than the opportunity to connect with and explore an interesting concept with my son.

In the first act of The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde wrote, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” That was in 1895. Today, his assertion seems more relevant than ever. Misinformation, whether deliberate or unintentional, has always been part of the human experience. But technology (and the business models associated with many of them) has introduced a new level of complexity. AI, for example, can be used by humans to generate deepfakes and fabricate convincing yet false news stories, while social media platforms (powered by big data and commercial-driven algorithms) spread these stories at lightning speed.

Fabrications no longer serve only people, some AI systems have already learned to deceive humans, creating false beliefs to achieve outcomes other than the truth. That reminds me of another quote, which has been (falsely?!) attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” We have muddied the waters of reality and that has significantly diminished trust.

Of course, technology also offers a potential solution. As much as big tech has contributed to the spread of misinformation, it also offers powerful tools to fight it. AI systems are being developed to identify false content, fact-check in real time, and alert users when they encounter potentially misleading information. Let the robot truth wars begin!

More importantly, and this is the main point of my holiday message, the need to address misinformation reminds us of the value of human connection. In a world where fake news and AI-generated falsehoods spread so easily, I believe the importance of meaningful, face-to-face interactions is elevated. This season, as we gather with family and friends, it’s a reminder to cherish the conversations and shared experiences that ground us in reality and build trust, keeping us connected to what truly matters.

Try to take advantage of opportunities like the one I missed with my son. To be clear, I’m not only encouraging more conversations, but also better ones. The fact is that many of us enter conversations more to assert our own opinions, establish authority, and get our way, rather than to explore ideas and different perspectives, build relationships, and move towards the truth. We are, after all, only human, with all the associated deep-seated psychological needs and cognitive biases.

The answer to misinformation is not just more advanced AI tools (and tighter regulations), it is our human capacities for empathy, critical thinking, and open dialogue. It is up to us to build environments in which meaningful conversations can thrive; to cultivate cultures where we question and discuss, and yes, seek out reliable information, especially when we are flooded with content. The truth may be elusive and will never be simple, but that doesn’t have to slow human progress. Let’s celebrate the season by recommitting ourselves to talking about the things that matter, equipped with human wisdom—as well as the best AI tools at our disposal.

ChatGPT was used as a tool by the author to brainstorm and shape key points. Any errors that remain are the sole responsibility of the author.

Is More Information Better?

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

It is a good idea to collect data about the outcomes of heart surgeries and make it available to the public. Report cards help patients find the best hospitals and doctors, while the providers have an incentive to improve quality. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it.

Well, in a paper I read a little more than 20 years ago, the authors found that publicly available cardiac surgery report cards “led to higher levels of resource use and to worse health outcomes, particularly for sicker patients.” They concluded, “at least in the short run, these report cards decreased patient and social welfare.” The report cards motivated providers to select against treating the sickest patients, who are more likely to have poor outcomes. The model is more intricate, but that’s the basic idea.

At the time, my interest in the article, and others like it, was not only because of my continuing curiosity about economics but also because by then I was working at AACSB, initiating efforts to collect and share data for benchmarking. I’ve been thinking about the article and its provocative title “Is More Information Better?” and am writing this short piece to share some notes about metrics and management education.

The report card article first returned to my mind when I started watching a television series called “The Resident” on Netflix. In the show, set in the U.S., a hospital CEO is single-mindedly focused on the bottom line (he previously worked in private equity), while the protagonists, doctors, and nurses on the hospital staff, fight to prioritize patient health. What I like about the show is that it doesn’t gloss over the issues. There are real tradeoffs, and the series puts them front and center. It makes for great television and illustrates just how difficult it is to manage a hospital—and how challenging our job is in business schools.

It’s getting more challenging. How do we prepare students for a more complicated business world in which short-term profitability (rightfully) isn’t the only important objective? Hasn’t it been hard enough under the dominant view that the sole responsibility of business to make as much money as possible (“subject to the basic rules of society”)? We must rethink management education to foster real business model changes that advance the role of business in promoting societal well-being. Increasingly, consumers, investors, and employees expect it.

But we are not there yet. It is fair to say we have a handle on financial metrics and have made some progress on environmental ones, but we need to think more clearly about how to measure our social impact. Researchers at the NYU Stern Center for Business & Human Rights examined 12 socially oriented measurement frameworks and found 1,753 different indicators between them. Only eight percent of the indicators addressed the effects of company practices. The other 92 percent measured “company efforts and activities, such as issuing policies or commitments; conducting audits, risk assessments, or training; participating in membership organizations or other collaborations; or engaging stakeholders,” and are not likely to be helpful to investors or consumers, much less managers, in trying to move the needle on social responsibility. This is where business school research can be especially helpful, but are the incentives aligned?

The cardiac report card study was conducted by economists working in business schools (at Northwestern and Stanford) and was eventually published in Journal of Political Economy which has an impact factor of 6.9, making it one of the top journals in
economics. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited 980 times, making it highly influential in the academic field.

The article also carries a high Altmetric Attention score, in the top 98 percent of articles the same age, indicating a higher probability that it influenced policy and practice. Such broader measurements have been enabled by digitization but are not yet highly valued in academic settings. In line with our report card theme, it would be interesting to consider the kinds of changes that can be motivated by metrics that consider readership and utilization across a wider range of audiences, which could include more interdisciplinary and international collaborations, stronger engagement with practitioners and policymakers, new faculty models, and improved channels for communicating. All good things as far as I’m concerned.

Beyond research, it is important to continuously consider the way we assess and report on business schools and universities. While they are changing, rankings, for example, are still dominated by metrics like graduate salaries, acceptance rates, and publications in top journals. These metrics can motivate schools to prioritize selectivity over access and inclusive education and focus on higher-paying industries rather than cultivate social entrepreneurship, build leaders for non-profits, and address global challenges like inequality and sustainability. To align education to the needs of society moving forward, and to help business schools accelerate the transformation of business, we must develop and embrace broader metrics that reward societal impact and long-term contributions to the development needs of society. This is especially important for the work of GBSN.

There is much more to consider, but we will have to look to future blog posts to fully explore the changing metrics shaping business and business education. I’m especially interested in considering the impact of AI and policies related to confidentiality and privacy of data.

From Curriculum to Community: Expanding the Influence of Business Schools

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

“You can’t stop technological change, but you can shape it.” That is the key message of Power and Progress according to its authors, Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. After researching 1,000 years of technological change, the authors conclude that, contrary to widespread “techno-optimism,” advances in technology do not automatically translate into broad-based prosperity. If we want technology to benefit all of us rather than just some of us, we can and must take charge of our future.

This week, Acemoglu and Johnson, both MIT scholars, and University of Chicago political scientist James Robinson, were awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Their body of research shows that the prosperity of nations is not primarily driven by geography or culture, but by the quality of its institutions, which are essentially the political and economic rules created and enforced by the state and its people. Their work shows that institutions encouraging participation, innovation, and equal opportunity are more conducive to long-term growth and societal benefit. On the other hand, institutions that concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few ultimately hinder growth and development.

The point of this short blog, however, is not to share their extensive body of work. Instead, my objective is to share what I think it tells us about the role of business schools in society—that we can and should take a more active role in shaping economic and political institutions.

It is natural for business school leaders to focus on reacting to changes in the business environment. After all, any single business school is just a tiny part of a large global industry, and there is so much pressure to perform from a wide range of stakeholders, each with different expectations and narrow range of metrics. It’s difficult enough to produce employable graduates and insights that fit the needs of businesses striving to succeed in the current system. All of this is getting harder in an increasingly dynamic world.

But I believe business schools also have a responsibility to help change the system. Instead of reacting to changes in the environment, we need business schools to recognize and leverage their power to influence it, especially at the local level. By adopting a more proactive approach, I believe business schools can make a meaningful contribution in shaping the development of new institutional frameworks that are more inclusive, sustainable, and ultimately beneficial for society. While this might seem like a big undertaking, I think it is easy to get started. Let’s consider opportunities in three areas of business school activities: curriculum, research, and outreach.

First, in addition to current efforts to rethink what we teach, I encourage schools to spend more time considering how it is taught. Content is essential and needs to be informed by a more responsible view of business in society. It should also do more to integrate economics, politics, science, and law. Finally, it must also prize ethics, transparency, and respect for human rights.

But pedagogy can be just as important, especially if impact is an objective. Take experiential education, for example. It is not only about applying concepts and making connections but also about contributing to organizations and society. I have been thrilled to see more schools go beyond narrowly defined private sector problems in sourcing internships and projects. I also see more efforts to build international diversity and multiple perspectives into teams to stimulate innovation. Experiential learning and international and interdisciplinary approaches are big parts of GBSN’s vision. We offer students opportunities to do work that matters for international development.

Second, despite some progress, business schools are still limiting themselves when it comes to research. Peer-reviewed journals play a vital role in academia as a mechanism to support quality and credibility. But by focusing our policies on increasing the number of publications, schools are missing opportunities to foster meaningful change in society. To me, the best way to increase impact is by strengthening faculty engagement, not only with private sector business but also with government and civil society. Then, this connective tissue enables research to be put into action. After all, impact is less about who and how many people read what is published than how it leads to meaningful, beneficial change for society.

Third, it is helpful to emphasize the outreach activities of business schools. These include efforts to engage in local organizations and communities. Many business schools are involved with efforts to develop economically distressed areas in their home cities, for example. But outreach also includes the international relationships business schools build with other schools, as well as organizations in other sectors. The mix of community engagement and international relationships gets at the heart of GBSN. We believe schools can make a bigger difference in local development with help from an international network. We share, learn, and innovate—we do things together that we can’t do alone. For example, GBSN has developed a portfolio of international challenges and experiences for students, which would have been impossible for a single school to build.

These initial thoughts are just the beginning. As Acemoglu and Johnson explain, they wrote Power and Progress “to show that progress is never automatic.” Ultimately, I believe business schools have the power to forge a new and better world in which business thrives in a way that benefits the broader population, not just a small part of it. But this won’t happen unless we are proactive in developing and asserting our capacity—individually and collectively—to shape the future of significant economic and political institutions.

Gender Bias and the Power of Business Schools to Transform People and Organizations

Posted on by gbsn

“Your responses suggested a strong automatic association for male with leader and female with supporter.” That was the message displayed immediately after I completed the Implicit Association Test on Gender and Leadership (IAT). That was many years ago and the message is still etched in my mind. To say I was exasperated by the results would be an enormous understatement.

Although difficult to swallow, the message was important to hear. It became an important factor shaping my development as a leader. I started following research in a broader range of behavioral sciences and posing new questions to gather insights from the experience of others. Of course, one of my objectives was to become a better person. But, like everything in my life, another was to explore what it will take for business schools to “move the needle” in reducing gender bias.

Many organizations offer internal training programs designed to help people shed their biases. Sadly, there is not much evidence such programs have changed mindsets or behaviors, much less improved diversity. It is difficult (some say impossible) to change habits of mind shaped by the environment and biology over thousands of years. A few studies have found that diversity training can even exacerbate unwanted behaviors, especially if the training is mandatory. 

Fortunately, most students turn to business schools because they want to change, not because they are forced to. Many business schools offer programs that are truly transformational for individuals. And, in recent years through our work at Global Business School Network (GBSN), I’ve talked with hundreds of educators working hard to improve their courses, making them more personalized, contextually relevant, experiential, social, and interdisciplinary. 

However, to focus on advances in teaching risks, leaving out the most important point when it comes to the business schools making a difference. It is also about research. To me, it has always been the combination of both that drives business school impact and positions business schools particularly well to address the most challenging issues in business. 

To illustrate, it is useful to return to the Implicit Association Test on Gender and Leadership. What struck me at the time was that much more was at stake than my personal developmental needs. The test was about the lens through which I view leadership potential and that has implications for one of the most important processes in any organization, how it identifies and selects leaders. 

Unfortunately, managers systematically underestimate the potential of women. Using data on nearly 30,000 management-track employees in a large North American retail chain, scholars from the University of Minnesota, MIT, and Yale found “that women receive substantially lower potential ratings despite having higher job performance ratings.” One reason, not the only one, is that people find it difficult to imagine women as leaders because the qualities stereotypically associated with leadership are also stereotypically associated with men, just like the results of the Implicit Association Test suggest.

Of course, past performance does not perfectly predict future performance, especially when higher-level positions often require different skills. That’s why measures of potential were developed in the first place—to inform promotions. According to the study, however, “women subsequently outperformed their male colleagues with the same potential ratings.” Yet, the tendency to underestimate the potential of women persisted. That not only prevents qualified women from being promoted, but also keeps the company from achieving its full potential!

The authors admit solutions are neither obvious nor easy. Ignoring measures of potential, for example, can eliminate the gender promotion gap, “but would also decrease the average performance of workers who are selected to be promoted.” Another approach, increasing the potential ratings of women who earn high performance ratings, can reduce the gender promotion gap without sacrificing performance, but will be challenging to implement. 

My point by elaborating on this example is that it is one thing to change the way individuals think about leadership and gender, it is quite another to transform the way organizations handle evaluations and promotions. To “move the needle” in reducing gender bias, business schools must work on both individuals and organizations. Unless we change the systems and cultures of an organization, even good people will continue to make bad (biased) decisions no matter how much training they receive. Put another way: Individuals can’t drive change in organizations unless they understand what works and what doesn’t work, and why. 

To develop people AND organizations we need to leverage (and strengthen) both teaching AND research, and the connections between them. I believe teaching that is devoid of scholarship is hollow; and research without teaching has limited impact. We discuss improvements in teaching often, but the transformative power of business schools also comes from research. We must work harder to maintain and enhance the credibility of our research (especially in light of recent high-profile cases), increase its relevance to practice and in different contexts, and engage/connect communities in ways that make it more impactful. These are reasons why I continue to be involved with the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) network and participate on the judging panel for the academic research category of FT’s Responsible Business Education awards. Personally, I believe schools need to emphasize quality and impact over volume and elevate our commitment to interdisciplinary research to include, for example, biology and urban studies.

It is important to note that GBSN goes beyond. In addition to individuals and organizations, GBSN members aspire to transform communities and broader society. We care about the extent to which both individuals and organizations are contributing to and accelerating inclusive and sustainable growth. That generates a larger set of questions about business and society and calls for even stronger connections between teaching and research—and innovating on both. It is also why GBSN schools are powered not only by a combination of strong teaching and research, but also a strong commitment to community engagement.

Dan LeClair, CEO

Dan LeClair was named CEO of the Global Business School Network (GBSN) in February of 2019. Prior to GBSN, Dan was an Executive Vice President at AACSB International, an association and accrediting organization that serves some 1,600 business schools in more than 100 countries. His experience at AACSB includes two and half years as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, seven years as Chief Operating Officer, and five years as Chief Knowledge Officer. A founding member of the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) initiative, Dan currently participates on its working board. He also serves in an advisory capacity to several organizations and startups in business and higher education. Before AACSB, Dan was a tenured associate professor and associate dean at The University of Tampa.

Dan played a lead role in creating a think-tank joint venture between the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and AACSB and has been recognized for pioneering efforts in the formation of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), where he served on the Steering Committee for many years. Dan has also participated in industry-level task forces for a wide range of organizations, including the Chartered Association of Business Schools, Graduate Management Admission Council, Executive MBA Council, and Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

Widely recognized as a thought leader in management education, Dan is the author of over 80 research reports, articles, and blogs, and has delivered more than 170 presentations in 30 countries. As a lead spokesperson for reform and innovation in management education, Dan has been frequently cited in a wide range of US and international newspapers, magazines, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, China Daily, Forbes, Fast Company, and The Economist. Dan earned a PhD from the University of Florida writing on game theory.

A Whakatauki for the World

Posted on by gbsn

“Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi” is a Māori proverb, or whakatauki. It translates into “with your food basket and my food basket the people will thrive” and carries my humble holiday message to the GBSN community. 

To be sure, I’m not an expert on Māori, People of the Land of Aotearoa New Zealand. I was, however, fortunate to have an opportunity to learn about their history and culture during a family trip to New Zealand in 2018. In my opinion, there is no substitute for being there when it comes to learning about a place and its people. Too often, we think we understand a country based on what we read or watch, only to discover important differences or nuances through direct experience.

At that time of my family visit, the world was getting to know Māori through the haka, as performed prior to rugby matches by New Zealand’s national team, the All Blacks. It’s easy to interpret the dance narrowly, as preparation for battle—unifying the team, getting them mentally and physically ready, and intimidating opponents. However, we learned that the haka is also used to lay a foundation for peace between tribes. And, although many think haka may be performed only by men, there are many versions that can be performed by anyone and some that are performed only by women.

It might be easy to think of Māori as warlike, but so much of their culture is built on collaboration, across tribes as well as within them. “Mā pango mā whero ka oti te mahi,” which translates into “with red and black the world will be complete,” emphasizes the importance of the community (“pango”) and chiefs (“whero”) working together. Kotahitanga, the Māori word for unity or oneness, describes movements to unify Māori on a non-tribal basis. More broadly, it applies to collective action for greater impact.

Cooperation and collective action are important to the GBSN community. To me, however, our whakatauki, “nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi,” goes beyond, because it is not necessarily grounded in “oneness” and does not require that we are similar or share the same objective. Instead, it is based on the reality that each person or party brings different strengths to the table, and that is essential for GBSN to make a positive impact. We are not built on the idea that business schools are or should be the same—business education is not a monolith. Each school operates in a different context and brings distinctive strengths to our efforts to foster inclusive and sustainable development.

So, there is more to my holiday offering than might initially be apparent. Of course, it is about the importance of collaboration, one of our core values, but it also expresses our commitment to context and commerce—to empowerment and trade. If you agree, please join me in sharing this important Māori message during the holiday season.

Dan LeClair, CEO

Dan LeClair was named CEO of the Global Business School Network (GBSN) in February of 2019. Prior to GBSN, Dan was an Executive Vice President at AACSB International, an association and accrediting organization that serves some 1,600 business schools in more than 100 countries. His experience at AACSB includes two and half years as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, seven years as Chief Operating Officer, and five years as Chief Knowledge Officer. A founding member of the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) initiative, Dan currently participates on its working board. He also serves in an advisory capacity to several organizations and startups in business and higher education. Before AACSB, Dan was a tenured associate professor and associate dean at The University of Tampa.

Dan played a lead role in creating a think-tank joint venture between the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and AACSB and has been recognized for pioneering efforts in the formation of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), where he served on the Steering Committee for many years. Dan has also participated in industry-level task forces for a wide range of organizations, including the Chartered Association of Business Schools, Graduate Management Admission Council, Executive MBA Council, and Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

Widely recognized as a thought leader in management education, Dan is the author of over 80 research reports, articles, and blogs, and has delivered more than 170 presentations in 30 countries. As a lead spokesperson for reform and innovation in management education, Dan has been frequently cited in a wide range of US and international newspapers, magazines, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, China Daily, Forbes, Fast Company, and The Economist. Dan earned a PhD from the University of Florida writing on game theory.

An Invitation to Go Beyond with GBSN

Posted on by gbsn

30 Oct – 1 Nov

Contact: beyond@gbsn.org

QUICKLINKS

Social Logistics Challenge

Going Beyond Awards

“Motivated to address the most pressing needs of society and enabled by digital innovation, business schools have been redefining the boundaries of their work.” I wrote that in a 2020 blog to introduce our first GBSN Beyond, a new version of our flagship annual conference reimagined for a virtual format. In addition to pushing us to think more boldly about the content, the word Beyond reflected our vision to be more inclusive and to do more than talk and network with each other. The event was a huge success—the name stuck, and our fourth GBSN Beyond starts on October 30, in-person and online. This blog describes what to expect.

Before getting into the details, I want to say that we are absolutely thrilled that GBSN Beyond 2023 is hosted by The American University in Cairo School of Business and to have generous sponsorships from MIT Sloan School of Management, Leeds University Business School, BI Norwegian Business School, China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), Hanken School of Economics, Monash Business School, CarringtonCrisp, ETS GRE, and others with commitments pending. Our hosts and sponsors are true impact leaders in our industry.

Contributions from sponsors not only make the event possible, but also enable it to be accessible to education leaders from low-income and developing countries. Please reach out to me directly if you are interested in adding your school or organization to the list of prestigious sponsors or want to contribute to need-based scholarships for schools.

The Theme – The Transformative Power of Talent and Technology

At GBSN we always put people first. After all, management education is about enabling and empowering people to create, build, and sustain organizations to solve problems of people and planet. Yet, we cannot ignore the power of technology to help people to create a better world, through business and education, and specifically to transform important sectors, such as health, agriculture, energy, and more. 

At the same time, we cannot discount the challenges that new technologies bring and the risks they create. There are new and important questions about trust, human rights, privacy, equity, and the future of our planet. And there are tensions between the Global North and the Global South, as well as the East and West, that have important implications for how we think about the future of business and business education.

That’s why this year’s GBSN Beyond theme is about opportunities and challenges at the intersection of talent and technology. As with everything GBSN does, this theme cuts across borders, sectors, and disciplines. We believe business schools should collaborate internationally, bring together multiple perspectives, and operate at the nexus of business, government, and civil society. We must transcend boundaries to do our part in building a better world.

The Program

There are multiple parts to GBSN Beyond. We’ll start in person on Monday, October 30, with the Members Only Meeting followed by a Welcome Reception on the Nile. The main program on Tuesday and Wednesday features an internationally diverse set of speakers, including Egypt’s Minister of International Cooperation and leaders from companies, such as Visa, DHL, Microsoft, and Amazon, and other institutions such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UK-based CFTE. And of course, we’ll have business educators from leading schools around the world sharing their experiences and aspirations. We are especially excited about a session featuring African entrepreneurs led by MIT’s Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship. Finally, all participants of GBSN Beyond are also invited to attend the Business Schools for Climate Leadership Africa Meeting, which is scheduled for Monday morning, just prior to the Members Only meeting. 

Since this is our 20th Anniversary, we have planned several opportunities to celebrate the impact of network members, especially at our social events. You can count on the Gala Dinner (on the second night of the conference) being extra special this year, because we are celebrating our 20th Anniversary and because of the venue—the fabulous Dahab Palace.

The Vibe

Every event has its own distinctive character, but there are three things that we are committed to carrying from event to event. First, we strive for diversity because we think innovation happens at the intersection of different perspectives. More importantly, we want to create inclusive events by focusing on the purpose of GBSN—and our shared vision for the developing world to have the talent it needs to generate prosperity. It’s why schools join and engage in the network, as well as what takes them to Beyond.

Second, we believe context matters for business and always will. But have you ever noticed that it is difficult at some conferences to know where you are in the world? Everything looks and feels the same. Well, we want participants in GBSN Beyond to know where they are and they create memorable experiences while there.

Finally, our aim is to facilitate meaningful connections for projects and initiatives. We want to make things happen—to “move the needle on the mission”—by bringing people together. The program is designed to highlight initiatives and provide opportunities to learn about other schools and people, and to connect with them. GBSN’s 20-year history includes hundreds of threads connecting schools and organizations across borders and over time. Our annual conference has played an essential role.

On behalf of host AUC School of Business, our sponsors, and Board of Directors, we invite you to come to Cairo for GBSN Beyond. To learn more and to register, go to https://gbsn.org/conference/beyond/

Dan LeClair, CEO

Dan LeClair was named CEO of the Global Business School Network (GBSN) in February of 2019. Prior to GBSN, Dan was an Executive Vice President at AACSB International, an association and accrediting organization that serves some 1,600 business schools in more than 100 countries. His experience at AACSB includes two and half years as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, seven years as Chief Operating Officer, and five years as Chief Knowledge Officer. A founding member of the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) initiative, Dan currently participates on its working board. He also serves in an advisory capacity to several organizations and startups in business and higher education. Before AACSB, Dan was a tenured associate professor and associate dean at The University of Tampa.

Dan played a lead role in creating a think-tank joint venture between the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and AACSB and has been recognized for pioneering efforts in the formation of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), where he served on the Steering Committee for many years. Dan has also participated in industry-level task forces for a wide range of organizations, including the Chartered Association of Business Schools, Graduate Management Admission Council, Executive MBA Council, and Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

Widely recognized as a thought leader in management education, Dan is the author of over 80 research reports, articles, and blogs, and has delivered more than 170 presentations in 30 countries. As a lead spokesperson for reform and innovation in management education, Dan has been frequently cited in a wide range of US and international newspapers, magazines, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, China Daily, Forbes, Fast Company, and The Economist. Dan earned a PhD from the University of Florida writing on game theory.

The Role of Economics in Business Curricula

Posted on by gbsn

“What is the place of economics in the curriculum of business?” That was the opening sentence and principal question of an article by Roswell C. McCrea in the Journal of Political Economy nearly 100 years ago. Keep in mind, it was early in the development of collegiate schools of business in the US, and schools at the time were largely “proliferations of departments of economics.”

I reckon McCrea was influential in business education. When the article appeared in 1926, he had already been Dean at the Wharton School (of Commerce and Finance, at the time) and would go on to become Dean at Columbia Business School and President of AACSB, which was then the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business. His article was published along with “discussion” by four prominent professors, a mix of men (an indicator of the times) who were either economists, Deans, or both like McCrea.

The article and discussion are interesting and offer more to learn and enjoy than is covered here. Of immediate bearing is McCrea’s belief that the answer to our question depends on what we think about the purpose of business schools and the nature of economics. Here is an excerpt:

“I have encountered two extremes of attitude toward relations between schools of business and departments of economics. One is based on the view which stresses the profit-making objective of business and the resulting desirability of concentrating educational effort toward this end. The other disparages this emphasis and urges the importance of saving economics from the insidious encroachment of private-pecuniary upon social-welfare ideals. (pp. 21-22)”

Oddly, the opposing views lead to the same answer, which is to separate economics from the curriculum of business.

“The proponent of the first view would confine economics to its own little compartment in the university structure, in order to hold the school of business to the primary task of training for business vocations. The advocate of the opposing view would keep economics largely in its own particular bailiwick, not to save business from economics, but to save economics from business. (p. 221-222)”

Reflecting on my own teaching experience, I can testify directly about the difficulties of combining economics and business education. While teaching managerial economics in a part-time MBA program, I was careful, almost apologetic, about explaining that economics is an academic subject, not a vocational one. We don’t do economics in the same way we do accounting, I explained to students, so my job was to curate concepts from economics that can enable them to manage organizations more effectively (i.e., profitably) and build their careers in business (i.e., get promoted and make more money).

While this might sound harmless, it made me uneasy. Economics is about what’s best for society, not just for business. I was providing only part of the picture and encouraging students to use it for their own benefit. 

Of course, anyone who believes the Friedman doctrine would say there is nothing inconsistent in my approach—teaching students how to maximize profits and pursue their own self-interest is exactly in the public interest. Alternatively, some critics of business education believe that the inclusion of economics, especially its assumptions about rational, self-interested behaviors, and competitive markets, is part of the problem with business. 

McCrea had this to say.

“In my own view, economics, wherever else it may or may not belong, does belong in the school of business. Both business and economics need to be saved from themselves. Without the presence of economics in some vital form, the work of a school of business is likely to degenerate into detailed description of business organization and procedure, with no organizing principle other than the possible one of search for effective competitive devices, and with no clear vision of the social goal of business activity. (p. 222)”

The discussants avoided disagreeing with the conclusion but offered some things to think about. A. B. Wolfe (an Ohio State professor who later served as president of the American Economic Association) suggested that the “acquisitive” approach was inevitable in business schools and that economics offered “too many things that are unreal and untrue” (p. 229) to be useful. To Chester Phillips (founding Dean at the University of Iowa) “the study of economics may be conducive to social motivation but is not essential to it.” (p. 231) He believed political science, philosophy, and ethics could be at least as useful to business education. 

Although J. C. Bonbright (a professor at Columbia University) suggested economics has a “wider angle of vision” (p. 239) and could be most helpful to examining the environment of business, he questioned how much business executives need to understand. Perhaps they are “in the position of a small boy who needs no knowledge of mechanics in order to learn how to throw a baseball.” (p. 240) Finally, Edmund Day (founding Dean at the University of Michigan) highlighted the challenge in instilling a real professional attitude in business schools when the “relation of business administration to public policy remains unlike that of economics.” (p. 243)

That was nearly 100 years ago. What has happened since then and where do we go from here? 

My impression is that business schools have become less inclusive of economics. That’s partly because separate bodies of knowledge have been developed in business subjects, such as management, marketing, finance, and accounting. Business schools are no longer compelled to recruit professors from economics departments. Surely the mathematical progression of economics has also played a role, driving the perception that it has become more academic and even less relevant to management practice.

Economics can, according to the Economist in April this year, “plausibly claim to be moving toward a unified science of business.” However, while it has come a long way (e.g., advances in asymmetric information, behavior economics, institutional economics, and more), it still falls short of a “realistic theory of the firm” and can’t ever be enough. According to the magazine, “most of what makes for a flourishing business cannot be captured in a tight theory with a few equations” and “many of the influences on any topical issue—which tech firm will win the AI race, say—lie outside its purview.”

But the Economist addresses only one side of McCrea’s equation: the evolution of economics as a discipline. It doesn’t address the shifting purpose of business schools towards societal impact (CSR, ESG, and SDGs). The social orientation, relevance to policy, and wider angle of vision of economics make it particularly useful to schools that view business education as a mechanism for positive change in business and society. 

To be sure, I’m referring to mainstream economics, not radical departures from it. It’s about material and social incentives, for example, which when combined with personal preferences, define behavior. “This behavior may or may not be in the general interest,” according to Jean Tirole in Economics for the Common Good, and economics “involves constructing institutions to reconcile, as far as possible, the interests of the individual with the general interest.” (p. 3) This highlights the opportunity to combine the experience of business schools in serving individuals and organizations with the emphasis in economics on serving society and policy.

I also believe economics can play another role in business education. In Good Economics for Hard Times, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo write that “the world is a sufficiently complicated and uncertain place that the most valuable thing economists have to share is often not their conclusion, but the path they took to reach it—the facts they knew, the way they interpreted those facts, and deductive steps they took, the remaining sources of their uncertainty.”

And it works both ways, economics as a discipline can be strengthened by the orientation towards practice at many business schools, especially the ones that are most interested in aligning business and individual actions to improve society. As McCrea duly noted, “The joining of socially motivated thinking with a knowledge of concrete, shifting reality, such as can be affected in a school of business, may well escape the puttering of the strict vocationalist on the one hand, and the futility of the closet philosophy on the other.”

Dan LeClair, CEO

Dan LeClair was named CEO of the Global Business School Network (GBSN) in February of 2019. Prior to GBSN, Dan was an Executive Vice President at AACSB International, an association and accrediting organization that serves some 1,600 business schools in more than 100 countries. His experience at AACSB includes two and half years as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, seven years as Chief Operating Officer, and five years as Chief Knowledge Officer. A founding member of the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) initiative, Dan currently participates on its working board. He also serves in an advisory capacity to several organizations and startups in business and higher education. Before AACSB, Dan was a tenured associate professor and associate dean at The University of Tampa.

Dan played a lead role in creating a think-tank joint venture between the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and AACSB and has been recognized for pioneering efforts in the formation of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), where he served on the Steering Committee for many years. Dan has also participated in industry-level task forces for a wide range of organizations, including the Chartered Association of Business Schools, Graduate Management Admission Council, Executive MBA Council, and Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

Widely recognized as a thought leader in management education, Dan is the author of over 80 research reports, articles, and blogs, and has delivered more than 170 presentations in 30 countries. As a lead spokesperson for reform and innovation in management education, Dan has been frequently cited in a wide range of US and international newspapers, magazines, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, China Daily, Forbes, Fast Company, and The Economist. Dan earned a PhD from the University of Florida writing on game theory.

>