GBSN CEO

About this time three years ago, the two of us were interviewing deans and business leaders, trying to make sense of the future. Covid-19 was breaking our normal, magnifying long-standing injustices, and pulling the future forward. We wanted to see the world beyond what was happening at the time.

What we discovered, however, was that the interviews were more about the journey than the destination. As we wrote in the preface to The World After Covid-19, the interviews often revealed more about leading and living during a profound crisis. The people we interviewed were discovering different aspects of their work and themselves, just as we were learning about both. They reminded us that leadership is an intensely human activity, and that’s why it is so difficult. 

It’s now 2023 and for many of us the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic is starting to feel like a distant memory. That’s why we are resharing the introductory chapter to the book. Perhaps you’ll be interested in comparing what is happening now against what leaders were predicting then. But we think the real value is to help you to recall and reflect on what it was like to lead in the early stages of the pandemic, and reflect on what that means for your leadership today and in the future.

Introductory Chapter from The World After Covid-19
by Soumitra Dutta and Dan LeClair

When, in early December 2019, news of a pneumonia-like illness emerged from the Chinese city of Wuhan, few beyond infectious disease experts had any inkling of what might follow. By 30 January 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a “public health emergency of international concern” – its highest level of alarm – the novel coronavirus had not yet spread very far. There were 98 cases and no deaths in 18 countries outside China; the WHO recorded eight cases of human-to-human transmission outside China – in Germany, Japan, the US and Vietnam. 

Four months on, the public health emergency had become a global economic crisis. National governments tried desperately to slow the spread of the virus by limiting movement and gatherings. Global supply chains collapsed and the flow of people across borders slowed to a trickle. Every organization, large and small, local and global, public and private, was profoundly impacted. It was a time of great uncertainty.

Everyone was sprinting, working overtime and under a great deal of stress to adapt to the situation. It was no different for the team at the Global Business School Network (GBSN). But, amid the chaos, we wanted to know how best to live up to our mission: to  “improve access to quality, locally relevant management and entrepreneurship education for the developing world”. How could we support the strong network we’ve built up over the years? What lessons might that network learn from each other’s adaptations and challenges? Business school deans, caught in the very teeth of these changes, seemed a logical place to begin. So we reached out to deans from schools in countries like Nigeria, England, Mexico, Egypt, China and the United States with an invitation to speak with us. We invited them to pause, look up and ahead; to see past the immediate emergency and to think about what the future might look like in a world after Covid-19. The deans were generous with their time and many agreed to introduce us to business leaders who were willing to have a similar conversation.

We conducted the interviews between April and June in 2020. Of course, everyone who reads the transcripts will have the benefit of knowing all that has happened since then. Readers will know that the virus has taken more than two million lives worldwide since then. They will know how long it took to develop, test, and approve vaccines; and about the rush to distribute them fast enough to get ahead of the variants. They will know more about Covid inequities and the virus’s long-term trajectory.

At the time of this writing, February 2021, the pandemic is far from over. The world after Covid is still under construction, but we hope insights from the interviews will encourage and enable us to “build back better”, as they say. Regardless, we believe the true value of these interviews is that they capture the moment: the views during the crisis about the unknown future to come. Our memories are surprisingly short and soon it will be easy to forget how we felt and the future we envisioned during that stressful time. We also hope the interviews serve as inspiration and guidance to leaders everywhere, especially about managing in a crisis. The interviews were at once deeply personal and necessarily universal. Several themes emerged.

HUMAN – AND HUMANE – LEADERSHIP 

We sensed that our questions about the crisis were not just intellectual exercises for the leaders we interviewed. Responses were personal and sometimes emotional when leaders discussed their responsibilities for the health and well-being of their people. Managing organizations has always been hard; Covid made it a lot harder. 

We were struck, too, by how vulnerable our interviewees were willing to be. Their answers to personal questions, such as how their own leadership might change and what shifts they’d already seen in their own lives, were deeply considered and freely shared. Some were pursuing new hobbies; others found solace in exercise and time in nature. Most were spending more time with their families than they had in years, reconnecting and learning about the people who matter most. But they had not lost sight of those beyond their immediate circles: there was a real sense of connection and compassion with not just employees, but their employees’ families and communities more broadly. Somehow, they held rapid change –– that acceleration necessitated by Covid-19 –– and small, personal moments together. It wasn’t easy, as Jean-François Manzoni, President of the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Switzerland explained:

“You’re expected to be cheerful, serious but empathic, patient, decisive but also incredibly compassionate. This job requires extraordinary amounts of patience, empathy and compassion. You’ve really got to work on yourself to make sure that you remain in that space. And it’s actually quite challenging to do, especially with all the additional pressures you face as a leader, including on the personal front as your own family may also be needing more from you.”

This isn’t, as Manzoni and other interviewees made clear, to suggest that leaders shouldn’t be honest and open about their anxieties. Nor, as Sangeet Chowfla – the President & CEO of the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC™) – said, did leaders need to pretend to have all the answers. Chowfla had been asking his staff: “What’s the way out? Where’s the light at the end of the tunnel? What do we know? What do we not know?”

He added: “All of us are in search of that light at the end of the tunnel. Even if we don’t have clarity about the light, the fact that we are looking and engaging everybody in search of that light, becomes a very important part of what we do as leaders. It is making certain that everybody is on board so that we can find a way to the end of the tunnel.”

GLOBALIZATION VS TURNING INWARD

Geo-politics was a crucial part of our conversations. Globalization and the shifting role of supply chains emerged as strong themes. Asia’s role as a growing power was repeatedly highlighted; some interviewees suggested that Europe could harness the crisis to re-establish itself as a force to be reckoned with, while others believed Europe was going to be left behind by the Asian giants. The US’s inward turn unsettled many.

In those early days of the pandemic, our thought leaders wanted to know whether the world would work together, or pull apart; they were struck by just how sharply and fast the existing lines between the “haves and the have nots” had leapt into focus. Just about a year on, it is sobering to see how much those fault lines have widened, and saddening to realize how much pulling apart has occurred; by March 2021, wealthy nations were racing ahead with vaccination programs while their poorer counterparts were left floundering. 

Dr Enase Okonedo, now Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Pan-Atlantic University, Nigeria, was Dean of the Lagos Business School at the time of our interview. She pointed out that globalization –– “and seeing things as a global village, with the easy transfer of goods and people” –– had seemed set to remain a way of life before the pandemic.

“Now nations are starting to rethink things like trade policy, foreign policy, as well as what happens in their domestic economies. From my perspective, there is a retreat from what has become the norm in recent years towards more domestication of a number of things. So, I envisage a shift, possibly in the short-term but certainly in the long-term, from globalization to keeping things within borders, because of the impact of Covid-19 on economies and disruptions in the supply chain.”

Dr Bing Xiang, the Founding Dean and Professor of China Business and Globalization at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business (CKGSB), was among those who echoed Okonedo’s sentiments on this point.

“In a sense, economically, (the way countries reacted to Covid-19) may represent a strong pushback against globalization. This de-globalization impact will be huge and long-lasting, potentially even setting globalization back 30 to 40 years.” 

Some, like Claudia Jañez, former President of DuPont Latin America, suggested this shift might turn out to be positive in the long run. She argued that globalization might become as much about collaboration as it is about openness, and that countries may begin to genuinely unite to solve shared problems. 

Perhaps these global shifts might also signal a turn towards a new morality – both in business and in the size of what Veneta Andonova, the Dean of Universidad de los Andes School of Management in Colombia, calls the “moral circle”. In our interview, Andonova said she and her colleagues had been “discussing the way the world and life will be, how it will affect the way in which we interact with different parts of society – be it indigenous groups, business, or government”. 

“We are seeing that these groups have started sending signals of how the state of affairs should be and how we should interact. The degree to which we are capable of aligning and coming together with a common version of how we share and interact will be essential.”

TEACHING WITH TECH

All the leaders we interviewed agreed that the pandemic had accelerated digital transformation. Suddenly, companies had to coordinate work in a physically dispersed environment. The Covid-induced change was profound in education, where technology has had less of an impact than many experts predicted in previous years. A major topic in the interviews was the role of platforms, such as Zoom, in ensuring continuity of synchronous teaching and learning when health restrictions made residential learning impossible. Schools were forced to shift quickly, almost overnight, to deliver instruction, facilitate peer-to-peer engagement, and offer project-based experiential learning, all in a virtual environment. Faculty had to learn new digital skills and schools had to develop new models and capabilities. 

Many of the leaders in education and business talked about how surprised their colleagues were to learn so much of their work can be accomplished without being together in the office. Faculty, in particular, began to discover ways of using technology to make education more efficacious as well as more efficient. It could also, some interviewees suggested, contribute to more openness and diversity.

Erika James, now Dean of The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was John H. Harland Dean of Emory University’s Goizueta Business School when we interviewed her. She argued that technology could allow business schools to “open ourselves up to more diverse populations around the world in ways that were more difficult to do in a strictly residential format”.

It wasn’t just how business schools teach that seized deans’ attention — the what was crucial, too. As more faculty rushed to understand new platforms better, crafting their usual in-person classes for digital formats, they also began to reflect on whether existing research might inform at least part of the world’s response to Covid-19. François Ortalo-Magné, Dean of the London Business School, said: “Faculty turned to their research and from the very beginning of the pandemic they ran a series of webinars. They asked, ‘how can I use my research to contribute to the new Covid-19 world?’ Faculty are using their insights and knowledge in a very fresh, immediate and relevant way.” 

Zander Lurie, the CEO of SurveyMonkey, proposed that future business school students — particularly those who are already employed but might consider a further degree — would think differently about their return on investment in a post-Covid world. He identified three “learnings and tools” students would seek out when choosing a business school: curiosity, agility and prioritization.

A few of our interviewees wondered whether elements more often taught in humanities courses may begin to infuse business school curricula. Nelly ElZayat, the co-founder and director  of Newton Education Services and an advisor to the Minister of Education in Egypt on early childhood education and education policy, was among them.

“This pandemic has left us all with a lot of challenges and many of them are socio-emotional; I think this affects businesses, teens, leaders in business, everybody. This is something that business schools need to weave into their programs; these skills that you need to survive … Course material or case studies that highlight things like resilience, empathy and teamwork.”

WHERE OUR NETWORK FITS IN

It wasn’t just the interviewees who took the opportunity to pause and reflect deeply during a time of uncertainty, anxiety and near-constant adaptations. These conversations helped us — and will help GBSN more broadly — to realize that the network’s role must go beyond improving access. It is also to facilitate innovation and change in management education and development.

GBSN’s mission has always been about benefiting society. We say that it was created for SDG4, which is about access to quality education, even before the SDGs were adopted. By building education capacity, GBSN supports the development of leaders that generate jobs and improve communities. 

But it’s not just about education anymore. Covid-19 attracted additional attention to two other ways that business schools make a difference: through research and community engagement. Leaders commented about the general responsibility to help organizations survive — and not only their own. Many businesses deployed students and faculty to address local challenges brought on by Covid. For example, from the beginning many business schools collected, compiled, and communicated about data and information to support policy and business decisions. Students and professors have also worked on projects to help local SMEs pivot online, and to restart the local economy.

GBSN supports research to increase our understanding of business management and entrepreneurship in the developing world. The network is also creating new platforms, such as competitions, to increase the engagement of students and faculty in addressing community challenges. These activities enable business schools to more directly impact communities. GBSN is making a medium and long term investment in development through education and a more immediate impact by bringing students and faculty into their communities.

GLOBALLY CONNECTED, LOCALLY RELEVANT

By definition the Covid-19 pandemic is global. But every country and community experiences and addresses the virus differently. It was interesting to consider the differences across perspectives from interviews in Nigeria, Brazil, Colombia, China, the US, Egypt, Mexico, and many more countries. Business management is contextual and, since its inception, GBSN has been committed to contextual relevance in everything it does. It is about empowering people locally. It is a global network committed to supporting local initiative, which we believe is as important, if not more so, as global leadership in achieving the SDGs. 

For GBSN, relevance is not just about location and content, it is also about people and experience. We believe that peer-to-peer learning and experiential learning are essential for management education to be effective. For example, the GBSN Management Development Institute offered in partnership with Johnson & Johnson emphasizes local content, peer support, and a community-health project. And, as described above, GBSN has started to offer new opportunities for experiential learning in and for the developing world. 

POWERED BY TECH

Like other organizations, GBSN was also forced to move online and has, as a consequence, developed new ways of accomplishing its mission, especially with its training and networking events. Technology has been particularly important in strengthening connections between schools internationally, especially since the network has grown considerably in recent years. Early in the pandemic, we initiated Cross-Border Collabs to bring together the whole international community on the first Thursday of every month to explore trends and collaborative opportunities related to the GBSN’s mission. Moving forward GBSN aims to put technology first in everything it does.

COLLECTIVE ACTION (ACROSS BORDERS, DISCIPLINES, AND SECTORS)

As discussed in many of the interviews, Covid-19 has elevated the need for organizations to work together to achieve important objectives. This is especially true when it comes to international initiatives, as travel between countries has been more restricted. GBSN plays an important role in facilitating collaboration.

But it is not just about international collaboration: higher education remains remarkably siloed. So in addition to connecting schools across borders, GBSN has been working towards connecting scholars and students across disciplines, such as engineering and health, as well as bridging the gap between business and business education. Currently, GBSN is developing programs to involve business students from member institutions from around the world in CSR programs with companies, such as Deutsche Post DHL and Ecobank Academy. The idea is for GBSN to invest in doing work together that can’t be done alone. 

THE STRENGTH OF THE NETWORK

In order to achieve its mission and purpose, the GBSN has been building its strength. Part of it comes from size. At the beginning of 2019, the network had 69 schools. Now it has more than 110. Strength comes not only from size, but also diversity. At the beginning of 2019, members represented 39 countries. Now they represent more than 50. In addition to geographic diversity, GBSN has been engaging a wider array of organizations in the network, including higher education institutions with distinctive strengths, such as online teaching, competency-based education, and corporate management development, and businesses that are investing in their communities through education and development.

Finally, GBSN is getting stronger by building more connections between members. A large family isn’t very powerful if nobody talks to each other. By offering international competitions, monthly member gatherings, and learning communities, GBSN is building more and more connections between members that will continue to strengthen the network’s capacity to achieve the mission. 

Historically, GBSN can be described as a “project driven development organization” that engaged in projects to build education capacity in and for the developing world. Today, GBSN can be described as a “purpose driven network organization”. While projects remain a big part of the GBSN, its power comes more from the network, which is larger, more diverse, and connected than ever. 

LOOKING AHEAD

By the time this introduction was written, more than a year after Covid first began its frightening, inexorable march around the world, it was clear that our interviewees had been extraordinarily prescient. Many of their predictions were borne out. And, as they all anticipated, there is much to be hopeful about. As we look forward to a post-pandemic world and beyond, many more questions remain — as explored in our concluding chapter. It is our hope, here at the interface of society and business; of higher education and business; of leadership and service, that they and others in our network will continue to shine a light on all that matters as we forge ahead in a world that is likely forever changed — perhaps, against all odds, for the better.

The 2023 version of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report was released this week. I’ve been especially anxious for this (fourth) edition, because it is the first since we started moving beyond the Covid-19 pandemic. I’ve been concerned about the world’s most vulnerable populations and interested in the impact of technology and other factors, such as supply chain shifts, on jobs. 

I encourage you to read the report, which includes responses from 803 companies employing more than 11.3 million people globally. This blog highlights some key findings from the report that might be interesting to the GBSN community. These findings are discussed across three broad areas: employment outcomes; technology and jobs; and core skills, assessment, and training.

Employment Outcomes

The report highlights divergent employment outcomes across geographic regions and populations. Low-income and lower-middle-income countries have been slower than high income countries to recover from the pandemic. According to the report, “at 4.9%, the 2022 unemployment rate across the OECD area is at its lowest level since 2001. By contrast, many developing economies have experienced a comparatively slow labour-market recovery from the disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic.” (p. 8) The formal unemployment rate in South Africa, for example, increased to 30% from 25% before the pandemic.

Women, young workers, and workers with a basic education were among the most adversely affected in terms of employment. The report notes that “according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2022, gender parity in the labour force stands at 62.9%–the lowest level registered since the index was first compiled.” (p. 12) Also, “less than half of the global youth employment deficit projected to have recovered by the end of 2022” (p. 12) and “in many countries the increase in unemployment from 2019 to 2021 of workers with a basic education level was more than twice as large as the impact on workers with advanced education.” (p. 13)

The report also expresses a sense of urgency regarding the lack of social protection for the nearly 2 billion workers globally in informal employment, as well as the differential impact of high inflation. Authors cite research by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicating that “rising food and energy prices could push up to 71 million people into poverty, with hot spots in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans and the Caspian Basin.” (p. 14)

Technology and Jobs

Technology continues to be the most important factor shaping the future of jobs, but it is important to take a more nuanced approach and consider the influence of other trends, such as environmental action. According to survey respondents, the top two macrotrends driving business transformation were “increased adoption of new and frontier technologies” and “broadening digital access.” (Figure 2.1, p. 21) However, when it comes to net job creation, “investments to facilitate the green transition,” the “broader application ESG standards,” and “climate change induced investments into adapting operations” were ranked higher than the technology drivers by survey respondents. 

In addition to big data analytics, companies rank climate change and environmental management technologies, and encryption and cybersecurity as creating the greatest job growth. (Figure 2.5, p. 25) Particularly interesting is that of the 28 technologies included in the survey, only robots (humanoid and non-humanoid) are expected by companies to result in net losses of jobs. While substantial proportions of companies forecasted job displacements in areas such as artificial intelligence, e-commerce and digital trade, digital platforms and apps, and agriculture technologies, those losses were offset by growth elsewhere. It will be important to have strategies and support systems that enable workers to move quickly to new opportunities, created by technological advances.

In general, the report finds that the “fraction of automated tasks has increased less than previously expected, and the horizon for future automation is stretching further into the future than surveyed businesses previously anticipated.” (p. 26) In 2020, employers predicted 47% automation by 2025. This year, employers predict 42% automation by 2027. It will be interesting to see how recent advances in generative AI will impact this horizon moving forward. 

Core Skills, Assessment and Training

The top two required core skills are analytical thinking and creative thinking, followed by resilience, flexibility, and agility; motivation and self-awareness; and curiosity and lifelong learning to round out the top five. (Figure 4.2, p. 38) Not surprisingly, these areas are receiving attention in the reskilling strategies of companies. However, the report also notes several other skills which companies do not rank highly but are receiving much more attention in reskilling efforts, indicating areas of emerging strategic importance. These skills include AI and big data, as well as leadership and social influence, design and user experience, and environmental stewardship. (Figure 4.5, p. 42) AI and big data is the “number one priority” in training strategies for companies with more than 50,000 employees. (p. 46)

Skills are dynamic. Companies now predict that 44% of workers’ core skills will change in the next five years, compared to 35% in 2016. (p. 37) And it is often difficult to hire employees with the needed skills. Businesses cite skills gaps in the local labour market most frequently among factors that limit the transformation of their business. Coming in second is the overall inability to attract talent. Particularly important to GBSN is that “skills gaps are reported to be most problematic in Sub-Saharan Africa, where they are seen to limit the transformation of 70% of companies.”

Companies are more optimistic about developing the existing workforce than about finding and retaining talent. (Figure 5.3, p. 51) Given the positive outlook for talent development, the report considers the composition of training programs. Not surprisingly, the most common approaches are through on-the-job training and coaching and in-house training departments. That’s followed by employee-sponsored apprenticeships. External suppliers, such as professional associations, private-sector online-learning platforms and universities, are expected to deliver very little of the talent development work. (Figure 5.9, p. 58)

When it comes to assessing potential hires, 71% of businesses evaluate work experience, 47% use skill assessments, and 45% look at the completion of university degrees. While currently only 20% look at the completion of short courses and online certificates, that is expected to increase, because of their flexibility and “given that 82% of companies plan to adopt education and workforce development technologies in the next five years.” (p. 54)
There is much more to the Future of Jobs Report. Hopefully, this short preview will stimulate your interest. I especially like the infographics page, which can be found here. I encourage you to read the report and share your thoughts about what is most interesting.

Lately I’ve been starting my presentations by asking participants, “In what ways do the interests of business and business schools intersect?” The most common initial reaction has been silence, accompanied by a familiar facial expression, the one that says, “Isn’t it obvious?”. 

Still, I press them on the question until someone speaks up. The first answer is always about skills and talent, or the so-called pipeline. “Yes!” I exclaim. Businesses need people with the knowledge and skills to match the jobs they’re hiring for. Business schools prepare learners for those jobs and must learn and anticipate their needs; as well as adapt their curricula as jobs change. The skills answer is indeed obvious, and the audience thinks we’re finished with the exercise. 

“And what else?” I ask. After a short pause, someone shouts “Research!”. Yes! Managers want new knowledge, or insights, about business and management to help them succeed in a changing world. They learn from colleagues and connections, as well as through continuing education, articles, and videos. Meanwhile, quality business schools create new knowledge and often rely on data and information from business to do so. Whether you think business schools have done it well, knowledge generation is another area in which the interests of business and business schools intersect.

This is often a good time to pause and reflect on the kind of relationship implied by the first two responses. It is one in which business schools serve the needs of business. That makes sense. It’s the way most people already think about the relationship. Some even describe business as the ultimate customer for business schools. It is the responsibility of business schools to align its teaching and research to the needs of business. 

A long time ago, before my experience at GBSN, I might have stopped there. Now, I press on and invite participants to explore shifts in their own thinking about business and the kind of work both business and business schools are doing with GBSN. As an example, I’ll explain our collaboration with Deutsche Post DHL, which is designed to enable SMEs in developing countries to grow their businesses through trade. I’ll mention our partnership with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition to “drive society preferences towards nutritious and sustainable food.” Lastly, I’ll describe our work with Ecobank to advance women-led businesses in Africa and our work with Johnson & Johnson to improve management skills of front-line healthcare workers.

We explore the role of business and business schools in developing the communities they serve. For business schools, it is often about their role as anchor institutions in the ecosystem as well as catalysts for new business creation. Increasingly, regardless of where the school is located, local economic and social development has become more central to their mission. And, for business, they have a responsibility to their communities and increasingly recognize that these communities must thrive and be sustainable for business to be successful. Businesses must be concerned about the health and well-being of both employees and customers,  as well as education, transportation, safety, resilience, and more. 

The point is business and business schools have a shared interest in developing their communities. And that’s why GBSN exists. We are built on the belief that management knowledge and skills are important drivers of economic and social development. That means management education and research are not just about serving students and business, and not just about job creation. It’s also about serving society and helping communities to develop in more inclusive and sustainable ways—it’s about societal impact.

We often take the discussion further and think about our shared interest in transforming society—to move the needle not only with short-term solutions but also with long-term transformations. This includes digital transformation and that’s why you’ll see GBSN working with the business-focused Center for Finance, Technology and Entrepreneurship (CFTE) to accelerate the development of fintech education. It’s why we’re exploring the financial links to biodiversity and ways to power the energy transition. It’s also why so much of our work is to address gender inequality and build the conditions for peace to thrive in areas prone to conflict.

In thinking about our shared interests in building and transforming communities, we begin to see that relationships between business and business schools must be collaborative and long-term, and not just based on transactional, provider-to-customer mindsets. It suggests that business schools should teach students how to transform systems and not just prepare them to work in organizations. It also encourages scholars to challenge the status quo with their research, rather than simply advance the literature in their next article. It brings new light to why network models like GBSN can be particularly effective by building the connective tissue between schools and companies for societal impact.

Twitter has a lot of uses. It helps people connect with others who have similar interests by sharing research and resources. Users can track and contribute in areas of interest, increase the visibility of their companies, and build their personal brand. All these things are important, of course, but I was looking for more when I signed up in 2009. 

I saw Twitter as an opportunity to gather insights from a more diverse set of people both inside and outside higher education. Through my work, I was lucky to learn from the leaders in business schools around the world. But I was feeling insulated and sought new and different perspectives. I somehow envisioned a broad community; sharing a wide mix of perspectives that intersect to generate new ideas.

The platform, I thought, could also help me become a better writer and communicator. The character limit at the time was 140 characters and that was a real and binding constraint. It would force me to isolate and articulate the main point of an article, speech, or conversation more concisely—and do it in a way that draws attention. Twitter provided a practice field for thinking and writing for clarity and engagement, and the feedback was almost instantaneous.

The way I (and I’m sure many others) thought about it, Twitter was about improving our work and not just about amplifying it. Although both are important from my point of view, the platform evolved more to serve the latter than the former. In 2016, the company introduced an algorithmic timeline, which displayed tweets based on popularity and not just chronologically, as was initially the case. It was a business decision to increase interaction and engagement with the platform, but it also created information bubbles, making it more difficult to explore different points of view. 

A year later, the character limit of a tweet increased from 140 to 280 characters. Relaxing the constraint provided additional room for content but meant we didn’t have to work as hard to generate shorter tweets. The change reminded me of what Mark Twain said long before Twitter, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” 

Overall, the platform now seems better suited for self-promotion rather than self-development. This point is captured in the sarcastic (and Tweetable) first line of a David Brooks piece appearing in The Atlantic, “Whenever I feel particularly humble, I tweet about myself.” Worse, social media platforms have carelessly enabled the spread of misinformation, contributed to diminishing trust, and exacerbated political polarization. 

*****

Now what, if anything, does the evolution of Twitter tell us about the future of ChatGPT, which was released in November to a flurry of commentary?

In our own field of management education, initial concerns about ChatGPT have focused on students and scholars using the AI as a substitute for their own work or otherwise, “game the system” to improve their position rather than themselves. These concerns are not surprising. I’ve seen articles about using ChatGPT to make your job easier, write a book, and, of course, simply to make money. Many universities and business schools are hurriedly rethinking and rewriting their academic integrity policies, while professors are revising their syllabi. 

Others have been more optimistic about the potential for ChatGPT as a tool to enhance and improve learning. As Christopher Grobe writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education, most of the initial concerns about ChatGPT are “not so much about writing, understood as a process and adjunct to thought, as they are about writing assessment, understood as a tool for sorting students and awarding distinctions.” According to Grobe, “if we treat learning (not distinction) as the goal of education, then generative AI looks more like an opportunity than a threat.” 

More generally, professors are writing about using ChatGPT to develop critical thinking skills, serve as a learning companion or teaching assistant, and generate alternative perspectives. I was especially excited to see Alain Goudey of Neoma Business School write about ChatGPT and “The art of prompt engineering,” emphasizing the increasing importance to companies of being able to get the most out of AI. Is there a better way to develop skills for working with generative AI’s, than to use it to learn business and management? As many of my professor friends have told me, students (and professors) should worry less about being displaced by AI and more about being displaced by people that know how to use it. 

As I’ve written before, advances in technology hold the greatest potential to solve the grand challenge in education, which I believe is “to do things that work AND are accessible.” Imagine the power of AI to help us contextualize content and create immersive experiences. These opportunities are especially important for the mission of GBSN, which is “to improve access to quality, locally relevant management education for the developing world.”

Of course, the opportunities associated with AI go well beyond education. It can make us healthier and safer, as well as more productive and innovative. But there also are major risks for society. If we are not careful, AI could increase inequality, facilitate human rights violations, further divide us, and more. The immediate impact on jobs and employment are a major concern. If you are skeptical about the risks, read the New York Times article “Bing’s Chatbot Drew Me In and Creeped Me Out” in which Kevin Roose writes that he’s still fascinated and impressed by the AI, but “also deeply unsettled, even frightened, by this AI’s emergent abilities.” 

I started this blog with the Twitter story to illustrate the tensions across various uses of technology. Business schools are, of course, compelled to pay attention to the implications for teaching and learning. But they are also responsible to help the world anticipate and address the myriad challenges that AI will bring to the world. These challenges have less to do with technology and more to do with the role of business in society. OpenAI, which brought us ChatGPT, has a mission to  “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” 

It won’t be easy for business schools to shape the future of AI. To get ahead of the issues, we must continue to climb out of our “ivory towers” and get more engaged with policy and practice. To address the complex problems, we must break down silos and work with other disciplines, such as medicine, psychology, and law. To influence direction, we must take stands and be more confident in speaking out on controversial subjects, even if it alienates potential donors. To make a bigger impact, we must build stronger connections with governments and NGOs, as well as business, to test our ideas, put them into action, and adapt our approaches based on what we learn. To empower our graduates to drive change, we must help them be better systems thinkers and lead beyond their organizations.

Many business schools are already changing in these ways. For an interesting example of what business schools are doing, take a look at NYU Stern’s Center for Business and Human Rights. One of their four work streams is dedicated to technology and building on the benefits of Internet companies, while minimizing the potential for harm, especially by spreading mistrust and misinformation. They are working “to define a way forward that combines the right mix of government oversight, company self-regulation, and public education and action” – and this work has required a different model for research and engagement.

I’m optimistic about the future of AI because of the changes we are seeing in business schools. With a little help from organizations like GBSN, business schools can and will do more to positively impact economic and social development—to build more inclusive and sustainable communities.

“Look at this lead pencil. There is not a single person in the world who can make this pencil.” 

That was Milton Friedman 16 minutes into the first installment of “Free to Choose,” the 1980 television show by the Nobel Laureate and his wife, Rose Friedman. For the next two minutes he told the remarkable story of how the pencil is produced. Here is an excerpt:

“The wood from which it [the pencil] is made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make steel, it took iron ore. This black center—we call it lead but it’s really graphite, compressed graphite—I’m not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, this eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native! It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government. This brass ferrule? I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from. Or the yellow paint! Or the paint that made the black lines. Or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people co-operated to make this pencil…”

I was captivated. It seemed magical.

Later I learned the Friedmans used the story as a tribute to Leonard Read, who founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946, who was serving as its president in 1958 when he published “I, Pencil.” Read’s version was wonderfully told from the point of view of the pencil itself. “I am a lead pencil… Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me.”

Of course, the main point of the story has little to do with the pencil. There was a larger objective. According to Friedman:

“I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayak’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that ‘will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”

So that’s how Friedman and Read elevated the pencil, the simple pencil, to a symbol of free market capitalism. 

I was inspired by the pencil story as a teenager. I went on to study economies, earn a PhD, and eventually teach my own university economics courses. I often oopened my courses with similar stories about the power of markets. I wasn’t the only one. “I, Pencil” and Free to Choose, were incredibly important in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of people in the 80’s and 90’s.

But 65 years have passed since “I, Pencil” was first published and it has been more than 40 years since “Free to Choose” was released. Although I no longer teach economics, I have been thinking about the pencil story and how it would be received by learners around the world today.

Sure, I think it is still relevant and useful, but it is no longer capable of standing alone in defense of free markets. Too much is left out. In today’s complex and ever-changing world, it can be nothing more than a starting point for understanding business.

Today the story would invite critical reflection and discussion. Learners have access to more information. They can fact-check statements, assumptions and fill in missing pieces. They can immediately track down information about the market size and gather insights to assess its potential in different parts of the world. 

More importantly, I believe students today are more likely to ask tough, higher level questions. To what extent are the trees reforested? What are the ecological implications of open pit graphite mines and how are workers treated in them? Are there more sustainable alternatives to pencils and if so, how can they accelerate the transition? Pencils are not the biggest consumers of wood, graphite or rubber, but each of the markets have unique and important challenges related to the environment and sustainability. 

Given that the market system is now more widely accepted, the simple version of the pencil story could also lead to a more nuanced discussion about the respective roles of business and government. Tim Harford, also known as the “Undercover Economist,” points out that the pencil is actually “the product of a messy economic system in which the government plays a role and corporate hierarchies insulate many workers from Friedman’s ‘magic of the price system.’”

In the end, I think stories about how things are made are particularly helpful when teaching “globalization,” which is getting more complex and challenging to teach. Because global processes can be abstract and difficult to comprehend, it helps to develop concrete examples. Better yet, let the students do it. At the Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina, a GBSN member who’s highly recognized for excellence in teaching international business, students are asked to map global value chains for familiar products. Researching how specific things are made can help students anywhere to be better managers, consumers, and global citizens. At GBSN, we are working with the school’s Sonoco International Business Department to make their teaching resources available to schools around the world. 

So, the pencil story stands, but no longer as a beacon of free enterprise. Instead, it serves as a starting point for critical discussions about business and government, globalization, and sustainability. And, just perhaps, will enable us to think about and discover new market-based approaches that better serve society. 

According to a 2018 World Bank report, “globally, the loss in human capital wealth due to gender inequality is estimated at $160 trillion.” Presented differently and more positively, “human capital wealth could increase 21.7 percent globally, and total wealth by 14.0 percent with gender equality in earnings.” Three years earlier, the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that a “full-potential scenario in which women participate in the economy identically to men, would add up to $28 trillion, or 26 percent, to annual global GDP in 2025 compared with a business-as-usual scenario.” No matter how you measure it; improvements in gender equality can create huge benefits to society.

Numbers such as these make a big impression, but a lot can be lost. While they illustrate the overall magnitude of the problem, such measures don’t usually reveal much about the differences across countries and regions. These differences are especially important for the work of Global Business School Network (GBSN), which is built on the fact that business is still largely contextual. Our mission is “to improve access to quality, locally relevant management education for the developing world.” And one of our core strengths is to activate our global network to support local institutions and communities.

That was the idea behind our latest webinar, which brought together experienced scholars and professionals from around the world to explore the role of higher education in addressing gender inequality. It was offered in partnership with the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the PNGAus Partnership, and motivated by work that GBSN has been doing to assist universities in Papua New Guinea to develop entrepreneurship education and well as address gender inequality. To put things into perspective, in the United Nations Development Programme’s 2021 Gender Inequality Index, Papua New Guinea ranked 160 out of 161 countries.

I won’t try to summarize the webinar in this blog. Instead, I will highlight a few high-level themes and encourage readers to watch the video on the GBSN YouTube channel.

First, gender equality is inextricably connected with other important issues and challenges.

It’s not just SDG5, which aims to achieve “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” Gender inequality affects (or is affected by) almost every other SDG, including the obvious ones, such as poverty reduction, health, education, decent work, and reduced inequalities, and also others such as clean water and sanitation and sustainable cities and communities.

Gender-specific benchmarks are formally tied to nine other SDGs, according to Juliane Iannarelli, Senior Advisor to GBSN and former Chief Knowledge Officer and Head of Diversity and Inclusion at AACSB International. With so many touch points across the SDGs, said Iannarelli, gender inequality is an inherently complex issue, and we should expect the issue to be viewed through many different lenses. Part of our responsibility in higher education is to unpack the issues and enable learners to view challenges from multiple perspectives.

Second, it is not only the right thing to do; gender equality also improves results.

In her opening keynote, Connie Gonzalez, Deputy Director for the Center for Women’s Economic Empowerment (CWEE), based in El Salvador, focused on the positive impact that gender equality can have on organizational leadership and performance. For example, there is increasing evidence that company profit, teamwork, and responsibility improve when more women are in leadership positions.

“To me, the key point is that this evidence demonstrates that gender equality should be a central part of core curricula and research agendas in business schools. It is not a side issue, nor is it strictly about social responsibility. Gender equality is as integral to business performance as finance, information systems, and strategy.”

Third, universities and business schools should think broadly and creatively about the ways they can foster gender equality.

The panelists addressed questions in three general areas, increasing access to women, increasing efficacy of education for women, and how to ensure that gender initiatives have the intended impact. Their discussion highlighted a wide range of opportunities that go beyond changing what we teach and study in business schools.

Panelists brought up the importance of role models and mentors for women—and pointed out subtleties, such as how much more beneficial it is when women are enabled to seek their own mentors, rather than have them appointed. They pointed to the value of developing entrepreneurial mindsets and skillsets, not only for starting a new venture, but also for the psychological impact of women knowing that they can. The panelists talked about the power of simple interventions that have been shown to work, activating alumni for gender initiatives, uncovering bias in assessments, strategies for strengthening the pipeline, and more. Again, I encourage you to watch the video. I will be happy to help you reach out to the panelists if you have questions.

Panelists

Neha Agarwal, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), Department of Economics, University of Otago, New Zealand

Yvette Mucharraz y Cano, Professor of the Personal Management Area, IPADE Business School, Mexico

Kathy Korman Frey, Professorial Lecturer of Management; Director, Center For Entrepreneurial Excellence, The George Washington University School of Business, USA

Connie Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Center for Women’s Economic Empowerment (CWEE), El Salvador

Mahreen Mamoon, Assistant Professor, BRAC Business School, Bangladesh

Nicole Sutton, Senior Lecturer of Accounting, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

I want to close this blog by saying that this was a special group of panelists. Their interactions in the webinar say a lot about the GBSN community, which draws its strength from people like them who want to positively impact the world. This webinar is just one example of how GBSN creates value for participants, while engaging them in the mission. Our work often begins with events like this one, in which participants share ideas and resources, then rises to facilitating collective action. With that in mind, we look forward to seeing the community come together for GBSN Beyond 2022 in Amsterdam, 7-9 November.

"What classes are being taught? What topics are you teaching? How can you incorporate new and different information?" Connie Gonzalez of @CIPEglobal @CIPEWomen poses these great questions on our panel tonight: Global Gender Equality and Higher Education. https://t.co/ruqh9AGlUC pic.twitter.com/foahKGAcTd

— Kathy Korman Frey  (@KathyKormanFrey) October 19, 2022

In an HBS Podcast, Carter Roberts, President & CEO of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) encouraged corporate leaders “to not just think about their own company, to not just think about their own footprint, but to embrace both the promise and expectation that they be a force for good in the world that goes way beyond their company.” 

What does this mean? Should our jobs as leaders really extend beyond our own organizations? And, if so, why, and how far? Is it only about being a force for good? Or is this elevation in thinking also about performance. Isn’t managing a company hard enough, especially in a corporation where my responsibility is largely to shareholders? How do we handle competing (and conflicting) interests across organizations and sectors? 

Addressing these questions from a business perspective would take a lot more experience than I’ll ever have. Luckily, we have leaders like former Unilever CEO, Paul Polman. He dedicates two chapters in his book, Net Positive, to exploring the role of business executives beyond their own companies. Chapter 6, “1+1=11,” is about collaborating within an industry or value chain to address challenges. Chapter 7 “It Takes Three to Tango” presses on the need for leadership across sectors to address the most challenging issues facing society, such as climate change and inequality. 

For now, I would like to explore the opportunities for business schools—how this simple change in thinking about business leadership can have profound implications for the work of business schools.

The views of Roberts, Polman, and many others about business leadership open new avenues for thinking differently about our curricula and what we teach. Topics like systems thinking and geopolitics can become central, rather than peripheral to business education. Thinking about our broader leadership role provides a new lens through which we can view and discuss old cases. When it comes to what we teach, Polman emphasizes the importance of “pre-competitive” strategies and long-term thinking. The key is to draw out new and meaningful insights that shape the development of new leaders.

When Indra Nooyi, former Chairman and CEO at PepsiCo, was a student at IIM Calcutta, she interned at the India’s Department of Atomic Energy. She was teamed up with a student from IIM Ahmedabad to “look at construction models of six nuclear power plants and determine which would be completed on time.” She notes in My Life in Full that she and her teammate learned “that some developed countries held back their state-of-the-art technologies from emerging markets to extract a little more return from outdated designs that were flawed and expensive.”

She wrote that the experience left her with a “sharper focus on the interdependence of business and society” and convinced her that “MBA students could play a constructive role in helping governments.” She also wrote that the experience “did not leave her encouraged about the motivations of wealthy countries toward emerging markets”—a statement particularly relevant to our work at GBSN. Nooyi went on to enter a new program at Yale linking private business with the public sector. Most will agree that her experiences with business schools were not typical at the time, or now. Part of our role at GBSN is to change the way we think about emerging economies.

In addition to redesigning business curricula, at GBSN we believe business schools (like business) play a leadership role at the nexus of business, government, and civil society. We love to see business schools engaging governments and NGOs, as well as business. More importantly, we make a difference by initiating efforts to bring those groups together. 

In thinking about the role of business and business schools, I have found the UN SDG Partnership Guidebook (2022) particularly helpful. It is a “practical guide to building high-impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals.” As an example, to illustrate the changing landscape, the following chart (from page 11) contrasts the underlying purposes and approaches of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 

On page 33, the guide offers the following list describing the types of resources that academia can bring to multi-stakeholder partnerships:

• Research and analysis
• Trusted neutral convener
• Monitoring and evaluation capacity
• Partnership learning and knowledge development
• Evidence-based policy advice
• Open Data Collection
• Teaching / capacity building
• Innovation development

What does this mean for how leaders of business schools think about their competitors? I wrote about this topic in last month’s blog “Are Business Schools Working Together.” I’ve been known to say to business school Deans that their job is not only to lead their organization, but also to lead an industry. My view was about their personal involvement in organizations like GBSN, which benefit from school leaders stepping up to shape the industry’s future. It was also about how they bring together competitors and other organizations in the ecosystem to benefit society.

Indeed, creating the platform for schools to work together as a force for good is GBSN’s primary role. While other organizations help each school to improve quality and be more competitive, we help schools to think beyond their individual schools, connect with each other to generate collective impact, and develop meaningful relationships across business, government, and civil society. 

These opportunities – to redefine what and how we teach, engage in our communities, and lead our business schools for inclusive and sustainable development – are at the heart of GBSN Beyond 2022, which will be our 19^th annual conference. In addition to the in-person conference scheduled for November 7-9 in Amsterdam, GBSN Beyond includes separate virtual tracks for students, faculty, and leaders in business schools in the weeks prior. A single registration for the in-person event entitles your whole school to participate in the virtual activities. 

I want to draw special attention to the second annual Going Beyond Awards, a GBSN partnership with EFMD, which calls for examples of business school programs that go beyond the norm and make a big impact on the communities they serve.

“The scientists are coming together to think about moonshots. But we, in business schools, are still working separately.” said Peter Tufano when Soumitra Dutta and I interviewed him for our book, “The World After Covid”, April 2020, during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. Do you agree with him?

Of course, business schools do work together. Many have long lists of partner schools for student exchanges, support connections to scholars at other schools, collaborations to create and offer joint or dual-degree programs, share resources, and more.

Still, I agree with Professor Tufano. His point was less about whether business schools are collaborating and more about why. In my experience, most business school collaborations are driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the strategic or financial benefits to participating schools. By working together, schools believe they can strengthen degree programs, penetrate new markets, build their reputations, increase revenues, decrease costs, and publish more journal articles.

There is nothing wrong with collaborating for mutual benefit. Why else would organizations work together? Leaders should know “what’s in it for my school” before agreeing to join forces with others. 

However, the reference to “moonshots” suggests that there is something more than self-interest that brings scientists together. The term came out of the US Apollo 11 spaceflight project, which had the objective of putting the first person on the moon. Although the term originally indicated “long shot,” it is often used more generally today to describe a lofty goal. 

When I hear the word, I think of bold initiatives to solve society’s “grand challenges” and save and improve lives— unlocking our full potential to achieve the SDGs. Moonshots, I believe go beyond a single organization. They require collaboration, especially internationally. Think International Space Station and the Human Genome Project. I’ve been paying more attention to the International Cancer Genome Consortium, which aims to map the genetic impact of 50 common cancers by sequencing the DNA of cells at distinct stages in the lifecycle of a tumor. 

Though the objectives may be less tangible, we have some examples in business. When Professor Tufano was Dean of Oxford University Saïd Business School, he “walked the talk” by helping to start Business Schools for Climate Leadership in which eight European schools are currently working together to accelerate business activities towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Addressing the climate emergency is as important as putting a person on the moon, don’t you think?

And consider the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). It has become the world’s most comprehensive source of information about entrepreneurship and their ecosystems, which are as vital to building more inclusive and sustainable communities as accelerating economic growth. Perhaps it wasn’t envisioned as a moonshot when launched in 1999 by Babson College and London Business School, with a focus on 10 countries. But today with more than 300 institutions covering more than 115 countries, its potential for positive impact is huge.

The Global Business School Network was started with societal impact in mind—a vision to accelerate international development by improving access to quality, locally relevant management education. For most of our history, we pursued this vision through grant projects. Today, we also achieve it with our own programs that engage network members—their students, faculty, and leaders—in important and impactful work that drives inclusive and sustainable development. 

We have been bringing together business schools for important societal initiatives, such as building more resilient communities (Social Logistics Challenge and previous Humanitarian Logistics Challenges), steering consumer preferences to more nutritious and sustainable foods (Demand Generation Alliance), improving human rights education (Business and Human Rights Impact Community), helping SMEs in emerging economies to trade across borders (DHL GBSN GoTrade Fellowship), developing leadership skills of female entrepreneurs in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ellevate Leadership Training Programme), and more. 

Unfortunately, collaborations that focus as much on society as well as strategy are still uncommon across business schools. Perhaps that is because the culture of business education reflects the culture of business, and we’ll see more only when the “business case” is clearer. It could be because of the extraordinary influence of rankings and entrenched systems for evaluating and rewarding research. I also worry about the changing geopolitical landscape (between the US and China, for example) and its impact on academic collaboration. It is important for the management education industry to understand and address these and other potential obstacles.

This year at our signature event,  GBSN Beyond, we will explore the opportunities and difficulties of business schools working together for societal impact. We will challenge business school leaders to think not only about the difference their business school can make alone, but also about the bigger difference it can make by working together with other schools and at the nexus of business, government, and civil society. 

We invite you to join us, in-person and online, as we convene in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, November 7-9, 2022. Remember, as it has always been for GBSN Beyond, one registration to attend in person means all your colleagues and students can join us online for the Social Logistics Challenge and Micro-Simulation Development Lab, as well as the conference.