Exploring management
Landmark developments in management education in India and the USA

By Ishwar Dayal
The USA: In 1881 Wharton School of Finance and Commerce started a programme for management, followed by Chicago and California in 1889, and Harvard Business School in 1908. After this a large number of universities started such courses. Each university had a different focus. Each business school had a curriculum that was influenced by the department that initiated the programme. General assessment of these programmes was that they lacked academic depth and rigour. The major change in teaching of management education followed two landmark reports in 1959/60; one initiated by Carriage Foundation and the other by Ford Foundation. These reports advocated upgrading the admission standards, greater academic orientation, need for research and many other practices to improve the quality of management education. Each institution took steps to strengthen its programme.

In USA, initiatives to improve standards of management education came from professional bodies, not from the government as in India. Each institution evolved its own curricula, teaching methodology, research programme, academic and admission standards, etc. The accreditation of institutions was also undertaken by professional bodies set up by educational institutions themselves. The concerned institution which invited an accrediting organisation, prepared its own comprehensive report articulating its vision, mission, activities, and support systems. This report formed the basis of appraisal of the institution to professionally assess how well or otherwise the institution was able to achieve its stated goals. This practice is still followed in the USA.

The Indian Approach
Part time courses for practicing executives in management education started in Calcutta University in 1953, followed by universities in Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. In 1959 government of India invited George W Robbins, associate dean, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California, Los Angeles, to suggest how best management education of requisite standard could be initiated and developed in India. Dean Robbins recommended setting up an all-India based institute of management. The government accepted the recommendation and set up two autonomous institutions; IIM-Kolkata (1961) and IIM-Ahmedabad (1962).
Following the two IIMs, many universities started full-time post-graduate level courses in management education. The curricula as developed by IIMs, by and large provided basis for such courses. Subsequently, The University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) prepared standard curricula for institutions approved by them.

The regulatory system in respect of management education in India, as of now, is almost completely controlled by the government and its constituted agencies, UGC and AICTE, which have been constituted under relevant Acts of Parliament. These bodies have authority to approve and regulate the institutions engaged in management education. They have specified structure, curricula, a system of grading, requirements of staff and their qualifications and composition of academic levels, physical space, etc. In USA if an institution fails to respond to the requirements of the market and remain in touch with changes, and contribute to new knowledge through research, it would find it difficult to sustain itself. In this sense, in USA, the market regulates the quality of education. In India the Regulatory Authority performs this function. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. The US system is developed on support of the market which could regulate its capacity to develop independent knowledge-base, and therefore it must operate within boundaries created by the external bodies. These expectations in large measure are utilitarian, not developmental. The Indian system requires conformity. The institutions are more concerned about keeping to the standards prescribed by AICTE than experimentation, innovation or generation of new knowledge. As studies suggest, standardisation promotes mediocrity. A teacher is inclined to use his or her last year’s notes to teach rather than risk deviation. There is little encouragement to think because the institution concerned has no reason to demand originality. Notwithstanding such limitations some institutions have taken the risk to deviate from the rigidity.

The Developments
In recent years, management education in USA has been subject to strong criticism by many teachers and business people alike. The critics hold that management courses, and research has become esoteric and the management of business is vastly different from what is taught in educational programmes. Between 2005-07 most highly rated business schools critically reviewed their programmes and in most cases brought about significant changes in the design of their courses, teaching methodology, requirements of the faculty and the structure of the programme. Each school (Stanford Chicago, Yale, Harvard and many other) has followed a different approach to the programme but with strong focus on the programme being student centered. They are concerned about individualising the course design to respond to different learning and absorbing capacity of students, effective integration of courses, greater emphasis on using or applying knowledge, and widening the scope of courses to respond to the requirements of global environment.

The Indian Scenario
Management schools in India have certain special considerations compared to schools in USA. In India most students come fresh from college without any kind of work experience. The educational system encourages dependence on the teacher. There is no tradition of self-learning, or even enquiry. In a professional programme a student is expected to apply whatever he learns in class or in books to solve business and organisational problems. Diagnosing a problem by seeking relevant data and resolving it requires deeper understanding of the set of concepts that can help in problem definition, diagnosis and in seeking a viable solution. This capability cannot develop except by dealing with a variety of situations by the student. Hence the programme of study has to provide such situations and a student on his own must internalise his learning to be able to apply it to a whole range of problem areas and situations. A student has to be able to integrate his learning and observations from many situations for decision-making. The past educational exposure and lack of real life experience comes in the way of integrating knowledge and transferring it from one situation to another. These and similar circumstances require management schools to devise ways that can help a student to overcome disadvantages that he or she brings from a somewhat different educational system. The faculty at the Indus World School of Business in Greater Noida, with which I am associated for their academic programmes, has discussed over an extended period of time the recent changes in programmes in USA and the special features of the Indian situation, and have initiated a modular structure of the programme and relevant teaching methodology. The initial response of students to the programmes is very encouraging. The approach seems to overcome the shortcomings highlighted earlier.

In the end, it would be useful to indicate the type of programmes that are being offered by management schools in India. The classification and assessment of the programme is drawn from several review reports by expert committees on management education in India.

A large number of institutions greatly lack application orientation so necessary in professional courses such as management. The faculty lack involvement of requisite kind in research to evaluate the material drawn from standard textbooks on which they heavily rely. A few practitioners who move over to teaching positions rarely familiarise themselves with concepts to be able to evaluate their experience.

A second category of institutions review their courses and use experiential methodologies in teaching. A third category of institutions have a mix of faculty who are consciously engaged in upgrading their knowledge. They are in regular touch with business organisations and enrich their courses by relevant material from live situations. Students who desire to benefit from the third category institutions should seek out in detail what kind of research and publications the faculty is credited with. This information would reflect the approach of the institution to education.

—Ishwar Dayal is founder director, IIM-L and chairperson, academic council of Indus World School of Business