The nature of management education has been changing in the last two decades or so at a faster pace than ever before. The truth of the matter is that the nature of all education is constantly in a dynamic mode, but it changes faster in certain disciplines than others. Taking a comparative view may not be necessary here.
To get back to management education, the last two decades have seen more fast-paced change in it than in the nature of change in any discipline in the preceding five decades or so. This is perhaps because the pace of technological change in the period has been very much more than the preceding decades. One other thing which has forced the pace of change is the integration of different parts of the globe again, at a much faster pace than in the preceding decades. This has in parts heightened the contradictions and brought together regional conglomerates of nations with a large number of national groupings emerging. They are both regional in character and in parts global in shape. This shows itself several times in military groupings, often euphemistically referred to as defense arrangements. The Quad combination can be a case in point.
G20, or ASEAN conglomerates or BRICS combination, are but a few of global examples. Whatever be the form of inter-dependency, it has left an impact on the nature and character of management practices.
The dominance of a few over many is one of the resultant outcomes, but the nature of the grouping is not the same. Many regional centers of foci have grown, affecting the theory of management practices andrecording of illustrations, examples and cases which inherently would find a place in a management curriculum. Predictably, the text books are slower to come and usually take anywhere between 2 to 3 years to shape up. This raises certain basic questions on the relevance of the management education because it is supposed to produce people for the world of work as it could stand approximately after 2 years of a student admission in a management course school program. This raises the responsibility of a management faculty anywhere and everywhere to be on top of the job in reading current decision-making practices and ability to conceptualize it into principles of decision-making.
There seems to be little institutional mechanism available to do so, and much is left to the individual enterprise of management faculty both as a group and individuals, to cope with this challenge. There are a few institutional setups, like the association of management schools in a given region or indeed management associations, but there seems to be little evidence available of their competence to meet this challenge.
The above observations carry their own logic. It would be necessary to realize that it raises a very basic question about the relevance of management education in general and post-graduate management education in particular. Yet the world of work continues to place much premium on a management diploma or a degree. be it at the undergraduate level or otherwise.
This is a serious consideration in recruitment and selection procedures, demanding that the method and content of education to be supremely sensitive to what these degrees itself indicate or demonstrate. Unless this question is answered,for any designing of any induction program for a newly recruited management trainee, the upshot of this kind of a situation can be quite bewildering. At times,it puts in question the entire design of the recruitment process. This includes the use of the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae; Bio-Data or for that matter the relevance of his degree and the worth of the degree he holds.
The domino effect of this kind of entry can be large and difficult to contain. It would also put a question mark on several assessment procedures and the qualification ranking of the end product of management degrees. If that be so, the efficiency of the organization is affected, and the return on investment in running the institution needs updated parameters of evaluation.
It is important to raise this question because of the nature of discussion which post-pandemic situation has thrown up. There are comments in the media from significant names in the management world asking for the number of days of work that may be accepted in any institutions. Traditionally, it has been taken to be a 7-day work week with a 1-day holiday, which is dependent upon the region of work, could fall on Sunday/Saturday/Friday. The long and short of it is simple. It is generally agreed that a working week has 7-day, and there should be at least one or two non-working days. There is no logic in selecting as 7-day work week for the calculation of working days, it could have been 6 or it could have been 5, or whatever else. However, practices have their own logic in governance, and globally a 7-day week is accepted to be a pattern. Hence, the arguments made by some that a working week should have 3 working days becomes an interesting concern. The issue is how sanctimonious is the number of working days in a 7-day. Can it be 3 and if so, can one can take two jobs in the same week spending 3 days into 2 jobs with one day as a holiday.
The possibilities are numerous, and some fundamental enough to go beyond the basics as it were.
The time has therefore come for a deeper level of management thinking about work, and the nature of work, the use of technology therein, and what is ultimately one paid for.
The answers will not come suddenly or through cogitation alone. A deep study of practices and options may become necessary. One has to patiently start documentation and study the consequences. The answers will take time to come. A conscious effort at enabling the answers may make the task simpler and more scientific in outcome.
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
