PRESIDENT'S LETTER: An Interdisciplinary Society?

In my last column I presented the Institute's mission and vision statements that were approved recently by the Board of Directors. In the mission statement (see page 56), two words -- "international" and "interdisciplinary" -- characterize our society. Our growing international emphasis was highly evident at the Fourth International Meeting held this summer in Sydney, Australia. This meeting drew participants from over 25 countries across the globe. I would sincerely like to thank Norma Harrison and Miles Nicholls for putting together an outstanding professional program along with entertaining social activities that everyone thoroughly enjoyed. We are also developing a strong international region in the Asia-Pacific area, and we currently are exploring the potential of developing a region in Mexico and Latin America as well as in Europe.

But what about the word "interdisciplinary"? As we developed the mission statement, the Board of Directors spent a considerable amount of time debating this term. Although DSI was founded with an interdisciplinary emphasisþone of the tenets of the Institute is a focus on the integration of research in the art and science of managerial decision making across traditional functional academic disciplinesþsome Board members argued that we are, at best, multidisciplinary. ``Multidisciplinary'' suggests merely a collection of disciplines; ``interdisciplinary'' implies integration of disciplines. In our meetings we have tracks in POM, information systems, accounting, marketing, finance, and so forth. However, most sessions are designed and populated by individuals with strong disciplinary interests.

Perhaps we as a society have been content at being only multidisciplinary, as individuals pursue increasingly narrower research interests. But will this help us to achieve our mission of ,i>advancing the science and practice of education and research about business disciplines? I think not.

As researchers, we can survive and thrive within our own disciplines, but as educators, with a responsibility to train future managers and business leaders, we cannot. I am becoming increasingly convinced that management education does not fundamentally understand what it takes to create and sustain a high-performing, world class organization. I base this conclusion from my experiences as a senior examiner for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. If you read my first President's Letter in Decision Line, you know that I am a strong believer and advocate of the Baldrige criteria as a framework for world-class management. The criteria represent an integrated management system, the concept of which, I might add, is truly international. The Australian Quality Award, Canadian Quality Award, European Business Excellence Model, and the Deming Prize all revolve around this notion.

These frameworks define the linkages among fundamental management processes of leadership, strategic planning, customer and market focus, information and analysis, human resource development and management, and process management, all leading to the achievement of ever-improving business results. By their nature, these frameworks are interdisciplinary and draw upon the cumulative knowledge in all of the fundamental academic disciplines that comprise modern business programs. Yet we continue to teach these topics within our own disciplinary boundaries.

In the companies I have evaluated in the Baldrige program, I have found that what truly distinguishes the few outstanding companies from the many merely good ones is a clear understanding of these interdisciplinary linkages. Few businesses, and I believe even far fewer business schools, really understand this. Today, national quality award winners are simply those companies that exhibit good management practiceþwhat business education should be about.

My observations are consistent with the AACSB Faculty Leadership Task Force Reportþwith which I hope most of you are familiarþwhich not only criticized the lack of real-world business contact of our faculties, but further stated that ``the integration of interdisciplinary research, attitudes, and programs represent a major challenge to most business schools . . . schools have lost their interdisciplinary focus and are impairing their pedagogy and their impact.'' The Task Force went on to state that ``Individual schools must concern themselves with the interaction among the disciplines in business.''

A few months ago, I conducted a survey of MBA program directors of AACSB-accredited schools to determine how the fundamental management practices embedded in the Baldrige Award criteria are integrated into MBA curricula. The Baldrige categories that received the highest emphasis in a required course are: Strategic Planning (in fact, strategy development was the only practice reportedly taught by all respondents in a required course), Leadership, and Process Management.

However, less than three-fourths of all schools addressed fundamental Human Resource Development and Management practices in their core courses, and only 60 percent of respondents say they address Business Results, specifically, the practice of evaluating a balanced scorecard. The question that immediately came to my mind was: How can senior managers make good strategic decisions without comprehensive analysis and evaluation of business results, or deploy strategy without understanding the work systems that actually accomplish action plans? Clearly, something is awry.

Finally, only about half of the respondents reported to have a single course that integrates the major themes in the Baldrige criteria and the interdisciplinary linkages among them. Of these, I am a bit skeptical, since the results are self-reported, and several respondents pointed to a course in ``strategic management'' or ``competitive analysis'' that accomplishes this task. From my knowledge of typical courses in these areas, I seriously doubt that significant linkages among leadership, customers and markets, strategy, process design and management, information and analysis, human resources, and business results are treated in a holistic manner. From my experience, it is a fundamental understanding of these linkages that distinguish Baldrige winners from the other companies that score well in the assessment process.

In my opinion, these statistics suggest that a significant gapþand a significant opportunity for improvementþexists in our approach to business education. As educators, individually, as schools and colleges, and collectively as the Decision Sciences Institute, we can help reduce this gap and exploit this opportunity through better understanding and innovation.