j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

1/19

Management Education in the UK: TheRoles of the British Academy of

Management and the Association ofBusiness Schools

Swapnesh Masrani, Allan P. O. Williams1 and Peter McKiernan2

School of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK, 1Cass Business School, City University,

106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK, and 2Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde,

Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

This paper uses institutional theory to analyse the role of the British Academy ofManagement (BAM) and the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in gaininglegitimacy for management education in the UK. By the 1980s, serious issuessurrounding rigour and relevance were being asked about UK business schools thatraised concerns about the legitimacy of management as a discipline. A majorconsequence was that management received relatively low research funding comparedwith other social science disciplines from key funding bodies, e.g. the Economic andSocial Science Research Council. Using archival and interview data, we examine howBAM and ABS, as professional bodies, applied multiple approaches aimed at improvingthe quality of management research and teaching to gain legitimacy from influentialexternal agencies. An unintended consequence of these actions has been an increasingisomorphism in management research and education in the UK. Although some of theoriginal concerns still remain with regard to management education, both organizations

have been successful in increasing the external perception of legitimacy.

Introduction

Europe has a deep legacy in formal management

education. This stems from the first business

school in Lisbon (Portugal) in 1759, through the

Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Paris (France)

in 1819 and the German Betriebswirtschaftslehre

in the late 19th century to the Catholic-influenced

institutions in France, Portugal, Spain and Italyat the turn of that century. Prussian administra-

tion influenced the founding of Wharton in 1881,

although US business schools began earlier at

Louisiana and Wisconsin in 1851 and 1852

respectively (Spender, 2008). In the UK, if we

recognize the Staff College at Hayleybury (train-

ing centre for administrators of the British East

India Company) as equivalent to these institu-

tions, then its establishment in 1805 pre-dates all

but Lisbon (Witzel, 2009).

In the UK, technical-based professional insti-

tutions, such as the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers (1847), the Institute of Chartered

Accountants (1880) and the Chartered Institute

of Secretaries (1902), led the way in education

and training during the growth of the Empire.Institutions more closely associated with man-

agement gradually emerged as the need arose for

specialized managerial skills to confront the new

challenges of competition, knowledge growth and

complex organizational forms, e.g. the Sales

Managers Association in 1911 (now the

Chartered Institute of Marketing); the Welfare

British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 382400 (2011)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x

r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

2/19

Workers Association in 1913 (now the Chartered

Institute of Personnel and Development); and the

Institute of Industrial Administration in 1920

(now the Chartered Management Institute).These developments were founded on strong

leadership, such as Urwick (Brech, Thomson

and Wilson, 2010), Rowntree (Wilson andThomson, 2006) and Elbourne (Elbourne, 1934).

Academia was slow to engage with manage-

ment education, despite the setting up of the

Faculties of Commerce at the London School of

Economics (1895) and the Universities of Bir-mingham (1902) and Manchester (1904), because

it was seen as too practical and insufficiently

academic. Moreover, in the 19th and first half of

the 20th centuries, the dominant attitude of

management was that leaders were born and

not made. All this meant that UK technical

colleges, with their closer associations with theprofessional institutions, were ahead of UK

universities in regarding management education

as a legitimate area of study (Thomas, 2008).

The first business schools in the UK to be part

of the higher education sector were the London

and Manchester Schools, which were created on

the recommendation of the Franks Report

(Franks, 1963), with the support of the Founda-

tion for Management Education (FME)1 (Nind,

1985) and the government-established National

Economic Development Council (Rose, 1970).

However, a significant marker was reached whenUrwicks report on Education for Management

proposed that a Diploma in Management be

introduced in technical and commercial colleges

(Urwick, 1947). This meant that by the time the

London and Manchester Business Schools

recruited their first cohorts of Master of Science

students, some technical colleges, polytechnics

and colleges of advanced technology had grad-

uated several cohorts of Diploma in Management

Studies. This stream of students continued to

grow when the Council for National Academic

Awards (CNAA) was created in 1964, to approvequalifications in non-university institutions.

Meanwhile, the university sector embraced the

subject with increasing vigour from the early

1970s to the mid 1980s, with many management

initiatives beginning in departments or schools of

economics that provided an intellectual impri-

matur. In parallel, the success of the Academy of

Management in the USA provided leading UK

academics with the inspiration to form the BritishAcademy of Management2 (BAM) in 1986, with

its first conference at Warwick Business School in

1987. This was followed closely by the formationof the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in

1992, to represent the voice of UK business

school deans.

These humble and hesitant origins of UK

management education made it impossible topredict its rapid growth over the next 50 years. In

2009, almost one in seven of all students in UK

universities was studying business and manage-

ment. This achievement was all the more

impressive when one considers the challenges

facing business schools during the 1970s and

1980s, many of which persist today. They can becategorized as follows.

Research and funding

1. Many business schools were being used as

cash cows by their parent university.

2. Colleagues in established academic disciplines

questioned the academic credibility of those in

management, particularly when all were com-

peting for resources from the same financial

pool.

3. Insufficient recognition was being given to

business schools for their potential contribu-

tion to the national economy, and therefore

for their involvement in the development of

policies relating to economic and social affairs.

4. Employers felt that the emerging business

schools were failing to meet their needs.

1The FME was formed in 1960 by a group of influentialbusiness men who saw a link between superior Americanproductivity and US business schools.

2BAMs original aims were (a) to encourage the sharingand development of a research knowledge base for allmanagement disciplines; (b) to act as a forum for thevarious disciplines in management and to encourage thedevelopment of an integrated body of knowledgecommensurate with management as a profession; (c) toencourage and promote disciplinary research andcollaboration amongst the various management disci-plines; (d) to further the development of managementeducation in the UK.

Management Education in the UK 383

r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.

8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

3/19

Teaching

5. Academic staff new to management education

had to go through a process of education

themselves in adapting to their unfamiliar

context.

6. The rapid expansion of management educa-tion in the UK threatened the quality of the

unregulated MBA degree.

There has been some attempt to analyse the

implications of these issues on management

education during this period. For example,

Caswill and Wensley (2007) examine the role of

policies developed by the Social Science Research

Council (later the Economic and Social Science

Research Council (ESRC)) in promoting user

engagement and the rigour and relevance debatein management research, while Starkey and

Tiratsoo (2007, pp. 115119) describe the

implications of the Research and Assessment

Exercise (RAE) at the business school level in

terms of shaping the research agenda for

academics. However, the role of the ABS and

the BAM remains under-acknowledged.3 In this

paper we examine the part played by these

institutions in creating an identifiable and legit-

imate management education sector by promot-

ing exchanges in knowledge and good practice in

research, funding and teaching. We use institu-

tional theory as a framework to analyse thestrategies used to influence the legitimacy of

management education under adverse conditions

through (a) the formation of pressure groups to

influence decision making and (b) the develop-

ment of norms relating to the quality of business

schools and their products (both qualifications

and research). While both institutions repre-

sented the business and management community,

each has different objectives: BAM is concerned

mainly with improving the quality of research in

management while ABS is concerned mainly with

the quality and reputation of business schoolsand publicizing their contributions.

This paper is divided into four further sections.

The next section outlines the institutional theory

framework that guides the analysis of the

subsequent case material. Then details on the

sources of data and the method deployed are

given, while the following section provides the

case material for each of the BAM and ABS. Thefinal section summarizes the findings, weaves

these findings into the theory and provides

concluding commentary.

Institutional theory

Despite the threads of management education in

the UK stretching beyond the 1960s, the estab-lishment of the first UK higher education

business schools at Manchester and London

mark the middle of that decade as the birth of a

sector. We chose to view its emergence and

development though the lens of institutional

theory, as opposed to competing theories, e.g.population ecology or resource dependence,

because our interest lies in professional bodiesas units of analysis (Di Maggio and Powell, 1991;

Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002) in

both ABS and BAM, their symbolic status, their

exertion of agency and the influence of iso-

morphic pressure. Professional bodies play an

important role in a sector on three fronts: (1) they

act as platforms through which the sector

represents itself internally, e.g. by facilitating

debate and through determining conditions

of membership; (2) they act as negotiatingor representative agencies for interacting with

external agencies, especially to legitimize the

sectors identity and role when they come under

threat; (3) they oversee internally that members

comply with agreed beliefs and practices (Green-

wood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002, pp. 6162).

Although the main focus, internal or external,

may differ, often the three activities are carried

out simultaneously to achieve the stated objec-

tive. In this paper we are particularly concerned

with the role of professional bodies in generating

legitimacy from external stakeholders.As early as the end of the 1960s (Mant, 1969;

Owen, 1970) and for decades thereafter, external

agencies (mainly government bodies and practi-

tioners) questioned the direct utility of business

schools in enhancing the quality of management

and, consequently, the effect on national eco-

nomic productivity and competitiveness. In

parallel, research funding applications from

academics to government research councils (e.g.

3Histories of the development of each of these institu-tions exist (for BAM, see McKiernan and Masrani,2008; for ABS, see Williams, 2007) but they do not dealexplicitly with the notion of legitimacy nor the co-jointimpact.

384 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan


8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

4/19

ESRC) continued to be ineffective because of a

perceived lack of quality and a paucity of rigour

and relevance. Clearly, to thrive, the sector had

to earn legitimacy4 from these external5 stake-holders. An integral part of legitimacy enhance-

ment is the creation of formal structures that are

engineered as much for their symbolism oflegitimacy as for their efficiency in handling task

action issues (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Parsons

and Bales, 1956).

Further legitimacy building emerges from the

exertion of active agency through proactivepressure (e.g. political lobbying) to change

institutional rules and regulations in the hope of

altering the existing belief systems of targeted

members of society (Di Maggio, 1988; Gomes,

Garry and Rodrigues, 2008; Oliver, 2001).

Usually, processes of measurement reinforce such

activity, for instance where the technical under-pinnings of accountancy or numeracy in general

can have a positive effect on legitimacy percep-

tion and consequent acceptance through power-

ful psychological persuasion (Covaleski and

Dirsmith, 1986; Masrani and McKiernan, 2011;

Scott and Meyer, 1991).

Integral to the institutional lens is the process

of isomorphism (see, for instance, Di Maggio and

Powell, 1983). External shocks, like adverse

criticism from significant stakeholders, can force

sector agencies into a reformulation of their

structural and strategic designs (Tolbert andZucker, 1996; see also McKiernan and Wilson,

2011). There may be many individual new ways

of doing business operationalized but, in the

early stages, no dominant model acceptable to

recognized groups or important clusters is

detectable. In time, objectification occurs as a

perceived successful model emerges and this is

embraced cautiously by the sector until an

understanding of the best recipe (Spender,

1989) is clarified. Some players may be touted

as exemplars and act to encourage others to

adopt similar structures. The institutional process

is complete when these structures have persistedto a point of robust sedimentation, when

isomorphic convergence to homogeneity is evi-

dent across the sector through the pressure ofthree well-known forces: mimetic (copying,

Sevo n, 1996); normative (professionalization,

Touron, 2005); and coercive (social obligation,

Carmona and Macias, 2001; Carpenter and

Feroz, 2001). Interestingly, it is difficult toidentify the exact impact of each singly, as their

individual impact varies over time and because

these pressures often act in concert, when inter-

active effects become strong (Mizruchi and Fein,

1999). To endure, such institutionalism needs

little challenge, perceived successful outcomes

and constant active agency. In their absence,de-institutionalization can occur as the systemic

model is reconfigured or replaced by aggressive

new entrants or disgruntled existing players.

This study will examine the role of two

professional institutions, the BAM and the

ABS, in the legitimization of management

education in the UK. In particular it will examine

ways in which they sought legitimacy from key

external stakeholders.

Data sources and research methodResearch data for this paper were collected from

multiple sources. For BAM, these included

e-interviews with Chairpersons, Presidents and

key Officers in 20076 and 20117; and archival

material, including internal documents such as

minutes of Council meetings, subcommittee

meetings and private and published reports from

its founding in 1986 to 2008. For ABS, personal

interviews were conducted with every Chairper-

son from 1992 to 2010, and other key Officers

when it was necessary to fill in any gaps. In4Suchman (1995) defines legitimacy as the generalizedperception . . . that the actions of an entity are desirable,

proper, or appropriate within some socially constructedsystem of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (p. 174).5Legitimacy can be earned internally and externally.However, in this paper we are concerned only with thegaining of legitimacy with external stakeholders. Werecognize the greater validity and superior effectivenessof agencies with the broad support of internal players. Inthe cases of the ABS and BAM, we realize that thisextent of support may not have been the case through-out the period under study, especially in the early years.

6These included Cary Cooper, Andrew Pettigrew,Andrew Thomson, Derek Pugh, David Otley, DavidWilson, Roger Mansfield, Gerry Johnson, David Par-ker, Graham Hooley, Peter McKiernan, RichardThorpe, Mark Easterby-Smith, Gerard Hodgkinson,Chris Huxham, Susan Cartwright, Ian Clarke, JackyHolloway, Alan Murray, Allan Williams, John Bur-goyne and Howard Thomas.7Richard Thorpe, Mark Easterby-Smith and ChrisHuxham.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

5/19

addition, archival material was gathered from

ABS from its foundation in 1992 to 2010,

together with information from the antecedent

bodies of ABS. In both the BAM and ABScases, critical incident questions were used to

identify the events taking place in their history. In

the case of ABS, particular views of respondentswere sought as to what their Executive was trying

to achieve during their term of office, and

what were the factors that helped or hindered

the achievement of these objectives. Views

were also sought as to the main contributionsthat ABS had made to the business school sector,

and how its role was likely to change in the

future.

The role of ABS and BAM: generating

legitimacyResearch funding: the exertion of active agency

Historically, government funding for research in

management was markedly low. In 19889, with

76 proposals, the business and management

studies discipline was the largest applicant for

funds. However, its success rate was 12%, with

only nine grants awarded. In comparison, the

success rate in economics (48%), politics (40%)

and sociology (36%) was much higher. Excluding

research centres, the total amount of funds

granted to management was d367,000, comparedwith d722,000 in linguistics and d710,000 in

economics. The situation had become critical

and these numbers triggered a powerful reaction

in the business and management community.

BAM was determined to use their persuasive

psychological power to alter perceptions.

At this stage, the field for advocacy for the

business and management community in the UK

was scattered and its impact sporadic and

non-systematic. Despite the best efforts of the

Council for University Management Schools

(see below), it was difficult to influence thedominant belief system of influential political

and financial stakeholders. Moreover, there was

no specific academy based model to follow. For

instance, the Academy of Management in the

USA had been founded 50 years earlier than

BAM in 1936 and had not developed political-

influencing abilities. Hence, in a significant

alteration from previous reactive tactics, BAM

started to exert pro-active agency, ab initio, in

several ways to influence the grant-making

process within the major government funding

bodies, of which the ESRC was the most

prominent. In the immediate term BAM focusedits attention on three fronts.

First, in May 1990, the BAM Executive invited

Howard Newby (ESRC)

8

to their meeting toaddress the following issues directly:

the current funding and success rates of

management research proposals

the involvement of management scholars on

ESRC grant committees

the refereeing of management research

proposals

the development of new research initiatives

from the management research community

Second, a sub-group of the BAM Executive9

was created to debate and manage this agenda.By February 1992 it began to ask hard questions

of the ESRC; in particular, why were there only

two or three management specialists on the 20-

member grant-giving board when they repre-

sented the largest constituency? Further, the

Executive sought feedback on the rejected appli-

cations but was told that this could be given only

with the permission of the referee concerned.

However, after careful investigation, the sub-

group discovered that several major factors were

to blame:

The ESRC perceived management submis-

sions to be weaker in presentation and

methodology than those of other social science

disciplines.

The issue of relevance was important but the

concept of relevance had not been debated

fully.

The ESRC did not have a sufficient number of

referees nor suitably qualified referees for

management research.

The ESRC criterion of basic or strategic

was not a suitable taxonomy for much ofmanagement research.

This dialogue between BAM and its major

institutional stakeholder, the ESRC, was productive.

8The ESRC is the main UK government funding bodyfor business and management studies.9This group consisted of Andrew Pettigrew as chair,Peter Buckley, Richard Butler, Barbara Lewis, DavidOtley and Robin Wensley.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

6/19

The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise10 (RAE)

had confirmed the scale of the sector (2000 active

researchers, 6000 publications, 86 departments,

d20 m research income) and by June 1993 theESRC recognized the low level of support that it

had given to management research proposals,

promising a review of its procedures and theelimination of any bias. For the profession, there

was a general consensus that the standards of

submission had to be improved to allay any

perceptions held within the ESRC about relative

quality in the social sciences. BAM reactedquickly and focused its 1993 annual conference

on the Crafting of management research.

Third, in 1993 BAM collaborated wholly with

the ESRC Commission on Management

Research by supplying several members of its

Council to act on the Commission and by

submitting a detailed, written report. GeorgeBain, a recognized leader in the field having

presided as Dean at Warwick and London,

chaired the Commission11 and presented its

findings to the first BAM Directors of Research

Network (DoRN) meeting at the London Busi-

ness School in February 1994. The Commission

made 12 recommendations, directed both at the

ESRC and at business schools, researchers and

the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC).

The recommendations focused on four areas: (a)

the formation of the Management Research

Forum a platform to promote dialogue betweenresearch providers and users; (b) enhanced

support for research studentships and fellow-

ships; (c) research training and development; (d)

concern for relevance. The BAM Executive, with

the full backing of its Council, supported the

Reports recommendations with enthusiasm,

especially the establishment of the Management

Research Forum as BAM saw this as an

opportunity to continue to widen its influence

among key stakeholders. However, the lack of

senior representatives from industry worked

against the achievement of this outcome.

In addition, BAM had set up a Research Policy

Subcommittee to coordinate action towards the

achievement of its central goal to foster a

culture of research among management aca-demics. The committee was instructed to harness

its resources and gain active support in the

community for the Bain Reports findings andto advise the BAM Executive on immediate

policy actions. Despite this, two of the Reports

recommendations to the ESRC provoked dis-

content amongst academics and there was further

disquiet about the Reports tone and inclusive-ness. First, in spite of the successful impact of an

earlier Management Teaching Fellowship

Scheme (1989), the new Fellowship Scheme

recommendation, designed to bring young blood

into the profession, was denied funding by the

ESRC. Second, the criteria of relevance were

insufficiently defined, especially with regard tothe construction of research proposals. Contro-

versy raged in the Academy concerning whether

such utilitarian decisions masked an ideology of

managerialism as scholars became concerned

that their freedom to undertake research based

upon alternative, post-modern, critical paradigms

would be compromised.

Critics within BAM claimed that the Bain

Report had not addressed the transparency of

ESRC procedures well enough to promote

change and many Directors of Research from

the new university community claimed that it hadtaken an elitist view of research.12 They were

concerned about the volume and direction of

funding under the recommendations and looked

to the Academy for help in promoting co-funding

between old and new universities and for

collaborative submissions. By late 1994, the

influence of members from the new sector was

highly significant in shaping BAM policy. These

arguments, driven by the definitional uncertainty

within the Commissions Report and the ESRC

and the rapid population of the Academy by

researchers from the new universities after 1992,persisted among the Council and DoRN

throughout the 1990s.

As institutional theory guides, active agency

must exert pressure continuously for real change

10The RAE is the periodic (usually 5 year) researchauditing exercise for all UK based, government fundedinstitutions in the higher education sector. Such researchauditing began in 1986 and covers subjects across theacademic spectrum.11The Bain Inquiry was set up in response to thecontinuing concerns about the quality of managementresearch, arrangement of funding, and need to strength-en research culture in business schools (Bain, 1993).

12This new community was formed when centralinstitutions (former polytechnics) opted for universitystatus in 1992. Previously, they had specialized inteaching and came fresh to formal research activity.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

7/19

to endure. These first influencing steps were the

start of a campaign to privilege the influence and

lobbying within the strategic tenets of the

Academy for the long term. The Bain Inquiryacted as a cornerstone of this strategy. BAM

followed Bain by engineering reinforcing

mechanisms in research (the DoRN), trainingand development, and collaboration. For each of

these elements, BAM established formal commit-

tee structures to handle the task action issues

involved. However, these committees had strong

symbolic meaning in the face of critical stake-holders and so played an important legitimacy-

enhancing role (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).

Directors of Research Network (DoRN)

In 1993 BAM established a specialized network,

involving current and prospective Directors ofResearch, to (a) support Directors of Research in

carrying out their roles in their own organiza-tions; (b) develop UK research capability in

business and management; and (c) raise the

profile of UK business and management research

in relation to that of the other social sciences.

The ESRC engagement and the setting up of

the DoRN had sparked a debate on research

direction and how best to establish the research

culture both within BAM and within UK

business schools. Importantly, after the first few

RAEs, established universities had refined theirresearch approaches and positioning while the

new institutions were keen to borrow this knowl-

edge to help them prepare for future audits. At

the first DoRN meeting in February 1993 a range

of issues were discussed (see Table 1).

For the next two years, the Directors of

Research met, debated and, as expected, failed

to agree on the purpose of management research,

what appropriate standards should be applied

and what the basis of funding should be. This

diversity of opinion, though a challenge to

BAMs initial objectives, helped to re-shape boththe strategy and structure of the Academy and,

eventually, led to an official party line. This was

influenced greatly by the work of Council

members David Tranfield and Ken Starkey and

captured in their 1998 paper in the British Journal

of Management. Their suggestion was to position

management research within the social sciences in

a way equivalent to the position of engineering in

the physical sciences or medicine in the biological

sciences, i.e. that management research was

trans-disciplinary and had to be informed by

practice as well as concepts and theories. The

authors had ensured that this view was embodied

already in BAMs strategic reappraisal in No-

vember of 1997. With minor amendments, it has

endured ever since.

BAMs influence was growing at the HEFC.

Many academics appointed to serve on thecommittees for the 2001 RAE were drawn from

those nominated by BAM. The DoRN began to

run seminars on preparation for the RAE.

Further, BAM was instrumental in furnishing

the ESRC with themes for its five-year policy

while providing evidence and critique for the

ESRC of its broad-brush themes, including the

identification of important omissions, e.g. the

links between organizational performance and

national performance, entrepreneurship, risk,

innovation and European perspectives. To sti-

mulate more influence of this kind, a media andpolicy sub-group was set up to project BAMs

message and position itself effectively towards

more external agencies.

After the 2001 RAE, the DoRN received less

attention for a few years until changes to ESRC

structures and policies, together with the looming

2008 RAE, caused the BAM Executive to

reinvigorate this important network in 2004.

The topics of discussion at the re-launch

Table 1. BAM Inaugural DoRN Meeting, February 1993:

concerns of participants

1. How to develop a research culture?

2. Benchmarking: what is successful research? What is

appropriate research in specific circumstances?

3. How to overcome the problem of critical mass?

4. How to learn from best practice?

5. How to develop a successful research proposal?6. How to present research?

7. How to manage research? How to get resources for

research? How to motivate busy teachers to do research?

How to encourage collaborative research? What is the role

of a Research Director?

8. How to ensure the current system does not encourage

quantity over quality in research?

9. How to carry out research with low funding?

10. How to manage tension between individual and institutional

research?

11. For new universities: what is the changing nature of

research?

12. How to avoid some academics becoming teaching only staff?

How to avoid insisting that everyone should do research?



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

8/19

meeting were the Lambert Review,13 conversa-

tion with the ESRC and the role of DoRN. It

also saw the launch of a new annual Develop-

ment Programme for Directors of Research run

in association with the ABS. The programme

brought together Directors of Research from the

UK and some European business schools toshare experiences and good practices under

Chatham House rules (see Table 2 for key

objectives).

Traditionally the DoRN events attracted high

attendance, especially those on RAE or funding.

However, attendance was sparse for events on

general developmental issues of the network.

Some participants felt that there was not enough

support for them to attend unless they were from

traditional research-oriented institutions. In

2009, BAM created a Research Advisory and

Development Subcommittee (RADC), replacingDoRN, to allay some of these concerns and add

vigour in helping it to achieve its research-related

objectives (see Table 3 for RADC objectives).

Arguably, DoRN was the most influential of

BAMs formal committees. In symbolizing the

centrality of high quality research in the business

and management community, it had some success

in altering the sometimes negative attitude to this

quality by academic peers in cognate disciplines

on grant-making bodies.

Training and development

Training for senior researchers. The need for

training to foster a culture of research was

recognized during the early interactions with the

ESRC on funding (see above). It was reinforcedafter the decision by John Majors Conservative

Government in 1992 to grant university status to

former polytechnics, central institutions and

colleges of higher education. This swelled the

membership of the Academy overnight. Without

an established research culture in the host

institutions, most of these new members looked

to BAM to provide new skills, provide grant-

getting know-how and help with publications.

The more traditional research-based philosophy

of the Academy, manifest in its inaugural

objectives and strategy, came under pressureto provide for a large demand from a non-

traditional sector that it had neither anticipated

nor had the capacity to fill in the short run. BAM

ran training activities regularly at its annual

conferences during the 1990s to encourage a

strong culture of research. More recently (2004),

BAM began to collaborate with the Advanced

Institute of Management (AIM) to offer work-

shops on writing research proposals and journal

publishing and these enjoyed a strong demand.

However, increasing the frequency and variety of

events required a substantial financial resource.14BAM used its growing links to the ESRC to

secure additional funds, especially through its

own members on the Training and Development

Board. Again, in 2004, these two institutions

Table 2. Key objectives for development programme for Directors

of Research

Role of Directors of Research, their organizational context and

the expectations placed upon them

Issues in relation to research strategy, funding, the development

of faculty, doctoral provision, quality and accreditation

Opportunity to participate in a development programme as

opposed to one-off events, to learn with peers and the enhancednetworking opportunities that this presents

Source: ABS

Table3. Objectives of the Research Advisory and Development

Committee

Providing advice and expertise with regard to research policy

and research development issues

Providing advice and assistance in drafting response to

research-related consultations

Supporting the Directors of Research and others responsible

for research activitiesProviding advice on the development and delivery of training

aimed at enhancing research capability across the BAM

constituency

Pro-active engagement with stakeholders with interest in

research to the benefit of the business and management

community

Source: BAM Annual Review 2009

13The Lambert Review was commissioned by theGovernment in 2002 to review long-term links betweenbusiness and university with a view to fostering greatercollaboration between them to leverage the benefits ofresearch to benefit the UKs economy.

14BAM continued to secure funds from various sources.For example, in 2007 it received support from the FMEto run workshops throughout the year. However, therewas insufficient funding to ensure long-term continuity.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

9/19

submitted a proposal to the ESRCs Research

Development Initiative (RDI) for programmes

designed to enhance the UKs management

research capacity. BAMs application was suc-cessful and it received a grant of d120,000.

Subsequent awards secured sufficient funding

for workshops from 2007 to 2010, which allowedBAM to increase its portfolio of training offer-

ings. To emphasize the Academys increasingly

influential role in national research affairs, the

ESRC invited it to act as a Gateway of Support

for training initiatives in business and manage-ment.15 In its political-influencing role, this

switch of dependence from BAM on the ESRC

to a formal acknowledgement of its legitimacy

and onto joint project progression was a major

strategic breakthrough for the Academy.

Training young researchers. One of the found-ing aims of BAM was a commitment to the

training of doctoral researchers. Initially, these

activities were funded by internal resources and

as a result limited the scope of activities on offer

until 199495. Moreover, they were conducted

on an ad hoc basis. However, the training

committee soon began to draft these events into

their annual agenda to become regular offer-

ings. Importantly, BAMs growing links with

the ESRC began to bear fruit. In 1997, it

received support from the ESRC under the

latters training and development scheme. This

widened the product offerings to include courses

on preparing for viva, data analysis, case study

research, and conducting a systematic literature

review. More recently, provision from the RDI

(see above) meant that BAM was able to

provide continuing support from 2006 to 2010

to this important constituency. For example,

the second round of RDI, termed The Northern

Way,16 was dedicated to building and strength-

ening methodological capabilities. Further-

more, through its linkage to the AIM, BAMwas also able to use very experienced scholars to

deliver the events.

Collaboration

From 2000 to 2010, BAM established active links

with several sister associations. These links

played an important role in its ability to develop

research-related policies and to further influence

external stakeholders. Besides its collaboration

with AIM, which resulted in grants under theRDI, it grew closer to the ABS and together theydeveloped a new programme for Directors of

Research in 2004. ABS was running a pro-

gramme for new and aspiring Deans and this

new joint venture programme for current and

aspiring Directors of Research in its member

schools and departments appeared as a natural

extension to its existing training portfolio.

BAMs emphasis on collaboration acceleratedafter a survey of members in 2007 urged it to

strengthen its political voice. BAM initiated

interactions with several sister academies.17 In2008, bi-annual meetings were started with AIM,

FME, SAMS, AoM, ORS, BAA and the ISBE.

These meetings were organized under the Stand-

ing Committee for Research Academies in

Management, which was led by BAM.

Hence, BAMs efforts to increase the perceived

legitimacy of management research in the UK

through political lobbying, dialogue with key

external stakeholders, the setting up of formal

committees in its structure, the use of symbolism,

the provision of a broad portfolio of training

programmes and a series of strategic alliances has

enjoyed a degree of success. Major stakeholders

(e.g. ESRC, HEFC) turn now to the Academy for

consultation, policy advice, the population of

committees and joint project work. But primar-

ily, compared with the early 1990s, business

and management research funding levels have

increased dramatically. For example, funding by

DUIS-funded18 research councils in 20089 stood

at d22 million compared with d0.4 million in 1994

(see Figure 1). During this period, overall funding

15This resulted in establishing a dedicated website:www.managementresearcher.ac.uk16Funding was aimed at a consortium of 14 businessschools in the north of England.

17Institute of Small Business Entrepreneurship (ISBE),Foundation for Management Education (FME), UKJoint University Council for Social and Public Admin-istration, Chartered Management Institute (CMI),British Accounting Association (BAA), OperationalResearch Society (ORS), Academy of InternationalBusiness (AIB), Society for the Advancement ofManagement Studies (SAMS), Academy of Marketing(AoM).18Department of University Innovation and Skills.


http://www.managementresearcher.ac.uk/http://www.managementresearcher.ac.uk/

8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

10/19

has risen from d22 million in 1994 to d66 millionin 20089 (see Figure 2). The share of income

from DUIS-funded research councils as a pro-

portion of total allocations increased from 20%

in 1994 to 34% in 20089. However, this is still

lower in comparison with other disciplines. For

example, in 20089 total income for business and

management was around d66 million, compared

with d125 million for information technology and

d167 million for social studies. Ironically, despite

recommendations from influential reports such asthe Lambert Review to increase business

university collaboration, the share of income

from industry to business and management

declined from 18% in 1994 to 11% in 20089.

Worryingly, in 20078 total research income fell

for the first time since HESA began collecting

records in 1994. This slide continued in 20089.

Although funding from industry, charities and

research councils has risen slightly, this has not

20,000

25,000

10,000

15,000

5,000

0

Figure 1. Business and management funding: Department of Innovation, University and Skills (DIUS) Research Councils (19942008)

(thousands)

Source: HESA records complied by ABS

80,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

Figure 2. Total business and management funding (thousands)

Note: Covering DIUS Research Councils, UK-based charities (open competitive process), UK-based charities (other), UK central

government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities, UK industry, commerce and public corporations, EU

government bodies, EU industry, commerce and public corporations, EU-based charities (open competitive process), EU other, non-

EU industry, commerce and public corporations, non-EU-based charities (open competitive process), non-EU other, and Other

sources.

Source: HESA records complied by ABS



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

11/19

covered the reduction in income from the central

government (see Figure 2). Hence, although

much has been achieved, securing research

funding remains an ongoing battle for theAcademy.

In the legitimacy-influencing battle with stake-

holders, the ABS joined BAM in 1992. At thistime, the context remained unstructured. Both

BAM and ABS had their own defined domain

but interlocking executive membership of the

precursor organizations to the ABS ensured that

knowledge was shared between each institutionfrom the outset. Where BAM had a primary

focus on research, the ABS concentrated on

teaching and accreditation. Hence, the ABS was

able to work for the legitimacy of management

education across a different array of stakeholder

groupings and so broaden the legitimacy-

enhancing exercise. Moreover, because the ABShad a prehistory of engagement, it was involved

in a variety of influencing activities from its

outset and brought much needed skills and

knowledge to the effort.

Association of Business Schools: the birth of a

pressure group

ABS came into existence in 1992 as a result of a

merger between two bodies that went back over

20 years CUMS (Council of University

Management Schools) and AMBE (Associationof Management and Business Education). The

latter originated from two bodies, one of which

was named the Association of Regional Manage-

ment Centres. From 1971, CUMS had been an

informal group for discussing current issues

facing business schools and for disseminating

information relevant to its members. At the first

meeting 12 schools sent representatives; two years

later 23 schools were represented and formal

minutes began to be kept. In 1973, one of its first

tangible benefits came when it negotiated a low

interest loan scheme with Midland Bank to assistpostgraduate management education. Other net-

working opportunities came as links developed

with such bodies as the European Foundation for

Management Education, the Department of

Education and Science, the Graduate Business

Association (now the Association of MBAs or

AMBA) and AMBE.

By 1977, CUMS had developed from its liaison

roots to become an effective agent for its

members and for management education in

general. For instance, the traumatic episode

generated by Griffiths and Murray to privatize

business schools (Griffiths and Murray, 1985) ledto the setting-up of the working parties which

resulted in the influential Constable/McCormick

report (Constable and McCormick, 1987). Themeeting that triggered these working parties was

arranged and chaired by Bob Horton, then

Chairman of BP and of the Council of Industry

for Management Education, whose function was

to coordinate the views of industry towardmanagement education. Senior representatives

of four other key stakeholder groups were

present: John Stoddart, Director of the Council

for National Academic Awards (representing the

polytechnic sector), John Constable (Director of

the Institute of Management), Andrew Thomson

(Chair of CUMS), and Sir David Hancock(Permanent Secretary at the Department of

Education and Science). The processes involved

in the research and preparation of the BIM/CBI

sponsored Constable/McCormick report made

business schools more aware of their common

problems (e.g. being treated as cash cows by

their universities), and reinforced the beliefs that

effective management was a key factor in

economic growth and that Britain was behind

some of its competitors in the future supply of

management education and development. This

authoritative report included in one of itsrecommendations the statement: Management

schools should remain in their parent academic

institutions but should have greater managerial

and financial autonomy. This statement legit-

imized the need for greater autonomy, shared

by most UK management schools based in

universities.

In 19889, under the Chairmanship of Profes-

sor (now Sir) George Bain, the formalization of

CUMS reached a new peak when it transformed

itself into a legal entity and employed its own

part-time administrator (prior to this it was thesecretary of whoever filled the Chair of CUMS

who provided this service). This new status

enhanced the institutional influence of its

members as government and other bodies recog-

nized it as the voice of business schools in the

UK. Accordingly, direct representations on

behalf of schools were made to the Permanent

Secretary of the Department of Education and

Science relating to the Handy (Handy, Gordon



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

12/19

and Gow, 1987)19 and Constable (Constable and

McCormick, 1987) reports; and to the Chairman

of the University Grants Committee relating to

the next research selectivity exercise. And indivi-duals in the House of Lords were briefed before

their debate on management education in 1988.

More recently, ABS has undertaken manyrepresentational roles, including gathering and

transmitting the collective views of business

schools in national consultation exercises (e.g.

the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Educa-

tions paper on the post-Dearing future of qualityaudit and assessment); and ensuring that a

business school voice is heard on key standing

committees and committees of enquiry (e.g. the

Chairperson of ABS, Stephen Watson, being

made a member of the Council for Excellence in

Management and Leadership which was set up in

in April 2000 to advise on action needed toimprove the quality of management and leader-

ship in the UK).

Accreditation, regulation and quality enhance-

ment. The next major step in the development

and consolidation of management education in

the UK came when CUMS and AMBE agreed to

merge and form the Association of Business

Schools (ABS) in 1992. The two bodies had

cooperated already through conferences. The

demise of the Council for National Academic

Awards (CNAA), the growth of management

education in the further education sector, the

transformation of the polytechnics into univer-

sities and the enlightened leadership of several

individuals made this a natural development. The

Memorandum and Articles of Association of

ABS were a modification of those of CUMS;

extracts are shown in Table 4.

A more succinct version of the ABS mission

was agreed in 2002 when the first strategy plan

was arrived at which gave recognition to its

international as well as national role:The Association of Business Schools is the repre-

sentative body and authoritative voice for all the

business schools of UK universities, higher educa-

tion institutions and independent management

colleges. ABS seeks to promote the interests of its

members and the business and management educa-

tion, training, research and development they

provide, nationally and internationally, so as to

improve the quality and effectiveness of manage-

ment, entrepreneurship and leadership for the

benefit of society at large.

Accreditation was one of the main pathways

through which some of its objectives could be

achieved. By applying this process across the

business school sector and gaining active support,

schools conformed to specific design criteria

through the well-known isomorphic pressures of

institutional theory in particular mimetic and

normative ones (see McKiernan and Wilson,

2011).

The ABS continued the work of the CNAA;indeed, in its dying days the CNAA helped the

new body to establish itself by providing office

space and administrative assistance. Jonathan

Slack, the CNAA Registrar for Business, Man-

agement and Information Studies, was seconded

to ABS before becoming one of its first two

employees. One of the first accreditation initia-

tives of ABS was the formation of the Manage-

ment Verification Consortium, in partnership

Table 4. Extracts from the Memorandum and Articles of

Association of ABS

To advance the education of the public in business and

management in particular through the promotion of business

and management education training and development so as to

improve the quality and effectiveness of the practice of

management in the United Kingdom. In furtherance of such

objects but not otherwise the Company may:

Promote effective forms of organization administration

teaching and research within institutions delivering

undergraduate postgraduate or post-experience business and

management education

Promote research organizational structures and

communications between members and the public and

government to assist its members in their contributions to

society at large

Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and stimulate

discussion on the role of business and management

education

Organize and facilitate the development of the competence of

all academic and administrative staff of member

organizations

Carry out any other role in the nature of assistance

promotion investigation and exchange of information about

business management education training and development

generally. . .

19The Charles Handy report The Making of Managerswas sponsored by the National Economic DevelopmentOffice and focused on the international context formanagement education in the UK, thus complementingthe Constable/McCormick report which was concernedwith the nature of the UK provision.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

13/19

with the Institute of Management. This body was

intended to provide a robust verification process

enabling business and management schools to

award the Management Charter Initiatives Na-tional Vocational Qualifications and Scottish

Vocational Qualifications. However, ABS soon

withdrew from the consortium since only a few ofits members felt that it met their needs and

several academics criticized the competency-

based approach adopted by the Management

Charter Initiative (Burgoyne, 1988).

The importance that ABS attached to theaccreditation of programmes and schools was

not diminished by this venture. Other bodies were

also concerned with these matters, namely the

Association of MBAs (AMBA), the international

European Foundation for Management Devel-

opment (EFMD), and the already well-estab-

lished AACSB in the USA. In an effort to have asingle accreditation body in the UK, negotiations

were held between ABS and AMBA in 1997 but

these reached an impasse and the latter chose to

proceed on its own. This had the effect of

drawing ABS closer to EFMD with the result

that it took the lead in the formation of EQUAL

(Equal Quality Link). These events explain why

many of the top business schools in the UK and

abroad now seek, or are accredited, by Equis,20

AMBA and AACSB. Increasingly, the interna-

tional orientation of Equis is shared with the

other two associations (Greensted, 2000). Equisis not primarily concerned with the MBA but

accredits business schools as a whole. It

has established its recognition worldwide; 129

institutions have been awarded Equis accredita-

tion in 36 countries, including 20 business schools

in the UK.

Through its involvement in accreditation, ABS

has been able to influence the content and

standard of management education in the UK.

It exerts its influence through a variety of means,

including, in 19978 it was invited by the Quality

Assurance Agency (QAA) to be the lead body forall masters degrees in business and management

(a parallel with BAMs recognition by the ESRC

as a Gateway of Support for research); it has

been involved continuously in EFMDs Equis

scheme; generally, it is recognized as the main

body representing business schools in the UK;

full membership of ABS is associated with

evidence of an acceptable standard. The lattersinfluence is achieved by laying down certain

criteria for membership; these are reproduced in

Table 5 as agreed at the 2008 AGM. The

Executive Committee of ABS takes these into

account when considering membership applica-

tions. In 2010 there were 116 full members.

Publicizing management education. ABS has

always recognized the importance of publicizing

the benefits of management education. In 1997,

Chris Greensted, as Chairperson of ABS,

launched its first publication aimed at raising

awareness of the immense contribution which

business schools make to the national and

international economies Pillars of the Economyis now an annual publication (ABS, 201011).

Participation in exhibitions and presentations to

relevant bodies are also undertaken (e.g. overseas

officials of the British Council). The ABS-

sponsored publication The History of UK Busi-

ness and Management Education (Williams, 2010)

reinforces the current legitimacy of UK manage-

ment education to a national and internationalaudience.

Training and development. ABS has been recep-

tive to the needs of its member organizations

continually. This has led it to develop a successful

profile of courses for various categories of staff,

both academic and managerial (ABS, 200910).

The first, aimed at deans and directors, was held

in 2001; its success has resulted in a repeat of the

Table 5. ABS membership criteria

Membership is available to institutions which are universities,

colleges, schools or any other bodies which satisfy all of the

following criteria:

Delivery in the UK of higher education level qualifications in

the business and administrative studies area as defined by

HESA Have gained formal approval from the Privy Council and

approval by either the QAA or QCA/SQA for their

qualifications

Demonstrable commitment to research or scholarship in

relation to their qualifications

In considering the third criterion and whether an institution can

demonstrate a commitment to research or scholarship, the

following will be taken into account: the institutional strategy

and policies, the quality and quantity of published outputs, and

the existence of and support for the community of scholars

associated with the qualifications.

20EQUALs accreditation arm.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

14/19

programme in succeeding years. A parallel

programme, launched in 2002, for senior admin-

istrators and managers has proved equally

successful. Other developmental programmeshave been run on a 50/50 basis with BAM:

Directors of Research since 20045, and Direc-

tors of Teaching and Learning since 20056. ABShas also run programmes with bodies outside the

UK on a 50/50 basis: the International Deans

Programme with EFMD (now in its fourth year),

and more recently a course for programme

managers with a body corresponding to ABS inFrance. All these programmes have been finan-

cially successful.

A developmental network started by Allan

Bolton (School Administrator, Lancaster Uni-

versity Management School) with the support of

CUMS has continued to flourish under ABS. The

Administrators network has provided a regularplatform for a sharing of knowledge and

experience for the benefit of schools, e.g. in

relation to improving the quality of service to

students.

Academic journal quality guide. ABS was not

concerned primarily with research and funding.

Before BAM was established and while it was

finding its feet, CUMS represented business

schools in various national consultations that

were taking place relating to research. Thus, in

1988, representations were made to the Univer-

sity Grants Committee re the Research Selectivity

Exercise. Since then it has collaborated infor-

mally with BAM when appropriate. These inter-

actions were facilitated when BAM took the

deliberate decision to locate its administration in

ABSs London offices in 2003. Further, most

members of BAM are located in ABS member

schools. However, the element of overlap

between the two bodies (e.g. in the short course

and conference areas) can be a source of potential

conflict.A recent initiative of ABS which comes close to

challenging the boundaries with BAM relates to

the publication Academic Journal Quality Guide

which first appeared in 2007 (Harvey, Morris and

Kelly, 2007). This is an example of ABS

providing a service that its members had identi-

fied to meet the needs of UK business and

management research communities in their

search for greater quality. As Howard Thomas,

at that time Dean of Warwick Business School,

pointed out in the introduction of the first

version:

The world of academic publishing has become ever

more complex and competitive. An authoritative

guide to the relative quality of the many hundreds

of journals that publish the results of academicresearch has become necessary for several reasons.

Those who fund research and evaluate the out-

comes need a guide to the academic quality of the

outlets in which it is published. Deans and other

university senior managers need a reliable means of

assessing the achievements of their academic staff;

information professionals, responsible for large

budgets, need to know what they are getting for

their money when they purchase access to a journal

or a bundle of journals. Above all, individual

researchers need to be well informed when making

choices with regard to preferred outlets for their

work.

The guide is based on peer evaluation andlimits the weight attached to citation indices; as

such it is argued it should be a useful tool for

individual academics and business schools, given

the influence of academic publications in deter-

mining research income, career progression and

school rankings. As expected, the first version of

the guide covering over 1000 journals aroused

some controversy as (a) the journal rankings were

not coterminous with the expectations of authors

who had published in them and (b) there weredifferences in the ABS rankings and those of

other international lists. However, the methodol-

ogy has been continually improved with the

benefit of feedback and an advisory panel of

experts. Evidence of the publications success

comes with the appearance of the fourth version

(Harvey et al., 2010), its broad acceptance within

the UK academic community and its increasing

international following in other European coun-

tries. The success of the guide has exceeded

expectations. It started as the brainchild of

Harvey and Morris, with initial finance fromABS. It is now a free ABS service to the business

school community, and its influence has spread

abroad. It receives the most popular hit on the

ABS website.

The ABS list is one of many ranking lists that

proliferate in the field (Adler and Harzing, 2009).

Such rankings represent the process of commen-

suration whereby the qualitative process of

scholarship is quantified by a numeral (Power,



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

15/19

2003). This use of measurement can be a power-

ful means of psychological persuasion in altering

belief systems (provided the figures portray UK

business and management research to be of worldstanding). From the first research audit exercise

in 1988 to recent times, there appears to be an

improvement in the quality and quantity of thatresearch (though see Saunders, Wong and Saun-

ders in this issue for a contrary view). Hence,

such lists added their own strong message in

attempting to influence the broad stakeholder

group and so supported the legitimacy exercise.However, they have been criticized heavily

by many scholars for their make-up and for

the many unintended consequences of their

over-active operation. Because they entered the

narrative of business and management education

in the UK so deeply, there have been strong

isomorphic processes at work, especially coercionand mimicry, as schools strive for the top

rankings and so converge on similar approaches

(see McKiernan and Wilson, 2011).

Discussion and conclusion

This paper examined the part played by the two

professional institutions, the BAM and the ABS,

in the legitimization of management education in

the UK. The theoretical framework adopted was

that of institutional theory, where the establish-ment of legitimacy by professional bodies

among key external stakeholders was central

(Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002).

Both BAM and ABS entered an embryonic

UK field contextualized by a suspicion of the

quality and applicability of management educa-

tion and especially of its research component.

Both institutions aimed to gain legitimacy from

external stakeholders through active agency by

lobbying, by creating formal and symbolic

structures and through the use of measurement

systems in order to influence the prevailing beliefsystems and to alter decision making rules and

regulations, e.g. those pertaining to research

funding. Table 6 summarizes their key contribu-

tions to the development of management educa-

tion in the UK.

The history of institutions in modern manage-

ment education in the UK mirrors closely the

phases of institutionalization. External shocks,

like serious concerns with quality, triggered

action in the early years by both BAM and the

forerunners of ABS (e.g. CUMS) who adoptednew strategies and structures in a pro-active,

influencing campaign. Early successes led to the

finessing of these strategies and structures, for

instance in the adoption of formal committees

(BAM) and accreditation alliances (ABS), mak-

ing objectification possible in the 1990s and early

2000s. In recent years, with major stakeholder

groups privileging these two institutions with

significant presence (ESRC with BAM and QAA

with ABS) and consulting them widely on all

issues in the business and management domain,

the road to sedimentation may have begun.Traditionally, empirical studies using institu-

tional theory have examined the role of three

approaches (mimetic, coercive and normative)

separately (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). But as this

study shows, often organizations use all three

compliances, but perhaps the emphasis on each

one differs at each stage of development. For

example, BAM was established using the Acad-

emy of Management in the USA (including its

journals) as a mimetic model. For the ABS,

mimetic behaviours were less obvious, but one

model that had an influence when CUMS wastransformed into ABS was that of the CNAA.

Once established, BAM attacked the prevailing

belief system through the political lobbying of

influential decision making bodies, particularly

the ESRC, which had restricted research funding

to management. By making nominations to

decision making panels, BAM ensured that

committee members were more empathetic to

the needs and challenges of management re-

Table 6. Key contributions of BAM and ABS

BAM ABS

Providing a forum for

discussing research-

related policy issues at

national level

Accumulating and

disseminating knowledge re the

value of business schools to the

British economy

Providing a structure forassessing and disseminating

research outputs

Taking lead roles for theaccreditation of qualifications

and their business schools

Building a case for enhanced

funding of management

research

Ensuring that the voice of the

business school sector is heard

on influential bodies

Running programmes for

improving the quality of

management research

Running training programmes

for deans and senior managers



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

16/19

search. In the case of ABS, coercive behaviours

were displayed in the various committees in

which ABS representatives participated such as

the subcommittees of the QAA and the workingparties associated with the Constable/McCor-

mick report (e.g. Andrew Thomson as Chair of

ABS). In addition to these, both organizationsapplied normative behaviour in parallel to

achieve their objectives. Both coercive and

normative strategies worked to mutually rein-

force their impact and increased the visibility of

BAM and ABS as the legitimate representativebodies within academia and beyond. BAMs

normative activities concentrated on increasing

the quality of research by promoting a culture of

research through workshops and training activ-

ities. Accordingly its value in the educational and

economic development of the nation has been

enhanced, and the views of its members are likelyto be consulted by policy making bodies when

appropriate. In the case of ABS, normative

activities were in the form of common standards

that emerged relating to the contents of degrees

and the levels of qualifications and experience

required for acceptance onto programmes.

These have increased the visibility of ABS and

it is difficult to imagine anybody trying to

influence business schools in the UK without

first consulting ABS as the main representative of

this sector.

Given the nature of the three categories ofbehaviours associated with institutional theory, it

is not surprising that an element of isomorph-

ism21 has arisen in the development of manage-

ment education (see McKiernan and Wilson,

2011). The knowledge exchanges that the Direc-

tors of Research (BAMABS) and the Deans and

Administrators (ABS) have participated in have

led naturally to the less successful copying the

successful. This has sometimes resulted in

undesirable consequences such as an overload

of paper submissions to top ranking journals.

However, although there is strong evidencethat all three pressures operated together, there is

some evidence that each may reach prominence

at different phases of institutionalization. For

instance, in the early stages, BAMs mimicry

was prominent in the absence of a well-developed

national institutional domain. It copied

from other established UK organizations (e.g.

in accounting) and the American Academy.During objectification, it made more use of

coercive lobbying and, when legitimacy was

becoming established, it turned heavily towardsprofessionalizing its activities in a normative

fashion. Only in sedimentation did it employ all

three strongly in a parallel manner, making it

difficult to identify either the relative impact of

each or the power of their interaction(see Gomes, Garry and Rodrigues, 2008). The

phasing was slightly different for the ABS, as it

had different beginnings, being a development of

previous forms of organization. Early on,

ABS used coercive power through lobbying and

this pressure has been paramount since then.

Mimicry has been the less powerful force in itsdevelopment, while normative professionalism

has been a large part of its identity throughout.

Hence, we conjecture that contextual factors,

e.g. the presence or absence of competition at

birth and/or the differing objectives of an

organization may lead to an explanation of the

significance of each pressure through the phases

of institutionalization.

Another important point emerging from this

analysis is that of perceived legitimacy by key

external constituents. One of the major concerns

expressed by external constituents regardedrigour and relevance of management research.

This led some to question the legitimacy of

management as a discipline and was one of the

factors that restricted research funding. Both

BAM and ABS made attempts to address rigour

(through various training activities) and rele-

vance (through promoting user engagement in

research and publicizing managerial implications)

to increase the legitimacy of management as a

discipline. However, as Wensleys paper in this

issue shows, the debate surrounding rigour and

relevance in management research has yet toreach a conclusion. Yet, between 1994 and 2008

research funding for management increased.

Hence, we conjecture that key external constitu-

ents can sometimes perceive the actions under-

taken towards addressing the causes that raise

legitimacy issues as sufficient even though con-

cerns surrounding that particular cause may not

be resolved entirely to the satisfaction of the

original institutions.

21Here, isomorphic pressures can be witnessed at severallevels, i.e. at the pan domain level in BAM and ABS andthrough the actions of individual business schools andthen their scholars.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

17/19

Thoughts for the future

The development of both BAM and ABS has

been replicated in other countries, as new

business school domains have emerged. This

has led to supra bodies being formed such as

the European Academy of Management (EUR-

AM).22 These developments reflect the increasingglobalization of management education, and thecross-recognition that takes place further

strengthens the legitimacy of these institutions

both nationally and internationally. But increas-

ing global competition from for profit business

schools, the emergence of new B-school compe-

titors in the East and the stakeholder criticism

voiced at business schools and their MBAs over

the moral obligations in the recent crisis and theconsequent prevailing economic climate present

new threats to the business and management

landscape in the UK.What are the consequences of these and other

changes for the roles of BAM and ABS in the

management education sector? They all have

financial implications, and legitimacy on its own

is an inadequate shelter from financial threats. It

may be that more cooperative structures (if not a

full merger) need to be introduced between ABS

and BAM, between business schools themselves,

and indeed between representative bodies in

different countries. Leadership is an ingredient

that has paid dividends for both institutions in

the past and it will continue to play an important

part in ensuring sustained legitimacy in the

future.

References

ABS (200910). ABS Annual Report 2009/10. London: ABS.

ABS (201011). Pillars of the Sustainable Economy. London:

ABS.

Adler, N. J. and A. -W. Harzing (2009). When Knowledge

wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic

ranking, Academy of Management Learning, 8, pp. 7295.Bain, G. (1993). Commission on Management Research State-

ments of Evidence. Swindon: Economic and Social Research

Council.

Brech, E., A. Thomson and J. Wilson (2010). Lyndall Urwick:

Management Pioneer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burgoyne, J. (1988). Competency Based Approach to Manage-

ment Development. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of

Management Learning.

Carmona, S. and M. Macias (2001). Institutional pressures,

monopolistic conditions and the implementation of early cost

management practices: the case of the Royal Tobacco

Factory of Seville (18201887), Abacus, 37, pp. 139165.

Carpenter, V. L. and E. H. Feroz (2001). Institutional theory

and accounting rule choice: an analysis of four US state

governments decisions to adopt generally accepted account-

ing principles, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26,

pp. 565596.

Caswill, C. and R. Wensley (2007). Doors and boundaries: a

recent history of the relationship between research and

practice in UK organizational and management research,

Business History, 49, pp. 293320.

Constable, J. and R. McCormick (1987). The Making of British

Managers. London: British Institute of Management/Con-

federation of British Industry.

Covaleski, M. A. and M. W. Dirsmith (1986). The budgetary

process of power and politics, Accounting, Organizations and

Society, 11, pp. 193214.

Di Maggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory.In L. G. Zucker (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organiza-

tions: Culture and Environment, pp. 320. Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger.

Di Maggio, P. and W. Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited:

institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in

organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48,

pp. 147160.

Di Maggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1991). Introduction. In

W. W. Powell and P. J. Di Maggio (eds), The New

Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 133. Chica-

go, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Elbourne, E. T. (1934). Fundamentals of Industrial Administra-

tion. London: Macdonald and Evans.

Franks, L. (1963). British Business Schools. London: HMSO.Gomes, D., D. C. Garry and L. L. Rodrigues (2008).

Accounting change in central government: the adoption of

double entry bookkeeping at the Portuguese Royal Treasury

(1761), Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21,

pp. 11441184.

Greensted, C. (2000). Measures for measure or a pound of

flesh? (A comparison of quality assurance schemes), Inter-

national Journal of Management Education, 1, pp. 310.

Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby and R. C. Hinnings (2002).

Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in

the transformation of institutionalized fields, Academy of

Management Journal, 45, pp. 5880.

Griffiths, B. and H. Murray (1985). Whose Business? A Radical

Proposal to Privatise British Business Schools. Hobart Paper.London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

Handy, C., C. Gordon and I. Gow (1987). The Making of

Managers. London: NDEC/MSC/BIM.

Harvey, C, H. Morris and A. Kelly (2007). ABS Academic

Journal Quality Guide, Version 1. London: ABS.

Harvey, C, A. Kelly, H. Morris and M. Rowlinson (2010). ABS

Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 4. London: ABS.

Mant, A. (1969). The Experienced Manager a Major Resource.

London: BIM.

Masrani, S. and P. McKiernan (2011). Accounting as a

legitimising device in voluntary price agreements: the case

22BAM has been one of the main sponsors of EURAMsince its beginnings in 2000 through BAM ChairRichard Whipp. Collaboration between the two Acade-mies was reinforced when Peter McKiernan went fromthe Chair of BAM to the EURAM Presidency in 2007.



8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

18/19

of the Dundee jute industry, 19451960, Critical Perspectives

on Accounting, 22, pp. 415433.

McKiernan, P. and S. Masrani (2008). History of the British

Academy of Management: 19862007. Oxford: British Acad-

emy of Management.

Meyer, J. and B. Rowan (1977). Institutionalized organiza-

tions: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American

Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340363.

Mizruchi, M. and L. Fein (1999). The social construction of

organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive,

mimetic, and normative isomorphism, Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 653683.

Nind, P. (1985). A Firm Foundation: The Story of the

Foundation for Management Education. London: FME.

Oliver, C. (2001). Strategic responses to institutional process,

Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 145179.

Owen, T. (1970). Business Schools: the Requirement of British

Manufacturing Industry. London: BIM.

Parsons, T. and R. F. Bales (1956). Family, Socialization and

Interaction Process. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy,

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, pp. 379394.

Rose, H. (1970). Management Education in the 1970s. London:HMSO.

Scott, W. R. and J. Meyer (1991). The organization of societal

sectors: propositions and early evidence. In W. Powell and P.

Di Maggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis, pp. 108140. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Sevon, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in identity trans-

formation. In B. Czarniawska and G. Sevo n (eds), Translat-

ing Organizational Change, pp. 4967. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources

of Managerial Judgement. Oxford: Blackwell.

Spender, J. C. (2008). The business school in America: a

century goes by, In T. Durand and S. Dameron (eds), The

Future of Business Schools: Scenarios and Strategies for 2020,pp. 918. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Starkey, K. and N. Tiratsoo (2007). The Business School

and the Bottom Line. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and

institutional approaches, Academy of Management Journal,

20, pp. 571610.

Thomas, H. (2008). Business schools and management

research: a UK perspective, Journal of Management Devel-

opment, 28, pp. 660667. Special issue entitled Challenging

the Purpose of Business Schools, ed. Howard Thomas.

Tolbert, P. and L. Zucker (1996). The institutionalization of

institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord

(eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 175190.

London: Sage.

Touron, P. (2005). The adoption of US GAAP by French firms

before the creation of the International Accounting Stan-

dards Committee: an institutional explanation, Critical

Perspectives on Accounting, 16, pp. 851873.

Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). The nature social

organization and promotion of management research:

towards policy, British Journal of Management, 9, pp. 341

353.

Urwick, L. (1947). Education for Management: ManagementSubjects in Technical and Commercial Colleges: Report of a

Special Committee Appointed by the Minister of Education.

London: Ministry of Education.

Williams, A. P. O. (2007). The Fifteenth Anniversary of ABS:

19922007. London: Association of Business Schools.

Williams, A. P. O. (2010). The History of UK Business and

Management Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Wilson, D. and P. McKiernan (2011). Global mimicry; putting

strategic choice back on the business school agenda, British

Journal of Management, 22, pp. 457469.

Wilson, J. and A. Thomson (2006). The Making of Modern

Management: British Management in Historical Perspective.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Witzel, M. (2009). Management History: Texts and Cases.London: Routledge.

Dr Swapnesh Masrani is a Lecturer in International Business at the School of Management,

University of Stirling. His research interest is in cross-fertilization of research in business history and

strategy. Swapnesh completed his doctoral thesis at the University of St Andrews in 2008. The thesis

examined the strategic response of manufacturing firms in the Dundee jute industry to increasing

international competition between 1870 and 1970. His research has been published in a

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pgri-kademangan-blitar
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah

Documents