Contemporary Management Education: Piet Naudé

Future of Business and Finance
Piet Naudé
Contemporary
Management
Education
Eight Questions That Will Shape its
Future in the 21st Century
The Future of Business and Finance book series features professional works aimed at
defining, describing and charting the future trends in these fields. The focus is mainly
on strategic directions, technological advances, challenges and solutions which may
affect the way we do business tomorrow, including the future of sustainability and
governance practices. Mainly written by practitioners, consultants and academic
thinkers, the books are intended to spark and inform further discussions and
developments.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16360

Piet Naudé
Contemporary
Management Education
Eight Questions That Will Shape its
Future in the 21st Century
Piet Naudé
University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB)
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch, South Africa
ISSN 2662-2467 ISSN 2662-2475 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-87774-3 ISBN 978-3-030-87775-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0
# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
“Minister, professor, dean, public intellectual, husband, and father, Piet Naudé is
uniquely positioned to both reflect on the current state of the world and to imagine a
better tomorrow. While he could certainly tell a story that leaves us in despair, he
instead leaves us with hope. Longing for a new Copernican Revolution—a world
that does not revolve around the needs and machinations of self-interested humans—
he paints us a picture of a world defined by the transcendent good, one created by
individuals with a ‘futuring intelligence’ and a reflex for humble reciprocity. Do
spend some time with Piet. You’ll be glad you did!”
—James P. Walsh, Carey Professor of Business Administration, University of
Michigan, and Past President, Academy of Management
“Running an organization, it is easy to get caught up in the day-to-day, losing a sense
of context and perspective. Yet, Piet Naudé has managed to maintain the sensibilities
from his training in philosophy and theology as he reflects on his experience as
Director of the University of Stellenbosch Business School, along with other
university roles.
His book, Contemporary Management Education, is a deep and valuable contribu-
tion to our thinking about business education. He combines personal experiences as
a leader, observations on the sector, and a grounding in a range of disciplines to
produce a provocative exploration of the past, present, and future of business
education.
Organized around eight questions, the book examines our preoccupation with
markets, the purpose of business and hence business schools, decolonization, tech-
nology, climate change, and more. Each chapter provides fresh insights.
For example, the discussion of corporate purpose does not simply critique Milton
Friedman’s primacy of shareholder capitalism, but rather contrasts it with four
additional theories and the degree to which they move beyond the instrumental
approach of Friedman. The discussion of decolonizing the curriculum provides a
nuanced discussion of the basis of knowledge. Is Ubuntu management a unique
African contribution or a local application of collective approaches? How do we
decolonize our curricula in the context of Western-dominated “scientific” standards?
There are many books and articles on business education, but few as deep and
insightful as Prof. Naudé’s Contemporary Management Education. I enthusiasti-
cally recommend it to anyone who seeks to understand and improve the training of
business leaders.”
—Peter Tufano, Peter Moores Professor of Finance, Saïd Business School, Uni-
versity of Oxford
“Brilliant read! I have now read it twice and intend to do so yet again as it is not a
book you read once and put aside! Thought-provoking and a lot to ruminate over. . .
The book is a compelling read written in an engaging style—laced with Piet’s
characteristic wit, which does not detract from the deep insights and his reflections
on the models, forces, and trends that have shaped management education and the
implication of these on learners, institutions, and society.
In each chapter, he raises questions and shares his views unabashedly on the issues,
leading the reader to pause and reflect on the essence and role of management
education in business and society. It is a book that should be read by all concerned
about educating learners who will serve the needs of society in the twenty-first
century.”
—Enase Okonedo, Vice-rector Pan African University and former Dean of Lagos
Business School, Nigeria
“Piet Naude’s volume invites us to question existing models of management educa-
tion. His aim is to challenge us to rethink and reevaluate the value and purpose of a
“business school” in society.
Instead of a “one-size-fits-all” view of a business school model, he favors a more
balanced model directed toward developing skills of analysis, synthesis, and critical
thinking on the one hand and, on the other hand, in nurturing values of social
responsibility and sustainable moral and ethical managerial principles. He believes
that managers will increasingly be faced with the need to address issues such as
social inequality and financial inclusion particularly in developing countries.
Piet’s strong and formidable background in academia is grounded in his study of
philosophy and religion. His early experience as a Humanities Dean and Vice-Rector
and, more recently, as a business school Director at Nelson Mandela and
Stellenbosch University in South Africa indicates the pathway of an insightful,
intellectually curious individual.
Indeed, I believe that his “outside-in” thinking about business schools from a liberal
arts/humanities perspective is an extremely important contribution to our field. His
rigorous and readable scholarship merits considerable recognition from
policymakers in business, government, and civil society worldwide.”
—Howard Thomas, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Strategic Management
and Management Education; former Dean at Singapore Management University
(SMU) and Senior Advisor at EFMD
“This book challenges our current thinking on a wide spectrum of issues relevant for
the future strategic agenda of business schools. It is thought-provoking and direct,
written in a way that is accessible to all of us.”
—Marius Ungerer, Professor of Strategy, University of Stellenbosch Business
School (USB)
“This book offers a challenging analysis of the status quo and argues strongly for an
alternative future, not only for business schools but also for business organisztions
and their leaders in general. It will certainly be received as a controversial text,
questioning the current validity of many of the long-standing tenets on which
business schools around the world have been based, . . . but that is its declared
intention. The content is presented in a thoughtful, challenging, and humanistic style
that combines complex philosophical theory with insightful personal anecdotes. It is
highly recommended for those in, or aspiring to, leadership roles in business schools
and all faculty who are considering radical curriculum redesign of their management
programs.”
—Emeritus Professor Michael Osbaldeston OBE, Former Dean of Cranfield
University School of Management, and Former Director of EQUIS Quality Services,
European Foundation for Management Development
“A powerful, persuasive, and superbly compelling book offering profound insights
of Piet Naudé, an advocate of Africa and a passionate educator whose combined
experience, knowledge, global exposure, wisdom, energy, and enthusiasm are
exemplary. A must-read for today’s educators, learners, leaders, and entrepreneurs
from business schools and businesses alike who want to make a difference in a tech-
driven, hypercompetitive, and changing global marketplace.
Through a thorough personal lens, Piet discusses how adaptive, responsible, and
enlightened business schools and learning organizations, through sharing knowl-
edge, understanding cultural diversity, impacting policy, and creating a sense of
purpose, constantly engage in management education for the good.
For those who wish to understand the complex dynamics associated with the impact
innovative management education can have on society, and the potential to create a
positive, sustainable, and scalable socioeconomic change, Contemporary Manage-
ment Education serves as an invaluable and informative reference to the essential
issues that are shaping the future.”
—Sherif Kamel, Professor of Management, Dean, School of Business, The Ameri-
can University in Cairo
I dedicate this book to my life partner,
Elizabeth, for always prompting me to cross
into new territories, and to Samuel, our
special and precious grandson, who reminds
us daily of our vulnerability and the joy of life
A Preface and an Introduction
“That Wonderful Place Called ‘University’”
I grew up in a small hamlet at the foot of the mighty Drakensberg mountains in the
far northeastern Cape Province of South Africa. Lady Grey, my place of birth, was,
like many towns under colonial rule, named after British persons. In this case, it was
Eliza Lucy Grey, wife of Sir George Grey, governor of the Cape from 1854 to 1860.
Like any small town, everybody knows everybody. So, you go to David Ross
School, named after the first Scottish minister who set up a primary school in the
town back in 1863. After school, the ways parted: A select few would go to that
wonderful place called university “far away” in Stellenbosch, Cape Town,
Bloemfontein, or Pretoria, and they only came home for semester breaks in June
and December.
From a young age I watched these ordinary people “going away”: Marietjie,
daughter of the local constable, went to study social work; Johan, son of a local
farmer, went to study medicine; Deon, son of the local magistrate, studied law;
Emily, a maths genius at school, did the strange thing for the time and studied
engineering, a profession traditionally reserved for men.
What surprised me was how they changed as their studies progressed: They spoke
differently (a more universal language, perhaps?), their eyes looked differently
(brighter, more open as someone who has seen something beautiful), and their
body language messaged a sense of confidence (without an edge of arrogance).
This place called a “university,” I thought, must be wonderful if this is how it
changes people for the good. I came to see a real university only at the age of
16 when my own sister was dropped off at Stellenbosch. I was privileged to enter
university at Stellenbosch a few years later and increasingly realized that—apart
from a place of personal transformation through knowledge—it is a powerful and
important institution in society.
A university is definitive for social advancement. My grandfather only completed
4 years of formal schooling and started his working career as a day laborer building
roads. He was able to send his three daughters, including my mother, for further
college education. As a nursing sister my mom could enter the lower end of the then
white middle class with at least a steady income.
xi
xii A Preface and an Introduction
My generation was the first in our family who had higher education opportunities.
We could enter the higher end of the middle class and for our children (born in the
1980s) the idea of university education was “normal.”
The same pattern for black South Africans was significantly more difficult and, in
most cases, delayed until after 1994 when South Africa became an open society and
full democracy.
The crime against humanity was in nuce an educational crime, and so was the
privilege of whiteness an educational one.
As my insight into universities grew—from being a student up to doctoral level
and starting a part-time job in philosophy—I understood that they are also ideologi-
cal constructs. Whilst they indeed transform at a personal level, they might in fact
impede broader social transformation.
This was patently clear at Stellenbosch:
Most of the prime ministers of the white minority National Party after 1948 had
links with the university; P.W. Botha, a former minister of defense and later state
president, was elected as chancellor. Racial stereotypes were confirmed in
Volkekunde (another name for anthropology) and in sociology where Hendrik
Verwoerd, father of grand apartheid, was a lecturer. And moral confirmation of
apartheid was taught in the Faculty of Theology at least in the period between 1940
and the late 1970s.
At this point it must be noted: The ideological use and abuse of universities
happen in all societies to different degrees. It is rare though that such ideological
blindness is complete. There are always dissenting voices. At first, they are seen as
“mavericks,” enemies of the people, traitors, communists, and so forth. But—as at
Stellenbosch—such critical voices gather momentum and the tide eventually turns,
even if it takes 40 years.
So today I am still filled with marvel at universities. Especially since South Africa
became an open society, I saw before my eyes the personal transformation of so
many talented students who seize the opportunity with all their energy. I also see
how universities play a key role in upholding our young democracy and provide in
some cases world-class education, linking a former pariah state with the global
academic community.
But I am also wary: I know how things look when it is bad. I can sense ideological
abuse from a far distance. And I know what it takes to challenge and change the
paradigm.
Entering the World of Management Education
I entered management education and later the business school context from an
unusual academic trajectory. As a humanities scholar with a master’s in philosophy
and PhD in systematic theology, the two roads into the (then) unknown world of
management education were as follows:
The academic entrance was via (applied) ethics which became increasingly
popular after a very slow start. The management entrance was via my headship of
A Preface and an Introduction xiii
various sorts or academic units from a Department of Religion to Dean of Faculties

of Art and Education on to managing a Unit for Professional Ethics and being vice-
rector of a whole university. I was then fortunate to become the first full-time director
of what is now the Nelson Mandela Business School, followed by a 6-year term at
the University of Stellenbosch Business School (2014–2020), and currently
involved on a part-time basis with the Quality Services of the European Foundation
for Management Development (EFMD).
Socially I am now an “insider” in business school networks, but intellectually I,
however, have remained an “outsider.” This outsider status is facilitated by two
factors:
I never taught what was considered mainstream business school subjects like
strategy, corporate finance, and marketing. “Values-based leadership” and “Business
in society” were until recently electives for those interested in so-called soft issues.
The second factor is that philosophy and theology taught me that there are better
insights to be gained from the outside looking in than the other way around. A
critical mind-set requires a healthy distance.
Having been schooled in the humanities, I thoroughly enjoyed becoming part of a
new community and was excited by the following aspects:
• The much closer cooperation across disciplines as we built one MBA curriculum
(compared to the silos so common of university departments)
• The openness and relatively quick responses to changes in the business environ-
ment (compared to the relative social isolation of an ivory tower)
• The clear account of and respect for student needs, feedback, and inputs (com-
pared to the almost arrogant attitude that “we know what to teach them”)
• The professional approach to peer review and quality assurance via accreditation
systems (compared to the once-in-seven-year cycle of traditional academic units)
• The clarity of vision and associated actions to build a discernable brand (com-
pared to the laissez-faire attitude that academic freedom has no relevance to
institutional culture and “they will know us by our journal articles”)
But I also learnt what could be considered as weaknesses in the business school
system:
• The slavish following of business trends without shaping those trends (“we are a
relevant business school and teach what you need”)
• The strict instrumentalist approach to knowledge with little or no insight into the
shaping value of intrinsic knowledge (“what we teach today, you can use in
business tomorrow”)
• The over-simplification to the point of intellectual dishonesty of complex matters
(“six steps to successfully leading change”)
• An ignoring of business school’s societal role in building strong civic institutions
and shaping public discourse (“we must remain politically neutral and there are
Schools of Public Administration that cater for that kind of stuff”)
xiv A Preface and an Introduction
• A rather childish and almost irritating approach to competitive marketing (“we are
number 97 on the Financial Times list and the only school in India with two
accreditations and a specific mention by Eduniversal”)
• An over-valuation of the legitimate financial advance of alumni (“our alumni’s
increased average income in the three years post-MBA was 72%”)
• An assumed Western-centric approach to management education where “others”
are named by geographical adjectives (“after John Smith from Harvard has given
the keynote introduction, Piet Naudé will provide for us the African perspective
on the topic, and Chan Wei will do so for China”)
Frustration and disappointment with the system are therefore quite legitimate. It
can lead one to ask for the shutting down of business schools or “bulldozing” them
over. I often hear that business schools are dangerous “because they are agents of
neo-liberal capitalism with no concern for social good” or the opposite that “they
produce useless graduates that cannot hit the ground running.”
This kind of rhetoric rarely helps in fostering honest engagement or change. The
worst form of critique of what you consider to be an ideological system is to use
counter-ideological language.
It becomes a screaming match with exclamation marks.
The trusted and seemingly boring academic approach to transform a system is to
build solid arguments, to point out blind spots and weaknesses, and to demonstrate
why features of an alternative paradigm have superior problem-solving abilities.
This is what we learnt from Thomas Kuhn—and then we hope for a Gestalt switch!
There is no quick fix. Exchange of ideas seems indeed arduous and ineffective on
the surface when one is impatient. (And yes, there are times when more than
arguments are required.) But let us look back in history: the pen is mightier than
the sword; an idea whose time has come will not be stopped; and, yes, burning books
or bulldozing buildings—even metaphorically—is always the sign of an intellectu-
ally bankrupt system.
The Essays in This Collection
While my principal amazement at the formative personal and social power of

universities in general and business schools in particular remains, I do consider the
system flawed—significantly so in some respects. This is because business schools
are by nature reflecting the socioeconomic ideas most common in society without an
internal ability to self-critique. Their intended purpose and business model serve to
please and not to disrupt, except in the name of a more efficient and more legitimate
capitalism.
In this sense, the system indeed shows ideological traits, i.e., a belief system that
holds onto certain truths for the sake of legitimizing existing power and privileges
without the ability to see alternatives. There are variations across the system and
across geographies. Many business schools would find the content of this book more
or less in line with the road they have already embarked on. It would be wrong to
A Preface and an Introduction xv
generalize, although some generalization is required to get a grip on the whole. My

intention is to point out those weaknesses and propose provisional remedies and
alternatives by principally engaging in conceptual analysis.
I will write in the first-person plural. This is not a royal “we,” but a collegial one,
expressing critical solidarity with a view to reimagine aspects or management
education.
The genre is academically informed writing above the level of popular articles but
below the technical level of a subject specialist. Footnotes are short and provide the
required acknowledgment of sources. One needs to fight the weakness of over-
simplification without becoming inaccessible though. To be honest, if I look a
business literature, I’d rather err toward the latter.
It is also not a typical business book with a case study on every third page and
supporting graphs to make reading quick and easy. Some forms of case study
teaching and business writing completely ignore that one already has an interpreta-
tive framework, i.e., lenses, through which you choose and read a case. If you do not
investigate the lenses themselves, then obviously you will read into the case what
you already assume. In theology we call this eisegesis. The case then simply
illustrates what you (the lecturer/author) already know. That is why it was selected
in the first place.
Although short narratives from my own experience are included, I am more
interested in the lenses than in the cases.
This self-critical look at key questions arises from my education in the
humanities, specifically (seven) languages, Christian (systematic) theology, and
philosophy. In the chapters below, I bring philosophy to bear in an overt sense,
while I restrict theology to a footnote at the beginning of each chapter to show the
“roots” of my thinking. Contrary to academic convention, I deliberately avoided
engaging with well-known authors like (for example) Mintzberg and Khurana in
order to secure an “uncontaminated” experiential and humanities bias. The reader
may decide whether this risk was worth taking and whether a secondary purpose of
the book is achieved: to convince those in the so-called hard subjects in management
education that there is nothing soft about the so-called soft subjects. To the contrary.
The intended readership are colleagues in the broad university system and
specifically those in faculties of commerce or business schools. The term “business
school” refers to a wide variety of institutions from public university faculties,
graduate schools, to private schools of all shapes and sizes. “Management educa-
tion” is an even broader term and could include HR development executed by
companies or services delivered by consultancy firms. Interested businesspeople
and higher education policymakers might also find some value in the ideas raised in
the book.
This is not a book that develops one key argument. Each chapter stands on its
own. What binds the collection together is that each chapter addresses what I
consider to be a burning issue in management education that requires collective
reflection and wisdom. Some chapters include provisional pointers toward the
implications for management education, knowing that each reader will draw her or
xvi A Preface and an Introduction
his own conclusions even without these suggestions. At this point, asking the right
questions might be more important than providing answers.
The built-in weakness of such a wide scope is that it is impossible for one author
to address all the salient points related to the topics. Many books have been
published on each of the topics. No one academic can be an expert on topics as
divergent as those addressed here. What one gains in breadth is normally lost in
depth. This is, however, the conscious choice I made. The aim is to provoke ideas
across a wide spectrum of management education issues and not to cover all the
related ground or literature on each topic.
The choice of the issues themselves is also limited by my own academic back-
ground and business school experiences. There are surely other important matters
too. To illustrate the conceptual work, I insert some personal experiences which I
hope will increase the readability of the different chapters.
The chapters are presented in a certain logic. After this introduction (Chap. 1), the
book starts with a self-reflection on the social status of management education
(Chap. 2 Market). It then presents two chapters on broad institutional aims
(Chaps. 3 and 4 Purpose and Good), followed by two questions about institutional
practices (knowledge related to Colonization in Chap. 5 and access related to
Equality in Chap. 6). The following two chapters (7 and 8) address the implications
for management education of two external contextual factors (Technology and
Ecology), while the last chapter (9 on Leadership) explores lessons learnt amidst a
crisis situation that might stand to benefit us in the future.
The inclusion of the “21st century” in the title might sound very ambitious. Who
knows? We are, however, almost one-quarter into this century. There are some
pointers as to what will to a great extent determine developments for the next few
decades.
I am fairly certain that—in the same way mass production, atomic energy,
financial globalization, and the invention of computers/the Internet shaped much
of the twentieth century—so will we look back on this century. And we will see that
the twin external factors of ecology and technology set in the socioeconomic context
of inequality will have fundamentally shaped conceptions of the purpose of business
and the kind of leadership required in a fast-moving albeit unstable world.
I sincerely hope we can avoid the devastation of twentieth-century conflicts like
the First and Second World Wars and the arms race and proxy wars between the
USA and USSR, with the former quick to force democracy and regime change via
military means if deemed in its interest. It is, however, so ingrained in our human
psyche to understand and make history from the perspective of wars that it will be
difficult to avoid. The rise in nationalism across the globe coupled with a more
aggressive China (in soft as well as hard power) and with economic power shifting
eastward does not guarantee a stable century.
Homo sapiens is not to be trusted with power, especially not superpower status.
Look at history.
Climate-related events will increasingly have a huge impact on business (just
think insurance and investment) and on key infrastructure. Conflicts may not
primarily be about territory, but about intellectual property, data, and cyber-security,
A Preface and an Introduction xvii
as well as a new kind of space race under uncertain rules. Whose law will count out
there where the billionaires and assertive nation-states fly?
Like in the past, business schools will have to chart their way and stay true to their
core business. We have shown agility in many respects. We will need it more
than ever.
I trust you will find the reading journey below both informative and joyful, and I
will welcome any critical feedback and corrections.
Stellenbosch, South Africa Piet Naudé

August 2021
Acknowledgments
My sincere appreciation to my former colleagues at Nelson Mandela University and

more recently at the University of Stellenbosch Business School. The network of
business school associations in South Africa (SABSA), Africa (AABS), America
(AACSB), the UK (AMBA), Europe (EFMD), and Central Europe (CEEMAN) all
played a role in shaping my ideas.
I thank the University of Stellenbosch for granting me a sabbatical during 2021. A
word of thanks goes to the Technical University in Munich for hosting me as
Visiting Professor at the Peter Löscher Chair in Business Ethics, and to the Alexan-
der von Humboldt Foundation for funding a three months’ research time in Germany
during 2021.
I also acknowledge the valuable feedback from the reviewers and colleagues who
took the risk to endorse the publication of these essays.
My sincere appreciation to Springer and the professional team led by Prashanth
Mahagaonkar who steered me through the production and publication process.
I give praise to the divine Spirit who has gifted me to love God with my mind.
xix
Contents
1 Market: Why Are We Are So Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 How Do Social Systems Function? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Religion as Dominant Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2 Creating a Market Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.3 Implications of a Market Society: Sport, Religion, and
Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.4 Where Does Management Education Fit in? . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Purpose. What Value Do We Add? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Milton Friedman: Increasing Shareholder Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Edward Freeman: Increasing Strategic Stakeholder Value . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Michael Porter and Mark Kramer: Creating Shared Value . . . . . . . 20
2.4 Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh: Optimizing Collective
Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5 Freeman, Martin, and Parmar: Building a Better Society . . . . . . . . 26
2.6 What Value Does Management Education Create? . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.1 The Persistence of “Value” as Monetary Value . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.2 The Challenge to Deal with Intrinsic Values . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.3 What Is the Purpose of Business? A Proposal . . . . . . . . . . 30
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3 Good: What “Good” do we Create? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1 Private Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1.1 Rankings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1.2 The Complex Relation between Business Schools and
Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Social Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1 Educating for Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.2 Educating for Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.3 Educating for Multilateralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Common Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 Transcendent Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
xxi
xxii Contents
4 Colonization: Who Is in the Center and Whose Knowledge

Counts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1 Business Schools in the Context of Decolonization . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2 Three Challenges Arising from Decolonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.1 Institutional Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.2 Curricular Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.3 Epistemic Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3 Epistemic Diversity: Tacit and Scientific Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4 Conclusion: Must we Heed Calls for “Decolonization”? . . . . . . . . 66
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5 Inequality. Whom Do We Exclude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1 A Brief Typology of Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2 Do Business Schools Contribute to Income Inequality? . . . . . . . . . 74
5.2.1 The “Access” Side of (Management) Education . . . . . . . . . 75
5.2.2 The “Output” Side of (Management) Education . . . . . . . . . 79
5.3 Why Does Inequality from Income Matters, if at all? . . . . . . . . . . 83
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6 Technology: What Are we Embracing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.1 Naming the Emerging World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.2 Avoiding a Pure Instrumental View of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3 An Applied Ethics View of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.4 Three Specific Ethical Issues: Work, Liberty, and Equality . . . . . . 94
6.5 The Real Issue: Designing a New Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.6 Implications for Management Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7 Ecology: Can Management Education Help to Stop Climate
Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.1 Human-Centered (Anthropocentric) Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1.1 Sustainability Talk and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.1.2 Christian Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.1.3 GDP Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.1.4 How Could we Approach Human Subjectivity? . . . . . . . . . 111
7.2 Global Governance for the Common Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.3 Implications for Management Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.3.1 Self-Managing for the Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.3.2 Embedding the Commons in Curricula and Research . . . . . 116
7.3.3 Leading Public Policy and Opinion-Formation for the
Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Contents xxiii
8 Leadership: What Lessons Can we Learn in a Black Swan

Event? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.1 Leaders Are Present and Demonstrate Social Intelligence . . . . . . . 121
8.2 Leaders Care and Demonstrate Sympathetic Intelligence . . . . . . . . 122
8.3 Leaders Are Decisive and Demonstrate Actionable Intelligence . . . 126
8.4 Leaders Keep the Vision Alive and Demonstrate “Futuring”
Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Market: Why Are We Are So Important?
1
I vividly remember a University of Port Elizabeth strategic planning session in the

beautiful Tsitsikamma indigenous forest, part of the Garden Route in South Africa. It
was around 1996.
Up to that point we as Deans of different faculties were basically responsible to
lead our faculties in a collegial spirit. The focus was on academic matters like
curriculum design, research, teaching, assessment practices and appointing exter-
nal examiners.
For the first time, “in the interest of transparency and participative manage-
ment”, the financial books of the faculties were opened to the Deans. We received a
crash course in subsidy-formulae, FTE- calculations, and cost-benefit analyses. I
had to learn spreadsheets.
Our collegial relations and actions for the common good of the university
immediately changed:
We were now competitors for scarce resources. We suddenly “valued” aca-
demic programmes not by their academic reputation, but by whether they broke
even or—even better—make a profit. (I found that Honour’s students were the most
profitable, because of the quick throughput in one year with relatively high output
subsidies).
Inter-faculty cooperation was now judged from income loss/profit perspectives
and the impact on curricula was severe. Psychology immediately omitted almost all
general humanities modules like Philosophy and Sociology from its curriculum and
“in-sourced” most modules. The motivation was couched as being “in the interest of
professionalization”. But the real reason was simple: Why include modules that
others earn subsidy with if you can earn it yourself?
Soon afterward I, as the Dean of the Arts Faculty, had to write a report to
motivate the retention of the Music Department. The proposal I had to fend off was
straightforward in its commercial logic: If we close the department, we were legally
able to lay off the academic staff. We could then re-open on a limited scale, but
employ music teachers (violin, organ, flute, piano, voice, choir) on a private contract
basis: They will be paid per student that enrol with them. Viola! Done.
# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

P. Naudé, Contemporary Management Education, Future of Business and Finance,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_1
2 1 Market: Why Are We Are So Important?
(I eventually won the fight, but that is a story for another day).
What was intended as a good, rational, leadership aid (financial information),
became the overriding factor in academic deliberations, exactly because it was
embedded in the dominance of monetised thinking.
***
Business schools and faculties of management occupy extraordinary positions
where they are part of (public) universities. They are seen as special in almost every
respect: Their facilities are top-notch with a corporate look (“we serve demanding
clients and have to provide a superior learning experience”); their professors are
remunerated beyond the normal scale and are encouraged to do private consulting
(“we need to attract the best and stay in contact with real business”); the financial
governance dispensation is often different (“we must be able to compete in the
market”); their promotion criteria are more flexible (“we need top executives as
Professors of Practice”); their corporate image should be distinct from the main
institution and marketing efforts are run autonomously (“we have to build a distinc-
tive brand with greater market agility”).
In most cases, this special status brings significant rewards to the parent institu-
tion and adds to the overall reputation of the university. Good business school
academic and professional staff work extremely hard under very tight and tough
competitor conditions. In most cases, they deliver results much quicker than what is
possible under normal university administration. Where executive education is
pursued, the income potential is high, and the reach of the university is wide and
deep across the corporate landscape from which it in turn draws financial support. It
mostly works for both parties.
There is, however, a deeper reason for the special honor in which business
schools and management educators are held. For that, we turn to how the logic of
how social systems function. The result—as will be argued below—is perhaps less
flattering than we might have thought.
My focus is mostly on public business schools and faculties of management, but
there might be some ideas applicable for private schools as well on condition that
they accept a broader perspective on management education.
In the first part of this chapter,1 the pluralist nature of modern societies with a
variety of social systems is explained. In the second part, it is described what
happens if the logic of one social sphere invades other social spheres. As illustration,
the role of religion in early Western universities is discussed.
The third part of the chapter is the key to explain the nature of a market society2
and how market-thinking has reached a pervasive explanatory function. This inva-
sive logic is in part 4 illustrated with sport, religion and universities, and the chapter
1
This chapter is a significant reworking with additional material of Naudé, (2020).
2
This chapter draws overtly on religion as a social system. I take my cue from Harvard—but this
time from Harvey Cox at the Divinity School—to expose the religious nature of the Market (with a
capital M). Idolatry is an old and perennial challenge for theology which has built up strong sensors
to depict claims to divine power by non-divine powers. It is obviously possible to describe any
1.1 How Do Social Systems Function? 3
concludes in part 5 with a short response to the question asked in the title: Why are
we so important?
1.1 How Do Social Systems Function?
Following a free interpretation of Luhmann’s idea of social systems, modern

societies are pluralistic in the sense that they are constituted by distinctive social
systems like economics, science, arts, and law (Luhmann, 2012: vii). Each system
represents a social domain of reduced complexity and each function according to an
internal code of communication. As auto-poetic, self-referential, and operationally
closed systems (Luhmann, 2012: 41), each develops its own distinctive communi-
cative identity with institutionalized rationalities, i.e., ways of interpreting the world
and expressing the pluralities of human life on a collective level.
Each societal sphere also develops appropriate institutions, embodying the cul-
ture and norms of wider society as expressed and made to work in this specific
sphere: An organizing body (sport), a school or university (education), a parliament
(politics), a marketplace (trade/economics), a church, mosque, or synagogue (reli-
gion), or a theatre/museum (art).
These institutions are in a constant flux of adapting to new developments and are
at the same time constantly redefining their relation to one another. What sometimes
happens, is that one sphere3 invades the space of other spheres and makes its own
underlying values and view of the world the norm for those spheres. One code then
becomes the primary lens of interpreting the complex nature of society.
This has both a benefit—providing a simplified view on complex social
structures—and a limitation—reducing the rich complexity and variety to one
view which easily becomes an overarching, all-determining ideology.
This essay attempts to understand why it happens that the code of one social
sphere (the market) is transferred into other social spheres (like education) by
displacing the code and rationalities of the latter with the former.
For the sake of an initial illustration, let us look at what happened when the
normative code of the Christian religion permeated and determined the way knowl-
edge was created in early universities.
social system in religious terms (politics, sport, law), but it is a different matter if a system does not
only look like religion but in fact becomes religious.
3
I prefer to speak or social “spheres” (soft boundaries) rather than “systems” (hard boundaries) to
express a greater fluidity of interaction among different social domains and the constant movement
of people as they assume different social roles across different spheres.
1.1.1 Religion as Dominant Paradigm
Looking back on Europe during the Early Middle Ages, one clearly detects the
enormous power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church as institution and the
Christian faith as encompassing worldview.
The benefits were, inter alia, that in these “dark” ages, education, and science
continued in Catholic cathedral schools; education, health, and social care were
expanded under the guidance of the church’s social doctrine at a time when no state
structures existed; and magnificent art (architecture, painting, and devotional classi-
cal music) was created that renders joy and admiration until this day.
The dangers are now equally easy to spell out in hindsight:
Dissent was suppressed and freedom of expression was non-existent in the
context of authoritarian doctrines; the close ideological link between throne and
altar was the premise upon which the later colonial expansion (with devastating
consequences in the Americas and Africa) was conducted; the concept of democracy
was impossible because the king was seen as divine appointed servant; slavery was
viewed as God-willed expression of social status; and women were divinely
ordained to serve and not to lead.
The embeddedness of “science”—as then understood—in the code of religion
had mostly negative consequences: If knowledge-creation is a priori determined by a
religious faith commitment, then empirical findings that contradict a dogmatic and
authoritarian understanding of the Bible or any other ecclesial source document are
not tolerated.
If you are a “pro-fessor” first and foremost because you are required to “profess” a
certain doctrinal version of the religious faith and its interpretation of the natural
world and secondly because you “profess” to know a certain domain of science, the
latter is compromised in terms of the former.
Western universities—formally established in the High Middle Ages (Bologna
1088, Paris 1150, Oxford 1167) as sites of higher learning—can be seen as the
continuation of monastic schools, some already founded in the sixth century
AD. Religious words like “rector,” “professor,” “dean,” “chancellor,” and “sabbati-
cal” still tell the story of our origins.
The hold of the Catholic Church and the dominant paradigm of the Christian faith
was only finally broken in the late 15th and early 16th centuries through the rise of
humanist scholarship in Arts and Natural Science and the revolution brought about
by the Protestant Reformation. Like all major transitions, this one was both violent
(religious wars) and far-reaching, sowing the seeds of democratic thinking and a
modern view of science as the unbiased search for knowledge without fear of favor.
It was roughly around the middle of the seventeenth century and entering the
Modern Age (1800 and onward) that Europe was able to disentangle itself from the
underlying philosophy of a corpus Christianum. Via the Enlightenment, secular
space was created, and religion and the churches accorded their relative place in
society. The growth of science, technology, and higher education has consequently
been quite remarkable between the 17th and 19th centuries.
Many would agree that this was to a great degree made possible by shifting the
paradigm from a dominant religious view to the secular view of science and
redefining the religion–science relationship in which reciprocal respect is due for
the contribution each makes to society.
What are the lessons to be learnt?
First. If one social sphere invades the space of another and subjugates the logic of
the latter to the former, the consequences are normally not good for either. This is
because the invading sphere overreaches its logic (religion is not a good paradigm
for empirical science) and the invaded sphere loses the strength of its own inner
dynamic (research results are subject to doctrinal approval).
Second. Social spheres that “over-reach” are backed by power to reach a position
of dominance and to (sometimes literally) fight off competitor logics. The domi-
nance of Christianity in Europe for at least five centuries was supported by a network
of enormous ecclesial, political, commercial, and military power.
And power is not given up voluntarily or easily.
Third. The logic of the dominant sphere is accepted as normal, as good, as right,
and—most importantly—as “how things are.” It defines status quo thinking. Those
who dare to challenge this logic, are heretics (Some were burnt at the stakes).
The question now arises: Which social sphere is currently the dominant one? And
what are the consequences for universities and management education?
Let us turn to the logic of the market.
1.1.2 Creating a Market Society
What we are witnessing since the advent of global capitalism in tandem with the
digital revolution of the late twentieth century is structurally the same as what
occurred when religion provided the basic paradigm of interpreting the world.
Today commerce and business thinking provide the dominant paradigm from
which to view the world as well as the language to describe ourselves and societal
institutions.
But what gives the market this pervasive power?
An interesting answer to this question is given by Felix Martin in his book,
Money. The unauthorised biography (2014) with reference to the standardized
monetary value underlying a market society. He asks: What is the key difference
between economic value and other value-forms4 like historic value (monuments,
artifacts), aesthetic value (art), moral value (ethics), religious value (prayer, rituals),
and sentimental value (family inheritance)? These noneconomic values are “limited-
purpose concepts of value—each lord of its own sphere, none sovereign outside it”
(Martin, 2014: 51). In other words, these values function well “inside” their social
domain, defy global standardization (it is difficult to, for example, imagine an
4
On the origin of values, see Stefan Hradil, (2016).
international standard for “sentimental value”), and respect the boundary of its own
application.
The opposite is the case for economic value. The reason is that its process of
valuation and determination of monetary value “. . .can be applied not just to things
that have a particular physical property. . . but, at least in principle to absolutely
anything at all.” Economic value operates across and invades all social spheres. This
value is expressed in standardized money terms—attaining “the last word in univer-
sality”—and shows no respect for the boundary of applying economic logic only to
the field of economics and the markets (Martin, 2014: 52).
In his discussion of the Greek myth of Midas who chose that everything he
touches turns into gold, Martin provides the context that Greek society at that point
was confronted with the introduction of money as means of exchange.5 They were
skeptical of its power and radical social implications as a “competing ideology of
social organization.” Furthermore: “The central theme of this myth is money’s
intrinsic tendency to reduce everything to a single dimension by weighing it in the
balance of universal economic value” (Martin, 2014: 52, 54).
Midas’ touch has a massive reductionist effect: The wide variety of life,
relationships, and natural objects becomes a “single lifeless substance,” albeit
gold, constituting the “artificial monotony” so typical of a monetary society which
is subject to the “inexorable logic of money” (Martin, 2014: 54). And this logic is
useful in determining how many chickens one sells, but it is simply unable to answer
a cosmic question like how to live in accordance with the divine order of the universe
(Martin, 2014: 54).
This logic has a distinct imperialist strand, notes Michael Sandel (2012) in What
money can’t buy. He acknowledges that market thinking has over the last three
decades been enormously successful in generating wealth via the organization and
distribution of goods. But something else started to happen in the meantime:
“Market value were coming to play a greater and greater role in social life. Econom-
ics was becoming an imperial domain. Today, the logic of buying and selling no
longer applies to material goods only but increasingly governs the whole of life.” He
then adds: “It is time to ask whether we want to live this way” (Sandel, 2012: 6).
In line with the idea of pluralistic social systems referred to above, Sandel makes
the difference between a market economy where the market is an effective tool to
organize productive activity and a market society “in which market values seep into
every aspect of human endeavour” (Sandel, 2012: 10–11). The result of leaning
toward the latter is that “we drifted from having a market economy to being a market
society” (Sandel, 2012: 10).
In this vein, Harvey Cox from Harvard Divinity School (yes!) refers to the
marketization of the whole society because the market imposes its will on more
and more areas of life. In other words, the markets no longer restrict themselves to
the economic realm of society to serve a useful purpose alongside other societal
5
For a wide-ranging discussion of the impact of monetization on different types of societies, read
Von Hagen & Welker, (2014).
spheres. No, The Market (written in title case) has grown to become both the summit
and the hub of society. The languages, images, values, and assumptions of
The Market now shape our social imaginary (Cox & Cox, 2016: 76),6 that is to
say, the way we understand ourselves and all the other spheres of society. By writing
The Market with title case, Cox attempts to “signify both the mystery that enshrouds
it and the reverence it inspires in its adepts” (Cox & Cox, 2016: 8). In short: “‘The
Market’ stands for the entire economic and cultural system which it pervades and in
which it is the supremely powerful part” (Cox & Cox, 2016: 8).
A culture has been created in which “the relentless metrics of the monetary” (Cox
& Cox, 2016: 180) permeates our thinking about virtually everything: “Education is
diced into saleable credit units; works of art are assessed as valuable investments;
entertainment has been corrupted by money; making profit as the goal of the ‘health
industry’ is pricing the benefits it has to offer beyond the reach of many people; and
even religion is increasingly shaped by consumer values as churches conduct market
surveys and reshape their worship to cater to public whims” (Cox & Cox,
2016: 266).
The conception of society in its entirety as a monetary society has almost become
the “natural” or “logical” way to interpret life. The insight drawn from an economic-
historical analysis of the industrial revolution in nineteenth century England by Karl
Polanyi (1944) is that a specific shift occurred during this period: Economics and the
self-regulating market were separated out from its embeddedness in society in
general so that “economic activity was isolated and imputed to a distinctive eco-
nomic motive.” Polanyi notes that such an institutional pattern (of a separate market)
“. . .could not function unless society was somehow subordinated to its
requirements. A market economy can exist only in a market society” (Polanyi,
1944: 71, my emphases).
The perceived “natural” order and “logic” of the market society is therefore only a
recent historical development and must be viewed as such. There is nothing inevita-
ble about the market society: “Before commodities can be bought and sold, they
have to become objects that people think can be bought or sold” (Patel, 2009:
17, original emphasis). Once this mental “transformation” happens, it is very
difficult to turn back the clock, as the monetized reality excludes other forms of
interpretation and rationality and presents itself as the obvious and natural choice.
Interpreting human behavior from an economic way of thinking.
This paradigm of interpreting human behavior in all societal spheres through an
economic lens is vividly illustrated by the Nobel Prize winning economist, Gary
Becker.7 His Nobel lecture is aptly entitled: “The economic way of looking at
behaviour” (1993). In this lecture, Becker interprets discrimination against
minorities; crime and punishment; human capital; and the formation, dissolution,
6
For a fuller discussion and critique of Cox, see Naudé, (2017).
7
See especially Gary Becker (1976) where he illuminates subjects like discrimination (pp. 17–30);
crime and punishment (pp. 39–86); and marriage (pp. 205–250) from what he calls “the economic
approach to human behaviour” (pp. 3–14).
and structure of families through the lens of assuming individual welfare maximiza-
tion based on rational choice theory.
In this case, however, Becker makes two intellectual moves that correspond with
the discussion of an “imperialist” economic logic above.
He understands that “narrow assumptions about self-interest” in traditional eco-
nomics are not rich enough to explain the complex set of values and preferences that
drive human behavior (1993: 285). His first move is to extend “the traditional
analysis of individual rational choice to incorporate into the theory a much richer
class of attitudes, preferences, and calculations” (1993: 401, my emphasis). Now it is
possible to explain all of human choices—to love, to marry, to study, to migrate—
from the perspective of rational choice and welfare (broadly conceived)
maximization.
The second move is then to claim that “no approach of comparable generality has
yet been developed that offers serious competition to rational choice theory” (1993:
402). The issue is not whether this claim is true or not: Its significance is derived
from the “standardization” (generality) effect it has as the only rational option to
explain human behavior over all social spheres.
Becker concludes his lecture: “The rational choice model provides the most
promising basis presently available for a unified approach (my emphasis) to the
analysis of the social world by scholars from different social sciences” (among
which he mentions sociology, law, political science, and history) (1993: 403).
Where rational choice theory is combined with supporting empirical data, the best
possible explanation for human choices is provided and this “economic way of
modelling behaviour” (1993: 403) should therefore be the unifying guide of the
social sciences.
Becker not only claims to bring all motivations for human action under economic
choice theory, but further claims that this interpretation is consistent with the
“instinctive economics” of ordinary people (1993: 396). In other words, the eco-
nomic way of modelling human behavior is not only able to explain overt human
choices but is also able to express correctly how people actually operate on an
instinctive level.
The issue is not whether the rational choice theory is able to provide an interesting
and, in some cases, even plausible explanations for human behavior. Becker indeed
made significant contributions to the social sciences. What is at stake, is the
pervasiveness of this logic that claims to even explain “non-economic” human
actions like self-denying acts of altruism or falling in love or listening to classical
music in terms of personal welfare maximization.8
Where language of commodities and business and management become the
pervasive terms of reference by which all spheres are described, serious distortions
arise, akin to the case of religious dominance explained above.
8
A more recent example of interpreting social problems primarily as economic challenges, is the
notion of “creating shared value” developed with huge impact by Michael Porter and Kramer
(2011). This is discussed in detail in chap. 3 on values.
1.1.3 Implications of a Market Society: Sport, Religion,

and Universities
Before we come to universities and associated management education, let us look at

the examples of sport and religion.
1.1.3.1 Professional Sport

Amateur sport is played for the joy of filling leisure time, developing a healthy body,
showing loyalty to your team or country, fostering mass participation, and for the
sake of camaraderie and life-skills development. Professional sport is no longer
leisure, but full-time employment; “loyalty” disappears, and contractual allegiance is
bought by the chequebook; it is all about elite sportspeople developed in high-
performance centers with the masses looking on; and ultimately it is about building
brands and making profits.
The point is that although sport is played in both amateur and professional codes,
and although one sees the same “activities,” there is a fundamental, irreversible shift
in the very concept of sport as a professional sport and its associated relationships.
The Springboks who famously won the 1995 Rugby World Cup with newly
elected president Nelson Mandela wearing the no. 6 jersey played as amateurs. They
moved into the professional era shortly afterward. I remember how confusing this
was at first: Players who played for my home base, Western Province, or the
“enemy” Blue Bulls in Pretoria for years, suddenly shifted around from season to
season based on agents negotiating the best deals. We felt betrayed that a hooker
who knew our calls could move to a competitor without blinking an eye. The eye
was probably on the chequebook.
There are obvious benefits to professional sport. No doubt. But what is at stake is
the invasion of commercial thinking (the market) into another social sphere (sport)
and then reconstituting and reducing that social sphere to “the economic way of
thinking.”
1.1.3.2 Consumer Religion

In an interesting reversal of fortunes, religion is now equally challenged by the
economic way of thinking. Religion is practiced by millions of people because of
their perceived need to serve a Higher Being. They use their relationship with the
divine as basis for a fulfilled life and as motivation to serve others. They pray and
worship in holy places and do good deeds to give practical effect to their faith. They
contribute material and immaterial gifts to their faith communities for the sake of the
greater good.
If religion becomes a commodity and religious goods/services are turned into
consumer goods; if religious leaders build financial TV empires named after them-
selves; and if faith contributions are used for personal enrichment rather than the
public good, the very nature of religion changes. From the outside one sees the same
“activities,” but they are framed in diametrically oppositional terms.
Most faithful people would argue that “consumer religion” betrays the ethos of
religion itself, and fundamentally alters the core relations with the Divine, with other
believers, with religious leaders, and with the world. Others might say this is the best
way to spread religion to the masses. Point is: The two forms of religion do no longer
operate with the same logic or ethos.
You cannot serve two gods.
1.1.3.3 Universities as Corporate Entities?9

The same kind of argument can now be made concerning universities: Commodifi-
cation (of knowledge and education) and managerialism (the ideology of control
supported by a vast network of administration) are not simply neutral adaptations to
a new global economic era—they alter the very identity of what the university is and
represent a fundamental shift in values.
Re-read the story of our strategic session at the beginning of this chapter, and the
following illustration:
I remember when “third stream income” became the premise upon which “out-
side work” by professors was being organized. Up to that point, I saw myself as a
public intellectual who was remunerated by taxpayers to think and serve society
through my knowledge. I accepted numerous invitations for public speaking and
seminars around South Africa and Namibia. The unsaid assumption was that the
invitees would (in most cases) pay for flights and accommodation was provided in
private homes. “Payment” was rarely if ever in monetary form, but mostly via gifts
reflecting the organization or region, because the relationship was not defined as a
commercial one.
Suddenly I had to email my “fee” for preparation and presentation. At that very
moment, the ethos of my public work and my relationship with invitees changed for
good: I was now a paid speaker on the circuit, and my informative power points
(previously distributed as wide as possible) were copyrighted. I started to stay in
guesthouses and four-star hotels, and as a true professional my contact with locals
was limited to “the presentation.” Because time became monetized, acceptance of
invitations to nongovernmental organizations dwindled.
Once a move is made toward an economic way of thinking with its immediate
extrinsic reward system, it is very difficult to turn the clock back.
Each social paradigm develops its own language. If that paradigm becomes the
dominant one, this language pervades the description of other societal spheres. On
the surface, this looks innocuous and even smart. It looks so “normal” because it
mirrors current developments in society.
But we know from language ontology that words are not merely descriptors of
objects, persons, or institutions (as suggested in a correspondence view of language).
No, words have the power to shape via naming. Words are deeds.
Well-known examples of the language invasion and takeover of market logic in
higher education are the addition of “CEO” to Vice-Chancellors; the move from
9
The discussion here does not exclude private universities or public universities being reimagined
as “entrepreneurial.” The principle point is not so much about the nature of the institution (public,
private, nonprofit) than about the spirit in which education is conceptualized.
academic leaders to “academic managers”; from learners to “clients”; from deans to

“executive deans”; from reflective, formative curricula to courses “answering to
market demands”; from collegial oversight and review to “performance manage-
ment”; from academic and professional support staff to “human capital”, from
knowledge creation to “knowledge production”; from being a university to become
an “entrepreneurial enterprise”; and so forth.
The moment the language changes, the very nature of the university as universitas
magistrorum et scholarium—a community of teachers and scholars—changes, and
with it the underlying values, leading to a different individual and institutional self-
understanding.
The argument that words can acquire new meanings and lose their original
frameworks is true. But where the dominant paradigm still reigns, this hermeneutical
option is extremely limited. Try as you like, words like “CEO,” “executives,”
“managers,” and “performance management” are today virtually impossible to
recode due to the power of the embedded commercial paradigm.
It took “pro-fessor” roughly four hundred years to move from religion (professing
faith) to science (professing knowledge) to the point that very few people today even
know about the original meaning.
The problem is deepened when academics themselves buy into this economic
way of thinking. The reasons are threefold: power, money, and lack of a critical
mindset.
“Participative management” in “a learning organisation” are some of the
catchphrases that lured academics out of their academic work to become powerful
managers on behalf of the university. Because this is mostly extra work, the business
model prescribes extra payment. Where leadership positions were rotated in the past
and focused on academic matters (virtually no payment as the ethos was public
service and not monetization), positions are now fixed contracts and loaded with
management tasks. In some cases of full-time managers (like executive deans),
younger staff are extremely vulnerable at the end of their terms. What do you do
in the academy with a useless end-of-term manager? You push him (normally male)
upward, though the options are very limited.
The sadness is that good academics, who should not manage, are pressured into
this life of compromise. And not-so-good academics should also not manage,
because they lack credibility. Science and the academy suffer as a result.
This argument for a retention of the scientific and academic ethos must not be
read as a naive hankering back to a past that can never be retrieved. A good academic
institution is sensitive to its context and the shifts taking place in society. It must both
participate in those shifts—hopefully benefitting from them, shaping them, and
utilizing them to serve the public good—whilst at the same time retaining a critical
distance. This requires raising a voice of dissent against dominant ideologies
(no matter their origin or status) and defending its own character as an academic
institution.
It is therefore right and proper that universities of the twenty-first century interact
with business and industry and the free market system more than with the church. It
is responsible to lead these complex institutions by making use of commercial tools

(accounting practices, project management software) where appropriate.
But that interaction must respect boundaries and the traditional logic of the
academy, otherwise, the same negative consequences arise as explained above:
The invading logic overextends its reach, and the invaded logic loses its edge.
1.1.4 Where Does Management Education Fit in?
What happened in business education, is the uncritical adoption of neo-classical

economic thinking on the assumption that such thinking is itself an amoral position
while serving as default logic from which the content and purpose of the education
process are derived. This will be shown in more detail in Chapter 3 on value and
chap. 4 on goods.
There is a credible body of research that suggests that business school students
exposed to economics and finance coursework based on the view of human nature
underlying Homo economicus “. . .tend to change their own beliefs and behaviour
towards the self-interest model under experimental conditions.” There is an attitudi-
nal shift toward a greater “free riding” tendency, diminished pro-social openness,
and justification of self-interested behavior (Pitt-Watson and Quigley 2019: 9).
As far back as 1993, Frank, Gilovich, and Regan set out to “. . .investigate
whether exposure to the self-interest model commonly used in economics alters
the extent to which people behave in self-interested ways” (1993:159). They
designed an experiment in which students’ value choices in situations requiring
cooperation and honesty were tracked. The students were being taught neo-classical
economics, development economics, and astronomy. The neo-classical economics
students fared the worst in that the highest proportion of them reported less cooper-
ation and honesty with the astronomy group faring the best.
The logic of individual self-interest maximization is therefore not something we
are born with—it is an acquired rationality by being submerged in the culture of a
market society and being taught “the economic way of thinking.” We as business
school academics proudly and openly consider the latter as exactly our task. That is
why we are called schools for business and educators for management.
But there is a further strengthening factor: This attitudinal shift toward greater
self-interested behavior is “. . .exacerbated by the competitive socialization endemic
to business school programs” (Pitt-Watson and Quigley 2019: 9). The relentless fight
for rankings and being “at the top” creates a social setting that is conducive to and in
fact illustrates the economic way of thinking and climbing the corporate ladder.
I remember a discussion at SABSA10 about the difficulty to find good academics
in subjects like corporate finance, accounting, and digital enterprise development.
10
South African Business School Association around 2010. This example has in the meantime been
overtaken by a much more cooperative spirit, in part due to the fact that business schools needed to
club together when the MBA was under threat by the national department of education. There are
now new leaders with a greater openness to collective growth.
I suggested we cooperate and bring expert international staff to South Africa on a

short-term basis by sharing the cost. I further suggested that schools with scarce
resources make them available at full cost to assist others. I pointed to the anomaly
that professors from GIBS and UCT and USB would accept teaching assignments at
overseas institutions as part of the internationalization drive but were not allowed to
teach at partner schools right here in South Africa. One dean from a “top” school was
blunt and honest enough: “Our competitor analysis would not allow such coopera-
tion. We have to protect or brand. And academic staff is a crucial part thereof.”
The combination of educational content with the social conditions under which
this education is presented, creates a powerful force in shaping the logic of the
market and instilling in students that it is acceptable and normal to be sometimes less
honest and less cooperative if self-interest is enhanced. Once these students become
industry leaders—as we prepare them to be—it is this exact logic that sometimes
brings disastrous consequences for financial markets, international cooperation, and
the natural environment.
Why are we deemed so special and important?
As business school and management education academics we derive our social
status and power from the fact that we represent the pervasive economic way of
thinking which happens to be the culturally dominant interpretative paradigm at the
moment. We represent this paradigm in a double sense of the word:
Through our research and teaching, we provide the intellectual credibility and
language apparatus for the market society. This happens because the disciplines in
which we operate are by definition related to business, mostly conceptualized in
neo-classical terms. At the same time, we epitomize this market and competition
logic in our business school institutions and careers. We not only teach the logic of
the market society—but we are also key institutions in service of the market society.
We are so to speak both high priests and apostles with an array of sanctuaries
(“Harvard” as metaphor), whence anyone who counts in business goes for deeper
initiation into the gospel of the markets.
And the same lessons apply:
First. If one social sphere invades the space of another and subjugates the logic of
the latter to the former, the consequences are normally not good for either.
Second. Social spheres that “over-reach” are backed by power to reach a position
of dominance and to (sometimes literally) fight off competitor logics. The domi-
nance of the market logic is supported by a network of enormous academic, political,
commercial, and military power.
Third. The logic of the dominant sphere is accepted as normal, as good, as right,
and—most importantly—as “how things are”. It defines status quo thinking. Those
who dare to challenge this logic, are heretics.
I am happy to dissent. But at the same time work with others to demonstrate a
healthy self-critique and that it is indeed possible to reconceptualize the work we do
in management education.
Culture is shifting. People no longer accept the so-called liberal, capitalist end-of-
history—idea. Our time of status and honor is short. We have a chance—now—to
still make and lead the transition to a greater sense of purpose and values, newly
interpreted.
This is what the rest of this book with its challenging questions tries to accom-
plish in a small way.
Let us walk together.
Bibliography
Becker, G. (1976). The economic approach to human behaviour. Chicago University Press.
Becker, G. (1993). The economic way of looking at behaviour. The Journal of Political Economy,
101(3), 385–409.
Cox, H., & Cox, G. (2016). The market as god. Harvard University Press.
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.
Hradil, S. (2016). Der Wert von Werten: Wozu sind sie gut and wie entstehen sie? In R. Rodenstock
& N. Sevsay-Tegethoff (Eds.), Werte–und was sie uns wert sind. Eine interdisziplinäre
Anthologie (pp. 20–36). Roman Herzog Institut.
Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
Martin, F. (2014). Money. Vintage Books.
Naudé, P. (2017). ‘In god we trust’. Bringing Michael Welker in conversation with the market as
god by Harvey Cox. In H. Springhart & G. Thomas (Eds.), Risiko und Vertrauen. Risk and
Trust. Festschrift für Michael Welker zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 223–240). Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt.
Naudé, P. (2020). Market society? A critical reflection on its nature and socio-ethical implications.
In M. Hȍfner & B. Friedrich (Eds.), Gottes Gegenwart–God’s presences. Festschrift fȕr
Gȕnther Thomas zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 257–267). Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Patel, R. (2009). The value of nothing. How to reshape market society and redefine democracy.
Portobello.
Pitt-Watson, D., & Quigley, E. (2019). Business school rankings for the 21st century. United
Nations Global Impact.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Farrar & Rinehart.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2011, January-February). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review. pp. 1-17.
Sandel, M. (2012). What money can’t buy. The moral limits of the market. Faber, Strauss, and
Giroux.
Von Hagen, J., & Welker, M. W. (2014). Money as god? The monetization of the market and its
impact on religion, politics, law, and ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Purpose. What Value Do We Add?
2
Looking back after graduation, what value did USB create for you?1
“I was fascinated by knowledge about subjects I knew very little about at the
beginning: from scenario planning to management accounting and digital
marketing.”
“The personal leadership journey was the highlight. The fact that we were
compelled to actively journal our experiences and discuss that with a mentor was
a massive step forward in my self-understanding and confidence.”
“I went through a messy divorce three years ago and needed something to occupy
my mind. It worked.”
“The network with bright class-mates was the best value. I am now employed by
one of them!”
“Career wise, once I passed my first year, my company put me on an accelerated
development path, and I am due for promotion very soon.”
“My studies made me realise that business is much more than corporate or
consulting. I have resigned from my comfortable position and have never felt so free
and excited about the future. I know I have the skills to succeed.”
“Social enterprising was never on my radar screen. I am starting an NGO to
make under-privileged children water-safe.”
The value we create through I work in management education varies greatly
among our graduates. In fact, some value is created that we never even intended or
thought of! The examples above represent cognitive, psychological, leadership,
social, and business value. And this is good. We create learning spaces. Our
students are sharp enough to derive value appropriate to their situation.
1
These are random examples from PG Dip. and MBA students at the University of Stellenbosch
Business School (USB) and do not intend to represent the full range of responses nor the
proportions linked to different values.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_2
16 2 Purpose. What Value Do We Add?
This nevertheless does not relieve us from the obligation to think about the
“value” we create and be self-critical about our work along the way—even if the
outcomes are surprisingly different!
***
The logic of this chapter2 is simple: If education in management is meant to
support business in executing its value-creation mandate, then propositions about
what “value” business creates will or should in turn inform the purpose3 and content
of business education.
The “value” that business creates or should create has been expressed in five
influential “markers” in the values-debate represented by Milton Friedman (1970,
shareholder value), R Edward Freeman (1984, stakeholder value), Michael Porter,
and Mark Kramer (2006, creating shared value); Thomas Donaldson and James
Walsh (2015, optimizing collective value); and, lastly, R Edward Freeman, Kirsten E
Martin and Bidhan L Parmar (2020, creating financial and social value).
The idea is to develop a “values trajectory” in the narrow channel provided by the
selected work and infer some ideas about management education commensurate
with the views expressed in the respective writings. A close reading of these writings
does not engage in wider scholarship, nor does it attempt a full representation of the
thoughts of the authors. The five extracts are used as illustrations of how the values-
debate has shifted over time, or rather, how it appears to have shifted.
2.1 Milton Friedman: Increasing Shareholder Value
In his famous article, “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,”
included in virtually every business ethics reader, Milton Friedman (1970, reprinted
in White 1991:162–167) makes several important ethical claims:
Moral values only make sense if used in relation to people and are not be applied
to business entities like corporations: “Only people can have moral responsibilities.
A corporation is an artificial person and, in this sense, may have artificial
responsibilities, but ‘business’ as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities. . . .”
(1970: 1). In a classical statement of individualism (“society is a collection of
individuals”, 1970: 7), Friedman denies the existence of social values beyond the
individual. In his view “(T)here are no ‘social’ values, no ‘social’ responsibilities in
any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals” (1970: 7).
2
This chapter is a reconfigured and updated version of Naudé (2020).
3
Theology teaches us to distinguish between “purpose” as an operational, institutional “aim” and
purpose as “meaning-making.” The former (which forms the basis of this chapter) is a legitimate
and important feature of life in society and is by definition penultimate in nature. It serves us well on
condition that it does not along the way switch to purportedly represent the latter as an ultimate
category. I have a suspicion that the vexing problem of intrinsic values—see below—finds its
roots here.
2.1 Milton Friedman: Increasing Shareholder Value 17
Based on this distinction, Friedman argues for a strict role differentiation: A

business person “in his own right” can surely assume voluntary ethical
responsibilities to family, church, club, city, and country according to his con-
science, but “in his capacity as a businessman” or corporate executive, he has no
“social responsibility” because “. . .the executive is an agent serving the interests of
his principal,” and that interest is increasing profits for stockholders (1970:
4, gendered language retained).4
A further distinction is that between the political principle of unanimity which
underlies the free market mechanism of voluntary cooperation; and the political
principle of conformity which—unavoidably—governs the political sphere of soci-
ety. In a free society based on a free market system the imposition of moral values
(via the call for the social responsibilities of business) harms the foundations of such
a society. This harm stems from the confusion of conformity to promote social
interests under the political mechanism of majority rule with the non-coercive
character of the market where the increase of profits is the “one and only” responsi-
bility of business (1970: 8).
An important part of Friedman’s argument is that the principle of self-interest
(increased monetary value) should guide actions that may be seen by the public as
socially responsible (moral value): Tax deductible charitable giving or providing
resources to upgrade local community amenities are entirely justified if they serve
the long-run self-interest of a corporation. If the public opinion at a given time
requires corporations to generate goodwill as a by-product of such “social”
expenditures, it may be in their self-interest “to cloak their actions” as “social
responsibility” (albeit such action is approaching fraud and Friedman expresses his
admiration for business people who hold this in disdain) (1970: 6).
Friedman—whilst denying a social conscience for business as such—does
acknowledge that the striving “to make as much money as possible” (1970: 2) is
subject to the ethical constraints contained in the basic rules of society, “both those
embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom” (1970: 2). The only guiding
principle for the actions of a corporation in a free market is promotion of self-
interest, i.e., to increase profits. But that principle is subject to the moral authority of
law and custom, exterior to the corporation which will adhere to them exactly
because it is in its self-interest to do so.
What are the implications for management education?
The ideas so eloquently developed by Friedman, served—and in key respects still
serve—as the dominant paradigm for management education. The purpose of such
education is to equip managers with the technical skills and strategic acumen to
increase personal and shareholder value, narrowly understood in monetary terms,
i.e., making more money. Key assumptions are that corporations are amoral legal
4
This view in fact defeats the impression created by the title of the article (derived from Friedman’s
book, Capitalism and freedom 1962: 133–136) that to “increase profits” (value in the monetary
sense devoid of moral responsibility) is a “social responsibility” (value in the moral sense including
responsibility), unless one reads the title as an ironic rhetorical strategy against those who express
an in principle aversion to capitalism and profits, and view corporations as “soulless” (1970: 6).
entities; managers are agents in service of shareholders; social responsibilities are

burdens on and intrusions into the freedom of the market; self-interest is the key
motivator for human action in the business world; and business subjects itself to law
and custom because it is in its self-interest to do so.
This base paradigm has been subject to strong criticism in subsequent
developments regarding value-creation in business. The question, however, is
whether the paradigm itself has indeed changed?
2.2 Edward Freeman: Increasing Strategic Stakeholder Value
The publication of Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach by R Edward

Freeman in 1984 marks the transition from a narrow Friedman-style shareholder
focus to a broader, inclusive stakeholder approach to business.
The success of a business enterprise relies on many more stakeholder groups than
only those who hold a direct financial interest in it. These groups vary in kind—
suppliers, local/national government, local communities, consumer advocates,
global institutions—and their effect on the corporation may vary from direct eco-
nomic effects to technological, political, managerial, and social effects (1984: 94).
Freeman argues that for a corporation to set its strategic direction in relation to
different stakeholders, an enterprise strategy is required. This strategy in turn
consists of three related analyses, namely a stakeholder-, values-, and social issues
analysis (1984:92).
Stakeholder analysis assists in gaining an accurate and detailed account of
significant actors in the external environment whereas societal analysis aims at
understanding major issues facing society now and over the next decade (1984:
99). Values analysis asks the question “who we are” and what we should do in
relation to our context. This analysis “. . .represents the moral or ethical component
to strategic management . . .which has been largely ignored, except as an addition to
the ‘business’ concerns of the firm” (1984: 90). Understanding internal organiza-
tional values and those of the stakeholders will assist in a closer alignment of “social
and ethical concerns” with “traditional business concerns” (1984: 90) and overcome
the divide between business and ethics.
Freeman then makes three important distinctions in his discussion on values:
First. The word “value” refers to different kinds of values like aesthetic, social,
religious, and moral values. Therefore, “all questions of values are not questions of
moral values” and “(W)hile a concern for ethics is necessary ingredient” of an
enterprise strategy, “. . .it is it not in itself sufficient” (1984: 96).
Second. Intrinsic values are basic values in the sense that they refer to things
which are “good in and of themselves” and they represent the “bottom line” of life
and its pursuits, for example, the freedom to act, belief in a supreme being, or pursuit
of personal/family happiness. Instrumental values are means to realize intrinsic
values. “We place instrumental value on those things which led us toward the
attainment of things, actions or states of mind which are intrinsically valuable”
(1984: 96).
2.2 Edward Freeman: Increasing Strategic Stakeholder Value 19
Third. Personal values are distinct from organizational values and the ideal
situation is obviously when there is “high degree of congruence” between the two
value sets.
In an enlightening section on “the necessity of enterprise strategy” (1984:
107–110), Freeman writes:
“It is very easy to misinterpret the foregoing analysis as yet another call for social
responsibility or business ethics. While these issues are important in their own right,
enterprise strategy is a different concept. We need to worry about enterprise level
strategy for the simple fact that the corporate survival depends in part on there being
some ‘fit’ between the values of the corporation and its managers, the expectations of
the stakeholders in the firm and the societal issues which will determine the ability of
the firm to sell its products” (1984: 107). In short: “Enterprise strategy is concerned
with the question of ‘consistency’ among the key elements of the firm’s relationship
with its environment” (107).
Freeman accords to ethics and social responsibility the status of intrinsic values,
i.e., they are “important in their own right.” But when a specific firm develops
changes in its strategy based on stakeholder and societal expectations, the question
“whether such changes are socially responsible or morally praiseworthy is an
important question, but it is yet a further question which an analysis of enterprise
strategy does not address” (1984: 107, my emphasis).
The implication is clear: In Freeman’s stakeholder approach, value analysis itself
has an instrumental value, because the actual intrinsic value he proposes is enhanc-
ing economic value. In other words, the initial aim to integrate traditional business
concerns with ethics (1984: 89, 90) is dropped from the agenda of enterprise
strategy, and the inclusion of moral values, worthy of pursuit in themselves, is
merely a strategy to increase shareholders’ economic value.
Freeman is very critical of Friedman and calls the exclusive focus on maximizing
owners’ interests, the “original pathology of the stockholder strategy” (1984:109).
One could, however, translate Freeman’s 1984—approach into Friedman language:
The purpose of business is to increase shareholder (economic) value by a strategic
management of relations with stakeholders.
To his credit, Freeman did in 1984 broadened the values concept by expanding
the accountability of business beyond shareholders to a wider range of stakeholders.
In this way he transcended at least in theory the notion of values beyond narrow
profit-seeking to include normative, aesthetic, and intrinsic values. But when he
claims that enterprise strategies lead “towards a unified purpose that both produces
bottom line results and serves the purposes and values of executives and other
organizational members and stakeholders” the only inference is that “bottom line
results” are in fact the real purpose, and other purposes and values are mere strategic
instruments in its realization.5
5
Freeman later attempted to correct this impression by co-authoring Corporate strategy and the
search for ethics with Gilbert in 1988 (especially Chaps. 3 and 4) and by making a substantive
contribution toward an integration of ethics in business in his article “The politics of stakeholder
What was the impact of the stakeholder approach on management education?

Freeman is rightly acknowledged for his leading intellectual role in introducing
and expanding stakeholder thinking. His 1984 book became the guiding foundation
for a stakeholder approach in management education up to this day with an enduring
influence on research, business practitioners, and ethics educators (Wicks 1996:
90–91). Stakeholder analysis, prioritization and -engagement became part of most
strategy courses in business schools and transcended the narrow focus on share-
holder value. The question, however, is whether this stakeholder approach changes
the underlying purpose of business as set out by Friedman or merely makes profit-
seeking more efficient by including affected role players into enterprise strategy?
2.3 Michael Porter and Mark Kramer: Creating Shared Value
In their hugely influential article, “Creating shared value,” published in Harvard

Business Review (Jan-Feb 2011: 1–17), Michael Porter and Mark Kramer claim to
“reinvent capitalism”. In their view, business has lost its social legitimacy and
experiences diminished levels of trust, aggravated by the 2008 subprime banking
crisis.
Part of the problem is “the old, narrow view of capitalism” (2011: 6) put forward
by Friedman that limits the contribution of business in society to the profits made.
According to this narrow view, the social benefit of a business lies exclusively and
sufficiently in the employment it creates, the wages and taxes it pays, and the
investment it makes. In short: “Conducting business as usual is sufficient social
benefit. A firm is largely a self-contained entity, and social or community issues fall
outside its proper scope” (2011: 6).
This narrow view of capitalism led to a zero-sum relation between business and
society with profits perceived as coming at the expense of society. The response of
the corporate social responsibility movement (Porter and Kramer 2006) has two
weaknesses: It constructs a business’ contribution to addressing a social need as a
necessary expense to improve reputation (2011: 5), and such social involvement
remains at the periphery, and not the core, of the business enterprise itself (2011: 4).
The solution lies in a new approach that redefines the purpose of the corporation
as “creating shared value” (CSV). The key definition of CSV is “. . .creating of
economic value in a way that also create value for society by addressing its needs
and challenges” (2011: 4, original emphasis).
Porter and Kramer are quick to add that CSV is not about social philanthropy
(social value) or personal ethics (moral value) or an approach to share company
profits (redistributive value) (2011: 5). CSV incorporates social needs into the core
theory: Some future directions” published in 1994. See the discussion of his co-authored 2020 book
below.
2.3 Michael Porter and Mark Kramer: Creating Shared Value 21
business function so that a new way to achieve economic success (monetary value)
becomes possible.6
It is clear that “economic value” is constructed in the traditional capitalist way as
“financial success” that flows from an efficiency approach in which profits are
increased relative to the cost incurred. “Social value” is seen as the benefits for
society when social needs, social weaknesses, or social challenges are addressed by
approaching them in a more efficient and productive manner.
Due to their firm ideological belief that “(c)apitalism is an unparalleled vehicle for
meeting human needs, improving efficiency, creating jobs and building wealth”
(2011: 4) the authors make a number of significant claims.
First. As is evident from social entrepreneurial enterprises (2011: 10), the pro-
ductivity methods of private enterprises are superior to solving social problems than
those followed under traditional public policy and spending. In this manner, Porter
and Kramer can frame social problems and the creation of “social value” as in
principle an economic problem and opportunity best solved and exploited by
applying economic value-creating principles.
In this vein “disadvantaged communities” are re-constructed as “new viable
markets” and “poor urban areas” constitute often overlooked “substantial
concentrated purchasing power” (2011: 8). This kind of framing extends to
“immense human needs” that are re-stated as constituting “internal costs,” as
representing new markets, and as opportunities for competitive advantages (2011:
15).
Second. The idea of “creating shared value” is only viewed as “valuable” if the
economic value is realized. This is an important point: “The concept of shared value
can be defined as policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness
of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in
which it operates” (2011: 6). The key idea throughout the article, reinforced time and
again via business examples, is that the “sharing” of value does not happen between
two equal partners with a common goal of creating “value”: If “economic value”
(profit) is not or cannot be realized in the creation of “social value,” the latter drops
from the business agenda.
The so-called new connection between business and society is predicated upon
the financial success of business. The actual aim is not to address societal problems,
but to frame the latter as productivity challenges and economic opportunities, and to
address them only if companies are more successful because they are able “. . .to
serve new needs, gain efficiency, create differentiation, and expand markets” (2011:
7).
6
The article explains that there are three distinct ways in which “companies can create economic
value by creating societal value” (2011: 7), namely, to reconceive markets and products (2011:
7–8), to redefine productivity in the economic value chain (2011: 8–11), and to build thriving
supporting industry clusters at the company’s location (2011: 12–15). My interest is not in the
actual business proposals contained in the three recommendations, but in the conceptualization of
economic and social “value”—plus their interrelation—as it emerges from these proposals.
Despite the impression created by the CSV-concept, the concern that drives the
idea of “creating shared value” is not a societal concern, i.e., creating “social” value,
but a concern for corporate success, i.e., “economic” value which both frames and
measures “social” value in terms of the former’s internal logic of efficiency, produc-
tivity, and market penetration. Behind this lies the dogma of trickle-down econom-
ics, i.e., “if all companies individually pursued shared value. . . society’s overall
interests would be served” (2011: 17).
Toward the end of the article, the authors make clear that “social value” is only a
subsidiary, instrumental idea in service of creating primary “economic value”: “The
opportunity to create economic value through creating societal value will be one of
the most powerful forces driving growth in the global economy” (2011: 15).
In clever rhetoric, they make a brave ethical claim: “Not all profit is equal.” The
pursuit of narrow, short-term profit should be replaced by “the right kind of profits.”
What are these? “Profits involving a social purpose represent a higher form of
capitalism.” The primacy of economic value is, however, clear, because this higher
form of capitalism “. . .will enable society to advance more rapidly while allowing
companies to grow even more. The result is a positive cycle of company and
community prosperity, which leads to profits that endure” (2011: 15, my emphasis).
Despite their criticism of Friedman, Porter and Kramer operates fully within the
same paradigm. “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” is
simply re-stated as “the responsibility of business is to increase its profits through
selective social engagement.”
And their hand was forced. The world which Friedman inhabited in the early
1970s was quite a different place than in 2011. The expectations of businesses to
respond to environmental and social challenges were now much higher.
Porter and Kramer realized two things:
First. Markets are affected by these challenges, and they should therefore be
incorporated into the purpose and strategy of business by turning them into eco-
nomic value propositions.
Second. Business requires a social license to operate and for that trust and
legitimacy are preconditions.
“Creating shared value” therefore serves this double purpose of advancing profits
through addressing social problems, and along the way, earn the trust of society by
claiming a “reinvention of capitalism” which is “imbued with a social purpose.”
Despite the re-phrasing, the proposal firmly entrenches capitalism: “But that (social)
purpose should arise not out of charity, but out of a deeper understanding of
competition and economic value creation. The next evolution in the capitalist
model recognizes new and better ways to develop products, serve markets, and
build productive enterprises” (2011: 17).
Porter and Kramer put forward some proposals of how CSV should impact
education: Public sector students should be exposed to more managerial training
and should develop an entrepreneurial mindset. Business schools should cease
teaching “the narrow view of capitalism” in response to students’ “hunger for a
greater sense of purpose” (2011: 17).
2.4 Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh: Optimizing Collective Value 23
That “purpose” is best served when the curricula are broadened in line with the
preceding exposition of CSV:
Value chains should include the efficient use of resources; marketing should
address “deeper human needs” and include nontraditional customers; the economic
impact of societal factors on business must be studied; and finance courses should
move beyond financial market participants to include how capital markets can
support true value creation in companies (2011: 17).
The sting of these proposals lies in the tail. Porter and Kramer—in typical
business school fashion—say defensively (or defiantly?): “There is nothing soft
about the concept of shared value. These proposed changes in business school
curricula are not qualitative and do not depart from economic value creation.
Instead, they represent the next stage in our understanding of markets, competition,
and business management” (2011: 17, my emphasis).
Despite the impression of “shared” value, the shaping of purpose via business
education is solely constructed in terms of economic value. Despite their claim that
CSV has nothing to do with ethics and shaping of personal values (2011: 5), CSV is
in fact a powerful ethical statement that one’s greater sense of purpose is aimed at
and determined by increasing economic value, predicated upon the key moral
principle of self-interested behavior.
The implication is that Porter and Kramer hold a fundamental instrumentalist
view on “social value” insofar as both its framing and advancing depend on its
contribution to economic value. This is typical of constructing value in a derivative
sense, i.e., something has value for the sake of something else to which it is related.
In this view, solving social problems is not a non-derivative “good in itself,” and is
only “valued” because it contributes to economic value.
From a moral perspective, the implication is quite dire: Those human needs or
social problems that cannot be framed as and used for advancing economic value,
will simply fall off the radar screen of business. This is partially attributed to an
inability to view solutions to social questions as good “in themselves” like assisting
inner-city poor people “for their own sake as human persons,” or to formulate
personal/business purpose via virtues like care, honesty, and responsibility that are
good “in their own right” without reference to some derivative, extrinsic (in this
case, monetary) value.
2.4 Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh: Optimizing

Collective Value
Toward a theory of business by Donaldson and Walsh was published as an article in

late 2015 and addresses the key question about the purpose of business.
They argue that the new-classical theory of the firm which sees individuals as
primarily self-interested economic agents, is for two reasons not adequate to answer
the question of the purpose of business:
First. This theory, inter alia because of its underlying anthropological
assumptions, is incapable to accommodate other more intangible purposes like a
good society, social harmony, or environmental stewardship which go beyond

economic prosperity (2015: 184).
Second. It is a theory of the firm—a specific organization—and it would be “a
fallacy of composition” to transfer the purpose of an individual firm onto business in
general. “We should take great care before we conclude that the purpose of business
is to maximize shareholder return or to delight customers. The composition fallacy
alerts us to the possibility that the attributes of a successful firm may not be the same
as the attributes of successful business in general” (2015: 187). That is why “we need
a theory of business” (2015: 187) in which—as will be evident below—the authors
include a significant normative element for business success.
The authors view moral values as motivators of intentional behavior (see Hradil
2016: 27; Kluckhohn 1951: 395). A positive value is “a reason for acting when the
object of the act is seen as worthy of pursuit” (Donaldson & Walsh 2015: 189).
Furthermore: “When something that is ‘worthy of pursuit’ does not have its own
value derived from a higher-order value, it counts as an intrinsic value.” Such
intrinsic values provide “a final reason for acting” and they possess “an ‘objective’
normative status” (2015: 190).
In their theory of business, Donaldson and Walsh then introduce human dignity
(and later on page 199, the dignity of other species) as “a central and even sacred
intrinsic value to guide Business activity” (2015: 192).
The purpose of business cannot be expressed in normative terms only. The
empirical dimension of a business theory should also give an account of other
values, so that the value monism underlying a neo-classical understanding of the
firm is expanded to “multiple values of differing character” (2015: 191). Here
Donaldson and Walsh develop a notion of “Collective Value” which they describe
as “the agglomeration of the Business Participants’ benefits, net of any aversive
Business outcomes” (2015: 191).
The authors avoid stakeholder language due to its association with firm theory
and rather refer to “Business Participants” as an expansive term including “anyone
who affects or is affected by business” (2015: 188). “Benefits” refer to “the
contributions made by Business to the satisfaction of a Business Participant’s
Values, including his or her Intrinsic Values” (2015: 190). These benefits are not
numerically aggregated but agglomerated in a clustering of different kinds of
benefits.
Collective Value should be “optimized,” expressing an aspiration to bring about
as much value as possible, enabling people to flourish, subject to the normative guide
of dignity: “We invoke a world where collective value is optimised. Where the
dignity of every business participant is recognized and honoured, where every act
and decision in the world of business clear the Dignity Threshold” (2015: 202).
It is important to note that the word “value” in the term “Collective Value” has an
expanded meaning beyond moral or intrinsic value. It includes economic value as
but one of many motivations why people participate in Business and one of the many
ways in which participants benefit from Business.
This theory of Business (with a capital B) therefore addresses two recurring
concerns that emerge from the earlier discussion of values: By subsuming
2.4 Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh: Optimizing Collective Value 25
participants’ varied benefits under a “value” term, it can include a variety of values
not expressly present in economic theory. And by explicitly requiring a dignity
threshold as an integral part of business, it can bridge the business versus intrinsic
value divide that plagues a narrow economic value-conception.
The theory is, therefore, able to merge the satisfaction of an intrinsic value like
dignity with other values while maintaining the normative primacy of the former.
Because an intrinsic value like dignity is inviolable in principle, this theory avoids
the instrumentalization of moral values in service of economic gain so evident in the
examples discussed above.
This theory of Business is at the same time a theory of business success. No
matter which and how many “benefits” are derived from participation in business, if
it does not satisfy the criterion of dignity, such business cannot be deemed
successful.
If accepted (assisted perhaps by a “dignitarian social movement in business”
2015: 201), this theory would require business to forego economic value when faced
with a dignity deficit, as the latter overrides the former in this normative conception
of business success. Donaldson and Walsh start their article with a riddle: “Law is to
justice, as medicine is to health, as business is to. . . .” and leave the answer open
until the end. The purpose of business and the mark of business success is
“optimized collective value” (2015: 202).
What are the implications of this business theory for an understanding of the
individual firm’s purpose? The authors suggest a distinction between the focal
purpose of a firm that addresses traditional economic value creation and the simulta-
neous contextual purpose that expresses the firm’s societal role. The dignity thresh-
old, however, holds for business in general and for particular firms: “Each decision
maker should honor the dignity of those who affect and are affected by that decision
maker’s work” (2015: 200).
It lies outside the scope of Donaldson and Walsh’s article to address implications
for business education. One could, however, infer certain guidelines:
The paradigm of business education as serving the interest of private, and firm-
level economic value maximization must be challenged. This is no easy task as it
requires a critical examination of dominant neo-classical thinking that held and still
hold sway in business schools around the globe, as expressed in, for example, criteria
for influential rankings based for a great proportion on increase in salaries/income
before and after completion of studies (Pitt-Watson & Quigley 2019: 13–14).
Business education should move beyond the value-monism of economics and
engage in a complex values clarification and expansion process which should
include the nature of intrinsic values and their status as normative criteria for
business success. This idea is developed in a bit more detail in 2.6.
2.5 Freeman, Martin, and Parmar: Building a Better Society
The power of and. Responsible business without trade-offs authored by R. Edward

Freeman, Kirsten E. Martin and Bidhan L. Parmar and published in 2020 is one of
the most significant recent management books. It aims to tell “the new story of
business” (2020: 1), that is, a re-telling of the old incomplete narrative that business
is all about money and profits.
This new expansive business model revolves around five key ideas “that need to
be added to the traditional story of business.” The old story was shaped by five old
ideas that now need augmentation. They were a narrow focus on profits, increasing
shareholder value, seeing business separate from society, separating ethics to create a
view of amoral business, and a rational-choice view of human motivation.
The authors argue that “. . .by focusing on the most powerful word in our
language, ‘AND’, we can take giant steps towards making the business world
more responsible. To succeed, all of our businesses need to pay attention to:
(1) Purpose and Profits; (2) Stakeholders and Shareholders; (3) Society and Markets;
(4) Humanity and Economics; and (5) Business and Ethics” (2020: 156).
This summary at the end of book reflects the intentions set out at the beginning,
where the same pairs relate to the phrase “as well as.” Phrases inserted before “as
well as” are the new additions to the old business story, e.g., “the importance of
purpose, values, and ethics (new story) as well as profits (old story)”; value creation
for stakeholders (new story) as well as shareholders (old story), and so forth (2020:
3–4).
By choosing for this “additive” model and not for an integrative one, the
authors—probably against their intentions—have done their overall argument a
great disservice: Instead of replacing the old story with a new one, the old story is
in fact reinforced by placing it in addition to (“as well as” and “and”) key ideas of the
new story. The title of the book, therefore, stands in direct contradiction to the
intentions of the book (without explaining the claim that “and” is the most powerful
word in the English language, except if meant metaphorically).
A few of the unfortunate “additive” formulations are as follows:
Instead of saying that social and environmental impact via investing “can be
achieved alongside profitable economic activity” (2020: 13, my emphasis, additive
formulation), one should rather say that profitable investment is achieved by embed-
ding social and environmental considerations into investment models (integrative
formulation). Instead of saying that business should “focus on both purpose and
profits” (2020: 19, my emphases, additive), one should rather say that profits are
achieved by integrating purpose into company culture (integrative). Instead of
saying that ethics is “as important as” profits (2020: 18, additive), one should rather
say that profits may and usually do result from embedding ethics in business
(integrative).
The most powerful word is not “and,” but “through.”
The authors do address the question of purpose in business and the whole of
Chapter 3 is devoted to the topic. They argue strongly for the fact that purpose-
2.5 Freeman, Martin, and Parmar: Building a Better Society 27
driven business is better than those who make profits the only or dominant purpose
of their existence.
The more interesting questions are, however, whether they would define what
“purpose” exactly is and consequently say what that purpose for business should in
fact be?
The statement that “A core idea of purpose is the simple notion of having a goal”
(2020: 56) is not very helpful as there is—even in ordinary language—a huge
qualitative difference between a purpose and a goal. The authors move closer by
implying that purpose is derived from the question: “Why does this business exist?”
And from the business examples they cite, it is clear that in their view only those
answers that transcend a narrow financial focus will qualify as “purpose-“statements.
Purpose must express that “we want to be part of something bigger than ourselves”
(2020: 59 and 143) and that “humans need meaning” (2020: 61).
The authors themselves, however, do not keep to this notion. When an insurance
company states that its purpose is “providing long-term financial security for its
policyholders” (2020: 142), it expresses a strictly financial focus in line with the old
business story (Adding “long-term” changes nothing). This so-called “purpose” does
not fit the definition set by the authors themselves in that it retains a narrow financial
focus and clearly does not inspire an idea “bigger than ourselves.” The authors,
nevertheless, quote and endorse this statement as a good example of “purpose-
driven” business. This is too unprecise and unconvincing, and results from the
additive thinking that underlies their arguments.
There are better examples in the book also:
When Unilever says that its purpose is “to make sustainable living commonplace”
(2020: 149), it clearly transcends the narrow boundaries of the business, goes
beyond profit-seeking as goal in itself, and shapes its entire operation from procure-
ment to products developed with sustainable practices in mind.
But let us step up and ask: What actually should the purpose of business in
general be? The authors are not explicit, but by inference one could arrive at the
following conclusion: The purpose of business is to make our lives better (2020:
145) or—in broader terms—to build a better society (2020: 150) by adding purpose
to profit (This would—in terms of the authors own arguments—include environ-
mental, nonhuman considerations as well).
The weakness of “making society better” as a purpose for business is at least
twofold:
It is, firstly, too general to explain the specific contribution that business makes in
distinction to, for example, education, health, religion, or politics. Everyone could
say they aim to improve peoples’ lives, and thus render the statement vacuous. And
secondly, it does not explain how we will recognize that a society is “better,” or our
lives are “improved.”
In short: The power of and—despite its bold intention to tell the new story of
business—in fact confirms the old story. The authors say this clearly: The old story is
not wrong; it simply needs to be augmented and completed by additional elements
like stakeholders and ethics to “soften” the rather harsh view that increasing profits
for shareholders is the only responsibility of business.

This approach would lead to a management education curriculum in which the
traditional disciplines required to maximize profits would be augmented with
courses in ethics, purpose, human motivation, and society. The “new story” of
business is taught in an additive manner on the assumption that profits will exactly
be enhanced once the magical “and” kicks in. From an ethics and moral formation
perspective, this is perhaps more confusing than a straightforward Friedman
approach where at least you know what you get.
If this seems like an unfair inference from the book, there is one simple question:
Is it possible to find an example or case study in the book of a CEO who aimed to
create purpose or follow ethics or do societal good knowing that profits would in fact
decrease? Unless I missed one, there is none. That would be a bridge too far because
intrinsic values beyond economics do not actually count. They are only added
afterward.
2.6 What Value Does Management Education Create?
This essay undertook a focused journey through a small selection of key texts
analyzing the meaning of “value” in business as it emerges in relation to the question
about the purpose of business. Some implications were derived from each case
study. The five examples selected were maximizing shareholder value (Friedman),
creating shared business and social value (Porter and Kramer), creating, trading, and
sustaining stakeholder value (Freeman), optimizing collective value (Donaldson and
Walsh), and making society better (Freeman, Martin and Parmar).
To conclude this chapter and answer the question in the heading, two results of
the literature case studies are highlighted: (2.6.1) the dogged persistence of “value”
as monetary value despite efforts to the contrary and (2.6.2) the complexity of and
inability to deal with intrinsic values. This is followed by (2.6.3) my own attempt at
responding to the question about the purpose of business.
2.6.1 The Persistence of “Value” as Monetary Value
The first three examples operate squarely within a neo-classical capitalist framework
and the fifth example—in an ambiguous manner—confirms this framework with its
“augmentation” theses. A more nuanced view emerges from Donaldson and Walsh
who set forward a theory of business that includes multiple values—including
monetary ones—which are subject to an intrinsic value (in their case: human dignity)
as normative threshold for business success.
This trajectory demonstrates that education in business schools was (and still is?)
fundamentally shaped by advancing the private good, maximizing shareholder
returns, and defining personal and organizational purpose in maximizing economic
value. When the expectations of society from business and business schools
2.6 What Value Does Management Education Create? 29
increased to include “additional” forms of value-creation like good corporate citi-

zenship and adding societal value, we saw the responses:
Friedman simply denied the legitimacy of the moral claim made on business by
matters like “social responsibility.” While maintaining the underlying neo-classical
assumptions, Porter and Kramer address these legitimate external concerns by
framing them from the perspective of economic value advancement and by
providing solutions drawn from the traditional strengths of business-like efficiency
and market penetration. The influential stakeholder theory by Freeman in its early
form includes a variety of values-creation as perceived by different stakeholders, but
is still locked into economic value as determining, actual goal. The “and”- type
thinking of the last example (Freeman et al.) seems to bring a change in paradigm,
and in some respects do successfully challenge assumptions of homo economicus,
but in a contradictory manner it in fact confirms the old story of business.
Business education has never been value neutral. It is philosophically unsound to
suggest that one can separate business and business education from their underlying
(implicit) values as is claimed in the so-called “separation thesis” (Wicks 1996:
89–116; Freeman et al. 2010: 222). The choice for the priority of monetary value as
purpose for business and management education is based on specific views about the
human person, motivations, and a good society. These are in themselves significant
moral choices already. The assumptions underlying such choices must be questioned
in and of themselves and not be accepted as a “given” and then afterward
“moralised” by “applying” ethical thinking to them.
Let us not be misled by compulsory courses in ethics or value-statements about
“care for society.” It may sound and look good, but the net effect is minimal because
the paradigm has not changed.
Business schools operating in the monistic monetary value framework therefore
deal a double blow to a richer values-orientation: Not only is the curriculum built
around competencies for profit creation and private good advancement, the institu-
tional setting in which education and socialization takes place is itself a contributing
factor to a diminished sense of moral duty.
And we have seen the often disastrous consequences for financial markets,
international cooperation, and the natural environment.
2.6.2 The Challenge to Deal with Intrinsic Values
As argued above, the litmus test for the values-debate lies in how intrinsic values—
once and if recognized—are dealt with. The key question is as follows: Is it thought
both possible and desirable to forego or decrease monetary value-maximization not
merely for realizing such value as a postponed self-interest or as part of a public
relation exercise, but for the sake of realizing an intrinsic value for the latter’s own
sake?
Friedman as well as Porter and Kramer would not accept this possibility because
for them the purpose of business is increasing profits in a “direct” manner or via the
inclusion of social value creation. The early Freeman acknowledges the importance
of intrinsic values, but deal with them in an ambiguous way: On the one hand, they
are included in stakeholder management, but in an instrumental way which subject
their normative function to successful stakeholder negotiations. On the other hand,
he simply states that normative questions lie outside the scope of stakeholder
management. The fifth example by Freeman et al. adds good ideas like purpose,
ethics, and society to the traditional narrow profit motive, but none of these additions
carry the weight of intrinsic values that—when required—would supersede mone-
tary value.
The strength of Donaldson and Walsh’s proposal is that they include intrinsic
values as part of the business participants’ benefits and as normative criterion for
business success. In their theory—the only one amongst the literature examples—it
is both possible and desirable to realize human dignity7 (intrinsic value) at a financial
cost (instrumental value).
Intrinsic values must be recognized for what they are, namely goods that should
be pursued irrespective of the self-interest or monetary consequences. If not, “adding
economic value” as euphemism for “making money” will always hold sway where
difficult decisions regarding the protection of human or environmental rights conflict
with narrow profit-seeking.8
2.6.3 What Is the Purpose of Business? A Proposal
A reconceptualizing of the purpose of business and the values imparted via manage-
ment education remain an unfinished project. My own provisional proposal is as
follows:
The purpose of business is to optimize collective value in a responsible manner
subject to intrinsic value constraints.
“Optimizing collective value” implies, firstly, that management educators unlearn
profit maximization as the sole or isolated purpose of business education. There can
be no question about the necessity and legitimacy of monetary value without which
private business and business schools cannot function. The challenge is to keep a
constellation of embedded “values” beyond monetary value in mind in the design of
the curriculum and conceptualizing of graduate competencies, for example: cogni-
tive value, aesthetic value, historical value, emotional value, social value, and moral
(including intrinsic) value.
7
One could argue that human dignity should be accompanied by ecological integrity to overcome
the anthropocentric bias discussed in Chapter 7. But the point here is the principle of accepting an
intrinsic value with normative force.
8
How do you choose between building a road that will cut transport costs and protecting a rare
indigenous plant species or the gravesites of an indigenous people? How do you choose between
more efficient digitization and the continued employment of low-skilled workers on whom others
are utterly dependent for their livelihood? These need not be zero-sum decisions, but clearly a
utilitarian cost-benefit analysis on narrow financial grounds is sometimes inadequate.
Bibliography 31
It secondly implies that creating “collective” value requires an understanding of

the complex array of sometimes conflicting values pursued by different participants
in business and actors in society. Here the valuable lessons of stakeholder analysis
apply. The aim must be to relearn graduates the skill to adjudicate and optimize value
with a view to business, society, and the environment which make up the “collec-
tive” context in which business operates.
“In a responsible manner” has at least three connotations:
First. It would require management educators to create space for graduates to
hone the leadership qualities of good character: “Responsible” here has the connota-
tion of “trustworthiness,” a rare trait in an in increasingly post-trust global society.
Second. “Responsible” also refer to the process of transparent and well-founded
decisions, taken in line with the best corporate governance principles of both process
and due care. There is a close link to accountability. This serves as an antidote to
recurring corporate scandals that plague business and its reputation in society.
Third. “Responsible” also means “taking charge of” and graduates should be
encouraged to orient themselves toward, for example, global principles for respon-
sible management by “taking charge of” their own businesses with due recognition
of responsibilities toward society and the environment.9
“Subject to intrinsic value constraints” sets up the most difficult task for manage-
ment educators. This would require a clear distinction between instrumental and
intrinsic values; a proposal of which intrinsic values are to be upheld; and then to
challenge business graduates to accept that there will be times when monetary/
financial value might be reduced or forgone because of the constraints that the
realization of intrinsic values put on business operations.
The reality, many would argue, is that the latter choice will rarely, if ever, be
made. The powers of the profit-paradigm under which business managers and CEOs
operate—and which are reinforced by business schools—will not allow a conscious
decrease in monetary value. It is simply irrational (with “rationality” understood as
self-interest advancement).
However, the mindset to even think about it, is not a bad beginning.
Bibliography
Donaldson, T., & Walsh, J. P. (2015). Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 35, 181–207.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 4, 409–422.
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Prentice Hall.
9
Note the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education developed in 2007 already. Under
the principle of “values” the commitment reads: “We will incorporate into our academic activities,
curricula, and organisational practices the values of global social responsibility as portrayed in
international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact.”
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Palmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
theory. The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Martin, K. E., & Parmar, B. L. (2020). The power of and. Responsible business
without trade-offs. Columbia University Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1970 September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.
The New York Times,, 1–8. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-
friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibiity-of-business-is-to.html
Kluckhorn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientation in the theory of action. An exploration in
definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of
action (pp. 388–433). Harvard University Press.
Larson, R. (2018). Capitalism vs. freedom. Zero Books.
Naudé, P. (2020). A conceptual analysis of “value” in select business literature and its implications
for ethical education. In J. von Hagen, M. Welker, J. Witte, & S. Pickard (Eds.), The impact of
economics on character formation, ethical education, and the communication of values in late
modern pluralistic societies (pp. 247–262). Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Patel, R. (2009). The value of nothing. How to reshape market society and redefine democracy.
Portobello.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006, December). Strategy and society: The link between
competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 1–13.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February). Creating shared value. Harvard
Business Review. 1–17.
Hradil, S. (2016). Der Wert von Werten: Wozu sind sie gut and wie entstehen sie? In R. Rodenstock
& N. Sevsay-Tegethoff (Eds.), Werte—und was sie uns wert sind. Eine interdisziplinäre
Anthologie (pp. 20–36). Roman Herzog Institut.
White, T. T. (1991). Business ethics. A philosophical reader. Macmillan.
Wicks, A. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis? The need for a reconsideration of business and
society research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89–118.
World Economic Forum. (2016). Values and the fourth industrial revolution. Connecting the dots
between value, values, profit and purpose. WEF.
Zimmerman, M. J. (2014). Intrinsic versus extrinsic value. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
Accessed Aug 14, 2018, from https://wwwplato.stanford.edu/entries/value-instrinsic-extrinsic.
asp
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value Accessed 4 August 2018.
www.businessdictionary.com/defintion/value.html Accessed 4 August 2018.
Good: What “Good” do we Create?
3
Looking back, it was an open and frank discussion. A staunch supporter of our
business school asked to see me over a cup of coffee. I had been in the Director’s
role for about 3 years.
“Piet”, he said, “looking in from the outside I can see where you are going. I also
understand this direction against your own background.”
He kept silent for a moment as to prepare for an important statement: “But the
focus on ethics, sustainability and public-social involvement is making the business
school soft.”
“What do you mean?”, I asked.
“You have good intentions. But you are alienating the market. That is not why
students pay a hell of a lot of money to come and study here.”
He leant forward: “The reality where I sit on pension funds boards is different.
We work with the funds of vulnerable older people in a high inflation environment.
Our task is to ensure the maximum return for them, subject to appropriate risk and
medium-term outlooks.”
“Do you not give your clients options to put their money into responsible
investments?”, I asked.
“We do include a statement of sustainability in our annual reports—normally at
the back end. But that is not what people look at to judge us. There is only one
question: ‘By how much did you beat inflation over the last year?’ Everything else is
a footnote.”
***
I took the discussion seriously, though I differ on key issues. I had to again apply
my mind as to how business schools can indeed be “a force for the good” without
becoming unattractive to potential students who seek to maximize their personal
benefits (if that is indeed the case). Addressing the issue of “good”—creation might
at the same time assist in stemming the criticism that business schools are but
ideological slaves to future corporate employers, our actual masters. It might also

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_3
34 3 Good: What “Good” do we Create?
help to orientate us in defining an appropriate institutional role for business schools

in relation to business as well as broader society.
To frame the discussion of “good” (collective, general) or “goods” (specifics), I
take my cue from American political philosopher, John Rawls.1 He proposed that
rational people, if they do not in advance know their position in society,2 would
prefer to have more rather than less “primary goods” which include basic rights and
liberties, fair opportunity, as well as income and wealth. I tweaked his ideas into the
four good categories below as a proposal for what business schools should encour-
age and produce: private good, public good, common good, and—my own sugges-
tion—transcendent good.3
This will answer the question of the chapter: What “good” do we create in
business schools?
3.1 Private Good
The traditional definition of a private good is one where a producer enjoys all derived
benefits and bears the associated cost. It is taken for granted that the attraction of
management education lies in enhancement of the potential or actual private good of
participants.
Whether business schools are publicly or privately owned, students enroll and
then work hard because they believe that successful completion of their studies will
lead to financial gain, upward mobility, and social recognition. The private benefits
are therefore monetary, social, and psychological. The same applies in a more direct
sense to participate in executive education.
This is not to claim that private gains are only social/financial nor that this is the
sole motivation for business school enrolments. Some participants in fact enroll in a
business school to escape the high-pressure corporate world and seek to scale down
or transition to something else with the skills acquired.
Seeking and enhancing private gain is, however, a legitimate and important factor
for student participation in management education, and is the default answer to the
question: What good do we produce?
1
A confession is that I did my Master’s in Philosophy on the relation between Rawls and the
contract theory of Immanuel Kant. See Rawls (1971) and my article Naudé (2007) on this topic in
relation to business ethics.
2
Rawls speaks about the hypothetical “original position” where decision about society is taken
“behind a veil of ignorance.” I will not dwell on the associated academic debates in this regard.
3
The theological background lies with the view in especially the Wisdom literature of private good
as the result of hard work and Divine blessing, but always guided by the dictum that “you are
blessed to be a blessing to others” (social and public good). These goods are presented within the
horizon of hope (transcendent good) which is more a Divine gift than a human achievement. It is
therefore possible “to hope against hope.”
3.1 Private Good 35
3.1.1 Rankings?
That is why business schools invest significantly in graduate guidance and place-
ment services and market how quickly their (unemployed or full-time) graduates get
a job or start a business after graduation. Business schools participating in the FT
rankings4 must give serious attention to the increased income before and after
graduation as this comprises around 40% of the scoring. In the private good
framework, a “good” business school is one where you get a better job quickly
with a significant rise in personal income.
I was delighted to see ranking fatigue creep in, and top schools withdrew in 2020
from the MBA FT rankings. Perhaps one of the best by-products of the Coronavirus
is that business schools see we do not need these one-size-fits-all instruments that are
for us resource-intensive but bring huge benefits to the rating agencies. When I
challenged a rating agency at a conference to make carbon footprint reduction and
generating green energy 20% of the next ranking with 10% allocated for access to
minorities,5 the response was about the need for the rankings to maintain “an
unbiased, pure quantifiable approach.” This is missing the point that what you
measure, is what will steer the system, and that there are indeed more pressing
matters that can be quantified. The audience of deans was happy. But because no one
had the guts in the past to pull out, the system has been kept afloat by our participa-
tion, supported in some cases by performance objectives for a dean set by Advisory
Boards that feed on competition fetish.
Let us remind ourselves: Fetishism is the worship of an inanimate object for its
supposed magical powers. Rankings?
On the question of a (false) choice between accreditation and ranking, an aca-
demic should always choose the former. The reasons are straightforward:
Peer review is an accepted and proven form of quality assurance. It includes
verifiable quantitative data (finance, student numbers, research outputs, faculty
sufficiency, and more) that are combined with qualitative material to form a much
richer narrative or “picture” of a business school. It allows for mission-specific and
context-sensitive interpretation of accreditation standards. It, therefore, strikes a
good balance between “universal standards” and “local” application, avoiding the
homogenizing trap of rankings. And for whole-school accreditations (for example,
AACSB, EQUIS, AABS, and CEEMAN), the path toward continued improvement
is set by a combination of local management knowledge with insightful peer
observations. Over time it thus constitutes a virtuous cycle.
The private good purpose of management education is aligned to Milton
Friedman’s well-known view that the one and only responsibility of business is to
increase shareholder value by making as much money as possible, subject to the
rules of society like provisions of the law and ethical custom (Friedman, 1971).
4
See the discussion by Pitt-Watson & Quigley, (2019). There are now fierce discussions around
rankings and the outcomes are yet uncertain.
5
See chap. 6 on equality of access.
Although much criticism has rightly been directed at this view (excessive individu-
alism, lack of stakeholder insight, denying corporations any moral function), the
underlying goal of increasing monetary value remains a vital objective of any private
business.6 Without profits, nothing else like stakeholder value, social responsibility,
protecting human dignity, or creating shared value, is possible.
The enhancement of private goods is a natural focus for business schools. We are
literally “schools of business” and, unlike Schools of Public Administration, work
closely for and predominantly with the private sector.
3.1.2 The Complex Relation between Business Schools

and Business
Business Schools and business nevertheless stand in a complex relationship which

should be marked by both closeness and distance.
We must take seriously the critique that business schools are beholden to big
corporates and consulting firms and simply reinforce the factors that brought capi-
talism into crisis. The list is long: excessive executive remuneration, data
monopolies, weak oversight, shadow deals in developing countries, slow response
to climate change, and taking taxpayers and governments for bailout rides because of
their power.
The closest link between the “needs of business” and management education is in
customized executive education. In this case, the needs of a specific company are
paramount and determine the content of what is presented. The business school
follows the lead of business in providing the best immediate solution to management
challenges.
In open enrollment courses, the relationship between business and management
education is still very close, but by its very nature more generic than custom-made
solutions for a specific business at a specific point in time. Executive Education is
consequently probably the most direct form of private good creation in a business
school context, and that mostly determines the financial sustainability of the school
itself. (The dramatic effect of the COVID-19 lockdowns on executive education
activities is one of the underestimated factors because the information is normally
held privately. My informal network puts the income loss between 10% and 60% for
the 2020 financial year).
The demand that management education in its more formal guise (e.g., degree
programs) should address “current business needs” and make graduates “work-
ready” is, however, a misplaced expectation. The criticism that business schools
are “behind the times” and “irrelevant” should also be taken with a pinch of salt.
It is, firstly, impossible for a business school to address the diverse array of
“needs” across the multiple industries—banking, engineering, luxury goods, sport
management, AI—represented in our classes or required by a multiplicity of future
6
In the chapter on “purpose,” this is discussed in more detail.
3.2 Social Good 37
employers. Formal curricula are by their very nature “generic” so that application
afterward is possible in pluralist environments. That is exactly the strength of an
academic program.
It is, secondly, also short-sighted for formal management education to focus on
“what business wants today.” It is virtually impossible in a formal university setup to
change curricula quickly. And what is presently needed, will in all probability be
partially or fully outdated by the time of graduation. The nature of work has already
changed significantly, and the idea of a job-for-life is outdated, even in the
professions.
Where business schools are part of universities and by definition academic
institutions, they—thirdly—also serve as custodians of knowledge traditions. In
other words, they have an important orientation to the past as well. Management
theories and case studies are not derived from current business needs. These “past”
pieces of information are exactly selected so that current and future managers learn
from the good decisions and mistakes of the past.
It is, fourthly, important for business schools to retain a healthy critical distance
from business. We should not only respond to business needs. We should also shape
those needs. We are in the thinking business. This requires us to ask tough questions
about externalities and circular economies, tech monopolies and data privacy,
market societies, and consumerism, views of the human person embedded in
Homo Economicus, income inequality, governance, and transparency, and
many more.
One could conclude that—apart from basic technical skills and generic
competencies—the most important private good created by ME is the ability to
learn and interpret information for adaptation in any new situation. We educate our
students to learn. That makes them agile, “work-ready,” and future proof. This
“learning to learn” is the best basis for their medium and long-term private good
enhancement.
But it would be a serious flaw, and a shirking of responsibility, if business schools
would only produce or create private good. There is more.
3.2 Social Good
The traditional view on public or social goods are services provided by the state for
the use of all, funded by taxation, and providing non-rival public benefits. What
comes to mind are examples like primary school education, basic health care,
national parks, and so forth.
The social good that business schools create is not of this kind. They are goods
that constitute and strengthen the social ecosystem for society to function optimally
and in which business as an integral part of society can in turn flourish.
Social good also transcends what we normally refer to as “social impact” and
“creating shared value”:
“Social impact” of research, teaching, and executive education has become an
important criterion for business school accreditation bodies. This criterion invites
business schools to use their resources to make a positive impact on society beyond
business schools’ own boundaries as it fits their specific context. Social impact
activities are important but are transcended by the social good proposal here.
Creating social good does not refer primarily to actions undertaken by business
schools for the sake of external communities but describes a commitment to the
conditions required for (what John Rawls called) “well-ordered societies” in which
business can operate well.
Educating for the social good should also be distinguished from what Porter and
Kramer proposed under “creating shared value” (Porter & Kramer, 2011). I repeat in
short what was argued in the chap. 3 on purpose:
Porter and Kramer argue for a new kind of capitalism where the efficiencies of
market-thinking are applied to solve social problems by turning those problems into
business opportunities. In this vein “disadvantaged communities” are re-constructed
as “new viable markets” and “poor urban areas” constitute often overlooked “sub-
stantial concentrated purchasing power” (2011: 8).
Contrary to first impressions, the concern that drives the idea of “creating shared
value” is not a societal concern, i.e., creating “social” value, but a concern for
corporate success, i.e., “economic” value which both frames and measures “social”
value in terms of the former’s internal logic of efficiency, productivity, and market
penetration.
Despite their direct criticism of Friedman, Porter and Kramer operate fully within
the same paradigm. “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” is
simply restated as “the responsibility of business is to increase its profits through
selective social engagement,” and therefore rather fits into the “private good”
category.
In our current situation, a cluster of three social goods is of particular importance:
democracy, ethics or character, and multilateralism.
3.2.1 Educating for Democracy
If it is true that business does better and individuals flourish more in societies
governed by the rule of law, contract certainty, freedom to pursue personal goals,
accountable and transparent government, as well as freedom of expression and
association, then business schools have a role to play in what one may broadly call
“education for democracy.”
This does not imply a direct link between capitalism and freedom (as assumed
and argued for by Milton Friedman)7 as if markets could not also function well under
full or partial state control (like in China or Sweden). Nor is education for democracy
in a business school context an endorsement of a narrow view of freedom associated
with “consumer choice” or opening markets by freeing them from constricting rules.
7
See Friedman, (1962). Read the fierce critique of this view by Larson, (2018).
3.2 Social Good 39
The basis for this call is the intrinsic value of flourishing human persons and civil
society under the kinds of freedoms found in democracies in the broader sense of the
word. Rawls is helpful here. He explains basic equal liberties as follows: political
liberty (the right to vote and hold public office) and freedom of speech and assembly;
liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person which includes
freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment
(integrity of the person); the right to hold personal property; and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law (Rawls,
1971:60).
What is crucial for the “trade-off” realities faced by business schools and
businesses, is that Rawls’ proposed principles of justice put basic equal liberties
first; equal opportunity second; and distribution of goods in an egalitarian way
according to the difference principle third. The key point is: Liberties may not be
sacrificed or traded for greater social advantages (opportunity principle) or greater
economic advantages (distributive principle). This indeed sets a very high bar for
individual and institutional action.
The broadly libertarian perspective promoted here is not shared by all, but I still
hold onto the conviction that freedom is better for individuals and societies than
restrictions on those freedoms. I have lived through a transition from one-party
oppression (where I was on the privileged side) to a constitutional democracy
governed by the rule of law. This does not mean moonshine and roses, but the
difference in human freedoms and dignity is remarkable, especially because the
latter should be held as intrinsic values.
In the context of business schools, “education for democracy” has at least three
dimensions:
Business schools should embody, firstly, democratic values in their own institu-
tional way of being and doing. The way we, for example, actively deal with “social
inclusion” in our student and staff recruitment to withstand bias based on disability,
gender orientation, race, religion, political affiliation, and class, signals our adher-
ence to respect for individuals for their own sake. Active participation by students,
alumni, and business partners in school affairs is, for example, a strong signal for
participatory decision-making.
Secondly, the curricula should include overt attention to topics like business and
peace-building, business and human rights, challenges to global business operating
in different legal-political contexts like China, Singapore, the EU, and Nigeria.
And thirdly, business schools as “voices for democracy” should themselves
actively participate and influence public discourse to foster and embed democratic
values and accountability. We who live in young and fragile democracies understand
this, I think, better than colleagues in mature democracies.
In a seminar for Deans presented by the Frankfurt School of Finance, I asked the
rhetorical question of my fellow Deans: “How many of you wake up in the morning
and realize that defending democracy is part of your task today?” The question does
not make sense if democracy and freedoms are assumptions of daily life.
Business people are under normal circumstances not interested in sociopolitical

questions. They prefer stability above justice. They may support totalitarianism as
long as their own interests are served.
In some contexts, creation of the democratic social good will be very difficult,
exactly because of the absence of basic freedoms. This might require long-term
strategies of quiet diplomacy and changing systems from within, augmented by
pressure from outside.
A colleague of mine was recently asked to teach in China. They requested a copy
of the textbook for the course in advance. The book was returned to the professor
with sections covered in black. In South Africa, we fought very hard to get academic
freedom as a distinct right included in the constitution (at the last moment of the
1994 constitutional negotiations!).
The stark choice is: Do we shun China8 (or any system that suppresses informa-
tion) and stand on our right to freedom of expression (asking the professor to stay at
home) or do we engage with China in the hope that this will over time lead to greater
freedom (asking the professor to engage in silent diplomacy?) The same ambiguity
faces companies like Google and others operating in countries with huge market
potential but limited human rights and freedoms.
Democracy (like capitalism) itself is a complex term with different legitimate
expressions beyond Westminster style government. Some would even argue that a
one-party state can be democratic. But unless a business school is committed to a
different ideology of say, authoritarian rule with central control and limited freedom
of expression, association, and movement, the task for enhancing and protecting
democracy remains.
3.2.2 Educating for Character
As a professor of ethics since the mid-1990s, I saw and participated in the gradual
acceptance of ethics as a serious discipline worthy of curricular respect. Academics
in mainstream subjects were normally quite surprised at the fact that ethics in its
Western, reflective form goes back at least 4 centuries BC. I remember the days
when ethics and governance were viewed as “soft” and “marginal” management
issues, tucked away in an elective module taught by a weird-talking philosopher to
those “interested in morality.”
8
As China’s economic, cultural, and military influence increase, they have become much more
assertive in defending the Chinese system of government. Some colleagues from China firmly
believe in central control and limited freedom for the sake of order and economic advancement.
This is exactly the trade-off that a libertarian view finds unacceptable. The abuse of the perceived
“state-led economic success” in China by some African states is to be lamented. A key challenge
which China faces in the twenty-first century is the question whether complete political control can
continue to coexist with increasing economic freedoms. The evidence we have from history is that
politics normally wins the short-term battle, but is slowly hollowed out by economics and the
yearning for personal and collective liberties.
3.2 Social Good 41
The electives slowly made their way into compulsory core curricula. And in rare
cases, the most mature form of ethics education has been achieved as a transversal
perspective embedded across the whole curriculum.
When I submitted an article on ethics education in Accounting to the prestigious
South African Journal of Accounting, the editor at first wrote back to say they do not
publish on these kinds of topics. With some persistence (and good references), it was
indeed published, and I subsequently became actively involved in redesigning the
curriculum for chartered accountants to explicate key values like objectivity, due
diligence, and public trust.
Today ethics—and business ethics in particular—is a much more mature disci-
pline, acknowledged for its qualitative (normative) and quantitative (descriptive)
rigor in making a vital contribution to management education.9 And it is indeed a joy
to interact with our students:
Can I trust my conscience as a reliable guide in resolving business dilemmas?
This question, put to an MBA class on ethical decision-making, made for interesting
discussion.
“We are born with a moral sensitivity,” says Mary. “I am a Catholic who believes
in the idea of natural law. The law of God is written on every human’s heart, and we
simply have to recognise and follow that.”
“I don’t buy these religious sentiments,” says Alexander. “Evolutionary biology
tells us that moral development is closely related to the size of the brain. At a tipping
point in our evolution as a species, we gained the capacity for morality. It is written
in our genes, and we should follow that.”
“No,” says Sipho, “we are born with no conscience. The pages of our moral book
is empty. They are being written through social interaction. So, we take over the
values of the society in which we grow up and call that conscience.”
Interesting and illuminating.
There are, however, a few issues that require our attention if we wish to create
ethics as a public good and not merely as an academic good:
The first and most obvious point is that business schools should themselves be
places governed according to the highest standards of professionalism. No matter the
status as private or public school, we need to demonstrate transparent management
and be ourselves responsible corporate citizens in society. Those of us who live in
societies unfortunately marked by high levels of corruption and even—like in
South Africa—state- and corporate capture, understand the importance of the seem-
ingly insignificant fact that business schools are exemplars of responsible and
corrupt-free management.
9
There are now hundreds of books and case studies on the market. The South African authored
Business Ethics by colleagues Deon Rossouw and Van Vuuren (2017) is a good orientation in the
field. For one of the most recent textbooks from an economically informed perspective, see Lütge
and Uhl (2021). The Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business and Society
Review and the more locally focused African Journal for Business Ethics are excellent sources of
research in the field. The Journal of Business Ethics Education—as the title suggests—is a helpful
guide on curriculum matters.
We do not reserve special places for politically powerful people or their children.
We do not appoint staff based on familial or political affiliation. We do not enter into
contracts other than via a public tender process. We keep the letter and spirit of the
law and observe the rules of accounting meticulously. (These things may sound
nothing special. In a corrupted culture, they are really important).
Second. The aim of teaching ethics in the formal curriculum (either as part of the
core modules or embedded across the curriculum) must be bold: We should deliber-
ately aim at forming business leaders with sound values and character and the ability
to not only “administer business,” but also “administer fairness” (Tufano, 2020: 3).
I do understand the theoretical complexity and ambiguities of words like
“values,” “morality,” and “character” as well as the superficial attraction of ethical
relativism. There is, nevertheless, enough empirical evidence and psycho-
philosophical arguments that even adult people can reflect on and over time change
the way they respond to moral challenges.
Moral formation, value adaptation, and character development are dynamic
processes. The time students spend at a business school opens a window of oppor-
tunity to overtly stimulate value reflection-and-application by individuals in morally
diverse groups, assisting them to become people of character and leaders with a clear
value orientation.
We must therefore steer beyond teaching codes of conduct (rules-based ethics)
and ethical risk management (utilitarian ethics) and focus specifically on personal
moral formation (virtue ethics). The latter could include values-based leadership and
extend to building of ethically resilient organizations, and a discernment of shared
global questions of an ethical nature like, for example, those expressed in the SDG’s.
Business schools contribute to the ethical good via their graduates. This does not
mean that business schools control the future behavior and decisions of their
graduates. It, therefore, does not make sense to blame a business school if one of
its alumni—CEOs engages in fraud or corruption. Or to say that the banking crisis of
2008 has its origin in the type of MBA’s we produce.
However, management education does contribute to the values framework and
spirit in which business is conducted. And if we do not take our task to “educate for
character” seriously, we are indeed complicit in naïve views like (for example) that
the market is a morally neutral mechanism to allocate resources; that if everyone
pursues her self-interest, all will benefit; and that ethics and business are best kept
apart as proposed by the so-called “separation thesis” (Wicks, 1996).
Third. We live in a global situation infested with fake news and described as a
post-trust and even post-truth society. Business Schools have a key responsibility in
producing ethical good by active participation in and shaping public discourse as
well as public policy. As academics, we are truth-seeking researchers. Without an
3.2 Social Good 43
honest search for truth (exactly through falsification processes, as Karl Popper10 has
taught us), and without scientific trust in published results, the foundations of our
work will collapse.
The same holds for other societal spheres like politics, policy, and business. Our
voice of reason is a societal antidote to half-truths, over-simplifications, and popu-
listic solutions. We should therefore at times be willing to leave the safe space of
pure academic debate and raise our voice via case studies, position papers, partici-
pation in policy making, and in general (social) media platforms. We simply must
take ourselves and our image as academics less seriously.
Business school professors have an intellectual duty to profess their knowledge in
public.
At the height of alleged state corruption under former South African president,
Jacob Zuma, a call went out from civil society structures that people should on a
specific day gather at 12 h00 outside their workplaces and homes to protest at the
dismal state of affairs (or dismal affairs of the state). As a rather traditional academic,
I am not of the marching type. But I judged it important to afford staff an opportunity
to participate. An email invitation was sent out. I made a poster in my office and
asked my personal assistant, Jeanne Kuhn, if she would join “so that we are at least
two.”
To my amazement, about 80 people turned up. We marched down to the highway
below the business school and back. I asked a support staff colleague if this
collective action meant anything. She responded: “I feel empowered because I can
do something more than just panic or moan.”
My poster read: “We shall not be silenced.” Besides me was a service-center
colleague with a more direct message scribbled across an A-4 paper: “Voertsek
Zuma!”11 Indeed.
Without a minimum of social and public ethics, business is impossible, or at least
very difficult. Unless of course business itself—like sometimes happens—is
corrupted and abuse the lack of ethics and governance for its own advantage.
Watch the current South African Commission of Enquiry into State Capture led by
judge Raymond Zondo, and then realize how quickly systems become
compromised, enabled by the corrupt ties between business and politics with the
kind assistance (at a hefty fee) of accountants and banks. The shameful information
is in the public domain and refute any hint that business is a force for the good.
Unethical exceptions frame perceptions much more than doing your duty
every day.
10
In the original German work, Logik der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen
Naturwissenschaft (1934), Popper demarcated science from non-science on the basis of falsifiabil-
ity. This work became known in the English-speaking world as The logic of scientific discovery
(1959). This mindset of searching for falsification distinguishes opinion from real knowledge.
11
The word “voertsek” is an Afrikaans word used to chase away someone (and dogs) in a rude
manner: Go away!
3.2.3 Educating for Multilateralism
The international character of all good business schools is demonstrated in, for
example, staff/student exchanges, research collaboration, international study
modules, and company visits, participation in business school associations across
the globe, summer schools, teacher enhancement programs, and many more. It is
particularly the EFMD that puts an emphasis on “internationalization” as one of the
key accreditation standards.
This global orientation—the constant movement of people across literal and
virtual boundaries, the exchange of ideas from diverse contexts, the collegial and
voluntary service rendered for peer-review tasks—serves one of the key ideals of
management education, namely, to prepare future leaders to function effectively in a
global and multicultural business environment.
The interconnection among business schools has—perhaps without our inten-
tion—assumed specific significance in recent times where we witnessed a rise in
nationalism and the populist mantra of separation. We know the cries of “Make
America great again!” (Still faintly heard in the post-Trump era) and we heard the
naming of the Brexit vote as a “UK Independence Day.” There are ominous signs of
greater nationalistic expansion drives from Russia and China; and the popularity of
nationalist governments in EU countries like Poland and Hungary, with rising
support for nationalist parties in France, Greece, and The Netherlands.
It seems as if people have lost their faith in proven ideas like “cooperation serves
our collective enhancement.” They do not see that trade-wars are normally zero-sum
games accompanied by and stirred on by empty political slogans that promise a lot
but give nothing.
Below the surface of rising nationalism lies the complex question of how to create
a more participatory and just economic world order. On the surface business schools’
global orientation and interconnectedness serve as counter-examples of how more
good is created through interaction and cooperation than through isolation.
When I completed my studies at Stellenbosch University, the economic and
academic boycott of apartheid South Africa was at its height. Companies and
pension funds were disinvested, urged on by a fiery bishop Desmond Tutu, who
knew that the two pillars that kept the minority government in place were the
economy and the moral acceptance of apartheid by white people. Both were starting
to crumble by 1986, and 8 years later our country made a relatively peaceful and
rather unexpected transition to majority rule.
It was before the time of digital access to information, and the isolation had a
stifling effect on our academic work: No or very limited international scholarships;
denied participation in conferences; no visas for research visits; and so forth. And if
you could get in, you had to fly significantly longer hours around Africa because
South African Airways, the national carrier (now bankrupted by corruption), was not
allowed to cross the African airspace.
So, I have seen what isolation does. It is not good.
In contrast to this, I recently welcomed fourteen visiting professors from diverse
countries like Canada, the USA, Egypt, Nigeria, France, and Belgium to the USB
3.3 Common Good 45
elective week. They taught students from about 36 different countries. At the
welcoming ceremony, I looked around the room and said: “This seemingly insignif-
icant event which will not be reported on the front page is a powerful antidote to
populist isolation. We send a clear message that as business school colleagues we
believe in cooperation for the greater good of a multi-lateral world.”
However, for this world to really thrive, we need to move on to the
common good.
3.3 Common Good
The common good is a collective term describing benefits that are shared by all and
where the responsibility for its usage is also carried by all. In our time, the previously
“unnoticed” benefits of the natural environment—taken for granted and assumed as
infinite—have come to represent the ultimate test for humankind’s commitment to
the common good.
This matter is so important, that a separate chap. 8 is included under the title
“Ecology: Can management education help stop climate change?”
Readers are probably familiar with “the tragedy of the commons” where a shared
resource is over time depleted because each user exceeds its allotted share of the
commons. A small additional private benefit eventually leads to a collapse of the
commons for all.
There are two factors that almost certainly guarantee “the tragedy of the
commons” as the outcome of shared resource usage:
The first factor is exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth by a focus on the
private or national good instead of and in opposition to a pursuit of the
common good.
It is no wonder that when Donald Trump wins an election based on America’s
greatness (national good), that he shortly afterward starts withdrawing from the Paris
agreement (common good). It is also no wonder that fossil-fuel companies (pursing
private good) spend inordinate amounts of money to lobby against policies to
mitigate climate change (common good).
Poor and emerging economies carry a double burden in this regard: They are only
now starting to reach the level of industrialization based on fossil energy that made
the North rich. To step away from this opportunity and engage in an energy
transition seem like an economic bridge too far. They are, furthermore, much less
able to remedy and pay for the cost arising from the devastating effects of climate
change which ranges from disrupted agriculture to infrastructure damage by
flooding.
The second factor accelerating the tragic of the commons is an orientation toward
and reward for short-term gains instead of long-term sustainability.
It requires enormous discipline from a CEO with a 5-year contract and incentives
based on annual financial results to act as if long-term matters. In the financial
services context, traders work on quarterly figures and anything beyond that is a
blank.
In a workshop with engineers from petrochemical giant, Sasol, I asked them what
proportion of the budget is earmarked for diversifying Sasol’s business model away
from coal-to-liquid technologies. The response was clear:
“We have a few years’ technical lead on our major competitors and every cent we
have is spent on maintaining this lead. Why would we deliberately undermine our
current advantage?”
They added: “And, by the way, our remuneration is structured on a 60/40 basis.
The first sixty is guaranteed pay. The rest is performance-based. And nowhere is
what might happen 20–30 years down the line considered.”
Case closed.
To avert or at least postpone a full-scale tragedy of the commons, humankind has
to answer this question: Do we have the moral capacity to suspend our private and
national good for a longer-term common good?
In MBA classes where I asked this question, the majority—somewhat to my
surprise—responded in the negative. The younger generation has already sensed that
a choice for the common good by us in decision-making power is unlikely. Watch
Greta and her school compatriots from Sweden—and now across the globe.
A follow-up question with a few important qualifications might work better:
Once we realize that a fossil energy economy will in fact make life on planet earth
for all species unbearable, will we, in pursuit of our extended self-interest, be willing
to choose for the common good at least temporarily?
Perhaps: Yes?
3.4 Transcendent Good
Management Education must, I argue, also include the transcendent good. Transcen-
dent goods are not material in nature like money or education systems or common
natural resources. They are those capabilities that enable us to continuously tran-
scend the current reality for the sake of a better future.
The briefest expression of transcendent good is the word “hope.” The twin
capabilities that enable hope are a critical mindset of “what is” coupled with a
creative imagination about “what is not yet.” In theology this is called the eschato-
logical proviso.
For hope to “work,” the order of strategic planning is reversed: One does not start
with a critical SWOT-analysis of the current situation, A, and then build on the
emerging opportunities and strengths to plan toward the desired state B. In this kind
of rational, linear thinking, B will always be an exponent of A and subject to the
limitations of A, albeit making slight improvements.
Hope springs from a creative, alternative future, Z, which is both qualitatively and
quantitatively different from A. In business, people sometimes say that if a vision
does not scare you, it is just a slightly different strategic plan. What distinguishes a
hope from optimism is that the latter stems from a calculating mindset: In a specific
situation, I do my best to analyze factors for and against me. If there are more factors
in my favor, I am optimistic and positive. If not, I am pessimistic and negative.
3.4 Transcendent Good 47
That is why business confidence indices are so volatile: They measure the
collective swinging moods of people in the market, subject to daily or even hourly
assessments of positive or negative sentiments. (Commentators do not always realize
how funny their so-called “causal” explanations are: “The price of gold is up because
of uncertainty about Prince Harry’s future in the royal household and how he will
gain financial independence”.)
Whereas optimism (and pessimism) stem from a calculative mind that comes
naturally for businesspeople, hope springs from an unwavering belief in an alterna-
tive future irrespective of and despite the current situation. Hope stems not from a
realistic prolongation of the present, but from an imagined alternative future.
This is what Victor Frankl12 discovered during his internment in the Nazi
concentration camp: As a medical doctor, he would assess whom he thought
would die due to physical symptoms like dehydration and exhaustion. But some
who seemed physically good, in fact died; whereas some who seemed physically
weak, continued to live. The difference, says Frankl, lies in the ability to imagine life
after the camp; to find a “why” to live for.
It is abundantly clear that no SWOT-analysis would be of any use to those in the
camps.
The same holds for Nelson Mandela13 and his compatriots:
He closed his speech in the dock during the Rivonia trial for treason on April
20, 1964: “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black
domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all
people live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which
I hope to live for and to see realized. But, my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for
which I am prepared to die.” Mandela and his fellow trialists were found guilty and
received a sentence of life imprisonment. He—and others deemed terrorists—could
afterward not even be quoted in public.
If one hypothetically would visit Mr. Mandela on Robben Island and ask him:
“What is the situation on the island?,” he would probably answer that he is not
optimistic. If you would ask him, however, what his view was of the future of
South Africa, he would say: “The democratic ideal is what I live for and am willing
to die for. I am certain about the moral quality of this ideal. I am filled with hope.”
On April 27, 1994—exactly 30 years and one week later—this ideal, this
alternative future which no rational political and business commentator could fore-
see as a realistic scenario, was realized. On May 11 of that year, he was inaugurated
as president.
I am not sure how one teaches imagination in the sense of prescribed material:
music, poetry, artworks, wandering in a natural environment? Nor do I have a clear
idea of teaching methods: meditation, drawing/painting, body language? There are,
12
See his well-known book translated from the original German (1946) as Man’s search for
meaning: An introduction to logotherapy (1959). I give my own restricted interpretation of his
key idea here.
13
Long walk to freedom, Mandela’s autobiography (1994), makes for an inspiring read indeed.
though, some indicators from my personal journey of reading old books—an activity
that seems to be dying a slow death:
Reading classic Greek philosophy, Heraclites observed that all things are in
constant motion, and nothing stays the same, forever transcending the status quo.
One cannot step in the same river twice. Plato’s cave parable tells us that what we
currently believe, might simply be shadows of the real world. But because the cave is
dark, our eyes cannot bear the light of the sun, leading us to return to the dark where
we think we see reality. Socrates’ attitude to stated positions was to use argumenta-
tive dialogue to question and expose assumptions, clarifying existing, and drawing
out new ideas.
Reading the prophets and apocalyptic literature from the Jewish-Christian
Scriptures also inspire: Jeremiah entered into a real estate transaction in a war
zone, defying all market indicators because he firmly hoped for a post-exilic future
in Jerusalem. It took roughly 70 years to come to fruition. St John, in isolation on the
island of Patmos, wrote the Apocalypse around 96 AD and imagined a completely
different world order than the oppressive Roman regime of his time. This only
materialized in 313 AD with the Edict of Milan issued by Emperor Constantine.
If I take my cue from these classical examples, it seems that transcendent good
arises from an openness to the wisdom of others; acceptance of change as a constant
reality; relative isolation; suffering; time for contemplation and imagination; and
resilience to exercise utter patience that the good we strive for might only be realized
after our lifetime.
I have not yet seen a business school pronouncing wisdom, isolation, suffering,
imagination, and patience as graduate attributes. We are too busy with “problem-
solving” and “critical thinking.”
This is why we are so poor at creating transcendent good.
Let us conclude this discussion:
Business Schools are in many ways already creators of the good. There is,
however, a tendency to fall into the double error to think that “the business of
business school teaching is business” (creation and promotion of the private good
only) and that the teaching of other forms of good is a “soft option” that stands in
contrast to and impedes business success.
On the contrary: Apart from having legitimate intrinsic value beyond monetary
gain, transcendent good, common good, and social good are indeed prerequisites for
financial good as they are part and parcel of building flourishing societies in which
business plays its designated role.
So, I hope we can now state with confidence: Responsible and enlightened
business schools engage in management education for the good.
Bibliography
Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Beacon Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography 49
Friedman, M. (1971). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times,
13, 1–8.
Larson, R. (2018). Capitalism vs. freedom. Zero Books.
Lütge, C., & Uhl, M. (2021). Business ethics. Oxford University Press.
Mandela, N. (1994). Long walk to freedom. Little, Brown and Company.
Naudé, P. (2007). In defence of partisan justice: What can African business ethics learn from John
Rawls? African Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 40–44.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value (pp. 1–17). Harvard Business
Review.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Rossouw, D., & Van Vuuren, L. (2017). Business ethics. Oxford University Press.
Tufano, Peter. (2020). A bolder vision for business schools. Harvard Business School Review,
11 March, 2–5.
Wicks, A. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis? The need for a reconsideration of business and
society research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89–118.
Colonization: Who Is in the Center
and Whose Knowledge Counts? 4
Dear prospective student,1

You are rightly excited to join the ranks of the select few at universities around
our country during these days. Congratulations. You carry the high expectations of
your family and friends. Perhaps you are a first-generation university student.
Others who support you now, will depend on you in future.
Our country needs you to succeed. Remember that, apart from your own contri-
bution, the taxpayers have and are making significant financial investments in
higher education. You walk into lecture halls, libraries and laboratories built by
the efforts of previous generations.
On a more subtle level, most of you are entering a fundamental re-culturalization
process. What is rightly called “enlightenment” at university, are in most cases only
a transformation in the image of Western culture hidden below the slogans of
globalization and quality assurance.
If your mother tongue is Tshivenda, Tswana, or another indigenous language,
you are highly unlikely to hear that in the public spaces of the university, nor would
you read official university material in your mother tongue. The constitution’s
guarantees are on paper, but there are no adequate budgets for multi-lingualism.
The implicit aim of many universities is to make you as “English” as possible under
the pretext of global competitiveness. (Millions around the world receive higher
education in languages like Mandarin, Spanish, Finnish, or Arabic, and they do
quite fine).
If you come from a culture of ubuntu, where sharing of things and support of
others are implicit values, and where advancement of the group or community is
always a co-requisite for self-advancement—be alert.
1
Extract from an imaginary letter I wrote to new students, and which was published in The Eastern
Province Herald newspaper in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, on January 31, 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_4
52 4 Colonization: Who Is in the Center and Whose Knowledge Counts?
What will start as a healthy sense of individual responsibility, individual progress

based on individual effort, may slowly turn into a competitive spirit of self-
referential individualism premised on the survival of the fittest and the immediate
satisfaction of needs.
If you have grown accustomed to a rich variety of knowledges in the form of saga,
myths, allegories, cultural traditions, and oral histories, you might be confronted
with scientism. It holds a disregard for anything that cannot be proven empirically.
The rich variety of truths will be narrowed down to the “one truth”.
Studies in literature and humanities, no matter how demanding, will be seen as
soft options and for the esoteric few—as if notions like justice, ethics, democracy,
and peace could be found under a microscope.
You will find few prescribed textbooks written and published in Africa.
Whatever is found in Africa and are known in African indigenous knowledge
systems, will only be accorded worth and status if confirmed by Western paradigms.
That is why you will meet masters and doctoral students from the North writing
theses on Aids, developing economies, and indigenous plants. They will write books
on us and become famous at home.
Africa is used to provide raw materials and then buy manufactured goods at
inflated prices.
***
4.1 Business Schools in the Context of Decolonization2
The issue of “(de)colonization” is not limited to regions of the world that were at one
time physically colonized like, for example, Africa, India, and Latin America.
Decolonization has developed into a broader intellectual and political movement
with a revisionist agenda.3
Questions are asked about the appropriateness of public symbols like flags,
statues, paintings, names of streets, buildings, or towns, and so forth. These symbols
are deemed offensive in light of the history represented and seemingly being
condoned by the public display.
In higher education circles, serious questions have and are still being posed about
the dominance of “Western” education around the world, the exclusion of local
knowledge, and the acceptance of Western science as the only valid form of
knowledge.
2
This chapter is a rewriting and refocusing of Naude, (2019).
3
The theological background to this chapter lies in the very old question of how the faith Tradition
(with a capital T, representing the “center”) is adequately expressed in traditions (with a small t,
representing contextual interpretations of T). This process already started within the canon where
the Second Testament reinterprets the legal traditions of the First Testament. The question has been
intensified since the rise of “adjective” theologies (liberation, African, Korean, women, eco) outside
the dominance of the Western academic tradition.
4.1 Business Schools in the Context of Decolonization 53
The recent decolonization actions and debates have spread across the USA, the
UK, some European countries and—in a concentrated form—in South Africa with
the student protests of 2015/16. Here the question of university fees, offensive public
symbols, and the “coloniality” of the curriculum were all mixed into a broad protest
movement.
In South Africa, the statute of British imperialist businessman, Cecil John
Rhodes, at the University of Cape Town campus, was the center of attention, and
was eventually removed. So were certain paintings moved into storage as they were
deemed offensive. At my home institution, Stellenbosch University, the bust of
Henrik Verwoerd, the father of grand apartheid, was removed from the foyer of a
university building and a process started to rename buildings where the current
names carry negative political baggage.
Although there may be limited cases of business school involvement, I will not
dwell in this chapter on the highly emotive issue of public symbol scrutiny and rather
focus on academic and institutional matters. Needless to say: Each new political
power group redefines what is acceptable in the light of a revision of history.
What does “decolonization” mean for management education?
There is a vast literature on decolonization.4 Like in the rest of this book, my aim
is not to provide an (impossible) literature overview or present the full spectrum of
views expressed in the debates. I recognize my South African context and try to draw
on my own work and experience to give an account of which issues need addressing.
Like universities, business schools in their modern and contemporary guise, were
developed in what one could call “the West.” The USA—and later Western
Europe—are the historic origin and have been the apex of management education
over the last century:
The first business school, Wharton, was established in 1882 and what is now
known as the MBA started at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College in 1900
and Harvard in 1908. If one follows the track of the MBA, it tells the story of a
gradual expansion beyond the USA to Canada (1950), South Africa (1951), India
(1953), Western Europe (1957) and Latin America, and Korea (1963). Business
education is now a truly global and multibillion dollar phenomenon with more than
16,000 institutions of all sorts spread over all continents.
This historic matrix was “exported” to other regions of the world through actual
colonial action when universities in, for example, British or French colonies in
Africa and India were set up based on the models, governance, and curricula of
the home base. That is also where the first and second generation of colonized people
went for their Master’s and PhD education, returning to cement the same academic
tradition and institutional cultures.
The colonial matrix was further expanded in more recent years when multicam-
pus Western business schools set up campuses in Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
4
For a recent and excellent volume with literature references on decolonization in universities, read
Jansen (ed.) (2019).
opening the opportunity for locals “to access good universal business knowledge
presented by well-known international faculty.”
The intellectual tradition created in management education is impressive.5 It is,
however, remarkably white, Western, and male dominated. I am no expert in
management theory but could not find authoritative management contributors from
outside the Euro-framework and very few women6 whose books are prescribed as
paradigmatic for management education.
Thus: From a historic, academic, institutional, and people-perspective, it is
possible to label the business school movement as another “colonial” project with
the same consequences of other such educational projects: Creating a privileged
center, dominating curriculum content, reducing epistemic diversity, and set up in a
way that makes an entrance for women and others from the margins very difficult
despite policies on diversity and inclusion.7
4.2 Three Challenges Arising from Decolonization
Highly simplified, decolonization in relation to management education put three

tough and interrelated challenges on the table:
First. Based on an assumed center–periphery constellation, decolonization calls
for a reduction in the power asymmetry vested in academic societies, accreditation
bodies, conferences, and journals. This is the institutional challenge.
Second. Like the revision of historical symbols, decolonization of management
education insists on a revision of Euro- or Western-centric teaching content. This is
the curricular challenge.
Third, and most incisive: Because the Western knowledge tradition has become
the norm for all knowledge, other knowledge traditions are seen as inferior and are
suppressed with a resultant loss of knowledge diversity. This is the epistemic
challenge.
4.2.1 Institutional Challenges
The easiest way to see the center–periphery constellation in management education

is to look for the adjectives.
5
A random list in no order includes Frederick Taylor (scientific management theory), Edward
Deming (total quality management), Douglas McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y), Wiliam Ouchi
(Theory Z), Peter Drucker (the father of modern management and known, inter alia, for manage-
ment by objectives), Edward Freeman (stakeholder theory) and many others.
6
See, for example, early women management theorist like Lillian Gilbreth and Mary Follett
(organizational theory and sometimes called the mother of modern management), but a very
weak subsequent trajectory of women scholarship.
7
The question of inclusion is dealt with separately in chap. 6 on inequality.
4.2 Three Challenges Arising from Decolonization 55
Advocates for decolonization are right that by adding the adjective “African”
(or Chinese, or Japanese) to a business school name, the marginal intellectual and
geo-academic position of whoever is so described, is confirmed and may in fact be
reinforced. In the assumed “center” there are business schools that are taken as norm
and reference point and where no adjective is required. Harvard is not positioned as
an “American” business school; INSEAD does not claim to be a “French” school;
and IMD rarely positions itself as a “Swiss” school (except that they charge in CHF).
They are just business schools.
The adjectives are more than purely geographical indicators. There are knowl-
edge and power assumptions behind them.
Look who organize conferences and where they are held. Then check the
financial- and time-cost involved for those with an already diminished resource
basis who travel from outside to the center. Conferences often have main track
papers on a topic presented by someone from a non-adjective business school with
the parallel tracks reserved for those who could provide an “African” or “Asian”
perspective on the topic. The universal view is the norm and is accepted as
a-contextual. The overtly “contextual” views have curiosity value and are only
validated insofar as they measure up to and are formulated in terms of the
established view.
The same holds for academic journals.
There are the normal editions and then the “special editions” to explore Confucian
or Ubuntu management, often edited by Western scholars who have the infrastruc-
ture and resources to quickly study contextual material and then present it as “an
interesting new perspective.” Take, for example, the journals considered for ratings
and accreditations and promotion, based on impact via weighted citations: Very few,
if any, of them are produced outside the center. And to break into this exclusive
group from outside, is almost impossible because of the strong virtuous and
reinforcing circle of ranking—publishing—citing—ranking.
Check who designed and administer accreditations. There is just no way that
CEEMAN (Central and Eastern Europe) or AABS (Africa) can match the institu-
tional power and prestige of AACSB, EFMD, and AMBA, because the latter carry
with them the authority of the center, and a huge historical advantage, though all of
them has in recent times made honest and worthy attempts to expand.
As we know from postcolonial studies, there is nothing a colonized mind yearns
for more than to be recreated in the image of the colonizer. I once heard a Dean say:
“We will be the Harvard of Africa.”
The institutional power of the center is therefore built on both a “centered”
knowledge platform and actual superior financial and human resources.
The reality facing a scholar from Africa (or any other adjective-site) is that there is
no way to escape the already well-developed traditions in management education
with the accompanying technical terms and canonical/classical texts. This is in fact
the very way in which African-based scholars are introduced to “management
education” subjects like marketing, strategy, corporate finance, and leadership.
There is no tabula rasa or Archimedes starting point “in Africa” from where one
can subsequently approach the established canons of management education built

over a century of scholarship and practice in the West.
The intellectual journey to Africa always starts in colonial Europe: An African
scholar travels an arduous intellectual journey to first understand the rich and
complex traditions of management education. We learn the names of the great
thinkers—like I said, almost all white, male, and Western—and we hear about the
established models of application.
Once this tradition is understood, our hermeneutical lenses have already been
shaped. So, when we “return” our gaze to Africa to reflect upon “traditional values”
or “indigenous knowledge systems,” the only categories and intellectual apparatus at
our disposal are the Western ones. Whatever we seek and might find locally will
have to be explained in English and in terms of the established academic tradition,
otherwise, it simply does not “make sense” to outsiders.
The local voice, if heard at all, will only be taken seriously if judged and
legitimized in terms of the accepted standards already established. The
homogenizing power of academic globalization renders “local” knowledge as an
interesting variation on the normative tradition with which it is always compared.
It is very important to not confer upon those in the center any bad motifs. If you
grow up and are accustomed to being in the center, you do not “see” your own
position. When you then reach out to “the other” on the periphery, it is with the best
intentions to be more inclusive and to assist them to reach the same quality and level
of development.
And if—in your interactions—you come across a really bright scholar, you offer
PhD bursaries to attract the best and then retain them afterward. Like at one
Canadian conference addressed by the minister of education who said something
like: “We attract the best from everywhere in the world and then keep them for
Canada. It is part of our human capital strategy.” The initial investment in that
person’s education and the brain-drain effect are not taken into consideration.
International trade, which includes education, is conducted based on national
interests.
Shall we simply accept this colonization-construct of an academic/institutional
center vs a marginalized periphery? My view is that a careful consideration is
required:
The first consideration is the reductionist view underlying both a description of
“the West” and of any adjective depiction like “China,” “Africa,” or “India.” I once
participated in a conference session with a panel of representatives—one for each
non-Western continent. We discussed current challenges for management education.
Now it is almost mind-boggling to think that someone can represent the challenges
faced in China, Latin America, India, or Africa as a whole. There are simply too
many diverse situations to try and pack them into one view. How can I speak about
Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Morocco, Kenya, and Nigeria in one breath?
The result is that in the end, we tell our own institutional or at most country/state
story, and present this as a whole. There are similar differences among business
schools in Europa and the USA, and to speak of “the centered West” and a
“marginalized somewhere” has some truth but is based on just too much of a
generalization.
The second is that the center–periphery construct is equally valid within regions
as it is among regions. There are business schools on the American and European
periphery as well as schools in Hong Kong and Singapore, and increasingly China
that are seen as “center-type” schools. The application of this construct to colonial
and postcolonial situations is valid but does not cover institutional power
distinctions within regions and the constant shifting of that power beyond the
colonizing center.
The third is that a center–periphery construct may—in an ambiguous way—work
in favor of colonization. The reason is that it creates an alibi for a victim—and
sometimes entitlement mentality in those who believe “we are owed a place at the
center table”; and it in fact strengthens the very construct it tries to dismantle.
There is a positive side as well:
While living and dealing with academic discrimination (I have been the object of
“regionalism” quite often), scholars from the margins must realize the advantage of
an etic or outsider perspective. Though we must cover much more ground with
significantly less resources, we could disrupt—exactly because we have a chance to
see differently. This will happen on condition that we maintain an independent
mindset and are not intellectually swallowed by the center, but rather learn to use
its own resources to dismantle power relations.
It is tough, but it works.
4.2.2 Curricular Challenges
Once this center–periphery configuration is partially accepted as describing a signif-

icant trait of how management education is structured, the question is how to
decolonize the curriculum? I will write this from the perspective of an African-
based8 business school where “Africa” is a metaphor for any region of the world
outside of the center.
In descending order of indigenization or decolonization, three broad options are
available to business schools outside the “Western” location: A direct transfer of
Western educational content to Africa (transfer model); different attempts to trans-
late Western management education into the context of Africa (translation model);
and the development of a uniquely African position via the so-called Ubuntu
principle (substantive model).
4.2.2.1 The Transfer Model

At this level, speaking of an “African” business school simply refers to geographical
(continental) location, but not much more. This would imply that such schools are
8
For a broader discussion on the continent, read the very useful 2 volumes Africa. The management
education by Thomas et al. (2016 and 2017).
the same as business schools elsewhere, and they attempt to do what dominant
schools do by “copying” or “transferring” that content unchanged to a different
location.
The opening up of Western branches of business schools in Africa may stand in
this tradition. A key marketing advantage is communicated: “You can get the best
from America or Europe right here in Africa.” The real message is that “you will get
exactly the same content and quality as in the home country—at a good price.” For a
colonized mind, this works well.
In this model, Western management education is taken as the norm and held up as
the ideal approach. This dominant tradition is then read and simply transferred to the
context of Africa. There is very little “translation,” no contextual adaptation, and
rarely any critical reception. The consequence is that the adjective “Africa” in this
case describes nothing more than a geographical reading location. Whether one
reads Drucker or Friedman in Lagos, Cairo, Nairobi, or Berlin, it makes no
difference.
This is the way in which most students from Africa and other peripheral places are
taught management education. They do not realize that they are introduced to a
“Western” tradition. Things are what they are, and the great names and books are the
great names and books. The question of an “African” approach to management
always comes later—if at all. And then it is impossible to jump over our own
European shadows.
4.2.2.2 The Translation Model

There are at least three possible forms of translation that one may discern. In each
case, the normative position of Western literature is accepted, but there is an
interaction with the African context that goes further than a mere copy or transfer
of knowledge.
First, there is an elucidation of Western concepts “from an African perspective.”
In this case, the colonial concept is accepted as the norm, but its interpretation and
meaning are broadened by placing local examples within its reach.
Freeman’s stakeholder theory is immersed into traditional African clan gover-
nance structures and the theory is enriched by, for example, demonstrating that—
contrary to intuition—a hierarchical leadership structure can coexist with successful
stakeholder engagement as long as the benevolence of authority is accepted by all.
In my paper “In defence of partisan justice: What can African business ethics
learn from John Rawls?” (Naudé, 2007), the insight of structuring society behind a
veil of ignorance with the least advantaged representative person as a reference point
(Western concept) is translated into the African context with specific implications for
business ethics.
Second, a popular way to make a contextual, African contribution to management
education is the translation of local case studies into the frameworks of Western
theories or ideas. One of the tasks to indigenize business school curricula is exactly
by providing local case studies instead of dominant examples from the North.9
Typical questions could be the following: What does the almost collapse of
Lonmin Platinum teach us about social capital as part of the six-capital framework?
How can a utilitarian approach be used to argue for/against implementation of a
minimum wage in South Africa? In what way does Islamic finance in North Africa
illustrate the potential of impact investment theory?
A third way of translation occurs when context-specific African business
problems are addressed with recourse to insights from the Western tradition. In
this case, African management education focuses on business problems that are
particular to our context and seeks resolution of these questions by making use of
Western theories.
For example, can corrupt business practices in Africa (business problem) be
explained by recourse to Kohlberg’s stages of moral formation?10 (Western theory).
How can extensive management–labor conflicts (business problems) be resolved by
using the creating shared value notion developed by Porter and Kramer (2011)?
(Western theory).
In the translation model, African business school academics are often invited to
conferences to participate in the “African” or “emerging market” tracks. They are
praised “for taking existing knowledge into new contextual applications.”
It is clear that the translation model does achieve a significant gain over a mere
transfer of content. But as an example of “decolonizing” knowledge, its contribution
is minimal because it relies on Western insights and theories for its construction.
Epistemologically the curriculum remains colonial.
4.2.2.3 The Alternate Model

There is, I would suggest, a third possible response to the curriculum challenge
posed by decolonization. In this case a business school might say:
“We are not satisfied with mere translation, interpretation or application of
existing knowledge and the paradigms in which they function. Our task is to develop
new, original knowledge emanating from a different paradigm.”
Because of the current adjective-culture underlying regionalism, this kind of
knowledge—if produced—will probably be called “indigenous” knowledge on the
assumption that American and European thinkers develop “global” knowledge.
In this model, Western management education is taken as a valuable tradition, but
there is an endeavor to develop a distinct management approach that could be called
“African.” For Africa, the claim is that ubuntu management constitutes an additional,
9
See, for example, the more than 500 cases listed by the African Association of Business Schools
(www.aabschools.com) and the sources provided by the South African Business School Associa-
tion (www.sabsa.co.za). See the interesting case studies listed in Chap. 23 of Rossouw and
Leon (2013).
10
Lawrence Kohlberg completed his Essays on moral development in two volumes (1981 and 1984)
and both were published in San Francisco by Harper and Row. His work has become an established
part of ethical theories of moral formation.
and competing theoretical framework to those received via the Western tradition.
Hence the calling of this model as “alternate.” The same would apply, I presume, to
management or leadership ideas derived from Chinese traditional philosophies like
Daoism, Confucianism, and Legalism11 as well as the explanation of constant
improvement expressed in the Japanese idea of “Kaizen.”
In the context of decolonization, two questions should be asked of an alternate
theory: First. Are the claims put forward by the theory indeed novel claims that shift
current understanding of management? Second. If novel claims are indeed
substantiated, how are they expressed?
Let us stay with Ubuntu12 for the moment.
The classical academic discussion of what became known as the ubuntu idea
derives from John Mbiti in his book African religions and philosophy (1969).13
According to Mbiti (1969:108–109, my emphasis), “[w]hatever happens to the
individual happens to the whole group, and whatever happens to the whole group
happens to the individual. The individual can only say: ‘I am, because we are; and
since we are, therefore I am’. This is a cardinal point in the understanding of the
African view of man.”
Very good analytical work on the concept has been done by Thaddeus Metz, who,
in a seminal essay “Toward an African moral theory” (Metz, 2007), outlines at least
six senses in which ubuntu is used. He concludes that there is indeed an indigenous
African ethics that expresses the communitarian approach of Africans in distinction
to the individualism of Europe. This ubuntu ethic may be summarized in the
following principle of right action: “An action is right just insofar as it promotes
shared identity among people grounded on good-will; an act is wrong to the extent
that it fails to do so and tends to encourage the opposites of division and ill-will”
(Metz, 2007:338).
A crude and direct application of this moral dictum to management would be
something like:
Good14 management of an organization promotes a sense of shared identity
among all employees, and this is grounded in goodwill. This goodwill flows from
the understanding that “I am a person through others,” exemplified in values like
11
Read, for example, Ma & Tsui, 2015 as well as Chew & Lee, 2008.
12
I have published (Naude, 2019) an extensive analysis of Ubuntu to check the claims made in its
name. First, the claim is that ubuntu derives from a universal respect for being-through-the-other. I
argued that its origin and social setting are tribal kinship relations. Second, the claim is that ubuntu
is a uniquely African phenomenon. I argued that the values associated with ubuntu are based on
generalizations that are not empirically proven and, even if accepted, are prevalent in most
pre-modern and small-scale communities. Third, the claim is that ubuntu expresses African
communitarian views in contrast to Western individualism and rationalism. I argued that person-
hood and autonomy are inherent in all societies, including those in Africa, and sociality or being-
through-the-other is indeed integral to Western philosophy as well.
13
It must be noted that Mbiti himself did not use “ubuntu” in this study to describe an African
philosophy, but he does express the idea quite distinctly.
14
“Good” here does not primarily mean morally good, but “effective”, i.e., it “works” well. The
same applies to “bad” in the next sentence.
care, community, and compassion. Bad management fails to forge a shared identity
amongst people in an organization and tends to encourage division and ill-will. This
ill-will is exemplified in values like excessive individualism and focused self-interest
to the exclusion of organizational interest.
Anyone reading this, will probably agree that shared corporate identity and
goodwill are important for management success. Purpose-driven and mission-
focused business (shared identity) and measuring staff engagement via wellness
programs (goodwill) are well-known management insights.
Thus: Are the claims put forward by the theory indeed novel claims that shift the
current understanding of management? The answer is no. The value lies not in
anything new. It lies in the fact that a novel, exotic-sounding term like “Ubuntu”
(Africa), “Kaizen” (Japan), and “Daoism” (China) has the potential to draw attention
to specific values that inform good management as illustrated by those concepts.
And that is not a bad thing at all but does not really qualify as “decolonization.”
The second question now follows: If novel claims are indeed substantiated, how
are they expressed?
Even if there were novel claims, they will only find understanding and acceptance
in the mainstream management literature if expressed in the terms already known.
After reading books on Ubuntu management,15 four recurring themes (catchphrases)
came to the fore: “Managing people as people,” “interdependence,” “service leader-
ship,” and “collective decision making.”
Surely, none of these ideas strikes one as new. The reason for this is simple: The
existing conceptual apparatus is used to make Ubuntu accessible, and exactly by
doing that its claim to uniqueness is diminished or erased.
So, the decolonizer is forced—again and again—into the existing colonial con-
ceptual framework.
4.2.3 Epistemic Challenges
What exactly is the knowledge challenge posed by decolonization? Two quotations

might assist. The Center of Study and Investigation for Decolonial Dialogue (n.d.)
explains its decolonizing effort as follows:
“A basic assumption of the project takes knowledge-making, since the European
Renaissance, as a fundamental aspect of coloniality—the process of domination and
exploitation of the Capitalist/Patriarchal/Imperial Western Metropolis over the rest
of the world”. This coloniality “denies the epistemic diversity of the world and
pretends to be mono-epistemic.”
The same ideas are expressed in a paper by Achille Mbembe (2015), titled
“Decolonising knowledge and the question of the archive.” He asks the question
of what a Eurocentric canon is and then responds: “A Eurocentric canon is a canon
that attributes truth only to the Western way of knowledge production. It is a canon
15
See examples of ubuntu management in Mbigi (2005), Broodryk (2005), and Msila (2016).
that disregards other knowledge traditions” (Mbembe, 2015:9). He proceeds: “The

problem—because there is a problem indeed—with this tradition is that has become
hegemonic” (Mbembe, 2015:10).
The coloniality that needs to be addressed is related to two epistemic issues: The
hegemonic power of Westerns science and, secondly, the suppression of other
knowledge forms.
If there is agreement that the current situation requires acts of “decolonization,”
there are at least three options to follow.
4.2.3.1 Africa in the Center?

The first is to enter a process of decentering the West and replace it with Africa. In
other words, Eurocentrism is replaced by Afrocentrism. Mbembe (with reference to
Ngugi) explains decolonization exactly as such a process of decentering. “It is about
rejecting the assumption that the modern West is the central root of Africa’s
consciousness and cultural heritage. It is about rejecting the notion that Africa is
merely an extension of the West” (Mbembe, 2015:16). A new center should be
created: “With Africa at the centre of things, not existing as an appendix or a satellite
of other countries and literatures, things must be seen from the African perspective”
(Mbembe, 2015:17, my emphasis).
Apart from the question of how this should happen in practice, it seems irrespon-
sible to in the end mimic the coloniality from which we try to escape in creating a
new power asymmetry where Africans exercise power over others.16
4.2.3.2 External and Internal Critique of “Europe”

The second option is to accept the reality and value of the Western tradition and, as
decolonization indeed does, to criticize the abuse of this tradition. The history of
Western science, like all human efforts, is at best ambiguous. Both colonial and
intellectual conquest unfolded with the aid of science, warfare technologies, and
political power. This must be fiercely exposed and contested as done in the decolo-
nization debate and protest actions.
But we need to move from critique and even rejection to construction.
One could claim that the very nature of the Western tradition requires it to be
challenged from within and from without. To actively create space for dissenting
views, especially those from the so-called margins,17 will undermine current
privileges and weaken current academic power nestled in conferences, universities,
and journals. But such critique is the “rational” thing to do, as it increases the
16
The “center” of knowledge is not geographically fixed: There were times that Africa—via the
Egyptian empire, for example—was at the epicenter of architecture, mathematics, and art. It is the
process of globalization that currently gives Western science its universal hold.
17
These margins need not be geographical. The issue of women and minorities in science, the
presence of the South in the North, and so forth, must be considered for a richer version of
“marginality.”
likelihood of growth in scientific knowledge.18 As Mbembe said (with reference to

Enrique Dussel), for knowledge to be universal, it must also be pluriversal. We must
therefore transform the university into a pluriversity (Mbembe, 2015:19).19
4.2.3.3 Redefining Knowledge?

The third option is to question the very epistemic status of scientific knowledge as it
has developed since the European Enlightenment and argue for this kind of knowl-
edge to be suspended or relativized for the sake of greater epistemic diversity.20
This is the most radical claim of decolonization, and hinges on the fundamental
question: What is knowledge? followed by the more important question: When is
knowledge “scientific” knowledge?
To respond it is helpful to make a distinction between “tacit knowledges”
assumed by people in their everyday lives and that take many forms: stories,
anecdotes, beliefs, customs, songs, feasts, language, codes of clothes, traffic rules,
and so forth. All social contexts, not only “indigenous” or “African” ones, are rich
with a multiplicity of tacit or assumed knowledges. These knowledges are the glue
for social cohesion and—on a larger level—imply cosmologies and sustain
worldviews taken for granted. In the ordinary flow of events, their validity is not
usually called into question. Life simply goes on.
But the moment we ask: What is scientific knowledge? we enter a different
epistemic realm with much stricter rules of validity. Not everything counts as
“evidence” and not anyone is a valid “source.” The modern Western tradition has,
for now, definitively shaped the nature of what we call “scientific-academic knowl-
edge” and therefore dominates the content of our university curricula.
As to the suspension of or moratorium on this kind of knowledge and the creation
of greater epistemic diversity, the following should be noted:
What we describe as “modern scientific thinking” is indeed a recent phenomenon
in human history. If we take David Wootton’s magisterial history of the scientific
revolution as reference point (Wootton, 2015), this “new science” only finds its
foothold in the period between 1492 and 1750. It introduced a new understanding of
knowledge with a new language in which terms such as “discovery,” “hypotheses,”
“experiments,” “theories,” and “laws” of nature assumed a new meaning.
Decolonizers are therefore right that this kind of knowledge is relative to the long
preceding history of knowledges; it is further relative to current indigenous
knowledges as well as to the specific geography in which it first emerged, namely
Western Europe. This particular scientific way of thinking therefore in principle
18
See Popper’s notion of falsification in his Logic of scientific discovery (1959) and Kuhn’s idea of
normal and revolutionary science in his The structure of scientific revolutions (1962).
19
In this vein, it would, for example, be advisable to include a discussion of ubuntu, to make explicit
the work of Africans in an ethics curriculum, and to use ubuntu as the prism through which
dominant Western theories are viewed. This is an act of decentering that could have a significant
decolonizing effect.
20
The most forceful and challenging text I have read in this vein is Rethinking thinking: Modernity’s
“other” and the transformation of the university (Hoppers & Richards, 2011).
qualifies for the description of “local” knowledge as one of many such forms of
indigenous knowledges.
However, unlike other indigenous knowledges, this Western “locality”—includ-
ing the canons of management education—has in the meantime been “universalised”
in at least two ways, namely via universally applied technology and via academic
globalization.
First. The successful translation of Western scientific knowledge into all sorts of
technologies has and will continue to shape the global world. Science constitutes the
inescapable basis of our everyday lives, no matter our location. If some decolonizes
call for the suspension of well-established knowledges that underlie the many
positive fruits of these valid knowledges (such as flying in an aeroplane, using
antiretroviral medicine, halting the spread of COVID-19, and talking on our mobile
phones) they will not be taken seriously.
Each of these technologies is the product of stable modern knowledges (physics,
chemistry, applied mathematics, astronomy, languages) that are, for now, accepted
as valid. Translated into technology their trusted and stable validity, as measured in
scientific terms, is indeed useful to all people. We, inescapably, live in and benefit
from a “scientific” world, shaped by modernity and the Enlightenment no matter
where we are on earth.
There is only one periodic table, one law of gravity, one set of Mendel genetic
laws, and one Einstein theory of relativity. Yes, they are open for different and
exciting applications in Africa and elsewhere. And they are open to revision based
on further empirical research. But they have gained a status irrespective of whether
they were developed in America, Europe, or Africa.
Second, the idea that ‘science’ is a “local” form of “Western” knowledge has been
superseded by both academic and economic globalization. If one considers the
spread of scientific knowledge in its “Western” form across the globe via the
international university system (including business schools), and if one, for example,
looks at manufactured products with a global supply chain, it has become superflu-
ous to speak of “Western” knowledge.
At this point in human history, the matrix of knowledge as scientific knowledge
knows no geographic boundaries and is being advanced by scientists all over the
globe, including Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
The first successful heart transplant was done in Cape Town. No one considers
medical transplant techniques as either “African” or “Western.” They are simply
transplant techniques. The new galaxies found by the Square Kilometre Array radio
telescope (SKA) in the Northern Cape (South Africa), or a new human species found
in the Cradle of Humanity in Gauteng (South Africa) are not “Western” or “African”
discoveries. They are simply discoveries by scientists who happen to work in Africa
and share an underlying understanding of what counts as “knowledge.”
The same holds for the knowledge underlying management education: The
established rules of firm evaluation, management accounting, change management,
digital marketing, customer analysis, actuarial modelling, and so forth, are no longer
recognized as “Western” because they have found a fruitful application (with local
4.3 Epistemic Diversity: Tacit and Scientific Knowledge 65
variation as required) in different business school contexts around the world and are
now the framework for business management as such.
4.3 Epistemic Diversity: Tacit and Scientific Knowledge
But the real issue, argues the decolonization project, is that this scientific way of
defining knowledge does not allow for epistemic diversity. There must be more ways
of constructing knowledge than what has been done in modern science to give other
knowledge forms the same status and allowing colonized peoples to express and see
themselves in these other knowledge forms.
If the critique is against scientism or positivistic knowledge where empirical
observation and repeatable experiments are seen as the only form of valid knowl-
edge, decolonizers are in fact in good company. Philosophically this critique is well
established in various forms of post-positivist thinking from Popper’s falsification
and Kuhn’s paradigm theories to different strands of social constructivism. This is
not a new idea.
Western science itself has developed a rich diversity of epistemologies in fields of
enquiry such as economics, history, philosophy, literature, psychology, theology,
art, or what one could bundle together as the humanities and social sciences. The
depiction of management theory as a “science,” hangs together with this wider
qualitative definition of science.
It is important to note that fields of knowledge that challenge the narrow empiri-
cist scientific tradition, have already shown great potential to embrace “indigenous”
knowledges: Historians recognize that oral histories are crucial for access to a
non-written past; local music and songs are important sources of anthropological
understanding; archaeological artifacts open doors on the lifestyle of past
communities; traditional healers already assist in a richer definition of health, and
so forth.
In the same way, “indigenous” concepts like Ubuntu, Kaizen (Japan), and
Daoism (China), despite not always yielding fundamental new insights, augment
current knowledge and play a useful role in contextualizing knowledge creation.
However. And this is a huge “however”: The moment indigenous knowledges are
made into objects of study beyond their lived reality, and are incorporated into
knowledge as scientific knowledge, the shadow of the “Western” canon with its
particular thought forms looms large.
This is what happens in the transition from implicit (tacit, non-scientific) to
explicit (verified, scientific) knowledge.
The claim that Bantu speaking people of sub-Saharan Africa holds onto a
communitarian view of Ubuntu which can find fruitful management application, is
not a scientific claim in itself unless proven by research. And “research” means
questioning, verifying, and checking for validity and generalizability. If we say that
Ubuntu management fosters a shared identity based on goodwill, what about contra-
dictory evidence that Ubuntu suppresses dissent and restrain innovation? This can
only be known after credible research and cannot be settled by holding on to

“traditional” knowledge or vague emotional claims about “communitarianism.”
Let us take another example:
The Khoi-San, the original hunter-gatherers of what is known as Southern Africa
today, developed knowledge of local plants that, when chewed, suppress hunger and
the need for food. They had to do this to bridge the often-longer times between
successful hunts. This is indeed knowledge and is called indigenous knowledge,
traditional knowledge, or tacit knowledge. But in modern terms (technically under-
stood) it is only scientific knowledge once a laboratory in Switzerland has analyzed
the chemical substance involved and give it a name in terms of the scientific table
(They then reproduce the stuff synthetically to sell on the lucrative market for dietary
products. Not sure who owns the IP, though).
The irony is that the very arguments for the “decolonization of knowledge” and
for “greater epistemic diversity” conform to the validity standards (citing sources,
making noncontradictory statements, building rational arguments, and so forth)
against which decolonization in its epistemic form rebels. Decolonization efforts
can sometimes reinforce what it intends to fight off.
4.4 Conclusion: Must we Heed Calls for “Decolonization”?
Management education can benefit in a qualified sense from the challenges put
forward by decolonization debates.
First. Addressing power imbalances.
It should acknowledge the strong perception and exercise of institutional power
asymmetry between the center and the periphery, despite the limitations of the
construct itself. A conscious decision to stop framing others in terms of “regional-
ism” will bring the benefit of a truly globally connected scholarship that augments
and enriches the traditional “center” universities and business schools. The result of
this scholarship is taken seriously not based on whence it comes, but from the
academic insights it provides.
Those with inherited institutional power and money need to learn the lesson of
humble reciprocity by firstly acknowledging the integrity of those who are “in need
of quality development,” and secondly allow them to co-set the agenda for coopera-
tion whether it is international partnerships or conference programs.
Rankings and accreditation authorities should take heed of decolonization in the
sense that the criteria and standards set may restrict variation and innovation by
making all schools in the image of the “ideal” ranked or accredited school. The
homogenizing effect may suppress innovation and limit healthy diversity. There is
perhaps a need to point out that ranking and accreditation standards assume certain
material conditions and capabilities that are not universally available (from band-
width to available faculty and restricted visa regimes), and it sets implicit and
explicit ideals that are ill-matched to the reality of many schools (whether it is
A-listed publications or international travel).
Second. Redesigning the curriculum.
Bibliography 67
Decolonizing the curriculum will at least mean that the existing canon—so
dominated by white, male authors and by case studies from the so-called First
World or big corporates—be constantly challenged by richer contextual examples
and applications. Despite the power of globalization, there are still cultural and
contextual differences to which business needs to give serious attention. Challenging
accepted truths, and the de- and re-contextualizing of existing knowledge, are in fact
a rational trait of the growth in scientific management knowledge itself.
Third. Fostering epistemic diversity under scientific guidance.
Decolonization’s call for epistemic diversity is, contrary to what some may claim,
not foreign to business schools. In our management education courses we already
bring tacit and indigenous knowledges into the classroom, inter alia via students’
shared experiences in group work and personal journaling in leadership development
courses. This brings a spirit of epistemic diversity and allow for a rich inclusion of
voices. (Schools with a diverse student body will immediately recognize this).
The call to develop alternative epistemic models with alternative rules of valida-
tion than what have been established in “science,” I suggest, should not be heeded by
management educators. The validation of student experiences or interpretation of
personal narratives are always subject to the accepted rules of modern science which
will for the foreseeable time remain the dominant knowledge form in academic
institutions.
In the spirit of falsification, the efforts of decolonization may yet find solutions
with superior solving problem abilities, leading to new knowledge paradigms. The
prospects for success at this point do not seem good. Unless we radically reconcep-
tualize what is counted as “business problems,” “management paradigms,” and—
ultimately—“science.”
The crisis of capitalism, the questions around ecological sustainability, the
enduring problem of morally unacceptable levels of inequality, the role of business
in diplomacy and peace building, are but some of the challenges we face.
Is it not so that these problems exactly arose from the current dominant paradigm
to which we all openly or quietly aspire?
Bibliography
Broodryk, J. (2005). Ubuntu management philosophy. Knowres.
Center of Study and Investigation for Decolonial Dialogues. (n.d.) Decolonizing Knowledge and
Power: Postcolonial Studies, Decolonial Horizons. Course description. Accessed Jan 19, 2017,
from http://www.dialogoglobal.com/barcelona/description.php
Chew, C.-C., & Lee, Y.-T. (Eds.). (2008). Leadership and management in China. Philosophies,
theories, and practices. CUP.
Cooper, B., & Morell, R. (Eds.). (2014). Africa-centred knowledges. James Curry.
Hoppers, C. O., & Richards, H. (2011). Rethinking thinking: Modernity’s “other” and the trans-
formation of the university. Unisa.
Jansen, J. D. (Ed.). (2019). Decolonization in universities. The politics of knowledge. Wits Univer-
sity Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Ma, L., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26, 13–24.
Mbembe, A. 2015. Decolonising knowledge and the question of the archive. Lecture delivered at
the Wits Institute for social and economic research. Accessed Jan 19, 2017, from http://wiser.
wits.ac.za/sites/default/files/private/Achille%20Mbembe%20-%20Decolonizing%20Knowl
edge%20and%20the%20Question%20of%20the%20Archive.pdf
Mbigi, L. (2005). The spirit of African leadership. Knowres.
Mbiti, J. (1969). African religions and philosophy. Heinemann.
McDonald, D. A. (2010). Ubuntu bashing: The marketization of ‘African values’ in South Africa.
Review of African Political Economy, 37(124), 139–152.
Metz, T. (2007). Toward an African moral theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(3), 321–341.
Msila, V. (2016). Ubuntu. Shaping the current workplace with (African) wisdom. Knowres.
Naudé, P. (2007). In defence of partisan justice: What can African business ethics learn from John
Rawls? African Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 40–44.
Naude, P. (2019). Decolonizing knowledge: Can Ubuntu ethics save us from coloniality? Journal of
Business Ethics, 159, 23–37. Also published in adapted form in Jonathan D. Jansen (ed.) 2019:
Decolonisation in universities. The politics of knowledge. Johannesburg: Wits University Press,
217-238.
Popper, K. (1959). Logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. The Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2),
62–77.
Rossouw, D., & Leon, V. V. (2013). Business ethics. Oxford University Press.
Thomas, H., Lee, M., Thomas, L., & Alexander, W. (2017). Africa. The management education
challenge. 2 volumes. Emerald.
Wootton, D. (2015). The invention of science: A new history of the scientific revolution. Penguin
Random House.
Inequality. Whom Do We Exclude?
5
Fundiswa’s1 family income must fall in the top 40% of the population to ensure she
attends the right quintile school.2 This is difficult in the rural areas where they live.
At extra cost, she might go and live with relatives to enable her access to a better
school.
The school must be one of those where the pass -rate for the national grade 12-
examination is good, especially for English and Mathematics. She must be in the
group of 28.9% pupils nationally achieving Bachelor passes (2020). And for access
to programmes in commerce, Fundiswa must be part of the 28% of pupils who wrote
the mathematics papers. Then she must fall into the 54% of those who wrote
Mathematics and actually passed the examination.
But seeing that the Department of Basic Education sets the pass rate at a dismal
30%, Fundiswa must join the higher achievers by obtaining 60% or more. Her
overall chance of passing matric with a Bachelor pass including mathematics at an
appropriate level is therefore down to around 7%.
After matric Fundiswa will face fierce competition for a place at one of the better
public universities where qualifying applications exceed available places at a ratio
of 1 in 3.5. She must successfully apply to access under-graduate studies where
mathematics is normally a requirement for economics/management sciences.
If her combined home income does not exceed ZAR 3500003 per annum, she can
apply for state funding that would cover fees, books, transport, and accommodation.
If her home income falls in what is called the “missing middle” (above ZAR 350000
1
Fundiswa, a Xhosa name for girls, means “one who is educated.”
2
See the explanation of school quintiles below. There is obviously not a 100% correlation between a
school’s quintile and its pupils’ performance. That kind of deterministic thinking is defied every
year by exceptional performance from schools in all quintiles, including those in rural areas. It is the
general trend that is supported by the pass rate data.
3
Currency conversions can be done at 17 to the euro and 14 to the US dollar.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_5
70 5 Inequality. Whom Do We Exclude?
but below ZAR 600,000) she will not be poor enough to apply for public funding, but
also too poor to afford university by herself.
Once in the university, Fundiswa must be one of the less than 35% students who
complete her first degree in minimum time, or—at great cost for her own account—
take an additional year to finish. She must pass her main subjects with a 60%
average to be seriously considered for access into a pre-experience post-graduate
Business School qualification.
There is no public funding beyond Bachelor education. The cost of post-graduate
Business School qualifications is significantly higher than other post-graduate
programmes: For post-graduate diplomas at a business school Fundiswa will pay
roughly 75% more than for main-stream equivalents. Either her family or a loan will
have to cover the cost. The latter is improbable due to her or her family’s lack of
collateral.
If she wishes to enter a post-experience Business School programme, she must
find a job after her first degree. This is really, really tough in a country with an
unemployment rate of 32.5% (Quarter 42,020)4 and 41.2% for her own age group of
25–34.5
Fundiswa will have to work for about 5–7 years in the hope that she can save
enough or find an employer willing to fund an even more expensive degree like an
MBA (around ZAR 280000 at a good school) or a specialist Master’s in Finance.
That she ends up at our door—and graduate—is nothing short of a socio-
economic and educational miracle.
And yet she does. She does.
***
The question of inequality or rather inequalities in a given society and on a global
scale is a complex and, in some cases, highly emotive topic. Not only are there
different forms of inequality with different moral appeals, but they also vary
considerably across different societies. Inequalities are difficult to measure empiri-
cally as data may not be available or are deficient. How inequalities are viewed,
depend to a large degree on assumptions about merit and ideas about social justice.
This chapter will advance in three parts:
I will first introduce the variety of “inequalities” and their associated moral
statuses. The relevance of this typology to management education is explained and
the choice for a focus on one specific form, namely income inequality,6 is motivated.
4
The unemployment figures are 42% if those who stopped seeking for work are included.
5
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1129482/unemployment-rate-by-age-group-in-south-africa/.
(n.d.) accessed 30 May 2021.
6
The Jewish–Christian tradition expressly makes legal provision and special assistance to those
who are socially marginalized (widows, orphans, foreigners, and even animals) a criterion of a just
society. This idea has been expressed by various strands of liberation theologies as “the preferential
option for the poor” and is included as an article in the Reformed Belhar Confession (1986). Whilst
a perfectly egalitarian society has never been the aim of this tradition, stark divisions between rich
and poor was found morally unacceptable and was mitigated by institutions like the Sabbath/Jubilee
Year and a spirit of sharing in the early faith communities.
5.1 A Brief Typology of Inequalities 71
In the second and key part of the chapter, the question of whether business
schools contribute to income inequality will be addressed by looking at both the
“access” and the “output” side of such institutions.
The chapter will close with a few brief comments on why attention to income
inequality is important for management education.
5.1 A Brief Typology of Inequalities
To bring a vast idea like “inequality” into some manageable proportion (typically of
model-building in the academy), one may discern seven forms of inequality that
differ in their “origin” and in their associated moral status.
“Natural” or “hereditary” inequality refers to the fact that the human population
is differently endowed with “talents” or “gifts.” Some are born tall and could
therefore do better at high jump than others. Some have an affinity for art and others
for mathematics or mechanics. Some are born with genetic diseases and could be
classified as disabled or differently abled. It is a simple empirical fact that we are not
born equally abled, though external factors like the health condition of a mother or
medical care during birth could affect the abilities of a newborn child.
Insofar as it is theoretically possible to isolate hereditary inequality as a “given,” it
is often portrayed as an a-moral form of inequality and a constituent part of species
diversity.
There are, however, two related moral questions in this regard: The moral status
of talents, i.e., if they are not deserved, but received, how should one judge the
benefits flowing from them?7 And how are differently abled people socially accepted
in a society obsessed with an Olympic ideal of health, beauty, and “normality”?
Cultural inequalities refer to the socially approved awarding of unequal rights
and status based on factors like age, gender, rites of passage, familial relation, role
designation, and religious conviction. Children might not be treated equally to
adults; the royal family is held in higher regard and enjoy unequal benefits compared
to commoners; boys are treated differently from men who already underwent initia-
tion; women may—in some religious traditions—be seen as serving individuals and
therefore do not have equal access to leadership and governance.
Whether these forms of inequality are morally right or wrong, would depend on
the social mores of a given society or institution. If one accepts a relativist position,
then no moral judgement on other cultures is seen as appropriate. If one does accept
some universal norms like those expressed in the declaration of human rights, some
of these practices might be seen as unjust.
The group of constitutional or political inequalities refers to the awarding of
unequal rights to people based on a variety of considerations for the sake of public
7
Based on the moral arbitrariness of natural talents, Sandel (2020: 123) observes: “If our talents are
gifts for which we are indebted – whether to the genetic lottery or to God—then it is a mistake and a
conceit to assume we deserve the benefits that flow from them.”
and administrative order. Examples are voting (only permissible for those over 18),
citizenship (not granted equally to all, but only to those who qualify), serving in
public office (only those without a criminal record), entering into a legal contract
(reserved for those who are legally adult and sane), and so forth.
As long as these inequalities can be defended on rational grounds, are consistently
applied to all, and pass the test of administrative justice, they may be accepted as part
of a well-ordered society.
Ascribed inequalities refer to the award of power and privileges based on
prejudicial assumptions about accidental factors related to race, gender, sexual
orientation, age, body type, origin, or creed.8 These are typically listed in
enlightened constitutions as no ground for discrimination and some of these
categories are also included in affirmative action policies to ensure forms of restor-
ative justice.
Needless to say, that ascribed inequalities of this kind are always morally
questionable.
Competitive inequalities are the outcome of fair competition under rules that
apply to all participants or members of a society. For example: In athletics, a race is
run and there is an unequal outcome in that some win and some lose. In the academy,
grades are awarded for work completed, and the outcome is that some pass cum
laude while others may fail. In business, some entrepreneurs take more risks and
reap greater awards.
Under fair rules, these unequal outcomes are in principle morally acceptable as
they are seen as the result of equal participatory opportunity. After one has said this,
we also know that perfect competition is difficult to attain. Historical and socioeco-
nomic factors play a determining role on the “enabling” side. It is rare, if ever
possible, for all to be “equal” at the starting line. In this sense, equality of opportu-
nity is an important form of corrective justice (Sandel, 2020: 224), but in itself it
obviously does not address the underlying inequalities with which people “enter” the
opportunities.
Ecological inequality arises from the a-symmetrical power relation between
humans on the one side and other species and the natural environment more
generally on the other side.
I give more detailed attention to this in chap. 8. Suffice to say that the technologi-
cal power of our species has reached such heights that we are in fact changing the
very geological nature of the planet. The “non-human” ecosystem has no direct
power to influence our decisions—unless perhaps through signals like unusual
weather patterns at huge cost to the economy? Our extractive actions continued
with free reign for too long. The effect of this inequality on the livelihoods of
8
Sandel, based on his analysis of American meritocracy, adds a new form of prejudice to the list,
namely “credentialism” (Sandel, 2020: 95–96). This refers to a class of professional people with
college degrees (“well-educated elites”) who may denounce the “normal” prejudices like racism and
sexism but holds an overtly negative attitude toward less-educated people who are therefore subject
to social stigma.
5.1 A Brief Typology of Inequalities 73
humans—especially more vulnerable ones—and on the environment has brought the

moral nature of this form of inequality into sharp focus.
Economic inequality refers to the fact that some people or groups of people have a
higher income and capital wealth than others. On a global scale, this economic
inequality finds expression in the classification of countries as “emerging”/ “poor”
versus “developed”/ “rich.” There is also economic inequality within a country,
normally measured by the Gini-coefficient.
Where economic inequality is the outcome of open and fair competition, it is
usually accepted, and is seen as a positive force for economic growth. From the latter
perspective inequality might even be desirable. In other words, fairness is preferred
above perfectly equal distribution.
But if there is evidence that wealth creation, wealth retention, and especially
inordinate wealth concentration are not the outcome of fair competition or a just
reward for more effort, doubts creep in whether “the system” works for all. Protests
in various forms around the world point to a growing unease that erodes, threatens
and, in some cases, shatters social cohesion. The class struggle contained in Marx’s
idea of historical materialism is no longer between the proletariat and capitalists, but
according to Guy Standing (2011), between rentiers and the precariat class or,
according to Thomas Pikkety (2014), between income deciles or, according to
Michael Sandel (2020), between the educated elite and the rest.
Why are these forms of inequality relevant to management education?
Attention to and an understanding of how inequalities arise and function in
society seem to be a good, if not essential, business skill for future leaders. We
must educate and equip our students to better interpret and understand the world in
which business operates exactly so that they can manage the risks and opportunities
associated with this. But also—hopefully—contribute to the mitigation of
inequalities where appropriate, and steer debates away from emotional nonsense in
the public sphere to greater conceptual and empirical clarity.
The topic of inequality is not airy-fairy philosophical stuff.
Actual examples of responding to ecological inequality are pension funds and
banks altering their funding and investment strategies. My own bank in
South Africa, Standard Bank, has just recently (May 2021) announced their new
capital funding strategy to reduce fossil fuel exposure. Most enlightened companies
do not tolerate assigned inequalities in the workplace. Ask any manager in
South Africa how complex legislation and codes pertaining to affirmative action
and black economic empowerment are. Ask the EU how difficult it is to set up a fair
competition and antitrust rules in light of tech giants simply buying out any potential
competitor. And so, one can go down the inequality list. They are all alive and real in
the global economy.
The challenge I wish to confront head-on in this chapter relates to what is called
“economic inequality” above. I try to answer the question of whether management
education institutions (especially Graduate Schools of Business) that are in most
cases at the apex of the higher education system contribute to income inequality. The
question will be answered by looking at both the “input/access” side of business
schools and the “output” side of graduates completing their qualifications.
For this discussion, I draw broadly on the well-known book, Capital in the
twenty-first century, by Thomas Pikkety (2014), supported by references to The
tyranny of merit by Michael Sandel (2020) and try to relate some of the discussions
to my home country, South Africa. At this point it might be prudent to acknowledge
that I am not an economist. This chapter is therefore more like an exploratory
thought experiment to provoke and elicit responses.
5.2 Do Business Schools Contribute to Income Inequality?
In his magisterial study, Capital in the twenty-first century (2014), Thomas Pikkety
explains income inequality as follows: “By definition, in all societies, income
inequality is the result of adding up these two components: inequality of income
from labor and inequality of income from capital. The more unequally distributed
each of these two components is, the greater the total inequality” (Pikkety, 2014:
242). Income from labor is primarily represented by wages while income from
capital refers to profits, dividends, interest, real estate, and other forms of private
wealth.
The fundamental force for divergence (i.e., greater inequality) is expressed by
Pikkety as r > g where r is the average annual rate of return on capital expressed as a
percentage of this total value and g refers to the rate of economic growth. Empirical
evidence shows that income from capital—mostly represented as inherited or past
wealth—grows faster than output and that “inherited wealth will dominate wealth
massed by a lifetime’s labor by a wide margin” (2014: 26).
Over time, this leads to an increased inequality and concentration of capital;
“. . .potentially incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social
justice fundamental to modern democratic societies” (2014:26).
How can income inequality be addressed?
Apart from his (controversial) proposals on a progressive global tax on capital,
Pikkety argues that the most important mechanism that pushes toward reducing
inequality (a force of convergence) that arises from labor is not a market mechanism,
but the diffusion and sharing of knowledge (2014: 21), i.e., an investment in
education.
One of the main objectives of public spending on education is to promote social
mobility. The question is whether mass education has reduced the inter-generational
correlation of education and earned income? The overall answer, based on data for
developed countries, is negative with significant differences among more egalitarian
Nordic countries, middle-range countries like France, Germany, and Britain, with
the relatively highest intergenerational reproduction of inequality in the USA
(Pikkety, 2014: 484).
Sandel—based on evidence that fewer than 2% of college students rise from the
bottom fifth of the income scale to the top fifth—noted that most universities “do less
to expand opportunity than to consolidate privilege” (2020: 169). They have become
“sorting machines” that provide access to the already privileged and by so doing
5.2 Do Business Schools Contribute to Income Inequality? 75
broke the basic promise underlying the meritocratic ideal, namely upward social
mobility (Sandel, 2020: 165, 168).
Part of why the USA (and other countries with a weakly developed higher
education funding system) show reduced—and increasingly reducing—social
mobility based on education is directly linked to pricing of access. For education
to work as convergent force, it must be accessible, especially to those in the worst
paid deciles.
Democratization of education in principle allows those with low-paying skills to
move upward (completing high school instead of only primary school), but those
higher up on the wage scale also move upward (completing a post-school diploma
instead of only high school). The result (at least in France and the USA) is that
relative educational inequality and therefore wage inequality remains (Pikkety,
2014:306).
5.2.1 The “Access” Side of (Management) Education
In most societies—especially ones with stark social inequalities and little public
funds for (higher) education—access to quality education is directly linked to the
ability to pay for that education. We must be careful not to think that “Europe”—
specifically Nordic countries—is the norm. Far from it. They are serious exceptions.
Prestigious schools tend to favor students from privileged backgrounds (Pikkety,
2014:307). This ability to pay is increased significantly if those who already share in
high-wage income are also those with income from capital. Conversely, the ability to
pay is decreased if someone has a low-wage income with no income derived from
capital.
Access example 1: The USA.
For the period 1970–2010 in the USA, the proportion of college degrees earned
by children in the top income quartile increased from 40 to 80% whilst the figures for
the bottom two quartiles remained in the range 10–20%. Students who gain access to
Harvard represent a parental income of $450,000 which corresponds to the average
income of the top 2%. Access to universities further show a strong correlation
between alumni donation and college access of their children.9
From this information a simple rule can be inferred: “. . .parent’s income has
become an almost perfect predictor of university access” (Pikkety, 2014:485, my
emphasis).
But let us take a step further back and turn our attention to college access testing.
It then becomes clear that the correlation between income and education starts
much earlier. SAT (scholastic aptitude tests) scores are done in the USA for college
9
Pikkety, (2014), referring to a study by Dunca and Murnane, footnote 30 page 632. See also
Sandel, (2020: 166–167) who notes that “if you come from a rich family (top 1%), your chances of
attending an Ivy League school are 77 time greater that if you come from a poor family (bottom
20%)” (167).
access and show a direct correlation between household income and score
achievement.10
Let us just take a specific example as an indicator of a trend in this regard:
The combined achievement in writing, reading, and mathematics is 1324 for
those whose parental income is below $20,000 and 1722 for those with parental
income above $200,000—a significant 23% difference in the result. It is noteworthy
that the two highest proportional score differences are between the below $20,000
and the next cohort of $20,000—$40,000 (a difference of 5.64%) and between the
$160000- $200,000 group compared to the highest earners above $200,000, namely
a 5% difference exactly.
This points to the fact that those in the bottom income category are
disproportionally disadvantaged and that those in the top income group is equally
disproportionally benefitting from the access system, inter alia because richer house-
hold are able to pay high amounts for tutoring before the SAT. The SAT is therefore
not seen as a measure of capabilities or intelligence, but instead of one’s privilege
and circumstance, leading some to ironically rename this the “Scholastic Affluence
Test.”
One should obviously be careful to not reduce test results of this nature to
economic factors only. Achievement is the result of a complex array of factors
from cognitive ability to gender and family structures. The argument here is that,
whatever other “enabling” factors are available, the correlation between parental
income and test scores is significant, giving rise to a higher access chance to
college.11
Access example 2: South Africa.
This country is an outlier example of inequality as being the most unequal society
in the world if one takes the composite Gini-coefficient as indicator. According to
the World Bank (2020), South Africa had the worst score of 63 compared to a world
average of 38.43 with the USA at 41.1.12
Access to and the quality of education in South Africa is to a large extent
determined by where you are born or grow up, and the latter is largely (though not
exclusively) determined by your family’s financial status.
To achieve a university access pass mark in grade 12 (the last year of school with
a national examination), obviously depends on good foundations laid in lower
grades. Public schools in SA are categorized from quintile 1 (poorest 20%) to
5 (least poor 20%) based on district economic data. Government subsidies per
10
See Sandel, (2020: 164) on the fact that “SAT scores track wealth” with his references to
empirical data in footnotes 24–30.
11
For a discussion with further information see https://theacademyadvocate.com/5835/news/how-
the-sat-is-fueling-the-wealth-gap/. (n.d.) and https://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-proves-
just-how-much-sat-scores-predict-future-success-2012-5?r¼DE&IR¼T. (n.d.) both accessed May
21, 2021.
12
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country. (n.d.) accessed
May 27, 2021.
pupil are then calculated in decreasing order from ZAR 117713 per pupil for quintiles
1–3 to ZAR 204 per pupil in quintile 5.14
Schools in Q4 and Q5 have the right to charge fees, paid by parents. This
normally increases the quality of the education and successful throughputs, but
also contributes to increased educational disparities in the public system. Schools
across the quintiles differ vastly in terms of teacher ratio and qualifications, infra-
structure (basic ablution facilities, libraries, laboratories, access to electronic
devices) as well as parental involvement.
Like with the SAT, there is a direct correlation between income and literacy/
numeracy scores as is evident from the tests conducted in grade 9: Tests conducted in
2016 show that for quintile 1 (poorest schools) the literacy rate was 37.2% and in
quintile 5 (least poor schools) it was 55.5% with an increase over each quintile, but
the with a greatest proportional increase between quintiles 4 and 5. The numeracy
rate is worse overall, but shows the same pattern: It is 10.1% in Q1 and 21.6% in Q5
with an increase over each quintile, and greatest proportional increase between
4 and 5.
The stark reality is that a scholar in quintile schools 1–3 will find it very hard to
achieve the required grade 12 admission grade to university. This is not due to lack
of intelligence and personal effort, but to the fact that socioeconomic status coupled
with failed institutions are a deadly combination to inhibit educational, and eventu-
ally, social advancement. If one applies Sandel’s analysis to South Africa, poor
(mostly black) young people have to protest outwardly against the injustices of an
exclusive system and at the same time protest inwardly against the humiliation of
being excluded (2020:26). The latter might be more difficult.
An aggravating limitation of social mobility is the low progression and gradua-
tion rate of students in the SA university system with only 33.3% of public and
52.8% of private institutions (2019 figures) students graduating in minimum time.
There are many complex factors at play like family commitments, social maladjust-
ment, wrong course choices, worries over funding, and more. But the most important
inhibitor remains the really weak educational outcomes of the public school system
in general.
One can now imagine the educational map en route to a good South African
Graduate School of Business as told above in the story of Fundiswa, a rural African
woman, seeking a place at USB.
The conclusion is clear, though valid to different degrees in different countries:
Those in society with the financial means, i.e., those who are in the upper wage
bracket and/or derive income from capital, also have the means to access education
at a rate that outpaces those with lower financial means. If Pikkety is right that one of
13
For currency comparisons, one can work on roughly 18 ZAR to the euro and 14 ZAR to the US
dollar.
14
These are 2016 figures and serve to illustrate the educational inequalities at school level and how
the government is attempting to provide some redress via steered public funding. For an academic
discussion of the quintile funding system and its shortcomings, read Van Dyk & White, (2019).
the most important converging factors to diminish inequality is education, but access
to that education is in turn determined by existing means to pay, then education in
itself becomes a divergent force, reproducing intergenerational income inequality.15
And business schools?
It does not require much additional arguments to see that on their “input” or
“access” side Business Schools are embedded in higher education systems that
reproduce and increase income inequality and therefore inhibit rather than advance
social mobility. In fact, we are at the pinnacle of the system as our business model is
predicated upon “access price” as a reflection of social prestige and alleged superior
quality.
I have not yet seen evidence that brings the SAT-scenario into direct relation with
GMAT, used widely as access test to prestigious business schools (and recently
adapted for Africa to allow for purported cultural biases). But it seems a plausible
inference that the same pattern will repeat itself: Those with the financial means to
attend a good school system have resources for tutoring and enjoy an enabling
supportive learning environment, and they will do better than others. Existing
privilege is simply confirmed and enhanced.
There are not many Fundiswa’s at our door, and even fewer at our graduation
ceremonies.
Business schools are not helpless. There are aspects of the unfair admission
system that we do control. And some schools have made good progress on
diversifying their student body in general terms. But this “diversification” very
rarely addresses income inequality or social class diversity.
Part of the problem is that we are not intrinsically motivated enough and there is
no extrinsic “ranking advantage” for mitigating unequal access. I have not yet seen
an accreditation or ranking body giving rewards or recognition for admission
requirements that account for socioeconomic status,16 proportion of a cohort funded
by (alumni) bursaries, proportion of first-generation attendees, and so forth. Whereas
we count every international student (we charge them more), affirmative access for
minorities, first peoples, differently abled people, women, and previously disadvan-
taged peoples are not always officially accounted for in rankings and accreditations.
We are part of the educated elite ourselves. We are therefore deeply steeped in
and proud of the social recognition that goes with an elite business-like management
education as explained in chap. 2. This makes that we do not consider it either
15
Sandel (2020: 12) notes that college access is not only the root of increasing inequalities but the
absolute obsession with admission to them is also the response to rising inequalities.
16
At Stellenbosch University our Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences introduced
school quintile data and first-generation attendance as additional first year admission criteria to
try and mitigate pre-university inequalities.
necessary or in our interest17 to address admission matters beyond empty defensive

slogans about “retaining academic standards” and “access on merit only.”18
Admission policies are complex matters. After more than 25 years, I know the
power of this “sorting machine.” Perhaps Sandel’s idea of an admission lottery
(2020:185), subject to a few constraints, is not such a bad idea. I would love to
see the price of the remaining few places at Harvard and Wharton and Stellenbosch
reserved for an auction.
5.2.2 The “Output” Side of (Management) Education
Let us turn to the “output” side of business school education.

Once we provide access—largely to the already economically privileged—there
are two important indicators, which we accept as proof of our success as a business
school. Both indicators are fuelled by accreditation and specifically FT MBA
rankings19:
The time between graduation and finding employment (where relevant in
pre-experience or full-time programs) and, secondly, the weighted salary increase20
3 years after graduation in USD purchasing power parity equivalence. Salaried
income in the 3 years after graduation counts just over 40% toward to final ranking
and excludes employment in the public sector and NGOs.
An extract from the FT rankings report on a specific school explains:
“This improved performance is explained partly by its alumni’s higher salary at
$114,000 compared with $104,000 in 2015, as well as a greater salary increase of
115%, 19 percentage points more than in 2015.”
Taken in isolation, gainful employment and pay increases are indeed good
indicators of relevant education and quality graduates wanted by business. They
surely are legitimate expectations from graduates who made a significant investment
of time and effort to complete their qualifications. According to a GMAC survey
(2011) MBA graduates who remained with their employer had a 39% salary increase
expectation. Graduation is for them a huge step up in the direction of becoming an
17
Admission of alumni and donor children and those with the ability to pay full fees put material
benefit at risk.
18
Anyone with an interest in the merit-argument, must read Sandel’s aptly titled book, The tyranny
of merit (2020).
19
See https://www.ft.com/mba-method. (n.d.) (Accessed April 18, 2021) for how the rankings are
calculated.
20
In the context of gender inclusivity which I do not directly address in this chapter, Peter Tufano
(2020: 5) argues as follows: “If we are serious about the need to be more inclusive, we need to reject
outright the current metric of success for MBA rankings: salaries. The salaries of MBA alumni
3 years from graduation account for 43% of the Financial Times Ranking and a larger fraction in
other rankings. Yet the Financial Times’ own data of MBA graduates shows that men make 16%
more than women 3 years after graduation. And I know from our data that geographic and sectoral
differences are even more extreme.”
industry leader and a top manager. This progression enables them as alumni to
eventually donate their time and money back to the school in the not-so-distant
future, thereby creating a virtuous education-economic circle.
We must, however, carefully consider the implications of pay increases, specifi-
cally if they are interpreted in the larger context of inequality of income from labor.
At this point is worth quoting Pikkety at some length when he discusses income
inequality between 1910 and 2010 based on the top decile’s share of national
income. Despite tax data challenges in some emerging economies, he can demon-
strate that, especially since the 1980s, there was a significant increase in the top
decile’s share of national income and that this increase is higher as one moves up the
income hierarchy to the top 0.1% (Pikkety, 2014:319). This trend is valid for rich
countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Continental Europe) as well as for
poorer, emerging economy countries (China, India, Columbia, South Africa,
Indonesia, Argentina).21
At the beginning of his book, Pikkety says:
“I will show that this spectacular increase in inequality largely reflect an unprec-
edented explosion of very elevated incomes from labor, a veritable separation of top
managers of large firms from the rest of the population. One possible explanation of
this is that the skills and productivity of these top managers rose suddenly in relation
to those of other workers. Another explanation, which seems to me more plausible
and turns out to be much more consistent with the evidence, is that these top
managers by and large have the power to set their own remuneration, in some
cases without limit, and in many cases without any clear relation to their productiv-
ity” (Pikkety, 2014: 24).
Later in the book, he discusses the rise of what he calls the “Supermanager”
(Pikkety, 2014: 315) in both the financial22 and nonfinancial sectors. It started off as
an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon in the UK and USA during the 1980s and has since—
though with different levels of tolerance—spread across the global economy. From
the data concerning the composition of income in relation to total income, “. . .we
can infer that in all of these countries23 the explosion of top incomes explains most
(generally at least two-thirds) of the increase in the top decile’s share of national
income; the rest is explained by robust income from capital” (Pikkety, 2014: 315).
Pikkety then tries to explain this “Supermanager”—a phenomenon with its
exorbitant pay increases far beyond inflation or economic growth. He points to the
“illusion of marginal productivity” (2014: 330) because it is almost impossible to
calculate this definitively for any specific senior manager. Sandel quotes Neil
21
See Figures 9.2–9.9 on pages 316–327 for details. As concrete examples, in the USA the income
of the top decile rose from 8% in the 1970s to 18% by 2010, in China it rose from below 5% in 1980
to an estimated 10–11% by 2010. Other top decile figures include India (11%), Britain and Canada
(12%–14%), and South Africa and Argentina (16%–18%).
22
The “financialization” of the economy leads to complex financial engineering which yields
extraordinary profits for those involved, but with little or no actual productive role. See Sandal
(2020): 216–217.
23
The reference here is to Fig. 9.2 which focuses on English speaking countries.
Barofsky in this regard: “If a Wall Street executive was contracted to receive a $6.4
million ‘retention’ bonus, the assumption was that he must be worth it” (2020: 91).24
However, analyses of remuneration patterns of listed companies conclude that
there is a stronger correlation between pay increase and external factors over which
the management has no control (general economic growth, exchange rates) than over
the “nonexternal variances” (market share, technical innovation). This leads to what
is termed “pay for luck” (Pikkety, 2014: 335).
Although there are obviously financial limits to what senior managers can be paid
in any specific company, Pikkety argues that the pay explosion is due to three
factors25:
First. Shifting social norms in different societies move the threshold of resistance/
acceptance of excessive growth in executive remuneration.
Second. The pay is set by hierarchical superiors or by remuneration committees
whose members are themselves earning comparable income. This “in-group” of
people are “. . .fellow professionals; people of subtle minds, sophisticated jargon,
and extraordinary innovativeness” writes Thomas Frank wryly (Sandel, 2020: 91).
Despite nominal approval processes, those decisions are rarely overturned in the
context of corporate governance rules.
Third. In the same time frame when this sharp pay increases occurred, there
was—at least in rich English-speaking countries—a large decrease in the top
marginal income tax. This added to the income growth “which then increased the
political influence of the beneficiaries of the change in the tax laws, who had an
interest in keeping top tax rates low or even decreasing them further and, who could
use their windfall to finance political parties, pressure groups, and think tanks”
(2014: 335).
So, it is the combination of social norms, corporate governance, and marginal tax
rates that drive income inequality from labor earned by top managers.
And Business Schools?

We are now in a position to make the link back to the “output” side of management
education. It requires a critical mindset and brutal self-honesty to deconstruct what
we do:
When we remunerate business school professors in public (and private) schools

far beyond the norms of professors for that context in general, without being able to
provide proof of marginal utility, we contribute to a shift in social norms that make
such income distinctions, in general, more acceptable.
When we eagerly market how much more a graduate will earn if she attends our
school, we might be complicit in structural income inequality from labor in our
24
A current example of this isolated fantasy world of executive pay is a company who just
announced COVID-bonuses for its top management while employees were reduced. I will rather
not divulge the name.
25
This is my inference from Pikkety’s exposition and does not give a full picture of his arguments.
broader society (If this sounds almost far-fetched, remember that each tax payer
profile counts toward the data set from which income inequality is derived. It is
almost like voting in an election: If everyone thinks her vote does not really matters,
the outcome is indeed influenced).
When we are proud of CEO- and Supermanager-alumni who use their financial
and political influence to finance our new computer labs and trading room, we might
socially endorse the excessive level of executive remuneration and the sometimes
irrational way it is set.
But one could argue that business school alumni contribute to taxes, create
employment, and generally play a positive role in GDP growth. The counter-
point—backed by Pikkety’s careful data analyses—is that our alumni who dutifully
execute these economic tasks do so in an economic system with a growing diver-
gence of equality and protection of privilege. Let us not delve into minimal taxes
paid by the rich and by powerful global companies; and let us not forget that GDP
growth in itself does not solve income inequality and can in fact add to it unless the
underlying distributive instruments also change.
But, following Sandel’s analysis of credentialism, there is a further dark “out-
put”—side to reinforcing the status of the educated elite:
The enormous social esteem accorded to successful graduates results in a merito-
cratic hubris26 that assumes they made it by themselves. It feeds the claim that they
deserve the spoils of success flowing from their own hard work. This hubris is the
basis for looking down on those who are less educated and perform what is deemed
menial tasks in society.27 It erroneously conflate the financial value associated with
market demand with a valuable contribution to society.
Those outside this elite respond with a mixture of anger, resentment, and
internalizing over time that their social lot is simply because they are not smart
enough or did not put in enough effort. They live with a double discontent at the
failed meritocratic promise on the one hand (“it all depends on your effort”) and at
the demoralizing realization that they are now left behind (“your failure is your own
fault”) (Sandel, 2020: 73–74).
When this prejudice becomes widespread in a society, common good and soli-
darity disappear. In democracies we have seen the rise of a Trump and the Brexit
vote. “More than a protest against immigration and outsourcing, the populist com-
plaint is about the tyranny of merit,” writes Sandel (2020: 25).
Obviously, I am not asserting that this is what business schools do on purpose or
that every graduate exhibits these attitudes, nor that these sentiments are equally
present in all societies. But let me also state clearly: What Sandel has observed in
26
“Meritocratic hubris. . . is the smug conviction of those who land on top that they deserve their
fate. And that those at the bottom deserve theirs, too” (Sandel, 2020: 25).
27
Commenting on the USA, Sandel observes: “Building a politics around the idea that a college
degree is a condition of dignified work and social esteem has a corrosive effect on democratic life. It
devalues the contributions of those without a diploma, fuels prejudice against less-educated
members of society, effectively excludes most working people from representative government,
and provokes political backlash” (2020: 104).
5.3 Why Does Inequality from Income Matters, if at all? 83
China (2020:61–62), I have seen in the new educated class and credentialed political
elite in South Africa.28 We should at least take serious note that we might invertedly
contribute to a social habitus that will be difficult to dismantle and will in the end
endanger social order, senses of justice, and the democratic project as such.
If one adds “access inequality” on the “input” side of business schools to income
inequality on the “output” side, it seems reasonable to answer the question of
whether business schools contribute to income inequality in the affirmative. Business
schools as prime sites of manager education may therefore be seen as key institu-
tional accelerators of wealth divergence instead of convergent forces to reduce
income inequality.
5.3 Why Does Inequality from Income Matters, if at all?
We are reminded that “(t)he history of inequality is shaped by the way economic,
social, and political actors view what is just, and what is not, as well as by the relative
power of those actors and the collective choices that result” (Pikkety, 2014:20). The
reduction of inequalities does not come naturally via ordinary forces of the market
and “has nothing to do with market imperfection” (Pikkety, 2014: 27). It is related to
conscious policy decisions as demonstrated in Europe after the Second World War,
and on a global scale after the 2008 banking crisis, and yet again now during the
Corona crisis.
Why does all this talk about income inequality matter?
The answer to this question will be guided by a person’s view of “meritocratic
values and principles of social justice” (Pikkety, 2014: 26; Sandel, 2020: 223–227),
and by attending to the negative economic and social consequences of increased
inequalities.
I am not competent to judge economic data that demonstrate a positive correlation
between inequality and a decrease in aggregate demand or how inequality inhibits or
strengthens GDP growth over an extended period. Let me rather make a few
observations29 in bullet point format about the negative consequences of stark
inequalities from living my whole life and teaching/researching for more than
three decades in the most unequal country in the world.30
28
One result of this credentialism pressure in South Africa is the increasing phenomenon of fake
qualifications, rife in public life and spread across the political spectrum. If I do not have it, I fake it.
29
There are large bodies of research and significant contestation on all the points raised here. I
deliberately move away from a literature survey or citing of authoritative sources because I hope the
overall argument is made clear and simple by a few qualitative observations.
30
I acknowledge the limitation in generalizing these points across the globe, but readers can adopt
the relevant parts of the narrative for their own context. I also keep in mind South Africa’s unique
history of colonialism and legal racial segregation (apartheid) that closed economic and educational
opportunities for black people until at least 1994, exacerbating inequality along racial lines.
• Insofar as there is an unambiguous correlation between inequality and access to

education at all levels, but specifically at further and higher education, the effect
on what is called “human capital formation” is absolutely devastating. The
under- or undeveloped human potential is exactly something a relatively poor
society can ill afford.
• Because such a high proportion of young people and young adults between
15 and 24 do not acquire appropriate skill sets and drop out of the education
system as such, unemployment—and in fact un-employ-ability—remains
stubbornly high (estimated 55.75% in 2020) even if GDP growth marginally
increases.
• The inability to secure gainful employment or even make a living in the informal
sector, places a huge demand on the social spending proportion31 of the national
budget. To be specific: South Africa can be proud of its elaborate social grant
system32—the most extensive in the developing world—which targets specific
people (children, old age pensioners) with a significant poverty reduction and
distributive effect. If, however, government debt is rising fast in a negative or
low-growth environment, the affordability of such spending comes into focus.
This is apart from the fact that this spending—worthy in itself—could have had a
greater multiplier effect elsewhere in the economy.
• Because inequality creates stark economic classes living within sight of one
another, the psychology of deprivation, of “not having,” is much higher. This
fuels among the (new) political elite a sense of entitlement (“we did not join the
liberation struggle to be poor”) which is at least a partial explanation for unac-
ceptable levels of corruption, personal enrichment, and even “state capture.”33
• But the pinnacle of negative consequences resulting from high inequality is the
loss of trust on a personal, group and institutional level, and a decrease in social
cohesion or “social capital.” Trust comes in measures—high, medium, low—and
once diminished or lost, is very difficult to rebuild. This is true on a personal level,
but even more so on a societal level.
• This lack of trust is bad for investment confidence, bad for social stability, and
very good for opportunistic politicians. The latter specifically target poor and
31
If one adds up housing, social protection and education (excluding higher education and public
health) this comes to 29% of the 2018/19 budget.
32
Extract from the Social Development budget vote (2019) drafted by the Treasury, seen in context
of total population of 57.9 m: “In 2018/19, 17.6 million beneficiaries received monthly grants, and it
is estimated that 18.7 million beneficiaries will receive social grants in 2021/22. The bulk of these
are allocated to the child support grant, which currently benefits 12.5 million poor children, and the
old age grant, which benefits 3.5 million people older than 60.” http://www.treasury.gov.za/
documents/National%20Budget/2019/enebooklets/Vote%2017%20Social%20Development.pdf.
(n.d.) accessed May 31, 2021.
33
At the time of writing, the Zondo-commission of enquiry into “state capture” is in its last months
of public hearings before making recommendations. The breadth and depth of corruption in state-
owned entities, enabled by scrupulous private sector companies—including some well-known
international ones—are beyond imagination. The financial cost, estimated in trillions of ZAR,
will probably never be known.
5.3 Why Does Inequality from Income Matters, if at all? 85
economically excluded people to stoke dissatisfaction (“the country is run by

white monopoly capitalist”); they make promises that cannot be fulfilled (“every-
one shall own land”); and propose policy measures that have a proven history of
failure (“expropriation of property without compensation” and “state ownership
of all banks”).
Not all these factors are present in all societies in the same way or at the same
level of intensity. Despite positive empirical correlations, neither is income inequal-
ity their sole “cause.” What these consequences share, nevertheless, is that they are
all bad for business:
There is a struggle to find the right employee skills or being compelled to work
with low productivity skills. There is watching hard-earned tax money wasted or
stolen in corruption with a slow but sure collapse of infrastructures like rail, road,
electricity, water, and bandwidth. There is the tough task of convincing capital
investment in a low-trust environment. There is the additional burden to influence
political policy options in favor of actual growth initiatives. And because of
decreased social coherence, there are constant concerns over personal safety and
public unrest as people resort to violent protests to draw government’s attention to
their grievances.34
South African business in a highly unequal society is not for sissies.35
Apart from the ethical arguments, it is a simple fact that greater equality works to
the benefit of all, including the elite. Johann Rupert, a South African billionaire,
rightly says that the rich cannot sleep well with hungry people at their gates.
Reducing inequality is therefore a desirable albeit complex social goal toward
which management education should contribute, acting on factors that are within
our ambit of execution. Inequality does not just happen overnight. It moves in
decades, and the movement toward convergence or divergence is within our powers
to direct.
In the wise words of Peter Tufano (2020: 3–4): “The term ‘administration of
fairness’ is the definition of justice. That means we are now asking MBA graduates,
who have historically been tasked to administer business (the BA part of MBA), to
make determinations about what is and is not just.”
Unfortunately,” he continues, “traditional MBA toolkits, whether grounded in
economics, data science, or psychology, do not adequately prepare students to think
through issues of justice, which means that business schools will need to revisit and
broaden their curricula. At the very least, they will need to expand the range of
thinkers and teachers on their campuses to include people with backgrounds in
history, philosophy, and the humanities.”
34
At the time of finalizing this chapter (late July 2021), South Africa is experiencing wide-spread
looting of infrastructure and shopping malls, called an “insurrection against the state” by some
commentators.
35
A colloquial and (gender insensitive!) way to say it is not for “weak ones” without resilience and
courage.
The key point is this: “Justice is much more nuanced than net present value.”
Anyone who disagrees that income inequality needs business schools’ focused
attention, increasing our ability to “administer fairness,” is probably in the top decile
income bracket, safely ensconced—for now—from both the reality and
consequences of such inequality.
Bibliography
Pikkety, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty first century. In Translated by Arthur Goldhammer.
Harvard University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit. In What’s become of the common good? Books.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
Tufano, P. (2020, 11 March). A bolder vision for business schools. Harvard Business School
Review. pp. 2–5.
Van Dyk, H., & White, C. J. (2019). Theory and practice of the quintile ranking of schools in
South Africa: A financial management perspective. South African Journal of Education, 39
(Supplement 1), S1–S9.
https://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-proves-just-how-much-sat-scores-predict-future-suc
cess-2012-5?r¼DE&IR¼T. (n.d.). Accessed 21 May 2021.
https://www.ft.com/mba-method. (n.d.). Accessed 18 April 2021.
https://theacademyadvocate.com/5835/news/how-the-sat-is-fueling-the-wealth-gap/. (n.d.). Accessed
21 May 2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1129482/unemployment-rate-by-age-group-in-south-africa/.
(n.d.). Accessed 30 May 2021.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country. (n.d.). Accessed
27 May 2021.
http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/National%20Budget/2019/enebooklets/Vote%2017%
20Social%20Development.pdf. (n.d.). Accessed 31 May 2021.
Technology: What Are we Embracing?
6
I am a social jogger. Jogging for more than 5 decades has become an integral part
of my physical and psychological well-being. It is a time of relative isolation, self-
reflection, prayer, and sensual enjoyment of sights and sounds in the natural
environment (Why people run with stuff in their ears remains a mystery—or are
they learning Mandarin?).
Jogging is a cheap, uncomplicated, and global hobby. You just pack your shoes
in the hand-luggage and on arrival at your destination, off you go: The canals in
Amsterdam, the lake at Chicago, the beach at Zanzibar, the river in Heidelberg, the
lake at Entebbe, the English Garden in Munich, and the Table Mountain/Sea Point
scenery in Cape Town. As long as you stay fit enough to jog about 10 km, the world
is at your feet—literally.
Over time, I developed a good sense of distance. But because I do not train for a
competition or long-distance half/full marathons, it does not really matter. As long
as I can keep going for about an hour, I know I would have covered between 8 and
10 km, depending on the terrain. As a rule, I do not stop. The idea is to keep going,
even at a leisurely pace.
As part of my farewell from the University of Stellenbosch Business School, I
received a voucher and was recommended to buy a Fitbit watch. “You will just love
it,” I was told.
Suddenly I could see exactly how long I run, how far, at what pace, at what
average speed, and could constantly check my heart rate, plus a lot of other
information gathered by the device. Linked to my mobile phone, I could build up
an exact record of all my runs.
My medical aid came into the picture: Based on rewarding people for a healthy
lifestyle, my data are sent to them. As they track my steps per day and I reach the
required minimum, premiums will be lowered and the loyalty program-points would
bring savings on things like cheaper airline tickets and free Uber rides.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_6
88 6 Technology: What Are we Embracing?
My GP was included in the data collection, and she would receive an SMS—sent
off by the artificial intelligence learning—in case there is a deviation in blood
oxygen levels or heart rates that would prompt an automatic on-line consultation
at about 60% of a face-to-face in-surgery appointment.
The first run with the watch was quite intriguing: Every 5 minutes or so I checked
how far I have gone (turning at 4 km), how close I go at 6 minutes per km (6: 18),
what my steps measured (0.94 m), and what my heart rate was (average 138). It was
quite exciting to see all the data recorded and stored afterward. Unlike in the past, I
could show off my activity to anyone willing to listen or to look at my screenshots on
whatsup.
After a few runs, I realized that a few things have changed:
Instead of surveying the natural surroundings, my eyes were drawn to the watch.
Instead of going with the flow of my body, I now pushed harder for speed and
distance, trying to improve on yesterday and last week. (People are watching my
progress and I cannot let them think I am going backwards. A diagnosis of
performance anxiety?). Instead of a creative interaction between the natural envi-
ronment and my internal self-reflection, I was now stuck in a biological self with
information about me sent into a data-collection system before I even know or
perceive. Tied to many other people in the system, I realized I became a data-blip
on the screen of machine learning.
But is all this not for my own, and some common good? Do I have an obligation
to wear a sensor-watch to avoid being seen as a free-rider in the health system?
What struck me was that both the nature and purpose of the run were fundamen-
tally altered. Jogging as time for meditation—and at times problem-solving—was
now both quantified and commodified. The question I thus faced was: Do I really
need all the biological data (how high is the risk without them?) and is there a price
to be put on jogging-for-fun with its associated proven psycho-bio-socio benefits?
As you can see: This is, sort of, an exercise in cost-benefit analysis, but compar-
ing two things in different classes—like MasterCard’s “priceless” advertisements.
I deliberately forgot the watch’s charger during a stay-over. The watch slowly
died. Even an intelligent machine needs human-generated electricity (or is the grid
also automated?)
I was relieved. It took some time, though, to un-learn and un-expect the so-called
benefits of a biotechnology sensor application fronting as a time-keeping watch.
***
6.1 Naming the Emerging World
Whether you judge my actions above as typical of an older generation, harking back
to naïve experience no longer needed and in fact impeding progress, is not the point.
As long as we agree: We live in a different world which is by its very nature
constantly in flux and which touches and transforms every single part of our
6.1 Naming the Emerging World 89
personal and public lives, including the way we do business and educate new
managers.
For the sake of this chapter, I will call this new emergent and emerging world a
“Digital World.” Depending on the perspective one takes, there are different
descriptions of this new world: We live in a cyber-world; a data-world; an
interconnected and virtual world; an algorithmic and programmable world; building
a “software society” (see Manovich, 2013) or “sensor society” (Accoto, 2018: 34) on
the basis of “code culture” where massive transformation is enabled by the twin and
increasingly connected revolution of infotech and biotech (Harari, 2018: 15).
The emerging Digital World is incomparable to earlier “industrial revolutions”
whose impact or disruption started clearly visible in a specific sphere of society,
gradually affecting related spheres, until it “consolidated” as the new normal. It was
mainly production processes that were transformed via new energy generation
technologies from steam to coal to nuclear, with communication drastically
transformed in the third revolution due to the rise of electronics and the Internet.
In the Digital World, the disruption operates at an invisible level; affects all
spheres of society and the nonhuman world at the same time; it spreads with
enormous speed as well as “depth”; and is by its very nature non-consolidating
and constantly avoiding stability. Innovation requires continuous updating. Whereas
previous revolutions enabled us to manipulate the world around us to our benefit (but
also leading to the present ecological crisis), the link between big data algorithms
and bioengineering enables the manipulation of our inner mental and psychological
worlds as well (Harari, 2018: 15).
This is indeed a different world-in-the-making. What does this mean for business
education?
During a visit to a well-known business school in Europe, the Dean announced a
major curriculum reform which included compulsory under- and post-graduate
courses in data science and business computing. “Data is the new English,” he
said. “If you cannot speak the language, you are lost in the world.”
This is a good example of how business schools—sensitive to changing market
demands—adapt their curricula to remain relevant to doing business in a Digital
World. As academic institutions, the task for business schools is, however, not to
simply embrace new demands, but to actually shape those demands and to evaluate
them critically.
It is with the latter imperative that this chapter is concerned: As we rightfully—
and indeed unavoidably?—embrace the digital world with all its wonderful
innovations and business advantages, our academic ethos requires a skeptical
mindset as well.
Do we know what we embrace and so enthusiastically promote? Can we
fully know?
There is obviously no intention to rewind this “data- is- the-new-English”- reality.
There can be no question about enormous benefits brought about by data systems for
business, education, health, transport, agriculture, and medicine. There is indeed
much to celebrate and still much to be done. There can and should therefore be no
one-sided ethical denunciation of the Digital World. But we must hold the ethical
ambiguities in hand to avoid blind and enthusiastic endorsement. Ambiguity is the

ability to extract conflicting interpretations from what is at hand, instead of
endorsing one dominant view.
As Harari notes: “Since the corporations and entrepreneurs who lead the techno-
logical revolution naturally tend to sing the praises of their creations, it falls to
sociologists, philosophers and historians like myself to sound the alarm and explain
all the ways things can go terribly wrong” (Harari, 2018: 5). Let me add business
school educators, theologians,1 and ethicists to the list—those who can praise as well
as sound the alarm.
What is required, is an appropriate critical mindset and moral astuteness amidst
all the social and business changes. My philosopher friend, Bert Olivier, once told
me that he is not impressed with applied ethicists. “They are like an ambulance
service who arrives on the scene only after the accident,” he said. I take that on the
chin, but that does not render the ambulance irrelevant. If the normal system gives
rise to accidents, it is better to prevent them, but rescue services remain an important
second best. . . And that, as we will see below, includes the law and ethics.
6.2 Avoiding a Pure Instrumental View of Technology
Am ärgsten sind wir jedoch der Technik ausgeliefert, wenn wir sie als etwas
Neutrales betrachten (Martin Heidegger).
The first important perspective on our Digital World is to steer away from a pure
instrumentalist view of technology to acknowledge the human and ethical dimension
thereof. The means and ends and use of technology are not technological questions.
Let us turn for this orientation to German existentialist philosopher, Martin
Heidegger2: “So the essence of technology is absolutely nothing technical . . .
Everywhere we remain unfree chained to technology, whether we passionately
affirm or deny it. However, we are worst at the mercy of technology when we regard
it as something neutral; because this idea, which is particularly popular today, makes
us completely blind to the essence of technology” (Heidegger, 1962: 5, my
translation).
1
In traditional systematic theology, omniscience was included as one of the attributes of God; and
creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is an ecumenically accepted conviction included in the
creeds of the church East and West. In a data society, it is possible for Google to invite us with “ask
anything” as the massive data underlying the program are able to demonstrate “omniscience” in the
palm of our hand. In a sensor society it becomes increasingly possible to be known better and before
we know ourselves. Furthermore, a cyber society is highly creative which enables a parody on the
gospel of John (see below): “In the beginning, there was the Word, now there is the Update.”
Theology—both intra- and post-canonical—is used to ever recurring rival narratives about the
character of God and has developed a sharp sense of detecting when such narratives assume quasi-
religious status, exposing their limitations and denying their truth claims.
2
Heidegger held four papers in Bremen on Dec 01, 1949, on the broad topic of “Einblick in das was
ist.” The text of Die Technik und die Kehre, the last lecture in the series, was first published in 1962
by Neske Verlag in Tübingen.
6.2 Avoiding a Pure Instrumental View of Technology 91
Heidegger wrote in the late 1940s when intercontinental missiles, radar, high-
frequency machines, and new ways of nuclear electricity generation were the talk of
the day. But he already foresaw the issue of retaining control over the very
technologies designed and built by humans (think algorithms, autonomous cars;
automated job allocations): “You want to master it. The desire to master (das
Meistern-wollen) becomes all the more urgent, the more technology threatens to
slip away from human domination” (Heidegger, 1962: 7, my translation). Despite
some technologies’ huge ability to act with increasing autonomy and randomness,
assuming the role of actor, creator, and subject, Heidegger reminds us that technol-
ogy is an expression of and relies on human choices about designing/using it as a
means to an end with both an instrumental (which means?) and teleological (which/
whose ends?) dimension.
Needless to say: Both dimensions require—apart from purely technical and
scientific choices—also moral awareness which unmasks the view that technology
is (like some say about the markets) ethically neutral instruments and only its use is
subject to moral appraisal. If we lose sight of the ethical dimension of technology,
says Heidegger, we become blind slaves of technology.
Heidegger’s argument to frame technology in more than purely technical, instru-
mental terms is built on the etymology of the Greek word technikon from which
techne is derived. He points out that technikon has a double meaning: “making”
something by hand, but also “creating” higher and finer forms of art linked to poiesis.
Techne in the latter sense brings forth and reveals that which was formerly now
known or that which was hidden. Any good artwork, as we know, is a “revelation” to
the observer to “see” reality in a different way.
This brings a close relation with two other important classical Greek concepts:
aletheia (“truth” as something revealed) and episteme (“knowledge” of something
not formerly apparent). Technology is therefore a way of revealing truth and
imparting knowledge. “The decisive factor in techne is therefore by no means in
making and handling, not in the using of means, but in the aforementioned revealing.
As this, but not as manufacturing, techne is bringing-forward.” He continues:
“Technology is a way of revealing (Entbergen). Technology prevails in the area
where concealment and un-concealment, where aletheia, where truth occurs
(Heidegger, 1962: 13, my translation).
In the fast-moving technology innovations of our time where techne in the sense
of poiesis regularly breaches new frontiers and encompasses new domains of our
society, the questions are serious: What is revealed (aletheia) about the world/
ourselves and what do we know (episteme) about the kind of individuals,
communities, businesses, and societies that are currently being dramatically
reshaped in the most fundamental way in human history, confronting us “. . .with
the hardest trails we have ever encountered” (Harari, 2018:28) as “we are witnessing
the destructive end of one world and the emerging of a new one” (Accoto, 2018: 25).
I will seek to respond to these questions in discussion with mainly two authors3:
Philosopher at MIT (Boston), Cosima Accoto: In data time and tide (2018) and best-
selling historian, Yuval Noah Harari: Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow
(2017) and more specifically 21 Lessons for the twenty-first century (2018).
Accoto, following Lev Manovich, describes the emergence of a “software soci-
ety” where all social spheres are “strongly permeated and shaped by software
code”(Accoto, 2018: 3) as “the primary engine of our civilization, culture, and
contemporary economy” (Accoto, 2018: 2). Two features of this society are relevant
for the discussion about the moral ambiguity of a digital world:
First. What we as users of technology “see” and “experience” is only the surface
level applications or executions of the underlying written code. The code itself is
invisible and accepted as part of life and—as technological devices and systems
permeate our total existence—code becomes indistinguishable from ordinary life.
Code is, therefore, the new technological unconscious that only surfaces in case of
code failure. The preferences, choices, biases written into the code, therefore, shape
our thinking and—more specifically—our actions (see further discussion below).
The question of who we are, what we know about ourselves (episteme and aletheia),
and what we become, are now increasingly determined by tech processes that we—
and even the creators thereof—do not fully comprehend.
Second. Heidegger refers to the twofold meaning of techne as “making” and
“creating” (poiesis) associated with distinguishable human actions creating different
kinds of (stable) objects (from things made for daily use to objects of fine art). A
fundamental characteristic of code culture is that it is by its very nature “. . .in a state
of continuous evolution, made of instability, adaptation, and discontinuity” in an
approach described as “continuous design and delivery” (Accoto, 2018: 11). The
language of software code is performative language so that the process of making
and creating is collapsed into one where the command written into the code is
immediately executed in the computational machine as well as in external events
in the world actioned by that the command. This creative ability (techne as poiesis) is
expressed poignantly by Jarzombek4: “In the beginning, there was the Word, now
there is the Update.”
Where interoperability between systems increases, these complexities of data
interactions surpass human capabilities. This happens mostly to our advantage whilst
keeping in mind the implicit fallibility of the code (Accoto, 2018: 22). What
Heidegger said, is now confirmed in a totally new way: As we add the adjective
“programmable” to words like cars, cities, laws, and even life, “software can no
longer be thought of as an instrument but will have to be thought of as constituting
3
The two authors make good discussion partners because they represent both a detailed, condensed
philosophical approach (Accoto) and a wide-screen description of historical and future trends
(Harari).
4
Referred to by Accoto, (2018: 19); original Jarzombek, (2016).
6.3 An Applied Ethics View of Technology 93
the human” (Accoto, 2018: 28). This is poignantly phrased by Wendy Chun: “To be
is to be updated: to update and to be subjected to the update.”5
6.3 An Applied Ethics View of Technology
In simple language: The norms embedded in software codes—invisible and indistin-

guishable from ordinary life—must be critically examined as to the kind of humans
and kind of society shaped and created by them. We must constantly guard against a
laissez faire attitude to technology as if it simply “works” and “makes things better”
(which obviously it also does), to include the suspicion of a Nietzsche and a Freud
where we what we see on the surface is but the actionable traits of data, the new
performative action-English.
But who writes that language? Who determines the grammar, syntax, and perfor-
mative meaning? Who makes the value choices?
Values—in short—are the commonly held moral beliefs in a society that deter-
mine what is ethically acceptable or not. Values are complex in their making and
remaking, but still stable enough to provide a sufficient moral consensus, which
holds society together (This is especially true of multicultural societies). Values are
more than the law, but the latter is to a great extent a codified expression of
underlying values, acting as an independent directive for conduct and a constraint
on actions contrary to the law/accepted norms.
The process of law-making is—in democracies at least—a public, participatory
process by all who might be impacted by the law. The interpretation of the law
occurs in an open court which carries the delegated authority to judge the issue at
hand—subject to revision on appeal. Changes to the law, prompted by shifting
societal norms or new realities requiring rules of engagement, are equally the subject
of public contestation so that a new law captures the underlying normative consensus
at a given time.
The four key elements of law-as-value-orientation are publicity (public-ness),
participation, interpretation, and independent authority. In an algorithmic society
these elements are significantly eroded if not wholly absent, rendering the whole
edifice extremely vulnerable from an ethical point of view:
Due to the technical nature of software design, rules are grafted into devices,
applications, and platforms, without the opportunity or even possibility of publicity
or participation. The laws written in the devices are stricter as they require exact,
programmed execution, rendering interpretation superfluous and appeal nonsensical.
Because of the dispersed nature of interconnected platforms, Accoto states: “. . .there
is no legislator” (Accoto, 2018: 93). Or—in the terms used here—there is no
independent authority.
We see this in the struggle between Facebook and the EU on personal data,
between Uber/Airbnb and city authorities, between the Australian government and
5
Referred to by Accoto, (2018: 18); original Chun, (2016).
Facebook/Google, and the absolute nightmare to regulate blockchain financial

transactions like Bitcoin and similar platforms. Old and trusted governance systems
tied to geographies and nation-state institutions find it increasingly difficult to catch
up. And when they do, the train has already left for the next station. So much for an
ambulance service, etc.
It is crucial to note that software engineers and others are not morally neutral
persons, nor are the data on which they build search platforms without normative
content. There is no such thing as “raw data” (Accoto, 2018: 96). The required
quantitative and cybernetic competencies for engineers rarely include moral critique
of their designs (This was true of most professions until fairly recently: Try and find
a compulsory ethics module in the MBA of 1970). There has been much criticism of
algorithmic discrimination are far as representation (face recognition, accent evalua-
tion, hiring practices) as well as price allocation go (Accoto, 2018: 62). AI for hiring
practices carries with them the built-in biases exactly derived from the underlying
data analyses, thereby amplifying existing stereotypes with even greater precision.
Let me be clear: Software engineers are not bad people sitting in dark rooms
plotting to break social norms. Their way of working is simply not (under ordinary
circumstances) open or able to discern the ethical ambiguity of the systems they
build. It took the ethical questions of autonomous cars to put “moral programming”
in the public domain. This pattern is normal for applied ethics in ecology, auditing,
banking, genetics, gaming, and so forth—we arrive on the scene after the accident.
Moral programming is but the smallest tip of a massive iceberg of invisible
normative code.
6.4 Three Specific Ethical Issues: Work, Liberty, and Equality
Harari commences his lessons for the 21 century with what he calls the “twin
revolution” of infotech and biotech that “. . .could restructure not just economies
and societies, but our very bodies and minds” (Harari, 2018: 15).
In Homo Deus he explains the link between these two revolutions, and in his
lessons-book points out the consequences thereof for work, liberty, and equality. The
impacts of technology on the latter three issues are indeed important and the subject
of much ethical deliberation. A brief note on the ethical ambiguities emanating from
applied technology in each of these sectors is adequate for the overall argument in
this essay: An instrumentalist view must be simultaneously accompanied and led by
a critical, moral mindset when we embrace technology.
Work
Concerning work, Harari refers not only to the changing nature of work (no “work-
for life” but rather continued upskilling) and mass unemployment6 (somewhat offset
6
“It is dangerous just to assume that enough new jobs will appear to compensate for any losses. The
fact that this has happened during previous waves of automation is absolutely no guarantee that it
6.4 Three Specific Ethical Issues: Work, Liberty, and Equality 95
by new and different jobs), but also to a class of marginalized people rendered
completely irrelevant by technology advances, but with no access to educational
opportunities to “catch up.” The increase in robotic density (empirically measured as
robots per ten thousand human employees like in banking and car manufacturing)
and the revolution in machine learning which accelerates non-human capabilities by
“automating the automation” (Accoto, 2018: 69), all point toward a radically altered
job market.
From an emerging market perspective: Just imagine the social, economic, and
political implications if all petrol stations and supermarkets in South Africa intro-
duce automated, self-help services (like Amazon Go) under the legitimate rubric of
“increased efficiency,” “innovation” and “shareholder return”. This will render
80,000 petrol attendants and more than 500,000 cashiers jobless. Many will have
no chance to find a new job due to a depressed economy, an existing unemployment
rate of above 30%, an oversupply of low-skilled labor, and little prospect of
re-education.
But we now face redundancies in white-collar jobs like law, security, accounting,
and even medicine (not to forget professors!). How will we, ask Harari, face a post-
work society and a post-work economy? (Harari, 2018: 47). What are the ethical
obligations, if any, by companies automating their own processes or render the
current business models of other companies with high employment, uncompetitive?
Should we hold Uber ethically responsible for jobless taxi drivers, and what role do
governments play in regulating a constantly moving target to ensure “fairness”?
Liberty
Concerning liberty, we must keep in mind the key insight from Enlightenment
philosophy: Without the concept of a rational, autonomous individual applying
his/her mind to search for (empirical) truth, no modern science, capitalism, or
democracy is possible. We owe modern forms of freedom to the dictum of Rene
Descartes (cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am) and Immanuel Kant (the
enlightened person is the one who makes up his/her mind without external assistance
or reliance on authority and tradition).7 Once individual autonomy is threatened or
diminished, liberty is equally affected, unless the individual is willing or forced to
give over agency to a central authority—check any authoritarian political system.
The Enlightenment view has now been turned on its head:

Whereas subjectivity, agency, and accountability were fundamental anthropocen-
tric concepts, the situation of human–machine fusion/cooperation led to a dispersed
subjectivity that includes agency in both humans and non-humans. Instead of
will happen again under the very different conditions of the twenty-fist century” (Harari, 2018: 45).
Economic forecasts in this field range between 45% and 60%, depending on the level of a country’s
development. We simply do not know yet.
7
For a discussion of the turn to the subject in Descartes, Kant, and Feuerbach with references to the
original literature, see chap. 8 on ecology and Naudé, (2018).
traditional individuality, comes “infoviduality” and by implication “dividuality,”

expressing the reality of automated agency (Accoto, 2018: 90, 91).
A simple example illustrates this: If I like reading books in a certain area (say
biographies) and search for them on the Internet, I get a notification that Barack
Obama’s autobiography has now been published. I was unaware of the publication
and also did not seek for it. My desire or interest was anticipated and actioned by the
algorithm. If I then order the book, the “agency” arises from human–data interaction.
“At some points,” write Mireille Hildebrandt, “we will become aware of the fact that
we are watched and anticipated by machines, and we will try to figure out how the
infrastructure ‘reads’ us and with whom it shares its knowledge of our preferences
and of the risks we incorporate.”8
A more complex illustration is autonomous vehicles.9 Note the adjective: “auton-
omous” as applied to a nonhuman object—or rather subject—with a passive,
non-agent human passenger. That is exactly why the rules and laws of accountability
for autonomous vehicles (and cryptocurrency systems or false Facebook/Twitter
posts) are so difficult to pin down: We are used to ring-fenced human agency and its
intrinsic link to liability and accountability.
The big question then is: Are we compromising liberty for the sake of instrumen-
tal efficiency? Or are we in fact increasing liberty as choice options increase? And is
the latter indeed “freedom” or rather a case of supposed consumer choices that chain
us to preemptive algorithms that are intelligent enough to both shape and forecast
individual preferences?
What are the implications for the question as to who is a free human person, if no
longer the Cartesian/Kantian autonomous, thinking I?
The paradigm shift in our conception of individual (including bodily) liberty, is
accentuated by Harari who notes that the merger of biological science and big data
computing capabilities via biometric sensors (worn or implanted) opens the reality
that personal decisions and self-understanding will move beyond our autonomy to
the authority of algorithms (Harari, 2018: 68). In a sensor society everything human
and non-human can and in many cases is already “sensed”, i.e. “watched” in the
macroscopic sense, exceeding the traditional views enabled by a micro- and tele-
scope. At a personal level, this includes physiological and neurophysiological
computation.
The implication is a “somatising” of the self: As noted in the Fitbit story above,
practices of introspection and subject-based meditation are replaced by body-
centered practices subject to continuous quantification and measurement. What is
revealed about ourselves in bodily data—even before we know it—bypass our
subjectivity/agency and the truth (Heidegger’s aletheia) is anticipated and in fact
constituted by a sub-perceptual listening to and monitoring of our bodies (Accoto,
2018: 38–39).
At a societal level, the very functioning of democracy and political contestation
has been dramatically changed by digital platforms and databases. This was
8
Referred to by Accoto, (2018 92), original Hildebrandt, (2015).
9
See chap. 10 in Bartneck et al., (2021).
6.4 Three Specific Ethical Issues: Work, Liberty, and Equality 97
demonstrated by the Arab uprisings, the recent two American elections, and the AI
capabilities of oppressive governments to monitor where their people go, what they
see and read, and ultimately how they think. The concept of a digital dictatorship
(Harari, 2018: 83) is no longer far-fetched. As noted above: It is the ambiguities
related to political freedom that we should recognize.
And let us remind ourselves: Governments, election- and spy agencies make use
of and buy data, sensor, and face recognition capabilities from private companies.
The latter usually claim that they “cannot be held responsible for how others use our
technologies” and the conditions of use “are subject to client privacy.” Once out in
the open, the business consequences can be dire. Ask two British firms: Cambridge
Analytica and PR company, Bell Pottinger who were both destroyed by public
outcry over data abuse (83 million Facebook users) and stirring up racial tensions
in South Africa to advance corruption and state capture, respectively.
Inequality10
There are two forms of inequality directly related to the rapid development of digital
societies and economies:
Access-inequality refers to the trend that intra-national and global socioeconomic

inequalities are intensified by technology because the latter assumes relatively stable
infrastructure like electricity supply, broadband and transmission capacity, digital
support services, and so forth. The so-called digital divide is a reality. It is, however,
heartening that mobile technology applications in banking, education, healthcare,
and agriculture demonstrate a surprisingly high penetration even in developing
countries, creating a chance to “leapfrog” into a relatively better position. A total
of 81% of Africans vs 66% globally have access to a mobile device, though the
figure for internet usage is 29% vs a 50% global average. This reinforces the point
made earlier: Digitalization has ambiguous consequences in an unequal world with
an excluding effect, but also rendering inclusive possibilities.
Participative inequality refers to the fact that where digitalization opportunities
do exist, not all arrive at the starting line, and those who do arrive, are not in an equal
position of preparedness to compete in the digital race. This is true of most unequal
societies where digital participation in education and civic affairs by socially
marginalized groups (first people, rural inhabitants, women, refugees, ethnic/reli-
gious minority groups) are lower than for others. On a global scale, the same
participation differential exists and there is simply no way that poorer nations can
compete with mature digitalized economies.
If one looks at the dominance of Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and
Facebook (add in Alibaba and Tencent) in the data economy, the question of
participation is not linked to the traditional nation-state but has become a global
question. Seeing that we live in a world where social ontology is increasingly
10
See chap. 6 which focuses on income inequality which is obviously directly related to the kind
of inequality discussed here.
virtualized and where basic social and economic functions are digitally executed, the
question is whether participation in the digital world should be considered as a
public and global good contained in a statement of increasingly satisfying e-rights?
But there is more to the inequality issue: Harari reckons that digital enhancement
of human capabilities might result “. . .in the separation of humankind into a small
class of super-humans and a massive underclass of useless Homo sapiens” (Harari,
2018: 92), a form of vertical inequality due to speciation (creating a different
species). Some of this human advancement is already possible with surgical “hard
hacking” (Accoto, 2018: 40) in the field of prosthetics: Where are the boundaries
between medical necessity and straightforward physical augmentation? To whom is
this available, and who makes the rules?
These and other questions of an ethical nature already demonstrate that it would
be utterly unwise and academically dishonest to simply embrace digitization as an
instrumental good. There is, though, one last underlying issue at hand:
6.5 The Real Issue: Designing a New Narrative
Harari tellingly starts with “disillusionment” (2018: 11–28) as the foremost chal-
lenge for our age. He refers to the breakdown of an overarching sense-making
narrative, including liberalism whose so-called triumph in 1989 did not last. Later
in the book he returns to the question of how to construct individual and collective
meaning, flowing from homo sapiens as a “storytelling animal” (Harari, 2018: 313).
The point is that, while we celebrate the genius disruptions of traditional markets
through technology (from Uber and Amazon to Tencent and Airbnb), the creation of
a digital world has a fundamental disorientation effect on both a personal and
societal level. Because of the speed, global reach, and depth of these disruptions,
they are—as argued above—far more profound than in the first industrial
revolutions.
It is consequently very difficult, but still important, to move from disorientation to
re-orientation. It is a social reality in constant flux with an array of uncertainties on
which exactly the making and remaking of a Digital World thrive.
When rural villagers without stable electricity or internet are told to download an
app to apply for COVID vaccination; when an 88-year old must transition from
buying food at the well-known grocer to online purchases; when professors with
illustrious academic and teaching careers are thrust into Microsoft Teams and Zoom
teaching with its totally different dynamics and performance requirements; when
your newborn child does not exist or your dead uncle has not died unless uploaded
onto home affairs; when your job as an underground miner or accountant is declared
redundant by processes you do not fully comprehend; when you find yourself among
the new precariat class and grab the straw of nationalism11; when the president of the
free world leader, the USA, can disrupt the social order and undermine democratic
11
See the interesting work by development economist, Guy Standing, (2011).
6.5 The Real Issue: Designing a New Narrative 99
institutions with a Twitter account, it requires a new orientation in a new kind of

data-constructed world.
“If you feel like running down the street crying ‘The apocalypse is upon!’ us, try
telling yourself ‘No, it’s not that. Truth is, I don’t understand what’s going on in the
world” Remarks Harari: “We are still in the nihilist moment of disillusionment and
anger” (Harari, 2018: 27).
We are in an emerging, alternative narrative where technology is the natural, and
increasingly, the only way for humanity to be in the world; where the lines between
human and nonhuman agency are blurred; where culture and code are indistinguish-
able; and where sociality is both constituted and mediated by software programs
(Accoto, 2018: 27).
The task at hand is to build a new narrative while it is escaping every effort to be
told in a structured way with a beginning, an innuendo, and an ending; and while we
as displaced storytellers are being told the technology story on its own disorientating
terms. This is really, really tough.
With their keen eyes for opportunity, business and business education stepped
into this market for “meaning-making.” Check the New York Times bestselling
books and untold number of motivational speakers and strategy advisors on the topic
on a “purpose-driven life” or a “vision-driven business.”12
The reason why what business leaders say, matters, and why business education
is such a powerful social force, has been discussed in chap. 2 on the market. It is
because the economic way of thinking, and the market orientation of efficiency and
profitability have extended far beyond the social domain of economics or business. It
has become the paradigm for framing issues in government, education, sport,
religion, leisure, law, and healthcare. By usurping other social spaces on the back
of digital invasion, the market has seemingly triumphed.13
But this victory brings an enormous responsibility, namely, to create a narrative
of personal and collective meaning. This is the real reason behind the upscale of the
perennial question: What is the purpose of business? This was discussed with
references in chap. 3 above. The debate chased this moving target under the guise
of corporate social responsibility talk. Examples include Friedman (shareholder
purpose), Freeman (stakeholder purpose), Porter & Kramer (creating shared
value), Donaldson & Walsh (collective value), and more recently “The power of
and” by upholding both business and social goals without trade-offs, written by
Freeman, Martin, and Parmar.
For this self-imposed task of meaning-making or purpose-setting, I argue, busi-
ness is ill-equipped:
First. Technology innovation is the source of disorientation and is too enmeshed
in its own chase for the next breakthrough to step beyond itself and think about stuff
12
The attraction and success of the “purpose movement” can be derived from the fundamental
psychological insights developed by Viktor Frankl. For a short discussion see chap. 4 on
transcendent good.
13
Read Cox, (2016) for a discussion of the Market as a religion.
like “meaning-making narratives.” The powerful immanence, competitiveness, and

profitability of the data economy simply leaves no room for transcendence. It is—as
Heidegger warned—a chase for more efficient instrumentality where “making” and
“creating” coincide, and everybody waits for the next start-up disruption.
Second: The anger against and disillusionment with capitalism is growing. This
erodes the legitimacy of the (free) market as source of meaning. Business books and
business articles that pair words like “reimagining,” “responsible,” “inclusive,”
“stakeholder,” and “conscious” with capitalism, tell the story of discontent. Wider
expressions of disillusionment and anger can be seen in mass protests against the
banks, against Wall Street, against ecological destruction, and against the World
Economic Forum.
Reimagining capitalism in a world on fire (2020) is the alarmist title of Rebecca
Henderson’s recent book. Some of that fire is indeed stoked by business and has
been reinforced by business education. She and others make proposals to somehow
restore the economic system as a source of life and meaning including a fairer
distribution of opportunities and of wealth.
For business schools, there is some really hard paradigm-shifting and curricular
thinking to be done.
6.6 Implications for Management Education
Readers of this kind of book are able to draw their own conclusions. The following
are simply suggestions to be evaluated for appropriate adjustment to different
contexts:
• Business schools have already started and should increasingly acknowledge the
data economy as a key contextual factor influencing our curricula.
• At schools with undergraduate programs, the more technical competencies related
to business analytics and programming are basic building blocks to prepare
students for the future (“data is the new English”).
• In post-graduate management education, the emphasis should shift toward the
impact of our Digital World on leadership; i.e., exploring the new demands that a
digital economy places before leaders and how the new normal of a virtual and
global workforce impact traditional leadership theories and attributes.
• A key insight is that all courses in Digital World—related topics should be
“framed” from a values perspective and must seek to transcend a mere instru-
mentalist view of technology as enabling efficiencies and market share.
• A blanket and enthusiastic embrace of digital business technologies should be
avoided as well as a reductionist denouncement of an increasingly digitized
world: The competency to acknowledge the moral ambiguity of digitally
enhanced business is what we should aim for (by inter alia selecting the right
mix of case studies demonstrating both financial success and moral failure!).
• Our graduate students are ready to face the transcendent question of meaning-
making and purpose. Perhaps courses like “Leading Digital Enterprises” should
Bibliography 101
start with the questions: Who are we and what kind of world do we wish to
co-create with technology?
But that is perhaps not sexy enough for the marketing department.
Bibliography
Accoto, C. (2018). In data time and tide. Bocconi University Press.
Bartneck, C., Luetge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). An introduction to ethics in robotics and
AI. Springer.
Chun, W. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. The MIT Press.
Cox, H. G. (2016). The market as god. Harvard University Press.
Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Random House.
Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Vintage.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Die Technik und die Kehre. Neske Verlag.
Henderson, R. (2020). Reimagining capitalism in a world on fire. Penguin Books.
Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law: Novel entanglements of law and
technology. Edward Elgar.
Jarzombek, M. (2016). Digital Stockholm syndrome in the post-ontological age. University of
Minnesota Press.
Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. Bloomsbury.
Naudé, P. (2018). Can we overcome the anthropocentrism bias in sustainability discourse? African
Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 56–67.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
Ecology: Can Management Education Help
to Stop Climate Change? 7
We will not stem human-induced climate change unless we educate the next genera-
tion for the commons.1
“What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the human-nature
relationship.”2
It is late afternoon. There are no other people at “The Big Tree”, a majestic
Quteniqua yellow wood in the indigenous Garden Route forest near Knysna. As I
slowly approach the tree on the wooden board-walk—as if entering a sanctuary—I
again marvel at the enormity of this creature with a height of more than 36 m
supported by a trunk with a 9 m circumference.
A light breeze from the Indian Ocean nearby creates a soft sound through the
branches and leaves. I close my eyes and in a numinous moment discern a faint but
definite voice.
“I see you come in peace”, says the tree.
“I do. But why do you refer to peace in the first place?”
“Because we have come to know your species as violent.”
“What do you mean?”
“You see, we are planted and stay in one place. I have been here for just over
800 years. We therefore grow up to accept our neighbours for whom they are. My
friend, the Black Wood there, has been with me the last 250 years.”
1
My own key summary of the arguments in this chapter.
2
See Lynn White, (1967: 1206). I changed the original “man” to a more inclusive “human.” White
righty questions the Jewish–Christian tradition’s role in setting up a dominance-model between
humans and the environment. A reinterpretation of the creation narratives and Trinitarian
perspectives emanating from eco- and feminist theologies have mitigated this damage (see
below). Today religions, including indigenous ones, play a constructive role in fostering attitudes
conducive to ecosystem thinking. If we have just stayed close to Franciskus from Assisi we would
have realized our folly much earlier. Or we should have reminded ourselves that if God says God
loves the world, the latter is a cosmic and not an anthropological term.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_7
104 7 Ecology: Can Management Education Help to Stop Climate Change?
“But we also teach to love our neighbours as ourselves.”

“It is an empty slogan. When you dislike someone, you simply avoid that person
or move away. There is no resilience in your relationships. You write your history
from war to war. Violent.”
There is a moment of silence.
“But the worst is that you only see other humans as neighbours. All other species
and living things are objects for use. Look at the boardwalk beneath your feet.”
“But we create culture. We develop the economy. We increase our living
standards.”
“Who carries the burden when you abuse the power of your extractive abilities?”
“We did not know earlier. But now we have learnt our lesson.”
“I am not so sure. Over 800 years I have seen you grow increasingly invasive.”
“But this has not directly affected you?”, I say.
“It has. For 750 years this area was left at peace. Here we built a community.
With interactions you do not even perceive. We talk through our roots and our
branches.”
Silence.
“And then we heard the terrible sounds of big machines and chain-saws. What
was built up over hundreds of years, you can take down in a few minutes without a
moment’s hesitation.”
“But we needed to upgrade the road from George to Port Elizabeth. For tourism
and easy transport of goods.”
“You know there was an alternative available through the Lank Kloof. But you
chose this N2 trajectory because it was the easy option. And more scenic in your
eyes. With more potential for your pockets. Violent.”
Silence.
“But there is more”, says the tree. “We are here because we belong here. This is
the right climate and soil for us. We are vulnerable. Unlike your species that can
make any place habitable. But we have seen and experienced changes over the last
50 years. You know about the fires. You know about the droughts. Far more than
ever. Things are changing. And not for the good.”
Silence.
“The day I was ‘found’ and declared a tourist attraction, I realised that I am a
lucky one. I have found grace in your eyes. You will probably ‘protect’ me for your
own sake.”
Silence.
“But I am not so sure about the rest. Your grace is led by your need- satisfaction.
And as those needs shift, anything can happen.”
It starts to rain softly. Drops of water slide down the leaves onto my face. I am not
sure whether it is tears of agony or joy.
I turn around to where my car is parked. Next to the N2.
***
7.1 Human-Centered (Anthropocentric) Philosophy 105
In chap. 4 on the “good” that management education should nurture and enhance,
the features of the common good were discussed in close relation to the earth as our
shared commons.
Clean air, enough freshwater, and a stable and somewhat predictable weather
system are all shared resources yielded by our commons. The “tragedy of the
commons” was explained as a situation where each user—in the absence of external
structures or a cooperation agreement—takes just a little more from the commons
than what is sustainable. At one point this leads to a collapse in the carrying capacity
of the commons, with tragic consequences for all.
This tragedy was seen as being hastened by two factors: Prioritizing private and
national good over against the common good; and short-termism in business and in
reward systems that make medium- to long-term ecologically sustainable business
very, very difficult, exasperated further by significant transition costs.
We need to move on from a crisis mindset. Let us then further our understanding
of two prerequisites for an orientation toward and confirmation of the common good.
The first prerequisite is a change in our philosophy about the human–nature
relationship—a vital conceptual task often resisted because it is seen as “too
abstract.” This philosophy of a “turn to the human subject” will be briefly explained
(7.1). Its consequences will be illustrated by three contemporary examples:
sustainability talk (7.1.1), the concept of “stewardship” (7.1.2), and GDP measure-
ment (7.1.3). This is followed by a short exploration of alternative ways to approach
human subjectivity (7.1.4).
The greater part of the chapter is devoted to the underlying paradigm as that is where
the assumptions are hidden away from our eyes and consciousness. Unless we “see” our
excessive human-centeredness (anthropo-centrism), our conduct will not change.
The second prerequisite for a commons-orientation is a renewed commitment to
global governance systems—a vital management task often neglected because it
viewed as “too impractical.” Global governance (7.2) will be discussed with refer-
ence to the work of Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom on principles for shared
commons management.
The chapter ends (7.3.3) by highlighting a few implications for management
education.
7.1 Human-Centered (Anthropocentric) Philosophy
The “turn to the rational subject” in modern Western philosophy may be illustrated
with reference to three of the most influential thinkers from the 16th to the eighteenth
century, namely René Descartes (1596–1650), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872).3
3
Selected portions of this chapter have appeared previously in Naudé, P. 2018. Can we overcome
the anthropocentrism bias in sustainability discourse?. African Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2):
56-67, doi: https://doi.org/10.15249/11-2-189
Descartes’ philosophical aim was to establish an irrefutable basis for knowledge.1

Via a process of methodical doubt he concluded that the only certainty is, in fact,
doubting all existing knowledge. But to doubt means that I, the doubting individual,
must think and therefore must exist: “I doubt, therefore I think, and hence I am.”
Descartes’ further conclusion, after stating that thinking is a vital attribute belonging
to him, is that he is a real thing and really exists. “But what thing? I have answered: a
thing which thinks” (Descartes, 1952:79).4
In his famous essay, “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?” (Answering
the question: What is Enlightenment?) originally published in Berlinische
Monatsschrift,5 Kant describes the unenlightened or immature person as follows:
“Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding or mind without guidance
from another.”6 Enlightenment only develops when one displays the courage to use
one’s own mind and does not rely on tradition or authority.
This essay was followed in 1787 by Kant’s revised edition of Kritik der reinen
Vernunft which is probably one of the most important texts on human knowledge
ever written. Copernicus proved that we do not live in an earth-centered universe: the
sun is the center point around which the planets, including the earth, rotate. To
accept a heliocentric planetary system required a Copernican revolution. In the same
way, Kant claims that knowledge is not imprinted on our senses from outside and we
just passively “receive” knowledge—no, we are active creators of knowledge based
on the ordering categories of the mind (Kant, 1998: 110).
Feuerbach published Das Wesen des Christentums in 18417 and argues for the
true or anthropological essence of religion. He deifies human reason and inverts the
traditional theological idea that God creates humans. We as humans, instead, create
God. “The divine being is nothing else than the human being, or rather, the human
nature purified, made objective . . . All the attributes of the divine nature are,
therefore, attributes of the human nature” (Feuerbach, 1957: 14). Consciousness of
God is nothing other than self-consciousness and knowledge of God is in fact self-
knowledge.
The cumulative force of these (and other similar) ideas led to the rational,
autonomous, and material human subject being at the center of Western philosophy.
Let us summarize this “turn to the subject” in more simple language:
Descartes established the doubting and thinking I (human subject) as the basis for
all knowledge. Kant argued that a mature person is an “enlightened” person by using
her/his own mind to make up truth, creating knowledge via the categories of the
mind (human subject). Feuerbach turns theology into anthropology where we
(human subjects) create God in our image.
4
See also Meditations III: “I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, that doubts, affirms, denies, that
knows a few things” (Descartes, 1952:82).
5
Published December (1784, 481–494). See Kant, (1999: 20) for the version used in this article.
6
My free and gender-neutral translation of “Unmundigkeit ist das Unvermὃgen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen.”
7
References are from the 1957 English translation.
It is impossible to understand and appreciate the enormous social advances

contained in the critical-constructive nature of modern science; an economy built
on private enterprise; and political systems with individual human rights, without
some reference to the human person as a “thinking thing.” The thinking (Descartes),
knowing (Kant), and divinized (Feuerbach) subject makes science (I find empirically
proven facts) and democracy (I vote for whom I choose) and capitalism (I pursue my
self-interest) possible. None of these three modern systems can be satisfactorily
explained without the Enlightenment understanding of the human person.
It is equally impossible to understand the abuse of nature by the successful
marriage between science and technology which enables the idea of unlimited
economic growth without recourse to the same human subject. Human history is,
by its very nature, ambiguous.
The free, critical, autonomous, and rational subject is the cornerstone of the
paradigm from which Western societies built their view on human–nature relations
over the last four centuries. It enabled Western economies—via successive industrial
revolutions—to build enormous prosperity as well as the power to extend their reach
globally through conquest and colonization.
Insofar as this paradigm fosters the abuse of human power, it turns into anthro-
pocentrism (excessive human-centeredness) where the self-designed economic
needs of humanity blind us to our relative and not absolute position in the natural
order. The “thinking thing” has acquired the power to un-create the natural order
and—via the aptly named era of the Anthropocene8—alter the very geological
history of the earth. This era describes the earth’s most recent geological time “as
being human influenced or anthropogenic, based on overwhelming global evidence
that atmospheric, geological, hydrological, bio-spheric and other earth system pro-
cesses are now altered by humans.”
Unless this latter paradigm changes, we will not be able to fundamentally
address behavioral adjustments and sustainability questions in the context of our
current ecological crises.
Let us look at three examples where this paradigm is at work in our own time:
Sustainability talk, Christian stewardship, and GDP figures.
7.1.1 Sustainability Talk and Conservation
The first example stems from the classic definition of sustainable development itself
as put forward in Our common future (1987) drafted by the UN World Commission
on Environment and Development. “Humanity has the ability to make development
sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (1987: 8).
In the context of the mid-1980s, this definition did make huge strides in at least
two ways:
8
See www.anthropocene.info (accessed May 09, 2017).
It is firstly understood that the unfettered pursuit of human needs is not possible
on a finite planet. Sustainable development “does imply limits” and these are related
to “the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities” (1987: 8).
The more affluent amongst us, who also use more natural resources, shall therefore
have to adopt lifestyles “within the planet’s ecological means” and population
growth must be in harmony with “the changing productive potential of the ecosys-
tem” (1987: 9).
It secondly gave inter-generational ethics a sharper focus with the insight that the
effects of our ecological actions today will impact negatively on those who live after
us. “We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or
prospect of repaying . . . We act as we do because we can get away with it: future
generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot
challenge our decisions” (1987: 8).9
But the fundamental weakness of this definition is that “meeting the needs of
humanity,” now and in the future, leaves the anthropocentrism bias unchallenged.
The idea is still “to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to
realize human ambitions” (1987: 8, my emphases), but only to do so in a sustainable
way. This bias toward human need—satisfaction excludes any notion of the “rights”
of other species and the geo-reality of the earth.
There were limited successes in a raised consciousness for environmental conser-
vation and, once climate change became a more accepted fact, there were marked
improvements in production of eco-efficient products. This was followed by global
efforts to reach agreements on limiting carbon emissions, the latest being the 2016
Paris Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Conservation makes us feel good, but it does nothing to limit damage on
non-conserved areas. Conservation may in fact be a contradictory cover for the
ill-use of natural resources outside the conservation ambit. Eco-efficiencies are
important advances, but they have a very limited effect if the quantity of consumer
goods is not itself reduced and their very material production processes are not
radically altered (see Stuchtey et al., 2016: 18–20).
The underlying reason why “sustainable development” has in fact—contrary to
intentions—accelerated global environmental deterioration is that human needs-
satisfaction determines the paradigm of the interrelation between us and the rest of
the natural environment. As long as this remains, no fundamental change in business
conduct can be expected.
9
The Commission proposed a principle of “inter-generational equity” which reads as follows:
“States shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present
and future generations” (1987: 348).
7.1.2 Christian Stewardship
In his well-known essay, “The historical roots of our ecological crisis,” Lynn White
Jnr argued that—from an historical perspective—the Christian interpretation of the
relation between humans and nature played a decisive role in shaping the attitude of
people toward nature, even in a so-called “post-Christian” era.
White refers to the Hebrew creation narratives where man is given dominion over
physical creation and the latter is there for the benefit of man and to serve man’s
purposes while man himself is not simply part of nature but made in the image of
God.10 He concludes: “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most
anthropocentric religion the world has seen” (White, 1967: 1205). The fusion of
science with technology in the context of the Christian dogma of man’s transcen-
dence of, and mastery over, nature, explains the axioms underlying our ecological
crisis (White, 1967: 1206).
His essay sparked various responses from eco-theologies. As an illustration of the
overall argument, I refer only to the stewardship metaphor as developed by Douglas
John Hall in his book The steward. A biblical symbol come of age (1990).11 His
analysis of the Holy Scripture brings him to regard the relation between master and
steward from two perspectives:
On the one hand, the steward is the representative or vicar of the one who has
employed him/her. The steward is the “one who has been given the responsibility for
the management and service of something belonging to another” and consequently
the office of the steward “. . . presupposes a particular kind of trust on the part of the
owner or master” (Hall, 1990:32).
On the other hand, the steward is at the same time only a slave, strictly account-
able to the owner and master who may retract the relative authority given to the
steward at any point in time (see Hall, 1990:32–41).
Hall concludes that the steward metaphor assumes two mutually informative
tasks: responsibility and accountability. “The owner is not the master and owner
(possessor) and therefore is accountable. The steward is given a vocation to fulfil and
the wherewithal to fulfil it, and therefore is responsible” (Hall, 1990: 235).
From a sustainability perspective, this metaphor with its noble intentions and real
advances, remains an expression of the anthropocentric bias because it still
presupposes human superiority over all other creatures. It is very difficult to be a
“steward” and not understand yourself as not only qualitatively different, but also as
holding power over that which you are commissioned to rule.
Despite the geological fact that nature existed for millions of years without the
human species (and therefore without humans as knowing and managing subjects),
stewardship still maintains the natural environment as an object for our use and
safekeeping albeit under stricter ethical precepts. The managerial language reveals
an androcentric power bias, and we know from bitter experience that humans have
10
I retain the gender-exclusive language of the original essay.
11
This is a revised edition of a book with the same title published originally in 1982.
been more prone to be exploitative, self-serving managers than caring,

commissioned stewards. The managerial steward, Hall acknowledges too, may be
a sanctified version of the technocrat (Hall, 1990: 234).
As scientists struggle to interconnect all the variables that, for example, affect
climate change with its unpredictable consequences, the idea of the steward as
manager—even good manager—represents an overestimation of human “manage-
rial” capacity and an underestimation of human inability to understand and steer
complex ecosystemic factors.
7.1.3 GDP Growth
The third example comes from the tenacity with which Gross Domestic Product is
held as norm for growth and wealth creation. The statistical framework for GDP was
developed after the Second World War to express in a single figure a reliable
measure of production growth in the postwar economic recovery. GDP received
significant status when in 1953 the UN institutionalized it in the System for National
Accounts to establish comparability among nations.
It is fair to say that—to this day—GDP is the most closely followed and eagerly
awaited economic indicator and has reached a status where in the minds of most
people “growth” (increase in the GDP figure) equals “progress” or “wealth creation.”
Many critics have pointed to the fact that GDP cannot measure welfare, happi-
ness, or inclusive economic growth.12 But the most glaring gap in GDP is that it may
increase and create the impression of wealth creation whereas—if natural resource
use and depletion are taken into account—“real” growth might be much lower or
even negative.
As Martin Stuchtey et al. suggest: “A lot of GDP growth we are measuring might
in fact be borrowing from the future rather than real progress.” The provocative
question is: Are we in fact growing poor? (2016: 15).
That we are indeed getting poorer seems to be the case if one takes the
calculations of the Global Footprint Network into account: They calculate on an
annual basis the biological surface required to sustainably produce all the natural
resources used in that year. In 1970, we stepped over the red line for the first time and
by 2015 we used a full 1.6 planets.
In economic terms—but not reflected in GDP—the overuse, contamination, and
depletion of the natural environment are reducing the productivity of our natural
resource system. It will thus become increasingly difficult to transform natural
capital into other forms of capital if the former is reduced or is simply not available
(Stuchtey et al., 2016: 12–13).
12
For a concise overview of criticism against GDP, see Garland, 2016. Alternative indicators like
the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI) and Happy Planet Index
(HPI) have been developed to include a more accurate account of natural resource use, but these
have not yet been able to gain significant traction and influence in policy directions.
With its bias for human production of consumer goods, elegantly expressed in
one figure, the anthropocentric paradigm makes it very difficult to endorse
alternatives to GDP. In their influential report, Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP
doesn’t add up, Stiglitz et al. (2009) demonstrate that exclusive use of GDP has the
practical effect that policy makers are not only mismeasuring our lives, but that they
engage in a dangerous calculation that on the surface seems to add up, but simply
does not, exactly because it excludes the externalities of the natural environment.
It seems clear that, philosophically and practically speaking, the root of the
problem is an overemphasis and overestimation of the human subject which leads
to the satisfaction of human needs to the exclusion of other species.
The question thus arises: Is there a different way to approach human subjectivity?
This is a very difficult question. But we must really try hard to move conceptually
beyond anthropocentrism. Let us explore this a bit further.
7.1.4 How Could we Approach Human Subjectivity?
Let us start with an obvious point: It is impossible to jump over the shadow of the
“thinking thing.” It is we who interpret the world, and it is we who act upon the
world. There is no Archimedes point “outside” us from which we could look “into”
our human existence. However, two movements are possible to counter anthropo-
centrism in its ideological guise:
The first movement is the decentering—first in our minds and consequently in our
actions—of the human subject as superior apex- and reference point of the natural
order. We stand in and with the natural order. We are intrinsically part of, and not
above, this order, although our technical capabilities surpass every other species’
power to affect this order (This is part of the problem: Homo sapiens is not good with
power).
Such decentering of a specific subject already occurs in other contexts that require
an adjustment to self-understanding for ethical purposes:
As a white, male person living in the historical context of apartheid, my default
subjectivity represents the power and injustice accompanied by gender, class, and
race constructs. It takes deliberate mental re-orientation to not exert this “centering”
power and to not “usurp” default authority when entering social settings. On entering
a seminar room for a meeting, my female black colleague once said: “Piet, you white
guys always take up too much space. Sit down and listen.” Well said. And an
interesting ensuing debate about a moratorium on white male voices, decentering,
and making space.
One is not even aware of this “centered” thinking unless being called out. Living
according to the value of inclusivity requires the deliberate and conscious
decentering of the powerful, male I toward a “recentered” subjectivity marked by
humility, equality, reciprocity, and respect. This is not easy, but it can be done (The
ecological problem is that we are incapable to listen to nature “calling us out”).
On a global scale, a new Copernican revolution is required:
Instead of seeing the human person as the sun around which all other species and
objects in the natural world revolve, we should adopt a biocentric approach where all
species share in one life- and ecosystem, and the enhancement of life (or not)13
becomes the ethical norm for economic actions and scientific development.23
This revolution moves us beyond a pragmatic motivation for a kind of
enlightened anthropocentrism to a principled choice for biocentric thinking and
action. Intimations of what this means have been put forward in concepts like
“accretive” economics built on “net-positive” outcomes, including the measurement
of natural resource use in economic progress reports (Stuchtey et al., 2016: 24–28).
The second movement—as convincingly argued by eco-feminism—is
acknowledging and realizing the subjectivity of other species and natural phenom-
ena, and then constructing our earthly existence as an intricate web of interdependent
reciprocity and mutuality.
What is required, says Sallie McFague, is a holistic, instead of an atomistic
paradigm. In the former, “the absolute divisions between human beings and other
beings and even between organic and inorganic are softened, as are many of the
hierarchical dualisms that have accompanied those divisions: spirit/flesh, subject/
object, male/female, mind/ body (McFague, 1987: 4). The subject–object structure
of modern knowledge must be transcended. We must learn to “see” that what
humans consider as objects, in fact, represent other subjects.
This sounds like playing with words and intellectual gymnastics. But it is not.
We now see interesting legal developments that relativize and complement the
anthropocentrically formulated universal declaration of human rights by according
rights to so-called inanimate objects. The Whanganui River in New Zealand, after a
140-year-long battle by the Maori people, became the first river in the world to be
accorded the same rights as a human person, implying that it will be represented as a
separate legal entity in court proceedings. The same happened with Mount Taranaki,
being granted legal personality in its own right.
In the context of the argument above, the reason for this long battle is simple:
Maori’s have a totally different view on human–nature relations than the British
crown and later New Zealand governments. For the Maori’s, acknowledging and
protecting sacred spaces come naturally (a model of mutuality). For the Westerners,
it is a tourist resource for production (a model of dominion and exploitation).
The tightening of legislation that requires extensive independent environmental
impact assessments before developments are approved—much to annoyance of
people “who believe in jobs and development”—increasingly reinforces the legal
recognition of nonhuman natural resources and therefore a shift in the position of the
human subject.
13
See the interesting multidisciplinary research project called “Enhancing Life” at enhancinglife.
uchicago.edu where the ethical significance of life-enhancement is explored in fields as wide
ranging as medicine, theology, and architecture.
7.2 Global Governance for the Common Good 113
7.2 Global Governance for the Common Good
Apart from a change in philosophy, the second prerequisite for averting the tragic of
the commons is a commitment to global governance.
Let us remind ourselves what the key features of the common’s tragedy is: It is
about individual users with open access to a resource unrestricted by shared social
structures or formal rules that govern access and use. These individuals then act
independently of and uncoordinated with other users in pursuit of their self-interest.
This action is contrary to the common good of all other users and, in the end, the
commons as a resource is depleted. The key issues are individual choices, self-
interest, open access, no common guiding structures, and no coordination.
Here the work of Elinor Ostrom, the first woman Nobel prize winner for Eco-
nomics (a shared award with Oliver Williamson in 2009), is really insightful. Her
well-known book is Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action (Ostrom, 1990).
Her work, illustrated with numerous real-life case studies from around the globe,
teaches us the important lesson that—when it comes to the commons—the tragedy is
not inevitable, as long as we move beyond zero-sum thinking and accept that human
cooperation is better than competition. Contrary to common sense ideas, such
cooperation at a local level can emerge and be sustained without direct interference
from government or privatizing the commons to protect it from overuse.
Her eight principles of common pool resource management include collective
choice arrangements, effective collective monitoring, clear paths for conflict resolu-
tion of scarce resource use, followed by appropriate sanctions, agreed to by all in
advance. It is worthwhile listing them in slightly simplified form, whilst we remem-
ber that they are inferred from “localized” situations and require translation into how
to govern the whole earth as our shared commons. After each principle I insert a
question with respect to the global situation. This does not at all reflect a negation of
the principle, but tries to stimulate our best governance efforts in answering them:
1. Define clear group boundaries.

Are the nation-states of the world—political and not communal constructs—the
appropriate group boundary?
2. Match rules governing the use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
Can rules for global resource use take local situations adequately into account
without falling into the trap of too many exceptions?
3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
Is participation in rule-making indeed possible by all affected by the rules?
4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by
outside authorities.
If we are all rule makers, who is the outside authority, and who creates that
authority?
5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’
behavior.
Who will act as independent monitors if all are in the same boat?
6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

Are international graduated sanctions possible to execute?
7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
Who will act as a mediator in disputes arising from resource (ab)use?
8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the
lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
How would a tiered governance system from lowest level to the highest
interconnected system look on a global scale?
Ostrom’s ideas may guide us as we struggle on a global level to manage the

commons. Our problems are manifold and deep:
There are many who simply do not believe that the commons are in trouble. They
are deniers that human industrial action is a key source of global warming and
therefore of climate change. There are corporates with a huge stake in a fossil-based
economy and they fight science with sponsored science to create doubt and dispute.
If we do not agree on the problem the chance to agree on the solution is zero.
But there is also progress.
The only readily accepted body that may act as a rule-making and monitoring
body is the United Nations with all its limitations. It is the best we have for now. The
research work done by the IPPC is a collective effort to provide us with the best
scientific information on the actual state of the commons. The painstaking work
leading up to the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in what Olstrom calls a
participative rule-making body.
We need more time to develop adequate legal frameworks for sanctions and
mediations in resource disputes. Without respect for rules that are in fact enforce-
able, we will remain with aspirational statements. The latter are not worthless as they
prompt us to move toward an ecological mindful state. A good example is the UN
Global Compact 10 Principles14 where Principle 7 states that business should
support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; Principle 8 require
a business to undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;
and Principle 9 encourage business to develop and diffuse environmentally friendly
technologies.
7.3 Implications for Management Education
How will we in business schools make a real contribution to educate for the
commons? The answer is quite simple, though execution is quite complex: By
re-orientation of what we already do. In this way we can give practical effect to
our responsibility to contribute to a new paradigm of business itself.
14
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (accessed May 10, 2020).
7.3 Implications for Management Education 115
7.3.1 Self-Managing for the Commons
Sweden is not known for its sunshine. Yet in the foyer of the School for Business and
Law in Gothenburg, there is an electronic display of how much electricity is
generated by the school’s solar panels at any given time.
Apart from the fact that it is indeed over the medium-term a saving on electricity
cost and limiting use of fossil-based energy, the other impact is that of awareness.
Students and visitors cannot miss the display. It is a practical example of sustainable
business, an academic area for which the school is well known.
When we refurbished the USB buildings on our current campus in the Tygerberg
area close to Cape Town, we were looking for opportunities to practice what we
preach. Adjacent to the building is a huge quarry that fills up with water from the
surrounding roads and hills during the rainy season. Nothing happened with that
water in the past. When Cape Town approached a so-called “water day zero” in
2018, we had to think differently.
With assistance from engineers, we found a double use for the water: Running our
ablution facilities (no municipal water required) and installing a water-cooling
system to replace the power-intensive air conditioners in the warm Cape Town
months between October and March. (We were naturally pleased that the University
provided the capital!)
As I drove up the hill to our campus, I saw a few gardeners working with petrol
lawnmowers to cut the large grass area around the school. It is quite a task as they do
not work on a flat surface. I then remind myself that there is an alternative option:
Portulacaria Afra. This absolute wonder-plant which I came to know during my
days in the Eastern Cape, is called “spekboom” in Afrikaans, and is loved by
elephants and kudu buck in the Addo National Park.
Spekboom can absorb between four to ten tons of carbon per hectare, which is
10 times more effective than tropical rain forests. You plant it by sticking a small
branch in the soil and it survives on 250 mm of water per annum.
So, it is cheap, easy to plant, evergreen with flowers in spring, requires zero
maintenance and lives up to 200 years whilst sucking carbon from the atmosphere by
photosynthesis at night. It is also edible for humans—it can be used in salads—and
indigenous people and local farmers use it as medicine for many ailments.
Why not replace that lawn with spekboom? I thought.15
This is the kind of local solution that can be found and there are already numerous
examples of business schools’ imaginative action. But managing for the commons
cannot be left for each to pursue without some monitoring involved. We must
change the system to work for the commons:
The day when rating agencies and accreditation bodies take a decreasing carbon
footprint (in a great variety of ways, but quantifiable!) as indicator of quality, the
15
This good idea was shelved due to the COVID-19 lockdown in South Africa which commenced
on March 27, 2020, and by the time of writing a year later, March 2021, the situation has not
eased yet.
business school sector will be prompted into more urgent action. This element of our
work should be included in our strategic planning, be part of performance criteria for
the leadership team, and be publicly accounted for in our annual reports.
We must manage our schools with the commons in mind.
7.3.2 Embedding the Commons in Curricula and Research
Charity begins at home. One of the prerequisites for embedding sustainable business
in our academic work, is obviously to make sure that faculty members understand
and support the school’s overall approach. Perhaps the philosophical introduction
above is a bridge too far, but the change of paradigm is crucial otherwise nothing will
change in the classroom or journal articles.
The ideal is to avoid a special “sustainable business” module—even if compul-
sory. It is far more effective if professors include this orientation to the commons in
their own fields and by their own good design. A few ad hoc examples: Marketing
(green-washing and eco-advertising) accounting (integrated reporting), corporate
finance (including the externalities of nature into pricing), entrepreneurship
(opportunities in the green and blue economies), leadership (“responsible” leader-
ship and organizational change), and strategy (planning for the medium and long
term to make sustainability transitions).
My experience is that our students and corporate clients are far more ready to take
on tough questions around the ecological crisis that we might assume (Because we
work with some of the best minds, there are always pleasant surprises along the
way). I put out a simple three scenarios for an MBA class and asked them to work in
teams to give reasons for their choice:
• Scenario 1: We will through self-destruction inevitably cause the end of the world
as we know it.
• Scenario 2: We will through future science and technology postpone/avert the end
of the world as we know it.
• Scenario 3: We will reimagine, shape, and co- create a new world we do not
yet know.
The discussions moved widely over the power of technology, human innovation,
delayed self-interest, and whether nature has intrinsic value. The specific outcome in
the class is not that important. The fact that the questions are raised, is indeed
important as they have the potential to reshape thinking. This is our job.
Once the curriculum starts to change, support from research will increase as
students choose topics in the wider field, complementing work done by academics.
It might be wise to initially steer collaborative research funding in this direction until
“sustainability” has gained good traction. And the focus should be more on
researching business opportunities than merely singing in the doomsday choir.
There is enough work still to be done to make this difficult transition from a
dominion-and-extraction economy to a mutuality-carbon-neutral one.
7.4 Conclusion 117
7.3.3 Leading Public Policy and Opinion-Formation

for the Commons
In the chapter on what “good” management education should create, the important
public role of business schools was alluded to. Part of our social good is to bring our
insights to bear on public policy and public opinion. Yes, it is true that our “natural”
audiences are students, corporate learners, businesses, and other academics in our
field. We are used to communicate and interact with these audiences, because we can
play to our strengths, namely our academic expertise.
It requires a different modus operandi to turn knowledge into policy. But business
schools have a duty to impact on and influence policy if we believe our knowledge
has some practical worth. It does not help to come to the party when the laws are put
before parliament, regional economic hubs, or municipal leaders. We must be
present in the pre-phase to work with others to in fact shape and co-determine policy
outcomes.
Examples around the world demonstrate what happens when narrow ideological
considerations determine policy instead of actual evidence. Those of us in emerging
economies see this far too often: billions of dollars are lost along the way, and
useless projects are opened long after the due date and well over the budget by
smiling politicians, wooing the masses for a vote in the next election.
The audience of the broader public where opinions are formed is represented by
the myriad media channels, including social media, available today. Not only is it
good for the public license of the business school if professors participate in opinion-
formative events—it is hopefully a powerful way to make sure that fake news and
populistic, but uninformed ideas do also not overtake public discourse. If Donald
Trump could create an attack on the Capitol via Twitter and a rousing speech filled
with lies, the power of media is evident. If social media could ignite the Arab Spring,
why not work for the commons as well?
We have a social and public duty to the commons when it comes to matters of
ecology and business.
7.4 Conclusion
Leaders that emerge from business schools should understand the importance of
their global responsibility regarding the common good, and the huge challenge it
poses to the current way of doing business. We must assist them to lead not only in a
single corporation, but in a collective, however, the latter presents itself.
I can think of no better place to shape business and leadership thinking in this
regard than forward-looking and courageous business schools that are not afraid to
ask strange and uncomfortable questions: What is your view of the human subject?
What is the place of homo sapiens in the universe? Who will control extra-terrestrial
business? How can we make the common good real?
Educating for the common good is not an option.
Bibliography
Descartes, R. (1952). Meditations on first philosophy. (Transl. E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross). In
Great books of the Western world (Vol. 31, pp. 69–103). Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Feuerbach, L. (1957). The essence of Christianity. (translated from the original German by George
Eliot). Harper & Brothers.
Garland, G. (2016). Economic growth and progress: A paradigmatic conflation. Unpublished MBA
treatise. Stellenbosch University.
Hall, D. J. (1990). The steward. A biblical model come of age. Wipf & Stock.
Kant, I. (1999). Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften. Felix Meier.
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. (The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant.
Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood). CUP.
McFague, S. (1987). Models of god. Theology for an ecological, nuclear age. Fortress Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn’t add up.
The New Press.
Stuchtey, M. R., Enkvist, P.-A., & Zumwinkel, K. (2016). A Good disruption. Redefining growth in
the twenty-first century. Bloomsbury.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press.
White, L. J. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155, 10 March.
https://www.anthropocene.info. (n.d.). Accessed 9 May 2017.
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles. (n.d.). Accessed 10 May 2020.
Leadership: What Lessons Can we Learn
in a Black Swan Event? 8
It was my wife’s birthday when the president announced that South Africa will go
into a hard but temporary lockdown on March 27, 2020. The Coronavirus entered
the country via two tourists returning from an Italian holiday where the virus—
originally from China—was starting to spread. Here is an extract from my almost
chaotic to-do list as Business School Director leading in the crisis in close coopera-
tion with the university:
Safety of students and staff first—all to vacate buildings/offices to work/study
from home. Secure building with access control and health protocols. Survey of
technology needs to enable working/studying from home. Adjust budget for data
packages and laptops. Create small executive that meets daily. Set up clear commu-
nication channels with one source of information. Rework class schedule for rest of
semester with an immediate two-week gap. Get list of academics up for teaching first
and open compulsory online teaching training within one week (IT to facilitate).
Rotate thereafter according to schedules. Recall technology professor from sabbati-
cal to lead upskilling. Choose zoom for basic teaching and MS teams for group
work. Introduce other technology aids. Upskill learning process facilitators. Accel-
erate appointment of course designers. Check digital security of all assessments.
Adjust class fees, subtracting on-campus services no longer used. Renegotiate
contracts with outsourced service providers (food and cleaning). Inform all interna-
tional incoming groups and renegotiate format and dates. Inform all executive
education clients of transition to on-line and renegotiate fees and dates. Create
two new forms of leave one HR-system: “working from home” and “quarantine.”
Check leave balances and enforce leave days to protect staff and to limit risk.
***
By the time of writing this chapter (June 2021) the world is still gripped by the
Coronavirus and its variants that cause havoc in public health systems, affect
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87775-0_8
120 8 Leadership: What Lessons Can we Learn in a Black Swan Event?
personal freedoms,1 and already led to an unprecedented economic shock termed by

some as “Corona-nomics.” The end is not yet in sight. Just as we think we have
controlled the spread of the virus; it flares up with renewed vigor in another variant.
Vaccinations are slowly making their way albeit with uneven success, and renewed
questions about their efficacy.
At the same time, the highest summer temperatures ever recorded are now
prevalent on the US West Coast and Canada, and there unprecedented flooding in
Germany, Belgium, and China, to name a few. There is no sign that changes in the
climate have stabilized or will soon return to more predictability. The ecosystem is
just too complex to work out cause and effect in direct terms.
What Corona and climate change share, is that both are global phenomena. No
one country can control or escape the consequences. What they also share, is that
both are described as a crisis: the climate crisis and the COVID crisis. The difference
is that knowledge about climate change and its mitigation cannot at this point be
construed as a “black swan crisis.” Whereas this could still have been the case back
in the early 1970s, those who accept the best available scientific evidence must
acknowledge that we now know and can plan mitigation actions.
COVID came as an utter unplanned and unplanable event. Typical of a black
swan occurrence, it was not predicted, cannot be stopped immediately, and has
severe negative consequences. No one knows for sure what the twenty-first century
will bring. It is by definition not possible to predict black swan events. The best one
can do now is to think carefully about lessons to be learnt that might be generalizable
to other grey or black swan events in the future.
The aim of this last chapter is to draw some leadership lessons from my very
narrow perspective as Dean of a Business School during the COVID crisis. Hope-
fully, the ideas are useful now and for when we might need them again in the future.
It is important that I record my limitations here: I have no formal leadership
training—not even short executive education courses. Nor have I done academic
study on leadership. By just looking at the myriad of adjectives in front of leadership
(visionary, contractual, service, ethical, and more), it looks complicated. It seems
that there is an emerging discipline, “Leadership Studies,” in the same vein as other
so-called regional knowledge forms like “Media Studies,” “Women Studies,”
“Sustainability Studies,”, and so forth. Leadership seems to bring together an
exciting array of established disciplines around relevant themes and I am grateful
for colleagues who spend their time and effort in making leadership development
such an important part of management education.
What I do “know” about leadership has been gained by observing other leaders
and via actual leading myself—sometimes successfully, at other times through error
1
One of the casualties of COVID lockdowns is that almost 70% of countries covered by the
Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit since 2006, recorded a decline in
their overall score with the lowest average score since the index started. If one adds the hybrid and
authoritarian regimes together, just over half (50.6%) of the world’s population live under sincerely
restricted freedoms. See https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/. (n.d.)
accessed June 29, 2021.
8.1 Leaders Are Present and Demonstrate Social Intelligence 121
and trial. Almost all of this leading was in the context of NGO’s and higher
education with limited exposure to private business via nonexecutive directorships.
To frame my reflections,2 I use four forms of “intelligence” namely (8.1) social
intelligence, (8.2) sympathetic intelligence, (8.3) actionable intelligence, and (8.4)
“futuring” intelligence. What does “intelligence”—an overused term!—mean here?
It clearly transcends the limited meaning of traditional “IQ.” It rather refers to the
ability to interpret the environment at a specific point in time, choose and adjust
leadership competences appropriate to the context, and take effective action that best
addresses the situation. In the framework below, each leadership intelligence is
important on its own, but only functions optimally if there are cross-functionality
among them.
8.1 Leaders Are Present and Demonstrate Social Intelligence
The common human response in a sudden crisis is to pull back into safe space and
defend yourself on both a physical and a psychological level.
I remember vividly that when my father died of cancer at the age of 41, how
difficult it was for me to return to boarding school after the funeral. I was only nine.
Although I knew that he had been ill for more than 4 years, I did not expect his death.
I was probably shielded from the truth by my mother, a nursing sister herself. I am
normally an outgoing type of person, but in a mixture of shame and a clumsy defense
of my dignity, I tried to avoid others for at least 2 weeks. The shock of my father’s
death pushed me into seeking a corner of social safety.
Seeking safety happens on the matrix of the fight-or-flight mode, which is part of
our evolutionary development. On a personal level, our first and natural inclination
in a crisis is therefore to withdraw.
If a crisis strikes, the same happens at an organizational level. People retreat into
safety. With the Coronavirus this was an actual physical space, called “work-from-
home” with the accompanying rallying cry of “social distancing” (instead of the
more appropriate “physical distancing”.) The result is enforced social isolation and
the slow erosion of corporate belonging. One can call this a kind of organizational
“atomism” which stands in direct opposition to social cohesion or what human
resource practitioners call “staff engagement.”
In these kinds of situations, leaders resist the commonsense response to withdraw
into safety and deliberately make their presence felt. The latter should however be
2
The theological background of this chapter does not so much lie in systematic than in pastoral
theology, i.e., a reflection of how to care for people in times of crisis by making use of religious
resources. It combines two traditional “offices” accorded to believers, namely the priestly (social
and sympathetic presence) and the prophetic (action and future oriented) offices. Books that draw
on direct parallels between biblical characters and leadership (Moses as example of delegated
leadership; Joseph as a dreamer and visionary leader; Jesus as a servant leader) are interesting but
must be read with caution and a bit of skepticism as they normally pour a religious sauce over an
already baked leadership idea. God as my CEO?
based on leadership legitimacy and trust that were built before the crisis. Otherwise,
it will seem fake.
It will furthermore be a carefully crafted presence in at least two senses: The
“type” of presence (virtual, physical, and psychological) will be selected for its
contextual appropriateness and what is permissible or possible; and the “force” of
this presence will be pitched at the right level for the right occasion. The temptation
that the great leader’s face must be all over the place in a powerful display of “taking
charge in the crisis” should be avoided.
Presence in a crisis is a finely tuned, calibrated presence without looking like a
staged appearance. There is a big difference between an online information session
with all staff and a one-on-one with a fellow Management Committee member who,
because of COVID, struggles to cope as a single father without familial or childcare
support.
A common mistake of leaders in a crisis is that—because they spend so much
time addressing the conflicting, urgent administrative demands—they are drawn into
an operational bubble of extremely hard work. They are in their own minds indeed
very “present” but in fact invisible from a staff perspective.
Be there. And sometimes keep quiet.
8.2 Leaders Care and Demonstrate Sympathetic Intelligence
A crisis has a disruptive effect. It disorientates. It unsettles. It reveals and often

deactivates the underlying assumptions on which we base and plan our daily lives.
What was accepted as normal, is no longer the case.
This disruptive experience elicits different emotions. What complicates matters,
is that the emotions are not stable so that one can focus on one and try and resolve
it. Mixed emotions that vary at exposure to different situations and shifting informa-
tion decrease our coping mechanisms.
There is a feeling of victimhood and helplessness; fear for a specific threat;
anxiety over non-defined threats; sadness at social or physical losses; blame in
shifting responsibility elsewhere; anger at those who caused the crisis or are not
doing enough soon enough; wrath to be taken out as soon as the opportunity arises;
guilt at not begin prepared enough or not responding in the right way.
The Corona crisis brought all of this to the fore. And as the crisis lingers on from
one wave to next variant, a certain fatalistic attitude sets in. Our resilience is tested to
the brink, and our mental health is under extraordinary strain.
In such a situation, leaders are mature enough to show their own vulnerability.
We are not super humans who drift on an apathetic cloud above the emotional
turmoil experienced by ordinary people. We are also flesh and blood and it takes
courage and inner strength to acknowledge that to ourselves and share it with others
at the appropriate and sometime not so appropriate time.
This intra-emotional honesty, being in touch with oneself, is then linked to the
ability to step into the shoes of others to show an understanding of their experiences.
This is the two-sidedness of sympathetic intelligence. It is a sobering reality check to
8.2 Leaders Care and Demonstrate Sympathetic Intelligence 123
talk to a mother of two young children who live in a small flat with a bad internet
connection and intermittent ESKOM electricity supply. It makes one realize that
“working from home” is not as idyllic as was initially projected. It is no longer fun.
But sympathy without leadership action is not adequate. The Samaritan did not
show sympathy to the hapless victim of a roadside attack and then walked away like
the religious one. That is why the parable refers to the good Samaritan.
Three actions might appropriately flow from true sympathy:
First. Secure an open and informative link between mental health and your
organization.
“Mental health is a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or
her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively
and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community”
(WHO, 2004).
Apart from an HR matter, mental health has huge economic and workplace
consequences. It is not only the direct loss of productivity due to absence from
work3 and the associated insurance costs, but also the significant losses resulting
from presenteeism (being present but unproductive). Pre-COVID-19 estimates by
the WHO reveal that nearly US$ 1 trillion in economic productivity is lost annually
from depression and anxiety alone. At the same time, and on the positive side,
studies show that every US$ 1 spent on evidence-based care for depression and
anxiety returns US$5.
The association between mental health and business schools is not ordinarily
made. The reason is that business school people most probably hold the same
information deficits4 and biases about mental health as elsewhere in the public
domain, resulting in the same patterns of social stigma. They, therefore, share the
same discomfort in dealing with mental issues in others and—if acknowledged—in
themselves. Common perceptions are as follows: People with mental illness are
dangerous and unpredictable; they are incompetent; they deserve blame for their
condition; and there is little hope for recovery.5
One of my colleague is a physician specializing in workplace psychiatry. In our
corporate wellness presentations across South Africa in 2019–2020, he shows two
pictures of someone arriving at work: One has a broken leg in a plaster and walks
with the aid of crutches. Everyone asks what has happened and wishes her a speedy
3
Calculations of lost productivity as a percentage of GDP due to mental health vary from 0.4%
(Canada) to 4.2% (South Africa). On the top ten list of contributors to the disability-adjusted life
year (DALY), neuropsychiatric disorders take the number one place, contributing 12% to the total.
See graphs and references in Schoeman et al., (2020).
4
For example, I always thought “burnout” was a recognized clinical diagnosis and even saw it on a
sick note, but according to the 11th edition of the International Classification of Disease (IDC)
issued by the WHO, this is not the case. Burnout is seen as a syndrome resulting from a prolonged
stress in the workplace. See https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/
who-adds-burnout-icd-11-what-it-means-physicians. (n.d.) accessed June 30, 2020
5
See the research on biases done in the UK: https://www.investigoexecutive.co.uk/mental-health-
bias-in-the-workplace/. (n.d.) accessed June 30, 2020.
recovery. The other arrives, acting anxiously, isolates herself socially, and shows
clear signs of endured insomnia. No one raises any issue. “She just needs a bit of rest
and will then be fine,” they think quietly by themselves.
One should also add the fiercely competitive business school environment to
mental health biases. There are extraordinary demands to be a top researcher, an
inspiring teacher, a boardroom-level executive educator, a successful consultant, and
making contributions to administrative duties. The puzzle pieces come together: One
needs to be a superhuman to tick all the boxes.
Our expectations—spurred on by an achievement culture—are simply unrealistic.
Something has to give. And it is a gender-biased burden too, because women
normally carry significantly greater home- and child-care responsibilities whilst
being expected to perform equally to (and to break the glass ceiling—better) than
their peers.
Sympathetic leaders ensure objective mental health information and education;
they break the prejudices in the same way one does with sexism or racism or
classism; and create an environment where it is ok not to be fine all of the time,
and where there is help when needed.
Second. A crisis affords leaders the opportunity to rethink what is called “staff
and corporate wellness” in the broader sense with a specific focus on mental health
issues.
Evidence gathered during Covid by the World Health Organization6 points
toward the disruption of mental health services at exactly the time when such
services are needed to deal with an increase in anxiety disorders, insomnia, depres-
sion, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, and domestic violence. It is not enough to
have an annual World Mental Health Day. Business School and Higher Education
leaders have a huge responsibility to plan and budget for appropriate mental health
care interventions to sustain staff and student wellness in the encompassing sense of
the word: physical, spiritual, psychological, and social.7
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and I have no data to rely on. After many
years of experience, I do have a sense that work addiction, intensified by 24/7
electronic connectivity and pressured crisis adjustment, is the silent but least
acknowledged behavioral disorder in business schools. It might also—apart from
anxiety—be the most prevalent.
6
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-10-2020-covid-19-disrupting-mental-health-services-in-most-
countries-who-survey. (n.d.) (accessed June 28, 2021). The survey was conducted from June to
August 2020 among 130 countries across WHO’s six regions.
7
We were fortunate at USB to have appointed a psychiatrist, Associate Professor Renata Schoeman,
to our leadership staff (neuro-leadership) long before COVID while at the same time having
available a network of coaching professionals linked to our Master’s in Management Coaching,
set up through the pioneering work by Associate Professor Salome van Coller. We held online
information sessions about mental health so that staff could discern the symptoms associated with
mental health conditions and seek either medical or mentorship assistance. We stepped up our staff
wellness program with carefully planned interventions and a budget to back it up. Even so, we could
have done better.
8.2 Leaders Care and Demonstrate Sympathetic Intelligence 125
Work addition shows the same pattern as other forms of addiction like alcohol or
gambling and its signs are not difficult to discern:
Anxiety accompanied by abruptness and irritability when not connected and
working; inability to enjoy nonwork activity; insomnia fought off by taking medica-
tion that creates both a psychological and pharmaceutical reliance; termination of
hobbies that “waste time” (the gym workout is part of the addiction); diminished
social circle of (former) friends; reduced family time often accompanied by
deteriorating relationships with partners/siblings; identifying work-place success
with own worth as a person; holding an underlying fear of failure or of not exceeding
expectations.
It is very difficult for the addicted person to see and acknowledge the addiction.8
The first and second and third responses are usually denial (“this is not true”),
defense (“I am just in a tough phase of my career and will scale down later”), and
minimizing (“Yes, I do work hard, but to call that an addition is an exaggeration.
Don’t waste my time with such nonsense”).
The saddest part of work addiction is that those at work and the business school as
an institution over time reap the “benefits” while the real price is paid at home. If and
when the relational stress destroys a marriage or a family or—worse—when a
physiological breakdown eventually happens and the person is incapacitated or is
laid off, she is very quickly forgotten.
Organizations—unlike computers—have no memory and very little mercy.
Third. Sympathetic leaders ensure that they have measures in place for primary,
secondary, and tertiary interventions that prevent, mitigate, and deal with
consequences of illness, including mental illness. Depending on prevailing labor
legislation, reasonable workplace accommodation for staff requiring such interven-
tion reduces the occurrence of job losses.
The idea of “light duty” is a misnomer and feeds prejudice. The idea of “accom-
modation” is a more enabling term and executes what empirical evidence shows: It is
far better for staff to be at work with renegotiated responsibilities, than to be “booked
off for burnout.” Work has a positive influence on recovery, well-being, self-esteem,
social connectedness, and identity. There is a direct positive correlation between a
return to work and regained mental health. People absent for more than 3 months
have a far worse prognosis than those accommodated. Data show that 50% of people
out of work for 8 weeks will not return to work and 85% of people out of work for
6 months or more will never return to work on a sustained basis.9
Too late in my own leadership journey have I come to know the extraordinary
work done by occupational therapists (OT’s) to ease people back into the workplace
after health problems arose. In one case a support staff member developed severe
reactive depression due to persistent high workplace pressure in the procurement
8
To avoid another mental health bias (!) against hard workers, a clinical diagnosis as an “addicted”
person requires a professional evaluation which includes somatic, behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional aspects. See Schoeman et al., (2020).
9
See references by Grobbelaar in Schoeman et al., (2020).
section. He said afterward: “The OT saved my dignity and literally saved me my

job.”
8.3 Leaders Are Decisive and Demonstrate Actionable

Intelligence
The Greek etymology of krino from which the English word “crisis” is derived, has
two interrelated connotations: Taking a decision (to judge a situation, to separate
things out, to resolve) and reaching a turning point. If one takes this as a cue, leaders
in a crisis have the double task to judge a situation and take decisions that will
inaugurate a turning point. Things can turn out good or bad. This is a knife-edge
situation and not the slow build-up of a so-called tipping point (Gladwell, 2000).
The interpretative ability of leaders—to quickly assess/judge the situation—is the
key here. This is obviously a rational process where one gathers as much relevant
information as possible, sort out what is important and possible, and then decide the
way forward.
But this interpretative skill is also more than a rational process. It relies on the
hunches formed during experience. Leaders are people with the ability to “see
through” or “frame” a situation. Leadership lenses are shaped over time by being
exposed to different situations. Yes, years do count. A crisis creates what John
Kotter (1996) calls a “burning platform,” which he deems the first prerequisite to
lead change. A crisis is therefore indeed an opportunity and must be framed as such
exactly to overcome doom-and-gloom-language and attitudes. In the end one simply
“knows” and cannot even always explain what in German is called Ahnung which
one may loosely translate as a “foreboding idea.”
Once the situation is framed, the next step is taking decisions. The challenge of a
black swan crisis is that it reduces both the decision-making time and the decision-
making space. This puts the governance structure of the institution under huge
pressure as the normal consultative processes might simply be unrealistic and too
slow.10 A colleague of mine used to say that democracy does not work in an
operating theater nor in the midst of the battlefield—the surgeon and the general
are in command and there is no time for long deliberations. In fact, those time-
consuming consultations (called task-teams in universities) can cost lives.
A crisis, therefore, tests leadership credentials exactly because people must accept
the authority and content of decisions taken under consultative constraints supported
by already established trust before the crisis.
Are leadership decisions then beyond critical review? Not at all. But when the
crisis strikes, leaders must act with enough conviction that their decisions are the
right ones in the situation to ally panic or fear. But we also learn in and from a crisis
and as the situation develops, we adjust as and when required. That is why I included
Watch how governments have created “Command Councils” or similar structures to manage the
10
Corona crisis.
8.4 Leaders Keep the Vision Alive and Demonstrate “Futuring” Intelligence 127
above my “to do” list from late March 2020 when the country and university went
into lockdown.
These decisions and actions—familiar to Dean and Director colleagues—were all
taken within about 3–4 weeks. Under normal circumstances some of these decisions
would have taken more than a year. Some were later adjusted as the lockdown levels
changed. But—like most schools—we could turn the crisis into a (steep) learning
curve, making adjustments that will probably last well beyond the crisis.
8.4 Leaders Keep the Vision Alive and Demonstrate “Futuring”

Intelligence
A crisis forces us to focus on the now. We simply have no choice but to deal with the
situation at hand. The luxuries of quiet contemplation and considered strategic
planning are gone. It is all about the speed of assessment-decision-action,
accompanied by—as stated above—a conscious presence and spirit of care.
The deepest loss in a crisis is the loss of hope. This loss easily turns into apathetic
inaction and despair about the future. In Chap. 4 on the good, I refer to the creation of
transcendent good expressed in hope. I noted the enormous impact of Victor
Frankl’s logotherapy and of Nelson Mandela’s hope-filled life and “long walk to
freedom.”
The choice for hope is indeed a choice—even if against hope. In highly simplistic
terms, we can look at two great German philosophers’ intellectual responses to the
crisis of the First World War (Heidegger) and the subsequent devastation brought by
the Second World War (Bloch). (Let me first confess that I really admire both but—
seeing that this is a book on management education—I cannot deal with the
complexities involved).
Heidegger developed his influential existentialist philosophy with extraordinary
German language skills including neologisms very difficult to read or translate.11 He
describes our “being in the world” (Dasein and in-der-Welt-sein) with the word
“throw-ness” or “being thrown” (Geworfenheit). The latter explains the utter arbi-
trary nature of our human existence where we have no control over our past or where
we are born or live. We are constantly in a struggle against our own alienation which
he also describes as a “being-toward-death.”
For many, this was a realistic way to capture the period between the two World
Wars, and beyond, in philosophical terms.
Under the same conditions, Ernst Bloch develops the most important twentieth-
century ideas in utopian philosophy. Based on the principle of hope12 (Das Prinzip
11
See references to Heidegger in Chap. 8 on technology and for this section, read Heidegger: Sein
und Zeit published in German in 1927 with a first English translation, Being and time, in 1962. I
normally read the German version for the sake of the terminology and had access to the 1996
English version.
12
Bloch published Das Prinzip Hoffnung in 3 volumes between 1938–1947 and the English
translation, The Principle of Hope, was published in 1986.
Hoffnung), he asserts that the world and our history are in a constant dialectical
movement13 toward a utopia. The provisional title of Das Prinzip Hoffnung was
aptly called “Dreams of a better life.” In various cultural forms, we embrace “what is
not yet” and dream about building a better life. The word “utopia” comes from Greek
and literally means “no place” or an “unimaginable place,” completely different and
better than the present, and always open and in-the-making.14 The point is that—
unlike common sense derogatory connotations—life without utopia is dreadful.
Such a life holds no hope for tomorrow, and it simultaneously undermines utopia’s
power to provide a basis for action toward that difficult-to-imagine-future.
In a crisis situation leaders make the choice between “Geworfenheit” and
“Hoffnung.” Because of the social power that leaders have this decision is made
for and on behalf of others whom they lead. It directly affects the mood of the
institutional culture.
And it is here that the aspirational statements like vision, mission, and values—so
persistently emphasized in accreditation standards—stand or fall. If the statements
are superficial marketing tools and tick boxes for accreditation reports with no real
meaning, they will be useless in a crisis. If the statements were developed in a
consultative manner and gradually embedded in decisions and organizational cul-
ture, they can indeed play a decisive utopian role in a crisis.
Just think for a moment of the radical meaning of a value like “Compassion: We
care for the well-being of all our stakeholders” as explained via the notion of
sympathetic intelligence above. Think for a moment of what “we provide an
enriching learning experience” mean under conditions of a turn to virtual delivery
of programs. Check the direct implications of a value like “Equity: we commit to
restitution, fairness and inclusivity” for the provision of technology-enabled work
and study from home.15
The implication is clear: Leaders are not trapped in the now. They maintain,
against significant situational odds, a utopian mindset, drawing on and reinterpreting
the legacy of existing institutional aspirations. They foster—amid urgency-driven
decisions—a creative imagination that can transcend the seemingly fixed boundaries
set by the crisis. A leader imagines a future that does not yet exist and inspires others
to share the vision and walk beyond the crisis.
This “futuring” ability is one of the most difficult to develop and execute by
leaders and management educators in the specific context of business schools. It will
13
Bloch draws on both Hegel, an idealist, and Marx, a materialist, for his dialectics and gets his
utopian ideas partially from the apocalyptic religious interpretations of Thomas Münzer.
14
Bloch was the key influence on German theologian, Jürgen Moltmann, who interpreted this
principle of hope for Christian eschatology in Theologie der Hoffnung (A Theology of hope), one of
the most seminal theological books of the twentieth century. See Moltmann, (1965). To an extent,
the time to talk of “hope” was just right in the period after the Second World War and the urgent
questions about atomic warfare.
15
I use some of USB’s examples as I know them best. See https://www.usb.ac.za/usb-about/. (n.d.)
accessed June 30, 2021.
Bibliography 129
however show itself to be the most essential leadership attribute to steer us further
into the twenty-first century.
We do not know whether the next black swan has left its nest.
Bibliography
Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of Hope. MIT Press.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. How little things can make a big difference. Little Brown
and Company.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. (translated by Joan Stambough). New York State
University.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Moltmann, J. (1965). Theology of hope. On the ground and implications of a Christian eschatology.
Harper & Row.
Schoeman, R., Naudé, P., Grobbelaar, S., & Hiemstra, L. (2020). Corporate mental health
awareness. Unpublished conference presentation. University of Stellenbosch Business School.
World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence,
practice (Summary Report). Geneva: World Health Organization.
https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/physician-health/who-adds-burnout-icd-11-what-
it-means-physicians. (n.d.). Accessed 30 June 2021
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/. (n.d.). Accessed 29 June 2021.
https://www.investigoexecutive.co.uk/mental-health-bias-in-the-workplace/. (n.d.). Accessed
30 June 2020.
https://www.usb.ac.za/usb-about/. (n.d.). Accessed 30 June 2021.
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-10-2020-covid-19-disrupting-mental-health-services-in-most-
countries-who-survey. (n.d.). Accessed 28 June 2021.

Contemporary Management Education: Piet Naudé

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Management Education: Piet Naudé

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Management Education: Piet Naudé

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Future of Business and Finance

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16360

ISSN 2662-2467 ISSN 2662-2475 (electronic)

“That Wonderful Place Called ‘University’”

Entering the World of Management Education

various sorts or academic units from a Department of Religion to Dean of Faculties

The Essays in This Collection

While my principal amazement at the formative personal and social power of

generalize, although some generalization is required to get a grip on the whole. My

Stellenbosch, South Africa Piet Naudé

My sincere appreciation to my former colleagues at Nelson Mandela University and

1 Market: Why Are We Are So Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 Colonization: Who Is in the Center and Whose Knowledge

8 Leadership: What Lessons Can we Learn in a Black Swan

I vividly remember a University of Port Elizabeth strategic planning session in the

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

1.1 How Do Social Systems Function?

Following a free interpretation of Luhmann’s idea of social systems, modern

1.1.1 Religion as Dominant Paradigm

1.1.2 Creating a Market Society

1.1.3 Implications of a Market Society: Sport, Religion,

Before we come to universities and associated management education, let us look at

1.1.3.1 Professional Sport

1.1.3.2 Consumer Religion

1.1.3.3 Universities as Corporate Entities?9

academic leaders to “academic managers”; from learners to “clients”; from deans to

is responsible to lead these complex institutions by making use of commercial tools

1.1.4 Where Does Management Education Fit in?

What happened in business education, is the uncritical adoption of neo-classical

I suggested we cooperate and bring expert international staff to South Africa on a

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 15

2.1 Milton Friedman: Increasing Shareholder Value

Based on this distinction, Friedman argues for a strict role differentiation: A

entities; managers are agents in service of shareholders; social responsibilities are

2.2 Edward Freeman: Increasing Strategic Stakeholder Value

The publication of Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach by R Edward

What was the impact of the stakeholder approach on management education?

2.3 Michael Porter and Mark Kramer: Creating Shared Value

In their hugely inﬂuential article, “Creating shared value,” published in Harvard

2.4 Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh: Optimizing

Toward a theory of business by Donaldson and Walsh was published as an article in

good society, social harmony, or environmental stewardship which go beyond

2.5 Freeman, Martin, and Parmar: Building a Better Society

The power of and. Responsible business without trade-offs authored by R. Edward

What are the implications for management education?

2.6 What Value Does Management Education Create?

2.6.1 The Persistence of “Value” as Monetary Value

increased to include “additional” forms of value-creation like good corporate citi-

2.6.2 The Challenge to Deal with Intrinsic Values

2.6.3 What Is the Purpose of Business? A Proposal

It secondly implies that creating “collective” value requires an understanding of

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 33

help to orientate us in deﬁning an appropriate institutional role for business schools

3.1 Private Good

3.1.2 The Complex Relation between Business Schools

Business Schools and business nevertheless stand in a complex relationship which

3.2 Social Good

3.2.1 Educating for Democracy

Business people are under normal circumstances not interested in sociopolitical