John J.

Fernandes is the President and Chief Executive

Officer of AACSB International

Article Type: Executive corner From: Cross Cultural

Management: An International Journal, Volume 17,
Issue 3.
John J. Fernandes is the President and Chief Executive Officer of AACSB International
– The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. AACSB International is
the world's largest association of business schools from more than 70 countries and the
primary global accrediting body for business schools and accounting programs.

John served prior to AACSB as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
for The Institute of Internal Auditors and Vice President and General Auditor for New
York City Transit. His experience includes staff and management positions with Exxon
Company USA, Cameron Iron Works and Houston METRO.

Mr Fernandes has extensive corporate governance experience as a member of the

board of directors and chair of the audit committee of a large health care system. He is
also on the Board of Governors of Beta Gamma Sigma and the boards of directors of
the Global Foundation for Management Education, the PhD Project, Greater Tampa
Chamber of Commerce and Tampa Bay & Company.

John holds a bachelor's degree in business from Babson College and a master's degree
in public administration from the University of Houston. He is a graduate of the
Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government, Harvard Kennedy
School, and the University of Texas' Public Executive Institute. In 2006, John was
recognized as the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship's
Corporate Entrepreneur of the Year.

Context

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – is

a global association of high-quality business schools and organizations with nearly
1,200 member institutions in 74 countries, 570 of these are accredited schools in 33
countries. Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, USA, and with a regional office in
Singapore, AACSB International is the primary business school accreditor, association
and collective voice for management education worldwide. In the following paragraphs,
I will discuss AACSB International's role in addressing cross-cultural challenges in
management and management education.

Cross-cultural management challenges

There is no “one size fits all,” in a discussion of management education throughout the
world. Business school missions, priorities and operations are motivated by the state of
development of the school's primary economic sector. While business disciplines are
generally similar in content, all economies face different management needs as they
progress through various stages of development. Moreover, in the highly diverse global
economy, cultural, political and societal differences necessitate different managerial
approaches and styles. Management educators must be responsive to business's
requirements as they ensure that students learn the fundamentals of business. For
example, accountants and auditors who are well-trained in the methods and regulations
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are critical in developed countries but would not be the
central need of developing economies where, entrepreneurship and family business are
the foundations of economic growth. Therefore, student learning goals, curricula and
pedagogy will vary.

One of AACSB International's toughest tests is implementing its global mission. Our
mission is, to advance quality management education worldwide through accreditation
and thought leadership. It is a noble and appropriate mission that is well understood
globally. But, in application of eligibility requirements and guidelines for implementing
accreditation standards, AACSB is challenged in its efforts to achieve its mission.
AACSB accreditation is built solidly for the well-resourced, high-income country
business school. It relies heavily on world class faculty with the highest academic
credentials and makes faculty members prove themselves again and again every five
years to retain the vaunted appellation, “Academically-Qualified” (AQ).

The definition of an “AQ” faculty member is primarily an individual who has achieved
a PhD, has a sound research background and demonstrates ongoing proof of
competency through various forms of research and other professional development. In
high-income countries like the USA, production of AQ faculty is the model. These well-
tooled academicians are ready to publish and there are many widely accepted journals,
periodicals and other publishing entities to display their work. But developing countries
have fledgling doctoral programs in business, high teaching loads and few credible
publications. Research and continued professional development are not part of the
“priority equation” in many developing regions. This “AQ” shortcoming, coupled with
the infancy of assurance of learning, are just two of several factors that inhibit business
schools in the developing world in their efforts to seek the 93-year old “Gold Standard”
in management education, AACSB accreditation.

University structures, program content and duration and student preparedness further
separate AACSB accreditation seekers around the world. In 2003, AACSB made its
standards global based on recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on
Accreditation Quality. In application, the changes in standards and eligibility
requirements made AACSB accreditation less US centric; however, these positive
actions were not sufficient to make AACSB accreditation globally achievable. More
than 90 percent of business schools worldwide may not be accreditable under the
current global standards. In summary, AACSB's mission fulfillment is hindered by its
accreditation requirements. To be true to its mission, AACSB will have to find a way to
include many more business schools in widely diverse economies in its titanic tent.

Cross-cultural challenges in the future

So long as the situation remains as stated above, AACSB will run the risk of decreasing
relevance as a global management education leader. While still the King of the Hill, it is
highly likely that other innovative accrediting bodies will emerge with standards better
suited for the world's diversity. AACSB faces a difficult choice. It could either broaden
inclusiveness within the accredited school family and potentially risk the accreditation's
pre-eminence, or it could develop a second, high-quality accreditation that is not so
dependent on the advantages of operating in the high income, mostly western world.

If AACSB stays with its “one size fits all” model, it could find itself in a position most
notably described by Harvard Business School's Clay Christiansen. Dr Christiansen
warns simply that industry leaders who do not keep an eye on the perceived lower
quality providers and manage these markets face long-term business risk. Perhaps the
best example is the Japanese assent in the automobile market from the 1960s to the
present. General Motors and other US automakers, once the auto industry's
unquestioned leaders, lost their way. This, too, could happen to management education's
matriarch since 1916 if it does not pay attention to world needs. The next five to ten
years will be telling for AACSB in its efforts to reach the twenty-second century still on
top of the world of management education.

An interesting anecdote

AACSB and most of the western world places top notch faculty as the primary
determining variable in excellent management education. Schools live and die in the
accreditation process based on their faculties. AACSB is truly the guardian of “the best
faculties in the world.” With respect to students, AACSB has fewer directives.
Standards say that a school must follow its admission policies, but they do not say what
these admission requirements should be. AACSB standards require degree program
learning goals and student assessment to ensure that students learn; but standards do not
require that admission to accredited business schools is based on the student's pre-
admission performance.

In China and India, for example, with their massive student populations, schools
achieve recognition and become highly regarded based on demonstrated aptitude and
competitiveness of students admitted to the degree program. While faculty quality is
important in these countries, the priority toward faculty achievement of AACSB-
defined AQ status is not a focal point. Getting the best students who score the highest
on national placement examinations is a key measure of higher education quality. The
truth is that both variables (great students and highly effective faculty) are keys to
excellence in management education and in the end, the economic development of the
nation and region.

Potential cross-cultural research

One of the most critical areas of development that I see is the increasing need for cross-
cultural research projects as well as cross-cultural research teams. We need to know
more about attributes of business and management in different parts of the world, and
academic researchers can tell us. We also need to learn more about the efficacy of
varying faculty models in producing quality graduates of business schools. What causes
the production of quality graduates? One global giant's former CEO told me following a
discussion of the growth of management education worldwide, that he had not realized
the likely impact of accreditation. Yet, it was clear to him that it had a big impact on the
quality of graduates. He cited that in developed countries with accredited schools, his
company was quite successful in recruiting and retaining excellent talent. However, in
major developing regions, he advised that approximately half of the hires had to be
dismissed and the other half had to be completely retrained. The world of management
education is obviously not flat.

The wide world of business and business schools needs to know what factors tend to
produce good business persons. Collaborative research by capable and diverse
academics could find the answers. After over 100 years of experience in educating
business leaders, AACSB recognizes that many educational models can work and we
need to systematically analyze these different methods. Most likely this analysis would
provide the basis for a diverse set of learning and teaching models that would be the
foundation of a broader set of accreditation standards than now currently exist.

Other comments on cross-cultural aspects of management

Since the word “other” allows a lot of leeway, I want to take this opportunity to speak to
the developed world about its obligation to the developing world. I believe that in
developed countries, a large portion of the population has access to the potential tools to
achieve a high quality of life. I also think that high-income countries do a lot of things
very well and are mostly generous toward developing nations. However, the generosity
of the “Haves” must be tempered by modesty. We must as leading nations be better
team players and less directive. If countries such as the USA, its businesses, people and
government can learn to be one of the leaders and support the developing world, then
the USA and other developed nations are destined to be long-term world leaders. We, at
AACSB, must be catalysts of this transformational journey.

John J. Fernandes
President and Chief Executive Officer, AACSB International