CHAPTER 12
Curriculum-Wide Change: Leading Initiatives to Develop Entrepreneurial Leaders
THROUGHOUT THIS BOOK WE HAVE PROVIDED PEDAGOGICAL examples to illustrate how individual faculty from diverse disciplines and programs can teach students to make decisions guided by cognitive ambidexterity, a SEERS worldview, and self- and social awareness. Yet the largest opportunity for shaping entrepreneurial leaders comes when we consider how to reorient our entire curriculum. We have the most power to change management education when faculty from diverse disciplines work together to develop entrepreneurial leaders who possess both core disciplinary knowledge and a new way of thinking based on a new worldview. By working together management educators have the opportunity to develop the next generation of entrepreneurial leaders who will shape social and economic opportunity across diverse contexts.
Thus the challenge becomes: How can management educators introduce systemwide changes to reorient student learning toward educating entrepreneurial leaders? We recognize that the answer is both simple and quite complex: we advocate that management educators need to become entrepreneurial leaders. Just as we are teaching students to engage a different way of thinking and a different worldview, management educators need to do the same as we test and build new models of management education in our own universities.
In this chapter we provide examples of curricular and co-curricular changes that are enabling us to move our curriculum toward this new model of educating entrepreneurial leaders. It is important to note that ours is a work in progress. Here we share some of the changes that we have made as well as some proposed changes we are designing into our curriculum that we believe will be most useful to reorienting management education toward entrepreneurial leadership.
Curriculum-Wide Opportunities to
Develop Entrepreneurial Leaders
Just like any college or university, we struggle at times to bring desired changes to fruition. The challenges of engaging all faculty and staff and squeezing more content into fewer classroom hours plagues us just as it does other management education institutions. Yet we press on, as we believe in the power of teaching entrepreneurial leadership. In this section we highlight curriculum-wide opportunities that we have thus far had the most success with implementing: redesigning the core curriculum, introducing signature learning experiences, integrating co-curricular learning opportunities, and leveraging entrepreneurial leadership in how university operations are managed.
Core Curriculum Redesign
The boldest and most dramatic way to reorient a management curriculum toward developing entrepreneurial leaders is to closely evaluate one’s core curriculum to identify areas that integrate the three principles of entrepreneurial leadership. While this approach is similar to any major curriculum redesign, it differs in a fundamental way: Rather than attach the three principles of entrepreneurial leadership to the core by introducing additional core courses, we consider how to integrate the principles into existing discipline-based courses. If entrepreneurial leadership is to become an objective that unites management pedagogy, faculty must collaborate to develop students’ understanding of and skills with its fundamental principles.
We recently embarked on such a redesign in our graduate program, and there are a few key actions we have taken to facilitate this process. We began by assembling a committee of faculty members who had different levels of experience with the graduate program. In this way we ensured that we could learn from the past but also be open to new ideas. The group was asked to redesign the MBA curriculum to develop “entrepreneurial leaders who create great economic and social value.” In so doing they focused on how best to integrate the principles of entrepreneurial leadership into the new discipline-based course structure.
To reorient our curriculum toward developing entrepreneurial leadership, the redesign committee surveyed the curriculum design and found that many courses focused on prediction logic. At the same time, there were no clear touch points where students would learn cognitive ambidexterity and how to cycle between creation logic and prediction logic. So, early in the first year of our MBA program, we are introducing an entrepreneurship course, a portion of which focuses on developing students’ cognitive ambidexterity. Also, at the end of the first year, our information course now engages students in using information technology to support both prediction and creation logics.
To teach the SEERS worldview, we have integrated this principle into many core courses. We are carefully reviewing cases and teaching examples to ensure that students are exposed to a diverse set of contexts that consider social, environmental, and economic value creation simultaneously. Discipline faculty are also considering how to engage SEERS into discussions of other discipline concepts. For example, the technology and operations management course is likely to include a module on sustainable operations, the marketing course may consider marketing “green” products, and the accounting course may incorporate the sustainability metrics discussed in chapter 6.
To develop students’ self- and contextual awareness, we have modified our core organizational behavior course to align with the Managerial Assessment and Development course discussed in chapter 8. In other courses that consider global issues explicitly, such as economics and strategy, we are using conceptual materials to develop students’ contextual awareness to successfully navigate changes in industries, nations, and the global environment. In our IT course, we are introducing the social media ideas discussed in chapter 10 to highlight the importance of networks and co-creation to entrepreneurial leadership and to show how students can leverage technology. The three principles behind entrepreneurial leadership are then tied together into signature learning experiences.
Signature Learning Experiences
Signature learning experiences (SLEs) represent a distinct curricular design to inculcate the principles of entrepreneurial leadership. Although the MBA Oath (Khurana 2007) is an innovative way to encourage newly minted MBA graduates to feel committed to a professional identity and to the established norms of that identity, we are not confident that signing an oath is enough to assist students in developing a new worldview of business. We believe that action and discussion must be embedded in learning for students to adopt a new worldview and to engage a new level of self- and social awareness.
Based in the theory of organizational socialization, SLEs are designed to socialize students into the principles of entrepreneurial leadership and to teach them to use cognitive ambidexterity and to make decisions by considering self, context, and a SEERS mindset. SLEs can come in a variety of forms; the Foundations of Management and Entrepreneurship course discussed in chapter 1 is one example. This yearlong first-year course is designed to teach integrated management concepts, and one of its primary objectives is to teach students what it means to be an entrepreneurial leader. Through the experience of building their own businesses, students learn to engage cognitive ambidexterity and a SEERS mindset.
While introducing students to the principles of entrepreneurial leadership is important, it is equally important to reinforce those principles throughout the curriculum. Just as a class is designed by telling students what you are going to teach them, teaching them, and then telling them what you have just taught them, a strong curriculum follows the same model. We believe that there needs to be a learning opportunity later in the curriculum that again emphasizes entrepreneurial leadership. The most straightforward way to do this is to take an existing discipline capstone course and reorient it toward teaching the entrepreneurial leadership principles.
A capstone course can often signal to students that their learning is complete, however, so with entrepreneurial leadership we want to reinforce the underlying principles but also remind students that their learning will never be “complete.” In both our graduate and undergraduate curricula, we are proposing new upper-level signature learning experiences that are focused on reinforcing the principles of entrepreneurial leadership.
One proposal in the undergraduate program is to have faculty teach different disciplinary-based courses on a “big idea”—a challenging social or environmental issue. For example, a big idea might be education, hunger, or climate change. Instructors would explore the big idea from their disciplinary perspective, but they would also focus on teaching students to engage the principles of entrepreneurial leadership as they reflect on and consider how to respond to the challenge. Students learn to employ cognitive ambidexterity, a SEERS mindset, and their understanding of self and context in their decision-making.
For some management education curricula, it may be very complex to introduce an SLE as a new course. The battle for disciplinary credit and the constant demand to add more to a curriculum may reduce buy-in from faculty. In such cases, faculty champions may have to consider other creative ways to build SLEs into their curricula.
In our graduate program, SLEs are being designed as shorter experiential exercises within a course, as co-curricular experiences, as daylong events, and even as components of orientation. For example, one might consider replacing the ubiquitous casino night during graduate school orientation with a presentation by an entrepreneurial leader in a nonprofit or an NGO. An afternoon or evening of community service activities could follow. One can only imagine the different imprinting that comes from a day of community service compared with an evening of gambling.
Co-Curricular Learning Opportunities
Another method for embedding the concept of entrepreneurial leadership across a curriculum is by engaging co-curricular experiences—any activities outside of the classroom that complement the general curriculum. Examples include student organizations, honor societies, and athletic and social clubs such as fraternities.
Moffatt (1988) states that 40 percent of college students report that activities outside of class constitute the most significant part of their educational experience. Higher education is placing more emphasis on providing students with both curricular and co-curricular experiences to support their learning (Ahren 2009). Following this perspective, we see co-curricular learning as an opportunity for students to practice being entrepreneurial leaders. Through co-curricular experiences, students are able to test out prediction- and creation-oriented decision-making and further develop their understanding of SEERS and self- and contextual awareness as the basis for action.
One co-curricular learning experience we launched recently is the Venture Accelerator. Designed by Professor Candida Brush and other Babson entrepreneurship faculty, the Venture Accelerator is for students interested in starting or running a new venture. The experience is divided into three phases: explore, pursue, and launch and grow (see exhibit 12.1).
Exhibit 12.1 The Venture Accelerator
Using self- and social awareness, students “explore” what they might like to do, what the opportunities are, and what the appropriate mode of action might be. They also consider how to engage SEERS as they pursue social and economic opportunity simultaneously. In the “pursue” phase, students combine creation and prediction approaches by taking action to test the market, develop prototypes, shape opportunities, and write business plans. They also consider their social networks as they assemble a leadership team. Finally, in the “launch and grow” phase, the students launch their ventures and “live” the experience as they create a revenue stream, find investors, and market their products and services. As students “accelerate” through these three phases, they have the opportunity to “earn” additional resources such as office space and mentoring by pitching ideas to faculty.
Although this is a co-curricular experience, it does involve some structuring and oversight from faculty outside of the classroom. There are specific deliverables for each stage. In the “explore” phase, we offer free workshops on establishing a legal form of business, technology commercialization, searching for business opportunities, and research techniques to determine market and industry feasibility. These workshops are led by faculty and external business leaders. For the “pursue” phase, we assign mentors to oversee a cluster of students. We also tailor panels and workshops around relevant issues, such as investigating feasibility, determining customer demand, building a team, crafting a business plan, and protecting intellectual property. Finally, for the “launch and grow” phase, we assign dedicated mentors to work with students to execute their plan, meet milestones, and acquire resources (space and equipment) and funding. We are also working to develop relationships with local incubators that might fast-track these student businesses upon graduation.
Living-learning communities A very different model of co-curricular learning comes from living-learning communities, where students can apply their values and passions by living in a designated area with others who share that focus. Even the process they go through to create these communities involves practicing entrepreneurial leadership. Students create new living-learning communities by co-creating and building interest among their classmates for a particular idea. In so doing they learn about the importance of passion to engage others’ interests in a particular community and how the idea of a community may shift as others become involved. Self- and social awareness and creation and prediction logic are fundamental to the creation of new living-learning communities.
As members of these communities, students are expected to engage in action both on and off campus. The Green Tower, which was mentioned in chapter 5, has undertaken action that has created systemic change on our campus. Green Tower members are required to sign and uphold a Sustainable Living Pledge and a vow to minimize their personal carbon footprint. Residents are also required to participate in at least one of the Green Tower’s two working groups: green living and green business. The green living group focuses on campus initiatives around recycling and conservation. The green business group develops research and education projects on green industries and careers; this group has founded a Sustainable Idea Lab on campus to incubate scalable green businesses.
Green Tower residents understand that environmental initiatives and discussions shouldn’t be located in just one dorm. “There was a lack of consciousness among the students,” a Green Tower student leader explained. In response, Green Tower inhabitants have designed various events to democratize campuswide dialogue around environmental themes. These events include movie nights featuring films with environmental topics as well as Zero Waste fashion shows spotlighting attire made from recycled or sustainable materials.
In starting these initiatives, Green Tower members learned how to connect others to their SEERS worldview and to use a creation and prediction orientation to bring these changes about.
Modeling Entrepreneurial Leadership
through University Management
Similar to the concept of “walk the talk,” student learning also arises from observing how we as educators lead our own colleges and universities. By reflecting on the three themes, administrators will find opportunities to model entrepreneurial leadership in key institutional decisions and operational practices.
For example, we have worked hard to make SEERS evident in all aspects of the university, particularly those that are most visible to our students. We are partnering with facilities managers and outside service providers to design offerings that resonate and communicate SEERS values. In collaboration with our food services company, Sodexo, we have implemented a tray-free policy in our dining halls, which has reduced water usage as well as food waste. We are trying to source food locally, we are conducting food waste audits of all campus dining facilities, and we are testing approaches to reduce food waste and produce compost on campus grounds. This partnership has also yielded a number of other results that students see or that we report to them:
An 11 percent reduction in energy consumption versus the baseline year
A reduction in CO2 emissions of more than 5,700 tons during the same period, equivalent to removing 961 cars from the road for one year
A 51 percent recycling rate for the campus
Reduction of trash tonnage by more than 200 tons annually
Part of our success with these programs is because these campus initiatives fit with our school, our community, and the overall Babson culture. As management educators take action to bring about campuswide reform, it is critical that they consider their school’s strengths, partnerships, financial and human resources, and culture and customize the type and the scale of initiatives to best fit with the school’s context.
Engaging Cognitive Ambidexterity to
Lead Management Education Reform
Beyond thinking about what to reorient in management curriculum and co-curricular initiatives, we need to consider how to do it. As entrepreneurial leaders, management educators will need to employ both creation and prediction approaches and become adept at cycling between the two as they introduce new initiatives and update and reform curricula. Through a continuous process of engaging creation and prediction approaches to thought and action, management educators can innovate and manage change effectively.
A Prediction Approach to
Management Education Reform
The more common approach for academics is prediction logic. In fact, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business requires this type of approach when preparing for accreditation. The alignment between the college mission, the resources (or inputs), and the outcomes (student assessment) is closely reviewed. It is also expected that clear processes are used to strengthen curricula, develop faculty, and improve instruction. For any management program, the goals must be established, the resources must be available and of high quality, outcomes need to be assessed, and improvement plans must be established and implemented. These checks and balances help ensure the quality of the program.
When schools’ goals are certain, the business and management education environments are stable, and data are available, prediction approaches to management education reform can be very effective. A few prediction tools—goal establishment, resource identification, and data collection and analysis—informed our curriculum revision efforts.
Goal establishment When we considered how to develop entrepreneurial leaders, the school established a task force of faculty and staff members to identify the key concepts or principles that needed to be included in our curriculum: cognitive ambidexterity, a SEERS worldview, and self- and social awareness. Once these principles were developed and approved by our faculty senate, curriculum redesign task forces were established for both the undergraduate and graduate programs. Each task force was given the goal of integrating the three principles into a newly designed curriculum.
Resource identification In good economic times, there had been relatively unrestricted resources to design and implement new curricula at our school. Today’s economic environment, however, requires us to be fiscally conservative in our revisions. Our curriculum redesign task forces were asked to maintain, and in some cases reduce, the current cost of delivering the curriculum. Knowing that resources were limited helped the task forces arrive at a solution that was feasible and easily implemented. Of course, the resource constraints limited the available options; it was not possible to simply add content and more resources to introduce the three principles into our core curriculum. Interestingly, the resource constraints actually forced the task force members to rethink the current curriculum, to creatively redesign courses, and to think about the learning experiences both inside and outside the classroom.
Data collection and analysis As we revised our curricula, we wanted to gather input from a variety of stakeholders. Fortunately, our institutional research center regularly conducts surveys on college applicants, entering students, graduating students, alumni, and recruiters for all of our undergraduate and graduate programs. We used past data and, in some cases, revised our surveys to gather new information about the perceptions of our current and proposed curricula. We also supplemented the survey data with focus group discussions with a variety of stakeholders. Through data collection and analysis, we were able to understand the views of our current program and assess how well our new ideas resonated with the various stakeholders.
While a prediction approach helped inform our curricula revision efforts, it was also important to engage a creation approach to co-create innovative teaching materials and courses.
A Creation Approach to
Management Education Reform
In the uncertain and at times unknowable world of management education, a creation-oriented approach to introducing curriculum change can be valuable. Engaging a creation approach enables educators to introduce new curricular ideas in a way that enables them to build relationships, gain feedback, and further refine the idea before launching. The following three examples highlight how we have used a creation-oriented approach to introduce new educational initiatives.
Global partnerships One system-level approach to ensuring ongoing experimentation and learning is to work directly with global partners who can test and co-create with local populations. Such initiatives not only help improve partners’ teaching competencies but also ensure ongoing institutional learning. For instance, the Global Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (GCEE) is a collaborative group that aims to prepare entrepreneurial leaders to create opportunities “for a better world.” This group is experimenting with “serious play,” a pedagogical approach discussed in chapter 1. GCEE’s Serious Play Studio designs and creates new products and processes pertaining to management and entrepreneurship education.
Low-risk experiments Experimentation with new course materials or course content can also be done in low-risk situations within current degree programs. For example, new materials or courses can be tried out with a small group of students. When we first rolled out our Fast Track MBA degree program, we began with a small number of students (30 to 60 per entering class). This enabled us to experiment with the content and the process of delivering management education in a low-risk situation.
This was our first program, for example, that used a hybrid approach to learning that included both online and face-to-face classes for its delivery. This allowed us to test the effectiveness of using video presentations, online discussions, social media, and other tools. The program also allowed us to experiment with new course material. For example the Managerial Assessment and Development course, highlighted in chapter 8, was developed, tested, and refined in our Fast Track MBA program and is now being introduced into our traditional two-year MBA program. We also used an experimental approach when expanding the geographic footprint of the Fast Track MBA program into San Francisco. Rather than invest in substantial market research, we simply launched a pilot program to determine demand directly. This pilot shows strong demand, is allowing us to quickly scale the program based on student feedback, and actually costs less than market research.
Ecosystem experiments Another approach to experimentation with new course content is to develop, deploy, and test new concepts in nondegree courses and research projects. One example is the Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project, led by Daniel Isenberg. This is an action-focused research project to develop the entrepreneurial capacity in specific areas by bringing together the policies, structures, programs, and climate that foster entrepreneurial leadership and venture creation. As Isenberg described in the Harvard Business Review (2010), the project offers “rules for revolutionaries”—down-to-earth guidelines for leaders who want to foster entrepreneurship. As we work with cities, nations, and different regions of the world, we experiment with new concepts, gauge engagement with and effectiveness of those concepts, and learn more about the global environment. This real-time learning helps us to develop new course content for our degree programs.
Conclusion
We have laid out a comprehensive paradigm for how to revise, and perhaps even reinvent, management education and development to train entrepreneurial leaders who will shape social and economic opportunity. We have offered examples at the class, course, and program level and have discussed approaches for management education reform in general. Our aspiration is that these ideas will incite other educators, policymakers, and professionals to explore how to create new educational opportunities for developing entrepreneurial leaders. If we as management educators don’t collaborate and consider new paradigms, we are unlikely to meet the challenge of educating the next generation of entrepreneurial leaders who are capable of creating social and economic opportunity.
References
Ahren, C. S. 2009. “Detangling the Unique Effects of Co-Curricular Engagement on Self-Reported Student Learning Outcomes.” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
Isenberg, D. J. 2010. “How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution.” Harvard Business Review, June.
Khurana, R. 2007. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Moffatt, M. 1988. Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.