Organizational Change and Management Science: Implications from Ranking and Grouping Business Schools on Spheres

10.6702/ijbi.2011.6.1.1

Han-Lin Li；Chian-Son Yu；Garry D. Bruton

Business schools ； grouping ； ranking ； visualization ； strategy

International Journal of Business and Information

6卷1期（2011 / 06 / 01）

1 - 34

英文

Reputational rankings of business schools published by the media have emerged as an important factor in how the public judges the prestige and achievement of these schools. Business school rankings, therefore, not only place institutional isomorphic pressures on school deans and faculties, but also cause concern among alumni, current and prospective students, and even the government. These rankings are often criticized, however, because they vary widely in the way in which schools are ranked and because the rankings provide no insight into how the schools themselves can devise development strategies. Drawing from theory and from literature on organizational change and management science, this study addresses the problem by integrating two leading business school ranking systems and then displaying the schools on three-dimensional spheres from which the schools may derive some implications for developing their strategies.

1. Joyce, G. 2006, Talking with: John T. Delaney, Pitt's business school dean, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, September 17, pp. 1-2
2. Business Week, 2009. Business School Rankings & Profiles, http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/ posted on 23 December 2009
3. Management Today
4. U.S. News and World Report. 2006. America's Top Business Schools. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/mba/brief/mbarank_brief.ph
5. Financial Times. 2006. Special Report Business Education – Business School Ranking. retrieved from http://media.ft.com/ cms/c51a4c7c-8f2d-11da-b430-0000779e2340pdf
6. Business Week, 2006. How We Come Up with the Rankings, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/0643/b4006008.htm posted on 23 October 2006
7. Financial Times. 2007. The Financial Times MBA 2007 Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/CareerAdvisor/MBARankings/pdf/2007_key_mba.pdf
8. U.S. News & World Report, 2009. Business School Rankings Methodology, retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-business-schools/2009/04/22/business- school- rankings-methodology.html
9. Financial Times, 2009. Financial Times Rankings on Business Education. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/.
10. (2005).The Right School.Management Today,October,6-8.
11. Brady, J. 2007. Many American colleges balk at U.S. News rankings. Accessed website http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/06/20/College.rankings on Dec 2007
12. U.S. News and World Report. 2007. Business methodology. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/07biz_meth_brief.php
13. Economist.com, 2009. Business School rankings: Methodology of Economist, retrieved fromhttp://www.economist.com/business-education/whichmba/displaystory.cfm?storyid= 14488732
14. Milton, U. 2006. Response rate rises to 53% methodology: Ursula Milton explains how the schools are ranked and the process behind the compilation of the table, Financial Times, October 23: 14
15. Andersson, B.,Bider, I.,Johannesson, P.,Perjons, E.(2005).Towards a formal definition of goal-oriented business process patterns.Business Process Management Journal,11(6),650-662.
16. Andrews, R.L.,Manrai, A.K.(1999).MDS maps for product attributes and market responses: An application to scanner panel data.Marketing Science,18(4),584-604.
17. Borg, I.,Groenen, P.J.F.(2005).Modern Multidimensional Scaling.New York:Springer.
18. Bruton, G.D.,Oviatt, B.M.,White, M.A.(1994).Performance of acquisitions of distressed firms.Academy of Management Journal,37(4),972-989.
19. Chintagunta, P.K.(1992).Estimating a multinomial probit model of brand choice using the method of simulated moments.Marketing Science,11(4),386-405.
20. Cox, T.F.,Cox, M.A.A.(2000).Multidimensional scaling.London:Chapman & Hall.
21. Desarbo, W.S.,Jedidi, K.(1995).The spatial representation of heterogeneous consideration sets.Marketing Science,14(3),326-342.
22. Elsbach, K.D.,Kramer, R.M.(1996).Members' response to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings.Administrative Science Quarterly,41(3),442-476.
23. Holbrook, M.B.(2007).Objective characteristics, subjective evaluations, and possible distorting biases in the business-school rankings: The case of U.S. News & World Report.Marketing Education Review,17(2),1-12.
24. Lavelle, L.,Lehman, P.(2006).The best b-schools of 2006.Business Week,4006,54-57.
25. Li, H. L.,Lu, H. C.(2009).Global optimization for generalized geometric programs with mixed free-sign variables.Operations Research,57(3),701-713.
26. Li, H.L.,Lu, H.C.,Huang, C.H.,Hu, N. Z.(2009).A superior representation method for piecewise linear function.INFORMS Journal on Computing,21(2),314-321.
27. Martins, L.L.(2005).A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change.Organization Science,16(6),701-720.
28. Maruyama, M.(1986).Toward picture-coded information systems.Futures,18,450-452.
29. Meyer, A.(1991).Visual data in organizational research.Organization Science,2(2),218-236.
30. Morse, R.J.,Flanigan, S.(2006).The ranking methodology.U.S. News and World Report,April 10,59.
31. Peters, K.(2007).Business school rankings: Content and context.Journal of Management Development,26(1),49-53.
32. Peters, T.J.(1978).Change tools for chief executives.McKinsey Quarterly,3,21-45.
33. Pulley, J.L.(2005).Business-school rankings criticized.The Chronicle of Higher Education,52(5),36-46.
34. Segev, E.,Raveh, A.,Farjoun, M.(1999).Conceptual maps of the leading MBA programs in the United States: Core courses, concentration areas, and the ranking of the school.Strategic Management Journal,20(6),549-560.
35. Seiford, L.M.,Zhu, J.(2003).Context-dependent data envelopment analysis -Measuring attractiveness and progress.OMEGA,31(5),397-408.
36. Siegal, C.W.,Javitch, A.H.,Waclawski, M.,Burd, J.,Bazigos, S.,Yang, M.,Anderson-Rudolph, T. F.,Burke, K.(1996).Understanding the management of change.Journal of Organizational Change Management,9(6),27-54.
37. Simonson, I.T.,Tversky, A.(1992).Choice in context: Tradeoff contrasts and extremeness aversion.Journal of Marketing Research,29(3),281-295.
38. Sullivan, M.W.(1998).How brand names affect the demand for twin automobiles.Journal of Marketing Research,35(2),154-165.
39. Tversky, A.,Simonson, I.(1993).Context-dependent preference.Management Science,39(10),1179-1189.
40. Tyson, G.(2001).A look behind the numbers.Selections,Fall,8-15.
41. Washington, M.,Ventresca, M. J.(2004).How organizations change: The role of institutional support mechanisms in the incorporation of higher education visibility strategies.Organization Science,15(1),82-97.
42. Wuorio, J.(2001).The impact of the rankings: Multiple perspectives.Selections,Fall,26-37.
43. Yu, C.S.,Li, H. L.(2000).A robust optimization model for stochastic logistic problems.International Journal of Production Economics,64(2),385-397.
44. Zell, D.(2005).Pressure for relevancy at top-tier business schools.Journal of Management Inquiry,14(3),271-274.

1. Yu, Chian-Son,Li, Han-Lin(2013).The Development and Application of a Methodology for the Visual Presentation of Business School Rankings.International Journal of Information and Management Sciences,24(1),1-22.