Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 79–85 | Cite as

Exceeding Our Grasp: Curricular Change and the Challenge to the Assumptive World



The recent global economic collapse brings new calls for reform and change as well as a re-examination of the ethical foundations underpining it. Most professors as well as students remain profoundly unhappy with the Business Curricula. The curricula appear to swing between technological training and academic theory. There is little genuine focus on the central issue of the problem: the students’ and faculty’s assumptive world which drives the selection of the materials chosen for presentation as well as the decision-making process. In the pragmatic quest to achieve status within academe, business schools appear to have forgotten that their subject matter is not one cognate domain but a mixture of several areas including mathematics, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, logic and planning. Course structures must be redesigned as consilient. That is, each course contains in it the links to other courses and is not expected to be complete in themselves; the new structures proposed are no longer under the direct control of one instructor but each course is under the control of a committee. This creates a linkage between courses that together from a linked chain of knowledge where the strength of the curriculum is tied to the consilient strength of the courses. The result is an organic and developmental model for teaching and learning with a strong ethical foundation as well as developed moral links to effective decision making.

Key words

assumptive world consilience curricular redesign ethical decision making organic education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bennis, W.G. and J.O’Toole 2005 “How Business Schools Lost their Way”. Harvard Business Review 83 (5), 96-104.Google Scholar
  2. Burke, L.A. and E. Sadler-Smith: 2006, “Instructor Intuition in the Educational Setting”, Academy of Management Learning and Education 5 (2), 169-181.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, K.: 2006, “Good or Not Bad: Standards and Ethics in Managing Change”, Academy of Managemnt Learning and Education 5 (3), 317-323.Google Scholar
  4. Clegg, S.R. and A. Ross-Smith: 2003, “Revising the Boundaries: Management Education and Learning in a Pospositivist World”, Academy of Management Learning And Education 2 (1), 85-98.Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, T. L.: 2006, Learning to Keep Learning, New York Times, Dec 13Google Scholar
  6. Ghoshal, S. 2005, “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices”, Academy of Management Learning and Education 4, 75-91.Google Scholar
  7. Janoff-Bulman, R.: 1992, Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
  8. Mintzberg, H.: 2004, Managers, Not MBAs (Pearson Education Limited, Harlow).Google Scholar
  9. Natale, S. M.: 2008, `From Hippocrates to HIPPA, the Collapse of the Assumptive World,’ Journal of Business Ethics 83, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Natale, S., Libertella, A.F.. Hayward, G., The Corporate Eclipse of the University, Global Scholarly Press, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. Organic Education: 2009, Update 2005, Hugh Osborn, April 25, 2009
  12. Parkes, C. M.: 1975, `What Becomes of Redundant World Models? A Contribution to the study of Adaptation to Change,’ British Journal of Medical Psychology 48, 131–137.Google Scholar
  13. Pfeffer, J.: 2005, `Why De Bad Management Theories Persist? A Comment on Ghoshal,’ Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1), 96–101.Google Scholar
  14. Pfeffer, J. ad G.R. Salancik: 1978, The External Control of ORganiations (Harper and Row, New York).Google Scholar
  15. Priorities for Innovation: 2009,, Institute for Oper- ation Research and Management Science, April 25, 2009
  16. Rando, T. A.: 1993, Treatment of Complicated Mourning (Research Press, Champaign, IL).Google Scholar
  17. Samuelson, J 2006 “The New RigorL Beyond the Right Answer”. Academy of management Learning and Education 5 (3), 356-365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adelphi UniversityGarden CityUSA

Personalised recommendations