MBA education must genuinely empower enterprises and managers
It is undeniable that MBA enrollment has cooled at many schools. Some attribute this to the economic downturn. However, if we follow the classic notion that “management drives performance,” then in times of economic difficulty, the demand for management talent should increase, and MBA applications should logically rise. Is it really because people cannot afford an MBA? Managers, in particular, clearly understand the distinction between investment and consumption. If pursuing an MBA is seen as an investment in the future rather than mere consumption, they would still choose to apply—even if it means taking on debt. From a logical standpoint, therefore, the cooling of MBA enrollment can be attributed to only two reasons: from the perspective of enterprises, these schools fail to convince stakeholders that the management knowledge taught in MBA programs can truly generate value; from the perspective of individuals, they are unable to demonstrate that pursuing an MBA is an investment capable of delivering higher returns.
Many management theories, methods, and tools—rooted in Western culture, born in the era of Western industrialization, and expressed through Western modes of discourse—still occupy the majority of China’s MBA education market. Publishing in top Western academic journals has become a key pursuit for faculty, and in many leading business schools, it is even regarded as a basic criterion for evaluating academic competence. When Western industrial management practices were far ahead of ours, learning from them and gaining their recognition was both necessary and justified. Numerous outstanding Chinese enterprises, including companies such as Huawei, have grown through a process of learning from the West. Looking ahead, there will still be much that we can and should learn from Western experience.
However, amid the profound transformations unseen in a century, business practice is entering uncharted territory. In an increasing number of management scenarios, Chinese and Western enterprises now stand on the same starting line—both are newcomers in these emerging contexts. In some areas, Chinese firms have even moved ahead of their Western counterparts in management practice. In the new wave of technological revolution represented by AI, there is a vast and growing number of enterprises whose practices are far ahead of existing management theory and education. This reality should serve as a clear wake-up call, prompting us to proactively reform MBA education. The traditional pipeline—extracting theory from practice, refining it into an academic discipline, and then using it to train future managers—is no longer adequate. Its cycle is simply too long; by the time researchers develop broadly applicable theories, business practices may already have evolved into something entirely different.
Scholars in the social sciences should engage directly with society, and scholars of business management should immerse themselves in enterprises, undergoing the refining process of real-world practice. Two types of faculty constitute the core of MBA teaching: expert scholars and scholar-practitioners. The former come primarily from the academic and theoretical domain, while the latter are rooted in industry and practice. MBA education also takes place in two types of settings: on-campus classrooms and enterprise-based classrooms. The former focus on inspiring cognition and ways of thinking, while the latter emphasize the development of capabilities and the understanding of practical solutions. MBA cohorts can likewise be divided into two categories: formal degree cohorts and course-based cohorts. The former are composed of students pursuing academic degrees, while the latter consist of participants enrolling in specific courses. These three dimensions—faculty background, teaching setting, and participant type—each with two distinct forms, together create six fundamental scenarios for MBA education. Each scenario entails different teaching objectives, content, and methods, and accordingly requires differentiated approaches to faculty recruitment, evaluation, and incentives.
MBA education must truly empower enterprises and managers. What participants take away should not be textbooks or lecture notes, but cognition and ways of thinking; not merely a diploma, but capabilities and value; not only memories of their youth, but also lifelong, trustworthy friendships. To achieve these goals, the first step is to reform the development of our faculty. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms, when Zhuge Liang debates the scholars, he remarks that those who rely solely on eloquence may appear impressive in discussion, yet prove incapable in real situations. Such “armchair strategists” have no place in management education. The distinction in knowledge hierarchy between MBA faculty and participants is becoming increasingly blurred. As the saying goes, “to be a teacher of the people, one must first be a student of the people.” To avoid falling behind enterprise practice—or to even surpass it—there is only one path: to establish mutual learning relationships with leading practitioners in management. A business school should become a platform where theorists and practitioners interact, where “those who know” and “those who act” reinforce one another. It should not be a stage dominated solely by theory, let alone a one-sided performance, nor should it position itself as a lofty lectern that merely “imparts knowledge and resolves doubts.”
As the ancient saying goes, “the boat has moved on, but the sword has not—seeking the sword this way, is it not misguided?” Times are changing, and the very experiences that once brought us success may well become the greatest obstacles to our future development. MBA education must break free from path dependence, truly empower enterprises and managers, and demonstrate its real value. This is precisely why we advocate a school culture of “forging genuine knowledge, addressing real challenges, and recognizing true value.”
