Every few years, a wave of corporate scandal washes over the business press and the same question resurfaces: what, exactly, are business schools teaching? The critique has hardened in recent years into something close to abolitionism. If MBA programs produce executives who optimize for quarterly earnings while externalizing harm, the argument goes, perhaps the institutions themselves are the problem. Close them, or at least stop pretending they serve the public good.
It is a satisfying argument. It is also the wrong one.
The case against the critics
Shuttering business schools would not remove managers from the economy. Firms would still hire people to run supply chains, price products, allocate capital, and decide which corners get cut. Those people would simply learn the job the way most people learned it before formal management education existed: by apprenticeship inside the very organizations whose cultures critics find troubling. Removing the classroom does not remove the curriculum. It just hands the syllabus entirely to incumbents.
There is also an uncomfortable asymmetry in the attack. Medical schools graduate physicians who commit malpractice. Law schools produce attorneys who help clients skirt regulation. Engineering programs train people who have signed off on unsafe designs. In none of those cases is the standard response to dissolve the profession’s training pipeline. It is to strengthen the ethical core of that training and to give graduates institutional backing when they have to say no.
Ethics is not the same as moral courage
Most business schools already require an ethics course. That is precisely the problem. Ethics, as commonly taught, is an analytical exercise: here is a dilemma, here are the competing frameworks, here is a defensible answer. Students become fluent in identifying what is wrong. They graduate having rarely practiced the far harder skill of saying so out loud to someone who outranks them.
Moral courage is a different capability. It lives in the gap between knowing the right answer and bearing the cost of voicing it. It involves calculating career risk, managing social discomfort, choosing the moment, building allies, and surviving the aftermath. Almost none of that is taught. Yet it is the only part that matters when a junior analyst notices the numbers do not reconcile, or a product manager realizes a safety claim is overstated.
Teaching it would require rebuilding parts of the curriculum around rehearsal rather than analysis. Role-play in which students must actually object to a superior. Case studies that follow the whistleblower rather than the firm. Honest accounting of what dissent costs â including the cases where speaking up ended a career and the harm continued anyway. Students deserve the truth that integrity is sometimes expensive, not a sanitized version in which virtue is always quietly rewarded.
What schools owe their graduates
Business schools also carry an obligation they rarely acknowledge: to their alumni network as a source of cover. A graduate who refuses to sign off on something should be able to count on the institution’s reputational weight and its community, not just a framed diploma. That is a cultural commitment, not a course.
None of this absolves business education of its failures. Prestige-chasing, consulting-pipeline incentives, and the quiet celebration of founders who broke things are real pathologies. But reform directed at the content of management education is a more serious response than demolition. The alternative to a flawed institution that can be fixed is not a better world. It is an unexamined one. Read More
Leave a Reply