June 24

Teaching Business at a Liberal Arts College

I’ve spent most of my career other than where I should be. I’m a business professor teaching at a liberal arts college. When I walk outside my office door, I’m more likely to bump into a colleague discussing Buddhism or chaos theory than one who’s talking about the latest Academy of Management conference.

Looking for a job?

See all 211 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,532
Administrative: 1,671
Executive: 168
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But having an unconventional career can engender an uncommon freedom — the chance to think about things most others regard as settled. Bringing business education and the liberal arts into close proximity, as happens at many small liberal arts colleges today, can unsettle the assumptions of each. But if done well — and it takes a serious commitment to do it well — there are tremendous benefits, certainly to business education and, surprisingly to many, also to the liberal arts.

The key to a business program flourishing at a liberal arts college is threefold: blending, bridging, and building. Blending entails teaching traditional business subjects from a liberal arts perspective. Bridging involves connecting the content of business classes to other disciplines. Building entails using the innovative study of business to develop and enrich the broader liberal arts curriculum itself. This occurs when the distinctive nature of business programs prompts larger questions about the nature of liberal education. (I have adopted the terms “blending” and “bridging” here from my fellow scholars, E. Byron Chew and Cecilia McInnis-Bowers.)

Blending

Teaching traditional business subjects from a liberal arts perspective involves recognizing the hidden biases that can inhere in the instruction of core business functions, from marketing to accounting to management, when such subjects are taught in a purely technical manner. Such biases can take many forms. They can involve an uncritical acceptance of a particular goal, such as occurs when finance theory stipulates the maximization of shareholder wealth as the sole end of companies, notwithstanding several real-world examples to the contrary.

Biases can also happen when business courses explore central domains of commerce from a single vantage point rather than from multiple perspectives. Conventional business majors, for instance, are much more likely to include courses in marketing than in consumer protection, even though the introduction of goods and services into society can hardly be fully understood if viewed only from the perspective of producers. Further, business courses can subtly convey biases by failing to contextualize adequately for students their basic inquiries. Traditional courses in organizational behavior, for example, draw heavily from psychology, yet often leave the assumptions of psychological theory unexplored. The danger here is that students uncritically adopt understandings of the human psyche while believing they are merely learning the practical organizational dynamics of business firms.

Teaching business subjects from a liberal arts perspective thus requires professors to be cognizant of such traditional biases and to teach in ways that expose them as part of a larger dialogue. This means approaching business topics from a critical vantage point, engaging multiple perspectives, and richly contextualizing basic inquiries. This is what we are attempting in the introductory course to the major at my home institution, Franklin & Marshall College. Entitled “Organizing in the 21st Century: Theories of Organization,” the course focuses on traditional topics of strategic management, but does so critically, exploring alternative theories of work and organization. It engages the perspectives of the multiple stakeholders in our commercial world, from employees to managers to consumers to members of the larger community. It highlights the way many disciplines — psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to cite only a few – provide frameworks that can illuminate our commercial lives.

Bridging

There are a number of opportunities for connecting the content of business classes to classes offered in more traditional liberal arts disciplines. Such opportunities need not involve creating new courses. The necessary courses are frequently already established and successful. Some students are even making the connections on their own, as when a biology student with an interest in working for a pharmaceutical company seeks out some relevant business courses. But we owe it to students not to leave them without support in discovering and pursuing these rich connections.

As with the biology student, these connections may be ones that help a student develop his larger career aspirations. Even in the most traditional business programs, there is a need to make practical connections with courses in such areas as legal studies, environmental studies, and international studies. Such areas of study are intrinsically valuable to a straightforward business career, as business operates in an increasingly litigious society, becomes more environmentally conscious, and further internationalizes its operations.

But at least of equal value are the connective opportunities that can satisfy a student’s deeper intellectual curiosities that have arisen in the study of business – an interest in psychology prompted by the study of management, an interest in economic theory stimulated in a finance class, an interest in ethics engendered by seeing the conflicts of interests accountants face. The goal here should be to highlight and promote for students structured learning paths that encourage these sorts of avenues of inquiry. This can occur, informally, through simply enriching our advising of business students or, more formally, through the creation of curricular structures such as innovative minors.

Building

Using the innovative study of business to develop and enrich the broader liberal arts curriculum is potentially the most far-reaching contribution a business program can make to a liberal arts college. For it involves raising larger questions about the nature of liberal education.

First, teaching business innovatively unsettles the way we have often thought of liberal education as arising only from the study of certain prescribed disciplines. Discipline-based notions of liberal education are prevalent today, even though the history of liberal education readily reveals its changing disciplinary nature. The natural sciences, for example, were not always an accepted part of the canon. Teaching business innovatively thus brings to the fore a basic, reoccurring issue for liberal education: Is the core of liberal arts instruction based on what we teach or how we teach?

Second, teaching business innovatively highlights the way in which we conventionally think about the distinction between basic and applied knowledge. We often conceive of applied knowledge in purely vocational terms, reserving for liberal study the pursuit of basic knowledge unfettered by constraining purposes. The innovative study of business unsettles this conventional dichotomy. For at the core of business study is the interplay between basic and applied knowledge. Thus, teaching business innovatively prompts a provocative question for liberal education: Does the application of knowledge diminish or deepen liberal education?

Third, teaching business innovatively spotlights the role of cross-disciplinary inquiry in liberal education. Those outside of business often forget business study involves the integration of a number of distinct academic disciplines. Accounting, marketing, finance, and management have their own distinctive set of knowledge bases, models, and assumptions – at least some of which are in tension with one another. One is likely to get a very different sense, for instance, of human motivation in a finance class than in a class on organizational behavior. With its successful integration of multiple academic disciplines, the study of business is a highly developed form of area studies. It thus poses in an especially cogent way the larger issue area studies raise for liberal education. Does the core of liberal education reside within disciplines or among them?

Liberal arts colleges that welcome the innovative teaching of business thus stand a better chance of addressing successfully such larger questions of liberal education. Of course, welcoming the study of our commercial lives into the world of liberal education is hardly the prevailing norm. It is rather, as this business professor read as an English major many years ago, taking the road “less traveled by.” But in my unconventional career, I can see how, it “has made all the difference.”

Jeffrey Nesteruk is chair of the Department of Business, Organizations, and Society at Franklin & Marshall College.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Road Not Taken

Jeffrey Nesteruk: I admire your article. It’s refreshing.

Can the liberal arts just be another way of teaching villainy to be charming, as in Joel Bakan’s book _The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit_? In his films, Alfred Hitchcock wanted his villains to be attractive and charming. Otherwise they’d never get close to their victims. What’s the difference between PR charm and genuine feelings of solidarity? Is there an economic model that would actually drive the value of social solidarity? Or can we only use the liberal arts to try to temper, tone down, or mitigate the arguably anti-social drive for profit?

Actually, if you let liberal arts education too much problematize “pure business,” won’t you wind up with a cooperative, rather than a competitive economic system?

See Michael Albert and Robin Hahnael, _The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Or Michael Albert, _Parecon: Life after Capitalism_, London, Verso, 2003.

Speaking of the problematic, I read Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” thus: “It has made all the difference” means in effect, “it has made no difference.” Is the speaker being ironic in the last two lines? It seems to me that readers typically ignore lines 9-12 of the poem, which has a problematizing effect on its conclusion.

James W. Gettys, at 8:05 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Great Work!

Jeff, your article, and your approach symbolize what is best about the academy. I have always thought that the best professors have something to profess. The thoroughly, holistic analysis is a rare enough occurance in todays Institutes of “Higher” Education.

BTW, my father is an F&M alum who worked for a major drug company in the sixties. He faced the challenges of which you teach. The company was selling a drug that the firm knew had very deleterious side effects such as to render the drug dangerous, but they sold it anyway. My father resigned rather than participate.

Anyone who says that college is about ivory towers misses the point!

Keep up the good work.

Bob, at 8:25 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Bob

Bravo your father. That was courageous. Did he have anywhere to go? According to Joel Bakan and many others, we live in a world in which the Dominant Institution of our times, the Corporation, gives no exit. We’re forced to resign ourselves to a dominant value system that sees private profit as the be all and end all. We’re forced to be functionaries within an economic system that violates humane values even as we fight within ourselves to keep hold of them. Living under The Corporation creates a sociological-psychological duality, or split in our personalities. (Hence the film _Fight Club_, for example, as a cultural representation of that split and that internal struggle.)

James W. Gettys, at 9:10 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Lot of profit in liberal arts

” .. Or can we only use the liberal arts to try to temper, tone down, or mitigate the arguably anti-social drive for profit?”

Excuse me — when some liberal arts deans can make $250,000+ — I’d say the profit in liberal arts was very good.

As for “parecon” — first, most mainline economists of all types have never heard of it.

Second, Adam Smith had an obvious solution — don’t like the price, don’t buy. Lots of “Market-Leninists” like that idea, obviously — they’re privatizing political units.

Bart, at 9:10 am EDT on June 24, 2008

A Reality Perspective

I sincerely admire Jeffrey Nesteruk’s article and he appropriately defines the role of a business program in relation to the liberal arts. I commend you, Jeffrey, for defining that ultimate reality.

However, after spending a successful 37 year career in business and management I was delighted to attempt to “give something back” by joining a fledgling adult business program at a small catholic university for 18 years first as an adjunct, and then full time for 12 years. As a continuing contribution to the program,I was also one of the founders of the business school’s adult online program. During that time, I got a sincere dose of reality.

The ultimate reality was this:There were four schools: Education, Liberal Arts, Nursing and the 80’s addition of Business. The Business school flourished and in the late 90’s and early 2000’s furnished an excess of $6 millions that was used to support the other schools who were losing money. In the dot-com bust, enrollment declined across the board and the flourishing business school was not allowed to take the necessary steps to expand it’s contribution (it’s bottom line) to meet the challenge. As long as it provides the needed revenue to keep the other schools in business it was tolerated. Now it is limping along and probably will fold in the near future.

I hope this experience is unique, but I don’t think it is.

Edward Winslow, A “tired” Refired Business Professor, at 10:15 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Lib Art Dean Salaries

Bart,By “dominant institution” I mean that corporate capitalism infects ALL of culture with the notion that gross inequalities of income, wealth, and class power are to be considered the social norm. Parecon allows some flexibility to accommodate personality differences without artificially magnifying such differences. So a more “spiritual” person could opt for fewer hours of work and make less money (but also a comfortable living wage) while folks wanting more consumption privileges could work longer hours and earn somewhat more. But there wouldn’t be anyone pulling the likes of 250K a year (in current monetary terms).

So you’re right on that point. Under our present mix of private and public sector production, there’s something wrong—too much gross inequality. You might be trying to say—as with Adam Smith—that gross inequalities of income are legitimate only for those in a “private” sector. Albert and Hahnel (I mispelled the latter’s name above) consider it illegitimate period. But I think Adam Smith was actually closer to Albert and Hahnel than you might think. See David Korten on this last point: _When Corporations Rule the World_.

As far as why most economists have not heard of Parecon, as you know, there’s always considerable political resistance to new paradigms. At least cosmologists have long given up the geo-centric, nay, the heliocentric models of the universe and have shot right past Newton and Einstein. Maybe Albert and Hahnel are on the cusp of a paradigm shift?

James W. Gettys, at 11:05 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Picking on the tenured deadwood?

” .. infects ALL of culture with the notion that gross inequalities of .. class power are to be considered the social norm ..”

Sounds like the U-Iowa poly-sci department tenures, 27-0 to one of two major political parties.

Could this sign up a few non-Democrats? Hmm ...

Bart, at 11:55 am EDT on June 24, 2008

Sorry, But I’m Not On The Team

While I am certain I will find the task of writing this response very distasteful, I feel compelled to do it anyway.

My “credentials” for speaking out on this issue include (1) being educated at a liberal arts college, (2) teaching in a variety of disciplines at several liberal arts colleges, (3) teaching required courses in departments and “schools” of business at universities that were supposedly first-and-foremost liberal arts colleges, and (4) teaching at a top-five business school.

Allow me to get my prejudices about business education on the table right off the bat ...

1. I have no qualms whatsoever about MBA programs even though I believe virtually every one is intellectually and practically mediocre, and, more than anything else, they are collectively responsible for the economic disaster our country is experiencing today.

2. Undergraduates can do any damned thing they want, but when I advise a young person about an undergraduate course of studies, I always plagiarize the United Negro College Fund’s slogan when I encounter one contemplating an undergraduate program in business; to wit, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Here are two interesting factoids ...

1. To give you a sense of how times have changed, when I was an undergraduate the faculty (and more than a few students) at the liberal arts college I attended engaged in a knock-down-drag-out battle about whether to approve two courses each in psychology and accounting (there were no accounting or psychology courses on the books at that time). The proposed courses were thought by many to be outside the embrace of the liberal arts.

To the great disappointment of sizeable minorities, (1) the psychology courses were approved and a few years later the college approved a full-fledged major in that discipline and (2) the accounting courses were defeated, but now, fifty years later, the college has an undergraduate business major and an MBA program.

2. A colleague and I conducted a little internal research for the admissions office of the top-five business school at which we were faculty. The point of our study was to determine predictors of success in the School’s MBA program. Among a great many other things, we discovered that, on average, undergraduate science and engineering majors kicked ass, followed almost a full standard deviation back by undergraduate arts and science majors, and followed by a long shot by undergraduate business majors. I repeat, “what a terrible way to spend one’s undergraduate years.”

Forgive me for picking on business management — I suppose I could focus criticism on the pseudo sciences of economics and finance – but management is an easy target.

I will admit that Professor Nesteruk is correct in suggesting that there is a great deal from the liberal arts and sciences that finds its way into business curricula. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that without the liberal arts and sciences, business management is nothing. There’s a lot of psychology, some sociology, hardly any political science, nothing from the hard sciences, a little statistics, and enough “mathematics” to cover the objectives of operations management. There will be at least one lecture (probably two or three) on such “intellectually” unsubstantiated conjectures as the Myers-Briggs typology and the Jung Lexicon ... other talking point like that.

http://typelogic.com/

The reason business management is an “intellectually” vacuous, hodge-podge, flavor of the month discipline (management by objectives, quality circles, knowledge management, enterprise management, total quality management, lean and mean management, business process management, etc.) is because there is no paradigm – in the Thomas Kuhn sense – that directs the “intellectual” development, research, and practice of business management. There are plenty of management gurus – my God, how could we get along without them? – but the gurus are necessary because, in the words of Gertrude Stein, “There is no there there.”

Lean and mean management, for example, was just too descriptive (since “lean and mean” is just a euphemism for “skinny and nasty”) and was changed to nimble organization management.

I could go on, but tell me this ... where else in academe would it be possible for someone to write a very simple-minded, single theme, 94-page book (“Who Moved My Cheese?”), have it take the business world by storm, lead to the development of a second 112-page, simple-minded book (“The One-Minute Manager”), an institute for business management, and millions of dollars in speaking and consulting fees for the principals-cum-gurus ... not that they have very much to say that is not in their books ... and not that anything they have to say could be confused with intellectual substance.

http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/

If you ever feel the need to be seriously depressed, I encourage you to go to the business section of your local Borders’ Bookstore and spend two or three hours browsing through the business management section. Ugh!

Truthfully, I don’t care how stupidly young people invest their post-baccalaureate years, but it infuriates me to imagine all of these proponents of business education clogging up our efforts to educate undergraduates.

Parting remarks ...

Professor Nesteruk’s justification of undergraduate business courses for “biology student with an interest in working for a pharmaceutical company” is just absurd. Any such student is going to attend graduate school after getting hir undergraduate degree, and that’s precisely where the requisite business skills should be taught. Those students don’t need – and probably want – general business courses ... they want courses that are specific to understanding the business of pharmaceutics.

Professor Nesteruk’s claim that “using the innovative study of business to develop and enrich the broader liberal arts curriculum is potentially the most far-reaching contribution a business program can make to a liberal arts college” is probably true ... and that is precisely why we should not be wasting our undergraduates’ time by exposing them to business courses. Every business course taken by a business major at Franklin & Marshall is a substitute for a course in literature, composition, language, history, the sciences, mathematics, the humanities, the performing arts, etc. Need I go further?

Professor Nesteruk’s asks “is the core of liberal arts instruction based on what we teach or how we teach?” I pray the answer is obvious ... it’s, first and foremost, WHAT we teach. And that is why, IN MY OPINION, there is no place for business education in an undergraduate curriculum PERIOD, let alone in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum.

I repeat in conjunction with undergraduate business majors, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

http://www.fandm.edu/x4134.xml

Frizbane Manley, at 3:45 pm EDT on June 24, 2008

My Dad

Thank you for your insights Jeffery. My father found employment in other sales pursuits all of which entailed ongoing issues with ethics and conscience. His hero was Arthur Miller as he said he lived “the death of a salesman” over and over in one guise or another.

Frizbane, to quote the song “a little bit of love is better than no love at all.” Since 99% of business degree programs are “loveless", and since we don’t need MORE one dimensional, undereducated business grads, lets give the good professor a break for attempting to broaden and raise standards. After all, when they enter the business world they will be “swimming with the sharks".

Bob, at 7:10 pm EDT on June 24, 2008

Franklin & Marshall Moves On

Quoting from its mission statement ...

“Franklin & Marshall is a residential college dedicated to excellence in undergraduate liberal education. Its aims are to inspire in young people of high promise and diverse backgrounds a genuine and enduring love for learning, to teach them to read, write, and think critically, to instill in them the capacity for both independent and collaborative action, and to educate them to explore and understand the natural, social, and cultural worlds in which they live. In so doing, the College seeks to foster in its students qualities of intellect, creativity, and character, that they may live fulfilling lives and contribute meaningfully to their occupations, their communities, and their world.”

I’m guessing F&M thinks it sees the handwriting on the wall, and is making a transition of sorts that will require rewriting its mission statement.

http://chronicle.com/jobs/id.php?id=0000564707-01&pg=s&cc=

Look for announcement of its MBA program – with an emphasis on the liberal arts, of course — within the next five years.

Manley’s Conjecture: An institutional investment in fairly classical business education these days is a very bad (long-term) growth decision.

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste!”

Frizbane Manley, at 12:15 pm EDT on June 28, 2008

A mind is a terrible thing to waste but...

The idea that a business education wastes a mind and that there needs to be some excuse for business to be part of a liberal arts education boggle my mind.

Way back at the outset of a liberal arts education, the purpose of a liberal arts education was to prepare people to be intelligent and responsible citizens in their world even when they were not involved in a vocational trade. At that time, business was considered more of a vocation.

However, now, business is an integral part of the world we all live in. How can we claim to give students a liberal arts education that allows them to live intelligently in the world if they come out of college without some sense of how our stock markets work, what drives advertising and marketing, what the driving factors are of various types of companies and the way they relate to our world (for example the dot coms, the biotechs, the tobacco companies,...), the impact of sustainable technologies, the effect of management techniques on the morale of the workforce.

Personally, I don’t think that a liberal arts education prepares students to be intelligent, thinking members of our current society if it ignores such a significant section of the world that they live in. It doesn’t matter whether you want to be a teacher, an artist, a musician, a writer, or something else. Everyone deals with the business world and should be aware of what makes it tick. In addition, almost everyone will work within it even if not in a typical “business” position. How foolish to think that we are preparing students with a broad sense of all aspects of the world they live in if we consider business not in the domain of the liberal arts and a waste of a mind.

A successful business program is not a vocational program. It teaches students the theories behind different business disciplines and, thus, helps them to understand the place of busines in our world and the place of humans in the inevitable business jungle in which they live.

Margaret Little, at 6:30 am EDT on June 30, 2008

We’re Talking About Undergraduates Here

First, I think Margaret Little’s post reinforces my points rather than refutes them.

Second, Ms. Little says “Everyone deals with the business world and should be aware of what makes it tick.” I agree ... but you certainly don’t need a major in business to convey that information. A couple of courses – maximum — will do ... and I also agree that requiring a survey course in finance/economics at a liberal arts college is not a bad idea. But what is Ms. Little calling for here ... general education courses in business?

Third, Ms. Little wrote “a successful business program is not a vocational program. It teaches students the theories behind different business disciplines and, thus, helps them to understand the place of busines (sic) in our world and the place of humans in the inevitable business jungle in which they live.”

Whew! I suppose that statement depends on one’s definition of “successful,” but the probability that a randomly selected undergraduate business program is not vocational is so close to zero it’s mind boggling. Such programs have no other purpose.

My primary complaint, however, is her allusion to “the theories behind different business disciplines.” If there was ever a class of disciplines without paradigms (in the Kuhnian sense) and theory, it’s business education.

Frizbane Manley, at 8:20 am EDT on June 30, 2008

Mr. Manley,

The bitter tone of your comments reminds me of a quote often attributed to Henry Kissinger:

“Academic politics is so bitter because the stakes are so low”

Your argument that there is no room for business/management courses within the liberal arts curriculum is an interesting one, but top hiring business firms feel differently. I am conflicted about this issue as well, but respect the efforts of individuals like Jeffrey Nesteruk who are trying to make the most of the inevitable integration between liberal arts and business curriculums.

There will always be examples of the English major(with no business courses to speak of) who goes on to become CEO of a major corporation, but these corporations are demanding, more and more, that students start work with some of the practical skills necessary to “hit the ground running” and add value extremely early in their careers. Perhaps things were different in the 50’s and 60’s when, for example, a history major from Lafayette or Lehigh could get a management track job at Bethlehem Steel. Unfortunately, like Bethlehem Steel, those days are gone. Global competition has demanded change not only within business but within education as well.

I disagree with your argument that the study of management is, somehow, less intellectual than the study of other disciplines. You state that there is hardly any political science within management. Perhaps that’s because there is very little SCIENCE within political science! By the way, I’m not pointing this out to denigrate the study of political science, merely to refute some of your off-putting comments about the study of management

While management admittedly has it’s “flavors of the month” so do psychology, sociology and anthropology (ok…..more like “flavors of the decade”). The self-help section of any local book store is strewn with examples. We tend to hear more about the “flavors” related to business because they usually sell more books. Also, management practices, like strategies and tactics in war, tend to change as the landscape of business changes. Does the study of warfare have paradigms in the “Kuhnian” sense?

The United States Service academies (West Point, Annapolis, Kings Point, etc….) have done an exceptional job of integrating well rounded liberal arts curriculums with practical leadership and management training for decades. The stakes for educators within these institutions couldn’t be higher.

I’m not sure in what decade you conducted your “analyis” of undergrade business majors, but I don’t think you would get the same results today. A plethora of top schools have implemented undergraduate business programs over the years with tremendous success (Wharton, MIT, Cornell, Georgetown, UVA and UC-Berkley…to name a few). Harvard, Yale and Princeton all basically hide their undergraduate business programs within their “Economics” departments. Don’t believe me?

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/catalog/ua/08/FIN/

Many traditionally liberal arts colleges have also embraced (some grudgingly) business/management/leadership programs including (in no particular order): Lehigh, Lafayette, Franklin and Marshall, Gettysburg, Claremont McKenna, Dickinson, Washington & Lee, Bucknell, Richmond, Wake Forest and Tufts. I’m not even going to list the dozens of well respected Catholic Colleges that have business undergraduate programs.

Lastly, and most indicative that this trend is not going away, the venerable Williams College has established an experiential “Leadership Studies” program (despite years of resistance by established faculty). George McGregor Burns finally got his way!

We should embrace this trend, while at the same time preserving the core philosophy surrounding the value of a liberal arts education: It teaches young people “how to think”. But I believe we also need to teach students a little bit about “how to do”. The educational systems in India, China, and Russia certainly are.

John Smith, at 3:35 pm EDT on August 9, 2008

Help me plz

which basic areas does psychology include ??

MaGe, Help me plz, at 3:25 pm EDT on September 2, 2008

Jobs Related to Teaching Business at a Liberal Arts College

or search for jobs directly.

Department of Management, Assistant/Associate Professor
Bridgewater State College, MA

BSC is one of the largest and most exciting centers for higher education in the commonwealth. Here in our idyllic setting, ... see job

Adjunct Faculty — Marketing
Harrisburg Area Community College

HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job

Dean, F. W. Olin Graduate School of Business
Babson College

Babson College invites applications and nominations for the position of Murata Dean, of the F. W. Olin Graduate School of ... see job

Dean/Director, College of Business
Western Governors University

Western Governors University — the nation’s only competency-based, accredited, online university — is a great place to ... see job

Temporary Pool — Adjunct Lecturer-Strategy
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Open Rank-Tenured, Tenure Track or Fixed
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is seeking to fill one or more permanent ... see job

Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor Accounting
Mississippi State University

Assistant Professor Accounting see job

Assistant Professor, Department of Management
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job

Entrepreneurship Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

The Business & Computers department at Howard Community College is seeking individuals to be included in a pool to hire ... see job

Teaching Business at a Liberal Arts College

Related stories