اعمال انعطاف‌پذیری عصبی برای آموزش مدیران بازیک  Applying neuroplasticity to educating agile-thinking managers

1. Introduction Both industry and academia have long called for substantive change in business education (e.g., Berggren & Soderlund, € 2014; Cheit, 1985; Louis, 1990; Porter & McKibbin, 1988). At the heart of the issue is the view that business education does not sufficiently take into account needs of prevailing business practice, and that this has resulted in a “gap” between preparations provided and skills or capabilities required (e.g., Arum & Roksa, 2011; Lakhal & Sevigny, 2014; NACE’s Job Outlook, 2016 Survey; Shah, Grenbennikov, & Nair, 2015; The Bloomberg 2015 Jobs Skills Report; The Chronicle of Higher Education 2013 Report on the “Employment Mismatch”). Practitioners’ concerns largely involve the perception that graduates arrive on the job content-rich, yet ill-prepared to cope managerially with the dynamism of today’s marketplace (e.g., Chia & Holt, 2008). Many, like Tompkins (2001), describe the work environment as one in which the “right” answers are not clear, advising that students need the skill to think “anew” or in different ways that may involve defining problems differently. Yet too often practitioners find business graduates unprepared to function productively when situations are ambiguous or changing. Smith (2003) reported evidence that graduates are unable to think effectively or handle the demands of the job upon being hired. Humphries and Dyer (2005, p. 170) observed a “lack of questioning” (LOQ) phenomenon in the workplace, with graduates possessing a passive posture or demeanor, too willing to favor the status quo. They argue that this acceptance of situations or circumstances as “given” creates an illusion that works against good managerial decision-making. Athanassiou, McNett, and Harvey (2003, p. 534) observe that students “… lack an ability or willingness to frame interesting questions.” Similarly corporate recruiters characterize MBA graduates as being “… unable to step outside of their comfort zones to explore new ways of thinking and doing” … unable “… to face today’s problems and to acquire new knowledge” (Wankel & DeFillippi, 2006, p. 387). Some, like Mintzberg and Gosling (2002) suggest that in its approach, traditional business education separates itself from business reality in that it is predicated on types of discipline-related borders (or boxes e theories/concepts devoid of context) that don’t align with realities that managers must face. Ghoshal (2005) observes that presentations of management theories are decontextualizing, not revealing their ideological underpinning thereby freeing students in business settings from any sense of moral responsibility for conforming behaviors. Like others, Wright, Paroutis, and Blettner (2013, p. 92) address aspects of content, questioning the managerial usefulness of the “strategic tools we teach in business schools.” But how do pedagogies relate to outcomes? This question neither new, nor unique to business education. Numerous learning methodologies, either in support of or based on a variety of theoretical foundations, have been advanced in the education literature generally. These range from behavioral to constructionist; from collaborative to game-based (See, for example, Henry, 1997; Mills, 1998; Neisser, 1967; Serva & Fuller, 2004; Skinner, 1954).