Marc Siegall asked a question that deserves a broader response, so here's
my end-of-week two cents worth.
We have both General Management (MGMT) and Entrepreneurship (ENTR)
Concentrations, along with Policy/Strategy, Marketing, OBHR, Finance, and
International Business in our BBA programs. The General MGMT concentration
has tended to be used as the default, for those students who couldn't
assemble enough credits in any one of the "real" fields to graduate with a
legitimate Concentration. It appears, however, that some MGMT students are
following that path deliberately. They actually think they might be
generalists! (Or they understand how little of their futures they can
predict, and hedge their bets over the widest possible range...)
I have begun to think that the MGMT and ENTR majors ought to have a more
deliberate commonality. Both expect to run business enterprises. It seems
to me that a deliberate MGMT major is actually preparing for a role as a
General Manager in smaller firms or business units of larger firms. There
certainly are many such jobs, and it is pretty apparent that some
professional development could readily help the performance of that
occupational category. (So too would thoughtful practical experience, as
someone else has posted.)
The same future seems likely for the ENTR majors, except that the latter
plan on owning and growing the businesses, while the MGMTs expect someone
else to stand behind the paycheque. Consequently, there are some important
variations in the specific skills they develop. MGMTs are probably better
overall administrators, while the ENTRs are highly skilled in venture
development.
Regardless of age, I support programs that maximize any kind of practical
component, with coop being the most fully implemented of the species. The
grounding that occurs makes a huge difference in the value of the education
we can provide in the classrooms. One variant is requiring one or two
years of practical experience before program entry, but that seems to me to
be much more restrictive than is necessary. We send young students out to
interview entrepreneurs, tour plants, do "consulting" assignments with real
operations, and they all learn more that way. (One important side benefit
is that it keeps the faculty grounded, too....)
Here's my starting point for Marc: Think about who your students are at
entry, and where they are likely to be going upon exit, then fill in with
programs that make them much more effective when they get there. In our
case, we are drawing small town kids, and most will be heading back to Main
Street when they leave. If this place ran MY way, we'd concentrate on
preparing them for roles as managers and creators of local enterprises.
That means general management (MGMT) and entrepreneurship (ENTR) should be
the lead fields, with the more conventional sub-disciplines in a supporting
role. If your students are competing for specialist positions in large,
diversified enterprises, you should do it the other way around.
Let me know if you want some stuff about course mixes.
Best,
Tom.
+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+=
Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D.
Entrepreneurship Program
Faculty of Business
Brock University
St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada
Tel: (905) 688-5550, ext. 4372
Fax: (905) 984-4188
e-mail:
tbryant@peregrine.bus.BrockU.ca