Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reputation Beyond the Rankings: A Conceptual Framework for Business School Research

  • Academic Research
  • Published:
Corporate Reputation Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the global explosion of the business school rankings industry, the validity of current ranking systems and league tables as credible measures of business school reputation has been questioned by scholars, accreditation agencies and consumers worldwide. Critics have begun calling for more substantive assessments of educational quality and more meaningful, theory-driven strategies for studying reputation in the business school context. This paper responds to these critiques, introducing a conceptual model of business school reputation that applies recent advances in reputation theory and research to the specifics of the business school setting. The literature anchoring the model is reviewed, the variables in the model are introduced and theoretical propositions suggested. The paper concludes with discussion of the model's practical implications, an analysis of limitations and suggestions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Reputation Institute researchers have chosen the label ‘esteem’ to represent the ‘overall reputation’ factor depicted in Figure 1. In order to differentiate this indicator, which reflects the observer's perception of how the firm is seen by others, from the ‘admiration/respect’ factor that reflects the observer's personal experience with the firm, I have renamed this factor ‘perceived public esteem’.

  2. Regarding student stakeholders, others note that current and prospective students have different approaches to measures of business school reputation: Current students look to these measures ‘to help validate their choice’ while prospective students use them ‘to help make the right choice’ (Devinney et al., 2007: 2). In the present model, the two are considered as a single stakeholder group since their expectations of a business school would be the same.

References

  • AACSB International: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2003) Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation, AACSB International: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, St. Louis, MO.

  • AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2005) The Business School Rankings Dilemma, AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, Tampa, FL.

  • Ahmed, P., Nanda, S. and Schnusenberg, O. (2005) ‘Can firms do well while doing good?’, Working Paper, University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=794790.

  • Alessandri, S., Yang, S. and Kinsey, D. (2006) ‘An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 9 (4), 258–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, R. (2002) ‘Companies' reputations depend on service they give customers’, Wall Street Journal, 16 January, 2002, p. B1.

  • Alsop, R. 2004 The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate Reputation, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, R. (2006) ‘M.B.A. survey: Something old, something new’, Wall Street Journal, 20 September, 2006; p. R1.

  • Antunes, D., Goussevskaia, A. and Thomas, H. (2004) ‘Evaluating business schools in the U.S. and Europe’, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness, Fort Lauderdale, FL, May 2004.

  • Argenti, P. (2000) ‘Branding b-schools: Reputation management for MBA programs’, Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. and Sperry, T. (1994) ‘Business school prestige – Research versus teaching’, Interfaces, 24 (2), 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. and Schweizer, T. (2000) ‘Making and measuring reputations: The research ranking of European business schools’, Long Range Planning, 33, 621–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badenhausen, K. and Kump, L. (2003) ‘Despite a shaky economy, an M.B.A. still pays for itself’, Forbes, 13 October, 2003. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1013/078.html.

  • Barnett, M., Jermier, J. and Lafferty, B. (2006) ‘Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape’, Corporate Reputation Review, 9 (1), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaffe, G. (2005) Which MB?, Economist Intelligence Unit, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. (2002) ‘Comparing corporate reputations: League tables, quotients, benchmarks or case studies’, Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, M. (2004) ‘Walking our talk: Business schools, legitimacy, and citizenship Mary’, Business and Society, 43 (1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (1998) The Corporation and its Stakeholders, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. and Gioia, D. (2000) ‘The rankings game: Managing business school reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (4), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. and Thorpe, R. (2002) ‘Measuring a business school's reputation: Perspectives, problems and prospects’, European Management Journal, 20 (2), 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costigan, R., Ilter, S. and Berman, J. (1998) ‘A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations’, Journal of Managerial Issues, 10 (3), 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Aveni, R. (1996) ‘A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational mobility of faculty and input–output competition among top business schools’, Organizational Science, 7, 166–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, C. (2006) ‘Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities’, The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (5), 776–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damast, A. (2007) ‘Duke MBAs fail ethics test’, Business Week, 30 April, 2007.

  • De Angelo, H., DeAngelo, L. and Zimmerman, J. (2005) ‘What's really wrong with U.S. business schools?’, Working Paper, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.

  • Devinney, T., Dowling, G. and Perm-Ajchariyawong, N. (2006) ‘The MBA rankings game’, Working Paper, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

  • Devinney, T., Dowling, G. and Perm-Ajchariyawong, N. (2007) ‘Business Week & the Financial Times Business schools rankings: Similar but different’, Working Paper, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

  • Dhalla, R. and Carayannopoulos, S. (2006) ‘Understanding when stakeholders discount reputations’, Paper presented at 10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness, New York, NY, May, 2006.

  • Dichev, I. (1999) ‘How good are business school rankings’, Journal of Business, 72 (2), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. and Soo, M. (2005) ‘Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems’, Higher Education, 49 (4), 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. and Ferrin, D. (2001) ‘The role of trust in organizational settings’, Organizational Science, 12 (4), 450–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. and Kramer, R. (1996) ‘Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (3), 442–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., Trevino, L. and Weaver, G. (2006) ‘Who's in the ethics driver's seat? Factors influencing ethics in the M.B.A. curriculum’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5 (3), 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fee, C., Hadlock, C. and Pierce, J. (2005) ‘Business school rankings and business school deans: A study of nonprofit governance’, Financial Management, 34 (1), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. (2006) Balance Brand: How to Balance the Stakeholder Forces That Can Make or Break Your Business, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Barnett, M.L. (2000) ‘Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk’, Business and Society Review, 105, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. (2006) ‘The RepTrak system’, Presented 10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Image, Identity and Competitiveness, 25–28 May, 2006, New York, NY.

  • Frazier, P., Tix, A. and Barron, K. (2004) ‘Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 (1), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. and Corley, G. (2002) ‘Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings in US business schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. and Spritzer, A. (2002) ‘Deans' perspectives on effective business school leadership: A content analysis is’, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting, American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 133–138.

  • Grunig, J.E. and Hung, C.F. (2002) ‘The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioural study’, Paper presented at the PRSA Educator's Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.

  • Harker, P. (2002) ‘We can't have it both ways’, AACSB International e-NEWSLINE, 3 (4), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, S. (2005) ‘Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, B. and Kane, W. (1991) ‘Caught in the middle: Faculty and institutional status and quality in the State Comprehensive Universities’, Higher Education, 22 (4), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hon, L. and Brunner, B. (2002) ‘Measuring public relationships among students and administrators at the University of Florida’, Journal of Communication Management, 6 (3), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivey, J. and Naude, P. (2004) ‘Succeeding in the M.B.A. marketplace: Identifying the underlying factors’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26 (3), 401–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K.T. (2004) Building Reputational Capital, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. (2005) ‘Public management needs help!’, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6), 967–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., Lenox, M. and Barnett, M. (2002) ‘Strategic responses to the reputation commons problem’, in A. Hoffman and M. Ventresca (eds.), Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. and Jamil, M. (2003) ‘An empirical study of organizational commitment: A multi-level approach’, The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 4 (3), 176–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, S., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L. and Kickul, J. (2005) ‘Does service learning add value? Examining the perspectives of multiple stake holders’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (3), 278–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange, P. (2005) ‘Strategy means choice: Also for today's business school!’, The Journal of Management Development, 24 (9), 783–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L.L. (2005) ‘A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change’, Organization Science, 16 (6), 701–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D., Butterfield, D and Trevino, L. (2006) ‘Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5 (3), 294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, S. (2005) ‘The cost of excellence: The financial implications of institutional rankings’, The International Journal of Education Management, 19 (4/5), 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Money, K. and Hillenbrand, C. (2006) ‘Beyond reputation measurement: Placing reputation within a model of value creation by integrating existing measures into a theoretical framework’, Presented 10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Image, Identity and Competitiveness, 25–28 May, 2006, New York, NY.

  • Morgeson, F.P. and Nahrgang, J.D. (2007) ‘Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the Business Week rankings’, Academy of Management Learning and Education (forthcoming).

  • Norman, M. (2006) ‘Assessing and addressing faculty morale: Cultivating consciousness, empathy, and empowerment’, The Review of Higher Education, 29 (3), 347–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2002) ‘The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1 (1), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plank, R. and Chiagouris, L. (1997) ‘Perceptions of quality of higher education: An exploratory study of high school guidance counselors’, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8 (1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Policano, A.J. (2005) ‘What price rankings’, BizEd (September/October), 26–32.

  • Policano, A.J. (2007) ‘The ranking game: and the winner is …’, Journal of Management Development, 26 (1), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006) ‘Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 78–92, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quacquarelli, n. (2007) ‘B-School rankings lose their luster. 19 February, 2007. www.topmba.com/mbanews/news_item/article/b_school_rankings_lose_their_lustre/.

  • Rao, H. (1994) ‘The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912’, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reputation Institute (2006) Global RepTrak 200: The World's Best Corporate Reputations 2006, Reputation Institute, New York, NY.

  • Rindova, V.P., Williamson, I.O., Petkova, A.P. and Server, J.M 2005 ‘Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of organizational reputation’, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6), 1033–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, M. (1993) ‘What's wrong with MBA ranking surveys’, Management Research News, 16, 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleef, D. (2000) ‘“That's a Good Question!” Exploring motivations for law and business school choice’, Sociology of Education, 73 (3), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnietz, K. and Epstein, M. (2005) ‘Exploring the Financial Value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis’, Corporate Reputation Review, 7 (4), 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F., Mayer, R. and Davis, J. (2007) ‘An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present and future’, Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, T.S. and Wijnberg, N.M. (1999) ‘Transferring reputation to the corporation in different cultures: Individuals, collectives, systems and the strategic management of corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 2 (3), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. and Meyer, J. (1994) Institutional Environments and Organizations., Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. and Walsham, G. (2005) ‘Reconceptualizing and managing reputation risk in the knowledge economy: Toward reputable action’, Organization Science, 16 (3), 308–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorcinelli, M. (1994) ‘Effective approaches to new faculty development’, Journal of Counseling and Development, 72 (5), 474–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.C. (2006) ‘The business of business education in the United States’, http://www.jcspender.com/Papers.html, accessed January 15, 2007.

  • Standifird, S. (2005) ‘Reputation among peer academic institutions: An investigation of the U.S. news and world report's rankings’, Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (3), 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, K. and Tempest, S. (2005) ‘The future of the business school: Knowledge, challenges and opportunities’, Human Relations, 58 (1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H. (2007) ‘Business school strategy and the metrics for success’, Journal of Management Development, 26 (1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trank, C. and Rynes, S. (2003) ‘Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2 (2), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trieschmann, J., Dennis, A., Northcraft, G. and Niemi, A. (2000) ‘Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO-CEPES (2004) Ranking and League Tables of Universities and Higher Education Institutions-Methodologies and Approaches, European Centre for Higher Education, Bucharest.

  • Urgel, J. (2007) ‘EQUIS accreditation: Value and benefits for international business schools’, Journal of Management Development, 26 (1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhaegen, P. (2005) ‘Academic talent: Quo vadis? Recruitment and retention of faculty in European business schools’, The Journal of Management Development, 49 (9), 807–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007a) ‘Industry legitimacy and organizational reputation: A model of reciprocal processes’, Paper presented at the Management and International Business Faculty Research Colloquium, Florida International University, Miami, Fl, March 2007.

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007b) ‘Architectures of excellence: Building business school reputations by meeting the ethics challenge’, in R. Giacalone (ed.), IAP Research Series: Ethics in Practice, Infor-mation Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007c) ‘Business school reputation and professional responsibility: A framework for empirical research’, Working paper, Florida International University, Miami, FL.

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. and Altman, B. (2000) ‘Corporate citizenship in the new millennium: Foundation for an architecture of excellence’, Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S. (2006) Safeguarding Reputation, New York, NY, www.reputationrx.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedlin, L. (2006) Ranking Business Schools. Forming Fields, Identities and Boundaries in International Management Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, J.L. (2001) ‘Can American business schools survive?’ Financial Research and Policy, Working Paper, The Bradley Policy Research Centre, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and International Business, College of Business Administration, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Deborah Vidaver-Cohen

Authors
  1. Deborah Vidaver-Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vidaver-Cohen, D. Reputation Beyond the Rankings: A Conceptual Framework for Business School Research. Corp Reputation Rev 10, 278–304 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550055

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550055

Keywords

Search

Navigation