
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Abstract: U.S. higher education faces mounting existential pressures—enrollment declines, cost escalation, political skepticism, and administrative managerialism that prioritizes short-term institutional survival over long-term scholarly mission. Despite widespread critique, business management faculty have largely failed to mount effective resistance to managerialist interventions, even as these practices erode academic autonomy and institutional purpose. This paradox deepens when considering that many senior administrators implementing managerial reforms lack formal training in management and strategy, sometimes producing poorly conceived interventions that damage institutions while expanding administrative ranks. This essay examines why business faculty—who possess expertise to recognize problematic management practices—often remain complicit in or complacent toward managerialism. Drawing on identity theory and organizational scholarship, we argue that typical business faculty identities neither frame managerialism as a personal threat nor create obligation to apply professional expertise to institutional challenges. Before mounting effective response, business management faculty may need to cultivate alternative identities as stewards of organizational practice, not merely teachers of management abstracted from institutional context.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Abstract: Organizations adopting artificial intelligence face a fundamental structural challenge: traditional hierarchies and coordination mechanisms often stifle the experimentation and rapid iteration AI implementation requires. Emerging evidence suggests that small, cross-functional teams with high autonomy—typically comprising senior engineers, domain experts, and experienced product managers—deliver faster time-to-value and stronger early returns on AI investments than centralized, top-down approaches. This article examines the organizational design principles enabling these teams to succeed and addresses the critical gap in enterprise-scale coordination mechanisms. Drawing on organizational theory, agility research, and practitioner accounts from technology, financial services, and healthcare sectors, we propose a dual-operating system model that preserves the benefits of autonomous pods while building connective tissue for resource allocation, knowledge sharing, and strategic alignment. The article concludes with evidence-based recommendations for leaders navigating the transition from experimental AI initiatives to institution-wide capability.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
From the publisher's feed