The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ i jme

Using mind maps to study how business school studentsand faculty organize and apply general business knowledge

Mark John Somers a,*, Katia Passerini a, Annaleena Parhankangas b, Jose Casal a

a School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USAbCollege of Business Administration, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 February 2013Received in revised form 23 September 2013Accepted 10 November 2013

Keywords:Mind mapsCognitive mapsStudent learningBusiness school model

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: mark.somers@njit.edu (M.J. So

1472-8117/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltdhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2013.11.001

a b s t r a c t

Concerns have been raised that business school pedagogy has limited students’ intellectualdevelopment with respect to integrative thinking, synthetic reasoning and the abilityanalyze complex problems. Mind maps were used in this study to explore these concerns.Specifically, undergraduate and MBA students, and business school faculty performed amind mapping exercise for a complex, multifaceted problem. Results supported concernsabout students’ intellectual development. Mind maps indicated that advanced under-graduate and advanced MBA students partitioned knowledge into distinct silos and thattheir knowledge bases were thin. In contrast, business school faculty developed rich mindmaps characterized by dense connections among concepts. Implications of these findingsfor business school pedagogy were discussed.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

An ongoing, spirited debate about the future direction of management education is evident in the recent literature.Concerns about management education are broad in scope and include the preparedness of business school graduates formanagerial and professional positions (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Raelin, 2009; Rousseau, 2012), the relevance of businessschool curricula to management practice (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006; Mintzberg, 2004), and the degree to which businessschool pedagogy develops critical thinking (Kilpatrick, Dean, & Kilpatrick, 2008; Starkey & Tempest, 2009).

One area that has received increased interest in the recent literature is the intellectual development of business schoolgraduates. It has been suggested that business school pedagogy is centered on small, simple problems that limit students’abilities in the areas of critical thinking, integrative thinking, creativity, and synthetic reasoning (Kilpatrck et al., 2008;Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004; Starkey & Tempest, 2009). Consequently, business school graduates are seen as notfully prepared to address the complex, interdisciplinary problems characteristic of management practice (Mintzberg, 2004;Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Raelin, 2009).

Although there has been an ongoing interest in integrative learning in the management education literature, it is usuallywithin the context of specific courses (cf., Corner, 2002; Stewart, Houghton, & Rodgers, 2012) or in terms of functionalintegration within a capstone course (cf., Flannery & Pragman, 2010; Stephen, Parente, & Brown, 2012). Much less attentionhas been paid to the manner in which students organize and assimilate knowledge, especially when management is

mers), pkatia@njit.edu (K. Passerini), Aparh1@uic.edu (A. Parhankangas), casal@adm.njit.edu (J. Casal).

. All rights reserved.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–132

compared to other disciplines with a practice orientation such as nursing or engineering (cf., Abel & Freeze, 2006; Mueller,Johnson & Bligh, 2001).

This study adds an empirical dimension to concerns about business students’ intellectual development by using mindsmaps to explore the manner in which they organize and apply data to solve a complex, ambiguous problem. We begin with adiscussion of concerns about management education. Next, we explain mind mapping as a methodology to assess theproblem-solving approaches of undergraduate business students, MBA students and business school faculty. The paperconcludes with recommendations for business school pedagogy derived from a mind mapping exercise.

2. Background

2.1. Criticism of business school pedagogy

Critics have suggested that business school pedagogy emphasizes instructional methods that are focused on tangible,quantifiable skills that are limited in scope (Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, & Dolle, 2011; Kilpatrick et al., 2008; Shoemaker,2008). They argue that an emphasis on targeted, intra-functional learning occurs at the expense of higher-ordercognitive skills related to critical and integrative thinking, and synthetic reasoning (Raelin, 2009; Starkey & Tempest,2009).

Undergraduate business education has been characterized as the default major at university. A survey of American stu-dents found that a business major was viewed as less intellectually demanding than were degree programs in the sciencesand liberal arts (Glenn, 2011). This point was reinforced by an extensive analysis of business programs in the United States inwhich it was suggested that undergraduate education would benefit from increased emphasis on the critical thinking andcreativity that is reinforced with intellectual rigor (Colby et al., 2011).

Similar concerns have been raised about MBA programs. Several prominent writers have suggested that MBA programspresent students with stylized, simplistic problems that are not related to management practice (cf., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005;Khurana, 2007; Mintzberg, 2004). Bennis & O’Toole (2005) make the point that business school cases do not map well tobusiness problems because they are too simple and too structured to capture the complexity of managerial work. As a result,MBA students do not develop the depth of thinking necessary to analyze problems of practice. Mintzberg (2004) makes aneven stronger case arguing that MBA curricula have no relationship to managerial work so that business schools are grad-uating MBA’s and not managers. Finally, Khurana (2007) suggests that MBA programs are graduating technicians and notprofessional managers.

Business school faculty are seen by critics of management education as exacerbating these problems. The emphasis onrigorous academic research in business schools has been criticized as focusing business school faculty on publishing highlytechnical papers that are limited in scope and that have little relationship to management practice (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005;Khurana, 2007; Mintzberg, 2004). This orientation toward parsimony and rigor in academic research is thought carry over tocurricula and pedagogy which is reflected in an emphasis on models and markets at the expense of other dimensions ofmanagerial work (Datar, Garvin, & Cullen, 2011).

2.2. Mind maps

Mind mapping is a technique in which thought processes are represented visually by connecting concepts and ideasrelated to a central issue or problem (Buzan, 1995).

The process begins by placing a thought or focus area in center of the map. This represents the problem or issue to beaddressed. Branching from the central focus are groups of related concepts. These concepts are then linked with arrows thatdemonstrate associations among them. Thus, mind mapping allows the process of solving a problem to be viewed holis-tically and there is evidence that using mind maps as a learning tool encourages both left and right brained thinking(Wycoff, 1991).

Mind maps provide insights into the manner in which people deploy and organize knowledge by capturing conceptsdeemed relevant to a particular problem (Kern, Bush, & McCleish, 2006). They have been used to both assess and facilitatestudent learning in academia in several disciplines including the social sciences (Budd, 2004), nursing (Kern et al., 2006),engineering (Zampetakis & Tsironis, 2006), and business (Mento, Martinelli, & Jones, 1999). Research in engineering edu-cation indicates that mind maps enhance student creativity (Zampetakis & Tsironis, 2006) while mind maps in EMBAprograms helped students to integrate diverse higher-order constructs and to develop metaphorical thinking (Mento et al.,1999).

3. The study

3.1. Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the manner in which business students and faculty frame and analyze complexproblems. It addresses several gaps in the management education literature. To begin with, assessment of students’ ability tointegrate and apply knowledge is usually course specific, andwhen assessments are more general, they are usually focused on

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 3

outcomes rather than process (cf., Kilpatrick et al., 2008). Thus, we have limited information about how students define, frameand analyze complex, ambiguous problems. In addition, while it has been suggested that business school faculty are con-cerned primarily with academic research at the expense of practical knowledge (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Khurana, 2007), weknow of no studies examining how business school faculty organize and apply information to analyze problems associatedwith teaching business concepts. Finally, prior research is focused on specific degree programs (e.g., undergraduate, MBA) sothat there is limited opportunity for comparative analyses. To facilitate such analyses, this study uses the same exercise forundergraduate and MBA students, and business school faculty.

3.2. Use Of mind maps

Mind maps were chosen for this study for several reasons. First, they are well suited to assessing how students organizeand apply information in disciplines with an applied focus. For example, in nursing education, mind maps have been used toassess howwell students integrate diverse information to diagnose a problem and develop a care plan (Kern et al., 2006). Thenotion of integrating knowledge to understand practice-based problem holistically closely mirrors criticisms of managementeducation (cf., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Raelin, 2009).

Mind maps have been also used in both nursing (Abel & Freeze, 2006) and engineering (Lourdel, Gondran, LaForest,Debray, & Brodhag, 2007) to study depth of knowledge and the level of cognitive complexity demonstrated in problem-solving. These issues mirror concerns raised about management education (Kilpatrick et al., 2008; Starkey & Tempest,2009). Since mind maps do not impose hierarchical structures on how concepts are organized (Eppler, 2006) they cap-ture how individuals organize and apply knowledge without constraints (Buzan, 1995). We viewed this quality as animportant element in assessing concerns about complex problem solving and synthetic reasoning. Finally, mind maps arealso relevant to understanding how students and faculty approach business problems by gaining insight into the relevanceof their mental models to management practice in general and strategic thinking in particular (cf., Fiol & Huff, 1992; Huff &Jenkins, 2002).

4. Method

4.1. Study participants

The samplewas comprised of 42 advanced undergraduate, 24 advancedMBA students, and 15 faculty members. Datawerecollected from an AACSB accredited university located in the United States. All students were in their last year of study andhad completed or were enrolled in the capstone course in strategic management. Participation in the studywas voluntary andstudents did not receive extra credit or other incentives for their involvement in this research. All faculty held terminaldegrees in business or areas closely related to business (e.g., economics) and represented a cross section of faculty by rank anddiscipline. Disciplines included marketing, accounting, operations management and systems, business law, internationalbusiness, finance, economics, management strategy, and behavioral management.

These samples represented over 50% of the graduating classes for both undergraduate and MBA students, and 50% of thefaculty of the unit in which data were collected. Although comparatively small, sample sizes are consistent with prior studiesusing mind mapping in academic settings (cf., Kern et al., 2006; Lourdel et al., 2007).

Data from the university’s Office of Institutional Research were used to estimate sample characteristics. These dataindicated that 28 percent of the graduating class of undergraduate students was female, it was 25% White, 25% Asian, 21%Latino, and 16% African American. The mean GPA was 2.62 on a four-point scale and the average combined SAT score was1090. Eight five percent were full-time students.

With respect to graduate students, 28 percent were female and 64 percent were full-time students. Their average GPAwas3.66 on a four-point scale. GMAT data were not available. The class was 34% White, 29% Asian, 15% Latino and 13% AfricanAmerican.

4.2. Procedures

Approximately midway through a fifteen-week semester, students were introduced to the concept of mind mapping andwere trained to develop mind maps. A practice exercise in which students mapped the process of finding a job wasadministered to ensure that students were familiar with the technique and that they were able to apply it effectively. Resultsfrom this pilot exercise indicated that students understood the concept of mind mapping and were able to apply it mean-ingfully. Students were then asked to develop amindmap for the problem of defining a successful company. This concept wasplaced in the center of the map and students were instructed to identify and link the concepts that they thought wereassociated with the operation of a well-managed, successful company.

Our objective was to choose a broad problem area to assess the depth and the breadth of students’ knowledgebases. A similar approach has been used to assess nurses’ knowledge and analytical ability by focusing on patient wellbeing (Kern et al., 2006). Further, examining a firm in its totality, provides insights into the degree to which studentsthink in terms of processes, structures, or functional areas as well as the degree to which knowledge is isolated orintegrated.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–134

Faculty were recruited by e-mail and the researchers made appointments to meet with them to explain the process ofmind mapping. Faculty members were asked to map the same problem and the same researchers collected data fromboth groups. Mind maps were returned to the researchers at a later time (usually within one week) through campusmail.

4.3. Data analysis

Mind maps generate set of concepts in relation to the problem at hand that are connected by linkages determined by theperson producing the mind map. Analysis is driven by the aggregation of individual mind maps to find commonalities (Kernet al., 2006; Lourdel et al., 2007).

This is accomplished in two ways. First, in semantic analysis, the concepts used in the mind maps are aggregated andanalyzed (cf., Lourdel et al., 2007). Semantic analysis was conducted by content coding the mind maps and then counting thenumber of times each category was present. Coding was framed in terms of primary and satellite concepts. Primary conceptswere defined as those that were linked directly to the problem being mapped. Satellite concepts were defined second-orderconcepts that were used to amplify or expand primary concepts.

Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of mind maps were conducted. With respect to the former, differences amonggroups with respect to the number of primary concepts that defined the mind maps were assessed with t-tests. Further,differences among groups (undergraduates, MBA, and faculty) were examined by comparing the percentage of primaryconcepts that fell into the following categories: marketing, human resources management, strategy, and finance by testingbetween two independent proportions using the z statistic (Guilford & Fruchter, 1973).

Semantic analysis was conducted by the researchers and involved content coding primary and secondary concepts whichwere complied into summary tables (see Appendices 1–3). It was used to assess the breadth and depth of knowledge evidentin themindmaps. In so doing, it is possible to identify the categories and concepts that students and faculty used to frame andanalyze the problem at hand. A rich array of relevant concepts is indicative of advanced analytical abilities that can be used tosolve complex problems. Conversely, a constricted set of concepts suggests that one’s knowledge base that is not wellintegrated.

As mind maps are developed in two-dimensional space, it is also possible to analyze their configurations. Configurationrefers to placement and the connections among the concepts that define a mind map (Lourdel et al., 2007). These configu-rations are useful in examining thought processes and patterns of problem solving. For example, similar concepts tend to beplaced physically closer to each other on mind maps (Buzan, 1995). For our purposes, discrete groups of concepts placed at ornear the corners of a mind map is indicative of atomized knowledge. Further, closed loops among a series of concepts isindicative of deeper levels of understanding (Lourdel et al., 2007).

5. Results

5.1. Semantic analysis

Mind maps were organized by primary and satellite concepts for all study participants. Primary concepts werereflective of more abstract concepts which were often (but not always) clarified or amplified with satellite concepts thatwere linked to them (see Figs. 1–3). They differed across undergraduate students, MBA students and faculty with respectto the number of primary concepts brought to bear on the problem as well as the areas that these primary conceptsrepresented.

Specifically, comparison of the number of primary concepts across the group indicated that faculty members generatedsignificantly more valid primary concepts than did undergraduate students (mean ¼ 7.26, sd ¼ .64 vs. mean ¼ 3.95, sd ¼ .28;

Fig. 1. Mind map for an undergraduate student.

Fig. 2. Mind map of MBA student.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 5

t¼ 5.47, p< .001) andMBA students (mean¼ 7.26 sd¼ .64 vs. mean¼ 4.50 sd¼ .19; t¼ 2.77, p< .001). As indicated in Table 1,undergraduate students exhibited a strong bias towardmarketing in that concepts tied to themarketing function represented37% of the total number of valid concepts (corrected for those that were irrelevant to the problem at hand) vs. 24% forgraduate students (D ¼ .14, z ¼ 2.39, p < .05) and 25% for faculty (D ¼ .13, z ¼ 2.29, p < .05). Further, MBA studentsdemonstrated a strong bias toward strategy relative to undergraduate students with concepts related to strategy representing21% of total concepts vs. 10% for undergraduate students (D ¼ .11, z ¼ 2.52, p < .01).

Detailed coding of the content of the minds maps revealed more profound differences among the groups. (These codes aresummarized in Appendices 1,2 & 3 and represent the diagnostic framework that was brought to bear on the problem to beanalyzed.) Undergraduates generated the fewest number of valid primary concepts, most of which were labels for functionalmanagement areas. That is, primary concepts as defined by undergraduate students were framed in terms “marketing” or“finance” as if they were recalling the titles of the courses they had completed. Satellite concepts, in turn, were (mostlydisjointed) elaborations of subareas of the primary concepts and seemed to represent whatever students remembered aboutthat particular functional area on the day the mapping exercise was conducted.

Fig. 3. Mind map of a faculty member.

Table 1Comparison of content of undergraduate, MBA, and faculty mind maps across management disciplines (discipline area primary concepts as a percent of allprimary concepts).

Discipline area UG MBA Faculty D UG/MBA D UG/Fac. D MBA/Fac.

Marketing 37 24 25 14a 13b 1Finance 13 12 17 1 4 4Human resources mgt. 15 21 22 6 7 1Strategy 10 21 17 11c 7 4

a z ¼ 2.39, p < .05.b z ¼ 2.29, p < .05.c z ¼ 2.52, p < .1.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–136

It is also noteworthy that a large percentage of these satellite concepts had little relevance to the problem at hand or tothe primary concept to which they were associated, and were coded as “other.” For example, “have a good career plan” wasa satellite concept associated with the primary concept of “management.” As indicated in Appendix 1, with respect to theprimary concepts, one third of the 91 satellite concepts associated with marketing were coded as other, 38 percent ofsatellite concepts linked to finance were coded as other, and 74 percent of those associated with management were codedas other.

Unlike undergraduate students who developed a lexicon that was based on a wide array of functional areas, MBAstudents’ mind maps indicated a more targeted focus on strategic management and the strategic elements of marketing.MBA students, thus, tended to personalize the idea of successful business and they presented themselves as key decisionmakers. Indeed, many replaced the central problem in the mind maps of a “successful business” with “CEO.” MBA stu-dents also exhibited a deeper knowledge base than did undergraduates in that the number of primary and satelliteconcepts that had no relevance to the problem at hand dropped markedly reaching a maximum of 25 percent for the areaof finance.

Content of faculty mind maps differed considerably from both those of undergraduate and MBA students. To begin with,while students used words that were descriptive (e.g., naming functional areas of management) or were centered onoutcomes (e.g., profits), faculty thought in terms of processes. Specifically, faculty saw a business in terms of sensemaking sothat markets were cast as entities to be analyzed and understood (e.g., market analysis) and finance was defined in terms ofbuilding effective capital structures (a notion that was mostly absent from student mind maps). Further, none of theconcepts generated by faculty were coded as being not relevant to the problem at hand. Finally, faculty relied less onsatellite concepts to fill out their maps, but rather were able to generate a rich and varied array of primary concepts thatguided their analysis.

5.2. Analysis of configurations

Turning to configurational analysis, it is noteworthy that configurations of students’mindmapswere surprisingly uniform.Both undergraduate and MBA students placed primary and secondary concepts on the outer quadrants of their maps andlinked them directly to the problem to be mapped. This configuration provides a clear window into their thinking and reflectsconcerns about the atomization of management knowledge in undergraduate management education (cf., Kilpatrick et al.,2008). Indeed, it appears as if students move through the curriculum and add knowledge in discrete pieces that are notfully integrated. It should be noted that such configurations are not a function of the mind mapping process and mindmapping in academia has produced elaborate, creative, and complex maps indicative of a synthetic reasoning and integrativethinking (cf., Budd, 2004; Lourdel et al., 2007).

Faculty mind maps were markedly different (See Fig. 1). First, faculty did not position concepts around the corners of themap, but rather used the entire physical space to place concepts around the central problem to be mapped. Thus, rather thanorganizing knowledge in discrete rectangular sectors, faculty tend to place concepts in circular patterns revolving around thecenter of the map. Further, unlike students’ mind maps, connections between primary concepts that took the form of loops(cf., Lourdel et al., 2007) were significantly more prominent in faculty mind maps (feedback loops were present in 60 percentof faculty mindmaps) indicating a more integrative perspective and a deeper level of understanding (D¼ .60; z¼ 4.74, p< . 01for undergraduates; D ¼ .60, z ¼ 4.74, p < .01 for MBA students).

6. Discussion

Recent criticisms of management education have raised concerns about business school pedagogy. One element of thiscriticism is focused on students’ ability to integrate knowledge and apply it complex problems. There is indirect evidence thatthese criticisms have some merit. For example, survey research indicates that undergraduate business students choose thismajor because it is less intellectually challenging than are competing majors in the arts and sciences (cf., Glenn, 2011).Similarly, analysis of MBA curricula indicate that courses are superficial, and not related to management practice (Navarro,2008; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004).

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 7

Direct evident for these claims, however, is sparse.With the understanding that these are complex issues and no one studycan provide definitive answers, our results offer evidence to support concerns about business school students’ intellectualdevelopment with respect to integrative thinking and the depth of their knowledge bases.

6.1. Integrative thinking

Analysis of the configurations of undergraduate and MBA students’ mind maps indicated that knowledge was compart-mentalized by functional areas of business. Specifically, there was not a single instance of a connection between primaryconcepts in students’ mind maps. Rather than building connections among concepts, both MBA and undergraduate studentsdeconstructed primary concepts into arrays of satellite concepts that operated as subdimensions of the associated primaryconcept.

Faculty mind maps from this study and cognitive maps generated by students in other practice oriented degree pro-grams were used to better understand our findings. With regard to the latter, second year nursing students generated anaverage of 12.2 connections between primary concepts when mapping patients’ health and the number of connectionsbetween concepts increased as students moved through the nursing curriculum (cf., Abel & Freeze, 2006). Similarly, Lourdelet al. (2007) found that graduate engineering students generated an average 1.8 loops (or a minimum of 5.4 linkages be-tween primary concepts) when asked to map the process of sustainable development. With regard to the former, about 60percent of faculty mind maps in this study had dense connections among primary concepts. Thus, unlike their students,business school faculty generated mind maps that were indicative of rich networks with feedback loops among key con-cepts (See Fig. 1).

6.2. Depth and breadth of knowledge

Semantic analysis suggested that the knowledge base that students brought to bear on the problemwith which they werepresented was limited. This finding was surprising in that a broad, complex problem, which should have generated a richarray of concepts, was chosen for the mindmapping exercise. Nonetheless, both undergraduate andMBA students’ generatedan average of approximately four primary concepts per mind map. In contrast, faculty members generated nearly twice thenumber of primary concepts than did undergraduate and MBA students.

In interpreting these findings the possibility must be considered, especially for undergraduate students, that our findingsare outliers stemming from poor quality instruction or students who struggled with the business curriculum. Several factorsargue against this interpretation. First, students’ SAT scores indicate that they have the aptitude for college level work.Further, the undergraduate students in this study sat for the Major Field Test in Business (MFT), a paper-and-pencil testbattery that covers the full range of business disciplines. Undergraduate students scored at the 50th percentile on the MFTindicating that their knowledge base is typical of the business students enrolled in four-year business schools in the UnitedStates.

6.3. Limitations

Our findings should be interpreted with some caution. To begin with, it must be kept in mind that one study cannotprovide definitive answers so that our findings should be viewed as preliminary. Further, even though they are consistentwith prior studies using cognitive maps (cf., Abel & Freeze, 2006; Budd, 2004; Lourdel et al., 2007; Mento et al., 1999) thecomparatively small sample sizes in this study might raise concerns about the generalizability of our findings. Finally, datawere collected only near the end of degree programs so it is not clear if the business school curriculum instilled the cognitiveframeworks represented in the mind maps or reinforced patterns that were already present. Longitudinal studies trackingstudents’ cognitive development are necessary to resolve this issue.

6.4. Implications and recommendations

By offering professional programs, business schools are faced with the challenge of educating students to analyze andsolve practice-based problems (Khurana & Spender, 2012). A good deal of attention has been focused on closing a perceivedpedagogy-practice gap in management education by increasing practice-based experiences (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005;Mintzberg, 2004: Pfeffer & Fong, 2004). There is little to argue with here, but it must be remembered that foundationknowledge is required for practical experience to be meaningful. For this reason, professional programs in areas such asnursing and medicine are structured so that foundation knowledge precedes practice-based learning (cf., Abel & Freeze,2006).

As this study was focused on how students identify, organize, and apply core business knowledge and concepts, it shedssome light on preparing students for practice-based experiences. At the most general level, our findings indicate that bothundergraduate and MBA students struggle with integrating concepts across business disciplines. Thus, as indicated in themind maps (See Fig. 1), they are fairly adept at identifying the components of a problem, and are much less adept atdeveloping linkages among those components.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–138

A case can bemade that the structure of student mindmapsmirrors the structure of many business degree programs. Thatis, students are presentedwith specialized knowledge in a given area, achieve a level of mastery, and thenmove on to the nextarea (i.e., course). As a result, students are more likely to think in terms of functional area problems rather than in terms ofbusiness problems (cf., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). Yet managerial work involves resolving complex, multifaceted problems thatdo not fit into simple categories (Mintzberg, 1973).

Keeping in mind that are findings are preliminary, mind maps have been demonstrated to increase integrative thinking inexecutiveMBA programs (Mento et al., 1999). Thus, theymight be an effective tool for developing skills in integrative thinkingin business schools by clarifying connections among disciplines and by engaging faculty in curriculum development. In thisregard, the faculty mind maps in this study were characterized by higher-order thinking and dense connections amongconcepts. Engaging faculty from the various business disciplines to participate in a mind mapping exercise can be used todevelop curriculum roadmaps that build connections among business concepts across courses. For example, marketingcourses might have a module that addresses customer satisfaction from human resources perspective (hiring and trainingeffective customer service representatives). Mind mapping exercises could then be conducted with students to assesswhether desired connections among concepts are being made.

To broaden students’ thinking, it has been suggested that pedagogical methods from other areas including the liberal artsand professional schools be incorporated into management education (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Colby et al., 2011; Khurana &Spender, 2012; Kilpatrick et al., 2008). The contrast between student and faculty mind maps observed here indicates thatpedagogy to build stronger connections between theory and practice would be a welcome addition to management edu-cation. Whether techniques to promote integrative learning come from the design sciences (cf., Welsh & Dehler, 2012), theliberal arts model (cf., Colby et al., 2011; Kilpatrick et al., 2008), or the professional model of education (cf., Bennis & O’Toole,2005; Khurana & Spender, 2012; Rousseau, 2012) is less important than are concerted efforts to begin such initiatives.

Finally, our findings suggest that business school faculty are an underutilized resource in students’ intellectual devel-opment. The mind maps that the faculty generated in this study were indicative of high levels of integrative thinking (SeeFig. 1). They differed from students’mindmaps in that faculty thought in terms of process and analysis rather than in terms ofdescription. As indicated in Appendix 1, semantic analysis of faculty mind maps indicated that faculty conceptualized abusiness as set of integrated processes directed toward common goals. Thus, while students thought in terms of “marketing”as a component of a business, faculty viewed marketing as a process grounded in “market analysis.” Further, while studentstended to deconstruct a business using primary concepts and then deconstruct it further with satellite concepts, faculty tookan integrative perspective with a focus on how processes within a business are connected.

7. Conclusion

Recent criticism of management education suggests that changes in pedagogy and possibly philosophy are required tomeet the needs of an increasing demanding set of stakeholders. Although many excellent suggestions have been made abouthow to meet future challenges, it is also important that changes to management education are evidence based (Rousseau,2012). Our results indicate that mind maps are a promising technique that can provide insights into how students inte-grate and apply knowledge. These insights can be very helpful in shaping the future of business school pedagogy andcurricula.

Appendix 1

Semantic analysis of mind maps of undergraduate students.

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

Marketing 61 32 Effective advertising 11 12Know target market 10 11Good product 10 11Proper pricing 5 5Develop new markets 4 4Good location 4 4Effective marketing plan 3 3Value added through customer experience 3 3Effective sales force management 2 2Research and development 2 2Differentiation 2 2SWOT 1 1Manage marketing channels 1 1e-commerce 1 1Gain market share 1 1Brand recognition 1 1Other 30 33Total 91

(continued )

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

HRM/OB 25 13 Employee productivity 7 13Hire talented people 3 5Committed employees 3 5Winning culture 3 5Reward systems 2 4High pay 2 4Ethical employees 2 4Participative management 2 4Openness to diversity 2 4Pursuit of excellence 1 2Training 1 2Succession planning 1 2Reduce turnover 1 2Other 26 46Total 56

Management 24 13 Good team work 5 9Good leadership 4 7Effective communication 3 6Manage employee goals 2 4Other 40 74Total 54

Finance 21 11 Outside investment 10 25Adequate capital 5 13Cash flow 2 5Cash levels 2 5Profitability 2 5Good accounting systems 1 3Cost control 1 3Risk analysis 1 3Debt analysis 1 3Other 15 38Total 40

Strategy 16 8 Business plans and goals 5 14Industry analysis 2 6SWOT 1 3Adapt to change 1 3Vertical integration 1 3Mission 1 3Other 25 69Total 36

Operations management 5 3 Optimize value chain 2 33Other 4 66Total 6

International business 4 2 Outsourcing 2 33Cross cultural management 1 17Global business opportunities 1 17Cost control 1 17Other 1 17Total 6

MIS 3 2 Data systems 1 17Internet 1 17Intranets 1 17Other 3 50Total 6

Legal 2 1 Contracts and rights 1 50Other 1 50Total 2

Ethics 1 1 Corporate social responsibility 1 33Fair pay 1 33Pollution control 1 33Total 3

Other 27 14 Other 69 100Total 69

Total 189 Total 369

Notes. N refers to number of primary concepts across all maps. n refers to the frequency of a given satellite concept within a primary concept. Total refers tothe total number of satellite concepts within a given specific primary concept. Sample size was 42.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 9

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–1310

Appendix 2

Semantic analysis of mind maps for MBA students.

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

Marketing 24 21 Product development 7 21Advertising 4 12Brand 3 9Customer retention 2 6Customer service 2 6Pricing strategy 2 6Market demand 2 6Marketing plan 2 6Marketing channels 1 3Competitive analysis 1 3Customer feedback 1 3Data mining 1 3Market share 1 3Product quality 1 3Other 4 12Total 34

Strategy 24 21 Competitive analysis 4 13Corporate image 3 10Forecasting 3 10Adaptation 2 7Alliances 2 7Leadership 2 7Long-term goals 2 7Core values 1 3Globalization 1 3M&A 1 3Strategic plan 1 3SWOT 1 3Vision 1 3Other 6 20Total 30

HRM/OB 21 19 Training and development 5 16Employee MOTIVATION 5 16Employee benefits 4 13Expert employees 4 13Employee satisfaction 3 10Diverse staff 2 6Company culture 1 3Contract or permanent employees 1 3Decision-making 1 3Interpersonal skills 1 3Leadership skills 1 3Loyalty 3 10OtherTotal 31

Finance 12 11 Sustainable profit 4 20Capital structure 3 15Cash 2 10Bank loans 1 .5Asset management 1 .5Backup financing 1 .5Bonds 1 .5Profit 1 .5Start-up costs 1 .5Other 5 25Total 20

Management 6 5 Two way communication 3 33Chain of command 2 22Mission & goal alignment 2 22Strong leadership 2 22Total 9

Innovation Management 4 4 Innovation 1 33Other 2 66Total 6

(continued )

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

Operations Management 3 3 Production efficiency 3 33SCM 3 33Business process analysis 1 11TQM 1 11On time deliveries 1 11Total 9

MIS 2 1 Tech Support 1 100Total 1

Legal 1 1 Contracts and rights 1 100Total 1

Ethics 1 1 Ethical Behavior 3 75Philanthropy 1 25Total 4

Economics 1 1 Cost of Government Regulation 1 100Total 1

Corporate social resp. 1 1 Contribution to Society 1 100Total 1 100

Other 13 11 Other 20 100Total 20

Total 113 Total 167

Notes. N refers to number of primary concepts across all maps. n refers to the frequency of a given satellite concept within a primary concept. Total refers tothe total number of satellite concepts within a given specific primary concept. Sample size was 24.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 11

Appendix 3

Sematic analysis of faculty mind maps.

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

Market analysis 15 20 Effective advertising 2 7Channel management 2 7Competitive analysis 5 17CRM 2 7Customer retention 2 7PLC management 1 3Product development, quality, innovation 10 34Sales force management 1 3Segmentation 2 7SWOT 2 7Other 0 0Total 29

Strategic Planning Process 11 15 Competitive analysis 7 39Operating plan 6 33Innovation 1 5International strategies 1 5Outsourcing 1 5Scanning 1 5SWOT 1 5Other 0 0Total 18

Financing 15 20 Capital structure 7 41Cash flow analysis 2 12Profit projection 5 29Risk management 1 6Working capital management 2 12Other 0 0Total 17

Environmental analysis 7 11 Economic environment 4 36Globalization 1 9Natural environment 1 9Regulatory environment 3 27Social and cultural environment 1 9Technological environment 1 9Other 0Total 11

SCM 1 8 Total 0 0CSR 5 3 Total 0 0

(continued on next page)

(continued )

Primary concepts N % Satellite concepts n %

Human Capital 15 2 Employee relations 5 13Employee training & skills 10 26Leadership 5 13Mentoring 1 3Performance management 8 21Recruitment 5 13Teamwork 3 8Vision 1 3Other 0Total 38

Knowledge Management 1 2 Total 0 0Business Process Management 1 1 0 0Ethics 3 1 Integrity 1 50

Fair governance structure 1 50Other 0 0Total 2

IT Infrastructure 1 14 E-business analysis 1 50IT infrastructure 1 50Other 0 0Total 2

Total 78 Total 117

Notes. N refers to number of primary concepts across all maps. n refers to the frequency of a given satellite concept within a primary concept. Total refers tothe total number of satellite concepts within a given specific primary concept. Sample size was 15.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–1312

References

Abel, M., & Freeze, M. (2006). Evaluation of concept mapping in an associate degree nursing program. Journal of Nursing Education, 45, 356–364.Bennis, W., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.Budd, J. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. Journal of Economic Education, 35, 35–46.Buzan, T. (1995). The mindmap book. London: BBC Worldwide Publishing.Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W., & Dolle, J. (2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-

Bass.Corner, P. (2002). An integrative model for teaching qualitative research design. Journal of Management Education, 26, 671–692.Datar, S., Garvin, D., & Cullen, P. (2011). Rethinking the MBA: business education at a crossroads. Journal of Management Development, 30, 451–462.Eppler, M. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge

construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.Fiol, C., & Huff, A. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29, 267–285.Flannery, J., & Pragman, C. (2010). Service learning and integrated course design: principles of management and the campus kitchen metaproject. Journal of

Management Education, 34, 11–38.Glenn, D. (2011). The default major: skating through B-school. The New York Times. Education Life, April 17, 2011.Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both matter. Management Learning, 37, 419–428.Guilford, J., & Fruchter, B. (1973). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Huff, A., & Jenkins, M. (2002). Mapping strategic knowledge. London: Sage.Kern, C. S., Bush, K. L., & McCleish, J. M. (2006). Mind-mapped care plans: integrating an innovative educational tool as an alternative to traditional care

plans. Journal of Nursing Education, 45, 112–119.Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a

profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Khurana, R., & Spender, J. (2012). Herbert A. Simon on what ails business schools: more than a “problem in organizational design.” Journal of Management

Studies, 49, 619–639.Kilpatrick, J., Dean, K., & Kilpatrick, P. (2008). Philosophical concerns about interpreting AACSB assurance of learning standards. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 17, 200–212.Lourdel, N., Gondran, N., LaForest, V., Debray, B., & Brodhag, C. (2007). Sustainable development cognitive map: a new method of evaluating student

understanding. Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8, 170–182.Mento, A., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18, 390–

407.Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBA’s: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Mueller, A., Johnston, M., & Bligh, D. (2001). Mind-mapped care plans: a remarkable alternative to traditional nursing care plans. Nurse Educator, 26, 75–80.Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked US business schools: a study in failure? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7,

108–123.Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2004). The business school “business”: some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1501–1520.Raelin, J. (2009). The practice turn-away: forty years of spoon-feeding in management education. Management Learning, 40, 401–410.Rousseau, D. (2012). Designing a better business school: channeling Herbert Simon, addressing the critics, and developing actionable knowledge for

professionalizing managers. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 600–618.Shoemaker, P. (2008). The future challenges of business: rethinking management education. California Management Review, 50, 119–139.Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1521–1531.Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: the design challenge for business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8,

576–586.Stephen, J., Parente, D., & Brown, R. (2012). Seeing the forest and the trees: balancing functional and integrative knowledge using large scale simulations in

capstone business strategy courses. Journal of Management Education, 26, 164–193.

M.J. Somers et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 1–13 13

Stewart, A., Houghton, S., & Rodgers, P. (2012). Instructional design, active learning and student performance: using a trading room to teach strategy. Journalof Management Education, 36, 753–776.

Welsh, M., & Dehler, G. (2012). Combining critical reflection and design thinkers to develop integrative learners. Journal of Management Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562912470107. Published online before print December 10, 2012.

Wycoff, J. (1991). Mindmapping: Your personal guide to exploring creativity and problem-solving. NY: Berkley Books.Zampetakis, L., & Tsironis, L. (2006). Creativity development in engineering education: the case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development, 26,

370–380.