MANAGEMENT EDUCATION: PLACEMENT PHOBIA
Dr A K Sen Gupta

The whole context of management education particularly in the Indian scenario has undergone a stimulating transformation since 1980s. While the number of institutes has gone up dramatically resulting in a lop-sided imbalance between demand and supply, the quality has been the obvious casualty. The inadequate regulation has significantly contributed to the problem. As a result, purely in quantitative terms India might boast of producing largest number of management graduates in the world but the questionable quality of a significant number among them has raised the critical issue of long-term viability of some of these institutes.

The important question to be answered in this regard is what constitutes a good B-school. The rating exercises conducted in India in recent times try to answer this question. Some of the important parameters considered for ranking have been physical infrastructure, academic ambience including quality of faculty, knowledge creation efforts like research and publication, industry integration, perception of the various constituents namely, students, faculty, alumni, recruiters, and finally the quality of placement. The weightages associated with various parameters depict their relative importance. These, however, vary widely across the various exercises conducted by different agencies. The issue has often been raised whether placement and the associated criteria should at all form a part of such exercises or even if it is there what should be the relative importance associated with it.

Unfortunately many B-schools in India have found themselves in a bind: the most important criterion for credibility of a school has been achieving good placement results and therefore, better business schools are those that have proven track record of the same. Unfortunately this placement phobia has led to more attention being paid to the placement activities than the academic ones. The result is obvious: many of the business schools have converted themselves as more of placement agencies than institutes of academic excellence. In the final year there is very little academic activity and the entire energy of the institutes is being spent to ensure better placement for the graduating students. Innovative approaches are being designed by the schools to enhance their placement process. These include creation of fancy positions or offering even financial incentives to faculty providing placement to the students. The argument is simple: better placement process will facilitate attraction of better quality of students next year. Therefore, even if academic delivery during two-year stay at the institute is not adequate, better students (at the input level) will automatically result in better managers (at the output level). The cycle will thus automatically continue and the brand equity of the institute will not be affected. The basic fallacy in this argument is obvious.

First, societal expectation from the management institutions is to create better managers and individuals who can lead and transform their organization having undergone a professional qualification. Therefore, academic activities and providing a learning climate to the students is the most important responsibility of a B-school. If this happens, the placement results will automatically be better. What it implies is that placement should be considered only as a consequence and not a cause of a better business school. This is the case the world over. Market attractiveness is important but this can not be the overriding factor.

Secondly, placement process should not be de-linked from the career focus of the students. Therefore, what is needed is to counsel them about their career goals and to tailor-make the curriculum accordingly. What obviously happens in many of the leading institutes is that this issue is often missed out. The result is an obvious chaotic situation resulting in any body and every body trying for all possible jobs through the campus placement process. Long – term effect could be catastrophic in the sense there is huge incidence of job hopping. There are cases of more than 25 per cent students of leading business schools changing their first job within six months of their joining. This is not in the interest of any one.

Finally, according very high priority for placement related activities may serve the short-term benefit of the institute. In the long run, however, this is a dangerous game as the expectation of the students taking admission shows a continuous upward trend. Eventually it becomes very difficult for any institute to come out of the vicious cycle and this might induce the top management of the institutes to resort to window dressing of the placement figures. The problem is accentuated because of the overemphasis of the placement criteria in many of the exercises relating to rating of B-schools.

The trend needs to be reversed. The management institutes need to appreciate that placement can not be the sole criteria on which they can survive long. What is expected of a good B-school is to excel in the education process by incorporating on an on-going basis corporate needs. This will automatically result in better placement. The mad rush for placement needs to stop as this in the long run degenerates the educational process for which an academic institution stands for.

Dr. A K Sen Gupta
Director, SIES College of Management Studies, Navi Mumbai
and A Management Educationist.

Back