Reimagining Management Education: A Literature Review on Purpose and Practice

Introduction: The Evolving Purpose of Management Education

Management education stands at a crossroads. In an era of climate crises, AI disruption, and social inequality, the traditional business school model is under scrutiny. The article by Starkey and Tempest (2025), “The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education,” argues that management education must move beyond a narrow focus on shareholder value and embrace a broader societal purpose. This literature review critically compares their thesis with alternative perspectives from Kitchener, Levitt, and Thomas (2022) and Colombo et al. (2024), and reflects on implications for students and practitioners.

Summary of Starkey & Tempest (2025)

Starkey and Tempest (2025) contend that business schools have reached an “end of history” moment, where the dominant paradigm of maximizing shareholder wealth is no longer tenable. They draw on critical management studies and historical analysis to propose a reimagined curriculum centered on grand challenges like sustainability, inequality, and digital ethics. The authors advocate for a reflective practice approach that integrates humanities and social sciences, fostering students’ ability to think critically about the role of business in society. Their vision is a business school that serves the common good rather than merely corporate interests.

Critical Comparison with Kitchener, Levitt, and Thomas (2022)

Kitchener, Levitt, and Thomas (2022), in “Towards purposeful business schools: Deepening and broadening external engagement,” share Starkey and Tempest’s concern for relevance but emphasize external engagement as the key driver of change. While Starkey and Tempest focus on internal curriculum reform, Kitchener et al. argue that business schools must forge deeper partnerships with communities, policymakers, and civil society. They propose a “third mission” of social impact, beyond teaching and research. Both papers critique the status quo, but Kitchener et al. offer a more practice-oriented framework, suggesting that purpose emerges through collaborative action rather than intellectual reorientation alone. A limitation of Starkey and Tempest is their relative neglect of how institutional inertia and power dynamics might impede reform. Kitchener et al. address this by highlighting the need for structural changes in incentives and funding.

Critical Comparison with Colombo et al. (2024)

Colombo et al. (2024), in “Sowing the Seeds of Change: Calling for a Social–Ecological approach to management learning and education,” push the debate further by advocating for a social-ecological paradigm. They argue that management education must embed ecological thinking into every aspect of the curriculum, moving beyond sustainability as a module to a fundamental worldview shift. This contrasts with Starkey and Tempest, who, while critical, remain within a human-centric framework. Colombo et al. draw on indigenous and feminist perspectives to challenge the anthropocentrism of mainstream management theory. Their approach is more radical, calling for a “rewilding” of management education. However, their paper is more of a call to action than a detailed roadmap, whereas Starkey and Tempest provide concrete curriculum suggestions. Both agree that current models are inadequate, but Colombo et al. go further in questioning the ontological foundations of business education.

Synthesis and Key Themes

Across these texts, three key themes emerge: purpose, engagement, and paradigm shift. Starkey and Tempest (2025) foreground purpose as a historical imperative; Kitchener et al. (2022) emphasize engagement as the mechanism for achieving purpose; and Colombo et al. (2024) argue that a genuine shift requires a new ecological paradigm. Together, they suggest that management education must be both critically reflective and actively transformative. For students, this means developing competencies in systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and collaborative problem-solving. The literature also highlights tensions: between academic freedom and stakeholder demands, between global standards and local contexts, and between incremental reform and radical transformation.

Critical Reflection: Lessons for a Management Student

Engaging with this debate has reshaped my understanding of what it means to study management. Initially, I viewed business school as a pathway to corporate success. Now, I see it as a platform to address urgent societal issues. The Starkey and Tempest (2025) paper resonated with my growing concern about climate change and inequality; their call for a reimagined curriculum aligns with my desire for more meaningful learning experiences. Comparing their ideas with Kitchener et al. (2022) taught me that change requires not just new ideas but new alliances. The emphasis on external engagement inspires me to seek internships and projects with social enterprises. Colombo et al. (2024) challenged me to think beyond human interests; their social-ecological approach made me reconsider my assumptions about growth and progress.

As a future practitioner, I recommend that business schools adopt a hybrid model: retain rigorous analytical training but infuse it with critical reflection and real-world engagement. This could include mandatory modules on sustainability, ethics, and systems thinking, as well as partnerships with NGOs and community organizations. Assessment should reward not just technical competence but also ethical sensitivity and collaborative skills. For students, I advise actively seeking diverse perspectives, participating in experiential learning, and developing a personal reflective practice. The purpose of management education, I now believe, is to cultivate leaders who can navigate complexity with wisdom and empathy.

Conclusion

This literature review has shown that the debate on management education is vibrant and urgent. Starkey and Tempest (2025) provide a compelling critique and vision, while Kitchener et al. (2022) and Colombo et al. (2024) offer complementary insights on engagement and ecological thinking. For management students, the key takeaway is that education must be both critical and constructive. As we prepare for an uncertain future, business schools have a responsibility to produce not just competent managers but responsible citizens. By embracing a broader purpose, management education can truly prepare students to lead in a world of change.

References

• Colombo, L. A., Moser, C., Muehlfeld, K., & Joy, S. (2024). Sowing the Seeds of Change: Calling for a Social–Ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 23(2), 207–213.
• Kitchener, M., Levitt, T., & Thomas, L. (2022). Towards purposeful business schools: Deepening and broadening external engagement. Futures, 144, 103042.
• Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2025). The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 24(1), 111-125.