VUCA an acronym for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity was coined in the late 1980s to describe the post-Cold War geopolitical situation. This has increasingly come to characterise the operating business environment of the 21st century. Today’s world is changing faster than institutions can actually keep up with- given the volatility of markets, unpredictable geopolitics, technological disruptions, climate change and the subsequent shifting social expectations.
The curricula in most business schools are designed to train people for operating in a stable, predictable environment with linear growth. The resultant output is technically competent, analytically refined and managerial competent professionals. It is doubtful that this would hardly suffice the requirements of a VUC A world. Juxtaposing the systematic risks of the external environment and the lag between what is taught and what is required , two pertinent questions arise: Firstly, to steer through these crises, what kind of stewardship businesses would require in a VUCA world? Secondly, are business schools ready to cater to this change and if so, how?Management vs Leadership
First of all, to understand the lag, we must delve into how it all began. The thriving corporate business of the 19th and 20th centuries demanded a fundamental change – the separation of ownership and management. Given the scale and complexity of operations, a new class of professionals who were technically competent and reliable was needed to manage business on behalf of the owners. Business schools rose to meet these needs and designed curricula around accounting, finance, personnel, marketing, operations and strategy- all essential tools for managing business efficiently. However, the training was designed to operate and manage business in a certain and predictable world. Hence, the fundamental flaw of this design began to be exposed when the environment became turbulent. The need for a different level of stewardship of business called for redesigning business education itself. Leadership, arguably became the necessity of the time to navigate business through uncertain times. And great leadership is defined by essential qualities like courage, resilience, epistemic humility, empathy, adaptability, ethics and reflective practice. Harvard Professor Ranjan Gulati studied 4700 public companies which had gone through three recessions and found just 9% of the firms emerged from each downturn stronger than before. He found the reason was not just thoughtful cutting of costs alone but a bold leadership decision to take calculated risks to invest in growth. Apart from courage, resilience and adaptability are required to endure setbacks without losing direction while recalibrating to pivot when circumstances demand it. There have been many examples of brilliant technocrats and intellectuals who face setbacks due to their own intellectual arrogance at times of adversity. Whereas a good leadership imbibes epistemic humility to acknowledge what one does not know and remain open to learning. Research has shown the managerial failure from Enron to 2008 financial crisis is not due to technical incompetence but to failures of judgement, ethical reasoning, emotional intelligence and reflective practices as well.
Macaulay vs ancient Indian wisdom
The Macaulay’s system of education was designed explicitly to produce conformists in British Colonies. Critical thinking and creative reasoning were calculatedly and systematically de-emphasised because the goal was compliance and not courage. In India, despite independence, this system still continues to shape the architecture of education in India. Business schools which should be laboratories of leadership mostly remain embedded in this conformist tradition. Students are rewarded for giving the right answers but hardly for asking the right questions. They are being trained to fit into organisations but not to transform them.
In stark contrast stands the ancient Indian model of education- a system whose sophistication and depth the world today is beginning to rediscover. The Gurukul System and the ancient universities like Nalanda and Takshashila were not just great institutions of learning. They were ecosystems meant to facilitate holistic human development. An interdisciplinary training of philosophy, maths, astronomy, statecraft, medicine, history, religion, arts and ethics ensured that education was integrated and not compartmentalised. Students were exposed to rigorous debates, deep reflection and ethical reasoning. They learned not just what to think but how to think as well. The relationship between the guru and the student was built on trust, observation and the gradual unfolding of the student’s unique potential. Hence, the system sought to build inner strength along with the individual’s outer competence. Ancient India thus produced not just skilled professionals but courageous, resilient and wise individuals who could navigate through turbulent times, govern kingdoms through utmost complexity and create knowledge for generations. These individuals possessed naturally what modern leadership literature now struggles to articulate and teach- Inner Leadership. The virtues of courage, resilience, humility, empathy and wisdom were not embedded into their education as electives but woven into its very fabric.
Conclusion
In a VUCA world, the manager who successfully executes a known playbook may be valuable but is insufficient. Organisations need leaders who can thrive through uncertainty, ambiguity and volatility. The capabilities cannot be developed through curricula and case studies alone. They require experiences that challenge students at the level of identity, values and character. The MBA needs a reimagined curriculum that incorporates philosophy and ethics, reflective practices, interdisciplinary learnings, adversity simulations, wisdom of ancient traditions, reflective practices, community engagement, mentorship and deep dialogue. The purpose of business education itself needs to be redefined- from producing professionals capable of fitting into the world to cultivating leaders capable of building the world as it should be. This could be a call for not just a redesign- perhaps a renaissance too!
The author Dr B B L Madhukar is the Chairman of FORE School of Management (FORE) & Director General, BRICS Chamber of Commerce & Industry
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author, and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
