Reforming Business Education: Confronting The Neoclassical Paradigm And Its Systemic Flaws

This essay examines the systemic flaws within contemporary business education, analyzing Andrew Hoffman’s critique that current failures stem not from individual institutional shortcomings but from foundational adherence to false neoclassical economic assumptions. It proceeds by detailing the structural reinforcements—accreditation, rankings, and incentives—that perpetuate the status quo.

Finally, it outlines the necessary curricular and philosophical transformations, emphasizing the urgent cognitive dissonance experienced by students who are already prepared for a regenerative paradigm.

***

The institutional fabric of higher business education rests upon a fragile, almost archaic, intellectual foundation.

It is an enduring irony that institutions designed to predict market fluctuations and optimize efficiency operate internally on mechanisms that guarantee their own stasis. Andrew Hoffman, in his exacting analysis, reveals why isolated reforms—a new sustainability module, an ethics course revision—are destined to sputter.

The entire ecosystem, from the accreditation bodies that confer legitimacy to the algorithmic structure of salary-based rankings, is engineered to reward productivity derived from a neoclassical paradigm long rendered inadequate by planetary reality. The apparatus of learning, textbook publishers demanding profitable standardization, inadvertently enforces intellectual obsolescence.

The problem is systemic, a perfect self-reinforcing loop. Faculty incentive structures, crucial to the maintenance of any academic discipline, prioritize research outputs aligned with traditional journals, reinforcing the very concepts—like strategy as purely competitive advantage divorced from social context—that require dismantling.

How to move forward when the architecture itself leans backward? Consider the accreditation bodies, such as the AACSB, which, in their mission to uphold rigor, measure traditional academic research, thus indirectly devaluing the necessary, difficult, and transformational work of pedagogical restructuring. The rankings, those peculiar scorecards of institutional success, prioritize starting salaries—a precise metric of optimization within the old industrial framework—rather than measuring genuine progress toward planetary regeneration or ecosystem health.

A confusing aspect of this inertia is how sophisticated institutions remain dependent on funding models tethered to donor interests invariably invested in the known quantities of the existing order.

Architectural Flaws and Misaligned Metrics

The curriculum, consequently, becomes a site of intellectual betrayal.

Students, arriving with generational urgency, encounter models that presuppose unlimited growth and externalizable costs, while they simultaneously witness the acceleration of the Earth’s polycrisis. Ninety-eight percent of CEOs already acknowledge sustainability as a core leadership responsibility. Yet the strategy learned in the classroom often assumes externalities do not exist, or are merely footnotes in optimization exercises.

This dissonance is profound. The systemic failings are evident in the detailed mechanics of dissemination:

• Textbook Perpetuation Standardization, profitable to publishers, locks in neoclassical frameworks.
• Recruitment Lag Corporate recruiters continue to hire primarily for skills optimizing the old paradigm, slowing the market signal for transformative competencies.
• The Funding Dependency Donors, often successful within the existing structure, inadvertently protect the status quo through their philanthropic investments.

Rebuilding the Foundations: Ecological Imperatives

Transformation requires a radical intellectual migration.

The essential shift is straightforward: ecological economics must universally replace the defunct neoclassical assumptions. Finance, perhaps the most critical pivot point, must embrace multiple capital forms and implement true cost accounting, moving beyond singular financial returns to measure social, natural, and human capital accurately.

The very framework of organizational presence must change. The Open Systems Model must become the central guiding metaphor, showing business not as an isolated profit mechanism, but fundamentally nested within society, and irrevocably nested within the sustaining ecosystem.

Strategy must evolve from purely competitive models to encompass stakeholder orchestration and ecosystem-level value creation, guided by Sustainable Strategic Management (SSM) principles. Operations must focus on regenerative design, moving toward flourishing circularity.

Students grasp the potential inherent in cases like Eastman Chemical’s commitment to resource efficiency and circularity—a concrete example of strategic thinking applied—then are obligated to return to linear growth projections. Marketing, an engine of culture, must reorient itself entirely to shape sustainable consumption patterns, moving away from volume maximization.

The Ready Generation and Cognitive Dissonance

The students are here, waiting. Their value systems are already transformed, shaped by existential realities the curriculum ignores.

Gen Z arrives burdened with climate anxiety and an insistent purpose-seeking drive, ready to ask the right, complicated questions about planetary limits and corporate accountability. Sixty-seven percent of consumers demand sustainable products. The market signals are clear; the educational response remains muffled, hesitant.

We systematically betray them, providing tools designed to optimize a system they recognize is collapsing.

They learn incremental optimization when radical transformation is demonstrably necessary.

* Students experience cognitive dissonance, internalizing neoclassical theory while external reality indicates systemic collapse. * They recognize the lack of safe haven from the destabilization of Earth’s systems (*see ‘No safe haven: Why business leaders must act now to address Earth's polycrisis’*). * They understand the necessity of expanding consciousness and oneness as leadership foundations (*see ‘Consciousness research: The science that changes everything for CEOs’*), yet are trained in reductionist methodologies. * The profound awareness of the polycrisis is unmatched by the educational tools provided.

The path forward demands a new intellectual rigor, rooted in different competencies: Systems thinking must become the foundational lens through which all organizational challenges are filtered. Leadership requires fluency in multi-stakeholder collaboration and the deep, complex design of regenerative business models.

The generational values shift, Hoffman argues, has already occurred outside the classroom walls. It is a peculiar circumstance: the students will inevitably transform business, but only if the education system ceases its determined pursuit of yesterday’s assumptions and decides to equip them for the world that actually exists.

The transformation waits for institutional courage. The cost of delay? Irrelevance.