Abstract
We argue that business schools accelerate and reinforce intellectual, emotional, and philosophical fragmentation. They compartmentalize knowledge in disciplines that have no explicit connections to one another and with no incentives to make connections. They reduce knowledge ultimately to a single school of thought such as classical economic theory, and in particular, theories of short-term, self interested profit maximization. Then they treat this single school of thought, which is not robust enough to account for everything, as a “totality” or “reality.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Jung, Carl, Psychological Types, Vol. Six, Collected Works, Princeton University Press, 1971.
The Jungian Personality Framework is not only one of the most common psychological indicators that corporate America uses. It has also been used and tested frequently in the management literature. Its validity and reliability has been well established a long time ago (see Tzeng, Oliver CS, Outcalt, Dennis, Boyer, Sara L., Ware, Roger, and Landis, Dan, “Item Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1984, pp. 255–256.
For studies focusing on cognition, strategic planning, and decision making in managerial contexts see Mitroff, Ian. I., Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind: Toward a New View of Organizational Policy Making, Jossey-Bass, 1983;
Kilmann, Ralph H., and Thomas, Kenneth W., “Interpersonal Conflict-Handling Behavior as Reflections of Jungian Personality Dimensions,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1975, pp. 971–980.;
Stumpf, Stephen A., and Dunbar, Roger L.M., “The Effects of Personality Type on Choices Made in Strategic Decision Situations,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1991, pp. 1047–1072.;
Govindarajan, Vijay, “Implementing Competitive Strategies at the Business Unit Level: Implications of Matching Managers to Strategies,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1989, pp. 251–269.;
Haley, Usha CV, and Stumpf, Stephen A., “Cognitive Trails in Strategic Decision Making: Linking Theories of Personalities and Cognitions,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1989, pp. 477–497;
Blass, Eddie and Hackston, John, “Future Skills and Current Realities: How the Psychological (Jungian) Type of European Business Leaders Relates to the Needs of the Future.” Futures, Vol. 40, No. 9, 2008, pp. 822–833. Mitroff pioneered the use of JPF in managerial contexts and management studies. In addition, the co-authors of this book, Mitroff and Alpaslan, use JPF extensively in their graduate and undergraduate classrooms as well as in their consulting practices. One of the reasons of JPF’s success in the classroom and consulting practice is that it provides a very parsimonious and intuitively easy-to-grasp framework that covers a great amount of contexts and possibilities without confusing the target audience.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Ian I. Mitroff, Can M. Alpaslan, and Ellen S. O’Connor
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mitroff, I.I., Alpaslan, C.M., O’Connor, E.S. (2014). Digging Deeper—Jungian Psychology. In: Everybody’s Business: Reclaiming True Management Skills in Business Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137412058_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137412058_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48941-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-41205-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)