Practitioner surveys suggest that despite well-intentioned efforts, undergraduate business programs could better equip students with "soft skills." This research study focuses on the soft skills associated with cross-functional integration (CFI), where skill gaps are believed to exist but have not been confirmed. As the first study to specifically characterize and measure CFI skills, we argue that even in the best-case scenario, a small CFI-skills gap could persist, and that the primary goal of business programs is to minimize, not eliminate, the gap. We assert that an instrument that measures CFI skills on three dimensions (cross-functional collaboration, cross-functional coordination, and cross-functional communication) provides a critical starting point in the identification and management of the CFI skills gap. We adapt and validate such an instrument, test it with a sample of 160 business students and 160 hiring managers, and find statistically significant gaps at the construct and dimensional level. However, the magnitude of the gaps is not large, suggesting that business schools may be doing a good job of managing the CFI skills gap. Our assessment instrument is a valuable tool for companies that wish to diagnose and address CFI skills challenges.

As organizations strive to integrate processes to streamline operations and enhance performance, the demand has grown for employees, including new hires, that espouse cross-functional integration skills. However, evidence from the popular press indicates that organizations struggle to hire capable new business graduates. This suggests that despite well-intended efforts, undergraduate business programs may not be providing their students with adequate levels of these skills. We posit that the lack of research related to understanding and addressing cross-functional integration skills have contributed to this gap. To help address this disparity, we adapt and validate an instrument to measure the cross-functional integration skills of undergraduate business majors. The instrument is the first to offer business school administrators the opportunity to map the deliverables of their undergraduate business programs on three CFI skill dimensions: cross-functional collaboration, cross-functional coordination, and cross-functional communication, and to use the information to enhance their programs.

Boards of directors are governing bodies that reside at the apex of the modern corporation. Boards monitor the behavior of firm management, provide managers access to knowledge, expertise, and external networks, and serve as advisors and sounding boards for the CEO. Board attributes such as board size and independence, director demographics, and firm ownership have all been studied as antecedents of effective board functioning and, ultimately, firm performance. Steady progress has been made toward understanding how boards influence firm outcomes, but several key questions about board leadership structure remain unresolved. Research on board leadership structure encompasses the study of board chairs, lead independent directors, and board committees. Board chair research indicates that when held by competent individuals, this key leadership position has the potential to contribute to efficient board functioning and firm performance. Researchers have found conflicting evidence regarding CEO duality, the practice of the CEO also serving as the board chair. The effect of this phenomenon—once ubiquitous among U.S. boards—ranges widely based on circumstances such as board independence, CEO power, and/or environmental conditions. Progressively, however, potential negative consequences of CEO duality proposed by agency theory appear to be counterbalanced by other governance mechanisms and regulatory changes. A popular mechanism for a compromise between the benefits of CEO duality and independent monitoring is to establish the role of a lead independent director. Although research on this role is in its early stage, results suggest that when implemented properly, the lead independent director can aid board monitoring without adding confusion to a unified chain of command. Board oversight committees, another key board leadership mechanism, improve directors’ access to information, enhance decision-making quality by allowing directors to focus on specialized topics outside of board meetings, and increase the speed of response to critical matters. Future research on the governance roles of boards, leadership configurations, and board committees is likely to explore theories beyond agency and resource dependence, as well as rely less on collecting archival data and more on finding creative ways to access rarely examined board interactions, such as board and committee meetings and executive sessions.

Cross-functional integration (CFI) capabilities of veteran managers have always been viewed as important, but organizations now expect new undergraduate business hires to demonstrate these skill se...

Purpose Higher education plays a critical role in the health of the US national economy. At the same time, there are increasing concerns regarding the cost of higher education and the effectiveness with which universities are using their money. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to examine changes in higher education productivity over the past 15 years across a sample of more than 500 public universities spanning multiple Carnegie classifications. By utilizing measures generated by a commission of the National Education Council, however, attention is more finely focused on the specific costs and outputs related to instructional activity than previous studies. Design/methodology/approach This research utilizes the recommendations of the National Education Center committee to examine productivity changes in higher education over the past 14 years. To that end, the hypotheses put forth in this research utilize 15 years data of Institutional Primary Education Data, 549 institutions and 3 productivity measures to assess how productivity in higher education has changed between 2002 and 2015. Findings The results of the present research suggest that instructional activity (measured as multifactor productivity) has increased in all Carnegie classifications between 2002 and 2016. Research limitations/implications The present study, organized by Carnegie classification, does not specify the cost of increased instructional productivity. As noted, there are concerns regarding whether at least some of the choices a university might make to increase instructional productivity – such as increased class size and/or an increased use of non-tenure track faculty – could adversely influence the quality of instruction and/or diminish student learning. Further, this research does not examine the relationship between research productivity and increasing instructional productivity. Practical implications The present study does not address the bigger question of whether the increasing costs of higher education are justified, because universities produce much more than student credit hours. While, in an ideal world, these various outputs will complement one another and utilize at least some of the same resources, each has its own unique inputs and associated expenses. Given this, an overall assessment of the value or productivity of a university as a whole is a very difficult thing to determine and is well beyond the scope of a single study. Social implications The present study explicitly focuses on the instructional component of universities and relationship between output and inputs. Ultimately, providing a clearer picture of how instructional productivity in higher education has been increasing over the past 14 years. Originality/value This research is the only research of its kind to the best knowledge of the researchers.