Introduction

In the past few years, the business school community has witnessed a surge in, and intensely growing concern for, business school rankings (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Dichev, 1999; Martins, 2005). Ranking lists of business schools and MBA programs have become standard features of the increasing media coverage of management education issues in magazines and international newspapers. Since the launch of the Financial Times ranking of the world's top MBA and executive education programs in 1999, the rankings have become more notably international in character and scope, most claiming to present comprehensive global lists of top business schools. These international rankings have become standard means to assess the relative standing and status of schools and to assess the worth of programs on various measures of performance. Why are rankings proliferating, and how are they shaping the field of management education?

The proliferation of media ranking activities is prominent not only in education, but has been noted also in various industry sectors (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Schultz et al., 2001) and in such diverse fields as music (Anand and Peterson, 2000) and health care (Miller, 1996). The increasing interest in rankings has created a growing concern both in practice and in academic scholarship about the role of rankings in forming practices, and the kinds of influence they have on organizations and communities of organizations subsumed to their scrutiny. A particular concern arises as to what extent rankings are forming organizations to become more alike, as these are compelled to abide to sometimes arbitrary standards set by media organizations and journalists rather than to traditional measures of quality and performance established within the professional field itself (Gioia and Corley, 2002).

This paper will approach these concerns by investigating how rankings have developed and how European business schools have responded to them. I argue that rankings are promoting and codifying a template for organizations in this field, which is used by business schools to create and sustain identities and to provide identification with an international field. Template denotes a generalized notion of an organizational group that serves as a comparison for assessing whether an organization belongs in a particular category or class, and is formed around perceptions of what is good, proper and 'true' for members of this group. The template provides a basis of comparison and creates perceptions of similarity and comparability among organizations.

Following recent studies on certification contests, award ceremonies and status rituals (Rao, 1994; Anand and Peterson, 2000; Anand and Watson, 2004), this approach suggests that ranking mechanisms are important for forming organizational fields so that they become a recognized institutional area. This process includes a recognition that as fields become more stable and mature, an 'awareness of belonging together' emerges between members that shapes interactions and actions in the field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Czarniawska and Sevón, 1996; Hoffman, 1999; Greenwood et al., 2002). Such belongingness is created through processes of identification and identity-formation (Czarniawska and Sevón, 1996; Czarniawska, 1997; Sahlin-Andersson and Sevón, 2003) as common meaning systems and classifications are created, recognized and used by members of the field. Identities are thus socially produced by actors who place themselves in social categories and act and relate to others in terms of these categories. Such categories are institutionally derived.

The concept of template promoted in this paper contributes to the understanding of categorization processes among organizations, or how groups of actors become recognized as belonging together. I follow arguments in the literature on strategic reference groups that stresses that these processes are based on cognitive understandings of groups and classes, which are used to construct comparisons among organizations (Porac et al., 1989; Porac and Thomas, 1990). The concept of template highlights, however, that the choice of reference models and comparisons are influenced and shaped by institutional norms and values specifying what is appropriate and good for organizations in a particular field. Thus, it puts the cognitive choices and categorizations into an institutional context. In doing so, this study also stresses that processes of categorization and comparison are guided and mediated by external categorizations and classifications, which codify institutional norms and expectations.

Focusing on rankings as a grouping mechanism, the study builds on the recognition that rankings are forming identities and identification as well as status and positions among organizations in a particular field (Rao, 1994; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996). But in stressing the role of rankings in codifying templates, the study focuses on the implication of rankings for the field and the community of organizations rather than their importance for individual schools' status and reputation. Thus, I suggest that rankings are not only competitions for status and 'beauty' (Gioia and Corley, 2002), but also for recognition and belonging to an organizational field. This further contributes to the understanding of diverse responses to ranking practices (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Martins, 2005) and the implications for isomorphic pressures on organizations. The following section will explain the theoretical field perspective promoted here and further explain the concept of template.

Codifying an organizational template

The concept of template denotes a generalized notion of a group or category of organizations perceived to be similar along some dimension. A template is formed around, and forms, perceptions of what is proper, good and true for organizations in a particular category, and is used to create identities and identification with the group. A template holds generalized and abstract schemas, values and norms for conduct. As an example, Rao et al. (2003) describe the 'Nouvelle cuisine' movement in French gastronomy as an identity-movement whereby chefs abandoned classical cuisine to identify with a new group of 'nouvelle cuisine' chefs who gained prominence in the field. This group was defined by the appropriate behavior expected of its members, based on general guidelines and values such as 'truth, light, simplicity and imagination' (Rao et al., 2003: 798).

Templates serve as comparisons for assessing whether organizations belong in a specific group or category, and provide cognitive validity by showing what is appropriate and desirable for organizations in this group. This comparison is not necessarily based on structural features or specific characteristics of organizations (Porac and Thomas, 1990: 226), identification is rather based on a more general assessment of whether something is similar to something else (cf. Bowker and Star, 1999: 62). Such assessments can be based on structural characteristics, but also on identity-related features such as image, reputation and character or type of organization as well as on strategic qualities (Labianca et al., 2001). This has also been described as a process of crafting 'authenticity' in cultural fields (Glynn and Lounsbury, 2005; Peterson, 2005), where membership in a particular group or genre is judged 'in reference to an implicit template of the authentic', rather than on the immediate quality or characteristics of performances (Peterson, 2005: 1093).

Templates of organizational types structure fields. These become visible and useful for organizations through codifications. Such codifications are provided by measurement systems, evaluations, and certification contests such as rankings, making explicit demands, expectations and assumptions about a particular group of organizations. They do this particularly by providing attention and recognition to organizations and defining criteria for success (cf. Rao, 1994; Anand and Peterson, 2000; Anand and Watson, 2004). Codified templates are used by organizations in identity-formation and identification processes, helping to shape recognition of a common field.

I suggest that ranking practices codify organizational templates by providing a comparison group, specifying measures of competition and comparison in this group, and promoting role models for imitation and change. Rankings provide comparisons between diverse organizations and groups of actors, defining, and sometimes calling into question, core identity features and accepted comparison groups, thereby influencing identity-formation processes (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996). Rankings form recognized classes of organizations also by signaling status and reputation of organizations (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Rao, 1994; Deephouse, 2000; Schultz et al., 2001; Gioia and Corley, 2002; Martins, 2005), as status is one feature that can be used to form identification with fields and groups (Rao, 1994: 32; Peterson, 2005: 1086–1090).

Rankings furthermore provide cues for similarity and rivalry (Porac and Thomas, 1990) by specifying measures and criteria of performance and comparison. Thus codifications hold specific guidelines for participation and identification with the group by specifying characteristics, attributes and properties believed to be essential for members. These vary, however, in the degree of specificity and formalization as they build on models, labels and practices diffused in fields, some of which take the form of 'recipes' for organizations (Røvik, 1998) whereas others take the shape of general norms and values (Strang and Meyer, 1993). Because codifications can be more or less specific, the status ordering created by the rankings takes on a particularly important role by promoting role models for imitation and change. The clear indications of the order and relative position of organizations in the field created by rankings provide strong signals of value and success that guide the search for models and organizations to compare with as well as aspects and qualities considered desirable and proper (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Labianca et al., 2001).

Such processes of identity-formation and identification in relation to templates lead to field formation and, possibly, change (Rao et al., 2003), as these shape the interactions and understandings of organizations within the field. The result of field formation is not, however, necessarily an increasing homogeneity or isomorphism of organizational practices. Recent studies of institutional change recognize that responses to new evaluation practices and standards, for instance, lead to differential responses among organizations (Casile and Davis-Blake, 2002; Greenwood et al., 2002; Townley, 2002), and contribute to both stability and change in organizational practices, structures and routines (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). We can thus expect both compliance and resistance to isomorphic pressures introduced by such systems (Townley, 2002: 175).

In a similar manner, the idea that rankings codify generalized templates of the field suggests that there is room for different responses to these practices. A template cannot be imitated or adopted as a blueprint, but is rather used, or not used, by organizations to form identities and identification with a group. Templates are therefore enacted through the actions and routines of organizations (cf. Feldman and Pentland, 2003), producing variation in responses and practices. Thus, we can expect that both similarity and difference follow from identification with a common template. The following empirical case of business school rankings will further analyze the codification and enactment of templates, and discuss the implications of such processes on isomorphic pressures in fields.

Research context and method

The management education field is often described as fragmented and diverse in its set-up and operation, characterized by high insecurity about work procedures and organizational tasks as well as diverse performance standards and evaluative processes (Whitley, 1984; Engwall, 1992). Describing the field as a 'fragmented adhocracy', Whitley (1984: 338–340) stresses that the field has a low degree of reputational autonomy over both performance and significance standards in research, and a high degree of dependence on other scientific fields as well as on various audiences for legitimacy and reputation. External mechanisms of validation and assessment, such as media ranking practices, can thus be assumed to play important roles in forming this field, particularly for codifying and making explicit what is appropriate and good practice for organizations.

We can also expect that the enactments and interpretations of a generalized template vary considerably due to this fragmentation and the diversity of organizations in this field. Building on recognition in much of the literature that there exists an inherent and continuous struggle between academic and business values and standards of practice within the management education field (see e.g. Locke, 1989; Engwall, 1992; Daniel, 1998; Trieschmann et al., 2000), I present three case studies of European business schools that are diverse in organizational set-up, orientation and profile to illustrate different enactments of a shared template. Two of these schools are perceived to be different in terms of their orientation to 'academic' vs 'business' values, or what has also been described as 'normative' (i.e. oriented towards values and ideology) vs 'utilitarian' (i.e. oriented towards economic factors) identities of universities (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Labianca et al., 2001). The third school is a 'regional' business school with a more local or nationally oriented profile, thus illustrating a different position in the field. Interviews were also conducted at three additional schools believed to be similar in character and profile of the three case schools.¹ These are used to strengthen and support the understanding provided by the three main cases.

This choice of cases aids our understanding of different reactions and responses to rankings, and how different values and expectations meet in a common template for business schools. This, in turn, helps explain the implications of ranking mechanisms for creating belongingness in a field with diverse and sometimes competing values and expectations. The study builds on personal, semi-structured interviews with 30 representatives of these business schools, conducted between 1999 and 2004. The interviews were focused on how representatives of the schools described their organizations, their positions in the field, and the reactions and responses to rankings. Respondents include deans, MBA program directors, executive education directors, PR managers, senior faculty members, alumni coordinators, and representatives of career services and marketing departments. Interviews were supplemented with documents and promotion material provided by the schools, as well as newspaper and other public material. Furthermore, written material was collected about the different rankings from the published newspapers, magazines and web pages, which was used to describe and understand the development of rankings over time and the respective character, profile and aim of each ranking.

Documents and interview transcripts for each school were analyzed as organizational narratives, or descriptions, 'stories' and representations of the organizations under investigation. I searched for statements and expressions of the profile that the organization wishes to enhance, its core features and characteristics, as well as responses to rankings and other forms of classifications, and used these to construct stylized, or simplified, narratives of each of the three schools. These are used as illustrations of business schools and the enactments of a shared template. The use of narratives is based on the theoretical understanding of identities as created and maintained through a process of narration (Czarniawska, 1997: 46), and is appropriate for investigating how these business schools present and conceptualized their identities and construct identification with the field. In a second step, I searched all material for statements and expressions of reactions to rankings, and used these to interpret the responses and reactions to the codified template provided by the international rankings.

An international business school field

Management education has become international in character and scope in recent years. Following an expansion since the mid-1980s, the field has increasingly come to be recognized as international in which schools compete for students, faculty and resources across countries and continents. The general spread of the American business school model to other parts of the world after the Second World War and the accompanying interest in and attention to the MBA program and label (Engwall and Zamagni, 1998) has spurred this development. The first MBA program in Europe was set up in the late 1950s (Mazza et al., 2005), while at the turn of the millennium there were more than 600 MBA programs on offer in Europe and a standard feature of business schools in many countries and contexts (Moon, 2002; Hedmo et al., 2006).

Following this expansion, students as well as companies and business schools began to voice increasing concern for the fragmentation and expansion of schools and programs, which created calls for increasing structure and order and demands for new means of comparing and assessing business schools and their programs across national contexts. By providing a common focus of attention and uniform labels, the proliferation of the business school model and the MBA label provided a desire but also the possibility to compare management education programs and schools across national borders (Hedmo et al., 2006).

Promoting a European perspective

Partly in response to both the expansion and globalization of management education, international ranking lists of business schools and MBA programs began to appear in the late 1990s. In 1998, the Financial Times published the first European ranking list of business schools. This list was expanded in 1999 to provide a comparison of business schools in, primarily, North America and Europe. This was done in order to highlight what they called the 'Atlantic divide' in international management education: 'By combining European and North American schools in a single ranking, the Financial Times survey of full-time MBA programs highlights where North American business schools shine and where their European counterparts prove attractive' (Financial Times, 1999-01-25: II). From 2000 the rankings became global in scope. Following this lead, other newspapers and magazines have introduced international rankings and comparisons since: Business Week in 2000, the Wall Street Journal in 2001 and the Economist in 2002.

The development of the Financial Times international ranking was encouraged by ongoing work to strengthen the European identity and to 'Europeanize' higher education at this time. Most clearly an illustration of this attempt was the development of a European accreditation program, Equis, launched in 1997 by the European Foundation for Management Development, the EFMD (Hedmo, 2004; Durand and McGuire, 2005). This effort was closely related to those in the European Union to strengthen and promote a 'European dimension' of management education at this time (Hedmo, 2004). This initiative, in turn, was also linked to a general shift in higher education policy in Europe with increasing efforts to standardize and compare educational systems across countries as political debates about forming a unified European higher education area intensified. This process was formalized in 1999, when 29 European ministers of education signed the Bologna declaration and committed to reforming their higher education systems in convergent ways.

In this context, the rankings became a way for European business schools to promote their interests and the European perspective on management education and to claim that they belong in the international business school field. By encouraging the development of international rankings in the media, leading European business schools wanted to promote their own positions, and to attempt to counteract the perceived US dominance in the field. Particularly, the Financial Times ranking was a reaction to the American business magazines Business Week and the US News and World Report, who had produced rankings of American business schools since the mid-1980s. The European schools feared being left out, as the dominating American rankings gained increasing attention internationally. Thus, they wanted a revised template for inclusion and comparison in the international field.

The Financial Times rankings have been particularly important for European business schools to provide positions and participation in the international field. The first Financial Times ranking of MBA programs, including 50 business schools in the US, Canada and Europe, featured 16 European schools. As the list was expanded in the following years, it included a larger number of European schools with between 26 and 28 European schools in the top 100 (see Table 1). Also, the positions of European schools have improved with 11 European schools in the top-30 in 2006 compared to 5 or 6 in the earlier lists (see Table 1). While other rankings also include European business schools, only the Economist ranking holds a large share of European business schools with 38 schools on the top 100 and 10 in the top 30 (mba.eiu.com, 2006-12-12). The Business Week presents a separate list of 10 non-US Business schools of which five are European. The Wall Street Journal used to present an integrated ranking of 50 business schools world-wide, in 2003 featuring only five European schools, but recently revised its methodology and in 2006 presented a list of 24 international business schools of which nine were European.

Table 1 - Share of European and US business schools in the Financial Times MBA ranking.

Full table

Defining the template

The rankings are not only providing positions of schools in the international market, but are also constructing criteria for assessing what a good and proper international business school is, or what it should be: what programs and features are important, how schools should structure and carry out work, and what characteristics are recognized or relevant in relation to different stakeholder groups. The different rankings have a variety of approaches to codify the template of the international business school, as they focus on different aspects of programs and have varying criteria for success (for an overview of ranking criteria, see Table 2). For instance, some rankings measure the satisfaction of graduates and students on aspects such as teaching quality and the usefulness of skills (Business Week), others focus on recruiters' perceptions of schools and their graduates (Wall Street Journal), while still others focus on alumni and on assessing the perceived value of education (Financial Times and Economist).

Table 2 - Overview of ranking criteria.

Full table

Despite large differences in methodology and criteria for constructing rankings, they all promote a general template of a good and true business school in the international field, focused around particular values and expectations. A first such value that rankings promote is what can be termed a 'customer approach' to education. Rankings attempt to define customers of education and to assess the perceived usefulness of education for different groups of stakeholders, most prominently students and alumni but also corporations and client firms (Wedlin, 2004). Surveys are developed to define and measure 'customer satisfaction' of both programs and schools, and criteria are used to assess the perceived value or benefit of programs, for instance in terms of salaries.

Another feature of the template of a true business school is 'internationality', or an international character of the field and of particular schools and programs promoted through these rankings. Measures of international perspective, languages required or offered, international programs or exchange programs offered are included in several of the rankings. The Financial Times have taken the most pronounced international approach, including criteria such as international diversity of faculty, class and advisory board, number of international programs and languages required in the program, and the international mobility of alumni in their rankings. This strong focus on measures of internationality was one of the issues pushed by European business schools during the development of the rankings, to counterbalance the focus on, for instance, graduate salaries and other measures perceived to be 'US-oriented' or 'Anglo-Saxon'. European business schools have traditionally a large share of international students and faculty and often long traditions and experience with international programs and are believed to compare favorably on these measures.

A third prominent feature of the rankings is the focus on measures of 'employability', or the value of education in terms of the employment opportunities and career progression of students after graduation. All international rankings described here have several criteria for assessing schools and programs on this feature, including recruitment efforts at the school, number of job offers at or after graduation, the career progress of alumni, or the usefulness of skills and networks acquired during the program. Also measures of salary and salary increases are prominent measures of the employment value of education. The Wall Street Journal has taken the most pronounced approach, focusing exclusively on recruiters' perceptions of schools, graduates and programs. The employability focus is linked to beliefs about the need for business schools to produce value and 'relevance' for corporations and expresses a business focus on educational programs. Contradicting this almost directly, there is also an expressed desire by some of the rankings, particularly Business Week and the Financial Times, to measure 'academic excellence' by including measures of research publication and Ph.D. ratings of faculty. This suggests that also academic values are included in the template.

While all rankings focus their assessments on particular programs, most notably the MBA, executive MBA and executive education programs, we can note that many criteria relate to the business school rather than the programs. With the inclusion of a wide set of criteria such as international and gender diversity, qualifications of faculty and research ratings, the rankings are assessing the general characteristics and features of the business schools rather than only program contents, form and value. Rankings promote a template of the international business school and codify what is required and expected of a true and good business school in this field. This template is, however, also created and shaped by a large number of other mechanisms and systems in the field, most notably the many different accreditation programs that are promoting standards for business schools around the world. But these systems both compete with and support each other. In the European context, international rankings and accreditation co-developed during the late 1990s, and the two systems provided legitimacy to each other (Hedmo et al., 2006). Some rankings (mainly Financial Times and Business Week) use accreditation as a selection mechanism and basic requirement for schools to participate in their surveys, drawing on the legitimacy of this system to further strengthen the authority and trustworthiness of their own efforts.

Codifications and enactments of a business school template

The development of international rankings are an important part in shaping the understanding of an international field of business schools, where schools and programs compete and compare across national boundaries and jurisdictions. For European business schools, this development appears to have been particularly important for promoting a revised template of the true and good business school. While there still remains criticism that rankings promote an 'American' view of management education, there seems to be less doubt that the introduction of rankings have been important for a large group of European business schools to improve their positions in the field, market their activities to a wider audience, and increase their visibility in the international field. The following section will further illustrate, using three business school examples, how organizations with different profiles, characters and positions within the field enact the template provided of a good and true business school and use the rankings as a means to argue belongingness and recognition in the field.

Enactments of a shared template – three examples

The academic business school is a department of a large, old and well-known research university, offering undergraduate and graduate courses as well as Ph.D. degrees. It also offers two MBA programs, one full-time and one part-time, as well as numerous executive education courses and programs. For this school, being considered a true business school is continuously stressed in the organizational narratives, but this desire is also balanced by the perceived need to live up to academic traditions of the university. Representatives of the school describe these as two partly contradictory identities, or ideals: We see ourselves as a major business school, which has [...] a very special opportunity but also a big challenge. The special opportunity is to grow a business school within this ancient, multi-faculty, inter-disciplinary university, which is worthy of the name of [the University], which will build on the strength of [the University] but not become so pulled back into an ossified, backward-facing departmental process that it can't compete with the major international business schools. (Director) Stressing an academic profile and character, the school is placing a strong focus on research, undergraduate and graduate teaching, and on keeping the academic status of the school high. In information material as well as in interviews, academic and intellectual standards are continuously stressed, and the stated research aim is to have research output of the 'highest academic standard' and to provide 'relevance' to the needs of business and public policy. Furthermore, narratives pertaining to courses and programs advocate 'intellectual rigour', 'academic excellence' and 'critical reflection' to support the academic status and values of the school.

Besides these apparent features, the school is stressing its role and function as a business school, aiming to compete internationally with what are perceived to be the leading business schools in the field. There are significant debates regarding what is expected of a business school, and how the school can strengthen the awareness of the business school name. Responses include efforts to more aggressively market themselves as an international business school and a re-branding campaign in order to further stress the link to the business school field. A member of the marketing team explains: 'the key point we are trying to get across is that we are a business school'.

These concerns for being a proper business school are particularly expressed in discussions about how the school is to develop and change. One of the core features to qualify as an international business school is considered to be that of having an MBA program, and for this program to have high status and visibility in the field: In some sense if you want to be a serious management/business school, you have to have an MBA course, a really good MBA course, and ours fulfils in that sense the same kind of role that it would in most other schools. (MBA staff) The MBA is considered important for the overall visibility and reputation of the business school, which helps to create awareness of the business school name. Part of the reason for this is that the MBA is central to international rankings, and participating in international rankings is seen as a way to establish a prominent position of the MBA program. But rankings are also believed to be important to identify with and become recognized as an international business school: [I]f you look at somewhere like [X,] they don't have an MBA, and they don't have pretensions as an internationally leading business school in the sense that we do; they have a number of specialist masters programs so they are playing more to the academic side... But they don't run an MBA so they are less interested in [rankings]. (Director) Driven by the aim to develop the business school brand and to further enhance the profile of the school as a prominent international business school, the MBA program was expanded in the early 2000s along with an expansion of executive education courses and efforts to increase and strengthen contacts with the business community. The main arguments for these expansions were to strengthen the visibility of the school in the international field and that they were necessary in order to be considered a true business school. The MBA as well as executive education were considered to have significant 'reputational value' in both the business school and the corporate markets.

While identifying with the business school template and competing on the international market, respondents recognize that this is sometimes contradictory to the demands placed on the organization as a university department. This is presented as a distinction between a university 'model' and a business school 'model': I started right in the beginning saying we are an academic department of [the university] and we are an international business school, and if you can make these two things work then we have enormous strengths in both areas. And I don't see that we have a choice, I think we have got to do both. (Director) The business-oriented business school is an independent school not linked to a university and originally initiated by private corporations. The school focuses on executive education but offers one full-time and one executive MBA program, for which the formal degrees are granted in co-operation with a local university. It does not offer undergraduate or Ph.D. programs. This school also describes itself as a business school, but continuously stresses its differences from traditional schools and university departments. [...] because we are an example of a top-notch school, by all criteria doing very well, having outstanding research, outstanding teaching, outstanding ratings but we are doing dramatically different than anybody else. And the interesting thing is that we are having just as good results. (Director) Stressing differences between the school and what is described as a traditional model of academic institutions, this school focus on executive education and the close interaction with clients and corporations, with narratives advocating knowledge that is 'relevant' to companies, and suggesting that the organization is 'customer-oriented' and 'close to the market'. They describe themselves as a revenue-seeking organization entirely supported by private funding. They are furthermore organized in teaching teams rather than academic departments and they have chosen not to follow traditional academic career and tenure systems, further supporting the business values and logics of the school. They also have faculty motivation and bonus systems modeled on those used by consultancy firms, whereby faculty members get a share of the revenues brought into the school.

While stressing their distinct profile, the business school is also expressing clearly the need and desires to be considered a business school rather than an executive training center. Also this school engaged in branding exercises and in the early 2000s launched a brand advertising campaign with a series of ads in the leading international business newspapers and magazines to stress the business school profile. This school is continuously referring to their position in international business school rankings as a way to argue that they belong in the business school field. As many other schools do, they report extensively on all the published rankings on their web-page, and also publish comments and analyses of the school's position in the most current rankings.

In their profiles, they are stressing aspects of the school that links them to what is perceived as the traditional academic, business school market. One is research that is considered an important activity to raise the status of the school in the 'academic realm' and to promote the business school. The concept of research is broader than the traditional focus on academic journal publishing, and is formulated to support both an academic profile but also the expressed business orientation of the school. Research that is practical, managerially oriented and 'relevant to the customer' is rewarded equally as academic publishing. [...] In contrast to most academic institutions we don't per se make any distinctions between whether it is a book, a refereed article, or whether it is a case. To us it is important that it is fresh thinking. (Director) The two MBA programs are also described as important activities to be considered a business school, and to gain recognition in the business school field. The MBA program is considered a small part of the business school in both absolute size and revenue terms, but is considered to provide a link to the academic business school market.

As in the case of the academic school, discussions about the size and focus of the MBA program have taken place here. In this business school, however, the proposal to increase the size of the program was turned down because it was believed to threaten the core focus on executive education. The MBA program is, rather, described as a necessity and an indispensable ingredient in the business school, but will not be allowed to dominate the school: [...] we have no intention at this point of expanding the size of the MBA program, although it is a very important program in terms of external visibility, that that program be rated highly and viewed highly on the outside. [...] so the MBA is essential to us. But our core business is really the executive education. (MBA staff) The MBA program is believed to yield credibility and visibility in the business school market, and attract attention that is useful in promoting the school's other activities.

The regional business school is in many ways a mixture of these two extreme examples. It is an independent and private school, not part of a traditional university, but incorporated in the national higher education system in its home country. It offers teaching and research in primarily business studies and economics, mainly through undergraduate/graduate education and a Ph.D. program. Through an executive education department the school also offers an executive MBA program as well as shorter executive courses. Since the early 2000s, they also offer a full-time MBA program, although it is still small in both absolute numbers and relative other activities at the school with approximately 30 participants. The expressed aim of this new MBA program is to compete internationally with leading business schools in Europe and the United States, and the program was started at a time when competing business schools in the region were setting up similar programs. The decision to start this MBA program was described as a way to create 'a fully fledged graduate school of business' (Assisting dean). The assistant dean of the school also states that a means to become established as a business school internationally is to participate in international rankings, most specifically in the full-time MBA rankings: The main reason to start the MBA program was not to be ranked, but we know that we cannot play football in [this country] and claim that we are better than others in Europe without proving it. We have to play in the Champions League, the European cup, and the World cup [to prove it], and it is the same for us. We cannot say that we have a special model and that we play [...] [games] with our own rules; we must play in the international arena. (Assisting dean) Thus recognizing that the school is, or has been, regional in character, it is intent on making the school and the MBA program internationally competitive and to become established as a business school in the international field.

Argue belongingness to the international field

The three cases show in different ways how the template for business schools in the international field is used by different organizations to present themselves and their activities. All three business schools claim, in different ways, belongingness to an international business school field, despite their large differences in terms of positions, profiles, activities and identities. It was also recognized that business school rankings are important for defining the international field and that participation in rankings provide legitimacy and recognition in the field, particularly enhanced by the regional and academic business schools.

Looking more closely at the different arguments for participating in rankings, we find that rankings fill two important functions in creating recognition as a business school: show international focus and elite status. For the regional business school, the international character of the rankings and the field is particularly important, and it is recognized that the rankings provide recognition outside the local or national educational field: 'we let ourselves be ranked to, so to speak, position ourselves – to show that we are "on" the international arena' (Assisting Dean). Particularly perhaps for schools that were traditionally local or regional in character, featuring in the rankings has implied identification with, and created desires to participate in, the international group or market. Another representative from the regional business school described this as an identity-shift in response to the school's first appearance in international rankings: Suddenly, there we were in the paper! It revolutionized how this organization saw itself. We stopped being a local player, and in our own minds we started thinking more broadly. (Project manager) The academic and the business-oriented business schools also stress another function of rankings, arguing that they are important in defining and determining the 'elite', or a top group of schools in the international field. The academic business school recognizes that rankings defined them as being 'a world-leading business school' (MBA staff) and helped them to claim elite status in the field. Similarly, representatives from other business schools express that: '[the ranking] puts us on an elite list and gets us into the game' (Financial Times, 2000-09-08).

The importance of rankings for defining status and what is perceived as the elite of the international field is one of the features that distinguish this mechanism from for instance accreditation. While it is argued that accreditation also serves the function of creating a group and signal belonging to the international field, it is pointed out by both the academic and the business-oriented business schools that accreditation is less important for the more well-known schools in the field. The director of the business-oriented school points out that accreditation is most valuable for 'less well-known schools who want to be promoted into the good league' (Director), rather than for the top business schools. For the top schools, a ranking is considered a better and more distinguishing mechanism that clearly establishes the good from the lesser well-known or prominent schools.

The role of rankings in defining the elite is a motivation for business schools to participate and to continuously attempt to improve their positions in the rankings. It is believed that rankings define in a very clear way who are included in the business school field and which schools qualify as leading international business schools, making it a necessary marker to participate. The director of the academic business school further stresses this, arguing that staying outside the rankings is not considered an option, at least not 'if you want to run a major MBA school in the international market' (Director). And if you are not included in rankings 'you then have to explain why you are not in there' (MBA staff). The pressure to participate is thus perceived to be very strong.

Specify measures for competition

The three cases clearly illustrate the strong relation between the template, as codified by rankings, and the MBA program. This program is one of the features that make these organizations comparable and it is one of the requirements for qualifying in the international business school field, as was clear in the regional business school case. The MBA program is thus one of the key components of the business school template. This was further suggested by another business school dean portraying the MBA as one of the core features of a business school identity: 'And I think at this stage of our development, rather than doing everything, it is more important that we do the main things we do, such as the MBA, very well, and sort of establish our identity' (Director). The MBA has thus become an identity-marker for schools in this field.

But it is not only the MBA program that is a common feature of these business schools. As noted above, research activities are also considered important for true business schools. To a lesser extent programs such as the executive MBA and shorter executive education courses are also considered important. The increasingly important role of executive education activities was particularly enhanced by the academic business school director, claiming it provides 'reputation and credibility' to external stakeholders, mainly corporations and recruiters. Academic research is also considered important, particularly for the business-oriented school. Other activities, such as Ph.D. programs and undergraduate education, are not talked about or considered main features of the business school template.

The specification of a common basis for comparison of organizations in this field, formed particularly around the MBA program, is one way that the template promoted through rankings provides specific guidelines for organizations to follow. But the rankings cause further pressures for change and adaptation in business schools by specifying criteria for assessing the performance and relative standing of schools in the field. In response to rankings, business schools have initiated working groups and compiled memos and competitor analysis reports in order to assess and understand the position of the school in the different rankings and how they can change in order to improve in future rankings. Explaining these initiatives, the academic business school director says: So, first of all engaging in them, and then of course looking at the criteria, thinking about how we might match up to those criteria and in some ways influencing our pattern of development so that we will not deliberately put ourselves in a situation where we are going to come low down in the rankings. (Director) But responding to rankings is recognized to be both difficult and risky, and most admit that it is not readily clear how the school can change and respond in order to directly improve in the rankings. While some things are recognized as rather easy to change, such as the composition of the advisory board, others, such as research publication, are believed to be more difficult to change, at least in the short run. Rather than immediate input into change processes, the rankings are providing general guidelines for how to organize and what is appropriate for business schools, subsumed under general values such as 'customer satisfaction', 'employability', 'internationality' and 'academic excellence', as noted earlier. These general values have been the cause of debates and discussions within the schools about what and how to change in order to compete in the international market.

One of the specific responses of business schools to the general guidelines of 'customer satisfaction' and 'employability' is an increasing interest in external relations functions. As a result of the importance of measures of employability of graduates and on recruitment and placement efforts of students in rankings, the three business schools have come to pay increasing attention to, and devote increasing resources to, such things as career services departments, alumni-relations functions and recruitment efforts of MBAs. These are considered important in order to attract both recruiters and good students to the school. This, as argued by a member of the corporate relations team in the academic business school, 'is a business school issue, and not just a career service or a marketing issue' (Career advisor, academic business school). This makes it important to participate in rankings.

Competing values and diverse responses

Besides rather uniform responses to rankings in terms of efforts to construct employability and increasing the customer orientation of business schools, the interpretations of and reactions to the rankings are also different in the academic and the business-oriented business school. While using the rankings to form belongingness to the field and incorporate some features, such as the MBA program, in order to fit into the group, the business schools also have different ways to enact and use the template to argue for their specific profile and character as business schools in this field.

It was clear in the narrative of the academic school that participating in rankings, and striving for recognition as an international business school, needed to be balanced with the academic focus and character of the school. The increasing focus on employability and career development issues was debated, and it was believed to put strong pressure on the school to change and incorporate what is perceived to be more business values into their programs. One representative of the school expressed the apparent contradiction between these values and the focus on academic content and intellectual rigor of programs and teaching efforts of the school: There is another tension, another example of this, which is that MBA students, having come from possibly several years working for commercial organizations, may well be very, very interested in what this course [will] do for their career. Some aren't, but most are. There is a slight tension between that and the academic performance of this [business school] as a part of the university. Sometimes they coincide, but sometimes they don't. (MBA staff) This perceived contradiction led to extensive discussions about the size, role and function of the MBA program in the business school, as was noted above. The increase in student intake to the MBA program was preceded by significant discussion within the school, where proponents argued that a large program was necessary to develop and become recognized as a business school whereas opponents voiced concerns that a larger MBA program would dominate and threaten the core academic features and character of the school.

Contradictions between academic and business values are not just played out in the MBA program, but more specifically also in other criteria of the rankings. For the academic business school, the inclusion of research criteria in the rankings is believed to be important for the school to uphold its identity as a university department, and argue for continued importance of academic research activities in the school: I am pleased with the FT that the research reputation, or research quality, is in there because I think it is very fundamental for a university like us, with the kind of top academic standard. It is nice to see that in there, so it is not just about commercial organizations and making money. (MBA staff) But it is also recognized that there are inherent contradictions in this development, as the rankings are promoting both a research focus and a focus on satisfying the students as 'customers' or clients of the school: So of course there are tensions because our greatest resource is the academics, and the academics are their brains, their hearts and their minds. So where are they going to put those spare ten hours a week? Are they going to put them to ensure that their programme is absolutely top shape, or are they going to use it to publish a paper? And at the end of the week, those ten hours are where you make the marginal choices. (Director) In reflecting on the perceived contradictory pressures and demands placed on the organization through the rankings, the academic business school director recognizes that '[Rankings] is another manifestation of the fact that we have got to play to several different criteria' (Director), including both research and teaching aspects, as well as academic and business values.

The case of the business-oriented school, on the other hand, showed that the rankings put pressure on them to include academic values and activities into the school, partly contradicting their focus on business values and features. The MBA program was also here used to argue belongingness to the business school field, but was perceived to threaten the business-values and the executive training profile of the school. Rather than increase the program, this school has thus chosen to keep the program a small part of the activities and keep the focus on executive education programs.

In slight contrast to the academic school, the business-oriented school has approached the problem with contradictory demands by sticking to the strategy and profile of a business-oriented school, making only the necessary changes in order to participate and belong to the group. In responding to the rankings, the school downplayed the importance of research for the evaluation of programs and courses, and stressed instead other important criteria in the rankings supporting their business orientation and profile: So on five or six dimensions we were number one or number two worldwide, and then on some dimensions we were last: in terms of women on our board, in terms of having a doctoral program, in terms of academic, pure academic research. Because this is not the game we are playing! ... So we have chosen our strategy. (MBA director) Taken together, these examples of contradictory demands and pressures resulting from the rankings suggest that the template holds multiple values and expectations, and that adapting or playing to the rankings are creating tensions and discussion in business schools about specific programs as well as about the overall role and profile of the school. Both types of schools, however, use the rankings and various parts of the template to argue for their specific profile and character. These discussions show that the values and criteria promoted through the template and in the rankings can be used differently by business schools to argue belongingness to the field, also leaving some room for choosing and prioritizing among these in order to keep or maintain specific profiles, characteristics and values of the respective schools.

Promote role models

Despite the differences in activities, profiles and values of the business schools noted above, the rankings are influencing all three business schools in their work to compare with others and to place themselves in the group of international business schools. By directing attention and assigning clear positions to organizations in the field, the rankings are promoting role models for business schools. Despite significant differences in methodology and criteria for the rankings, the international rankings are similar in the way they portray the top positions in the business school field (see Table 3). For the top 15 positions in the four most known international rankings, we find 11 schools that are featured in three or four of the rankings, while six schools are featured in two. The rankings are thus promoting a clear group of schools as role models for organizations in the field

Table 3 - The top-15 positions in four international rankings.

Full table

The three business schools use the rankings to identify competitors and benchmarks for their schools and programs. Despite differences in school and program profiles, they reference many of the same business schools. All three business schools mention leading business schools as role models, either Harvard or Wharton (or both), while the academic school also reference MIT, Stanford and Chicago as important American models because of their links to strong research universities and traditions. The business-oriented school mentions Thunderbird because of its strong international character and profile. Among the European schools most referenced by the schools, we find LBS and INSEAD, but also Saïd BS, Cranfield, Manchester BS and Rotterdam School of Management.

The schools reference other schools that are perceived to be both similar and different in terms of character and profile of the school and its programs. For instance, the academic business school mentions INSEAD, LBS and IMD as models, despite the recognition that these are different in that they don't have university linkages, have either longer, bigger or more specialized MBA programs, and more executive education profiles and activities than they do themselves. They also mention, however, a top-ranked academic business school with similar characteristics as their own school. Similarly, the regional business school identifies Rotterdam School of Management as an important model because of perceived similarities in terms of background and regional character of the two schools, while also referencing top business schools in the field with few characteristics in common.

While we cannot be sure from only three cases that these are the most prominent role models for the field overall, these examples indicate that the rankings have formed and defined a clear group of top European business schools that are used as benchmarks for a wide set of business schools with both different positions and different characteristics: high ranked as well as lower-ranked schools, university-based, academic as well as business-oriented schools, and international as well as regional, or more locally oriented, schools.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of rankings and the implications of an increasing interest in and attention to rankings in the field of management education. Building on an understanding of fields as cultural-cognitive constructions formed in processes of identification among members of the field, I have argued that rankings are taking part in shaping the international business school field by codifying and diffusing an organizational template that is used in identity-formation processes of organizations in this field. A template signifies identities and is formed around perceptions of what is real, good and true for organizations in the field. The following section will elaborate on these arguments and the contribution of this conceptualization for our understanding of the development and potential importance of ranking practices and processes of categorization.

Forming a template for the international business school field

International ranking lists of business schools produced by the media have been shown to be important for forming the international field of management education by providing and codifying a template for what constitutes a proper business school. The rankings are forming clear perceptions of which schools are included in the international field as well as define what is considered good and appropriate for members of this group, thereby helping to form recognition of a common field. The introduction of international rankings in the European context in the late 1990s was driven by the need and desire to reformulate a template for the field. In an increasingly international and competitive market, the rankings were believed by top European business schools to be important for promoting their positions and increasing their visibility in the field. While media organizations, with their own interests, are important in driving the development of rankings (Martins, 2005; Rindova et al., 2005), rankings were thus also actively driven by the interests of the field to create a basis for comparison as well as for competition and to revise the template for a good and proper business school in the international field.

The suggestion that the rankings are important for forming perceptions of belonging in the field was further illustrated by the three business school cases. These showed how diverse organizations use rankings to show and claim recognition as a business school, and to create identities as business schools in the international field. The rankings are used by a wide variety of business schools to argue belongingness to the field, and thus for participating, but also to express status and claim an elite position in the developing field. In this sense, rankings are important for constructing reputations and visibility, and are part of image building and branding of business schools and their products (Gioia and Corley, 2002; Martins, 2005). However, rather than being simply beauty contests and status games of individual schools (Gioia and Corley, 2002), the perspective promoted here suggests that status and status similarity is one argument that can be used to create identities and identification with a particular group or field. While status and reputation are driving forces to participate and improve in the rankings, they are also powerful identity features that are used to argue belongingness to, and differentiation within, a group or field.

The importance of rankings for forming recognition in the field may not be either overstated or underestimated, however. It is clear that the rankings are both interrelated with and dependent on other mechanisms for constructing the field and setting standards and guidelines for the field to develop, most significantly accreditation. But the international rankings have been important for European schools to challenge existing structures and positions, and for leading schools to show distinction from other members of the field. Rankings as a grouping mechanism is perhaps most important for those organizations that are attempting to gain positions in the field, or challenge the established positions, such as the European schools challenging the perceived dominance of the US business schools. For other schools it is not so clear that this is a driving force to participate.

The attempts by leading US business schools, primarily Harvard and Wharton, to break out of the rankings by refusing to provide information to the rankers, suggest that these schools consider rankings as less important mechanisms for claiming positions or recognition in the field. While it is still too early to tell whether this will in essence challenge the rankings as systems for assigning positions and authority in the field, there remains a view among European business schools that the alternatives to rankings are few and that staying outside or withdraw from the rankings is only an option for the very few, top US schools: '...if you are in a very, very strong position, you might be able to take that view, but I don't think business schools nowadays can do that' (Director, academic business school).

A business school template and mediated isomorphism

International rankings are further promoting and codifying a template for business schools by specifying criteria for performance, success and status, as well as participation in the international field. This is creating cues for competition and is assumed to lead to changes in organizations in order to improve the performance and relative standing of the school, following from the need and desire to 'conform and perform to the rankings criteria' (Gioia and Corley, 2002). Participating in the rankings, and identifying with the particular template promoted through the rankings, thus puts pressures on organizations to conform to the demands and the criteria established within this system. The isomorphic pressures following from rankings can thus be assumed to be great. Financially, the schools have a harder time attracting resources (Rao, 1994; Martins, 2005), and it seems more difficult to 'cream inputs' and 'stream outputs' (D'Aveni, 1996; Trieschmann et al., 2000) for schools that are not in the rankings. Symbolically, the stakes may be even higher as schools risk loosing out on all benefits associated with being a member of the field and considered a true business school, including for instance media coverage, interest from businesses and recruiters, and association and links with other top business schools.

The codification of the template provided by rankings hold a number of specific criteria and guidelines for participation, most prominent of which is the need to have a full-time MBA program in order to participate and be considered a true business school. This was shown to create pressure in all three business schools to start or to increase the size of the program. Also an increasing interest in executive education courses and academic research activities was noted as a direct response to rankings in these organizations. Having these activities creates comparability among diverse organizations and the similarity required to be recognized as belonging together. As the cases showed, these can be combined with both an academic and a business focus of schools.

The rankings are also specific in the sense that they provide clear guidance of the expectations and demands placed on organizations in the field, subsumed under values such as internationality, customer orientation, employability and academic excellence. The rankings specify, for instance, that business schools should have an international profile and orientation, produce employable graduates, and have excellent academic faculty and research. Among the most immediate responses to rankings in the three business school cases included to establish and enhance external relations functions that are considered to support and promote the employability features and the customer perspective stressed in many of the rankings. While a set of other activities are likely to have been changed in direct response to rankings as well, such as the composition of advisory boards, intake of students, hiring of faculty, publication strategies (cf. Martins, 2005), these have been more difficult to capture in this interview study.

Despite these pressures for change, the cases reported in this study suggest that responses to rankings are not uniform and that convergence may not be the only outcome of changes in response to rankings. The two cases illustrated a struggle between business and academic values, and how different aspects of the template and the general values promoted through the rankings could be used differently and by a diverse set of organizations to argue belongingness to the field. The academic business school stressed that the adaptation to the template promoted through the rankings needed to be balanced by a strong academic focus, whereas the business-oriented school argued it needed to be balanced with a business focus. In contrast to the academic school, this school used the rankings to further stress, and enhance, its academic profile and character. This suggests that the rankings are multi-dimensional in character, allowing a wide set of criteria and perspectives to be used and combined in order to argue belongingness. This means that different values and demands can co-exist, sometimes contradicting each other or important identity features of business schools (cf. Elsbach and Kramer, 1996). The template is thus ambiguous enough to encompass a wide set of organizational profiles and values of organizations, and it allows for differences between organizations to persist.

The template codified by rankings mediates isomorphic pressures on organizations in two important ways. First, isomorphic pressures are limited to those organizations that identify with the business school template and participate in rankings. The business school cases suggested that there are competing or co-existing templates to choose from, such as those of a university or an executive training organization, promoting other values and norms for organizations to follow. Coercive pressures are thus only present for those organizations that identify with the particular business school template. Second, the template holds an assemblage of models, labels, practices and properties that can be used for adoption or imitation by organizations, including for instance MBA programs, career services departments and advisory boards. While the experienced ability to choose between these options is limited, as some are requirements in order to participate in the rankings, there is also room for differences in terms of the interpretation and use of models and practices within organizations. There is thus room for individual identity-formation processes of business schools in the field.

The codification provided by the rankings is thus specific enough to secure the similarity required to recognize organizations as belonging together, while being sufficiently abstract and ambiguous to leave room for local variations and difference within the field. We can also assume, however, that differences in the field follow from translation and decoupling of organizational activities. For instance, studies have shown major differences in the translation of the MBA label in different parts of Europe (Mazza et al., 2005), and that image management activities in response to rankings, such as particular PR activities, can be decoupled from the actual teaching and research activities of the schools (Gioia and Corley, 2002).

Implications for research

The concept of template has been used in this study to describe the role of rankings in shaping organizational fields, in this case the international business school field. The idea that rankings codify templates challenges traditional perceptions of fields and field developments in important ways. Most notably, recognizing that identity-formation processes of organizations and individuals are important for driving organizational as well as institutional change and development (cf. Rao et al., 2003), the concept of template stresses the active involvement of organizations in forming a basis for, and recognitions of, organizational fields. Serving as a basis for comparison among organizations, the template is actively constructed and used by members of the field to create and maintain identities.

This perspective challenges the traditional understanding of fields as structurally coherent bodies, and the processes whereby practices and ideas diffuse in fields. Imitation and change within fields is not only driven by the diffusion of organizational forms and models, but they are also formed through the codification and diffusion of organizational templates for identification and recognition. Such templates are distinct from models or 'recipes' first by being abstract and cognitive in that they are not formalized, written down or conceptualized by members of the field, and second, they cannot be imitated or adopted by organizations, but are rather used or not used for creating identities and identification with a particular group or category. Templates become visible and powerful as they are codified in evaluation and categorization systems, and enacted and used by organizations in identity-formation processes. While they are not directly imitated, templates channel and support the imitation and diffusion of models and practices as they direct attention to specific ideals and characteristics considered valid or desirable, as well as promote specific role models for the field.

As the outcome of identity-formation processes in relation to an organizational template is different from a mere adoption or translation of organizational models, it further challenges the assumptions of institutional isomorphism. Rather than simply isomorphism and structural similarity, the forming of templates suggests that there is also great variation and diversity in the field as organizations both strive to belong to the group and also to be different within that group. This paper shows that isomorphic pressures within fields can be mediated through the way organizational templates provide a menu of guidelines, models and labels used for imitation and change while leaving significant room for individual choice in local identity-formation processes.

The perspective promoted here further adds to our understanding of ranking practices as important categorization and classification mechanisms. The concept of template puts an increasing focus on the importance of rankings for shaping the perceptions and actions of a community of organizations. Whereas most previous studies of rankings have focused on the role of these mechanisms in shaping status and influencing the reputation, image and survival capacities of organizations in a particular group or market (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Rao, 1994; Deephouse, 2000; Schultz et al., 2001; Gioia and Corley, 2002), this perspective focuses on the implications of such status games on the larger processes of field formation and identification. This specifically highlights the importance of these mechanisms for creating both similarity and belongingness in a group, and differentiation and distinction within that group. Thus, rankings are not only struggles for status and reputation, but also for belongingness and recognition within the field. This further suggests that rankings derive power and legitimacy not from their ability to adequately represent organizational images and status, but from their role in shaping a social space in which organizations are embedded and for the social recognition that they provide. This, in turn, helps explain why rankings gain attention and proliferate despite the recognition that they are in essence neither fair nor true representations of status, quality or positions (Rao, 1994; Dichev, 1999; Schultz et al., 2001; Gioia and Corley, 2002; Martins, 2005).

The concept of template promoted in this paper also adds to our understanding of the cognitive forming of categories and classes of organizations by arguing that the choice of reference groups and targets for emulation and imitation are mediated by generalized templates hosting institutional norms and values about what is considered appropriate and good. The choice of reference groups may be strategic and based on mental models of managers (Porac and Thomas, 1990), but these are also influenced and shaped by the expectations and demands of the larger environment. There is, however, also choice involved in this categorization effort, as there may be multiple, sometimes competing templates within a particular field. With a choice of template follows particular standards, norms, rules and role models, stressing different aspects and measures of comparison. Thus comparisons are often indirect, and mediated through different mechanisms of categorization and classification. This further stresses the importance of rankings in creating cognitive classifications, as they function to mediate comparisons and the strategic choices of references and benchmarks for organizations.

Conclusion

This paper has described the role of business school rankings in forming the international field of management education and highlighted the role of rankings in shaping organizational practices by influencing the way organizations make sense of their environment, place themselves into groups, and form their identities and identification with the field. The rankings have provided both an international comparison group and a clear hierarchy of schools perceived to be role models for the field, as well as created criteria for evaluation. This way, the rankings have codified a template for a good and proper business school in the international field. While this is creating isomorphic pressures on organizations, the cases also illustrated significant differences within the field. Thus the template, codified by rankings, was shown to provide cognitive validity and a sense of belongingness in the field, while also leaving significant room for differences in organizational practices and identities and hence mediating isomorphic pressures.

Notes

¹ Of the six schools, four are ranked among the top 50 business schools in the Financial Times full-time ranking. The remaining two, referred to as 'regional' school, are or have been ranked on executive MBA or executive education rankings.

References

1. Albert, Stuart and David A. Whetten, 1985, "Organizational identity". In L.L. Cummings and B. Staw (eds.) Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp: 263–295.
2. Anand, N. and Richard A. Peterson, 2000, "When market information constitutes fields: Sensemaking of markets in the commercial music industry". Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 11(3): 270. | Article |
3. Anand, N. and Mary R. Watson, 2004, "Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy awards". Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 59–80.
4. Bowker, Geoffrey and Susan Leigh Star, 1999, Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Casile, Maureen and Alison Davis-Blake, 2002, "When accreditation standards change: Factors affecting differential responsiveness of public and private organizations". Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 180–195.
6. Czarniawska, Barbara, 1997, Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Czarniawska, Barbara and Guje Sevón, 1996, Translating organizational change. Berlin: de Gruyter.
8. Daniel, Carter, 1998, MBA: The first century. London: Associated University Press.
9. D'Aveni, Richard A., 1996, "A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational mobility of faculty and input-output competition among top business schools". Organization Science, 7(2): 166–189.
10. Deephouse, David L., 2000, "Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories". Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091. | Article | ISI |
11. Dichev, Ilia D., 1999, "How good are business school rankings? Journal of Business, 72(2): 201. | Article |
12. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell, 1983, "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields". American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147. | Article | ISI |
13. Durand, Rodolphe and Jean McGuire, 2005, "Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: The case of AACSB". Organization Studies (Sage Publications Inc.), 26(2): 165–196.
14. Elsbach, Kimberly D. and Roderick M. Kramer, 1996, "Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings". Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 442. | Article |
15. Engwall, Lars, 1992, Mercury meets Minerva: Business studies and higher education: The Swedish case. Oxford: Pergamon.
16. Engwall, Lars and Vera Zamagni, 1998, Management education in historical perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
17. Feldman, Martha S. and Brian T. Pentland, 2003, "Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change". Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118. | Article | ISI |
18. Financial Times, 1999-01-25, "Rankings can both help and rankle". FT Survey.
19. Financial Times, 2000-09-08.
20. Fombrun, Charles and Mark Shanley, 1990, "What's in a name reputation building and corporate strategy". Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233. | Article | ISI |
21. Gioia, Dennis A. and Kevin G. Corley, 2002, "Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image". Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1): 107.
22. Glynn, Mary Ann and Michael Lounsbury, 2005, "From the critics' corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system". Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1031–1055. | Article |
23. Greenwood, Royston, C.R. Hinings and Roy Suddaby, 2002, "Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields". Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58. | ISI |
24. Hedmo, Tina, 2004, Rule-making in the transnational space: The development of European accreditation in management education. Doctoral dissertation. Uppsala University, Uppsala.
25. Hedmo, Tina, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson and Linda Wedlin, 2006, "The emergence of a European regulatory field of management education". In M.-L. Djeclic and K. Sahlin-Andersson (eds.) Transnational governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp: 308–328.
26. Hoffman, Andrew J., 1999, "Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical industry". Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 351. | Article |
27. Labianca, Giuseppe, James F. Fairbank, James B. Thomas, Dennis A. Gioia and Elizabeth E. Umphress, 2001, "Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity". Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 12(3): 312. | Article |
28. Locke, Robert R., 1989, Management and higher education since 1940: The influence of America and Japan on West Germany, Great Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Martins, Luis L., 2005, "A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change". Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 16(6): 701–720. | Article |
30. Mazza, Carmelo, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson and Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen, 2005, "European constructions of an American model: Developments of four MBA programs". Management Learning, 36(4): 471–491. | Article |
31. Miller, Peter, 1996, "Dilemmas of accountability: The limits of accounting". In P. Hirst and S. Khilnani (eds.) Reinventing democracy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp: 57–69.
32. Moon, Hyeyoung, 2002, The globalization of professional management education 1881–2000: Its rise, expansion and implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford.
33. Peterson, Richard A., 2005, "In search of authenticity". Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1083–1098. | Article |
34. Porac, Joseph F. and Howard Thomas, 1990, "Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition". Academy of Management Review, 15(2): 224. | Article |
35. Porac, Joseph F., Howard Thomas and Charles Baden-Fuller, 1989, "Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers". Journal of Management Studies, 26(4): 397. | Article |
36. Rao, Hayagreeva, 1994, "The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912". Strategic Management Journal, 15(8): 29. | Article | ISI |
37. Rao, Hayagreeva, Philippe Monin and Rodolphe Durand, 2003, "Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy". American Journal of Sociology, 108(4): 795. | Article |
38. Rindova, Violina P., Ian O. Williamson, Antoaneta P. Petkova and Joy Marie Sever, 2005, "Being good or being known: An empirical examinations of the dimensions, antecendents, and consequences of organizational reputation". Academy of Management Journal, 48(6): 1033–1049. | ISI |
39. Røvik, Kjell Arne, 1998, Moderne organisasjoner. Trender i organisasjonstenkninger ved tusenårsskiftet. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
40. Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin and Guje Sevón, 2003, "Imitation and identification as performatives". In B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds.) The northern lights: Organization theory in Scandinavia. Malmö: Liber, pp: 249–265.
41. Schultz, Majken, Jan Mouritsen and Gorm Gabrielsen, 2001, "Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system". Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1): 24. | Article |
42. Strang, David and John W. Meyer, 1993, "Institutional conditions for diffusion". Theory and Society, 22(4): 487–511. | Article |
43. Townley, Barbara, 2002, "The role of competing rationalities in institutional change". Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 163–179.
44. Trieschmann, James S., Alan R. Dennis, Gregory B. Northcraft and Albert W. Nieme Jr, 2000, "Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: M.B.A. Program versus research performance". Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1130. | Article |
45. Wedlin, Linda, 2004, "Competing for employability: The media ranking of graduate business education". In C. Garsten and K. Jacobsson (eds.) Learning to be employable. New agendas on work, responsibility and learning in a globalized world. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp: 252–273.
46. Wedlin, Linda, 2006, "Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities and boundaries in international management education". Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
47. Whitley, Richard, 1984, "The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences". Journal of Management Studies, 21(3): 331–348. | Article |

Acknowledgements

For support, critical comments and helpful suggestions on various drafts of this paper, the author would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers of EMR, and a number of seminar participants at SCANCOR and the department of Business Studies at Uppsala University. This research has been carried out with the financial support of the Swedish Research Council. The study has been previously reported in a book published by Edward Elgar Publishing, entitled "Ranking Business Schools" (2006).