This article constructs an alternative analytic lens by which to consider the “everyone wins” conclusions drawn within most workplace spirituality (WPS) research. The article offers a critical 2 × 2 matrix that makes visible two potentially negative organizational dimensions of WPS: control and instrumentality. The article investigates into the four quadrants of WPS: seduction, evangelization, manipulation, and subjugation, through practical examples. It concludes with implications for the workplace and offers an agenda for future research.

After the spectacular ethical breaches in corporate America emerged, business school professors were singled out as having been negligent in teaching ethical standards. This exploratory study asked business school faculty about teaching ethics, including conceptualizations of ethics in a teaching context and opinions of the extent to which teaching ethics could positively affect student behavior. This research also identified respondents' various pedagogical approaches to teaching ethics. Major results indicate that faculty generally do not believe they can change students'ethical behaviors and that faculty's conceptualizations of ethics do not match their classroom approaches. Discussion and possible explanations are offered.In the weeks that followed Enron's and WorldCom's spectacular falls, much was made in popular press and newspaper headlines of the business school backgrounds earned by those fallen leaders. Business school professors were singled out as having been negligent in teaching these corporate 15 Authors' Note: This research was supported by an Idaho State University FRC grant #918. We would also like to thank Susan Hooks for her invaluable research assistance and the anonymous reviewers for their developmental comments.

The new Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) accreditation guidelines specify standards regarding the development of goals and learning objectives for various content areas and “soft” skills such as writing and oral presentation. These standards are being interpreted in a variety of ways across accredited schools of business. The authors argue that these standards are likely to be interpreted and actioned in ways that do not support best practices in education. To frame the discussion, they compare the more traditional model of liberal arts education to the predominant model evolving in schools of business today. They also include a discussion of how “differences” such as learning styles and epistemology become subordinated in the accreditation process. The authors end the article by sharing a “live” example of how some of the AACSB standards have been operationalized and the implications therein.

Previous studies of author productivity in business and management education (BME) research have focused on single disciplinary areas, and even single journals. This study is the first to examine the productivity of BME scholars across multiple disciplinary areas (i.e., accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management). We analyzed a pool of 17 BME journals with the highest hg‐index, by including the top three journals in the accounting and information systems areas, the top two journals in each of the other disciplinary areas, and an interdisciplinary BME journal. This examination covered a 10‐year period (2005‐2014), 4,464 articles and 9,617 article co‐authors. We identified 7,209 unique authors in this pool and ranked their productivity to create a “Key Authors” list. Each of the top 99 authors had five or more articles in our database. Our findings indicate the potential for cross‐disciplinary dissemination of research ideas and opportunities for scholars to enhance their research profile, because even a small increase in productivity can lead to substantial movement in the BME rankings of authors.

No abstract