Dear friends, I am of the opinion that the time is ripe for a new management theory to evolve. In this regard, I reproduce the following from a paper of mine titled, 'Thirst for a new managerial theory'. I think the academicians/ researchers/ practitioners/ experts need to discuss the issue at length.

" In order to understand the purpose of business theories and that of business education, it is essential to look at the purpose of business per se. It would be interesting to bring Aristotle into perspective while trying to understand the purpose of business. Aristotle, Ross, and Urmson (1980) classify business conduct into two types – Oikonomia and Chrematistike. While the former is embedded in the political system and fulfils societal objectives, the latter aims at making money. Aristotle, Ross, and Urmson (1980) clearly observe that “wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking”, while also noting that happiness is the universally pursued goal of human life, a view later supported immensely by thinkers including Nagraj (2008, 2009), Gaur et al. (2009), His Holiness the Dalai Lama (2012).

Aristotle, Ross, and Urmson (1980) dismiss Chrematistike, because of its tendency towards excess. He maintains that chrematistic undertakings would undermine a balanced society which is the most capable of supporting a happy life. Aristotle’s conception of Oikonomic entities is largely based on the integration of economic, social, and political considerations (Pirson 2010). More recently, Korten (2009) observes that our economic system has failed in every dimension including financial, environmental and social; and denotes the failures of economic system to the misperception of money as wealth. Korten (2009) further maintains that the implantation of money as wealth in the minds of human leads to acceptance of the idea that money is a storehouse of value rather than simply a storehouse of expectations, and that ‘making money’ is the equivalent of ‘creating wealth’. Money, in fact, is only an accounting chit with no existence outside the human mind.

It is important to bring into discussion a research titled ‘Securities: The New World Wealth Machine’ (Edmunds 1996), which attempts to detach wealth-creation from the real economy and attach it with the financial assets instead. Edmunds (1996) theorizes that policymakers don’t need to focus on producing real wealth by increasing the national output of goods and services having real utility. Rather, he advises to put that aside and concern with securitizing real assets for putting investors into play in financial markets thereby creating gigantic asset bubbles. Phillips (2008) attributes the problems of sub-prime crisis to research works such as Edmunds’ by arguing that the securitization of housing mortgages might have been inspired by the work of Edmunds (1996), which was widely discussed on Wall Street.

A discussion of Korten (2009) with the then minister of forestry of Malaysia demonstrates the final height (or fall) of the failed capitalism. Korten (2009) mentions,

'He told me in all seriousness that Malaysia would be better off once all its trees were cut down and proceeds were deposited in interest-bearing accounts, because interest grows faster than trees… This is exactly the kind of disaster to which Edmunds fallacy leads.'

From the conception of Aristotle to the theory of Adam Smith to Edmunds and further to the business practices of post-modernism, business management has come full circle. As observed by Korten (2009), the solution to a failed capitalist economy is a real-market economy much in line with the true vision of Adam Smith.

In such a scenario, there is no denying the fact that management theories are in dire need of a thorough revisit. Again, as rightly observed by The Economist (2016b),

'The gurus have lost touch with the world they seek to rule. Management theory is ripe for a reformation of its own'."