WALKING around the halls of our business school, I found myself reflecting on its ongoing quality assurance initiatives. Like many institutions worldwide, we’re engaged in various accreditation and standardization processes, each one promising to elevate our school’s program offerings to international levels.
Yet a question keeps surfacing: How do we build quality through international standards while nurturing authentic institutional identity?
This tension between standardization and authenticity isn’t unique to our institution. In a 2019 article by Chedrawi, Howayeck and Tarhini, titled “CSR and legitimacy in higher education accreditation programs, an isomorphic approach of Lebanese business schools,” published in Quality Assurance in Education, the authors introduced the concept of accreditation as a “temporary isomorphic legitimacy tool” for business schools seeking to establish their credibility while developing their distinctive institutional identity.
This temporary isomorphism is the tendency for institutions to initially adopt standardized practices and structures as they build legitimacy before eventually finding their own voice. This pattern fascinates me, particularly because I’ve observed a similar journey in our students’ development.
There’s undeniable value in this initial phase of standardization. Just as young professionals often learn by emulating successful mentors, institutions benefit from adopting proven practices and frameworks. These standards aren’t arbitrary — they represent distilled wisdom from decades of educational experience, offering clear benchmarks and a shared language for quality. They provide a foundation of trust, allowing stakeholders to recognize that fundamental educational needs are being met.
This standardization phase serves as a form of scaffolding, breaking down complex educational processes into learnable, implementable chunks. When faced with the daunting task of ensuring educational quality, having clear frameworks and benchmarks provides the necessary structure and direction. It’s a phase marked by learning, observation, and careful implementation of best practices.
Most challenging phase
Yet there comes a point — for both institutions and individuals — when following the template stops being enough. This is perhaps the most challenging phase of institutional development, marked by a certain discomfort that shouldn’t be rushed. It’s the moment when an institution begins to question whether standard practices fully align with its unique context, mission, and values. I’ve witnessed this same tension in our students and in our institutional experiences — that crucial point when we realize that merely following the rulebook won’t lead to distinctive success.
The risk, of course, is getting stuck in permanent isomorphism — never moving beyond the safety of established patterns. Quality assurance shouldn’t be about creating identical institutions but rather about ensuring each institution can deliver excellence in its own authentic way. The challenge lies in creating an environment where this transition feels safe and supported, where questioning and adaptation are seen as signs of maturity rather than resistance.
What’s particularly interesting is how robust quality standards can actually enable distinctiveness rather than suppress it. Much like how mastering the fundamentals of any discipline eventually enables creativity, strong institutional foundations create the confidence to express unique character. The most impressive institutions I’ve encountered aren’t those that simply meet all standards perfectly but those that have used them as a launching pad for distinctive excellence.
Leadership plays a crucial role in this journey. It requires the wisdom to recognize when an institution is ready to move beyond pure imitation, the courage to encourage thoughtful deviation from standard practices, and the skill to maintain quality while nurturing unique institutional character.
Ultimate goal
The ultimate goal isn’t to abandon standards, far from it. Rather, it’s to reach a state in which standards serve as enabling constraints, providing the structure in which institutional creativity can flourish.
I’m increasingly convinced the key lies in embracing both standards and soul — understanding that they’re not opposing forces but complementary elements of institutional excellence. The temporary nature of initial isomorphism isn’t a flaw in the system but a feature providing the secure base from which authentic institutional character can emerge.
The future of business education lies not in perfect uniformity but in high-quality diversity — institutions that maintain excellent standards while expressing distinctive identities. It’s a vision worth pursuing, even if the path requires careful navigation of the tension between standardization and authenticity.
After all, isn’t this journey toward authentic excellence exactly what we hope to inspire in our students?
Patrick Adriel H. Aure, PhD (Patch), is the Assistant Dean for Quality Assurance of the De La Salle University Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business and founding director of the PHINMA-DLSU Center for Business and Society. He is also the current president of the Philippine Academy of Management. Email: [email protected]
Be the first to comment