Abstract
Keywords
For decades, management education has relied heavily on the transmission of abstract theories, concepts, and frameworks developed by scholars working in specific historical, cultural, and institutional contexts (Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Wren et al., 1980, 1994, 2007). These theories, often grounded in positivist traditions, are presented to students as generalizable knowledge that can guide managerial practice across a range of settings. While such knowledge has analytical value, its relevance to students’ lived experiences is increasingly being called into question (Duchatelet et al., 2024; Ghoshal, 2005; Joullié & Gould, 2023; Kieser & Leiner, 2009; Mason et al., 2024; Spicer & Alvesson, 2025). The assumption that these externally developed models will resonate equally with all students, regardless of their social, cultural, and professional backgrounds, is both pedagogically and philosophically tenuous (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Ghoshal, 2005).
This tension is particularly pronounced in business school classrooms that are increasingly diverse in terms of student demographics, life histories, and professional aspirations (Markey et al., 2023; Shantz et al., 2023). Many students come to management education not as blank slates, but as individuals who have already formed deeply held beliefs about leadership, motivation, teamwork, performance, and so forth. These beliefs, shaped through personal experiences, cultural influences, and informal learning, function as implicit theories that guide their interpretations and actions in organizational contexts. Yet these internal perspectives are rarely acknowledged in management education (Billsberry, 2013; Billsberry & O’Callaghan, 2024). Instead, curricula tend to emphasize external knowledge, sometimes at the expense of recognizing students as theorists in their own right (Alam et al., 2023; Mason et al., 2024; Perriton & Hodgson, 2013).
The result is a pedagogical disconnect. Students often struggle to reconcile what they are taught with what they believe, leading to disengagement or surface learning (Lund Dean & Jolly, 2012). In response, educators sometimes attempt to bridge the gap by selecting generic examples and cases that aim to be broadly accessible. While well-intentioned, these efforts can backfire by flattening the richness of lived experience into abstract, decontextualized illustrations. Rather than enhancing inclusivity, they can obscure the relevance of theory and render students’ own knowledge and beliefs invisible. When students cannot locate themselves within the curriculum, their motivation and engagement decline (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2024).
In this essay, I propose an alternative: an implicit theory approach to management education. This perspective begins not with canonical models, but with the beliefs and mental models that students already hold about managerial life. These implicit theories, although often tacit and unexamined, play a central role in how individuals make sense of individual and organizational behavior. By surfacing, interrogating, and refining these internal frameworks, educators can foster deeper learning, enhance metacognitive awareness (awareness of one’s own thinking, assumptions, and interpretive processes), and make formal theory more relevant and impactful. Rather than displacing what students already know, this approach treats their existing knowledge as a legitimate starting point for learning.
The structure of the essay is as follows. I begin by outlining the limitations of theory-centered pedagogies and their disconnect from students’ internal realities. I then introduce the concept of implicit theories and explain their relevance to management education. The core of the essay presents an implicit theory approach to pedagogy, offering practical methods for surfacing and working with students’ mental models. The discussion also considers the challenges and objections this approach may provoke, recognizing the questions educators are likely to ask when rethinking established pedagogies. Finally, I discuss the broader implications of this approach for learning outcomes, inclusivity, and educational philosophy. By treating students as theorists of their own experience, I argue for a reorientation of management education that is more resonant, reflexive, and responsive to the complexities of individual learners.
The Problem With Theory-Centered Pedagogy
The Dominance of Abstract Theory
Management education has long been organized around the transmission of abstract, decontextualized theory (Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Wren et al., 1980, 1994, 2007). This orientation reflects an underlying belief in the universality of management theory, assuming that what works in one context will work in another with minimal adaptation (Davydov, 1990; Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Engeström, 2015, 2020a, 2020b; Spicer & Alvesson, 2025). The knowledge taught in business schools is frequently rooted in North American corporate environments and is rarely interrogated for its cultural or contextual specificity. Ghoshal (2005) famously criticized this tendency, arguing that the overemphasis on economically rational models can promote poor managerial practice by ignoring ethical, social, and human dimensions. Alvesson and Willmott (2003) argued that management knowledge is not value-free but shaped by ideological assumptions that reflect dominant social structures. Others have noted that management education often favors theoretical sophistication over practical relevance (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004). This disconnect between theory and practice is especially pronounced when theories are introduced as static truths rather than as historically situated products of scholarly inquiry.
The preference for theory-centric pedagogy may be partly attributable to academic incentives and development (Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Kitchener & Delbridge, 2020). Faculty are typically trained as researchers and evaluated on their research productivity rather than on their teaching effectiveness or pedagogical innovation (Billsberry, Köhler et al., 2019; Gallos, 1996; Harley, 2019). As a result, there is a natural inclination to favor academic theory and privilege the frameworks that dominate scholarly discourse. However, this creates a disjunction between how faculty construct knowledge and how students make meaning, particularly when students are seeking preparation for managerial practice rather than academic careers.
This problem becomes particularly acute in increasingly diverse classrooms, where students come from a wide range of cultural, socioeconomic, and professional backgrounds (Markey et al., 2023). International students, working adults, and first-generation college students often find themselves alienated by the examples and case studies presented in class, which may reflect only a narrow slice of organizational life. Management education tends to rely on a narrow vision of practice that fails to reflect the variety of identities and values that students bring to the classroom (Hall et al., 2013; Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010; Kjellström et al., 2020). As a result, students may feel that their perspectives are invalidated or invisible within the learning environment.
Pedagogical Consequences
When students are unable to connect academic theory with their own beliefs, experiences, and aspirations, the result is superficial learning (Ausubel, 1968; D. A. Kolb, 1984; Vygotsky, 1978). Students may memorize models for exams but struggle to apply them in practice, undermining the promise of management education. Moreover, theory-centered pedagogy can inadvertently silence the internal frameworks that students bring with them to the classroom (Cook-Sather, 2006; Freire, 1970). These implicit beliefs about leadership, motivation, power, and performance are not peripheral to learning; they are central to how students interpret theoretical material. When such internal frameworks are left unexamined, formal theory may appear disconnected, abstract, or even irrelevant. Students may struggle to reconcile what they are being taught with what they intuitively believe or have learned through experience. This tension can result in cognitive dissonance (the discomfort arising when new ideas conflict with existing beliefs) or disengagement, particularly when formal models contradict deeply held assumptions (S. D. Brookfield, 2015; Festinger, 1957; Kendeou & Van Den Broek, 2007). By not engaging these personal theories, educators risk leaving students disoriented, patronized, and unable to meaningfully integrate new knowledge into their existing understanding of organizational life. And they may come across as arrogant, dismissive, or out of touch.
Theoretical Foundation: Understanding Implicit Theories
What Are Implicit Theories?
Implicit theories are the lay beliefs, mental models, or intuitive assumptions that individuals use to make sense of the world (Billsberry & O’Callaghan, 2024; Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Dweck, 1999; Eichler & Billsberry, 2023; Furnham, 1988). Unlike formal theories taught in classrooms or derived from research (in this essay, “formal” refers to theories and models derived from academic research that are taught as canonical or core disciplinary knowledge, in contrast to the implicit theories that students bring from their lived experience), implicit theories are typically unarticulated, untested, and deeply embedded in personal experience. They emerge through socialization, cultural norms, and accumulated life experiences, often operating underneath conscious awareness (Dweck, 1999; Furnham, 1988).
The psychological literature supports the relevance of implicit theories for education. One of the most influential is Dweck’s (1999) work on self-theories of intelligence. Dweck (1999) showed that individuals’ beliefs about whether intelligence is fixed or malleable influence their motivation, persistence, and response to failure. These beliefs function as internalized schemas that shape behavior and learning outcomes. Similarly, leadership scholars (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann & Coats, 2018) have demonstrated that people hold preconceptions about what leaders should look and act like, which in turn influence how they interpret and evaluate leadership behavior (Foti et al., 2017; Lord & Maher, 1991; Lord & Shondrick, 2011).
These implicit frameworks are not idiosyncratic fantasies. Rather, they are culturally patterned and socially acquired cognitive tools. Furnham (1988) argued that lay theories often reflect collective folk wisdom, providing heuristics for interpreting social phenomena. In organizational life, these heuristics are deployed constantly. For example, a student who believes that good managers must always be assertive may interpret collaborative behavior as weak or ineffective. Even without formal education in leadership, such a student is already making theory-based evaluations. These evaluations, however, rarely enter the classroom explicitly.
How Implicit Theories Shape Action
Implicit theories matter because they have real consequences for perception, decision-making, and behavior (Lord et al., 2020). These lay beliefs function as interpretive filters that shape how individuals make sense of ambiguous situations and determine appropriate courses of action (Furnham, 1988). They influence how meaning is assigned to the actions of others and how individuals assess causality, responsibility, and effectiveness in social contexts (Eichler & Billsberry, 2023). In management settings, implicit theories guide how people approach management decisions, often more powerfully than formal models (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Lord et al., 1984; Schyns & Schilling, 2011). These mental models are typically unspoken and enacted automatically, yet they govern the selection, acceptance, or rejection of formal knowledge (Furnham, 1988; Junker & van Dick, 2014). As such, they can distort how theory is understood or applied, particularly when it does not align with prior beliefs. Engaging with implicit theories is therefore essential not only for conceptual clarity but also for enabling students to effectively and critically evaluate and integrate academic knowledge in a personally meaningful way (Billsberry & O’Callaghan, 2024).
Moreover, implicit theories can reinforce cognitive and social biases or constrain the behavioral repertoires students perceive as acceptable or effective (Devine, 1989; Greenwald et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2017; Siegel, 2017). Because these mental models often develop through uncritical absorption of cultural norms, media portrayals, or early work experiences, they may encode stereotypical assumptions about who is competent, what effective management looks like, or how authority should be enacted. For instance, Epitropaki and Martin (2005) demonstrated that implicit leadership theories shape not only how individuals evaluate leaders, but also how they form interpersonal trust and communicate within teams. These effects are often subconscious, yet they influence relational dynamics in ways that can perpetuate exclusion or hinder collaboration. When such assumptions remain unexamined, they can limit students’ openness to alternative leadership styles, suppress creativity, and reduce their capacity for reflective engagement (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004, 2005; Lord & Shondrick, 2011; Schyns & Schilling, 2011). They may also contribute to inequitable judgments in team settings, reproducing biases rather than challenging them (Devine, 1989; Junker & van Dick, 2014). Engaging with students’ implicit theories is therefore not merely a pedagogical enhancement but a critical practice for developing self-awareness, inclusivity, and ethical reflexivity. Making these frameworks visible creates opportunities for students to question taken-for-granted beliefs and expand their understanding of what effective management can look like.
Why Implicit Theories Matter in Education
Constructivist theories of learning suggest that meaningful learning occurs when new information is actively integrated into existing cognitive structures (Bruner, 1990; Weick, 1995). From this perspective, learning is less about information transfer and more about transformation of meaning. Engaging with implicit theories provides a foundation for metacognitive growth (the development of awareness of one’s own thinking and interpretive processes) and genuine conceptual engagement. When students are asked to articulate and interrogate their own beliefs, they begin to recognize the contingency and cultural specificity of what they once assumed to be universal. Students are far more likely to internalize and use what they learn when it connects with their prior experiences, beliefs, and intuitive understanding of how organizations function. As A. Y. Kolb and Kolb (2005) emphasize, experiential learning depends not only on exposure to theory but also on opportunities for learners to relate abstract ideas to personal experience through reflection and experimentation. Working with students’ implicit theories creates those opportunities by treating their lived experience as a legitimate and necessary foundation for theory-building. In doing so, educators foster deeper conceptual integration and enhance the likelihood that learning will be retained, transferred, and meaningfully enacted in students’ professional lives. Finally, recognizing students as holders of theories legitimizes their agency in the learning process. Rather than viewing learners as passive recipients of expert knowledge, an implicit theory approach positions them as co-constructors of understanding.
A New Pedagogy: Starting With the Student’s Theory
Guiding Principles
An implicit theory approach to pedagogy begins from the premise that students are not passive recipients of knowledge but active interpreters of their world. Management students enter the classroom with prior beliefs about the nature of leadership, how motivation can be fostered, what constitutes ethical or effective decision-making, and many other topics taught in management education. These beliefs are “theories-in-use” (Argyris & Schön, 1974, p. 6), even if they are rarely articulated. The first principle of this pedagogy is to treat such implicit theories as legitimate starting points for learning. These beliefs should not be dismissed as naïve or incorrect but recognized as cognitive assets developed through experience. Transformative learning (learning that changes how individuals interpret their experiences; Mälkki, 2010; Mezirow, 1991; Southworth, 2022) requires that individuals examine their own assumptions through reflective discourse. By foregrounding students’ internal theories, educators can help them develop the capacity for such self-examination. Rather than aiming to replace existing beliefs with external models,
A second principle is to position the educator not as the sole authority but as a facilitator of inquiry. The instructor’s role is to help students surface, articulate, and interrogate their assumptions about management (S. D. Brookfield, 2011; S. Brookfield, 2020). Students are guided to explore not only what they think but why they think it, and what alternative perspectives might offer. In doing so, the classroom becomes a space for exploration, not just explanation.
Finally, this pedagogy rests on a commitment to personalization. Just as no two students hold identical experiences, no two implicit theories are exactly alike. By inviting students to explore their own meaning-making systems, educators can create inclusive learning environments that affirm different cultural, professional, and personal backgrounds. This principle resonates with calls for management education to become more attuned to identity, context, and diversity (e.g., Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010).
Pedagogical Methods
Surfacing implicit theories is a complex educational challenge. By definition, implicit theories are held unconsciously, and individuals are often unaware of the frameworks shaping their interpretations and behaviors (Billsberry & O’Callaghan, 2024; Schyns et al., 2011). Asking students directly to articulate these theories often produces superficial or socially desirable responses rather than revealing their actual mental models (Billsberry, 2013; Schyns et al., 2011). Consequently, effective pedagogy must rely on indirect methods such as projective, reflective, and experiential techniques that allow students to discover and examine their own assumptions.
This orientation aligns closely with traditions of inquiry-based and arts-integrated learning, which emphasize the role of creative expression and embodied experience in meaning-making (Eisner, 2004; Irwin, 2013; A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Leary, 2020; Pinar & Irwin, 2004). Arts-based pedagogies invite students to externalize tacit understanding through visual, performative, and narrative forms, paralleling the projective and reflective techniques proposed here. These connections highlight that working with implicit theories is not only a cognitive process but also an imaginative and affective one, grounded in the full range of human expression.
One proven method is the use of
Another pedagogical technique involves
Other techniques such as
Importantly, the goal of these methods is not to invalidate students’ implicit theories or replace them with formal models. Instead, the aim is to help students become aware of the complexity of their own frameworks, understand where they come from, and critically examine how they influence their learning and decision-making. Once surfaced, these implicit theories become objects of analysis and dialog, not unconscious filters opening up opportunities for deeper, more personally grounded learning. Through varied pedagogical methods that respect the complexity of internal belief systems, students learn how their perspectives shape their reception of formal models. These methods do not simply enhance learning; they make theory personally meaningful and practically usable.
Table 1 introduces a comparative typology of pedagogical methods that can be used to surface and work with students’ implicit theories. The table contrasts approach such as film analysis, narrative inquiry, videography, rich picture drawing, and personal history reflection with other complementary techniques including role play, peer interviewing, and critical incident analysis. Together, these methods illustrate a spectrum of strategies ranging from individual reflection to collaborative experimentation. Each approach reveals different facets of students’ implicit thinking, such as visual, emotional, verbal, or behavioral, and can be adapted for in-class exercises or project-based assignments. For example, narrative inquiry and personal history reflection lend themselves to individual projects, while simulations and videography can be developed as group activities. To enrich the practical repertoire available to management educators, Table 1 presents a fuller typology of pedagogical methods that go beyond those described in the main discussion.
Typology of Pedagogical Methods for Surfacing Students’ Implicit Theories.
To illustrate how this approach could be applied, consider a session on motivation, where the learning objective is helping students surface their own implicit theories of motivation. The educator might begin with a
The next phase would move deeper, focusing on uncovering students’ implicit theories of motivation, which are the unspoken assumptions, personal histories, and formative experiences that shape how people interpret human drive and effort. Drawing on techniques such as
At this point, formal theories of motivation are introduced as dialog partners rather than authoritative replacements. Students are divided into
A natural consequence of this depth of work is that it takes time. Surfacing and examining tacit beliefs cannot be rushed, and an implicit theory approach therefore limits how many topics can be meaningfully addressed within a single course. This is not a drawback as much as a design implication. Variation in methods can keep the approach fresh, allowing deeper work on some concepts and more streamlined reflective exercises on others. Such flexibility should help sustain engagement while still anchoring learning in students’ underlying assumptions.
Academic Theory as Dialog Partner
In an implicit theory approach to management education, formal theory is not eliminated or subordinated. Rather, it is repositioned as a dialog partner in students’ meaning-making processes. Instead of viewing students’ implicit theories as substitutes for established knowledge, this pedagogy treats them as essential entry points that make formal theory meaningful. Formal management theories continue to serve an essential role as structured, evidence-based frameworks that challenge and extend students’ intuitive beliefs. When implicit and formal theories are brought into dialog, formal theory becomes a catalyst for examining the students’ assumptions. Students are invited to test their personal understandings against academic models, identify points of convergence or tension, and consider why such differences arise. The result is a form of integrative pedagogy in which formal theory provides the analytical scaffolding and students’ implicit theories supply the experiential grounding for deeper meaning-making across all areas of management education.
Deep learning (“the process of students drawing on personal experience and course material to create new meaning for themselves,” Dyer & Hurd, 2016, p. 289) begins when students can first see their own thinking clearly enough to question it. Surfacing their implicit theories gives form to what was previously taken for granted, allowing formal theory to meet something visible rather than something hidden. Once students can name the beliefs that guide their understanding, academic theory becomes a mirror and a map. They can trace where their intuitions align with scholarly ideas, where they diverge, and why those differences matter. The educator’s role is to guide this process of recognition so that theory is not received as revelation but as perspective; a structured way of re-examining one’s own sense of how management works. In that moment, students do not merely learn a theory; they learn from it.
The pedagogical goal, therefore, is to create cognitive dissonance that stimulates reflection and growth. When students encounter a theory that contradicts their existing beliefs, they are prompted to ask whether, why, and how the theory might be useful. This tension can lead to deeper engagement than passive acceptance. Timing plays an important role in this process. Instead of introducing theory at the outset of a topic (which some might see as an approach that signals, “I know best” and “I’m going to tell you what to think”), educators might begin with exploratory discussions or reflective exercises to surface students’ beliefs on the topic. As shown in the motivation example, only once students have surfaced their own views deeply does the instructor present academic models. This sequencing allows theory to be introduced in a comparative frame, which supports analytical thinking and personal integration. As Hibbert and Cunliffe (2015) argue, when students reflect on the interplay between theory and self, they are more likely to internalize and apply what they learn.
Theory should also be framed as historically and culturally situated, not as timeless truth (Billsberry, Ambrosini et al., 2019). This framing invites students to consider the origins, assumptions, and limitations of the models they study. For example, when teaching the nature of management, instructors might ask students to compare their implicit beliefs about the nature of management with the skills and functions emphasized in other frameworks (e.g., Mintzberg, Fayol, Stewart, and competences). Students can then evaluate whether these theories align with their understanding, and where they see gaps or contradictions. This approach fosters critical thinking and epistemic humility (recognition of the limits of one’s knowledge).
Importantly, educators should create space for resistance. Not all students will accept or adopt academic theories. This resistance should not be seen as failure but as a meaningful outcome of reflective engagement. It signals that students are actively evaluating knowledge rather than accepting it uncritically. As S. D. Brookfield (2011) notes, the purpose of critical pedagogy is not to produce consensus but to cultivate autonomy and informed judgment.
Ultimately, this approach reframes the relationship between student and theory. Rather than viewing theory as something to be mastered and reproduced, students are invited to use it as a tool to test, refine, or extend their own thinking. This repositioning enhances the relevance of management education and empowers students as thinkers and practitioners. By building learning around the theories students already hold, educators can foster learning that is more connected, transformative, and enduring.
A New Vision of the Management Learner
Implicit theory pedagogy promotes a reconceptualization of the management learner. Rather than being cast as passive consumers of established knowledge, students are reimagined as active theorists of their own experience. This shift has profound implications for how educators structure their teaching and relate to their students. It suggests that the educator’s task is not to deliver truth, but to cultivate inquiry, reflection, and dialog. This orientation transforms the classroom into a collaborative space where students and instructors co-construct understanding. It also invites students to develop a sense of themselves as practitioners who think with theories rather than simply apply them. In doing so, it supports the formation of a more reflective managerial identity that can adapt to the uncertainty and complexity of organizational life. By integrating theoretical insight with lived experience, students begin to develop a more coherent sense of how their assumptions, values, and interpretations shape their approach to managerial work.
Additionally, this pedagogical model prepares students to be lifelong learners. In a world of rapid change, managers must be able to update their assumptions and adapt to new challenges. An education that trains students to examine their own thinking and engage critically with multiple perspectives lays the foundation for continuous personal and professional development. As Petriglieri and Petriglieri (2020) note, the most effective forms of management education are those that cultivate learners who can learn, not just memorize content. The implications of this approach extend beyond instructional technique. They call for a reimagining of the purpose and practice of management education itself. By treating students as individuals with rich, complex internal worlds, educators can create more relevant, inclusive, and transformative learning environments that better prepare students for the demands of managerial life.
Addressing Challenges and Objections
Any proposal to shift pedagogical paradigms must contend with legitimate questions and criticisms. An implicit theory approach to management education is no exception. While the approach offers significant benefits, educators may express concern about its theoretical coherence, practical feasibility, and impact on academic standards. Engaging with these objections is crucial for clarifying the value and boundaries of the proposed model.
First, it might be argued that students’ implicit theories may be flawed, underdeveloped, or based on limited experience. Critics may argue that beginning with these beliefs risks reinforcing stereotypes, misconceptions, or outdated assumptions about management. This concern is not without merit. Implicit theories can reflect cognitive biases or socially inherited prejudices (Devine, 1989; Furnham, 1988; Greenwald et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2017; Siegel, 2017). However, the goal of this pedagogy is not to validate student beliefs but to bring them into the open where they can be critically examined. Transformative learning begins when individuals confront the limitations of their current perspectives. By surfacing and challenging these frameworks, educators can facilitate the kind of reflective engagement that leads to deeper learning and personal growth.
Second, educators may be concerned that this approach undermines academic rigor by giving primacy to personal belief over established theory. Some instructors may worry that an emphasis on student voice dilutes disciplinary standards or replaces knowledge with opinion. This critique assumes a false dichotomy between theory and reflection. An implicit theory approach to pedagogy does not discard formal knowledge but reframes it as a dialogical partner in learning. Students are still required to engage with scholarly theory, evaluate its assumptions, and assess its relevance to their own contexts. Meaningful management education emerges when students critically engage with both themselves and the materials they encounter. Far from lowering standards, this pedagogy raises the level of intellectual challenge by requiring students to integrate theory with introspection.
A further objection might be that the scalability and feasibility of this pedagogical approach in large or traditionally structured classroom settings. Activities that aim to surface implicit theories such as videography, narrative analysis, and projective techniques may appear too time-intensive or logistically complex, particularly in high-enrollment courses. Instructors may question whether they have the capacity, resources, or institutional support to implement such methods meaningfully. These concerns are legitimate and highlight the importance of deliberate pedagogical design. However, many of the techniques described can be adapted for scale through structured processes, peer facilitation, and the strategic use of digital tools. For instance, online platforms can support reflective writing and media submissions, while small-group projects and peer feedback frameworks can enable collaborative meaning-making. Rather than requiring one-on-one interaction for every student, educators can guide reflective inquiry by scaffolding prompts, embedding structured reflection within existing assessments, and using exemplars to model the analysis of internal frameworks.
Finally, some management educators might resist the shift in instructor identity that this model entails. Moving from expert to facilitator can be disorienting, especially for those trained to deliver content rather than co-create it. However, this change reflects broader trends in higher education toward learner-centered approaches that recognize students as active participants in their own development (e.g., Fischer & Dobbins, 2024; Rabelo et al., 2023). Embracing this orientation does not diminish the educator’s expertise; it repositions that expertise in service of student learning rather than control over content.
Implications for Future Research
Although this essay is conceptual in nature, it opens several promising directions for empirical research that can extend and test the ideas developed here. Investigating how implicit theory approaches to pedagogy operate in practice would help establish its effectiveness, scope, and boundaries. Future studies could explore not only student outcomes but also educator practices, contextual factors, and the institutional environments that support or constrain such approaches. This research agenda could also be extended to examine how implicit theory work shapes broader forms of development, including personal, cognitive, and identity-related growth, and how such processes intersect with established traditions in developmental and adult learning theory. The following lines of inquiry outline a potential research agenda for examining how students’ implicit theories of management can be surfaced, refined, and integrated within contemporary management education.
Looking across the implicit theory literature, scholars have tended to study one particular method to surface implicit theories. Hence, one promising direction for future research is to conduct experimental or quasi-experimental comparison studies of different pedagogical methods (e.g., narrative inquiry, visual methods, simulations, critical incident reflection) to reveal their power to surface students’ implicit theories and also the different insights that come from the approaches. Researchers could measure reflection depth, awareness of belief change, transferability to new contexts, and retention over time. In educational psychology, studies of implicit theories (mindsets) already compare interventions (e.g., growth vs. fixed mindset exercises) across different domains (see Karlen & Hertel, 2021). In management education, comparing modalities (verbal, visual, experiential) within the same cohort would help educators discern which methods are more effective under different conditions.
Implicit theories are, by their nature, dynamic but slow to change. Yet, the implicit theory approach to education advanced in this essay carries the underlying assumption that they are mutable both gradually through self-reflection and quickly through threshold jumps (Meyer & Land, 2005; Wright & Gilmore, 2012; Wright & Hibbert, 2015). But these are untested assumptions. Consequently, it is important to trace
Another line of research is to examine how instructors’ own implicit theories of management, teaching, and learning influence their willingness and capacity to implement this pedagogy. Instructors will inevitably bring tacit assumptions about authority, knowledge, and pedagogy to their classrooms (Eichler & Billsberry, 2023); these may foster or inhibit the kind of reflective dialog implicit theory work requires. Research on teacher beliefs and reflective practice can inform this inquiry. For example, studies have explored teachers’ implicit theories of teaching and how they influence teaching morally and in teaching morality (Rissanen et al., 2018). Professional development could play a crucial role in helping educators surface and interrogate their own implicit theories. Workshops or reflective learning communities that use peer dialog, critical incident analysis, or narrative inquiry (S. D. Brookfield, 2011; Cunliffe, 2004) may enable instructors to recognize how their assumptions shape classroom interactions and pedagogical choices. Empirical studies in management education have shown that structured reflexive practice enhances teaching adaptability and authenticity (Hibbert, 2013; Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2015). Future research might examine how such interventions influence educators’ capacity to facilitate implicit theory pedagogy, whether through increased openness to student perspectives, greater tolerance for ambiguity, or more inclusive facilitation styles.
Implicit theories are not culture-neutral; they are shaped by social, institutional, and disciplinary contexts (Chiu et al., 1997; Church et al., 2006; Norenzayan et al., 2002). Comparative studies across national, institutional, or disciplinary settings (e.g., OB vs. strategy vs. entrepreneurship) would help reveal how students’ belief systems vary and how receptive they are to implicit theory pedagogies. For instance, assumptions about hierarchy, power distance, or collectivism may influence how students interpret leadership or control. Such research could also assess whether the same pedagogical methods “travel” across cultures or need adaptation. In educational psychology, cross-cultural research on mindsets has shown variation across domains and populations (see Karlen & Hertel, 2021).
Conclusion: Teaching the Person, Not Just the Topic
In this essay, I have argued that management education will regain its vitality only when it begins with people, not prescriptions, and fully appreciates that students bring their own theories on the topics being taught to the classroom. When management educators teach without first helping students understand the nature of their own theories, formal theory teaching is likely to fall flat and struggle to engage students. I have also argued that the purpose of teaching management is not to transmit theory but to teach students to think, to listen, and to question their own and others’ assumptions. This begins with respect for students’ lived experience and their capacity to make sense of organizational life in their own ways. This is not a call to abandon theory, but a call to teach it in ways that recognize how students already understand the phenomena we invite them to explore. Management educators who start from students’ meanings rather than from abstract models invite deeper engagement and genuine curiosity. When we teach the person rather than the topic, the classroom can become a space of discovery in which students and educators learn together through dialog and reflection.
Footnotes
Author Contributions
Sole authorship.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research or authorship of this article. Open access publishing of this article was supported by La Trobe University through the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) Read and Publish agreement.
