Turning the League Tables: Configurations of Evaluations and MBA Student Interest

Business schools face a deluge of evaluations, from MBA program rankings, to accreditations, to institutional rankings. Schools have largely focused on the positive effects of those evaluations on external stakeholders, leading them to chase ever more rankings or accreditations. However, most schools cannot possibly perform in all evaluations—configurations of performance and nonperformance across evaluations are the norm. Yet, little is known about what configurations of evaluations exist, the interactions within them, or their effects on external stakeholders. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of a global dataset of 144 full-time MBA program years, I investigate which configurations of 13 evaluations were sufficient to attract interest from prospective students. I find six configurations that coalesced into three patterns. Extensive performance across evaluations attracted more interest, but, intriguingly, so did more discerning performance in fewer evaluations, as programs complemented and compensated for nonperformance across evaluations. Single-type performance attracted less interest. Crucially, in some configurations, performance attracted less interest, while nonperformance was sufficient for more interest, suggesting opting out of rankings was viable. I offer two provisional strategies for schools to navigate configurations of evaluations: foster evaluation diversity, and strategically use configurations to challenge the focus on performing in single evaluations.