“One cannot see one’s own eyes.” — Ethiopian proverb
This simple proverb captures a powerful truth: no matter how capable or experienced we are, we all have blind spots.
That insight applies directly to business schools pursuing accreditation.
From within an institution, everything may appear aligned:
- A clearly articulated mission
- A strategic plan approved by faculty and administration
- Faculty with strong academic and professional credentials
- Assurance of Learning (AoL) processes in place
- Active engagement with students and stakeholders
And yet, accreditation reviews are conducted by external peer reviewers representing other, often similar business schools and such bodies as:
- AACSB International
- EFMD Global (EQUIS)
- Association of MBAs (AMBA)
These organizations evaluate schools from a different vantage point: one that is comparative, evidence-based, and standards-driven.
What feels coherent internally may look fragmented externally. What feels “good enough” may not meet global peer expectations. This is where “blind spots” emerge.
Common Blind Spots in Accreditation
Some of the most common and serious “blind spots” with respect to accreditation standards that we see are discussed below.
Strategy–Execution Gaps
A compelling strategic plan exists, but documentation does not demonstrate systematic execution of the plan, measurable outcomes, or continuous improvement.
Assurance of Learning Weaknesses
Learning goals are defined, but:
- Rubrics are missing or inconsistent
- Data collection cycles lack discipline
- “Closing of the loop” has never been performed in a meaningful way
All these issues can lead external peer reviews to a conclusion that the school’s assessment system is not adequate.
Faculty Qualification Risk
Faculty classifications (e.g., SA, PA, SP, IP under AACSB) may seem to be strong overall, but there are clear gaps when faculty qualifications are analyzed by disciplines, programs, or with respect to teaching loads or future retirement projections.
Documentation and Narrative Misalignment
The self-evaluation report may describe excellence, but the supporting documents do not fully align with the narrative. Quite often, external peer reviewers usually pay less attention to what business schools say and more attention to what the actual documentation appears to suggest.
Impact Gaps
Advisory boards exist, but their strategic influence is unclear. Corporate engagement is active, but impact evidence is limited.
Oftentimes, these issues are not real problems or failures with respect to accreditation standards. Quite often, these are just perspective gaps that can be rectified with minimal training or additional supporting documentation.
What an Accreditation Consultant Actually Does
Of course, an accreditation consultant does not replace institutional leadership or faculty ownership when it comes to rectifying these deficiencies. Instead, accreditation consultants provide:
- External Perspective: Accreditation consultants can read your documentation as a peer reviewer would.
- Standards Interpretation: Accreditation standards are principle-based and sometimes ambiguous. Experienced consultants understand how standards are interpreted during review visits.
- Risk Identification: Accreditation consultants can identify structural vulnerabilities early, before they become findings of external reviewers.
- Narrative Coherence: Accreditation consultants ensure alignment among mission, vision, strategy, faculty portfolio, assurance of earning, engagement, and impact.
- Visit Preparation: Accreditation consultants can help a business simulate reviewer questions and stress-test responses via a “mock visit.”
In short, they help the institution see what it cannot see on its own.
Accreditation Is a Strategic Transformation — Not Compliance Exercise
Accreditation is often misunderstood as a documentation project. It is not.
It is a strategic transformation process that requires:
- Cross-functional alignment
- Data discipline
- Cultural buy-in
- Evidence of impact
- Continuous improvement
Leading this transformation while simultaneously evaluating it objectively is extremely difficult.
Just as an organization may hire an external auditor for financial integrity, engaging an accreditation consultant strengthens academic integrity and strategic clarity.
The Value of a Second Set of Eyes
The Ethiopian proverb reminds us: You cannot see your own eyes. But someone else can.
For business schools, that second set of eyes can mean:
- Fewer surprises during the peer review visit
- Greater faculty confidence
- Clearer documentation
- Stronger strategic coherence
- Reduced stress
- Higher probability of a positive outcome
Seeing clearly, before others evaluate you, is not a weakness. It is strategic leadership.
Keep in mind that for many business schools pursuing accreditation the question is not whether your school is strong. The question is whether you can objectively see your own blind spots.
Sometimes, the most valuable step forward is inviting someone else to help you see.