Insead File:As cliched as it may seem, business school clearly shows that great minds do indeed think alike, writes Niall Dunne

Allow me to explain. Over the past month we've been privileged to hear from the chief executives of some of the world's largest firms, including Nestle, Unilever, and Telefonica. The guest lecturers' leadership lessons and managerial styles differed significantly, but their list of pressing concerns displayed striking similarities.

Maybe it's shareholder activism, maybe it's the influence of the business press and business schools, or maybe it's just common sense, but it was heartening to hear each chief executive tell us how corporate social responsibility must now be integrated into business strategy.

The environment also appears to figure prominently in chief executives' thinking. Each leader spoke of a future with "carbon constraints", the need to minimise their corporation's carbon footprint, and an aspiration to become carbon neutral in terms of energy usage.

Inevitably, cynics will suggest that top-level managers see opportunities for "value innovation" in the environment, since many customers are willing to pay more for a green alternative, or argue that corporations are still acting selfishly, increasingly fearful of losing environmentally concerned customers.

But why question the chief executives' motives, once their policies are positive? Shareholders' environmental expectations are evolving, chief executives are listening, and "green" business practices are now becoming a prerequisite for profitability in the modern corporation.

The syndrome of "great minds thinking alike" has also attracted the attention of Insead's strategy school. If you're supplying a product or service to a market, there's little profit to be made if you and your competitor think, act and price alike. Hence there's a need for some original thinking among competitors.

To conceptualise the need for differentiated thinking, Insead's strategy professors have developed the "blue ocean" framework, which advises companies to seek clear, open markets when serving customers, rather than entering congested, competitive and dangerous "red oceans".

French politics, however, more closely resembles a "red" than a "blue" ocean. No doubt the majority of French voters who elected President Nicolas Sarkozy last month assure themselves that great minds think alike, but it's going to be interesting to see if the new resident of the Élysée Palace can enact the reforms he promised.

For example, the day of Sarkozy's inauguration happened to fall on a bank holiday - one of four French bank holidays in the month of May. What's more, the holidays all fall midweek, and tend to run into weekends. Boosting productivity will not be plain sailing for Sarkozy when his country spends more time on holiday than any other European nation.

However, life goes on at Insead, irrespective of bank holidays, and our core academic courses are coming to an end. The students' focus shifts from accountancy to accountability as core classes conclude, and we're now enjoying thought-provoking debates in international politics.

We were honoured this month to hear a guest lecture from Michel Rocard, prime minster of France between 1988 and 1991, and while some of the speaker's socialist views proved unpopular among the student body, it was important to realise that great corporate and political minds don't necessarily think alike.

Students, however, do display a tendency towards "group-think", at least if our collective elective choices are anything to judge by.

Now that our core classes are almost over, students have the opportunity to choose electives, to study specific topics of interest and courses relevant to future career paths.

Maybe great minds do think alike, or maybe students are just being pragmatic and choosing courses based on future potential earnings, but finance, strategy and entrepreneurial electives are proving the most popular choices.

Finance and strategy are obvious paths for aspirant bankers and consultants to follow, but the popularity of the entrepreneurial courses is more difficult to define.

We're currently being taught how to craft and analyse business plans and elevator pitches, but it's hard to tell whether students see themselves as future inventors preparing to enter the dragon's den, or as future venture capitalists and private equity investors, assessing different investment opportunities.

Finally, if it's true that great minds think alike, then it's probably also true that some not-so-great minds share thoughts in common, and there's no easier way to spot this than through the use and abuse of business jargon.

We come to business school to learn the language of commerce, but it seems inevitable that we'll all graduate with a diploma in business jargon as well.

Seriously, the next time someone asks you to "think outside the box", stop for a moment, and ask "when did I get into a box? Did you put me in a box?"

But my own favourite piece of business jargon encountered YTD (that's year-to-date, by the way) has to be the following e-mail auto-signature. "Yours sincerely", "regards" and "yours faithfully" have been sent to the recycle bin; some now finish e-mails with "I hope that was a value add". Truly, that's a great mind at work.