FROM MANAGEMENT TRAINER TO MANAGEMENT EDUCATOR: CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED Kathryn Aten, University of Oregon (USA) 1 Luciara Nardon, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School (Belgium) “You cannot run a business, or anything else on a theory.” —Harold Geneen “There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” —Kurt Lewin The current discussion of the state of management education has generated much interest among academics. Pfeffer and Fong’s findings brought into question the relevance of management research and the influence of an MBA on future success (2002). More recently, Mintzberg argued that as a craft, management cannot be taught in a classroom setting to those with little or no experience and that therefore traditional MBA programs are doomed to failure (2004). And, as illustrated in the first of this paper’s opening quotes, the value of academic theories conveyed in MBA programs have been questioned, with some arguing that they may even be “bad for practice” (Donaldson, 2002, Ghoshal & Peter, 1996). However, as illustrated in the second opening quote, some would argue that theory is inherently practical, supporting the notion that management theories and the educational programs in which they are imparted may also be of practical value. Moreover, prospective students continue to apply to MBA programs, alumni rate their MBA programs highly, and corporate recruiters actively seek graduates (AACSB, 2005). While the validity of these indicators of the quality or relevance of management education may be questionable, they do show that some stakeholders continue to find value in graduate level management education. Amidst these perspectives is an enduring call to increase the relevance of management education while maintaining rigor (Bennis & O’Tool; 2005, DeAngelo, Deangelo & Zimmerman, 2005; Mowday, 1996). The conflicting perspectives discussed above are rooted in differing assumptions regarding what is management and the best way to learn, and therefore, to teach it. At one extreme, management is viewed as a set of skills and methods which can be applied to identify and implement the correct management solutions—correct being consistent across environments. At the other extreme, management is a craft based on judgment enacted in and specific to a unique, messy and constantly changing environment. These assumptions support differing views of the value and role of theory and experience in teaching and learning management. The first view suggests aspiring managers master a body of general theories and best practices which can then be applied in a variety of settings, while the second suggests that management must be learned in situ. Both views present problems for management educators. As critics have noted, general theories taken out of context seem to have little relevance to the day-to-day 1
Direct correspondence to
[email protected]
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
1
problems faced by practicing managers. However, academic institutions offer little unique and are in fact at a disadvantage vs. corporate universities if they focus on context specific training. To address this conundrum and explore how we might increase the relevancy of management education we begin by drawing from the practices of management trainers and practicing managers. First, like management trainers we consider what the job entails and identify the knowledge and skills required to do it. Next, like managers, we identify the areas in which academic universities have an advantage over other sources of management preparation. We draw on our experience as managers and as a management trainer is several organizations and more recent experience as management educators in an academic setting to address two related questions 1) What is the role of business schools in producing useful graduates for recruiting organizations while leaving organizationspecific training to such organizations and, 2) How can classroom knowledge be integrated with workplace knowledge in the education process. We first discuss the implications of the current environment on management practice. We then consider the role of learning and negotiating reality in the practice of management. Finally, we identify skills of continuing relevance to organizations which can be acquired and practiced in a classroom setting. Management as Learning and Negotiating Reality The general socio-political, legal and economic environment faced by managers today is extremely complicated and rapidly changing. Forces such as deregulation, mergers and acquisitions, changing societal expectations, disruptive technologies, and the emergence of trading blocks and increased globalization have substantially altered the competitive landscape of many industries (Prahalad and Hamel, 1994). In addition, managers face frequently changing organizational environments. An American worker will hold on average more than 10 jobs between the ages of 18 and 38 (US Department of Commerce, 2006). Furthermore, in 2004, 7.25% of working Americans changed occupations “at the most detailed level” and of those 58% also changed their industry (Shniper, 2005). Those remaining in the same organization and career can expect substantial change within their organizations resulting from the trends listed above: mergers and acquisitions may substantially change the character and expectations of organizations and new technologies and changing social expectations may foster new regulations and professional fields, requiring new skills and certifications. “Managers …wade into the ocean of events that surround the organization and actively try to make sense of them” by collecting data, interpreting or attributing meaning, and learning or taking action. (Daft and Weick, 1984: 286). Success in much of management today is dependent on the ability to adapt to and master constantly changing environments. This requires the ability to learn (Kolb, 1976, Argyris, 1995) and construct, or negotiate, reality as managers’ interactions construct their social environment and appropriate actions in it. (Berger and Lukeman, 1966 2 ). Prospective managers need to learn how to learn from and make sense of varied and changing environments (Schwandt, 2005). 2
Friedman and Berthoin Antal (2005) use the term negotiating reality to refer to the negotiation of a common meaning in an intercultural setting. We use the tem in a more general sense and expand on their idea as negotiating meaning below.
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
2
According to experiential learning theory, knowledge is created through a combination of grasping and transforming experience (Kolb, 1976; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The learning process is composed of four stages which include the two modes of constructing knowledge: experience is grasped through concrete experience and abstract conceptualization and transformed through reflective observation and active experimentation (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). While it may begin in any of the four stages, learning is a process of experience, observation and reflection, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. As noted above, management requires both learning and interpretation. Managers make interpretations by scanning or collecting data, giving meaning to data, and taking action or learning (Daft and Weick, 1984). The combination of the learning and interpretation processes are depicted Figure 1 and explained through the following example. A junior manager presents an idea to her senior who does not respond as enthusiastically as the junior manager expected. This experience engenders feelings in the junior manager which form the basis for observation and reflection. The junior manager may feel intrigued, surprised, or offended. She then reflects on the experience and her feelings to interpret and make sense of the situation. This reflection forms the basis of abstract concepts and generalizations. As the junior manager thinks about her experience, she develops a theory to explain what is happening and help her to identify alternative courses of action. For example, she might conclude that she chose a poor time to present the idea, that the idea needs further development or that her presentation was not clear. Her theories will guide future experience by suggesting actions she should take now or in the future. She then tests the implications of her theories by experimenting with new actions, initiating a new cycle of learning as she experiences the results of her actions. Successful learning requires each of the stages and abilities. When action is taken without reflection and conceptualization, learning is short circuited. Figure 1: Learning and Interpretation Concrete Experiences
Scanning
Active Experimentation
Action
Interpretation
Reflective Observation
Theory of action
Abstract Conceptualization
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
3
The example described is an individual process. While experiential learning theory has remained one of the most influential theories of management learning (Kayes, 2002, 137), it has been criticized for its failure to account for the social aspects of learning (Holman, Pavlica, and Thorpe, 1997). Kayes (2002) addresses this concern, arguing that concrete experience is manifested in an emotional state of need which becomes an internalized representation through observation and reflection. He relates abstract conceptualization to identity which serves to organize experience and equates active experimentation to social interaction through which experiences arise. Building upon these ideas, we suggest that much of management learning in both business and academic organizations occurs as two or more individuals are simultaneously experiencing problems, reflecting on them, theorizing about them, and engaging in new actions. This process is depicted in Figure 2. From this perspective the learning process is based in experience that is interdependent and interactive, not independent or linear. The learning of one party, leads to an action that will influence the learning of the other party. For example, if a manager discovers that a long term employee has lied on his application, the manager is likely to think (reflect) individually about this experience, make some conclusions (theorize), and then go talk to the employee or a colleague (take action). At this point, the colleague experiences the conversation, reflects, theorizes and also takes action influencing the next steps of the first manager. Both parties learn as they experiment and assess the results of their actions. Figure 2: Interactive Experiential Learning Concrete Experience
Concrete Experience
action action
Reflect
Develop new theory
Reflect
Develop new theory
When management is viewed as a process of interactive learning in a changing environment, a key aspect of management is the ability to negotiate reality. Negotiating reality involves identifying multiple parties’ underling assumptions and tacit knowledge and applying these to address management issues (Friedman and Berthoin Antal, 2005). We suggest that managers negotiate reality by negotiating four areas: identities, meaning, rules, and behaviors. Negotiating Identity. An individual’s identity is the set of attributes that is central, enduring, and distinctive about the individual (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Identity is constructed through social interactions, whereby individuals create categories and define themselves in relation to others. This process of categorization influences not only how individuals position themselves in relation to others, but also how people act and feel about the interactions. Social identification theory suggests that one’s actions will be congruent with one’s identity. Individuals tend to engage in activities that are harmonious with their self-concept and to support institutions that embody their identities (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Interactive learning in changing or new contexts is potentially challenging. When we engage with others in a different or changed context, our assumptions, values, and
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
4
beliefs may be questioned. Managers must preserve their individual identity while at the same time respecting and preserving others’ identities. To preserve his or her own identity, a manager needs to develop self-awareness, an understanding of who he is, what her values are, and what is his place in a social interaction. To preserve others identities, a manager must develop empathy. Empathy refers to the ability to identify and understand the other’s feelings and motives. Through self-awareness and empathy, managers can negotiate acceptable identities in which their own and others’ senses of self are preserved, generating positive feelings and supporting continued learning. Negotiating Meaning. Meaning refers to the interpretation individuals assign to their experience and observations. New assignments of meaning are based on current and past experience. Jointly understood meaning is constructed through interaction, as individuals exchange information (Berger and Lukeman, 1966). Successfully negotiating jointly understood meaning involves uncovering hidden assumptions and developing awareness of how past experiences are shaping perceptions, expectations, and behaviors. Managers must inquire to discover the underpinnings of their and others’ reasoning, and advocate their own thoughts and desires (Friedman and Berthoin Anatal, 2005). Managers must inquire, “How do I/you perceive the situation? What do I/you wish to achieve in this situation? What actions am I/are you taking to achieve this goal?” Inquiry requires suspending judgment, letting go of previous understanding, and tolerating uncertainty until understanding is developed. Advocacy refers to expressing what one thinks and desires. Competent managers also advocate, stating clearly what they think and want, and explaining the reasoning behind their views. When individuals combine inquiry with advocacy they share information about their assumptions, the meanings they associate with an issue, and the reasoning for their thinking. This sharing of assumptions and interpretations creates the basis for the emergence of a mutually acceptable meaning. Negotiating Rules. Once individuals agree on acceptable identities and meanings, they need to negotiate rules that will inform future learning interactions. These rules are akin to theories of action (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith, 1985) and, overtime, create a common context. To negotiate rules, managers must integrate and transform information (Earley and Gibson, 2002). For example, a manager notices that her counterpart looked annoyed when she answered the phone during a meeting, she noticed that he turned his cell phone off, and that he signaled to his assistant that he should not be interrupted. The manager integrates these pieces of information into a theory of explanation—her counterpart does not appreciate interruptions. Continuing with the interruption example, the manager then transforms her theory of explanation into a theory of action about what she should do— she should avoid interruptions that are not important and apologize for any interruption that might occur. As interaction occurs and the managers experiment with actions, rules are created and adjusted. Negotiating Behaviors. Finally, once individuals agree on a set of rules and develop theories of action, they need to complete the learning cycle by negotiating behaviors (Inkson, 2003). Engaging in new behaviors requires behavioral flexibility; that is, the ability to switch styles and accomplish things in more than one way. It is easier for most managers to engage in some behaviors than others (Kolb, 1976; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Successful managers are able to recognize their weaknesses and to compensate
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
5
with other behaviors. For instance, individuals who find it difficult to communicate indirectly may compensate by searching for opportunities to discuss issues one-on-one and prefacing their direct statements with an apology. Additionally, competent managers need to be mindful of themselves and others in learning interactions. They must be aware of their own behavior as well as the effect of their behavior on others. By paying attention to what they are feeling and doing, what others are doing, and how others react to what is said and done, managers discover and engage in behaviors that are consistent with negotiated rules, meanings, and identities. The Role of Academic Universities Critics of academic university management programs often suggest as a remedy more practical management experience. At the extreme, Mintzberg argues that we cannot successfully educate managers in an academic setting and recommends focusing our efforts on working managers. This strategy, while an efficient solution to how to make management education relevant to working managers, is not viable for many universities and more importantly ignores some of the needs of two important constituents: organizations and aspiring managers. This strategy places the burden of early management education on organizations by asking them to provide the early experiences and failures from which managers will learn. And, it asks aspiring managers to learn somewhere else. In effect, taking the common dilemma faced by job candidates—I can’t get experience until I have a job but can’t get a job until I have experience—to the education process as well—I can’t get an education until I have experience, but can’t get experience until I have an education. We suggest that while internships and work experience are a vital part of management education, and partnerships with business organizations are one necessary way of improving management education, we must also look at what aspects of required knowledge might be best developed in an academic university. US corporations continue to invest in internal training for current and prospective managers. The number of corporate universities is predicted to increase from 2,000 in 2002 to 3,700 in 210 (AACSB, 2002). Corporate universities have access to job sites, problems and people; far better knowledge of the specific needs of their organizations; and understanding of organization specific knowledge. Academic universities have the ability to provide with limited risk 1) exposure to a variety of perspectives and contexts and 2) opportunities to try out perspectives and practice applying skills in various, albeit invented, contexts. When one focuses on the value added to management education by these two common sources, the differentiation becomes not the distinction between, and value of, theory vs. practice as is often argued in the management literature, but the distinction between context-specific vs. context-general knowledge. While corporations can be expected to excel at developing context-specific knowledge and skills through on-the-job training, academic universities should be able to excel in developing context-general knowledge and skills through experiential education. As noted above, given the extreme change occurring in both the general and organization specific environments, aspiring managers require the ability to negotiate multiple contexts. Exposure to and practice negotiating these contexts is extremely relevant knowledge.
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
6
Gaining this knowledge directly through work experience is costly and time consuming. Given the relatively short tenure of the average professional with a particular organization, we would expect organizations to focus their training efforts on immediatecontext-specific needs. Furthermore, universities have access to and the freedom to experiment with, new ideas and different perspectives with little risk. Academic universities include many academic programs; classes may include students from different nationalities, socioeconomic backgrounds and disciplines. University libraries are storehouses of new and re-discovered old ideas. In addition, universities sponsor events, speaking engagements and exhibits, which provide exposure to diverse topics and perspectives. These are valuable resources available to academic management programs that are more difficult to access in a corporate setting. While American corporations are certainly diverse, most organizations evaluate job candidates’ ability to “fit in” when making a hiring selection. While corporate trainers have access to public libraries and financial resources to purchase materials, they do not have the expertise or time to search out and comprehend emerging research. Finally, if a student fails a task he or she faces a bad grade and perhaps the instructor faces a bad evaluation rather than a lost job or profit. If we return to the experiential learning model, academic universities should be able to excel in all stages. The answer to the question, “What practice relevant knowledge can be developed in a university setting?” is the ability to learn and to negotiate changing and often conflicting perceptions of reality. Prospective managers must learn to develop and test their own theories and negotiate agreement on what is and what should be done about it. While we cannot provide context specific knowledge and experience, we can prepare students of management for the experiences they will have and teach them how to learn interactively from these experiences. General academic theories provide both a model of how to theorize and a starting place for learning. However, management education can not stop with imparting general theories. Students of management need concrete experience from which to hone their skills in developing their own theories and negotiating reality. However, this experience does not have to be in an industry context in order to develop practice relevant knowledge. The challenge facing management educators is to provide learning experiences through which management students can practice developing theories, negotiating realities, and applying what they learn to a variety of contexts. Given the advantages of university environments discussed above, with careful design of learning experiences, this is a challenge universities should be able to meet.
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
7
References AACSB International. 2005. Why Management Education Matters: Its Impact on Individual, Organizations, and Society. Tampa, Florida: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. AACSB International. 2002. Management Education at Risk. . Tampa, Florida: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Argyris, C. Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10: 20-26. Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Revieiw, 14, 20-40. Barr, S. and Roy, H. 1999. Custom suits, Part 1 of 2. CFO The Magazine for Senior Financial Executives, June. Bennis, W. and O'Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their Way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 96-104. Berger, P. and Lukeman, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday. Daft, R.L. and Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9: 284-295. DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., Zimmerman, W. 2005. What’s really wrong with U.S. Business Schools? http://ssrn.com/abstract=766404 Donaldson, L. 2002. Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1: 9-106. Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (2002) Multinational Teams: A New Perspective, Lawrence Earlbaum and Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Friedman, V. J. and Berthoin Antal, A. 2005. Negotiating reality: A theory of action approach to intercultural competence. Management Learning. 36: 69-86. Ghoshal, S. and Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21: 13-47 Holman, D., Pavlica, K., & Thorpe, R. 1997. Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning: The contribution of social constructivism and activity theory. Management Learning, 28: 135-148.
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
8
Inkson, T.D., 2003. Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business, BK: San Francisco, CA. Kayes, D. C. 2002. Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1: 137-139. Kolb, D. A. 1976. Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18: 21-31. Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4: 193-212. Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers Not MBA’s: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Mowday, R. 1997. 1996 Presindential address. Academy of Management Review, 22 Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1: 78-95 Prahalad, C. K., Hamel, G. 1994. Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15: 5-16. Schwandt, D. R. 2005. When managers become philosophers: Integrating learning with sensemenking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4: 176-192. Shniper, L. 2005. Occupational Mobility, January 2004. Monthly Labor Review, December 2005, 30-35. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2006. Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. 2006. Economic and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau: Washing D.C.
DRAFT 8-1-06. Please do not cite without permission.
9
