Journal of Management Education’s 2016 Award-Winning Article

On behalf of the Journal of Management Education, SAGE Publishing would like to congratulate co-authors Richard J. Miller and Rosemary Maellaro, both of the University of Dallas, for winning the Fritz Roethlisberger Award for 2016 for their article, “Getting to the JME_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgRoot of the Problem in Experiential Learning: Using Problem Solving and Collective Reflection to Improve Learning Outcomes,” which can be found in the April 2016 issue of JME. The award’s criteria include scholarly grounding, expected longevity, potential impact, and potential to reach across disciplines.

The article is currently free to read for a limited time.

The abstract for the article is below:

Experiential learning alone does not guarantee that students will accurately conceptualize content, or meet course outcomes in subsequent active experimentation stages. In an effort to more effectively meet learning objectives, the experiential learning cycle was modified with a unique combination of the 5 Whys root cause problem-solving tool and a collective reflection step. Applying these modifications through multiple iterations of in-class exercises, students in lean operations and leadership courses were able to move beyond treating symptoms of problems and generate more viable alternative actions for future applications of their learning. Improved grades, greater achievement of learning objectives, and positive student reactions provide evidence of the modified experiential learning cycle’s success. A generalized framework for using the modified learning cycle in other management courses is also presented.

Don’t want to miss the latest publications from JME? Be sure to sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage!

How Do New Theorizing and Shifts in Learning Emerge?

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Birgit Helene Jevnaker and Atle A. Raa of the Norwegian Business School, Oslo. They recently published an article in Management Learning entitled, “Circles of intellectual discovery in Cambridge and management learning: A discourse analysis of Joan Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition,”  Below, Jevnaker and Raa describe the inspiration for the study and key findings:]

We share an interest in how ideas in management learning can originate from early thinkers aJevnaker_teaser.jpgnd books.  For instance, we are interested in how classic economic thinking has influenced management learning and practice. In our article, we elaborate and discuss how Joan Robinson – in interaction with a circle of other Cambridge economists – developed a new theory of the firm in imperfect competition. In her opinion, imperfect competition was the normal market situation. It could be a limited number of firms that represented the total supply of a consumer product like carbonated soft drinks.

Joan Violet Robinson was a member of an informal group of a younger generation of economists in Cambridge, UK. Through her first book, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, she actually became an innovator of new ideas and comlqncepts. In this book, published in the wake of the Great Depression in the early 1930s, she explains new principles of how markets operate in different ways depending on the nature of the competition. By recognizing that some enterprises can affect prices and competition, this opened up for later, new thinking of how firms act and learn differently.

We were surprised by two things:

  • First, she became a transformer of earlier ideas of perfect competition into ideas of imperfect competition. It is remarkable that a young woman economist, without any formal position in the academy of Cambridge, could quickly synthetize new thinking of how markets are different.
  • Secondly, we noted that a younger generation of academics engaged collectively in critical and alternative theorizing. Robinson and her friend, the economist Richard F. Kahn, as well as other companions met regularly and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s arguments. We call this “epistemic interaction”. By this we understand mutual or reciprocal actions or influence in developing the grounds of knowledge and understanding among agents. In Greek, knowing and its possibility of understanding is episteme.

Through our discourse analysis of Robinson’s 1933-book and its emergence, we seek to explain our story beyond the perspective of a great economist finding new ideas by herself. Her book uncovers several important contributors; Robinson herself anchors her book in both established and new theorizing of firms and markets.

Joan Robinson points to the common existence of a limited number of firms with monopoly power over their offerings. Inspired by the 1930s reality as well as earlier writings, she offers new concepts, for example for exchange situations with only one buyer (monopsony). This is a situation where exploitation of labour can emerge, she points out. Robinson no doubt had a certain pedagogical style. She made many of the complicated economic ideas easier to understand by examples and metaphoric language. She claimed that the tool-users had been given “stones for bread” from the toolmakers (the economic thinkers). Still, she stressed that economics is one of the social sciences that study how society works.

From the circle of young economists’ debating in the 1930s, it is worth noting that firms and managers can be commonly acting within dissimilar or “imperfect” market conditions rather than principally “perfect” ones where firms are facing similar price mechanisms, often discussed in past economic literature. This critique and shift in understanding eventually opened up for management studies recognizing also fundamental differences in managerial knowledge, learning and strategizing. We think that more research on how earlier economic thinking has influenced management practice is a fruitful approach to the study of how management learning have developed through most of the 20th century up to our days. It is of general interest how new academic ideas come about.

Be the first to know about newly published articles and sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage here

Introduction to Special Issue: Learning & Education

[We’re pleased to welcome Laura Galloway of Heriot-Watt University and David Higgins of the University of Liverpool. They recently guest edited a special issue in Industry and Higher Education entitled “Learning and education: Exploring entrepreneurial actions and practice.” From Galloway and Higgins:]

ihea_31_2.cover.pngFollowing the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference in Glasgow in Autumn 2015, we were delighted to develop a special issue of Industry and Higher Education on ‘Learning and education: Exploring entrepreneurial actions and practice’ – the 5th special issue we have done so far. Included are seven papers, collated to comprise a robust contribution to the field.
Several of the papers are on the broad topic of entrepreneurship education in universities, including:

  • Lost in Space’: The Role of Social Networking in University-based Entrepreneurial Learning by Lockett, Quesada-Pallarès, Williams-Middleton, Padilla-Meléndez and Jack who explore the impact of social networking on learning in the UK and Sweden;
  • Entrepreneurship in Vocational Education:  A Case Study of the Brazilian Context by Stadler and Smith, in which entrepreneurship education in vocational studies in Brazil is explored;
  • Breaking in the Waves: Routines and Rituals in Entrepreneurship Education by Neergaard and Christensen, who present an exploratory study of how classroom routines and rituals impact on entrepreneurship education;
  • The Phenomenon of Student-Led Enterprise Groups by Preedy and Jones who investigate how the simulated business ‘roles’ performed in student-led enterprise groups afford and enhance experiential and social learning;
  • A Mystagogical View of ‘Withness’ in Entrepreneurship Education by Refai and Higgins investigates entrepreneurship education from a mystagogy perspective, exploring notions of identity with and initiation into entrepreneurship.

Papers on learning amongst those in firms are also included in this special edition:

  • Help Wanted! Exploring the Value of Entrepreneurial Mentoring at Start-Up by Brodie, Van Saane, and Osowska presents a qualitative study of mentoring in five start-up ventures;
  • Up the ANTe: Understanding Entrepreneurial Leadership Learning through Actor-Network Theory by Smith, Kempster and Barnes focuses on leadership in the small business, how it is learnt and its importance.

These papers form a valuable contribution to the study of entrepreneurship education and learning amongst entrepreneurs. Through this special issue we seek to present a scholarly voice which seeks to foster innovative and accessible scholarly writing which is of crucial importance to any research field. The ability of any publication to develop material which engages with practical experience and action must be a key priority in the advancement of future practice and scholarship. The uniqueness of the ISBE community to develop and stimulate activities which can serve the ISBE community provides an extremely valuable network of resources for early career researchers, students and practitioners.

The special issue articles ‘Breaking in the Waves: Routines and Rituals in Entrepreneurship Education’ by Neergaard and Christensen, and ‘‘Lost in Space’: The Role of Social Networking in University-based Entrepreneurial Learning’ by Lockett, Quesada-Pallarès, Williams-Middleton, Padilla-Meléndez and Jack are currently free to read through Industry and Higher Education.

The 2017 Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference is taking place 8-9 November 2017 in Belfast, and has a theme of ‘‘Borders’, prosperity and entrepreneurial responses.

How to Shift a Student’s Focus from Grades to Self-Discovery

[We’re pleased to welcome author Matthew Eriksen of Providence College. Eriksen recently published an article in the Journal of Management Education entitled “Shared-Purpose Process Implications and Possibilities for Student Learning, Development, and Self-Transformation,” co-authored by Kevin Cooper. Below, Eriksen outlines the inspiration for this study:]

Over my 20 year teaching career, I continuously have found myself disappointed with my students¹ initial level of commitment to, engagement in and responsibility for their learning and development as they entJME_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpger my course.  Just as Lencioni (2002) identifies a lack of commitment as one the five dysfunctions of a team, a low level of student commitment to a course has a significant negative impact on students¹ learning and educational experience, as well as on instructors¹ professional gratification (Jenster & Duncan, 1987). For many, it is as if education has become something that is happening to students rather than something that they actively and intentionally engage in to achieve some purpose beyond getting a good grade and course credit, preferably with a minimal amount of effort.

In our article, Kevin Cooper and I present a response to student disengagement in the form of a shared-purpose process. Although initially conceived to increase students¹ commitment to and engagement in their learning and development, as the shared-purpose process was employed it became apparent that it was also a form of experiential/case-in-point learning (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Linsky,2002) that is relevant to leadership, team and organizational development courses, as establishment of and commitment to a shared purpose and organizing context is important to becoming an effective team or organization.  In addition, once a shared purpose is established and committed to by students and teacher, it can provide a guiding framework through which to facilitate additional partnership and in-class experiential learning opportunities.

In contrast to other student-directed learning methodologies, the shared-purpose process takes into account the social, as well the cognitive, aspects of learning. In addition, it helps students proactively identify and develop strategies to address hindrances to their learning. Over the course of the semester, students¹ self-transformation is facilitated through their weekly engagement in self-reflection (Kolb, 1984; Schön, 1983), self-reflexivity (Cunliffe, 2004; Cunliffe & Easterby-Smith, 2004), peer coaching, and a cogenerative dialogue (Martin, 2006; Stith & Roth, 2006). Cogenerative dialogue allows students to learn from their classmates¹ experiences, as well as their own direct experience.

In addition to being successfully employed in undergraduate and MBA leadership and team courses, this shared purpose process has also be employed in teams and organizations to improve members¹ engagement, commitment and performance, and once the shared purpose has been established, it can be used as a structure to facilitate collaboration and productively work through conflict.

References:

Cunliffe, A.  (2004). “On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner.”Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407-426.
Cunliffe, A. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2004). “From reflection of practicalreflexivity: Experiential learning as lived experience.” In M. Reynolds and R. Vince (Eds.) Organizing Reflection, Ashgate: Aldershot, 30-46.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School Press.
Jenster, P. V. & Duncan, D. D. (1987).  “Creating a context of commitment:
Course agreements as a foundation.” Journal of Management Education, 11(3): 60-71.
Martin, S.  (2006). “Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education.” Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1 (4), 693-720.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Schön, D.  (1983). The reflective practitioner.  London: Temple Smith.
Stith,I. & Roth, W-M. (2006). “Who gets to ask the questions: The ethics in/of cogenerative dialogue praxis.” [46 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:  Qualitative Social Research, 7(2).

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today!

Mobile or Not? Assessing the Instructional Value of Mobile Learning

[We’re pleased to welcome author Catherine Nickerson of Zayed University, UAE.  Nickerson recently published an article in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly entitled “Mobile or Not? Assessing the Instructional Value of Mobile Learning,” co-authored by Chrysi Rapanta and Valerie Priscilla Goby. From Nickerson:]

We became interested in this topic, partly because our university is keen to increase the use of mobile learning across the curriculum, but also because we know that our students – all young Emirati nationals – are very familiar with all forms of new media. We know that in adopting mobile learning 23887038194_2071dd9149_z.jpgin our business communication classes, we are tapping into their already existing skills, and at the same time, we are providing them with additional practice in multi-tasking, and the multi-media, communication skills that they are likely to need once they enter the workforce. However, in addition to the obvious advantages that are associated with student motivation and mobile learning that we established in our previous research, we also wanted to find out if mobile learning would actually help our students to improve their performance.

Our students’ performance on a particular topic improved, when their time in the classroom included mobile learning and also when it didn’t, as long as the teaching that they received was specifically focused. At the same time, the students that received a mobile learning intervention were more likely to perform better than the students in a control group who were not given any specific teaching, than those students who were taught in a traditional way. This meant that in introducing mobile learning, we could expect our students to be more motivated, we could expect them to further develop a set of useful skills, and we could expect them to potentially improve their performance. In the future we aim to incorporate more mobile learning into our business communication classes, while at the same time, continuing to investigate the effect that mobile learning has.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts about the newest research.

Classroom photo attributed to Catalyst Open Source (CC).

 

Learning to Lead: A Comparison of Women’s and General Leadership Development Programs

6109345368_004befc070_z[We’re pleased to welcome Keimei Sugiyama of Case Western Reserve University. Keimei recently published an article in Journal of Management Education with co-authors Kevin V. Cavanagh, Chantal van Esch, Diana Bilimoria, and Cara Brown entitled “Inclusive Leadership Development: Drawing from Pedagogies of Women’s and General Leadership Development Programs.” From Keimei:]

The importance of leadership development training focused on women has been well understood given the challenges of overcoming gender biases, stereotypes and unwritten rules that affect women in their leadership identity transition.  Yet there have also been shifts in how we think about the important qualities of leaders such that general programs include enhancing competence in self-awareness and emotional and social skills, making the work of leadership not just about meeting business demands but also about meeting the interpersonal needs of an increasingly globalized and diverse workforce.  If this is the case, then does there continue to be a need for women-focused programs or has our very understanding of leadership shifted enough to include women?

In this context, we were inspired to compare general and women’s leadership development programs in order to explore the following questions:

  • Are general and women’s leadership development programs becoming more similar or do they remain distinct in assumptions of what “leadership” is?
  • How do these assumptions affect how relating to others is addressed in developing as a leader?
  • How do these assumptions address the leadership identity transition of understanding both self and others to develop leadership capabilities?

What we found was that although General Leadership Development Programs JME(GLDPs) and Women’s Leadership Development Program (WLDPs) shared similar themes of leadership development, there was a stark contrast in what each type of program emphasized.  GLDPs were more likely to reflect assumptions of a leader as an independent self, separate from others, and manifested in more agentic and transactional leadership approaches.  WLDPs were more likely to reflect assumptions of a leader as a relational self, learning through connecting with others, and approaching the transition to leadership as relational and identity-based.  Given these contrasts and the challenges that continue to face women in the transition to leadership, we concluded that WLDPs do continue to offer significant value in supporting the advancement of women in leadership.

What surprised us in this study is that despite acknowledgement of the global context of the increasingly diverse workforce, both types of programs in their descriptions did not directly highlight how leadership involves being inclusive of multiple diverse identities and intersectionality (e.g., being a woman of color). We suggest that highlighting the importance of inclusive leadership that both values uniqueness and creates belonging for diverse multiple identities is important for any leadership development program.

We also developed a model that integrates pedagogies implicit in both types of programs to suggest a framework for inclusive leadership development. We anticipate that this framework will be helpful in better balancing and promoting more inclusive approaches to leadership in both types of programs. We also hope that this model helps to expand the research on inclusive leadership and informs new pathways for leaders to be developed in ways that value and enhance all their meaningful identities.

The abstract for the paper:

Trends in extant literature suggest that more relational and identity-based leadership approaches are necessary for leadership that can harness the benefits of the diverse and globalized workforces of today and the future. In this study, we compared general leadership development programs (GLDPs) and women’s leadership development programs (WLDPs) to understand to what extent program descriptions addressed inclusive leadership—leadership that draws on relational skills to value both the uniqueness and belonging needs of diverse identities to create business effectiveness for the long term. GLDPs predominantly reflected pedagogical assumptions of separate knowing, development of the autonomous self, and masculine leadership approaches of agentic and transactional leadership. In contrast, pedagogical assumptions of connected knowing, development of the relational self, and relational and identity-based leadership approaches were more prevalent in WLDPs. These findings suggest that WLDPs continue to offer significant value to supporting women leaders in their advancement, yet both WLDPs and GLDPs can do more to be inclusive of additional diverse identities to better develop leaders of the future who can lead with inclusive behaviors. We suggest a pedagogical framework for inclusive leadership development that may better balance and promote synergies between achieving business priorities and relating to others and their diverse identities.

You can read “Inclusive Leadership Development: Drawing from Pedagogies of Women’s and General Leadership Development Programs” from Journal of Management Education free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to be the first to know about the latest research published by Journal of Management EducationClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Image attributed to aiesecgermany (CC)

Laissez-Colbert: Using The Colbert Report to Teach Macroeconomics

512px-rally_to_restore_sanity_andor_fear_-_colbertIt is not often that economics and comedy come together, but for professors looking to infuse their macroeconomics courses with comedic appeal, look no further than The Colbert Report. A recent article from The American Economist from author Gregory M. Randolph entitled “Laissez-Colbert: Teaching Introductory Macroeconomics with The Colbert Report” outlines how the Comedy Central show can be useful tool to engage students and teach lessons about macroeconomic principles, including GDP, supply and demand, and unemployment. The abstract for the paper:

The Colbert Report combines comedic entertainment and current events, two pedagogical sources that have the potential to increase student interest in classes and improve student learning. This article offers suggestions on the use of segments from The Colbert Report to teach introductory macroeconomics. Segments Current Issue Coverare included that relate to comparative advantage, supply and demand, externalities, GDP, unemployment, classical versus Keynesian theory and the Great Depression, fiscal policy and economic stimulus packages, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, money, taxes, and foreign aid. Guidance is provided regarding the use of the clips in an introductory macroeconomics class.

You can read “Laissez-Colbert: Teaching Introductory Macroeconomics with The Colbert Report” from The American Economist free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by The American EconomistClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Stephen Colbert image attributed to Cliff (CC)