Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education

7/25/2019 Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/learning-cognitive-and-emotional-intelligence-competencies-through-graduate 1/14

®

Academy oi Management Learning and Education 2002, Vol. 1, No. 2, 150-162.

Learning Cognitive and

Emotional Intelligence

Competencies Through

Graduate Management

Education

RICHARD E BOYATZIS ELIZABETH C. STUBBS. a n d SC OT T N. TAYLOR

Case Wes tern Reserve Univers i ty

A major challenge to

MB

education is to develop the ability to use mana gement

knowledge. Entering and graduating data from six full-time and three part-time cohorts

taking an MB program designed to develop these competencies is analyzed and

compared to baseline data on two full-time an d two part-time cohorts. Results show that

cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies can be developed in MB students

but not with a typical MB curriculum.

INTRODUCTION

One pr imary objec t ive of graduate management

educat ion is to prepare people to be outstanding

managers and leaders . This means helping people

develop the funct ional , declarat ive, procedural ,

and metacogni t ive knowledge needed. For exam-

ple,

market segmentat ion for a new product , the

t ime i t takes a polymer to set , calculat ing the

present value of a capi tal acquisi t ion, and ethical

pr inc iples as appl ied in in ternat ional bus iness

transact ions, respect ively. This knowledge is nec-

essary but not sufficient for the leader or manager

to add valu e to organizat ions. In this sense, knowl-

edge bases are threshold ta lents .

To be an effective m an age r or leader , a person

needs the abi l i ty to use knowledge and to make

things happe n. These can be ca lled com petencies,

wh ich Boyatzis (1982) defined a s the und erlyin g

characterist ics of a person that lead to or cause

effective an d ou tsta nd ing perform ance (p. 21).

Whether direct empirical research is reviewed

(Boyatzis, 1982; Bray, C am pb ell, & Gr an t, 1974;

Ho ward & Bray, 1988; Kotter, 1982; Luth an s,

Ho dgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Thornton

Byham,

1982) or me ta-analy t ic sy nthe ses a re use d (Camp-

bell, Du nnette, L awler, & Weick, 1970; Golem an,

1998;

Sp enc er & Sp enc er, 1993), the re a re a set of

competencies tha t have been shown to cause or

predict outstanding manager or leader perfor-

mance. Regardless of author or s tudy, they tend to

include abilities from three clusters: (1) Cognitive

or intel lectual abi l i ty, such as systems thinking

(2) self-mana gem ent or intrap erson al ab i l i t ies

such as adap tabi l i ty; and (3) relat ions hip m an ag e-

ment or interpersonal abi l i t ies , such as network-

ing. The lat ter two clusters make up what we cal

emotional intel l igence competencies (Goleman

1998).

Beyond knowledge and competencies , the addi

t ional ingredient necessary to outstanding perfor-

man ce ap pea rs to be the des i re to use one 's t a lent

This seems driven by a person's values, phi loso-

phy, sense of cal l ing or mission, and unconscious

motives and trai ts . These three domains of capa-

bi l i ty ( i .e . , knowledge, competencies, and motiva-

t ional drivers) help u s to un der stan d what a person

can do (i .e. , knowledge), how a person can do it

(i.e., competencies) , and

why a

person feels the

nee d to do i t ( i.e. , valu es, mo tives, an d unco nscious

disposi t ions) .

Although many schools acknowledge the impor-

tance of competencies or ski l ls in graduate man-

agement educat ion, many facul ty st i l l see them as

the responsibility of the career placement office or

adjunct faculty hired to conduct noncredit work-

shops. The chal lenge today is to integrate the de-

velopment of these competencies into the curr icu-



Boyatzis Stubbs and Taylor

151

lum a s an essen tial element in its mission; in other

words, to adopt the challenge of developing the

whole person so that it is as fundamental to our

objectives and methods as accounting. Instead of

asking about what we were teaching, early at-

tempts at outcome assessment were an effort to

answer questions about what our students were

learning. With funding from foundations and fed-

eral a gen cies in the U.S. outcome asse ssm ent be-

gan to spread in the early 1970s to innovative col-

leges and those concerned about nontraditional

stud ents (Mentkowski and Assoc iates, 2000; Win-

ter, McClelland,

Stewart, 1981). The early results

were sobering, with only one clear conclusion—

students graduating from our colleges were older

than they were when they entered. Evidence was

reported of knowledge acquisition, improvement

in competencies—including critical thinking—and

shifts in motivation, but these were far less fre-

quent than wa s pred icted or expected (Banta, 1993;

Pasc arella & Terenzini,

1991;

Winter, McClelland,

& Stewart, 1981).

Even before the humbling Porter and McKibbin

Report (1988) showed that

MBA

gradu ates were not

fulfilling the n eeds of em ployers or the promise of

their schools, the AACSB started a series of out-

come asse ssm ent studie s in 1978. They showed

faculty to be effective in producing significant stu-

dent improvement with regard to some abilities

(Boyatzis & Sokol, 1982; Developm ent Dimensions

International

[DDI],

1985). Boyatzis and Sokol (1982)

showed that students had significantly increased

on 40-50% of the competencies assessed in two

MBA programs, while DDI (1985) reported that stu-

den ts in the two MBA prog ram s had significantly

increased on 44% of the v ariables asse ssed . They

also d ecre ased significantly on 10% of the vari-

ables in the Boyatzis and Sokol study. When the

overall degree of improvement in these abilities

wa s c alcu lated (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,

2002), thes e stu dies showed about a

2%

increase in

emotional intelligence competencies in the 1-2

yea rs stude nts w ere in the MBA program s. Unfor-

tunately, the samples were not random, and may

have been subject to volunteer effects. Given the

common criticisms directed at

MBA

grad uates , it is

difficult to believe that many

MBA

programs were

attaining even those modest gains.

In terms of program impact, as of the early 1990s,

only a few management schools had conducted

student-change outcome studies that compared

their students upon entry into the program and at

graduation (Albanese et al., 1990). Many schools

have conducted other types of outcome studies,

namely studies of their alumni or studies with em-

ployers and prospective employers (Kridel, 1998).

Some schools have examined the student change

from specific courses (Bigelow, 1991; Specht &

Sand lin, 1991). Studen t-change outcome stud ies

have be en a focus in unde rgrad uate programs (As-

tin,

1993;

Banta,

1993;

Mentkowski et al.,

1991;

Ment-

kowski Strait, 1983; Pascarella Terenzini, 1991;

Winter et al., 1981), but relatively little has been

documented about the effects of graduate pro-

grams.

Hence the question, Can

MBAs

and participants

in executive education develop competencies

related to outstanding managerial and leader

performance?

etho s

Overall esign

This study uses a combination of cross-sectional

and longitudinal, time-series data collected as

part of a 50-year longitudinal study of multiple

cohorts of MBA students at the Weatherhead

School of M anagem ent (WSOM), Case W estern Re-

serve University. The longitudinal study focuses

on the impact of the

MBA

program on the develop-

ment of cognitive and emotional intelligence com-

petencies. Since 1990, entering data have been

collected during a required course. Leadership As-

sessment and Development (for a detailed descrip-

tion of the course and the longitudinal study, see

Boyatzis, 1994, 1995; Boyatzis et al., 1995; Goleman,

Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). The course leads stu-

dents through assessments and activities about

their dreams and aspirations, current behavior,

strengths and gaps as managers and leaders, and

culminates in the writing of a learning plan. Stu-

dents pursue the learning plan through the re-

mainder of the program and afterward.

Data collected during years 1987-1989 reflect the

results of students' development prior to revisions

in the MBA program a nd are considered base line

sample s. Many of the r esu lts of the 1987-1996 stud-

ies have been reported in conference presenta-

tions,

books, and journal artic les. This article is the

first to present the combined results for cohorts

graduating from 1988-1996 and introduces results

for 2000 and 2001 cohorts.

The samples are described in Table 1. In the fall

of 1990, the revised MBA program went into effect

for all entering students. The graduating samples

were randomly assigned to one assessment condi-

tion; therefore, not all stude nts com pleted all of the

instruments.



152

Academy o/ Management Learning and Education

Decembe

Cohort

1987-1988 FT

1988

PT

1988-1989 FT

1989 PT

1990-1992 FT

1991-1993

FT

1992-1994 FT

1994 PT

1993-1995 FT

1995 PT

1998 PT

1998-2000

FT

1999-2001

FT

Description of Samples and

TABLE 1

Populations for Cohorts in This

Student s P erm iss ion A ss es se d S tudent s

Entering

(JV)

100

260'=

89

75°

124

105

137

230°

140

235°

189

173

( )

100°

100°

100°

100°

87

79

76

86

89

86

83

47

82

(n)

72

2 6

70

2 2

108

83

104

198

125

202

89

142

G r a d u a t i n g

( A f )

61

45°

71

72

96 ^

7ld

1 2 7 < *

180

146

124

182

191

189

Assessed

n)

2 7

2 3

17

2 6

71

58

58

21

77

35

35

58 ^

123°

Study

Female

( )

31

35

31

48

37

30

45

52

35

34

17

25

35

Average

A

at Entry

26

26

26

26

27

27

27

28

27

27

27

29

27

JVofe. FT = full time; PT = part time.

° Assessment

was

considered voluntary,

but not

everyone appeared

at the

orientation program

for the

full-time students.

For th

randomly selected samples, participation was voluntary, so all assessed had given their permission.

All randomly selected samples were comparable

to the

populations from which they were drawn

as to age,

gender, GMA

undergraduate GPA

and

percentage

of

international students.

° Students entered

in

January, June,

and

August. The graduating samples were taken from those graduating

in

May only.

^ Some entering students

did not

graduate

due to

working toward

a

joint degree (e.g., MBA/JD)

or

transferring

to the

part-tim

program. Of those that permitted their data to be included in the study, some students were dropped from the final sam ple due

various unforeseen circumstances (e.g., incomplete assessm ents).

In 1997, participa tion in exit assessment near graduation became a required part of the program for full-time students. Of th

sample granting permission to use their entering and graduating d ata in research, we were only a ble to recover p art of the samp

due to losses in two computer crashes. Part-time students were not approached for exit assessment.

nstruments

All

the

ins t ruments assessed competencies .

The

Learning Skills Profile (LSP)

is a

card sort ba sed

on

experiential learning theory (Kolb,

1984; see Boy-

atz is & Kolb, 1991 and 1995 for a discussion of the

instrument 's rel iabi l i ty and val idi ty) . Individuals

place each of 72 ski ll s tate me nts into one of seven

stacks reflecting their own level of the skill. The

s tacks are labeled: 1 = no skill or exper ience in

th i s a rea ; 2 = now learn ing this ski ll or activity; 3 =

can do this with some help or supervision; 4 = a

competent performer in this area; 5 = an above-

average performer in this area ; 6 = an outs tanding

performer in thi s a rea ; and 7 = a leader or creator

in this area. The 72 ski ll s tatem ents const i tute 12

scales: Leadership, Relat ionship, and Helping,

cons idered re la t ionship-management competen-

cies; Sense-Making, Information-Gathering, Infor-

mation Analysis , Theory-Building, Quanti tat ive,

and Technology, considered cognit ive competen-

cies; and Goal-Setting, Action, and Initiative, con-

s idered se l f -management competencies . The total

score of all 12 sca les is sa id to reflect Self-Confi-

de nce (Boyatzis & Kolb, 1991, 1995), which

was

a l so

cons idered

a

se l f -management competency.

The Critical Incident Interview CII) is a 1-hour,

audiotaped interview (Boyatzis , 1982; F l a n a g a n ,

1 9 5 4 ; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) in which ind ividual

are asked

to

descr ibe

in

deta i l ,

two

work exper

ences in which they felt effective and two exper

ences in which they felt ineffective. The tape s wer

coded for 16 com pete ncie s; Efficiency Orie ntation

Planning, Initiative, Attention-to-Detail , Self

Control, Flexibility, and Self-Confidence, consid

ered se l f -management competencies ; Empathy

Social Object ivi ty, Persuasiveness, Networking

Negot iat ing, Group M anagem ent , and Developin

Others , cons idered re la t ionship-m anagem en

competencies ; and Systems-Thinking and Pat ter

Recognit ion, considered cognit ive competencies

Tw o

or

three people independent ly coded

the in

terviews.

In

this research ,

the

coders averag ed

89

9 0% interra ter reliability on the 16 competencies .

The Group Discussion Exercise GDE) is a 45

minute, videotaped simulat ion. Part icipants ar

given a set of three problems encountered by the

hypothet ica l management team

and

asked

t

make r ecommenda t i ons to the CEO. The video

tapes were coded for the sam e 16 competencies a

the CII by the same coders . In thi s case , two peop l

who have a l ready es tabl i shed the interrater rel

abi l i ty code the v ideo t apes.

The Presentation Exercise (PE) is an a s s e s s m e n

of an individual 's oral communicat ion abi l i ty. I




153

the exercise, an individual is asked to del iver a

10-minute speech about an organizat ion in which

they wo uld like to work or that in tere sts them . They

are as ked to view this as a recruiting talk to MBAs.

The 10-minute presentat ion is followed by a

5-minute

ques t ion-and-answer sess ion. The 15-

minute exerc i se

was

videotaped

and

later coded

for the oral comm unicat ion com petency, which is

par t of the re la t ionship-mana gem ent c lus ter and

Enthus iasm. Two indepen dent co ders had

an

inter-

rater rel iabi l i ty greater than 70%.

The Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)

is a

73-

i tem quest ionnaire

in

which

the

part icipants

are

asked to as ses s the frequency w ith which they dem-

onstrate each behavior . The items asse ss

2

compe-

tencies: Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Initiative,

Attention-to-Detail, Self-Control, Flexibility, and

Self-Confidence, considered self-management

competencies; Empathy, Social Object ivi ty,

Per-

suasiveness, Networking, Negotiat ing, Group

Management , Developing Others , and Oral Com-

municat ion, cons idered re la t ionship-m anagem ent

competencies ; and Use-of-Concepts, Systems-

Thinking, Pat tern Recognit ion, Quanti tat ive Anal-

ysis ,

Use-of-Technology,

and

Writ ten Comm unica-

tion, considered cognitive competencies.

The External Assessm ent Q uest io nna ire (EAQ) is

a version of the SA Q in which s tude nts ask others

about their behavior . The others may include a

boss, work col leagues, subordinates, profession-

a ls ,

family, fellow students, or friends. The EAQ

responses ranged from to 8 others an averag e of

3.3 and median of 3.0 others). It was not known as

to how ma ny

of

these others providing

the

infor-

mat ion

at

entry were

the

s a m e

as

those providing

information near graduat ion from

the

program.

Results

Using

the

self-report. Learning Skills Profile,

as

shown in Table 2, full-time MBAs statis tica lly and

near signif icant ly improved

on

Leadership ,

Re-

lat ionship, Helping, Sense-Making, Information-

Gathering, Information Analysis, Theory-Building,

Quanti tat ive, Technology, Goal-Set t ing, Action

and Initiative skills,

and

Self-Confidence, deriv ed

TABLE

2

Comparison

of

FuU-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Scores

on the

Learning Skills Profile

Skill Scale

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Sense-Making

Information-Gathering

Information Analysis

Theory-Building

Quantitative

Technology

Goal-Setting

Action

Initiative

Total

Self-

Confidence)

1987-1988

n

=

72-27°

23.8-24.7

z = -.45

28.3-29.7

z = -1.44'f

25.8-26.4

z = -.61

25.9-28.4

z = - 1 . 86*

24.5-27.5

z =

- 3 . 4 9 *

22.9-28.6

z = -4.20***

19.9-24.7

z = -3.70***

19.1-26.7

z = -4.99***

18.0-23.0

z = -3.79***

23.8-25

z

= -.65

25.6-27.9

z

=

-2 .37**

27.3-30.1

z

=

-2 .37**

285-323

z = -4.05***

1988-1989

n

=

70-23°

25.7-26.0

z = -.50

29.8-31.6

z = -1.23

27.4-29.1

z = -.97

27.2-27.6

z = -.58

27.2-28.5

z = -1 .43+

23.5-27.9

z = -3.43***

21.5-25.1

z = -3.54***

18.4-25.5

z = -4.33***

18.6-22.9

z =

- 1 . 9 1 *

25.1-25.4

z = -.07

28.0-27.6

z = -.42

29.1-29.7

z =

- .52

302-327

z = -2 .30**

1990-1992

n

=

71

27.7-27.2

( = .70

30.0-30.4

( = -.69

27.7-28.9

( = - 1 . 7 1 *

27.5-28.7

= - 1 . 79*

26.7-28.3

( = -2 .82**

26.7-28.6

= -3.25***

25.2-27.4

* = -3.42***

22.1-26.3

= -4.82***

21.5-25.5

=

-4.00***

26.8-28.4

= -2.65**

30.3-30.3

= .09

29.4-29.8

=

-.62

322-340

( = -3.33***

1991-1993

n

=

55

25.1-27.1

( =

-2.55**

29.3-30.5

=

- 1 .8 8 *

27.8-28.8

= -1.33+

26.2-28.4

z =

-3.51***

25.9-27.9

( = -2 .44**

26.3-29.2

= -4.66***

22.9-27.2

* =

-5.55***

21.5-27.5

(

=

-6.86***

20.7-25.2

( = -4.39***

27.0-28.9

( = - 2 . 30*

29.2-30.1

/ = -1.30+

27.7-29.1

=

- 1 . 8 1 *

310-340

( = -5.12***

1992-1994

n

=

54

26.8-28.0

= - 1 . 66*

31.9-31.0

(

= 1.40+

27.6-29.3

=

- 2 . 10*

26.3-28.1

=

-2 .47**

25.7-28.7

= -4.14***

25.1-28.6

= -4.81***

22.5-26.4

( = -4.64***

20.6-25.9

=

-5.40***

18.9-25.0

= -6.00***

26.2-29.1

( = -4.80***

29.1-30.5

= -2 .30**

28.9-30.3

= - 1 . 87*

310-341

( = -5.12***

1993-1995

n

=

73

26.5-28.3

=

-2 .46**

30.5-30.7

(

= -.32

28.5-29.3

= -1.25

27.0-28.4

f = -2.33**

26.0-28.7

= -4.35***

25.8-29.6

( = -6.24***

23.8-27.0

f

=

-4.63***

22.0-27.1

=

-6.39***

19.6-24.5

f = -6.30***

26.8-29.0

= -3.19***

29.2-30.5

= - 1 .9 3 *

28.7-30.1

= - 1 . 87*

315-343

( = -5.00***

1998-2000

n = 56

25.7-29.1

= -4.3***

29.4-32.2

( = -3.6***

26.8-31.1

= -5.0***

26.9-30.9

= -5.0***

26.9-29.7

= -3.7***

25.5-30.6

(

= -6.3***

25.0-29.6

* = -5.2***

21.1-28.0

= -7.5***

21.3-27.9

= - 7 . 8 *

25.8-29.4

= -4.4***

27.7-30.8

=

-3.9***

28.3-30.9

= 3.2***

310-360

= -7.50***

1999-2001

n = 123

25.8-27.5

( = -3.2***

28.7-30.4

= -3.5***

26.5-29.2

=

-5.3***

26.2-28.7

= -5.4***

25.8-28.3

=

-4.6***

26.0-29.1

=

-5.9***

25.2-28.2

= -6.2***

24.0-27.3

= -6.1***

24.8-27.2

t = -4.2***

25.6-28.4

=

-5.2***

27.0-29.9

= 5.2***

27.9-29.6

t =

-3.0**

313-344

= -7.06***

° Mann-Whitney U-tests were run with the z reported because the comparison was of groups of dramatically different sample size.

Matched-pair -tests were run with the t reported because a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels are one-tailed: + p <

.10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



154

Academy of Management Learning and Education Decembe

from the total . Meanwhile, in the two ba se l i ne

yea rs, full-time MBAs only show ed statistica lly

significant or ne ar s ignif icant improvem ent on Re-

lat ionship, Sense-Making, Action, and Initiative

skills in one cohort. They improv ed on Information-


Quant i ta t ive ,

and

Technology skills

and

Self-

Confidence in both cohorts . Wh en resu l ts we re cal-

cula ted for na tive En glish sp ea ke rs only, four find-

ings became nonsignif icant : Relat ionship ski l ls in

9

and 1994, Information-Gathering skills in 1989,

and Sense-Making ski l ls in 1992. All other resul ts

r ema ined in the sam e d irection and significant or

near significant. Both significant and ne ar signifi-

cant resul ts are reported to show the overal l pat-

tern of f indings across the mult iple cohorts and

mul t ip le measures .

Using the Learning Skills Profile, as s hown in

Tab le 3, part-tim e MBAs statistically , significantly,

or near significantly improved on Leadership , Re-

lat ionship, Helping, Sense-Making, Information-


Quantitative, Technology, Goal-Setting, Action,

and Initiative skills, and Self-Confidence. M ean-

while, in the two ba se lin e y ear s, full-time MBAs

only show ed stat is t ical ly signif icant or ne ar signif

icant improvement on Theory-Building and Q u a n

titative skills in only one cohort. There we re n

non-nat ive Engl i sh speakers in the par t- t ime pro

gram.

To ass ess beh aviora l cha nge di rect ly , an alys i

of the res ult s from the Critical Incident Intervie ws

sho wed that full-time MBAs statistica lly, signifi

cant , or ne ar s ignif icant im proved on Efficiency

Orientat ion, Planning, Ini t iat ive, Attent ion to D

tail, Self-Control, Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Em

pathy, Networking, Negotiat ing, Group Manage

ment , Systems-Thinking, Pat tern Recognit ion, and

Social Objectivity. Results for Pe r suas ivenes

were opposi te to the predicted direct ion for th

1995 cohort. Wh en resul ts were calcu lated for na

t ive English speakers only, efficiency orientation

in 1995 beca me nons ignif icant . All other resul ts

r ema ined in the sam e d irection and significant o

near signif icant see Table 4).

Analys i s of the re sul ts from the Critical Inciden

Interviews showed that part- t ime MBAs stat is t i

TABLE

Comparison

of

Part-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Scores

on

the Learning S kills Profile

Skill Scale

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Sense-Making

Information-Gathering

Information Analysis

Theory-Building

Quantitative

Technology

Goal-Setting

Action

Initiative

Total Self-Confidence)

1987-1988

n = 26-23°

25.7-25.7

z = -.03

28.7-28.4

z = -.17

25.2-26.0

z = -.50

27.0-27.2

z = -.12

26.7-24.9

z = -1.49

26.6-27.5

z = -.63

22.7-24.9

z = -1.34

23.7-26.0

z = -1.30

23.5-22.4

z = -.71

24.1-24.9

z = -.32

26.7-28.4

z = -1.33

28.7-29.2

z = -.74

309-316

z = -.74

1988-1989

n

=

22-26°

25.5-26.4

z = -.49

30.6-30.2

z = -.02

27.6-28.1

z = -.25

28.2-28.2

z = -.28

27.1-28.8

z

= -.88

26.4-27.7

z

= -.72

22.0-25.5

z

=

- 1 . 69 *

21.8-24.7

z = -1.28+

25.5-22.9

z = -1.41

25.5-24.9

z = -.29

27.3-27.2

z = -.07

30.1-29.9

z = -.05

318-324

z = -.33

1990-1994

n

=

21

25.2-28.3

( = -2 .63**

29.0-31.3

= - 2 . 36*

25.5-28.3

= -2 .42**

24.7-28.6

= -4 .05***

24.0-28.0

( = -3 .20**

26.0-29.9

-4.49***

22.4-26.2

=

- 3 .01**

20.1-24.8

( = -3.96***

21.6-26.6

-4.22***

25.7-29.4

(

=

-3.53***

30.1-32.8

= - 2 . 52*

29.1-33.1

( = -3.70***

304-347

* = -4.90***

1990-1995

n = 32

25.5-28.3

-2 .79**

29.3-31.0

= - 2 . 00*

26.6-28.3

- 1 . 9 4*

26.7-28.6

-2 .99**

25.6-27.5

-2 .58**

26.9-29.2

( =

-2 .38**

24.3-25.8

*

= -1.16

22.5-26.3

-2 .77**

22.9-26.3

-2 .64**

24.9-29.2

( = -4.66***

28.9-31.4

*

= - 2 . 1 8 *

29.5-30.4

(

= -1.02

314-342

( = -3.62***

1993-1996

n = 35

24.3-25.7

t = -1.19

29.1-28.5

.54

26.5-27.2

-.86

25.8-27.1

( = -1 .31+

25.1-26.8

= - 1 . 89 *

27.3-29.5

-2 .51*

24.3-27.5

=

-3 .33**

25.5-28.9

f =

- 3 .11**

25.9-28.2

= -2.05*

25.7-27.6

t = -2.06*

27.6-28.5

= -1.14

27.1-28.8

f = -1.73*

314-334

t

-2.88*

° Mann-Whitney U-tests were run with the z reported because the comparison was of groups of different sample size.

Matched-pair

-tests

were run with the f reported because a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels are one-tailed: + p

.10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.




155

TABLE 4

Comparison of FuU-Time Entering and Gradu ating Students Abilities From the Critical

Incident Interviews

Abil i ty

Efficiency Orientation

Planning

Initiative

Attention to Detail

Self-Control

Flexibility

Self-Confidence

Empathy

Social Objectivity

Persuasiveness

Networking

Negotiating

Group Management

Developing Others

Systems-Thinking

Pattern Recognition

Entering

1991-1993

1.26

1.35

.68

.44

.09

.06

.38

.47

.12

1.59

.24

.03

.03

.53

.29

.21

G raduate

(n = 34

1.91

2.00

1.24

.29

.35

.38

.65

.82

.32

1.44

.74

.06

.24

.38

.56

.56

z°

-2. 90**

- 2 . 8 7 * *

- 2 . 4 8 * *

- 1 . 2 9

- 1 . 8 3 *

- 2 . 6 7 * *

- 2 . 7 1 * *

- 2 . 0 1 *

- 1 . 4 9 +

- . 7 5

- 3 .3 9 ***

- . 5 8

- 2 . 6 5 * *

- 1 . 1 5

- 2 . 0 7 *

-2 .45**

Entering

1992-1994

1.94

1.72

.78

.33

.28

.28

.61

1.58

.67

2.61

.67

.00

.17

.61

.78

.83

G raduate

(n = 18

2.33

2.50

.61

.44

.56

.39

.94

1.50

.56

2.22

.78

.06

.22

.33

.50

.89

-1 .35 f

-2. 40**

- . 6 6

- . 7 1

-1. 23+

- . 7 1

- 2 . 4 5 * *

.00

- . 5 0

- 1 . 4 6

- . 3 7

- 1 . 0 0

- . 4 5

- 1 . 0 3

- 1 . 2 0

- . 2 5

Entering

1993-1995

2.07

2.33

1.15

.40

.42

.07

.58

1.33

.22

2.56

.9 3

.05

.15

.51

.93

.73

G raduate

(n =

55

2.38

2.91

1.33

.7 3

.5 3

.20

.75

1.42

.47

2 .1 3

1.16

.18

.36

.44

.91

1.18

z°

-1. 53+

-3.22***

- 1 . 1 9

-2 .43**

- . 9 8

- 1 . 9 4 *

-2 .18**

- . 6 0

- 2 . 0 1 *

- 2 . 3 8 *

-1. 43+

- 1 . 7 5 *

- 2 . 8 3 * *

- . 4 9

- . 1 5

-2.59**

Note.

Numbers are for entire sample. Significance levels and z scores may have changed slightly from earlier publications due to

a change in the formula used by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as compared to earlier versions.

Significance levels are one-tailed tests based on a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test: +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01-

***p < .0 0 1 .

A two-tailed significance level because it was in the opposite direction to that predicted.

cally significant,

or

near significantly improved

on

Efficiency O rienta tion, Initiative, A ttention

to De-

tail,

Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Networking,

Ne-

gotiating, G roup Managem ent, Developing O thers,

Systems-Thinking, Pattern Recognition,

and

Social

Objectivity

(see

Table

5).

There were

no

nonnative

English speakers in the part-time program.

A nother direct mea sure of behavior change was

the Group Discussion Exercise. Results from ana-

lyzing these videotapes showed full-time MBAs

TABLE 5

Comparison of Part-Time Entering and Graduating Students Abilities From the Critical

Incident Interviews

Abil i ty


Planning

Initiative

Attention to Detail

Self-Control

Flexibility

Self-Confidence

Empathy

Social Objectivity

Persuasiveness

Networking

Negotiating

Group Management

Developing Others

Systems-Thinking

Pattern Recognition

Entering

1990-1995

2.10

2.25

1.25

.40

.35

.00

.75

1.30

.40

2.35

.60

.00

.10

.60

1.10

.60

G raduate

(n

= 20

2.70

2.65

1.60

.90

.40

.40

.95

1.35

.65

2.70

1.25

.20

.35

.45

1.20

1.05

z °

- 1 . 7 5 *

- 1 . 0 4

- 1 . 7 3 *

- 1 . 9 0 *

- . 4 5

- 2 . 5 3 * *

-2. 00**

- . 2 7

- 1 . 2 3

- . 9 6

- 2 . 3 7 * *

- 1 . 6 3 *

-1. 41+

- . 4 5

- . 3 7

- 1 . 6 9 *

Entering

1993-1996

1.50

2.38

.74

.44

.47

.12

.82

1.74

.53

2.44

.76

.18

.18

.35

1.09

.79

G raduate

(n = 34

1.97

2.62

.85

.35

.65

.24

.94

2.09

.91

2.38

.65

.24

.15

.56

1.50

.88

z °

- 2 . 0 0 *

- . 8 8

- . 5 8

- . 4 9

- 1 . 0 5

-1. 27+

- 1 . 6 3 *

- 1 . 2 4

- 2 . 1 2 *

- . 1 2

- . 6 4

- . 5 4

-.28

-1.51+

-1.95*

-.61

° Significance levels are one-tailed tests based on a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-tanks test: Significance levels and z scores

may have changed slightly from earlier publications due to a change in the formula used by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as compared

to earlier versions.

p < . 1 0 ; * p

<

.05;**p

< .01.



156

Academy of Management Learning and E ducation

Decembe

statistically significantly, or near significantly im-

proved on Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Initia-

tive, Self-Confidence, Empathy, Networking, Group

Management, Systems-Thinking, and Pattern Rec-

ognition see Table 6). They also show ed a signif

icant decrease in Initiative and Systems-Thinking

for the 1994 cohort. When results were calculated

for native English speakers only, both the results

for Negotiating in 1994 and the opposite of

predicted results for Persu asiveness in the class

of

1994 became nonsignificant. All other results re-

mained in the same direction and significant or

near significant.

Ana lysis of another b ehav ioral ex ercise from the

Presentation Exercise videotapes showed that full-

time MBAs improved statistically, significantly on

Oral Communication and Enthusiasm both of the

years asse ssed see Table 7).

The graduating class of

2001

completed two ad-

ditional assessm ents: 1) a behavioral assessm ent

by others, the EAO; and 2) anoth er self-assess-

ment, the SAO. Students appeared to be more crit-

ical of their own growth as compared to others who

assessed them on the same competencies. Others

viewed their improvement through the External

Assessment Ouestionnaire. As shown in Table 8,

students statistically significantly improved on

each of the

2

com petencies. From the Self-Assess-

ment Ouestionnaire, students significantly or near

significantly improved on 15 of the 21 com peten-

cies: Planning, Initiative, Attention to Detail, Self

Control, Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Empathy

Persuasiveness, Negotiating, Oral Communica

tion, Pattern Recognition, Use of Concepts, Ouan

titative Analysis, Use of Technology, and Written

Comm unication. When results were ca lculated fo

the native English-speaking sample only. Plan

ning, Use of Concepts, and Use of Technology be

came nonsignificant. All other results remained in

the same direction and either increased in

signif

icance or remained significant or near significant

Discussion

In contrast to earlier studies, it appears that MBAs

can develop emotional intelligence and cognitive

competencies crucial to effectiveness as ma nag ers

and leaders during their programs. The research

question posed in this article is supported by the

multimethod, multitrait, multicohort data offered

The results from the six cohorts of full-time and

three cohorts of the part-time students assessed

with the Learning Skills Profile are summarized

and shown in Tables 9 and 10. The results from th

three cohorts of the full-time and two cohorts of th

part-time students a ssess ed with the C ritical Inci

dent Interview, the three cohorts of the full-time

students assessed with the Group Discussion Ex

TABLE 6

Com parison of Full-Time Entering and G raduating Stud ents Abilities From the Group

Discussion Exercise

Abil i ty


Planning

Initiative

Attention to Detail

Self-Control

Flexibility

Self-Confidence

Empathy

Social Objectivity

Persuasiveness

Networking

Negotiating

Group Management

Developing Others

Systems-Thinking

Pattern Recognition

Entering

1990-1992

.40

.55

.90

.10

.00

.00

.40

.00

.00

.15

.00

.05

.0 5

.00

.15

.20

G raduate

(n = 20)

.60

.95

1.35

.15

.00

.00

.60

.20

.05

.2 5

.20

.00

.15

.10

.25

.50

z

- . 9 7

- 1 . 8 1 *

-1 .64*

- . 4 5

- . 4 5

- . 4 5

- 2 . 0 0 *

- 2 . 0 0 *

- 1 . 0 0

- . 8 2

- 2 . 0 0 *

- 1 . 0 0

-1.41+

- 1 . 0 0

- . 8 2

- 2 . 1 2 *

Entering

1991-1993

.40

.27

1.33

.07

.00

.00

.43

.00

.03

.30

.00

.03

.00

.0 3

.0 3

.10

G raduate

(n = 30)

.87

.70

1.30

.10

.00

.00

.63

.07

.00

.40

.07

.03

.00

.00

.17

.40

z

- 2 . 10 *

-2.50**

- . 1 8

- . 3 8

- . 3 8

- . 3 8

-1 .73*

-1.41+

- 1 . 0 0

- . 9 1

-1.41+

.00

- 1 . 7 3

- 1 . 0 0

-1 .63*

- 2 . 3 2 *

Entering

1992-1994

.73

1.31

.96

.42

.00

.00

.73

.2 3

.04

1.19

.00

.00

.19

.04

.85

• . 5 8

G raduate

(n

=

26)

.42

1.12

.50

.27

.00

.00

.69

.50

.12

.88

.00

.00

.0 8

.04

.35

.31

z

- 1 . 2 0

- . 6 0

- 2 . 2 9 * °

- . 6 7

- . 6 7

- . 6 7

- . 3 3

-2.11*

-1 .00

-1 .38

-1 .38

-1 .38

-1 .00

.00

-2.81**

-1 .81

Note

Num bers are for entire sample. Significance levels are one -tailed tests base d on a Wilcoxon matc hed-pa irs signed-r anks tes

+ p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01.

The Wilcoxon test was appropriate because of the non-normal distribution of the behavioral coding in the Group Discussio

Exercise GDE). Significance levels and z scores may h ave cha nged slightly from e arlier pub lications d ue to a ch ang e in the formul

used by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as compared to earlier versions.

° A two-tailed significance level because it was in the opposite direction to that predicted.



2002

Comparison of

Ability

Oral Communicat ion

(total score)

Enthusiasm

FuU-Time

n

24

24

Entering and

Entering

1990-1992

4.25

3.00

Boyatzis Stubbs

an d

Taylor

TABLE 7

Graduating Students Abilities

G rad u ate

6.25

3.96

f

-5.54***

-4.18***

n

16

15

From the

Entering

1991-1993

4.69

1.93

Presentation

G rad u ate

5.31

2.40

157

Exercise

f

-1.99*

-1.97*

Note. Numbers are for entire sample.

°

Significance leve ls are for paire d-s am ple t-tests as one- tailed tests; *p < .05; ***p < .001.

ercise, and two cohorts of the full-time students

assessed with the Presentat ion Exercise are sum-

ma rized a nd show n in Table s 11 an d 12. Also

shown in Tables 9 and 10 are the t ime-series com-

parisons to the impact of the earlier MBA program

at WSOM before the chan ge s im plem ented in 1990.

The summar ies show a dramat ic improvement

over the impact of the basel ine program in al l

three clusters, for both the full-time and the part-

t ime students. As mentioned earl ier , the basel ine

impact of the WSOM MBA program w as consistent

with ea rlier AACSB stu die s (Boyatzis Sokol, 1982;

DDI, 1985) an d the P orter an d M cKibbin Repo rt

(1988)—MBA programs primarily improve a per-

son's analyt ic abi l i ty. Although these resul ts are

important to m an ag eria l and leade rship effective-

ness, they are only part of the recipe for outstand-

ing performance and contr ibut ion to organizat ions.

In contrast to some faculty fears, improvements in

emotional intel l igence abi l i t ies did not detract

from the improvement of cognitive abilities and

may have even enhanced development of cr i t ical

hinking abi l i ty.

The differences between the impact of the pro-

ram show n in Tab les 9 an d 10 versu s 11 an d 12

ay reveal a difference between self-report and

lopm ental p rogress; that is , the difference be-

enses within may be a function of different pro-

Some competencies are eas ier to observe than

a cognit ive abi l i ty, Systems-Thinking

encing others. If people do not express their

thoughts, i t is impossible to code them in direct

behav io ra l measures .

Another possibi l i ty is that people may sense a

change in themselves before they show this in

their behavior, or show it consistently enough for

others to notice. Rhee (1997) interpreted this as a

sen sitiz atio n effect. He stu die d 22 of the full-time

gr ad ua te s of the 1995 cohort by interview ing an d

test ing them abo ut every 6 wee ks throughout their

2-year program. His sample showed dramatic im-

provement on al l of the scales in the Learning

Skills Profile and direct behavioral results slightly

less than th e overal l 1995 sam ple sho wn in T ables

4 and 6, which were considerably less dramatic

than the self-report results.

The dispari ty could have been the resul t of the

Hawthorne Effect, or the result of cognitive disso-

nan ce reduct ion. An MBA might think I hav e sp ent

al l this t ime an d money, I must hav e changed . But

that would cause a self-justifying distortion in the

self-report data, not the direct behavioral data.

Regardless of the causes of the observed differ-

ences, the mult imethod, mult icohort resul ts pro-

vide increased confidence when we observe re-

sults from both self-report and measures directly

asse ss ing beh avior demonst ra ted in audiotape s of

work samples and videotapes of their behavior in

s imula t ions .

There also may be cohort effects. For example,

the class grad ua t ing in 1994 ap pe are d to improve

on fewer of the competencies than other cohorts.

This w as consistent on both direct behavio ral m ea-

sures. Further, this cohort showed a significant

decrease on Ini t iat ive an d Systems-Thinking as

ass ess ed through the Grpup D iscussion Exercise. It

is not clear to those of us involved in the program

during these years why this part icular cohort

should have shown this difference, but internal

group dynamics may have affected their learning.

Another way to examine this difference is with

the same measure used as a self-report and as an

assessment of the behavior others see. The ful l -

t ime gra du ate s of 2001 comp leted the self-assess-



158

Academy of Management Learning and E ducation Decemb

TABLE 8

Comparison of Full-Time Entering and

Graduating MBA Students Scores on the EAQ

and SAQ

Skill Scale


Planning

Initiative

Attention to Detail

Self-Control

Flexibility

Self-Confidence

Empathy

Social Objectivity

Persuasiveness

Networking

Negotiating

Group Management

Developing Others

Oral Communication

Use of Concepts

Systems-Thinking

Pattern Recognition

Quantitative Analysis

Use oi Technology

Written Communication

EAQ 1999-2001

(n

=

80)

2.3-3.3

( = -10.0***

2.3-3.2

t =

-8.6***

2.0-3.0

t =

-10.8***

2.4-3.2

f =

-8.3***

2.1-3.0

( = -10.0***

2.2-3.1

t = -8.6***

2.1-3.1

t =

-8.9***

2.3-3.2

t =

-9.5***

2.1-3.1

t = -10.0***

2.1-3.0

( = -10.1***

2.3-3.3

f =

-8.6***

2.1-3.1

t

= -9.2***

2.2-3.1

t

=

-11.1***

2.2-3.1

( =

-9.5***

2.3-3.3

t = -10.5***

2.2-3.1

( = -9.8***

2.1-3.1

t =

-8.6***

2.0-3.0

t = -10.1***

2.0-3.2

t = -7.8***

2.0-3.0

t = -7.7***

2.4-3.4

t = -10.2***

SAQ 1999-2001

(n

=

71)

3.0-3.0

( = - 1 . 1

2.8-2.9

t = - 1 . 7 *

2.4-2.7

t =

-2.6**

2.7-2.9

t = -2.3**

2.6-2.8

t

= -2.8**

2.9-3.0

( = - 2 . 1 *

2.5-2.7

t =

-2.9**

3.1-3.2

t

= - 2 . 0*

3.0-3.0

t =

- 0 . 6

2.7-2.8

t = -2.6**

2.9-3.0

( = -0 .9

2.8-2.9

f = -1.5+

2.7-2.8

* = - 0 . 9

2.7-2.7

( = -0 .8

2.9-3.1

t = —4.4***

2.7-2.8

t = -1.6+

2.6-2.7

( = - 0 . 8

2.5-2.7

( = -2.9**

2.4-2.8

t =

-2.8**

2.3-2.5

t = -1.5+

3.0-3.2

t = -3.9***

Note

Matched-pair t-tests were run with the

t

reported be-

cause a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels are

one-tailed: +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

ment on the competencies, as well as having oth-

ers around them use the same ques t ionnai re ,

effect ively complet ing a part ial 360 assessment

(see Table 8). Others sa w the studen ts s ignificant ly

improving on al l 21 of the competencies assessed,

including competencies from al l three clusters .

Meanwhile, in contrast to the data summarized

above, the self-report showed significant improve-

ment on only 12 com petencies, an d near-signif i -

cant improvement on an addit ional 3 competen

cies.

These resul ts contradict some of the possib

explanations offered for the reversed differenc

shown among the earl ier cohorts . The competen

cies on which the MBAs in the 2001 graduatin

cohort

did not

see them selves improving inc lude

Efficiency Orientation, Networking, Group Man

agement , Developing Others, Social Object ivi ty

and Systems-Thinking.

The part- t ime program does not appear to hav

the same degree of impact on competency im

provement as the ful l - t ime program. Faculty ha

thought the work context of the part- t ime studen

would have enhanced the learning from the pro

gram; it did not . There are three possib le exp lana

t ions. First and foremost , we only assessed tw

samples of the part- t ime MBAs with direct behav

ioral measures (and that was only one measure

as compared to the eight ful l - t ime samples as

sessed wi th these measures . Another explanat io

for the differential impact is the concentrated as

pects of the full-time program. Even though th

full- an d part-t ime, s tud ents ta ke m ost elect ive

together, full-time students are brought into th

program and separated from their current wor

context. This break from their old reality, althoug

a source of anxiety, also frees them from havin

the constant reminder to use old habi ts . I t is als

possible that the work set t ings of the part- t im

students ext inguish both new behavior , and the

at temp ts to use new things learned in the program

The increased impact of the program shown i

the t ime-series resul ts may have been the resul t o

factors other than the curr iculum cha ng e. A revie

of the full-time faculty teaching in the schoo

sh ow ed th at from 1988/1989 to 1993/1995, 67 of th

facul ty were the same. Although the program di

not change i ts admissions procedures and cri ter i

during this period, as the new program becam

known i t resul ted in applicat ions and enrol lmen

by students with higher scores on measures suc

as GMAT, undergraduate GPA, the percentage o

females in the program, and h igher scores on som

of the competencies measures used across the co

horts in the t ime s eries. Even with this incr ease i

entering abi l i ty, the improvements noted after th

program changed were s igni f icant and dramat i

So thes e asp ects of the school an d prog ram d id no

appear to have an impact on competency improv

ment .

These resul t s a re comparable to those obta ine

in longitudinal studies of 45-55-year-old execu

tives and advanced professionals in WSOM's e

ecut ive educat ion Professional Fel lows Progra

(Ballou, Bowers, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 1999). The pro

gram had been designed for later , midcareer pr




159

TABLE 9

Summary of the Time Series Results of Learning Skills for Full Time MBAs

Evidence of Value

Added

Strong improvement

Some improvement' '

No improvement

Self

Management

Self-confidence

Action

Initiative

Goal-setting

1987 1989 Program

Relationship

Management

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Cognitive

Information analysis

Theory-building

Quanti tat ive

ana lys i s

Use of technology

Information-

gathering

Sense-making

Self

Management

Goal-setting

Action

Initiative

Self-confidence

1990 2001 Program

Relationship

Management

Leadership

Helping

Relationship

Cognitive

Sense-making

Information-gathering


Theory-building

Quanti tat ive analysis

Use of technology

Note.

Adjusted for native English speaking as well as the entire sample.

°

Strong improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on two thirds of the cohorts assessed.

Some improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on one or more up to one third of the cohorts

as sessed .

fessionals using many of the same curriculum

com ponents as the post-1990 MBA program. Using

the Learning Skills Profile, two cohorts showed

significant improvement in Helping, Information-

Gathering, Theory-Building, Use-of-Technology,

and Goal-Se tting skills, as w ell as Self-Confidence

from the tota l score. One of the two showed signif

icant improvement in Sense-Making, Quantitative

nalysis, and action skills as well.

What caused these dramatic improvements in

cognitive and emotional intelligence competen-

cies from the

MBA

program? Unfortunately, we did

not have a research design in place to make spe-

cific attributions, but the components of the MBA

program that changed from the earlier program

included (1) an explicit philosophy of education

and pedagog y (Boyatzis, Cowen, Kolb, 1995); (2) a

course on leadership assessment and develop-

TABLE 10

Summary of the Time Series Results of Learning Skills for Part Time MBAs

1987 1989 Program

1990 1998 Program

Evidence of Value Self Relationship

Added Management Management

Self Relationship

Cognitive Management Management Cognitive

improvement

improvement ' '

Goal-setting

Action

Initiative

Self-confidence

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Goal-setting

Action

Initiative

Self-confidence

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Quanti tat ive

ana lys i s

Theory-building

Sense-making

Information-

gathering


Use of technology

Sense-making

Information-gathering


Theory-building

Quanti tat ive analysis

Use of technology

Note.

Adjusted for native English speaking as well as the entire sample.

° Strong improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on two thirds of the cohorts assessed.

^

Some impr ovem ent is classified a s significant or nea r significant improve ment on one or more up to one third of the cohorts



160

Evidence

Summary

of Value Added

of th e

Academy of Managem ent

Learning and Education

TABLE 11

Results From Direct Behavioral Measures for Full Time

Self Management Relationship Management

MBAs

Decembe

Cognitive

Strong improvement

Some improvement' '

No improvement

Decrease

Efficiency orientation

Planning

Flexibility

Self-confidence

Self-control

Initiative

Attention to detail

Empathy

Networking

Oral communicat ions

Group managemen t

Social objectivity

Negotiating

Developing others

Persuasiveness

Pattern recognitio

Systems-thinking

Note Results from coding of behavior shown in audiota pes of the CII, videota pes of the GDE and Presentation Exercise, a djuste

for native English speaking sample as well as the full sample.

Strong improvem ent is significant or nea r significant resu lts on two thirds or more of the cohorts with one mea sur e or one thi

to one half of the cohorts on all measures.

' ' Some improvement is significant or near significant results on one cohort on one m easu re.

ment using self-directed learning theory as the

basis for its design (Boyatzis, 1994, 1995; Goleman,

Bo yatzis, & McK ee, 2002); (3) a focus on spe cific

competencies in se lec ted courses whi le address-

ing course material , such as the market ing course

that asse sse d stud ents on the prese ntat ion ski l ls or

the opera t ions management course us ing group

projects assessing their group process competen-

cies; (4) a d ram atic incre ase in the perc enta ge of

courses requir ing f ield projects in companies,

grou p work, an d stu den t collabo ration; an d (5) op-

portuni t ies to part icipate in voluntary act ivi t ies ,

such as a chapter for Habitat for Humanity and

functional clubs, like the marketing club (which

the part- t ime students did not have the t ime or

incl inat ion to part icipate in) . Our interpretat io

has been tha t the leadership course and the wid

range of learning act ivi t ies integrated into th

MBA progra m ca use d the resu l ts .

What if Learning Were the Purpose of Education

Borrow ing from the title of ch ap ter 10 of Boyatzi

Cowen, and Kolb's (1995) book for the subtitle here

we can offer a promising answer. An MBA educa

t ion can help people develop cognit ive and emo

tional intel l igence competencies needed to be ou

s tanding managers and leaders . But we canno

use the typical lecture-and-discussion method

with their focus on knowledge acquisi t ion only

TABLE 12

Summary of the Results From Direct Behavioral Measures for Part Time MBAs

Evidence of Value Added

Self Management

Relationship Management

Cognitive

Strong improvement

Some improvement' '

Efficiency orientation

Self-confidence

Flexibility

Initiative

Attention to detail

Group management

Social objectivity

Networking

Negotiating

Developing others

Persuasiveness

Empathy^

Systems-thinking

Pattern recognitio

No im provement P lanning

Self-control

Note

Results from cod ing of behavior shown in audiota pes of the CII, adjusted for native E nglish speakin g sam ple as well as t

full sample.

° Strong improvement is significant or near significant results on all (i.e., both) cohorts.

^

Some im provem ent is significant or near significant resu lts on 50% (i.e., one) cohort.

•^Empathy and Pe rsu asiv ene ss sho wed no improv emen t from entry to gra dua tion on the 2 cohorts, but when W heele r (199

asse ssed 30 of the 54 people from these cohorts again about years after graduation, they showed significant improved Empathy a

Persu asive ness in the CII, which this smaller sam ple as w ell as the complete cohort samp le had not shown from entry to gradu atio




161

Rather, a more hol ist ic approach can help dramat-

ical ly improve our impact and the relevance of an

MBA to stu de nts ' future work orga niza tions . Even

here there is some doubt as to the knowledge re-

tention of MBAs. In one study, professors readmin-

istered the final exam from the required course in

accounting weeks af ter the same students took the

exa m (Specht & San dlin, 1991). They repo rted the

half- l i fe of knowledge was 6 weeks.

One implicat ion of these resul ts should be to

encou rage schools to conduct outcome asses sm ent

studies to determine what their s tudents are learn-

ing. Schools can create basel ine studies, then ex-

per iment and innovate in the i r programs and as-

ses s the impac t . Another implicat ion is to be w ary

of the threatened distraction from our mission of

prepar ing people to manage and lead by overem-

phasis or rel iance on measures of selected compe-

tencies for screening applicants and judging how

well a school is doing in measures such as rank-

ings .

For exam ple, the GMAT is a m eas ure of sev-

eral of the cognit ive abi l i t ies that predicts grades

in the first yea r of an MBA pro gram an d yet h as

become a singular measure of a school 's worth and

a screen ing de vice for MBA stude nts. Although the

GMAT as se ss es some important chara cterist ics ,

we should be us ing more comprehens ive me asure s

with t rue mult i t rai t designs. Further , placement

stat is t ics , al though considered an ul t imate mea-

sure of effectiveness of an MBA prog ram , are als o

narrow. Such stat is t ics are a reading of market

satisfaction, but are a relatively short-term one.

Schoo ls do not report, and often do not even follow

placement records of s tudents beyond the 6 months

to a year af ter gradu at ion. The apho rism that we

become what we me asure hau nts h igher educa-

t ion. Convenience of administrat ion of certain

types of tests and educat ional phi losophies from

earl ier eras have often resul ted in many of us not

knowing what our students are learning. As we

discover what d i s t inguishes grea t managers and

leaders, we should use these insights to guide our

cur r iculum and pedagogy.

REFERENCES

Albanese, R. (chair), Bernardin, H. J., Connor, P. E., Dobbins,

G. H., Ford, R. C, Harris, M. M., Licata, B. J., Miceli, M. P.,

Porter, L. W., & Ulrich, D. O. 1990. Outcome measuremenf

an d managemen t education: An Academy of Management

task force report.

Presentation at the Annual Academy of

Management Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Astin, A. W. 1993.

What matters in college? Four crificaJ years.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ballou, R., Bow ers, D., Boyatzis, R. E., Kolb, D. A. 1999. Fellow-

ship in lifelong learning; An executive development pro-

gram for advanced professionals. Journal of Management

Education

23(4): 338-354.

Banta, T. W. Ed.). 1993. Making a difference: Outcomes of a

decade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bigelow,

J

D. Ed.). 1991.

Managerial skills: Explorations

in

prac-

tical knowledge

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The competent manager: A model for effec-

tive performance.

New York: John Wiley Sons.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1994. Stimulating self-directed change: A re-

quired MBA course called M anag erial A ssessment and De-

velopment.

Journal of Managem ent Education

18 3): 304-

323.

Boyatz is, R. E.

1995.

Cornerstones of change : Building a pa th for

self-directed lea rnin g. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. C. Cowen,

D.

A.

Kolb (Eds.),

Innovation in professional edu cation: Steps on a

journey from teaching to learning:

50-94. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., Baker, A., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Thompson, L.

1995.

Will it make a difference? Asse ssing a value- based,

outcome oriented, competency-based professional pro-

gr am . In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Co we n, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.),

Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey

from teaching to learning: 167-202. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. 1995.

Innovation in

professional education: Steps on a journey from teac hing to

learning. Sa n

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. 1991. As sess ing individ uality in

learning: The learning skills profile. Educational

Psychol-

ogy

11(3&4): 279-295.

Boyatzis, R. E., Kolb, D. A. 1995. From le arn ing styles to lea rn-

ing skills: The executive skills profile. Journal

of

Manage-

rial Psychology 10: 3-17 .

Boyatzis, R. E., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J. V. 1996.

Competencies can be developed, but not the way we

thought. Capability, 2(2): 25-41.

Boyatzis, R. E., Renio-McKee, A., & Thompson, L. 1995. Past

accomplishments: Establishing the impact and baseline of

earl ier pro gra ms . In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, D. A. Kolb

(Eds.), Innovation in professional education:

Steps

on a jour-

ne y

from teaching to learning:

95-119. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis,

R.

E., & Sokol,

M.

1982.

A pilot p roject to assess the

feasibility of assessing skills and personal characteristics of

students in collegiate business programs. Report to the

AACSB (St. Louis, MO).

Bray, D. W., C am pbe ll, R. J., Gra nt, D. L.

1974.

Formative years

in business: A long term

AT T

study of managerial lives.

NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Ca mp bell , J. P., Dunn ette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Ill, Weick, K. E.

1970.

Managerial behavior performance and effectiveness.

NY: McGraw Hill.

Development Dimensions International (DDI).

1985. Final report:

Phase III

Report to the AACSB (St. Louis, MO).

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin 51: 327-335.

Goleman, D. 1998.

Working with emotional intelligence.

NY:

Bantam.



162

Academy of

Management Learning and E ducation

Decembe

Go lem an, D., Boyatzis, R. E., McKee, A. 2002.

Primal leader-

ship: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence.

Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.

How ard, A., Bray, D. 1988.

Managerial lives

in transition:

Advancing age and changing times.

New York: Guilford.

Kolb,

D. A.

1984.

Experiential learning; Experience

as the

source

of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-

tice-Hall.

Kotter, J. P. 1982.

The general managers.

NY: Free P ress .

Leonard, D. 1996.

The impact of learning goals

on self-directed

change in management development and education.

Doc-

toral dissertation. C ase W estern Reserve University, Cleve-

land, OH.

Lu than s, F., Ho dge tts, R. M., Ros enkr antz, S. A. 1988.

Real

managers.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Mentkow ski, M., Asso ciates . 2000.

Learning that lasts: Inte-

grating learning development and performance in college

an d

beyond San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Deemer, D., Ben-Ur, T., Reisetter, J.,

Ricka rds, W., Talbott, M. 1991. Un ders tand ing abilitie s,

learning and development through college outcome stud-

ies: What can we expect from higher education assess-

ment? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-

ican Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Me ntkow ski, M., Stra it, M. 1983.

A longitudinal study of stu-

dent change

in cognitive development learning

styles an d

generic abilities

in

an outcome-centered liberal arts curric

ulum.

Final Report to the National Institutes of Educati

from Alverno College.

Pa sca rell a, E. T., Terenzini, P. T. 1991.

How

college

affect

students: Findings and insights from twenty years of re

search.


Por ter, L., McK ibbin, L. 1988.

Management education and

development: Drift or thrust into

the

2 st century? New Yo

McGraw-Hill.

Rhee, K. 1997. Journey of disco very: A lon gitud inal study o

learning during a graduate professional program. Unpub

lished dissertation. Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH.

Specht, L., San dlin, P. 1991. The differential effects of expe

ential learning activities and traditional lecture classes i

accounting. Simulations and Gaming 22(2): 196-210.

Spence r, L. M., Jr., Spen cer, S. M. 1993. Com petenc e

at work

Models for superior performance.

New York: John Wiley

Sons.

Thornton, G. C , III,

Byham, W. C.

1982. Assessment centers

an

managerial performance.

New York: Academic.

Wh eeler, J. V. 1999. The imp act of soc ial en viron me nts on

sel

directed change and learning. Unpublished doctoral disser

tation. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Winter,

D.

G., McClelland,

D.

C , Stewart,

A. J. 1981.

A

new ca

for

the liberal arts: Assessing institutional goals and studen

development.


Richard E. Boyatzis is professor a nd ch air of the Department of Orga nizational Behavior at the

Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. His current research

focuses on the development of emotional intelligence, leadership and management, outcome

assessment of graduate educat ion, and coaching pract ices . His PhD is from Harvard

University.

Elizabeth C. Stubbs

is a PhD student in organizational beh avior at the W eathe rhea d School of

Management. She completed her Master's degree in psychology, focusing on organizational

behavior and evaluation at Claremont Graduate University. Her current research is focusing

on both group and individual emotional intelligence, and team processes and competencies.

Scott N. Taylor is a PhD student in organizational behavior at the Weatherhead School of

Management. Prior to pursuing a PhD, he was a manager of organization effectiveness. His

current research focuses on the development of self-awareness and emotional intelligence.

His MBA is from Case Western Reserve University.

Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education

Documents

Transcript of Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education