RELATIONAL LEARNING IN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE DEMANDS OF BUSINESS: A MISMATCH?*

John Bigelow
Boise State University

Reproduced with permission from EXCHANGE: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 1983, Volume V111, Number I

An advertising blurb for a recent film stated that "... going to school can be an education in itself!" This statement succinctly identifies the dual nature of learning in an institution. On the one hand, there is the formal, intended learning provided by the institution. On the other hand, there is learning which takes place simply from the experience of participating in an educational system.

Most educators pay a great deal of attention to the formal learning, but pay considerably less attention to what is learned from the experience of going to school. This can create problems for students if what they learn from the informal system is not appropriate after they leave school. Teachers of Organizational Behavior might well take an interest in what students experientially learn from the university setting, since this is quite likely to include relational orientations and skills topics within the OB bailiwick.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relational orientations and skills that business students learn experientially in school, and how this affects them when they enter business. This paper begins with a review of pertinent studies in three areas: (1) the kinds of relational skills businesspeople see as important, (2) the differences between students and businesspeople, and (3) the problems of recent graduates when they enter business. Following this, one possibly important reason for the differences found between businesspeople and students is raised, concerning the ways students experientially learn to relate to educational systems. Finally, some ways of better preparing students for the relational demands of business are suggested.

Relational Skills Business People See As Important

There have been a number of studies conducted in which businesspeople assessed the importance of a variety of university or workshop topics. Pearse (1974) found that American Management Association managers rated "motivating" and "interpersonal skills" courses highly. He found that the courses they would most like to take included "communication," "improving work group or departmental effectiveness," and "conflict management." "Organizational behavior" courses were rated as the most important courses these managers had taken. Edge and Greenwood (1972) found that personnel managers gave similar responses. An Oregon State University survey of faculty focusing on the goals of general education (Carrol et al., 1980) found that of the ten general goals surveyed, "communication" was ranked number one in importance, but number nine in terms of how well this dimension was being provided. Finally, a survey of recent management concentration graduates (Bigelow and Easton, 1979) showed that these graduates rated "individual at work and motivation," and "skills in face­to­face work relations" as the two most important topics of their concentration.

Even though these studies should be interpreted with caution, they do suggest that many business positions place strong interpersonal demands on their occupants. These studies suggest that practicing businesspeople regard interpersonal skills, especially those involving face­to­face relationships, as crucially important; in some cases even more important than the technical skills associated with their work.

Differences Between Students and Businesspeople

There is evidence that the orientations of business students towards others differ in significant ways from the orientations of managers. DeSalvia and Gemmil (1971) compared the personal value systems of college students and managers, and found that: (1) students were more oriented to personal goals, while managers were more oriented to groups of people, (2) the values of rationality and skill were more operative for students than for managers, and (3) students believed that manager's values were the same as theirs. Siegel (1973) found that MBA students were more Machiavellian and less participatively inclined than were managers. Pitts and Sims (1978) found that undergraduate business administration majors were more "Theory X" oriented than were managers. In a study comparing attributes of experienced managers and business students, Burke (1973) found that managers differed from students by showing:

1. a greater feeling of mastery of their own environment rather than a belief in chance or fate,
2. a smaller tendency to engage in gamesmanship and manipulation to achieve ends,
3. a greater endorsement of open confrontation as a method of conflict resolution coupled with less enthusiasm for ineffective methods (withdrawing and compromising).

Rob Lundy (1981) compared management students with practicing managers, and found that the students engaged in passive and non­collaborative behaviors, while practicing managers engaged in proactive and collaborative behaviors.

These studies suggest that significant differences exist between the orientations of students and businesspeople. The studies identify a variety of differences, but generally suggest that students tend to differ from businesspeople in at least three important ways: they are more passive, they emphasize rationality more, and they are less collaborative.

Problems of Recent Graduates Entering Business

A number of studies indicate that recent graduates have difficulty in developing effective relationships in business organizations. Schein (1968) studied a sample of MIT graduates of the Master's degree in management program, and found that these graduates encountered a number of problems. While these graduates had high technical competencies, they frequently found that their rational, technical solutions were not enough. They had difficulty in dealing with how business was actually done, and in particular with the arational, human realities of the organization including their own emotional involvement. Schein comments, " . . . their basic approach was not how to work in and around the human organization, but rather how to make the human organization go away" (p.7). One result was that these graduates frequently had difficulty in understanding and working with their bosses and in managing others.

In a later study, Livingstone (1971) investigated the adequacy of preparation of business managers, and concluded:

". . . many crucial management tasks are not taught in management education programs but are left to be learned on the job, where few managers ever master them because no one teaches them how."

He identified three areas in which management education programs were deficient: skills in managing others, the effective exercise of power and authority, and "affective empathy," or the ability to empathize and deal with the emotional reactions of others.

Livingstone's conclusions are similar to those of two more recent studies which polled executives' views of recent graduates, and concluded that graduates are frequently seen as lacking important skills and orientations needed in working in a business environment. Based on interviews or discussions with several hundred managers, Webber (1976) identified a number of common difficulties experienced by young specialists and managers. Among these problems, Webber lists the following:

1. difficulty in adapting to the lengthened time horizons found in work
2. an overly individualistic orientation
3. insensitivity to the nuances of work environments
4. overemphasis on analytical tools and rationality
5. passivity
6. inadequate probing of the work environment
7. tension with older managers

The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in reaction to growing criticism among businesspersons and some academicians about the quality of business education, conducted a study which identified similar concerns. The AACSB study (1980) suggests that schools of business should pay increased attention to a number of "non­cognitive skills" which prospective businesspeople need to learn. These include administrative skills (organizing and planning, decision­making, and creativity), interpersonal skills (leadership, oral communications, behavior flexibility, personal impact, social objectivity, and perception of threshold social cues), and stability of performance (tolerance of uncertainty and resistance to stress).

These studies point to a number of areas in which recent graduates and others encounter difficulty, and have a high felt need for further skills. Interestingly, none of these studies indicate problems with technical skills-the traditional focus of formal learning. Rather, the problems have to do with recent graduates' abilities to relate effectively to others in the organization. It is the same problem areas identified above of: student passivity, and wanting others to tell them what to do; viewing situations in a highly rationalistic way and ignoring the arational, human elements of the organization; and non­collaboration and resisting entering into group-oriented or collaborative relationships.

Reasons for Student­Businessperson Differences: A Hypothesis

The reasons for these differences between students and practicing businesspeople might be explained in a number of ways such as selection effects of university requirements, maturation, and/or a "new breed" of students coming into school. However, it seems likely that they can be explained at least in part by differences between university and business situations, and the corresponding differences in how people learn to act in these situations.

A number of authors have suggested that students' relational orientations are affected by their university environment. Schein (1966) compared student attitudes with executives', and found that during their school career, students tended to shift their attitudes towards those of faculty, whether or not the attitudes of particular faculty were close to those of business executives. Dalton (1959) suggested that the primary impact of university education on students is in their learning how to beat the university. He points to the necessity of dealing with time pressures, making tradeoffs between work and pleasure, "psyching" professors, and circumventing regulations, as the most important learning the university provides. Even though this kind of learning might be useful in certain kinds of organizations, it also logically leads to a Machiavellian and non­collaborative relational Style, as other studies have indicated. In a study of young managers, Dill et al. (1962) commented:

"College students and young graduates are misled into passivity by a variety of influences. Not the least of these is the college environment itself. In many institutions, the student programs his (sic..) life according to class schedules, assignment sheets, lecture notes, and final examinations. His performance is evaluated on a regular basis, and he is told how well he is doing. Some professors will even allege that their ratings are entirely "objective" and "fair." He usually has access to a variety of advisors and counselors. He is protected against a great deal of the uncertainty, irregularity, instability, and vagueness that he will meet in his first industrial assignments".

And Siegel (1973) concurs:

". . . our educational institutions, in emphasizing knowledge, skills, and techniques, may in the process be de­emphasizing the future manager's faith and trust in others. More specifically, it is argued that the university as a socializing institution imparts a set of values that are far removed from those held by practicing managers."

Although these authors point to learning in a variety of university situations as affecting student relational orientations, the point is that perhaps the "traditional" class setting is an important arena in which student relational skills are learned. Such a format is characterized by high teacher control, low student interdependence and proactivity, and emphasis on rational learning. In a setting like this, students are likely to learn through experience that a passive, non­collaborative orientation and an emphasis on rational skills constitutes the relational style most likely to reap institutional rewards. In addition, students who do not learn this style are less likely to remain in the university system. Once learned through experience, this style is likely to be institutionalized in the student culture through norms, advice from higher level students to lower level ones, and exemplary tales of classroom conduct.

At this point, the pieces seem to fit together: the kinds of problems recent graduates have are the kind we would expect, if they were attempting to us a university relational style in a business. Chart One summarizes this possible link between aspects of the university experience and student problems in relating in business organizations. The first column lists some attributes of university experiences, particularly in traditionally taught classes. Opposite this in the second column are some orientations students are likely to learn through these experiences. The third column shows some problems which recent graduates have in relating in business organizations, which are likely to result from their university­learned relational styles.

Even though there appear to be some plausible causal relations between columns one and two (e.g., highly structured classes leading to a passive orientation), the relations between these columns tend to be more multicausal than unicausal. For example, a former student's problems in relating with the larger organization may stem from not only passiveness, but also a tendency not to develop collaborative relations and an overlooking of the importance of these relationships because of a preference for rationalistic approaches to problems. Consequently, the relationships between these columns should be regarded as systemic, and not necessarily traceable to one prior causal factor. It may be that much of the transitional shock that many graduates experience after leaving the university can be attributed to the necessity of painfully unlearning much of what they informally learned in sixteen years of relating in educational institutions.

Preparing Students for the Relational Demands of Business

This paper has explored the relationship between relational difficulties which recent business school graduates encounter in business and the kinds of relational styles which they learn during their education. If it is true, as is suggested in this paper, that the two are causally linked, it follows that if we can change the ways students learn to relate during their education to styles more appropriate in businesses, then the transition from university to business will be less problematic. There are three broad arenas of the university in which student relational styles can be considered: (1) the larger university, (2) classrooms, and (3) courses specifically focused on relational skills. Some suggestions for influencing student experiential learning in each of these arenas are discussed below.

Relating in the Larger University

Outside of course­related activities, students may potentially develop relationships in a number of university systems. The include participation in student government, attendance at university­sponsored occasions, some sports, and membership in societies and clubs. Any relationships in the larger university which involve responsibility, problem­solving, initiative, or interdependent work with others are likely to be helpful. Some clubs, such as the Alpha Kappa Psi business society, are intentionally organized so as to provide this kind of opportunity for students.

There are a number of things which a business school can do to encourage students to actively develop relationships in the larger university. Perhaps the simplest is for the school to publicly express its support for such activities. Another is to seek ways in which school and university resources can be used to assist in these activities, such as providing transportation for field trips. Ways of­integrating these activities with course credit activities could be explored. For example, a club research project might be combined with an individual study project. Business­related clubs can stimulate membership by providing a resume­writing service. For many students, a club reference detailing their contributions could be highly valuable when interviewing.

Relationships in Courses

The traditional course design has evolved as a response to the need to educate under conditions of low resources. It seems unlikely that educators will receive increased instructional resources in the near future. There are some changes, however, which can be made in the traditional course design without requiring major increases in resources or retraining of instructors. Three possibilities are discussed below.

1. Make more effective use of groups. The use of groups in a traditionally designed class can be helpful in reducing the amount of material the instructor must read, by partially replacing individual papers by group papers. At the same time, these groups can provide valuable experience for students in working with others-if two conditions are met: (a) the group has control over how rewards are allocated to members, and (b) the group has been primed to be aware of issues of working together. The first condition can be met by allowing groups to allocate group scores to members. The second can be met in a number of ways. A course early in the business program can include basic group skills as a part of its curriculum. More advanced students might be invited to sit in with starting groups for a few sessions. At the minimum, a standard handout listing guidelines to developing an effective work group might be given to each group (for a description of a "minor intervention" in which the author tried out this approach, see Bigelow, 1983).

   Another advantage to providing groups with tasks requiring the ability to work together is that it introduces other than rationalistic criteria into grading. While the grading procedure can be conducted as before, the quality of the group's output becomes contingent on students' abilities to develop an effective working group. Thus, students can become oriented to other than rationalistic criteria, without making grading more involved.

2. Delegate aspects of the course to students or student groups. There are a number of aspects of course design which can be delegated to students. For example, students or student groups can be assigned case sessions or discussion questions to lead. In addition, the initial parts of actual discussions can be conducted in groups, instead of in the overall class. Groups can then contribute their conclusions to the overall class. An advantage of this format is that many students become more involved in group discussions than they do in class discussions.
3. Involve students in selected course design issues. In designing a course, there are often choices to be made which are of little importance to instructors, but of more importance to students. For example, the number of questions on an exam, the dates when exams are to be given, the weighting of exams, the way course topics are to be scheduled, and the amount of time to be devoted to topics. Instead of routinely making these choices for students, an instructor could run the list by students todetermine which of them they would like to have a voice in.. Even if class members express no interest in influencing the instructors' choices, student involvement in the course is likely to be increased by making the choices available.

   If students express interest in providing input around a particular design issue, there are a number of decision processes which work well for large numbers of people. There are more options to making a decision than simply voting. For those who know the conventions, Robert's Rules of Order can be quite helpful in making a good decision without requiring too much time. For other types of decisions, a tiered vote (i.e., one in which groups cast their votes as a block) or a Nominal Group Technique (Cook, 1980) can be highly efficient. The principle of participation in decision making is a well­established method in business. Participation by students in course decisions is likely to have the dual benefits of increased student involvement in the course and increased appreciation by the student for participative decision making.

Courses Dealing with Relational Skills

Most business schools have one or more courses dealing with other than technical skills. These courses go under a variety of names, and are taught using a variety of techniques. The studies cited in this paper can provide needed focus for designing an appropriate method and content for these courses. With respect to method, this paper suggests the course might well depart from the traditional design. The "experientially" taught course, for example, requires more active participation by students in the learning process although the increasing diversity of techniques included in this designation makes generalization difficult (Bower, 1980). Certainly more needs to be known about the impact of experiential methods on student relational styles. An experientially based course could be used to teach traditional content or deal with relational skills. In particular, a more specifically situational or skills oriented course can be organized around such topics as communication, negotiating, conflict management, leadership, persuasion, management of ambiguity and stress, managing vertical relationships, networks, and organizational politics. Obviously, such courses need to go beyond an intellectual appreciation of these skills or a brief exposure to their use; instead, to the greatest extent possible, these courses need to impart working skills in developing effective organizational relationships.

Conclusion

I have pointed to some relational problems which recent graduates encounter when they enter business, and have suggested that these stem in part from a mismatch between what students experience in the learning environment of the university and the relational demands of business. I have identified some things which might be done to better align experiential learning in the university with the relational demands of business.

The question remains as to who will champion these changes, how they will bring about these changes, and why. OB teachers seem to be the logical initiators of change, since the learning has much to do with their topic. Presumably, OB teachers are conversant with organizational change techniques, which go a long way toward answering the "how" question. However, the "why" question still remains. University settings typically reward teachers who carry out some combination of teaching, research, consulting, and community service. The teacher who spends time trying to change the nature of the university outside his/ her class is likely to be punished in at least two ways: first, by other faculty who may see the teacher's efforts as an unwarranted intrusion into their areas of expertise, and second, by spending time in ways not traditionally recognized as valuable by the university reward system.

This suggests that OB teachers wanting to affect relational learning outside their classrooms should first direct efforts towards changing the reward system. To the extent an OB teacher can obtain recognition from the school's administration that such effort is worthwhile, and an activity which "counts" in some evaluation area such as teaching, he/ she is more likely to feel externally rewarded for effort put in-and more likely to obtain cooperation from others. In obtaining recognition, teachers in accredited schools have a strong ally in the AACSB accreditation research project. Perhaps the most important reward would be internal: a feeling of professional pride in carrying out educational objectives, even if it means stepping outside the traditional limits of the educational role.

FOOTNOTE

*My thanks to Pat Connor, Kurt Motamedi, and Judith Kuipers for their comments.

CHART ONE: IMPACT OF UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE ON STUDENT RELATIONAL STYLES, AND SOME CONSEQUENT PROBLEMS

References

Bigelow, J., and Easton, E. A Survey of Recent Management Concentration Graduates. Oregon State University School of Business, Corvallis, 1979.

Bigelow, J. "The University Experience: Can Students Live What We Teach?" Report on a session at the 1982 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. Working Paper, 1983.

Bowen, D. "Experiential and Traditional Teaching of OB: A Dubious Distinction." EXCHANGE: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal S (31 7­12.

Burke, R.J. "Effects of Organizational Experience on Managerial Attitudes and Beliefs: A Better Press for Managrs." Journal of Business Research, Summer, 1973, 21­30.

Carroll, C., Carson, G., Clinton, R., Coolen, M., Crisp, L., Hovland, W., Penn, R., and Rettig, J. "General Education Models (GEM) Project OSU Faculty Survey RE: General Education." Oregon State University Faculty Forum Papers, October, 1980.

Cook, C. "Nominal Group Methods Enrich Classroom Learning." EXCNANCE; The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 5 (3), 33­36.

Dalton, M. Men Who Manage. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959.

DeSalvia, D. and Gemmill, G. "An Exploratory Study of the Personal Value Systems of College Students and Managers." Academy of Management Journal, June, 1971, 227­238.

Dill, W., Hilton, T., and Reitman, W. The New Uanagers. New Jersey: Prentice­Hall, Inc., 1962.

Edge, A.G., and Greenwood, R. "How Personnel Managers Rank the Importance of Various Educational Factors in Business Administration Graduates." Marquette Business Review, 1972.

Greenslaw, P., Pitts, R., and Sims, H. ­A New Generation of Theory X Managers." The Personnel Administrator, September, 1978, 29­32.

Livingstone, J.S. "Myth of the Well­Educated Manager." Harvard Business Review, January­February 1971.

Lundy, R. The Real World and the Management Classroom: A Comparison of the Engagement Styles of Management Students and Managers. Thesis submitted to Oregon State University, 1981.

Pearse, R.F. Manager to Manager: What Managers Think of Management Development, New York: AMACOM, A Division of American Management Association, 1974.

Schein, E. "Attitude Change During Management Education." Administrative Science Quarterly, II, 1966, 601­628.

Schein, E. "The First Job Dilemma." Psychology Today, March, 1968.

Siegel, J.P. "Machiavellianism, MBA's and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects." Academy of Management Journal, 1973 (September), 404­411.

Webber, R.A. "Career Problems of Young Managers." California Management Review, Summer, 1976, 19­33.