Ken S. Keleman, Kathi J. Lovelace and Joseph E. Garcia

Schools of Business are being encouraged to shift their educational focus, adding skill application as a complement to the more traditional cognitive or analytical instruction. (e.g., Porter & McKibbin, 1988). In responding to this need for change, attempts to improve instruction in managerial competencies have generally pursued a skill competency approach. Whetten and Cameron (1984), for example, proceeded by a) Identifying relevant competencies or skills, then b) Designing an instructional package to teach these specific skills.

We have worked with such skill focused materials for several years in our courses, and have been impressed with the learning gains our undergraduate students displayed as compared with our more traditional Organizational Behavior instruction. Still, we were left with uneasy feelings when we watched seemingly skilled students act ineptly in new interaction situations where we felt they should display mastery. Students who had previously done suitable analysis and displayed appropriate skills often appeared to flounder when they faced similar but unpracticed situations.

In an attempt to reduce this apparent generalization or transfer problem, we have changed our instructional focus to a situational approach as contrasted to a skill component approach. A brief description of our experience follows, including our basic reasoning, instructional methods, and some general observations.

Our first question was to ask why students had problems transferring skill learning across interaction situations. In reflecting upon this, it became apparent to us that problems do not come to managers in neat packages with labels such as "this is a delegation problem" but are, by contrast, "messy." For example a situation may be a complex interweaving of time management, stress management, and conflict management issues that are unique to the specific situation. Because of this complexity, interpersonal interaction problems managers face are perhaps best technically labeled as "Ill-Structured" problems. Ill-Structured problems are defined as those problems in which the problem solver contributes to the definition and resolution of the problem, using information generated from initial unsuccessful attempts at a solution (Simon & Hayes, 1976).

Ungson, Braunstein, and Hall (1981) suggest that effectively solving ill-structured problems is the management meta-problem. Clearly, interpersonal problems constitute a large portion of this problem solving. Consequently the choices between a skill based as compared with a situationally based orientation for teaching interpersonal competence might be reinterpreted as a "part versus whole" learning issue. As Wexley and Latham (1981) note, whether a "part" or "whole" teaching/learning strategy is superior depends upon: a) Task complexity (difficulty), and b) Task organization (the degree of interrelationships among subsets of the task). These same authors also note that for highly organized tasks, the whole method seems to be more efficient.

It was with such thoughts that we decided to focus on "whole" situations, to increase the variety of situations, and to restrict the focus to interpersonal interactions. Concurrently we shifted emphasis to a basic "Systems" problems solving model (see e.g., Church, Smith, & Schell, 1988-89) within the behavior modeling/action learning approach we used for teaching skills.

We have been emphasizing the interpersonal interaction skills of management students for the last three years in our undergraduate course development. Fundamentally, two guideposts led us in this direction: a) The substantial amount of interpersonal interactions required in managerial jobs. This may entail 50% to 80% of a manager's time (Luthans, Hodgetts, & Stewart, 1988; Mintzberg, 1973), and b) The important adverse consequences of ineffective interactions, documented at the extreme by derailed executives (McCall & Lombardo (1983). This is not to suggest that other skill domains (e.g., self knowledge, personal stress management) are not important. We simply felt that with limited instructional time we could have more leverage or address more variance in managerial performance by focusing on interpersonal interactions.

As we were committed to a behavior modeling/action learning approach, an initial problem was to develop an appropriate assessment system. As Bigelow (1988) has pointed out, the assessment procedures appropriate to traditional instruction (e.g. papers, essays, multiple choice exams) provide little information as regards interaction skills of a student. A number of instructors who teach skill based courses attempt to create more appropriate assessment procedures in the form of "action exams" (e.g. Bigelow, 1988; Damm, 1983; DiStefano & Howell, 1986; Lee, Adler, Hartwick, & Waters, 1987). Generically, this measurement approach requires that a student display appropriate skills and behaviors given a stimulus set such as a role play or case. The instructor or other assessors observe and evaluate the behavior on one or more dimensions appropriate to the interaction. We adopted this action exam strategy since it seemed to fit with our interaction focus.

In our case, the development of a workable assessment form has been a continual concern. Our forms have varied from overly simplistic to overly complex. The form we are currently using is depicted in Figure 1. It addresses three major interaction attributes. The "Interaction Flow" section draws attention to a systematic interaction process in terms of the content and direction of the interaction. This is based on a Systems model of problem solving. The "Interaction Outcomes" section addresses the viability of interaction outcomes. This was based on Fisher and Ury's (1981) work with the Harvard Negotiation Project. The "Communication" section contains a description of the communication underpinnings. These reflect the utilization of requisite communication skills necessary for interpersonal interactions. They are consistent with skills suggested in skill component approaches to effective communication (e.g., Whetten & Cameron, 1984).

--------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

--------------------------

Accompanying the development of an assessment procedure was the concurrent issue of creating appropriate role play stimuli. In our case, we had been using a number of short cases which had required students to analyze situations using specific Organizational Behavior models or frameworks. It was fairly easy to rewrite these into a role play format which provided a purpose for interaction around important managerial issues. These role play scenarios represent a wide variety of organizational settings and problems, for example manufacturing and service firms in the private sector as well as public and not-for-profit firms. The scenarios usually have a central issue, for example stress management, but require multiple skills for successful execution as an interaction role play. A sample scenario is presented in Appendix A.

We are currently using the following five phase procedure in our skills course:

Phase 1: Preliminary Comments. To prepared the students for the role play interaction process we encourage the students to have "fun" with the role plays. We point out that "play" is an integral part of the word "role plays", and indicate that students can practice behaviors in this nonthreatening environment without serious consequences.

Additionally, we discuss the causes and effects of goal-path multiplicity in interpersonal problem solving. We note the different assumptions the role players make as well as situationally induced differences. Students are reminded that it is common for actors to attribute success and in particular, failure to the environment while observers tend to attribute success and failure to personal characteristics of the actor. We use this actor-observer difference (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) to highlight the importance of effective feedback and to point out that a person's performance in a role play and their value as a person are distinct. In sum, Phase 1 serves to frame students' expectations about the role play problem solving process.

Phase 2: Establish Discriminations. This step helps students to understand the appraisal form in Figure 1. We discuss each of the elements on the form to develop a common understanding of the terms and behavioral processes. Students are told this form will be used to appraise role play interactions in the course. To supplement descriptions, we use videotapes (made from other students) to display interactions. We carefully conduct stop action "walk throughs" showing how the observation form can be coded and providing the rationale for each assessment. We pick examples with widely varied styles to start with so that the students may build observation and discrimination skills. In sum, Phase 2 provides students with observation, discrimination, and labeling skills.

Phase 3 : Practice. The next step is to allow the students to practice various role plays. We do this by having the students perform role plays in class, either in small groups, or on videotape. We then ask the actors and observers to evaluate the interactions for themselves using the observation form. This exercise provides students with the opportunity to practice different approaches and get quick feedback. Again, we point out that there can be a number of successful approaches to problem solving interactions and that the key is to choose an effective approach which takes into account individual preference as well as situational differences.

Phase 4 : Students as Actors. After practicing in class, we have each student complete a videotaped role play. The student is assigned a role play and may execute the role play with any partner that s/he desires. In order to insure attention to relevant conceptual material, the student is asked to complete a "Plan" prior to taping her/his role play. In this "Plan" the student, 1) describes the role play situation, 2) points out the major issues, 3) specifies what outcomes are expected from the interaction, and 4) summarizes the anticipated flow of the interaction. Before the plan is complete, students are encouraged to try out their role play and adjust the plan where needed.

For this first videotaped assignment, we assign a small percentage of course points but select a random subset of the cuts to review and discuss in class. This social consequence provides more than sufficient motivation to encourage quality work by most students.

Phase 5: Second Iteration. Later in the term, when students have had a number of opportunities to practice, they are assigned a second role play to plan, practice and videotape. This second taping is graded for a large percentage of course points. We evaluate each tape separately using the observation form depicted in Figure 1. A copy of the form completed by the instructor serves as the student's feedback on the assignment.

Beyond this five phase procedure, we find that students become interested in receiving additional personal feedback. As a whole, the activity serves as an opening for students to explore and improve their own interpersonal styles in a variety of situations.

To date we have not systematically collected data which would speak to the relative effectiveness of this instructional approach. We have, however, made a number of informal observations.

First regarding overall effectiveness, two of the authors regularly teach the undergraduate managerial skills course. We have noted a marked improvement, even within one quarter, in the ability of students to size up a new situation and interact effectively. We also teach subsequent senior level elective courses with strong interaction components. We have the impression that students who have been through the redesigned junior level skills course are more willing to initiate a problem solving interaction. These students also conduct themselves more effectively in interactions than did students four years ago when we were teaching more traditional Organizational Behavior courses. In addition, student comments have been quite positive as have casual comments from other instructors.

As Bigelow (1989) pointed out, when confronted with new situations, students tend to rely on their lay theories. This tendency has been evidenced in class discussions and it has prompted a shifts in our classroom teaching strategy. Discussions of role plays in class have become situation focused, with Organizational Behavior theories and models as the complement rather than the drivers. Even though the common thread across situations is the systematic problem solving orientation, we find plenty of opportunity to discuss content and skill specific issues.

As with any course, students are initially concerned about grading, as were we. Currently we use a form similar to that shown in Figure 1 and our grading is basically normative. However, having graded hundreds of hours of videotape to date, we feel we have a reasonably good idea of what to expect on an absolute level. When we develop a new scenario, we co-review tapes to establish common anchors for grading and feedback purposes. Discussions of student videotapes in class provides a good opportunity to review behavioral data and communicate expectations to students. Such discussions appear to lead to a number of "aha" experiences and we find students accept our evaluations quite well.

Student stress can be a problem initially in the videotaping. Students who have not previously been videotaped may appear nervous and distracted during the first taping. In order to minimize the student stress, we allocate only a few points for the first videotaping and encourage systematic pre-planning and practice with their role play partner before taping. We anticipate that this reduces stress as compared with "live" action exams, but on occasion, the tradeoff is in terms of the "freshness" of the interaction.

A major problem we have encountered to date is a problem particular to any action exams. Action exams, in any form, take a considerable amount of time to grade. We have yet to discover the kinds of economies of scale which multiple-choice questions provide for content centered courses. On the positive side, however, when we have watched 2 - 4 tapes of a student throughout the course of a quarter, we feel that we really know our students.

An additional problem we have occasionally encountered involves situations where a student may competently deal with a role play situation and yet not fulfill a number of the evaluation criteria depicted in Figure 1. In fact, certain situations prohibit receiving high grades on all categories (e.g. having to notify an employee that he or she is being laid off makes it difficult to display behavior which would score high on item 8, "Serves the interest of both parties."). As a result, we have resorted to reconciling our evaluation within the context of the situation. By this we mean that a rating of complete and effective for a particular dimension will be rated more or less rigorously depending on the nature of the role play situation assigned to the student. This practice makes it important for us to co-review scenarios as a form of validity checking. Our future plans include inviting managers from firms who hire our graduates to participate with us in calibrating our evaluations.

In sum, the shift to situation based skill development represents a major development in our instruction. Given our feedback from students to date, we are confident that the change has been worth the investment. Perhaps as important, as instructors we have learned a considerable amount about effective and ineffective interactions through this approach to managerial skills development.

Observation and Appraisal Form

Role Play title___________________________________Date___________

Name________________________________Section______________________

Please watch the interaction then record your observations and comments on this form. Your observations will be used for discussion. Please make your rating by marking the " o " which best corresponds to your judgment. Omit non applicable items.

INTERACTION FLOW: Complete and effective -|

Somewhat apparent and effective - | |

Absent or ineffective -| | |

| | |

1. Opening, rapport...........................o...o...o...o...o

2. Meeting framing............................o...o...o...o...o

3. Legitimate needs of Role 1 discussed.......o...o...o...o...o

4. Legitimate needs of Role 2 discussed.......o...o...o...o...o

5. Solutions mutually developed...............o...o...o...o...o

6. Specific behavior and system changes.......o...o...o...o...o

7. Closing summary, restatement...............o...o...o...o...o

COMMENTS:

INTERACTION OUTCOMES Complete and effective -|

Somewhat apparent and effective - | |

Absent or ineffective -| | |

| | |

8. Serves interests of both parties...........o...o...o...o...o

9. Takes "community" interests into account...o...o...o...o...o

10. Is durable, lasting will be carried out....o...o...o...o...o

11. Is tied to objective criteria..............o...o...o...o...o

12. Maintains or improves the relationship.....o...o...o...o...o

COMMENTS:

COMMUNICATION: Complete and effective -|

Somewhat apparent and effective - | |

Absent or ineffective -| | |

| | |

13. Nonverbal behavior.........................o...o...o...o...o

14. Congruence.................................o...o...o...o...o

15. Descriptive communication..................o...o...o...o...o

16. Positive regard............................o...o...o...o...o

17. Problem focused............................o...o...o...o...o

18. Praise appropriately.......................o...o...o...o...o

19. Establish ownership........................o...o...o...o...o

20. Balances participation.....................o...o...o...o...o

21. Active listening...........................o...o...o...o...o

22. Keeps on task..............................o...o...o...o...o

23. Style flexibility..........................o...o...o...o...o

21. Appropriate intimacy.......................o...o...o...o...o

25. Maintains composure........................o...o...o...o...o

COMMENTS:

_________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Observation and Appraisal form for use in class and by instructors and others as evaluators. From Keleman, K.S., Garcia, J.E. & Lovelace, K.J. (1990). Management Incidents. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt (in press). Reproduced with permission.

Both persons work for a Skyjack Airlines, a major air carrier which has developed a reputation for poor service due to overbookings, mechanical failures and late arrivals. Role 1 is Skyjack's gate clerk supervisor at a large midwestern "hub" airport and is responsible for 10 gates. As supervisor, Role 1 is responsible for the safe, orderly and effective passenger boarding and deplaning by gate clerk personnel. The gate clerks, one of whom is Role 2, work directly with the public and handle the details of boarding, assigning seating, announcing pertinent information to passengers, and so forth.

As gate clerk supervisor, one of your missions is to improve the public's perception of your airline. This has become even more important in recent months. There have been several near miss accidents in the industry, including one highly publicized case involving your company. Airline fliers have become increasingly more demanding while at the same time, you are trying to help your gate clerks be effective "ambassadors" for Skyjack.

Yesterday you had occasion to observe an incident at Gate 17 where the flight to New Orleans (Flight #987) was delayed for three hours due to mechanical difficulties. The ground repair crew was carefully replacing a malfunctioning altimeter, a very important task.

In the terminal, the passengers, many of whom had made connections from other cities, became restless and concerned with the status of their plans. The gate clerk, Role 2, followed standard procedures, informing the waiting passengers of the delay. Unfortunately, the repair crew underestimated the complexity of the repair and the expected departure time was postponed several times. After waiting for two hours, several passengers asked to be told the cause of the delay. The clerk phoned the repair crew and then relayed over the public address system that, ". . . the plane was broke and the mechanics had to call out for parts, and as soon as they got it back together they would be ready for boarding and take-off."

This announcement caused an uproar. Several passengers made loud comments about broken airplanes, and a number asked the gate clerk to check to see if they could switch bookings to a flight on another carrier to New Orleans.

Having witnessed some of the uproar, you feel compelled to meet with this gate clerk to have a talk about yesterday's incident.

Your job is to effectively manage the flow of passengers on and off airplanes at your gate. In addition you spend considerable time answering all sorts of questions about flight schedules, ticket information and various facilities in the airport. Lately things have been quite busy. Just yesterday, for example, there was a big problem with Flight 987 to New Orleans. The plane was delayed for three hours. As a result, the waiting area was filled with tired, hungry, and disenchanted fliers. Many had come from other parts of the country and were already anxious to continue their travel.

During the delay, you received a series of inaccurate estimates from the repair crew about when the plane would be ready. It seemed like every fifteen minutes or so they would call and revise their estimates to a later time. Eventually, some passengers wanted to know what was going on so you called the repair crew. They told you they had decided to replace the altitude meter or something. Not knowing what one of these gizmos does, you announced to the waiting passengers that something was broken, had to be replaced, and the part was on its way. That seemed to upset quite a few people. You anticipated that this would happen anyway since they had been waiting over two hours.

Your boss, who saw part of the uproar, asked you to come meet with her/him to talk over yesterday's situation.

_________________________________________________________________

1. From Keleman, K.S., Garcia, J.E., Lovelace, K.J. (1990). Management Incidents. Dubuque Iowa: Kendall/Hunt (in press). Reproduced with permission.