Timothy T. Serey and Kathleen S. Verderber

In the concluding chapter of the seminal report, Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust Into The 21st Century, Porter & McKibbin (1988) wrote:

"As has been stressed at several points in this report...corporate respondents showed an over-whelming preponderance of opinion that behaviorally oriented subject matter should receive more attention in the curriculum...Perhaps most importantly, the corporate sector gives business school graduates relatively low ratings in terms of the strength (or lack thereof) of their leadership and interpersonal skills."

Referring to these management skills (endnote 1), in 1983 Lyman Porter stated:

"Teaching managerial competencies is quite likely to be one of the major issues - perhaps the major issue - facing business/management schools in the last half of the 1980's."

Albanese determined that Academy of Management members were generally quite favorably disposed to management competencies (Albanese, Schoenfeldt, Serey & Whetten, 1987). Over eighty percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "There is a need for more teaching of managerial competencies in management classes." Spurred by the emphasis about skills in the Porter and McKibbin (1988) report, the 1989 Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference ended with the forming of a task force to address the skills issues.

Based on the activity cited above, one might assume that teaching business students behavioral skills has begun to result in widespread acceptance of competency based educational philosophies. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Rather, to borrow an analogy from the world of marathon running, the integration of managerial skill development into curriculums across the country has "hit the wall." Despite the high expectation held by several experts in Organizational Behavior and Management, skills teaching seems to have met the limits of its endurance. In fact, far from being seen as "mainstream" or as "the major issue," one leading author recently lamented that many business faculty apparently view competencies as having a "cult-like" following (Cameron, 1989). These views make it clear that the future of the managerial competencies will depend on "breaking through the wall," by adapting current curricula and methodologies to include developing behavioral skill in students. Overcoming the reluctance that some faculty express about teaching competencies will be an important next step remedying the poor performances of business school graduates as reported by Porter and McKibbin (1988).

We believe that there are several philosophical and pedagogical issues which may account for the reluctance of some faculty to embrace the task of teaching behaviorally based skills. During the past six years, our experience in teaching management competencies has led us to consider several issues and dilemmas. In many cases we have successfully overcome our own concerns; in other cases we have gained a deeper appreciation of the tradeoffs involved.

Based on our experiences, this chapter examines several of the key issues and controversies which must be resolved if the promises of competency based management education are to be realized. In the remainder of this chapter we address three issues that are central to educational philosophy and four issues critical to pedagogy that must be addressed and resolved if the teaching of managerial competencies in collegiate level business education is to become commonplace.

The shortcomings of the more traditional ways of teaching O.B. and Management have been known for some time. Ten years ago Filley, Foster, and Herbert (1979) complained that O.B. and Management courses emphasized theoretical concepts, but were of limited practical value. In 1980 Waters observed that conventional pedagogies tended to emphasize cognitive learning about behavior in organizations. For example, professors lectured on the rationale and principles for providing employees with feedback. Unfortunately, students were left on their own to divine how to actually verbalize and conduct a feedback session. In 1982 Mandt indicted business schools for their failures and called for reforms in the article stingingly titled, "The Failure of Business Education - And What to Do About It." Yet in the 1988 Porter & McKibbin report, business leaders were still critical of the quality of business school graduates' "people skills."

Despite the limits to the current practice of our craft, reluctance to embrace a skills approach remains. We believe that some of this hesitancy is rooted in the philosophical position held by many professors. Some business faculty see competency based education as mere training sessions. They believe that this feeds the stereotype held by other non-business disciplines that business education is too vocational (i.e., not a "legitimate" scholarly discipline). Some management scholars have also voiced skepticism about the validity of competency education (Vaill, 1983). The A.A.C.S.B. while ostensibly trying to encourage integration of skills into the business curriculum, may have inadvertently perpetuated the false dichotomy between theory and skill. They differentiated between cognitive skills (e.g., analytical skills), and non-cognitive skills, (emphasis added) or management competencies (Outcome Measurement Project, 1987). In summary, the position held by some business educators is that skill based learning - while necessary for managerial success - falls outside of the purview of the traditions of collegiate education.

Yet, emphasis on skill based education in universities has a long and rich history of preparing students for success in many professions. For example, study in the natural sciences requires that students become adept at using scientific equipment and procedures. The study of any foreign language requires that learners engage in activities designed to demonstrate their behavioral competence at speaking and understanding the language. Students of archeology learn the techniques required for acquiring and preserving artifacts. English majors learn to produce a critique of a particular piece of literature based on the postulates of particular literary theories. Artists in training study the various schools of art and are expected to produce works of artistic merit using various expressive media. Student musicians are routinely expected to perform at recitals. Even the "hard" sciences expect skill performance. In engineering, students are not only immersed in the theories and mathematics of engineering, but are also responsible for completing projects to learn the behaviors required of the practitioner engineer. Similarly, before medical students ever become licensed practitioners, clinical rotations, internships, and residency experiences are designed to demonstrate behavioral competence.

Thus the integration of competency based skill development is not outside the mainstream of traditional collegiate education. Rather, the integration of behavioral learning with theoretical learning may be a key characteristic of a mature academic discipline.

We believe that the disciplines of management and organizational behavior, have now matured sufficiently in terms of their theoretical development to where theory-guided behavioral competencies can be identified, and therefore, taught. Leading management scholars have recognized this for some time and have been urging curriculum reform. For example, in the mid-1970's, Mintzberg articulated the difference between teaching about management (which we do), and teaching how to manage (which we generally do not do). Continuing, Mintzberg (1975) noted:

"Management schools will begin the serious training of managers when skill training takes a serious place next to cognitive learning. Our management schools need to identify the skills managers use, select students who show potential in these skills, put students into situations where these skills are practiced, and then give them systematic feedback on their performance."

In a similar vein, Katz (1974) complained:

"Programs which concentrate on the mere imparting of information or the cultivation of a specific trait would seem to be largely unproductive in enhancing the administrative skills of candidates...The skill conception of administration suggests that we may hope to improve our administrative effectiveness and to develop administrators for the future. This skill conception implies learning by doing."

The significant body of management theory that was developed during the past thirty years enabled several taxonomies of important managerial skills to be developed. Originally begun in 1976, the A.A.C.S.B.-sponsored Outcome Measurement Project (1987) identified six clusters of "skills and personal characteristics" (i.e., competencies) business school graduates should master. The American Management Association identified eighteen managerial competencies which it endorses (Powers, 1983). Arguably the most influential development is the innovative text by Whetten and Cameron (1984), Developing Management Skills. This text identified three intrapersonal (e.g., managing stress; self-awareness) and nine interpersonal skills (e.g., delegating; supportive communication) (endnote 2). In sharp conceptual contrast to the micro focus of these management skill approaches, Morgan (1988) emphasizes mastery of macro skills (e.g., empowering employees in self-managing organizations; managing ambiguity and paradox; and reading the environment).

In all cases, these different taxonomies are focused on "real world" management skills and behaviors that Boyatzis (1982) contends are the basis of competency education. They are derived directly from the conceptual and empirical literature. For example, stress management skills include learning to use the Force Field Models of Stress to diagnose sources of stress and identify suitable methods of stress reduction. Skills related to influencing the motivational level in others require that students understand the various theories of motivation to skillfully apply their lessons. To illustrate, to become skillful in motivating others, the student has to be able to define positive reinforcement, recognize examples of it, and be able to design and administer an appropriate reinforcement program. Competency based management education also emphasizes behavioral flexibility and understanding of how situation demands affect enactment of skills. Skill mastery does not consist of rote mastery of a simple list of "do's and don'ts," offering prescriptive advice for all situations. On the contrary, competency education is wholly consistent with a contingency view advocated by the theories of O.B.

From a theoretical perspective competency education in general, and Whetten and Cameron's approach in particular, is rooted in Bandura's Social Learning Theory (1977), and in Goldstein and Sorcher's Four Step Learning (1974). The former emphasizes behavior practice and the value of modeling as a key component in the learning process. The latter takes a structured approach to learning skills. Instructors teach underlying principles and theories after which they model or demonstrate examples of effective behaviors. Students complete a learning sequence which includes time for practicing behaviors and receiving feedback based on specific behavioral guidelines.

In summary, as our discipline matures, it is important for the philosophy which guides management education to evolve from imparting of conceptual and theoretical learning to an educational philosophy that includes developing behavioral competence in students. The chorus of critical voices from the A.A.C.S.B. findings and the business community compel us to move toward helping students learn how to manage, in addition to learning about managing. As a maturing academic discipline, it is our responsibility to incorporate the learning of "how to do" into our curricula.

A second educational philosophy concerns how students develop managerial skills. This development is not a discrete or finite process but one which varies depending on the complexity of the skill and the beginning ability level of the student. Programs whose goals include behavioral skill development must grapple with developing a philosophy toward student learners which acknowledges individual differences while affirming the importance of developing common competencies. Additionally, there must be a willingness to modify or totally redesign the curriculum in order to provide students with sufficient time to acquire complex skills.

Since we began teaching managerial skills we have observed that behavioral skills take more time to master than conceptual material. This is not surprising since the O.D. literature tells us that effective behavior in organizational settings is complex, and that it takes time to change. Additionally, most skill oriented courses also teach the theories which underlie competent behavior.

On more than one occasion we have wrestled with this issue by asking ourselves the question, "How much behavioral change is it fair to expect of our students in one semester?" This question is confounded by two realities. First, students clearly bring into a course differing levels of competence. Because their current skill level is the product of their previous life experiences, formal learning, and prior opportunities for skill development, students sometimes view competency courses as an uneven playing field. Second, individual difference factors also mean that students acquire skills at different learning rates. Because demonstrated mastery of competencies is generally required, students can also experience strong affective reactions (e.g., anxiety, perceived threats to self-presentation).

We have not eliminated these two realities. Instead, we have adopted a philosophy that recognizes individual differences and seeks to create a "safe" learning environment. Managing a supportive learning environment - discussed at some length in a subsequent section - is a requisite characteristic for enhancement of skill acquisition. Nevertheless, our students are expected to display minimum specified levels of skill acquisition at certain points during their course of study. Those who are unable to do this are expected to repeat the material until they can.

Based on our experience in teaching behavioral skills, we are troubled by the misplaced eagerness of some of our colleagues who are "ready for something new...want to give this a try," or that they "want to jump on the skills bandwagon, but are not sure where to start." Comments like these were made to one of the authors who took part in a symposium about skills teaching at the Meeting of the Academy of Management in 1987. While we applaud the eagerness to teach managerial competencies, we are also concerned by the naivete about the need to have curricula that are capable of developing and sustaining managerial skills in students. After discussions with other professors at several O.B.T.C.s, we're convinced that the "let's try it here approach" may be counter-productive. Instead, we assert that schools of business need to develop a "good fit" between the business school curriculum, its objectives, and a skills approach.

In many colleges curriculum revision has traditionally meant adding or deleting one or two courses at a time. It is within this context that many well intentioned efforts to establish managerial skills (including our first attempts) have occurred. When one finds managerial skill building occurring as part of a curriculum, it is most frequently done within the context of a single course. These courses become the sole mechanism through which students are expected to achieve competence. Although these courses may result in students acquiring some additional level of skill, our experience has been that one shot skill courses are not long enough to result in the "refreezing" of new behaviors necessary for neophyte managers.

If faculty embrace the need for competency goals in the curriculum, then it is important that this be accompanied by the philosophy that each course in the curriculum should contribute to the skill development of students. A move toward managerial competency based education must necessitate a systematic assessment of the current curriculum with an eye toward understanding the nature and relationships between various content areas, associated competencies, and the pedagogies used to teach these.

Several years ago our faculty undertook this type of assessment. It began with a process to reach consensus about the theoretical and behavioral learnings we hoped our graduates would achieve. Then we systematically surveyed our current practices in each course. This resulted in an outcome x pedagogy x assessment method matrix which enabled us to identify our curriculum deficiencies (endnote 3). For example, we discovered there was consensus that program graduates should be able to competently present a formal oral presentation, and several courses required students to give such a presentation. Unfortunately, in none of our courses were students instructed on the techniques associated with effective business presentations. Additionally, all oral presentation assignments were done as part of group projects where the feedback focused on group centered issues instead of individual presentation critiques. In another area, we discovered that while several courses covered conceptual material associated with work process (i.e. job analysis, management of quality, etc.), in no course were students provided with "hands on" skill building exercises or assessments.

Achieving consensus on our program goals, developing the matrix, and negotiating the changes in our curriculum was hard work. But it resulted in three tangible benefits. First, the redesign of the curriculum was a joint undertaking that began with our agreement on a common educational philosophy. Ownership was spread across our faculty. We did not experience the resistance that is often encountered by some who unilaterally try to move toward a skill oriented approach. Second, we examined our curriculum in a systematic way, identifying the outcomes we judged to be desirable for our graduates. To do this we set goals that would be realistic in light of the abilities of our students. Third, the process resulted in a curriculum that has a logical progression of skill learning. For example, the development of "people skills" now begins with the requirement for a 200 level course in interpersonal communication skills taught by the speech-communication department on campus. Students then progress to a course titled "Managerial Behavior" which uses the Whetten & Cameron (1984) approach. Upon completion of this course students take a Human Resources (H.R.) class which integrates H.R. theories and research with opportunities to develop the H.R. skills that line managers need to succeed (such as interviewing, using job analysis to justify position requests, handling complaints about sexual harassment, and conducting performance appraisals). This H.R. skills focus contrasts sharply with our previous, more conventional approach which dealt with managing the Personnel function. Other courses teach the theories and skills associated with the management of work processes.

Instead of learning in a piecemeal fashion, our students now experience a continuity of skill development over their entire course of study. We have developed a curriculum that is consistent with our educational philosophy that sees competency based learning as a developmental process that must occur over extended lengths of time.

Most faculty espouse the philosophy that evaluation and assessment of students should be consistent with the learning objectives of a course . However, in courses that have managerial competence goals, this presents a dilemma. Faculty must choose between two philosophical positions regarding what is evaluated.

One position consists of assessing the level of student competency compared to some external goal. This is analogous to the ubiquitous final examination. An individual who scores well on such an evaluation has demonstrated a particular level of competence. Critics of this position suggest that since some students may enter a course with higher levels of skill mastery than others, such evaluations when used for grading purposes are not valid measures of what has been learned.

On the other hand, faculty may choose to adopt a philosophical position which results in focusing their evaluation and grading on skill improvement over the term. This, however, introduces the fairness issue, or the problem of implicitly using a different grading scale for each student. Person "A," for example, may improve more than Person "B," even though B has a more complete mastery of management skills. Either way, O.B. teachers have to grapple with potential threats to the internal validity of the grading process.

We have no specific solution to this dilemma. But both of us have chosen to base our own evaluation and assessment techniques on the first position. We evaluate the level of competency that our students have achieved compared to a clearly defined standard. In addition to other assessment methods, we use mid-term and final behavioral (or oral) exams.

At the beginning of our courses and throughout the term, we note that the classroom is intended to teach the theories about and the behavior expected of people in business. We position the evaluation process as measuring the behaviors business demands of graduates. In this process, students are quick to see the face validity of the skills they are acquiring. While we get our share of positive and negative comments, neither of us has ever had any student challenge or complain about the need to master these key business skills. As one student succinctly put it on a course evaluation, "the skills stuff is where the rubber meets the road."

The decision that we have made to evaluate competency according to a common standard is consistent with the position of the A.A.C.S.B. The A.A.C.S.B.'s Outcome Measurement Project (1987) provides business schools with tools for measuring the level of achievement that students have attained with regard to managerial competencies. Deans and faculty can now determine how well they are meeting their educational objectives in the area of acquired personal skills and characteristics which have been empirically shown to be correlated with management effectiveness.

In addition to the philosophical issues that must be considered, there are a host of pedagogical issues associated with teaching managerial skills. Pedagogical issues are operationally oriented and include decisions about the personnel assigned to teach behavioral based courses, methods for structuring a supportive learning environment, methods for evaluating what is learned, and resource demands.

We are convinced that the methods utilized in teaching behavioral competencies are among the most demanding we've experienced. In most classes, whether we like it or not, we serve as role models for our students in indirect ways. When teaching managerial competencies, however, there are direct demands placed on the instructor to model effective behavior. This role amplifies the need to ensure that the faculty who teach skills courses have, themselves, developed competencies they are assigned to teach. Unfortunately, while possessing great conceptual knowledge, some faculty lack adequate interpersonal skills to effectively teach managerial competencies. For example, speaking to students in a demeaning tone, arrogance, losing one's temper or not being interpersonally self-aware become painfully obvious. When the professor flubs, students see and know it because they have behavioral guidelines - prescriptions about the right way to enact supportive communication, conflict resolution, or other skills - right in front of them. Lost credibility of an instructor or low teacher ratings are not the issues as much as undermining the learning culture of the classroom.

We believe it's important that instructors who teach skills courses "practice what they preach." Otherwise, students may learn from the professor modeling behaviors that are, in fact, inappropriate. Faculty skill development may be enhanced through peer evaluation, behavioral workshops, and "apprenticeship" or co-teaching experiences. What's essential for maintaining the learning culture of the classroom is for instructors to possess both the ability and willingness to take risks openly, and to be able to openly self-disclose mistakes for the discussion and learning of all.

Teaching managerial skills requires that faculty use pedagogies that create a learning climate where students feel safe enough to try new behaviors. But what does this require? How does a professor move beyond the anecdotal folklore and platitudes which surround the teaching of skills courses (e.g., "be open!")?

Based on our experiences we offer these pedagogical guidelines. First, from the beginning of our courses we challenge our class members to become "learners" rather than "students" in the course (Serey & Verderber, 1988). The distinction being made is that class member are expected to take ownership of their skill development and are expected to be actively involved in the skill development of their class mates. This learning-centered culture permeates the entire term. By establishing a norm for self-management of learning, the responsibility for effectiveness of the classroom activities is distributed among professor and students.

Second, in order to master management skills, students must be given opportunities to practice. It should be understood that pedagogies which permit active learning (such as role plays) are to be preferred over more passive methods of instruction. These opportunities to practice can be made especially powerful if students are asked to provide scenarios and examples from their own experiences as the stimulus material for practice sessions or assessment exercises. Mastery of managerial skills occurs most readily when students encounter these skills through the lens of their own experiences. It is often useful to have students enact the same scenario with different partners and using different verbal approaches.

One consequence of this learning environment is heightened self awareness. The comment mentioned most often on our course evaluations is how much students learn about themselves. One student even compared our managerial behavior class to a giant mirror. We've found that structuring time toward the end of class for self-reflection , and for collectively reflecting, is helpful. For example, we use a structured group experience (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1981) where team members provide coaching and feedback to one another. Near the midpoint of the term, the larger "organization" (i.e., the class) assesses how we are all doing together. One recent discussion even surfaced several specific ideas about how class members who were more verbally skilled and aggressive could take ownership and help those who were reticent.

Third, an important ingredient in the pedagogy of supportive learning is captured in the phrase, "Expect a lot, but be patient." In our skills course, we recast the different roles that managers play (a la Mintzberg), into the professor's roles of expert, assessor, and coach. When most students begin our courses they have usually interacted with faculty only through the first two roles. Yet, coaching may be the most important role that faculty play in skill-oriented courses.

It takes time, patience, skill, and courage to stroke and to confront poor performance. Providing this coaching directly, but gently is an absolute necessity if students are to become competent managers. When we provide course feedback and coaching to students in our skills course, we try to balance the need to provide honest feedback with the need to protect the self-image of the student. Candidly, we encounter many reminders about how fragile some of our students' self images are. When we bungle coaching, we feel guilty and are aware of a missed opportunity to help. When coaching students occurs with sensitivity, however, it provides a wonderful source of professional enrichment. In the words of one of the authors, a brief anecdote illustrates this point:

"During a recent feedback session with a student, I shared my perception of the student's progress by commenting that the person had started the course somewhat tentatively, but had openly and successfully overcome several skill deficiencies. Surprisingly the student's response was to begin crying uncontrollably. Apologizing for fear that somehow the feedback had been bungled, it was quite sobering when the student managed to sob 'Oh no..you're the first person in my life who has ever made me feel like I was worth anything.'"

As in any course experience, overall reactions vary. Responses this strong are savored as long-lasting proof that once in a while we really do make a difference. Most reactions to our attempts to create a supportive environment are more ordinary. Though a few people never cope with the anxiety and different pedagogy, generally a stronger bonding between instructor and students does occur.

Designing evaluation of students' performance for the purposes of assigning a course grade is a complex task. The measurement methods must be congruent with the skills being assessed. Wherever possible, the structure of the evaluation experience should provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate competencies in more realistic settings.

Some skill based learning can be demonstrated through performances on assignments with which most faculty are familiar. In our managerial behavior class students complete a write-rewrite memo assignment which is evaluated on the extent to which it displays the principles of effective business writing. Similarly, students complete an in class oral presentation which is assessed according to the principles of effective business communication.

To determine if students have mastered some skills, however, less familiar forms of evaluation must be undertaken. For example, in order to assess the extent to which our students have mastered behavioral skills, we use oral exams at the mid-term and end of our managerial behavior course. For those unfamiliar with this methodology, we recommend Lee, Adler, Hartwick & Waters (1987) as an excellent overview, and discussion of validity issues in the oral exam process. In the Human Resources course which follows, students are assessed as they conduct mock job interviews with fellow students serving as applicants. They are also expected to display skill at screening candidate resumes in an "in basket" type exercise.

We have found that providing a preview and behavioral model of what will occur in a non traditional evaluation activity alleviates some of the tension and nervousness students experience. In fact, in our managerial behavior class we stage a "mock exam." After distributing the evaluation form used during the exam to the entire class, we ask for a volunteer to serve as our assessee. We then conduct an abbreviated exam that serves as an example of what students can expect. The questions we ask are designed to simulate real business situations, in accord with Bigelow (1983). For example, one such question requires the student to respond with appropriate responses (i.e., following behavioral guidelines) to a situation involving a co-worker who habitually drives at excessive speeds in spite of repeated requests by car-poolers to slow down. Of course, our volunteer's grade is not affected by the performance on this practice exam. We also invite the class to use the evaluation form to assess the performance of the volunteer. This process helps build student confidence in the objectivity of the instructor's evaluation. Our grades have always been near the median of student generated assessments.

The general reactions to oral exams has been mixed. The negative comments from students indicate that despite our efforts to reduce stress, they still experience oral exams as anxiety producing events. Given students' concern about grades, and the novelty of oral evaluations, perhaps no other outcome should be expected. Our students also report positive comments, similar to those in Lee et al. (1987). They find this non traditional assessment to be very involving, life-like, and, "...just what we really need." And, after all is said and done, a frequent comment made by students is that the exams are not nearly as bad as they had thought they would be. "So it goes with most of life," we reply.

Teaching skills courses is labor intensive, and makes heavy resource demands on the department and on the instructor. Class size impinges on learning effectiveness more in a skills class than in other approaches to teaching O.B. or Management. Our experience indicates class sizes of over thirty students significantly diminish course effectiveness. We believe that this due to the necessity of establishing a coaching relationship with each student. In universities which have significant numbers of graduate teaching assistants, coaching relationships may be develop with a T.A. in "lab" sections of a larger course. In schools where graduate students are not available, advanced undergraduate students may be used to provide a type of peer coaching. The effectiveness of these approaches is a function of how competent the T.A.'s or peer tutors are at enacting the target skills, and at coaching.

Second, skill oriented classes limit the amount of material that can be covered. This is explained in part by the progression of learning that occurs when a particular content area is to be mastered at a behavioral level. Learning begins by developing and understanding of the relevant theory. This is followed by identification of the behavioral guidelines which stem from theory. Students are then generally exposed to examples of appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Only then can students be given activities designed to enable them to practice the skill to be acquired. At times, more than one activity must be used to help students become proficient. All of this takes time and can result in the need for additional hours of course work if the curriculum has not been designed to strategically choose which learnings are to be mastered at a behavioral level.

The final resource issue is related to the evaluation process that is used in skill oriented classes. Oral exams require significant amounts of faculty time to develop, conduct, and evaluate. For example, in our managerial behavior class we spend one hour with each student at mid term, and one hour with each student during finals when we conduct the oral exams. This process is exhausting and we are limited in the number of sections of the course which we can physically handle.

These and other resource constraints may impede moving to develop a curriculum wide skill orientation. As long as schools of business allow central administrators to view them as the "cash cows" for the university, class sizes will continue to exceed those capable of encouraging skill acquisition. Curriculum will continue to be condensed and presented in the most quickly transmitted form, and faculty will continue to use primarily evaluation mechanisms which can be electronically graded. While this analysis is grounded in a radical critique, it suggests that there is a significant price that must be paid if graduates of business programs are to enter the work force with the behavioral competencies expected of them by employers.

We began this chapter by suggesting that the movement toward management skills has "hit the wall" and that to break through faculty needed to confront several issues of educational philosophy and pedagogy. To those who are interested in pursuing skills based education, we hope that the discussion of these conceptual and operational issues has been helpful.

More importantly, we're convinced that business schools and our discipline are at an important choice point. We would paraphrase the Porter and McKibbin title, and ask, "What will happen to our nation? Will it be drift, or thrust into the next century?" To continue our marathon analogy, the U.S. is in a very long competitive global race. The stakes are very high, indeed. Evidence is mounting rather rapidly that our discipline and our nation may have "hit the wall." This may be the time in history when we are witnessing a decline of the century of Pax Americana, of American hegemony and unprecedented global leadership. The rising ascendancy of a new economic order from across the Pacific (perhaps, Pax Nipponica) compels us to question the quality of American management - and management education.

We do not pretend for a moment that teaching managerial skills is any sort of panacea to help make business schools be more responsive to the business community, much less to address these fateful issues. We hope that the move to a greater emphasis on teaching skills in business programs can be seen as the logical extension of the maturing business disciplines. We also eagerly hope that by engaging in vigorous discussions about managerial competencies, our discipline will contribute to more effective management of the nation and its organizations.

Management competencies may help inspire us to reinvent what will constitute effective management instruction in the next century. The publication of an entire issue of this journal and the formation of the O.B. Teaching Society task force are important first steps.

1. We use the terms, management skills and management competencies, interchangeably.

2. For a complete rationale of the skills chosen for this text, see Whetten & Cameron (1983) and Cameron & Whetten (1984).

3. An abbreviated summary of the outcomes we judged that management majors should master, as well as a brief description of the decision process, is listed in Appendix 1.

The faculty generated lists of outcomes that should be accomplished by management majors. These micro outcome statements were sorted into nine categories. They are:

· Oral Communication Skills

- Formal Presentation Skills

- Interaction Skills

· Written Communication Skills

· Self-Management

- Intrapersonal Skills

- Professional Enhancement Skills

· Managing Others

· Managing Work Processes

· Information Gathering Skills

· Technical Skills

· Critical Thinking Skills

· Knowledge of Management Theories and Frameworks

We then conducted a round-robin "audit" of the pedagogies and assessment techniques used in our current course work to determine if our present curriculum accomplished the desired outcomes. We share some of the findings here, to illustrate the "gaps" which this systematic assessment revealed.

· Many of our classes require students to present a formal oral assignment, but we rarely "teach" how to do this.

· Interaction skills were taught only in one class.

· Despite the fact that many of our students come from non-college family backgrounds, we do virtually nothing to socialize them into the world of the professions in business.

· We teach several courses which emphasize work process (i.e., "Management of Quality") but provide almost no opportunity to develop "hands-on" skill or assessment of performance in this domain.