Enhancing Critical Thinking by Teaching Two Distinct Approaches to Management

Abstract

The authors explore the effect on students’ critical thinking of teaching only one approach to management versus teaching two approaches to management. Results from a quasiexperiment—which included a survey, interviews, and case analysis—suggest that compared with students who are taught only a conventional approach to management (which emphasizes maximizing productivity, profitability, and competitiveness), students who are taught a conventional and an alternative approach (which seeks to balance multiple forms of well-being for multiple stakeholders) exhibit enhanced critical thinking. Implications for management education are discussed.

Keywords:

• alternative
• conventional
• critical thinking
• individualism
• management education
• materialism
• two approaches

Notes

1. The two dimensions are similar to other distinctions such as: the distinction between basic understanding versus critical reflection (Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2005); “cognitive activities such as logical reasoning” versus “questioning the assumptions underlying established belief systems, discourse, and practices related to managing” (Duarte, 2008, p. 66); “rational skills” versus “open-mindedly seeking alternative explanations” (Meisel & Fearon, 2006, p. 153); “a technical functional approach” versus “stepping outside oneself and considering alternatives to the status quo” (Neville, 2007, p. 101); thinking more/better/faster versus thinking differently about knowledge (Halx & Reybold, 2005); the distinction between exploitation versus exploration (March, 1991); single- versus double-loop learning (e.g., Cope, 2003); and Weber's distinction between formal rationality and substantive rationality (Kalberg, 1980).

2. The textbook used in the treatment group was drawn from a number of textbooks that could lend themselves to teaching two approaches to management (e.g., Aktouf, 1996, 2006; Dyck & Neubert, 2010; Edfelt, 2010; Jonker & Eskildson, 2009; Linstead et al., 2009; Warner, 2001). The textbooks used in the control groups were drawn from a number of popular textbooks that have more of a conventional approach (e.g., Daft, 2010; Dessler & Starke, 2004; Hitt, Black, Porter, & Gaudes, 2009; Jones & George, 2008; Schermerhorn, 2010). As with other studies (e.g., Feiner & Roberts, 1997), our purpose here is not to defend or discuss specific textbooks.

3. The average age of the 231 participants in the survey was 21 years, 49% were men, 73% spoke English as a first language, and 57% identified themselves as Caucasian, 29% as Asians, and 14% as other. The average participant was in his or her second year of university studies (M = 2.11, SD = 1.57) and 60% identified his or her major as management. Most participants were working part- or full-time (74%), and on average each participant had worked for 3.3 companies. The average age of participants in the interviews was also 21, 57% were men, and 85% spoke English as a first language. The average participant was in his or her second year of university (M = 2.12, SD = 1.03) and 62% identified management as a major. Most interview participants were currently working part- or full-time (85%), and had worked for an average of 4.6 organizations. The 231 participants in the six sections were not statistically different in terms of gender, major, cultural background, employment status, number of hours worked per week, education, or number of employers (all ps > .05). However, the average age of treatment group participants (M = 20.50 years, SD = 2.08) was one year younger than the control group (M = 21.50 years, SD = 3.42), and—given the power afforded by our sample size—this difference was statistically significant, F(1, 227) = 4.42, p < .05, η² = .019. In addition, one of the three control sections (the only section taught during the evening) had significantly fewer students who spoke English as a first language, F(1, 228) = 4.20, p < .05, η² = .018. To ensure that neither of these demographic differences could account for our findings, we examined whether our results varied by course section for both hypotheses that were tested. We found no differences, thus the results we report include students from all sections.

4. Readers may wonder whether the higher critical thinking scores in the treatment group were attributable to a particularly effective instructor in the treatment group, we note that examination of student teaching evaluations showed that the average scores for the instructor in the treatment group sections were 3.92, 4.04, and 4.06, whereas those for instructors in the three control group classes were 4.23, 4.25, and 4.83.