Reflection in Strategic Management Education
Abstract
Critiques of Masters in Business Administration strategic management education have centered
on the failure to adequately integrate two core orientations of the strategic management process,
that is, analysis and implementation. Thus, attempts to measure assurance of learning in strategic
management capstone courses will inevitably reveal gaps in the degree of deep learning that has
occurred in a business program. In this article, we argue that a linear or serial approach to case
analysis is a prime culprit in contributing to weaknesses in deep learning and critical thinking. This
approach encourages weak reflections, lack of innovation in generating strategic options, and poor
implementation planning. We analyze various contemporary approaches to strategic management
education in relation to deep learning outcomes and, relying on Bloom’s taxonomy, we propose
an alternate, reflection-based framework for teaching strategic management culminating in a
discussion on its implications for teaching and practice.
Keywords
strategy education, management education, reflection, learning theory, deep learning, critical
thinking in pedagogy
Introduction
How can students, particularly those with relatively little experience, most effectively learn about
the principles and processes of strategic management?
This question has been widely discussed and debated in the literature with opposing positions
centered on the role of strategic management theory in the learning process (Grant, 2008; Lewis,
2011). Is it possible to improve critical thinking in business strategy courses by moving away from
homogenized case studies and mechanistic thinking that lead to inadequate recommendations and
implementation plans?
This article reviews current strategic management education perspectives, tools, and methods to
develop a reconfigured, layered, and blended approach centered on integrating reflection in
teaching strategy. We present our proposal as a classification of standard strategy evaluation tools
based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) that illuminates value of each in generating reflective
thinking. We argue that applying this classification in case analysis encourages students to
incorporate more reflective thinking tools when they complete their assessments of strategy.
Although our approach integrates the learning outcomes in Bloom’s Taxonomy, we also consider
how our framework aligns with other theories and concepts such as design thinking and systems
thinking, and we propose as a second step a process of probing questions to stimulate reflective
thinking.
Courses in strategic management are typically described as capstones whose objective is to
integrate core business disciplines toward an improved understanding of the organization’s
strategic position. These courses propose that students can be taught to make the best choices
among multiple options to maximize sustained competitive advantage. While this emphasis on
integration produces students with adequate theoretical and conceptual knowledge and analytical
skills, it is widely acknowledged that these courses fail to develop the implementation skills needed
in the field (Greiner, Bhambri, & Cummings, 2003; Mintzberg & Gosling 2002; Porter &
McKibben, 1988). In this respect, it would appear that some and perhaps many Masters in Business
Administration (MBA) strategic management courses are designed to adequately integrate the core
business disciplines but fail to fully integrate the two core orientations of the strategic management
process, that is, analysis and implementation (Greiner et al., 2003).
Several authors have argued the need to impose critical thinking, action, and reflection in business
education (Barnett, 1997; Braun, 2004; Inamdar & Roldan, 2013) with some proposing that there
is little evidence of their use (Case, 2005; Inamdar & Roldan, 2013; Reid & Anderson, 2012). One
expla- nation refers to the ambiguous and complex requirements of critical thinking and reflection
that typically run counter to student preferences (Elias, 2008; Grey & French, 1996; Rippin, Booth,
Bowie, & Jordan, 2002), often based on largely anti-intellectual attitudes and a penchant for
memorization and structured thinking. This tendency toward memorization and structure produces
more mechanical approaches to evaluation leading to homogeneity rather than critical thinking and
innovation, an unintended yet unfortunate outcome of common pedagogical approaches
(Mintzberg, 1994).
Elias (2008) demonstrated that students’ interest in critical thinking is “directly related to the
concept of self-efficacy or a self evaluation of one’s competence to successfully execute a course
of action necessary to reach desired outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 195). Instructors can create
environ- ments to enhance self-efficacy and teach critical thinking (Reid & Anderson, 2012) as
well as evaluate critical thinking levels (Bell, Kelton, McDonagh, Mladenovic, & Morrison, 2011;
Gadzella & Masten, 1998; Kember et al., 1999). Such efforts lead to deep learning approaches
valued in higher educa- tion teaching and learning disciplines as a critical dimension in achieving
higher levels of student engagement building a stronger foundation for stu- dent success
(Entwistle, 2010).
In this light, we explore the integration of the two main streams of think- ing as a basis for
developing a strategic management education conceptual model that leads to an inventory of
reflective learning tools that we theorize, can improve the learning process for students in business
strategy courses. In developing this model, we emphasize the concept of reflective learning, a
pedagogical strategy closely associated with deep level learning outcomes (Garcia, 2009). Our
pedagogical approach acknowledges the role of strategic management theory while reinforcing the
exercise of critical thinking through probing questions and use of reflective thinking tools in
resolving business cases.
A Critical Analysis of Contemporary Approaches to Strategic Management Education
Contemporary strategic management textbooks typically adopted in capstone strategy MBA
courses (De Kluyver & Pearce II, 2009; Gamble, Thompson, & Peteraf, 2013; Mintzberg, Lampel,
Quinn, & Ghoshal, 2003; Thompson, Strickland, & Gamble, 2010) describe a strategic framework
that includes an analytical process relying on several prescribed tools and expects the student to
arrive at a list of strategic options and subsequent recommendations for implementation. The
streams of thinking reflected in the management education literature suggest that approaches such
as this are deficient. First, they overemphasize the acquisition of theory and the use of standard
analytical tools thereby creating an analytical template without adequate integration of the
reflection needed for proper analysis and implementation recommendations. Second, such models
promote the routinization of the strategic management process. Third, they fail to adequately
engage students in reflective thinking that leads to deep-level learning. We explore each of these
deficiencies in turn.
Opposing Theoretical Perspectives
The literature documents an ongoing debate about which pedagogical practices are most effective
for teaching strategy. One perspective, theory acquisitive, argues for an emphasis on theory, built
on the assumption that applying a set of preestablished steps allows the student who knows little
about the topic to learn more efficiently and economically (Grant, 2008). Among the arguments
advanced to support this perspective, the acquisition of analytical expertise can occur only after
following already established success examples to avoid a tendency of relying on preconceived
perceptual maps that surface during deductive learning. In this line of reasoning, the strategy
teacher must encourage students to identify and question their prior assumptions and beliefs, and,
hopefully, to encourage their cognitive frameworks to broaden and develop. Pushing students to
deploy concepts and frameworks that are based on theories of how the business world works can
offer a direct route to challenging the hodgepodge of beliefs and tacit assumptions that most
students bring to their strategy classes. (Grant, 2008, p. 279)
This position is consistent with the emphasis on deductive theory found in contemporary strategic
management education approaches in which theory and analytics dwarf the importance assigned
to behavioral skills (Greiner et al., 2003). A variety of analytical tools associated with the theory
acquisitive approach, for example, Porter’s five forces and value chain analyses, SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats), VRIO (value, rarity, imitability, organization) framework,
portfolio matrices, strategy clocks, among others are all examples of normative frameworks in
which strategy emerges following a series of sequential, rational, and analytical processes aimed
at identifying and evaluating strategic alternatives (Hitt & Tyler, 1991). The value of these tools
lies in their capacity to develop the students’ theoretical knowledge, that is, how the business
disciplines and functions contribute to effective strategic decisions (Kachra & Schnietz, 2008).
Where these tools fall short is in their failure to effectively contribute to more complex practical
integration, as manifested in decision-making styles. We extend Kachra and Schnietz’s (2008)
analysis by theorizing that the root of any deficit in practical integration skills is, in large measure,
a relative lack of emphasis on reflection. In practice, enumerating a number of problems and
opportunities do not, on their own, lead to reflection, diagnosis, and synthesis (Crittenden &
Crittenden, 2008; Greenley, 1987; Hitt & Tyler, 1991; Surma, 2009). While the theory acquisitive
perspective develops a compelling argument and seems to be well embedded in MBA programs,
on its own it fails to adequately develop the students’ capacity for more innovative, blue ocean
approaches to strategy formulation and implementation. This is a common theme of strategic
management education critics who argue for a move away from optimization models and technical
rationality toward cognitive processes that emphasize thinking and engagement in practice to
convert experience into useful mental maps (Clandinin & Connelly, 1986; Schön, 1987; Yanow &
Tsoukas, 2009).
This leads to the opposing position, that we term the theory inhibitive perspective, which asserts
that traditional pedagogical approaches to teaching strategy provide useful frameworks for
analyzing firm success, but the approach inhibits students from “developing new and analytically
sound ideas” (Lewis, 2011, p. 67). This perspective explicitly objects to the dominance of the
theory acquisitive perspective in teaching strategy and claims that “scientific” approaches to
management impose a false determinacy on the behavior of managers that amounts to a “pretense
of knowledge,” (Ghoshal, 2005 in Grant, 2008, p. 278). We describe the theory inhibitive
perspective as an attempt to move away from relying exclusively on scientific perspectives toward
liberating the student to think critically through reflection.
Added to the debate on the appropriate level of emphasis on theory is a concern about an
unintended consequence of the “scientific” approach to strategic management. A number of
authors object to the “routinization” of the strategy formulation process, notably Mintzberg (1994),
who views the sequential problem solving, flowcharting, and compartmentalization of pol- icy as
flawed. Critics argue that since decision-making quality is the key to effective strategy formulation
and implementation, strategic management education must place greater emphasis on process, that
is, what students are being taught about the “how” of strategic management. De-emphasizing
process may unintentionally result in the students’ failure to ask critical questions as strategic
analysis unfolds. For example, Boyd, Gupta, and Sussman (2001) utilized Goldratt’s (1992)
Theory of Constraints to demonstrate how a three-step thinking process could improve the “black
box” of strategy that Mintzberg (1994) had alluded to, that is, those factors and realities that needed
to be ascertained from the following strategic analysis questions: (a) What factors need to be
changed? (b) What should the change outcome be? and (c) How can the change be brought about?
Mitigating this tendency toward routinization implies transcending the limitations of current
approaches to strategic management education.
The solution we propose can be found in a combination of approaches blending both theoretical
and artistic domains. One example of this dual or blended process, the design-thinking model
(Beckman & Barry, 2007), describes an alternative roadmap to arrive at new levels of
innovation.The design process has both analytic and synthetic elements, and operates in both the
theoretical and practical realms. In the analytic phases of design, one focuses on finding and
discovery, while in the synthetic phases of design, one focuses on invention and making.
Movement between the theoretical and practical realms happens as participants in the process draw
insights from what they have learned in the world of practice, convert them to abstract ideas or
theories, and then translate those theories back into the realm of practice in the form of artifacts or
institutions. (p. 27)
In the design-thinking process, participants initially engage in exploration and crystallization
through conversation (Golsby-Smith, 2007), whereas problem-based learning and situationism
assist in transferring acquired knowledge (Bienengräber, 2013). Strategic management pedagogy
that emphasizes reflective practices may more clearly reveal whether, based on the evidence they
encounter, learners are able to construct accurate mental models that apply field-specific
knowledge and result in viable options for addressing a problem situation, two important
competencies required by organizations.
A Reflective Learning Approach to Strategic Management Education
Reflective learning is the subject of a complementary stream of thinking that we argue has direct
bearing on the debate between opposing strategic management teaching perspectives and the
concerns about routinization. In the learning process, reflection has long been acknowledged as an
activity that contributes to various expressions of deep-level learning. Reflection attenuates the
dominance of instrumental reason and positivism resulting in more opportunities to
reconceptualize problems and restructure action strategies (Garcia, 2009). It is often integrated
within business programs as a requirement in courses such as virtual commerce (Schiller, 2009)
or information systems (Swinarski, 2008). Through the emphasis it places on reasoning and critical
thinking or “periodically stepping back to ponder the meaning of what has transpired” (Raelin,
2001, p. 11), reflection embeds knowledge in a deeper understanding of concept and theories.
Some tools in strategy evaluation tend to encourage reflective activities, for example, TOWS
(threats, opportunities, weaknesses, strengths) matrices force students to consider opportunities
that emanate from the more mechanical exercise of a SWOT analysis. Reflection actually
represents four different levels of activity: technical, descriptive, dialogic, and critical, defined as
follows by Klenowski and Lunt (2008):
Technical reflection is described as “decision-making about immediate behaviors or skills,” while
descriptive reflection is defined as “analyzing one’s performance . . . giving reasons for actions
taken.” Technical and descriptive reflections do not require the use of explicit criteria to evaluate
different viewpoints (apart from the criterion of personal preference). “Knowledge replication” as
opposed to knowledge generation tends to dominate. Dialogic reflection is more demanding
because the logical strength of a particular view is considered and objections to that view are
understood; our assumptions and beliefs are questioned. Critical reflection involves arrange of
criteria, norms and value positions by which to evaluate the adequacy or reliability of a particular
view. It is thinking about the effects upon others of one’s actions, taking account of social, political
and/or cultural forces. (p. 206)
This multilevel conceptualization of reflection is but one example with several others that have
been offered to evaluate reflection on a continuum (Bell et al., 2011; Gadzella & Masten, 1998;
Kember et al., 1999; Maclellan, 2004; Moon, 2005; Watson & Glaser, 1980; Yanow & Tsoukas,
2009). The intensity of reflection as it relates to deep learning will depend on the stu- dents’
interest, experience, knowledge, and willingness to reflect (Elias, 2008; Entwistle, 2010; Marton,
1976).
While business programs are free to choose the level of depth that they find most appropriate and
are capable of measuring, we argue for the need to move beyond memorization, regurgitation, and
surface analyses based on mechanical reproductions. We theorize that a more effective
pedagogical approach means developing our students’ abilities to extract meaning, draw
inferences, and apply the knowledge acquired through analysis of internal and external
organizational dynamics toward achieving organizational objectives to arrive at effective strategic
options represents.
A Blended Perspective
Research on teaching and learning has in fact identified that students need a combination of the
two perspectives of theory acquisition and theory inhibitive models (Entwistle, 2010; Weimer,
2010). Beginning with a serialist approach that introduces the theory acquisitive content, the
student is then exposed to the holistic approach that emphasizes the theory inhibitive content. At
this latter stage, students are challenged to find interrelationships among variables, evaluating
patterns, interconnecting ideas, and taking a meta-analytic perspective, tasks that collectively rely
on reflection. The blended approach allows students to observe a chain of comprehensive evidence
forming a pattern that reveals interconnections of variables and emergent innovative solutions. As
educators, we need to engage students in more profound levels of learning by emphasizing the
space blending both theory and practice.
The use of business cases in MBA education has been well documented in the literature and most
MBA business policy and strategic management courses rely on a systematic analytical process.
This approach will develop the students’ capacity to apply an integrated framework in strategic
management, among the most prominent objectives associated with capstone strategic
management courses (Thompson et al., 2010). However, as with any other tool, instructors are
challenged to create an environment conducive to critical thinking through questioning and other
means (Angelo, 1995). To overcome these challenges, instructors often expect students to integrate
con- tent drawn from the range of courses (Ross & Rosenbloom, 2011), which is the beginning of
a reflective approach. However, this level of integration only partially addresses the concerns
raised in Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (1998), that we need to properly form experiences to
shape future managers, influence their thinking, and develop better mental models; application of
tools and models do not form experiences and we need to find proxy methods as alternatives.
Emphasis on integration suggests that synthesis should be given greater prominence as a key
dimension in the approach to teaching the formulation and implementation of business policy. In
this context, synthesis concerns linking the domains of analysis/formulation and
implementation/execution. Building these links is a facet of strategy education that is often lacking
(Hrebiniak, 2005; Seaton & Boyd, 2008). According to Boyd et al. (2001), instructors may at times
“feel confident when teaching their students how to conduct a competitive analysis but less certain
when teaching students how to develop specific strategies based on their analysis” (p. 338).
Table 1 proposes a first step in assessing the relative utility of the various tools within a progression
of learning achieved through their use. Table 1 represents a taxonomy that can assist instructors in
assuring integration of Bloom’s six types of learning objectives in strategic management
education. As a second step, we propose the integration of probing questions leading to further
analysis, idea generation, and potential innovation.
This two-prong approach integrates two paradigms, the scientific method of analysis and artistic
visualization of what could be and “both paradigms
Table 1. Examples of Classification of Strategic Management Tools Using Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy of objectives. Examples of strategic management tools Knowledge
Comprehension Applicational Analysis
Synthesis Evaluation Environment and capacities
analysis tools
SWOT, five forces, PESTEL, resources, and capabilities KSF, driving forces, TOWS, SCORE,
competitive/strategic group map VRIO, A’WOT Strategic identification and taxonomy tools
Generic strategies (Porter, Mintzberg) Corporate strategies (growth matrix, portfolio, product life
cycle) Functional strategies (value chain, change management, quality, leadership, etc.)
Strategic options assessment tools
Environment strategies, competitive advantage tests and fit
Defense vs. attack strategies
SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis; PESTEL = political,
economic, social, and technological analysis; KSF = key success factors analysis; TOWS = threats,
opportunities, weaknesses, and strengths matrices; SCORE = strengths, challenges, opportunities,
responses, and effectiveness analysis; VRIO = value, rarity, imitability, and organization
framework; A’WOT = a hybrid method combining the SWOT analysis and the Analytic Hierarchy
Process.
a. Pedagogical techniques such as simulations, case competitions, field or industry reports, and
innovation-driven exercises may enhance understanding through application and more depth
analysis have distinct and essential characteristics that, although not offering a complete answer
in themselves, complement each other” (Maranville, 2011, p. 786). The scientific method helps us
organize data and construct a picture from infor- mation. Synthesis, a form of reflection and art,
refers to deriving meaning from information and reconstructing or visualizing new pathways and
oppor- tunities. Incorporating creativity and innovation is therefore necessary, as it will encourage
students to think about the meaning of their analysis outside the boundaries of suggested solutions.
We theorize that this blended perspec- tive can help students overcome inadequate understanding
of analysis output, inability to recognize multiple dimensions of strategic problems, and links
between the two. Furthermore, this perspective can assist students in gaining a better appreciation
of the influence of personal biases in the strategic man- agement process and prepare them for
appropriately addressing weaknesses in implementation and execution.
The two key operational pillars: positioning strategic management tools and applying reflection
and critical thinking may help the student transition from analysis to application. This approach to
defining a method for teaching strategy reorients the traditional textbook model (e.g., De Kluyver
& Pearce II, 2009; Gamble et al., 2013) by increasing the emphasis on strategic man- agement
options and evaluation, that is, where should we go and how do we get there. Each of these pillars
is now discussed in turn.
Positioning involves assessing the utility of each basic analysis tool and its fit in the strategy
analysis framework. Bloom’s taxonomy provides an effec- tive categorization and assessment
framework that illuminates the orientation and utility of each tool. For example, the family of tools
represented by SWOT appears to be closely aligned with subcategories of knowledge objec- tives,
such as knowledge of important case criteria, and comprehension of the case as evidenced by the
opportunities that are identified. Essentially these tools organize data to represent an understanding
of a company’s position or performance in the business environment. Because Bloom’s taxonomy
is a hierarchical representation of educational objectives, the third category, application, which is
dependent on knowledge and comprehension, would include objectives related to use of SWOTfamily tools to explain the dynamics of the business environment and the company’s capacities.
Bloom’s fourth category, analysis, aligns with describing the generic, functional, or corporate
strategies based on the data collected through activities associated with the first three categories.
Thus, in analyzing a case, the student would now be expected to compare these various strategies
in arriving at conclusions about the company’s position in the business environment and its
competitive performance determining the degree of fit. Activities associated with Bloom’s fifth
category, synthesis, require creativity in communicating ideas or a plan, the latter coinciding with
the recommendations a student makes about changes to the company’s strategy and about
implementing these changes. Analysis tools such as driving forces, choosing between defender or
attack strategies, understanding and proposing blue ocean strategies, or navigating through options
in environment-based strategies, are other examples of higher level reflective thinking. These
choices would have to follow logically from and be firmly grounded in the conclusions arrived at
in the preceding categories of behaviors.
The final taxonomy category, evaluation, builds on all the previous ones but “it is not necessarily
the last step in thinking or problem solving. It is quite possible that the evaluative process will in
some cases be the prelude to the acquisition of new knowledge, a new attempt at comprehension
or application, or a new analysis and synthesis” (Bloom, 1956, p. 185). Thus, students may be
engaging in evaluation behaviors as they move through activities related to first five categories.
We argue that current approaches to strategic management education result in the students
emphasizing environment and capacities as ends in themselves since the transition to analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation is not without challenge. In other words, students are much more
comfortable working in the range of the first three categories in Bloom’s taxonomy. To move
students out from this zone requires greater emphasis on analysis, syn- thesis, and evaluation that,
we theorize, results from the conscious application of reflection.
Table 1 covers a range of tools that have appeared previously in similar taxonomies and
categorizations (Gray, 2007; Knott, 2006). In proposing this categorization of the various tools
used in analyzing and formulating strategy, we argue that Bloom’s taxonomy reveals the need to
develop and support class- room processes that encourage critical thinking and reflection,
integrating all six categories of learning objectives in teaching strategic management.
Reflection, the engagement of students in a deeper level of thinking, is the means through which
students can transform analysis outcomes into strategic options. Reflective tools are intended to
move students beyond mechanical analysis to more artistic, creative, and innovative assessments
of the situa- tion. Tools can be highly eclectic, for example, storytelling, reflexive conversation
and dialogue, reflection journals, metaphors, and critical incident analysis (Gray, 2007). The
literature also refers to art projects, improvisation, and design shops to stimulate thinking outside
students’ comfort zones (Dunne & Martin, 2006; Maranville, 2011; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009),
similar to creative training exercises found in architecture education, or in improvising through
collective practices that yield synergistic outcomes. These are other examples of methods outlining
the wide range of possible learning.
Figure 1. The layered teaching model integrating Bloom’s Taxonomy.
activities that engage students in deeper levels of understanding, limited only by the imagination
of those contributing to the learning process.
Narrowing of strategic options is devoted to identifying potential win-win solutions, forecasting
risks and conflicts related to any given course of action (such as identifying potential internal
objections or external competitor retaliation), acknowledging potential personal biases, and
invalidating erroneous assumptions (Boyd et. al., 2001; Hodgkinson, Bown, Maule, Glaister, &
Pearman, 1999; Knott, 2006). This step-in strategic management extends well beyond a standard
list of pros and cons typically generated in a case analysis. Because many students lack adequate
strategic organizational experience, it should not be surprising that they are often ill prepared for
evaluating the outcomes of internal and external analysis to arrive at a reasonable set of options
for the organization. This can be mitigated with various probing techniques to improve decision
making by stimulating critical thinking, reflection and synthesis, and using heuristics effectively.
As shown in Figure 1, broader reflective questions are part of a Level 3 teaching approach that
emphasizes a holistic evaluation of the data stemming from strategic tools and would
stimulate other stem questions. As an illustration, the broader reflective questions below should
lead learners (supported by their instructor) to formulate sub or stem questions:
1.
What conclusions do you derive from the tools you have used (SWOT/ TOWS, five forces,
VRIO, competitive analysis, etc.)?
2.
Do any of these conclusions open new doors to innovation, growth opportunities, and
improvements in effectiveness, and so on?
3.
For any given opportunity for change, what resources would be needed to explore and/or
launch these new sources of opportunities?
4.
Does the organization have these resources currently and what must it “give up” to use
these resources?
5.
How would internal and external stakeholders react to these innovations?
6.
What could be done to mitigate risks?
7.
What are the costs of mitigating risks?
8.
How would you propose to introduce change?
9.
Who will drive the change and using what techniques?
Unfortunately, many students look for shortcuts by proposing a predetermined course of action
simply validating their own assumptions or by speeding through the decision-making process.
When faced with uncertain, complex, and/or ill-structured problems, individuals can and should
develop heuristics to simplify the decision process (Hitt & Tyler, 1991), but can also benefit from
a systematic process of reflection through questioning and involved deliberation (Yanow &
Tsoukas, 2009). Critical thinking and problem solving are solidified when the student is able to
form deeper mental models and concept maps (McLaren, Vuong, & Grant, 2007), and when the
learner is part of a collaborative process (Gilbert, 2013; Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009). This form of
systems thinking calls on students to find solutions that account for all root causes and their
interconnections (Batra, Kaushik, & Kalia, 2010). Understanding the web of relationships, the
complexity of modern organizations, and devising holistic solutions are key to new forms of
management education (Gilbert, 2013). This interconnectivity is often missing in many strategic
analyses resulting in the students’ failure to fully under- stand the implications of current problems,
or of environmental dynamics, which in turn lead to poor implementation planning. Collaborative
competence, or the process of involving groups of individuals to perform tasks (Gilbert, 2013) is
a key social construction tool that can, through the recognition of differences in opinion,
experience, and mental models, lead to improved reflection and possibly innovation and
synergistic outcomes.
In the final phase of a typical case analysis process (Thompson et al., 2010), students are expected
to formulate an implementation plan, specifying strategies and tactics through a sequential action
agenda that will culminate in achieving objectives while considering the impact of each step on
functional areas of the firm. Most strategy textbooks present at least eight dimensions of strategy
implementation, for example, decisions about structure, leadership, policies, procedures,
incentives, roles, culture, monitoring, and control sys- tems (e.g., David, 2011; Thompson et al.,
2010). The literature also describes a logical approach to implementation decisions that isolates
and links strategy with each of these areas, sometimes positioning decisions around short-term and
long-term organizational change levers (Hrebiniak, 2005).
Integrating this approach in the classroom encourages the student to think of the implications each
implementation step has on the others and to con- sider the influence exerted by contextual factors.
By emphasizing these inter- relationships, instructors encourage students to avoid relying on
implementation framework templates, to apply adequate reflection to the impact each step has on
the entire organization, and to contemplate whether the plan represents the best course of action
given the internal and external environment of the firm.
Discussion
Figure 1, our proposed layered model for teaching strategy, links the tools listed in Table 1 along
dimensions of reflection intensity and stage of strategic analysis, orienting students toward more
intense levels of critical thinking and reflection.
Layer 1 activities employ the standard analysis tools generating the data that serve to develop
foundational knowledge and demonstrations of comprehension and as a building block for higher
levels of reflection and critical thinking needed for Layers 2 and 3. In Layer 2 activities, instructors
encour- age students to move beyond mechanical and purely quantitative exercises associated with
Layer 1. Once students have gathered the data, they prepare for the qualitative synthesis that is
expected at Layer 2 bridging to application and analysis. For example, more emphasis on tools
such as TOWS or SCORE (an analysis of strengths, challenges, options, response, and
effectiveness) in conjunction with SWOT, would force students to consider how strengths and
weaknesses represent sources of opportunity. Students then have to contend more actively with
the purpose of the information derived from the analysis and consider the overall situation of the
organization. The learning space created between Layers 2 and 3 encourages consideration of all
opportunities afforded by the analysis and an evaluation of the best course of action, using
a combination of heuristics and reflection. At Layer 3, students test assump- tions or evaluate each
alternative in greater depth to arrive at more effective application decisions.
The challenge for strategy instructors is to prevent the tools associated with Layers 2 and 3 from
becoming simply another template for students to apply. These tools need to be accompanied by a
different set of questions (inquiry-based models and others) assigned to students. Strategy
instructors will have to assess the level of depth students achieve in their responses to these
questions and gauge the learning level that has been attained. Whether these questions are the
subject of class discussion or additional components of written case assignments may ultimately
depend on the contingencies the instructor faces. But students will undoubtedly find that whenever
they are asked to look back and interpret the meaning of what they have found, they are developing
a stronger foundation for looking forward. This is the added value of the layered model.
The layered model is a conceptual model representing the blended approach discussed above. A
logical next step is to test the model more exten- sively in the classroom. Several approaches can
be considered, for example, pre–post testing, testing various reflective tools and processes to
measure learning outcomes, applying the model in core discipline courses, and devel- oping a
comprehensive taxonomy of tools and processes for Layers 1 through
3. These research initiatives would likely identify best practices that empha- size critical thinking
and reflection in the strategic management classroom. They would also indicate where further
improvements to the layered model are needed in future iterations.
Our first argument was that the predominant tools associated with strategy education, as listed in
Table 1, can be positioned on a continuum of increas- ingly more complex methods of analysis
using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Positioning allows these tools to be assessed in relation to their capacity
to stimulate deeper levels of reflective thinking. Some of these tools require the student to consider
questions about company fit in categories such as product life cycle or VRIO, which are a form of
reflective thinking. In another exam- ple, to fully apply tools such as the five forces model of
competition and the TOWS matrix, students must consider deeper reflective questions. These traditional tools are important elements in ensuring that the student is chal- lenged to utilize an
increasingly more complex array of tools.
Our second argument was that educators can more effectively challenge students through
overarching probing questions and stem questions that will encourage broader reflection leading
to more innovative and feasible solu- tions. Students need to think beyond the tools and ask
themselves “so what”
questions to stimulate new ideas and to ensure that they have developed a comprehensive
appreciation of problems or opportunities.
The strategy layers model we propose appears to be aligned with facets of design thinking and its
chaotic approach to innovation through three phases: inspiration, ideas, and implementation
(Brown, 2008). The application of tra- ditional strategic tools can provide the inspiration for
finding opportunities, challenges, and constraints. With additional probing questions, educators
can stimulate reflection aligned with the design-thinking ideas stage, for exam- ple, how
sustainable is the company’s current business model or how achiev- able are the possible new
opportunities. A more thorough and deeper level of analysis should lead students to fully consider
implementation challenges, the final design-thinking stage, rather than simply formulating
proposals with little regard to how these will be achieved. Similar to the strategy layers model, the
design-thinking process, like other creative, blue ocean, and stra- tegic-thinking processes, utilizes
probing questions and investigation to find new solutions and innovations.
Conclusion and Future Research
The proposed model will lead to future research opportunities around the fit of various tools in the
continuum of reflection, on the best methods needed to engage learners in reflection, and on the
possible integration of a process measurement to ensure that students are using reflection
techniques. As out- lined by Gilbert (2013), techniques such as building collaborative competence are team approaches that need to be understood and embraced by learners.
We have argued that strategy development and implementation planning pedagogy should blend
data-driven exercises that encourage assessment with more artistic reflection-driven exercises that
reveal the significance of the data and identify the implications of various courses of action in
preparation for a well-rounded implementation plan. The layered model summarizes how typical
data-driven exercises associated with Layer 1 and reflection and criti- cal thinking in Layer 2
bridges to the implementation exercises in Layer 3. This is an incremental approach with much
greater emphasis on interpreta- tion of meaning and implications of results obtained from
quantitative ana- lytical exercises. The layered model conveys the progression students should be
expected to demonstrate in a strategic management course to overcome the limitations often found
in traditional pedagogies. The layered model chal- lenges instructors to formulate a set of probing
questions and to engage stu- dents in experiential learning activities that more effectively generate
reflection and critical thinking guiding students to their “aha” moments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi- cation of
this article.
References
Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 67.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.
Batra, A., Kaushik, P., & Kalia, L. (2010). System thinking: Strategic planning. SCMS Journal of
Indian Management, 7(4), 5-12.
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking.
California Management Review, 50(1), 25-56.
Bell, A., Kelton, J., McDonagh, N., Mladenovic, R., & Morrison, K. (2011). A critical evaluation
of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 797-815.
Bienengräber, T. (2013). Situationism in business education—Are situations the smallest
didactical units? In K. Beck & O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Eds.), From diagnostics to learning
success: Proceedings in vocational education and train- ing (pp. 61-74). Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Sense.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Boyd, L.,
Gupta, M., & Sussman, L. (2001). A new approach to strategy formulation:
Opening the black box. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 338-344.
Braun, N. M. (2004). Critical thinking in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for
Business, 79, 232-236.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92.
Case, R. (2005). Bringing critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45-46.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1986). The reflective practitioner and practitio- ners’ narrative
unities. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne De L’éducation, 11, 184-198.
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight levers
of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 52, 301-309.
David, F. R. (2011). Strategic management: Concepts and cases (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
De Kluyver, C. A., & Pearce II, J. A. (2009). Strategy: A view from the top (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education:
An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 512-523.
Elias, R. Z. (2008). Anti-intellectual attitudes and academic self-efficacy among busi- ness
students. Journal of Education for Business, 84, 110-117.
Entwistle, N. (2010). Taking stock: An overview of key research findings. In J. ChristensenHughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education
(pp. 15-60). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: McGill- Queen’s University Press.
Gadzella, B. M., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Critical thinking and learning processes for students in
two major fields. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 256-261.
Gamble, J. E., Thompson, A. A., & Peteraf, M. (2013). Essentials of strategic management: The
quest for competitive advantage (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Garcia, E. J. (2009). MBA lecturers’ curriculum interests in leadership. Management Learning, 4,
21-36.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management prac- tice.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91.
Gilbert, D. J. (2013). Collaborative competence: Redefining management education through social
construction. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 4, 26-43.
Goldratt, E. (1992). It’s not luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Golsby-Smith, T. (2007). The second road of thought: How design offers strategy a new tooling.
Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 22-29.
Grant, R. M. (2008). Why strategy teaching should be theory based. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 17, 276-281.
Gray, D. (2007). Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through
reflective tools. Management Learning, 38, 495-517.
Greenley, G. E. (1987). An application of a diagnostic framework for strategy.
Journal of Management Studies, 24, 143-159.
Greiner, L. E., Bhambri, A., & Cummings, T. G. (2003). Searching for a strategy to teach strategy.
Academy of Management Teaching & Learning, 2, 402-420.
Grey, C., & French, R. (1996). Rethinking management education: An introduction.
London, England: Sage.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327-351.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking
the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision mak- ing under uncertainty. Strategic
Management Journal, 20, 977-985.
Hrebiniak, L. (2005). Making strategy work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Inamdar, S. N., &
Roldan, M. (2013). The MBA capstone course: Building theoretical, practical, applied, and reflective skills. Journal of Management Education, 37, 747-770.
Kachra, A., & Schnietz, K. (2008). The capstone strategy course: What might real integration look
like? Journal of Management Education, 32, 476-508.
Kember, D. A., Jones, A., Loke, J., Mckay, K., Sinclair, H., Tse, C., . . .Yeung, E. (1999).
Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written jour- nals using a coding
scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18, 18-30.
Klenowski, V., & Lunt, I. (2008). Enhancing learning at doctoral level through the use of
reflection? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 203-217.
Knott, P. (2006). A typology of strategy tool applications. Management Decision, 44, 1090-1105.
Lewis, M. O. (2011). An integrated approach to teaching the capstone strategic management
course: A left- and right-brained approach. Business Education Innovation Journal, 3(2), 66-72.
Maclellan, E. (2004). How reflective is the academic essay? Studies in Higher Education, 29, 7589.
Maranville, S. (2011). The art of strategic management: A case-based exercise.
Journal of Management Education, 15, 782-807.
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning.
In N. Entwistle (ed.), Strategies for research and development in higher education (pp. 32-43).
Amsterdam, Netherland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
McLaren, T. S., Vuong, D. C. H., & Grant, K. (2007). Do you know what you don’t know? Critical
reflection and concept mapping in an information systems strategy course. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 20, 892-908. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of
strategic planning. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: The complete guide through
the wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Reality programming for MBAs. Strategy and Business, 26,
28-31.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J. B., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). The strategy process: Concepts,
contexts, cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moon, J. A. (2005). Progression in higher education: A study of learning as repre- sented in level
descriptors. In P. Hartley, A. Woods, & M. Pill (Eds.), Enhancing teaching in higher education:
New approaches for improving student learning (pp. 113-122). London, England: Routledge.
Porter, L., & McKibben, L. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into
the 21st century? New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Raelin, J. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32, 11-30.
Reid, J. R., & Anderson, P. R. (2012). Critical thinking in the business classroom.
Journal of Education for Business, 87, 52-59.
Rippin, A., Booth, C., Bowie, S., & Jordan, J. (2002). A complex case: Using the case study
method to explore uncertainty and ambiguity in undergraduate business education. Teaching in
Higher Education, 7, 429-441.
Ross, D. N., & Rosenbloom, A. (2011). Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate
strategic management course in a blended format. Journal of Management Education, 35, 351-376.
Schiller, S. Z. (2009). Practicing learner-centered teaching: Pedagogical design and assessment of
a second life project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 369-381.
Seaton, L., & Boyd, M. (2008). The effective use of simulations in business courses.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(1), 107-118.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Surma, J. (2009). Supporting strategic decision making with cost-based reasoning.
International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation, 3, 145-149.
Swinarski, M. E. (2008). Focusing on IS skills for the middle and senior level man- ager: A new
approach to the MBA core IS course. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
23, 163-178.
Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J., & Gamble, J. A. (2010). Crafting and execut- ing strategy:
The quest for competitive advantage (17th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Weimer, M. (2010). Taking stock of what faculty know about student learning. In J. ChristensenHughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education
(pp. 81-94). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: McGill- Queen’s University Press.
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account.
Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1339-1364.
View publication stats
Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com by guest on September 13, 2015