The impact of video

Journal of Management Education http://jme.sagepub.com

Print, Video, or the Ceo: The Impact of Media in Teaching Leadership with the Case Method David J. O’Connell, John F. McCarthy and Douglas T. Hall Journal of Management Education 2004; 28; 294 DOI: 10.1177/1052562903252659 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/294

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

Additional services and information for Journal of Management Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/294

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

ARTICLE

10.1177/1052562903252659 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004 O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO: The Impact of Media in Teaching Leadership with the Case Method

David J. O’Connell St. Ambrose University John F. McCarthy University of New Hampshire at Manchester Douglas T. Hall Boston University School of Management Case teaching has the potential to involve students in complex decision settings, enhancing their identification with protagonists facing difficult challenges. This article explores the impact of teaching a printed leadership case study with and without the appearance of the CEO in class—by video or in person. Our investigation shows, via qualitative and quantitative means, that the leader’s presence, even through video, significantly affects student engagement and can substantially enhance impressions of leadership effectiveness.

We offer implications for teachers and propose future research directions.

Keywords: leadership; media effectiveness; case method teaching

We finished writing a draft of a teaching case, Ingar Skaug and Wilhelmsen Lines: Leadership in Organizational Transformation (O’Connell, Authors’ Note: We wish to thank Anna Goodwin and her staff of MBA research assistants at St. Ambrose University, who helped with multiple parts of this research effort. We also wish to thank Professor Kathy Kram of Boston University for her assistance with this study. This article also benefited substantially from the insightful comments of the JME reviewers. Please address correspondence to Dave O’Connell, DBA, College of Business, St. Ambrose University, 518 West Locust St., Davenport, IA 52803; e-mail: OConnellDavidJ@sau.edu.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 28 No. 3, June 2004 294-318 DOI: 10.1177/1052562903252659 © 2004 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society

294

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

295

McCarthy, & Hall, 1997). It places the student into a wrenching leadership challenge, in which the entire top leadership team of a large Norwegian shipping company is lost in a tragic plane crash. A new CEO, Mr. Ingar Skaug, is brought in from outside the industry to lead the organization past the tragedy and help rebuild the company’s culture and strategy. The students are put into Skaug’s place as he deals with the grief, resource gaps, and the desire of the new leader to create a high-involvement workplace.

A colleague of ours agreed to try the case, along with supplementary videotape made during a visit by the CEO to our school. His feedback perplexed us. Basically, he said: The students read the case, and when they came to class, no one thought Skaug was a leader. They thought he had just bought the OD agenda and buzzwords, hook, line, and sinker. No matter how I probed the discussion, they didn’t see him as a leader. However, once I showed him on the videotape, it was a different story. They began to consider that he might be a real leader. There was something about seeing him on tape.

This made us think more about the ways in which the appearance of the video-mediated CEO might affect the reaction of students to the case. The tape we used was produced from two presentations that the CEO had conducted with an MBA class and an international management club at our university. The quality of the video was fairly high, because it was professionally lit, utilized two cameras, and had a roving audio technician to capture student questions. The segments were edited and assembled under various topical headings with a title for each segment. For instance, Skaug addresses on the tape the trials of the traveling CEO, the role of intuition in leadership, and his inner experience in navigating the first days of his leadership at Wilhelmsen Lines. Often the dialogue would track well against questions that we typically used to probe the case during class discussions. Although the production quality was reasonably high, it is important to note that the overall effect was to bring the CEO into other classroom settings via tape.

Thus, it was essentially a high-end home-grown video (Meisel, 1998), produced by us with assistance from a major university media center.

As we further discussed the possible impact of videotape in our teaching of leadership in the management classroom, we realized that we had a naturally occurring quasi-experiment on our hands, with three conditions. First, we could continue to use videotape to support discussion of the written case.

Second, the CEO was coming to campus to act as a live respondent to the written case. Third, we also had the option of leading a case discussion with no video (with the possibility of using the video later after we ascertained the

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

296

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

impact of the print-only version of the case). The conditions were not truly experimental, because the classes were under way, and we would not be randomly assigning students to various learning conditions. However, we did have the opportunity to measure key student reactions under different conditions, hopefully creatively learning more about the impact of live (with the CEO on-site), video (employing the CEO on videotape), and print (using the traditional paper case analysis) media. This set of circumstances allowed us to capture information from planned class sessions, addressing a gap in research on the impact of video in management education (Marx & Frost, 1998) and conducting exploratory research around a compelling phenomenon.

The Challenge of Teaching Leadership With Cases We approach our classes with a clear bias that leadership can be taught. At least some approaches and skills can be imparted that enhance individuals’ leadership effectiveness. As noted by Harrington and Griffin (1990), leadership is one of the most important, and most difficult, organizational behavior topics to teach. Although many approaches are useful in building leadership effectiveness, here we focus on the case method. Undoubtedly, teaching with the case method is one of the most demanding forms of instruction, for students and teachers (Applegate, 1988). Done well, this method helps managers learn how to ask good questions (Hammond, 1990). The elements of effective case learning are (a) discovery, (b) skillful probing, (c) continual practice, (d) contrast and comparison, (e) involvement and (f) motivation (Corey, 1980). When the case method is used to teach leadership, two elements proposed by Corey become particularly important. First, case learning should involve the student in a real discovery process. Facts and descriptions are included in the text of the case, but it is the discovery of facts and the formation of opinions that provide the fodder for active discussion and more elaborated learning during class sessions. Second, involvement in the case is a strong precursor of learning. When students learn about leadership through cases they can be challenged to discover the subtle nuances that can make for success or failure in potential leaders. They develop impressions of key individuals in the cases. They can become much more involved in the stories than they might in pure lecture-oriented classes. This sense of involvement is an important element in the learning and discovery process, particularly for a complex subject such as leadership.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

297

Media Choices in the Case Method When focused on the discovery and involvement of students, instructors may find themselves drawn to ask the “how” questions. Specifically, how does the choice of medium affect the impressions students draw, and the involvement of students in, leadership cases? As noted by Marx and Frost (1998), many educators have found that video can help connect students and managers in classroom settings. However, there is debate among educational researchers as to the importance of media choice. Marx and Frost (1998) reviewed the debate. Clark (1983) proposed that media do not influence learning. This view was countered by Kozma (1991), offering evidence that media can affect teaching. Marx and Frost (1998) noted the need for more research, especially among management educators, claiming that “research studies indicating which media work best for certain kinds of tasks and for different kinds of learning would be especially helpful” (p. 245). Our study here seemed to fit very well with this line of inquiry. The purpose of the study was to examine the impacts of media choice on student engagement and impressions of leadership effectiveness.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEADER

When using the case method to teach leadership, students draw conclusions about the leadership qualities of individuals in the case. Indeed, one could argue that development of judgment is a key learning objective in discussion-based education (Christensen, Garvin, & Sweet, 1991). When Shaw and Locke (1993) discussed the development of managerial judgment, they followed the work of Vickers (1967), using this definition of judgment: “to denote that function of mind whereby we arrive at a deliberate opinion about a person or situation” (Shaw & Locke, 1993, p. 352). It is clear that students do make judgments about people in case studies. But how might the choice of media affect the formation of such judgments?

Written material can foster judgment as educators use it to bring students to a similar point of comprehension (Marx & Frost, 1998). However, print and video convey meaning in different ways. Although concepts are conveyed on paper, video communicates through percepts—visual imagery whose meaning is inherently ambiguous (Rappaport & Scott, 1998). Pointing to the work of Kinnunen and Ramamurti (1987), Rappaport and Scott suggested several potential advantages of video cases that include Q&A sessions with CEOs. Such videos may (a) elaborate and update, (b) allow students to watch CEOs talk about their jobs, adding credibility to strategic management themes, (c) give an appreciation of intangible factors, (d) demon-

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

298

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

strate complexity in general managers’ jobs, and (e) provide basis for discussion.

Today’s students live in a digitized visual world (Liedtka, 2001). As such, the presentation of video information is normal, rather than exceptional. The presentation of a case protagonist via video may connect with students in ways that are expected based on their normal communication diet. In this sense, the individual in the case may be more real to students via video than through print media alone.

Communication researchers have long taught that in face-to-face communication only a tiny fraction of information is communicated via the verbal channel. A huge amount of information is communicated via nonverbal signals. The use of video enhances the students’ ability to perceive and learn from some nonverbal signals. Although the video utilized in this situation was relatively simple, it was a constructed video message (Hobbs, 1998).

However, the live person in the room would provide full opportunity for the student to observe all nonverbal cues, devoid of cutaway shots, zooms, changing frames, or other production techniques inherent in video. This personal presence would provide opportunity for the student to gain a fuller appreciation of the presenter, in this case as a leader talking about leadership.

Given the research and earlier arguments, we propose the following: Hypothesis 1: Students who meet the protagonist in person in the classroom will have the strongest perception of him or her as a leader, followed by those who meet him or her via video, then by those who know his or her story through print media alone.

ENGAGEMENT

It has been suggested that video and the written word engage students differently. In Harrington and Griffin’s (1990) discussion of using the film Aliens to teach leadership and power, they point to the work of Wright and Huston (1983) and Gioia and Brass (1985), contending that visual imagery can produce a higher level of involvement than achieved with traditional methods, and that this occurs through observational learning. After reviewing existing media research, Marx and Frost (1998) proposed the following recommendation: “Video can be used optimally for heightening affective arousal and increasing responsivity to content instruction to follow” (p. 248).

This recommendation is based on the work of Hannafin (1986), demonstrating the ability of video to command the attention of viewers and heighten affective arousal toward the subject of the video.

Drawing from the work of consumer behavior researchers, we suspect that students are more likely to elaborate, or expand their personal under-

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

299

standing, of concepts that are presented in a visual medium rather than in print alone (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). As individuals are engaged in the message, there is stronger likelihood that messages will be processed through a central, rather than a peripheral, cognitive route. Forret and Turban (1996) further noted that processing information through the central route is a thoughtful, rather than a thoughtless, process.

Given this research evidence, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2: Students will report the highest levels of engagement in the case when the leader is present personally, followed by those who meet him or her via video, then by those who know his or her story through print media alone.

WILLINGNESS TO QUESTION

Students can be encouraged to identify with a key player in a case (Corey, 1980). At the same time, one of the benefits of cases is that they may prompt students to ask good questions (Hammond, 1990). Just as case instructors encourage students to probe one another’s viewpoints, they should also encourage students to critically evaluate the decisions and actions of key individuals in the case. Video has the potential to put a more human face on case protagonists. Andre Delbecq (Delbecq & Scates, 1991) reflected on the impact of video at a national meeting of the Academy of Management. As the plenary sessions grew in size, the audience was removed from the speakers’ personal presence. When television monitors were utilized, he noted, “The faculty were all seen as more personal, more expressive, and more approachable” (p. 352). However, there is the possibility that outside speakers, especially those with international stature, might seem less approachable in person than via video. For example, in our study, would a student be more likely to say, “Why did Ingar Skaug hire that business manager? It seems like it was a really bad move,” when discussing in a class with, or without, Skaug present?

Based on the preceding, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: When compared to the print and video conditions, students will report lower willingness to question the steps taken by the CEO in the case when he is present in the classroom.

PARTICIPATION

Although students may be less inclined to make highly critical comments about the CEO when that individual is present in the room, they may be more inclined to participate in class discussion. The individual brings a novel stim-

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

300

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

ulus into the classroom and provides the opportunity for new kinds of discussion through face-to-face interaction.

We therefore offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: When compared to the print and video conditions, students will report higher levels of participation in the case when the CEO is present in the classroom.

Centrality

A well-written case typically includes a hook that grabs students’ attention and draws them into the story. Effective cases also tend to include a limited cast of characters, allowing students to focus on, contrast, and analyze the situations and behaviors confronting them. Although a case such as the one used in this study clearly focuses on the CEO and the challenges confronting him, the presence of that same CEO in the classroom, would seemingly make him appear more central to the case than he would if appearing via print or video. As noted by Marx and Frost (1998), print media are effective in conveying static information that can be viewed and reviewed by students. Video does have the potential to grab viewers’ attention, orienting them to the material. The live person has the ability to creatively tell—intentionally or otherwise—the case story from his or her own point of view. The students could also potentially get a much more biased view of the impact of the individual on the case.

Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: Students will report the highest levels of centrality of the CEO in the case when the leader is present personally, followed by those who meet him or her via video, then by those who know his or story through print media alone.

Method DESIGN

The opportunity to teach the same case under three conditions provided a nonequivalent control group design, which is appropriate for naturally assembled groups, such as classrooms, where participants are similar, yet where a pretest is still required (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Significantly, this design allowed us to learn about our teaching in the process of actual classroom experience. The quasi-experiment entailed identifying teaching settings in which the case could be taught in three different ways: (a) print, or paper, only, (b) paper + video CEO, and (c) paper + live CEO. We designed

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

301

some controls into the study. First, we conducted pretests in each situation.

This allowed us to test for any differences in initial responses across the conditions. Second, we planned for anonymous response by students, reducing threats of participant anxiety regarding grades or other implications for their participation.

DATA COLLECTION

A short survey was designed and administered in seven different MBA class sessions in which the Skaug leadership case (O’Connell et al., 1997) was being taught, in two U.S. universities by three management professors— one large research university located on the East Coast, and another smaller university in the Midwest. The class size ranged from 6 to 42 students (with a mean of 19.7); overall, a total of 130 students participated in the postsurvey process across the seven class sessions, as summarized later. Students completed the survey (see Appendix A) before the class discussion began, giving an indication of their view of Skaug, his leadership, and the case’s impact on them, having read and prepared the case for class discussion. Then, at the end of the case discussion (approximately 90 minutes later), students completed the same survey again, with some additional assessment of their own participation and involvement in the case discussion (see Appendix B). Both survey administrations were collected at the time of completion. A summary of the survey administrations under the three media conditions follows on Table 1.

It is important to note that class sections were taught by a total of three different professors. The paper-only sections were taught by one professor (Professor A) at the Midwest university. Two sections of the tape classes were taught by the same Midwest professor, and another by the East Coast Professor B. The live condition was taught by two East Coast professors—Professor B and Professor C. The paper-only conditions require no control for professor, because only one professor taught both sections.

All classes were composed of graduate business students, taking courses in which leadership was a topic of study. Participants in the paper-only classrooms were part-time MBA students, most of whom were working while pursuing degrees. The Midwest video class was also composed mainly of part-time MBA students enrolled in the same course. The video class at the East Coast university was mostly part-time MBA students. The two live CEO classes were Executive MBA (EMBA) classes at the East Coast university; these students tended to be older, with at least 10 years of work experience.

The students in the EMBA classes also were progressing through a cohort program and were involved in a weeklong residency at the campus in which the central topic was leadership.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

302

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004 TABLE 1

Participants in the Study Completing Pre- and Posttest Surveys Media

Number of Class Sections

Paper Class 1 Class 2 Treatment total Paper + Video Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Treatment total Paper + Live Class 1 Class 2 Treatment total Total

2

3

2

7

Participants

Professor

6 13 19

A A

18 9 34 61

A A B

22 28 50 130

B C

Participants were aware that they were involved in research. No course credit was given for participation in the study, and respondent anonymity was protected. Because the CEO was only visiting one location, only those students involved in those classes had the opportunity to meet him. However, in the paper-only teaching situations the students completed the posttest survey and then afterward had the opportunity to view some of the video presentation. This was done to provide as much learning opportunity as possible, given the resources available at each location.

Finally, many students included written responses to open-ended questions on the survey instrument, which were captured and tabulated as part of the research process. The data set for this study therefore consisted of the survey responses to the scale items as well as numerous qualitative comments from 260 completed instruments collected from the seven MBA class sessions during a 15-month period. (270 completed surveys, including pre- and postconditions, were collected. Ten of the surveys were eliminated from quantitative analysis because the respondents failed to complete either the pre- or postsurvey.)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

Leadership perceptions. A common leadership model, developed by Kouzes & Posner (1996), describes leadership in five dimensions. We developed a short scale to give an overall measure of how the students saw Skaug’s

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

303

leadership. According to Kouzes & Posner (1996), leaders are effective in five sets of behaviors. First, they challenge the status quo. Second, they inspire shared vision. Third, effective leaders enable followers to participate.

Fourth, leaders model the way. Finally, effective leaders know that enthusiasm can wane, and they know how to encourage the heart. Following Kouzes & Posner (1996), we know this as the CIEME framework for leadership, an acronym from the first letter of each of the five dimensions (challenge, inspire, enable, model, and encourage, respectively). We developed a scale to measure perceptions of leadership with two items addressing each of the five dimensions. The 10-item scale displayed a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.77.

Involvement. We also attempted to capture dimensions of students’ sense of involvement under the varying case discussions. Statements to this effect were incorporated in the student reaction section of the instrument (Appendix A) as well as from the participation section of the secondary, or post(only), survey instrument (Appendix B), as described later.

Engagement. We measured the level of engagement, or connection with the case, with four survey items: (a) I am very interested in and engaged by the Wilhelmsen Lines (WL) case, (b) The case added little that was new to my understanding of leadership (reverse scored), (c) I don’t see how the concepts we have studied in the course so far really apply to the Wilhelmsen Lines case (reverse scored), (d) I have taken away some memorable lessons from the WL case that I can apply to my life outside the classroom. This 4-item scale displayed a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.69.

A single item was included in the postsurvey: I was bored by the Wilhelmsen Lines case. Although this does not allow pre- and posttesting, it provides a separate measure of engagement to compare the postcase situations.

Freedom to engage in critical discussion. We asked students to respond to the following statement to gauge their sense of openness and freedom to criticize the actions of the CEO: I felt free to criticize the way Skaug handled some situations at Wilhelmsen Lines.

Participation in discussion. Students evaluated their own participation by checking a box to indicate the following: I made significant contributions to the discussion. I was actively involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material (coded as 4, with 4 being highest); I made important contributions to the discussion. I was somewhat involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material (coded as 3); I

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

304

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

made minor contributions to the discussion. I was barely involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material (coded as 2); I made no contributions to the discussion. I asked no questions nor added my own thoughts on the material (coded as 1).

Centrality of the CEO. This was measured by asking students to respond to this statement: It seems that Skaug had a significant role in the changes at Wilhelmsen Lines.

Results Judgment of the CEO as a leader (abbreviated as CIEME score later) did appear to be affected by the use of media in the case discussion, with the change in the predicted direction, as shown in Table 2, lending support to Hypothesis 1. Although there was no significant change in view of him as a leader based solely on case discussion, the use of tape and the live appearance of the CEO each showed a marked change in judgment of the CEO as a leader. ANOVA analysis shows that there was a slight difference across the pretest groups, with paper = 3.76, (paper + tape) = 3.83, and live = 3.59 (F = 3.59, p < .05). There was a significant difference evident across the posttest groups, in the predicted direction (F = 13.93, p < .001, Ρ2 = .185). Post-hoc Tukey significance testing shows that there was significant difference between paper and (paper + tape) (p < .01), between tape and live conditions (p < .05), and between paper and live conditions (p < .001). In sum, student impressions of this leader appeared to be clearly affected by the use of varying media conditions in this study.

Students reported no change in engagement from pre- to postdiscussion in the paper-only version. The change in the paper + tape condition was in the predicted direction, but statistically nonsignificant. In the live condition, the change was significant (p < .001), and in the predicted direction, as shown in Table 2. ANOVA analysis shows no significant difference among the pretest measurements, but a significant difference across the posttest conditions (F= 13.0, p < .001, Ρ2 = .175). The mean scores progress in the predicted manner, with paper = 3.89, tape = 3.98, and live = 4.47. Tukey tests of significance show that there are significant differences between (paper + tape) and live conditions, and between paper and live conditions. However, the difference between paper and tape was nonsignificant. Thus, we see partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Overall, ANOVA results show that there was a difference in the willingness to question the way the CEO handled some situations (F = 5.40, p < .01,

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

305

TABLE 2

Results of Hypothesis Tests, Showing Posttest Scores and ANOVA F Statistics Media Paper Paper + Tape Paper + Live F statistic

H1: H2: H3: H4: H5: CIEME Engagement Freedom to Criticize Participation CEO Centrality 3.71 4.03 4.22 13.9**

3.89 3.98 4.47 13.0**

4.17 3.74 4.19 5.4*a

2.83 2.65 2.71 0.27

4.37 4.43 4.78 5.6*

NOTE: CIEME = challenge, inspire, enable, model, and encourage.

The CIEME scores were the composite scores, based primarily on the Kouzes & Posner (1996) CIEME leadership model. a. Difference significant, although not in direction predicted *p < .01. **p < .001

η2 = .089). However, the pattern was not in the predicted direction. Students in the (paper + tape) condition showed the lowest score, at 3.74, whereas those in the paper only and (paper + live) classrooms were nearly identical, at 4.17 and 4.19 respectively. Post-hoc Tukey testing shows the only significant difference was between the tape and live conditions, showing no support for Hypothesis 3.

Overall, the self-reported participation did not differ significantly across the three teaching conditions. On a 4-point scale, in which 4 indicated significant participation and 1 indicated none, the mean score for the paper condition was 2.83; for the paper + tape condition the mean was 2.65, and for the live condition, 2.71. When examining differences by professor, the results are still nonsignificant, for Professor B, who taught the video and live sections, and Professor A, who taught the paper and video sections. This result failed to support Hypothesis 4.

Although there was no significant change in the perceived centrality of the role of the CEO when using paper or paper + tape, there was a significant change in perception when the CEO appeared in person, as shown in Table 2.

ANOVA analysis shows no significant difference across the conditions in the pretest, and significant difference in the posttest condition (F = 5.6, p < .01, η2 = .082), lending support to Hypothesis 5. When controlling for professor, the results are consistent with the overall ANOVA analysis summarized earlier. For Professor A, who taught in the print and video conditions, there was no significant change in perceived centrality of the CEO. For Professor B, the change in perceived centrality of the CEO was not significantly different across the video and live treatments but was in the predicted direction.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

306

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES BY PROFESSOR

Although we framed the study as a comparison across three teaching conditions, one could argue that there were more than three conditions, because multiple professors were involved in the case discussions. To address this issue, a number of analyses were conducted to determine outcomes across conditions taught by individual professors.

When examining CIEME scores, we controlled for differences in professors across conditions. There was a significant difference between paper and tape, in which Professor A taught both conditions (F = 6.01, p <.05, Ρ2 = .185). Professor B, who taught tape and live conditions, showed no significant difference in posttest scores across treatments. However, even in this case, there was a significant difference within treatments. There was a significant rise in CIEME scores, from 3.82 to 4.06 (t = 2.26, p < .05) in the video treatment. The change was also significant when the CEO appeared in the classroom, moving from 3.49 to 4.03 (t = 3.51, p < .01). The magnitude of the change across treatments is also notable: +.24 versus +.54.

In some cases, when we compared the results by professor across administrations, the findings are more complex than indicated in the earlier summary tables. For instance, the results differ by professor in the CIEME evaluations in the tape condition. The pre-post differences are significant for Professor B. Although they are in the predicted direction, they are not significant for Professor A. For Professors B and C, in the live condition, there is a significant pre-post difference. This more fine-grained analysis is mentioned in summary form to indicate that the individual teaching style, personal presence of the instructor, or the specific composition of each class could all affect the way any technique works in a classroom. Given that all three professors were actually in the process of teaching the case as part of their planned curriculum, the opportunity to forge ahead with this exploratory study across a wide student base outweighed concerns to limit the research to a more controlled administration. Here, a major proportion of the value of this study is derived from the fact that it took place in naturally occurring teaching environments. Subsequent studies could, of course, take additional control measures more fully into account. We address some of these issues and outline future research considerations later in this article.

QUALITATIVE LESSONS FROM THE CASE

In addition to quantitative data, a number of participants also provided written reactions to the case. Two kinds of information were elicited. They were to describe the CEO as a leader, and they were asked to provide an example of a key lesson or take away. A summary analysis of the student

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

307

commentary provided during the post- CEO evaluations in the written section of the instrument (see Appendices A and B) under varying media conditions follows.

Overall leadership assessment. Student commentary to describe Skaug’s overall leadership effectiveness was analyzed in two ways: First, across the Kouzes & Posner (1996) CIEME leadership dimensions used earlier, although modified to fit the specific data set better to capture as much of the data as possible in the coding process. Here, encourage and enable were combined into a broader category we defined as “caring” to capture more complex descriptives in the responses. Overall, of the 130 completed surveys, 90 respondents included written comments; of these, 82 descriptions were able to be coded to fit this modified 4-dimension CIEME model. Summary examples of these comments and the frequencies and mix across each of the leadership dimensions are provided on Table 3.

As noted earlier, although the video condition elicited by far the most leadership-related qualitative responses (in total and proportionately), the commentary seemed to be far more factual and descriptive than when the CEO was live. The comments when employing video displayed a similar pattern, in terms of mix, as the paper-only condition, although with far greater frequency, perhaps describing more about what the leader did, having seen Skaug in action through the videotape. Conversely, when the CEO was present, a significant proportion of comments appeared to more deeply evoke emotional responses from participants, as noted by the heavy inspire component on the CIEME model earlier. Here, interestingly, presence may be affecting participants’ leadership perspective in different ways; employing the video engages students and generates focus and enthusiasm around the leader greater than in the paper-only condition, and having the leader live further instills a more evocative response because of the face-to-face relationship and personal contact.

Second, although many of the previous written comments related to varying leadership dimensions, a number of comments provided were also specific enough to serve as an overall leadership rating by measuring the descriptives used by students about “Skaug as a leader.” These comments were coded by using a relatively simple 4-point relative rating scale for leadership descriptions provided by students (1 = poor or fair; 2 = good; 3 = very good; 4 = outstanding). Although fewer comments were found to be directly applicable here (42 in total), the relative composition and proportions across the three media conditions are worthwhile to examine. Specific examples of these measures, along with a summary of the outcomes, are provided on Table 4.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

308

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004 TABLE 3

Leadership Dimensions Cited by Condition Dimension

Examples of Verbatim Descriptions

Challenge

Strong; decisive; driven; courageous; very forceful; determined; conviction Very inspirational; inspiring; innovative Sincere; fair; thoughtful; wanted the best for his employees; very interested in the welfare of employees Modeling the way; strong values and beliefs; honesty and integrity; learns from his mistakes and moves on

Inspire Caring Model

Total coded descriptions Uncoded or inapplicable comments Total number of descriptive comments

% Paper

% Video

% Live

56 19

43 18

27 35

13

18

15

13

23

23

n = 16 n=0 n = 16

40 6 46

26 2 28

NOTE: This table displays categories that were discovered as a result of data analysis. The category labeled as “caring” is a combination of comments associated with the categories “encourage” or “enable” in the Kouzes & Posner (1996) CIEME leadership model. The columns for paper, video, and live conditions display percentages of the total coded descriptions from that condition.

TABLE 4

Leadership Ratings and Frequencies by Condition Frequencies Rating

Examples of Verbatim Descriptions

Fair/Poor Good Very good Outstanding Total

Not effective (in the U.S.) Good; capable; strong; effective Very good; great; very effective; very capable Outstanding; excellent; superb; perfect!

Paper

Video

Live

1 7 2 0 10

0 8 9 0 17

0 3 6 6 15

NOTE: The ratings were ascribed based on the nature of the comments made by the students in the postclass questionnaire.

In both of the previous summaries, the student commentaries are directionally and proportionately consistent with the premise that increased CEO presence (from paper to video to live) affects student assessment of leadership effectiveness—in this case positively and favorably. For example, on Table 3 we can see that challenge is by far the most dominant leadership

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

309

dimension cited in the paper-only medium (9 of the 16 comments provided, 3 times as many as the 3 comments for inspire), whereas inspire and model become increasingly represented in the video and live cases (7 of 40, and 9 of 26, respectively). In addition, it is clear in Table 4 that the overall ratings of the leader embedded within the commentary are much more favorable, either in absolute terms or proportionately, as we move from paper to video and from video to live conditions of CEO presence. All these patterns can provide additional support to the notion that viewing the leader in action, whether in person or in video, can substantially enhance students’ perspectives of the leadership practices being demonstrated and discussed.

Key student take aways. Similarly, review of the written responses to the open-ended statement about each student’s “example of a specific key lesson or take away” provided a sense of increased thoughtfulness and detail by participants as the CEO’s presence increased from paper to video to live conditions. Where only minimal comments were offered in the paper-only case, substantial commentary was provided for the video and live cases, with a noticeably increased focus on people and values as being central to leadership. Examples of comments in the video case sessions included lessons such as, “Dedication to beliefs at work and at home”; “People are the most important”; “Remember to stay true to your confidence in your own character”; and “Projecting integrity is very important.” Following the live case, lessons and take aways included “Concepts of empowering employees, viewing them as assets and leading with values”; “The importance of having a clear understanding of your own morals and values and the confidence and conviction to carry them out in situations that challenge them”; “That each employee deserves, and is entitled to, the right to know what is expected of him or her”; and “Maintain focus on your core values in the midst of change.”

Again, we saw this pattern of data as further supporting the premise that the students’ sense of engagement about the CEO and their appreciation for the leadership style and behaviors observed were enhanced as the case discussions moved toward higher levels of CEO presence.

Discussion This research reports interesting findings in several areas. First, and most important, our primary hypothesis that the respondents’ impression of the leader would be favorably affected as leadership presence increased (i.e., from paper to tape to live) was fully supported across the three conditions.

Here, the use of media evidenced a significant, consistent impact on how stu-

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

310

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

dents saw the leader in their respective case discussions. These findings were further buttressed by the qualitative analysis of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments, which displayed stronger and more evocative commentary as the leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence increased. Next, respondents also reported substantially higher levels of engagement, and an enhanced sense of CEO centrality under the live condition, when the CEO was present, significantly increasing more than the other media conditions, as predicted. Interestingly, the study found no impact on participation across the three media conditions, nor was there any support for increased engagement or centrality under the videotape conditions. Overall, therefore, the study found full support for one hypothesis (leadership perception), partial support for two hypotheses (engagement and centrality), and no support for two hypotheses (participation and willingness to question). The results offer interesting insight into our teaching practice and highlight meaningful future research directions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING

This research indicates that choice of media really does make a difference, in the level of engagement, the focus of attention, and lessons learned through the case method. It is indeed worth the effort to use video, and if possible, to get effective leaders in the classroom with students. Student engagement with the material is a key step in processing the potential lessons in the classroom. We should also consider that our choices of media may not only affect engagement, but also the substantive lessons learned. Although students do think of a CEO as a much more impressive leader when he or she appears in the classroom, this does not necessarily mean that he or she is a more effective leader in an objective sense. The findings of this study point to the great potential to encourage students to reflect on, and to question, how they actually evaluate leadership effectiveness. If a leadership model is used to delineate the dimensions of leadership, then perhaps students need to be pressed to look at the specific decisions and behaviors of case protagonists, holding them up against the impression he or she makes in the classroom.

This has potential to make students more purposeful leaders and more discerning followers in the world beyond the classroom.

Although the findings from the study point to some positive impacts of using video and live guests in the classroom, we realize that such tools are not available for all cases. Many of us teach cases in the paper-only condition on a regular basis and seem to have some level of success in doing so. We are left

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

311

to consider how we might more effectively connect students to the stories of leaders in such situations.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The choice was made that our investigation would take advantage of the naturally occurring classroom setting in real teaching and student learning situations rather than conducting the investigation through laboratory experimental research or a more structured quasi-experimental design. As such, this is an exploratory study, outlining several key propositions, highlighting important preliminary findings, and illuminating areas for additional research in teaching leadership under varying media conditions. Although we do value the authenticity of real classroom settings, there would be much benefit from conducting similar studies with greater consistency and control.

For instance, during our classes using the videotape we did not control for use of exactly the same video clips, or for specific run times of video clips in this study, depending on the direction, tone, and flow of the actual classroom dialogue. Similarly, the composition of participants in our study, in terms of faculty as well as students, is wonderfully rich but diverse enough to raise meaningful concerns about confounding impacts from the variety of conditional settings. For instance, EMBA students were participants in the live classroom version, but not in all conditions. All of these issues could be readily addressed in future studies employing more tightly structured design criteria, such as equivalent class sizes and more exactly matched video exposure. Moreover, the findings from this research are obviously limited to one particular case study, with one CEO as the central figure. This raises interesting questions. For instance, would research findings be similar if the CEO were less charismatic than the one featured in this case? How would the findings differ by demographic characteristics of the CEO, such as race or gender? Many such questions can be raised.

Replication of this study, using different types of cases and a variety of leaders, would further enrich our understanding of the impact of media in case pedagogy. In addition, it would be intriguing to investigate the impact of other media options, such as live teleconferencing, Internet chat rooms, or e-mail exchanges with featured leaders. By adding to our intuitive sense of what works well in the case classroom, and conducting more empirical research, instructors can further affect the classroom bottom lineâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;relevant and useful learning for our students.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

312

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

Appendix A Items Included in Pre- and Postclass Session Instruments Please respond to the following items using the scale below. Place the appropriate number next to each item, indicating the extent to which you agree with each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

What are your impressions of Ingar Skaug as a leader at Wilhelmsen Lines?

Ingar Skaug __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Was willing to experiment and take risks at Wilhelmsen Lines (WL).

Failed to communicate a positive outlook to WL employees.

Didn’t ensure that common values were adhered to at WL. Gave praise for jobs well done.

Didn’t really challenge the status quo at WL. Created an atmosphere of trust.

Enlisted the WL employees in a common vision for the company.

Didn’t allow WL employees to make decisions.

Failed to celebrate milestones and accomplishments.

Practiced the values he espoused.

What is your reaction to the Wilhelmsen Lines case? __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

I am very interested in and engaged by the Wilhelmsen Lines (WL) case.

The case added little that was new to my understanding of leadership.

Skaug is a very capable leader.

It would be very difficult to generalize from this case to other organizations that don’t have a CEO like Skaug.

It seems that Skaug had a significant role in the changes at Wilhelmsen Lines.

Skaug’s changes were unilaterally imposed on the U.S. organization of WL and were not effective there.

I don’t see how the concepts we have studied in the course so far really apply to the Wilhelmsen Lines case.

Without Skaug, the Wilhelmsen Lines company would have stagnated after the tragic plane crash.

Skaug didn’t show much leadership ability in his work at Wilhelmsen Lines.

I have taken away some memorable lessons from the WL case that I can apply to my life outside the classroom.

An example of a specific key lesson or take-away for me would be:

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

313

Appendix B Participation Items Included in the Post Survey What was your classroom participation in the Wilhelmsen Lines case discussion?

Please respond to the following items using the scale below. Place the appropriate number next to each item, indicating the extent to which you agree with each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree __ __ __ __

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Even though I thought Skaug made some mistakes, I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t mention them in class.

I participated in about the same way I have in other case discussions in this course.

I was bored by the Wilhelmsen Lines case discussion in class.

I felt free to criticize the way Skaug handled some situations at Wilhelmsen Lines.

Please check the box that best describes your own contribution in this class session (select one). [ ] I made significant contributions to the discussion. I was actively involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material. [ ] I made important contributions to the discussion. I was somewhat involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material. [ ] I made minor contributions to the discussion. I was barely involved in either asking questions or adding my own thoughts on the material. [ ] I made no contributions to the discussion. I asked no questions nor added my own thoughts on the material.

In closing, how would you describe Ingar Skaug as a leader?

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

314

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

Appendix C Wilhelmsen Lines Case Summary, Parts A and B Part A “A tragedy for the whole shipping community and . . . for everybody in Norway.”

THE TRAGEDY – SEPTEMBER, 1989

As the curtain dropped, the lights came up for intermission at the National Theater in Oslo, Norway. A theater employee quickly walked on stage and made an unexpected request: “Will all employees of Wilhelmsen Lines please report to room B114?” There were many employees of Wilhelmsen Lines in the Friday night audience who found themselves working their way through the crowd, wondering what awaited them; many thought that there would be some sort of special reception for them, as proud members of a prestigious 128-year-old Norwegian shipping company.

And this day was an important day: Earlier that afternoon, the company’s CEO and 49 other employees, including the entire top management team and many long-term employees, had flown to Hamburg for a ship-naming ceremony.

But room B114 wasn’t a ballroom. It was a storage room. Anxious minutes passed as employees awaited explanation. Finally, a senior Wilhelmsen Lines executive arrived and said, “I have some very serious news. The plane carrying the Wilhelmsen group has disappeared. We have no more information at this time and recommend that you return home and await further news.” In the following tense hours, employees learned that the plane had crashed; there were no survivors.

AN ORGANIZATION IN SHOCK

All weekend the company’s office building was open, and pastors and counselors were available as the Oslo employees and their families numbly tried to grasp the enormous loss. On Monday, the company’s offices were back open for business.

Executives from the parent company, Wilhelm Wilhelmsen Ltd., helped to organize work and keep the company moving. But things were far from normal. Entire groups of people had disappeared. Wilhelmsen Lines was in shock.

In the weeks following the tragedy, people struggled with the loss of their friends and colleagues while somehow trying to gain focus on their jobs and tasks. Other companies in the Oslo community, even direct competitors, offered help and personnel during these difficult times. The company’s fleet sailed on as the organization grieved. Wilhelmsen Lines was one of the world’s largest operators of deep-sea transport vessels for automobiles, trucks, and farm equipment; its massive ships would need to continue to move efficiently in and out of ports across the globe.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

315

A NEW LEADER

The search immediately began for a new CEO. This would prove to be a substantial challenge. In addition to the horrible pain and weight of the tragedy, the company had faced financial troubles in the years before the accident and had only recently restructured, barely returning to profitability. Finally, extending the executive search beyond the close confines of the shipping industry proved to be successful as Mr. Ingar Skaug, then head of Scandinavian Air Systems (SAS) in Norway, accepted the position. Mr. Skaug, a native Norwegian, came to Wilhelmsen Lines after 18 years in the airline industry, serving in executive positions in Norway as well as elsewhere in Europe and in the United States.

In addition to learning more about his new company’s business fundamentals, Skaug saw many challenges: Of course, grief pervaded the organization. Next, the company’s culture was very traditional and formal, almost a “club” atmosphere, with a centralized decision-making process and little emphasis on teamwork or organizational learning. In addition, systems and IT were outdated, and Skaug sensed a stronger focus on the shipping vessels than on customers. On the other hand, the company was world class, in shipping and in cargo handling. The company had very capable people who had learned the business from the ground up.

SKAUG’S VISION

Skaug firmly believed that the business world demands flexibility, being highly adaptive, and highly skilled in learning, emphasizing empowerment for all employees. He worried that Wilhelmsen Lines was a “sleeping organization” that would need to be awoken and moved in many new directions. He wanted the company to be an innovative, creative, financially successful organization, planning for and creating the future of the shipping industry. He needed to help reenergize the organization after the devastating loss. He also knew that he was a newcomer and that the organization was still grieving. But he had a strong belief that people, given resources and encouragement, could accomplish many things. He wondered what steps he should take first, and how he would sustain his vision of an organization very different from the one that existed then.

Part B “It starts and ends with creating a climate where people like to work, think it’s fun to work, where they can learn, where they can develop themselves.”

Ingar Skaug, April 1997 THE BASIC PHILOSOPHY

People are the key to business success; that is the heart of Ingar Skaug’s management philosophy. Although hardware, systems, structure, and strategy are all

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

316

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

important, he believes that real competitive advantage comes from creative, empowered, motivated employees. His challenge was deciding how to do this.

Soon after his arrival in May 1990, Skaug met with leaders of other companies, trying to find out how they had developed and implemented value-centered leadership. He also began a series of long and intense discussions with the top 20 to 25 people at Wilhelmsen Lines. Skaug felt that the future of the company depended on clearly establishing values and business principles early on as the new CEO. He was open to input and dialogue—but he was also very tough on the “soft issues.” Once consensus and clarity were gained on core values and leadership principles, firm buyin was essential; he urged those who could not do this to “read the last page on the newspaper to find a new job.”

After clarifying the management principles and values with top management, Skaug traveled the globe, taking the story to the company’s employees. He knew that the organization was still very much in grief, and that substantive change would be difficult, but that he could talk with people and share his vision with all who would listen. He conducted numerous employee seminars, semistructured group meetings for all employees at each major office, where dialogue was active and open. Skaug also began a formal feedback process, where all employees were surveyed about the organizational climate and working relationships. But he waited before “pushing” or making major changes, announcing at Wilhelmsen’s commemorative service a year after the accident that it was time to honor the past and remember lost friends, but it was also time to begin to move forward in new and different ways.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

An integral element of Skaug’s new management philosophy was the implementation of organizational development “tools” to measure and facilitate change. In addition to continuing employee seminars and climate surveys, a formal coaching process was created to generate self-assessment and specific individual feedback. Employees also were asked to prepare functional descriptions, detailing the duties and expectations for their own jobs—and to work afterward with their supervisors in formal employee dialogues to come to a common understanding and an action plan for future development. In addition, Wilhelmsen initiated far-reaching surveys from their customers, asking for specific external feedback about strengths and improvement areas for the company as a whole. And throughout all this, the organization embraced a systematic quality improvement program, working toward ISO9000 certification for quality and safety.

KEY ELEMENTS IN THE CHANGE PROCESS

Skaug views the integration of all these processes as key to the company’s success, summarized here: • Agree on a basic philosophy of management • Articulate values and establish goals • Develop and pursue strategies

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

O’Connell et al. / PRINT, VIDEO, OR THE CEO

317

• Clarify management principles • Develop and employ the developmental “tool box” companywide: _ Employee seminars _ Climate surveys _ Coaching _ Functional descriptions _ Employee dialogues _ Customer relation studies _ A quality system ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES

Wilhelmsen’s value statements over the years have evolved, but the following core values remain consistent: • Honesty: Openly contribute, admit mistakes, share information, take responsibility • Loyalty: Support decisions once they are made, express our opinions constructively, be committed to continuous improvement • Cooperation: Delegate, balance between authority and responsibility, view the total result • Responsibility: Define expectations for ourselves and all employees, follow-up and assess results, give feedback, take initiative and suggest improvements.

References Applegate, L. M. (1988). Case teaching at the Harvard Business School: Some advice for new faculty. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., & Sweet, A. (Eds.). (1991). Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Corey, R. (1980). Case method teaching. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Delbecq, A. L., & Scates, D. C. (1991). Teaching with television: Assessing the potential of distance education. Journal of Management Education, 15(3), 340-354.

Forret, M. L., & Turban, D. B. (1996). Implications of the elaboration likelihood model for interviewer decision processes. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10(4), 415-428.

Gioia, D. A., & Brass, D. J. (1985). Teaching the TV generation: The case for observational learning. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 10(2), 11-15.

Hammond, J. S. (1990). Learning by the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Harrington, K. V., & Griffin, R. W. (1990). Ripley, Burke, Gorman, and friends: Using the film “Aliens” to teach leadership and power. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14(3), 79-86.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009

318

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2004

Hobbs, R. (1998). Teaching with and about film and television: Integrating media literacy concepts into management education. Journal of Management Development, 17(4), 259-272.

Kinnunen, R., & Ramamurti, R. (1987, spring). Making cases more “real”: The use of videotapes to enhance business policy cases. Case Research Journal, 7(2), 1-6.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1996). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Liedtka, J. (2001). The promise and peril of video cases: Reflections on their creation and use.

Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 409-424.

Marx, R. D., & Frost, P. J. (1998). Toward optimal use of video in management education: Examining the evidence. Journal of Management Development, 17(4), 243-250.

Meisel, S. (1998). Videotypes: Considerations for effective use of video in teaching and training.

Journal of Management Development, 17(4), 251-258.

O’Connell, D., McCarthy, J., & Hall, D. T. (1997). Ingar Skaug and Wilhelmsen Lines: Leadership in organizational transformation (teaching case #97-33). Boston: Boston University Publications.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Rappaport, A., & Scott, C. G. (1998). Cinematography and case videos: Some observations on selection and teaching. Journal of Management Education, 22(1), 104-112.

Shaw, G., & Locke, K. (1993). Using fiction to develop managerial judgment. Journal of Management Education, 17(3), 349-359.

Vickers, G. (1967). Toward a sociology of management. New York: Basic Books.

Wright, J. C., & Huston, A. C. (1983). A matter for form: Potentials of television for young viewers. American Psychologist, 38, 835-843.

Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Armando Loera on October 31, 2009