Individual write-up's

82

BRIDGING STRATEGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE "GAP": A SUGGESTED PEDAGOGY

Chris A. Lockwood Northern Arizona University

Barbara W. Keats Arizona State University

Gregory G. Dess University of Texas at Arlington

A recurring interest among both management scholars and management practitioners is the construction of an easily traversed bridge between management research and management practice. To this end, a special issue of Administrative Science Quarterly (1982-1983) was dedicated to the causes and possible remedies for the separation between research and practice. The research/practice &dquo;gap&dquo; is a complex problem and one most authors (e.g., Beyer & Trice, 1982) recognize as having multiple components. One compo- nent is the most obvious and is the issue that has attracted the most atten- tion. This is the content-oriented gap between what scholars publish and what they observe managers doing, reading, and talking about. Another is described by Jelinek (1980) as a presentation gap, and it refers to the man- ner in which research is presented (particularly with respect to language, or jargon) versus the manner in which managers tend to communicate. Not surprisingly, scholars wishing to address these two components are usually advised to select relevant research topics, publication outlets, and writing styles. These are research role choices. We propose that scholars can also act to reduce the research/practice gap

in then teaching roles. That is, there appear to be three additional com- ponents that can be addressed in the classroom. The first is what Tannen- baum (1975, refers to as the gap between the possession of knowledge and the ability to act upon that knowledge. The second is knowledge itself, or the gap between current managers’ skills and those required to directly utilize research reports. A third is that of students and managers who are often poorly prepared to make good judgements about the quality of the

83

literature they do encounter (Mowday, 1977). Clearly, one needs to under- stand and evaluate what is written and its implications for managerial prac- tice. But in order to be able to both critically evaluate research reports and apply the contents to the conduct of business activities, one needs to believe that research reports have relevance. Therefore, any method designed to ad- dress skill-and knowledge-level improvement in the classroom must also im- prove future managers’ perceptions of research report relevance. Some authors have suggested that practicing managers exhibit a strong

bias for concrete information, preferring even gossip or hearsay to the more abstract kinds of information that might be found in research reports (Mintzberg, 1973). Jelinek (1980) indicates that such bias, if it does exist, may be grounded in patterns of learning experiences. If such is the case, it is important (a) to determine what kinds of learning experiences would pro- vide future managers with the requisite skills and affective (emotional) responses to integrate research findings into practice in an effective fashion and (b) to develop pedagogical approaches to build those skills and responses.

Based on their review of the literature on the utilization of social science

research, Beyer and Trice (1982) provide 12 recommendations to reduce the research/practice gap. While the majority of these recommendations ad- dress a scholar’s research role, 3 of their recommendations bear directly on the teaching role. Specifically:

(1) ... researchers should pay more attention to diffusing research to future potential users through textbooks and their own teaching ac- tivities (p. 616).

(2) ... researchers should consider the consequences of the ideas they circulate through their teaching and research for members of organizations and for society (p. 615).

(3) ... If researchers want to facilitate the use of organizational research in general, they should train undergraduate and M.B.A. students to use research publications by making assignments that re- quire them to read organizational literature in areas in which they have interests and to develop recommendations for action from the research (p. 616).

The purpose of this article is to propose a pedagogical approach, which we refer to as the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment,’* designed to complement current methods of teaching strategy and policy (e.g., case, lecture, simula- tion) in the interest of developing higher level cognitive skills and of reduc- ing negative affective responses to research reports. The structure of the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment&dquo; is grounded in the general concepts of Kolb’s (1974) Experiential Learning Model and Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives. Although the assignment is targeted for use in MBA curricula, it may also be appropriate for adBanced undergraduate programs.

84

Students may have initial skepticism regarding the necessity of focusing on theory and its development. However, Moore and Pinder (1978) indicate that such resistance seems to fade as they acquire the systematically critical attitude underlying scientific investigation. The challenge for the instructor becomes: &dquo;Can research be taught in such a way that it not only adds rigor to strategy coursework but at the same time also helps students in their future roles as managers?&dquo; We believe the answer is yes.

Students’ comprehension of the research process in general may be facilitated by the use of Serey’s (1980) dual process model. This model sug- gests that empirical research and managerial problem solving are analogous processes. It emphasizes the inherent tendency to examine cause and effect relationships in organizations, which is central to the manager’s role. Thus, use of this model may reduce student resistance to the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment.&dquo; That is, instead of ignoring research concepts altogether, or teaching them in a contrived research atmosphere, the instructor can bring students to an understanding that their managerial success is at least in part dependent on their adoption and use of a sound inquiry process. This understanding is especially necessary since Schoeffler (1985) contends that, &dquo;at least half of the most frequently cited principles of business strategy are not grounded in any visible evidence, or are inappropriate in major groups of businesses&dquo; (pp. 14-19).

In order to build a foundation for the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment,&dquo; the following section presents a discussion of the nature of educational objec- tives in general and relates them to the objectives of management education in particular. We continue by presenting two strategic management research areas, which serve as examples, and by discussing the benefits students can obtain from &dquo;Article Critique Assignments&dquo; in these areas. The benefits which result are hypothesized to reduce the research/practice gap for future managers.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives provides a frame- work for illustrating the pedagogical benefits of the &dquo;Article Critique As- signment.&dquo; This taxonomy (listed below) is hierarchical because it is based on the mental ability required of the student to master each of the six objec- tives.

(1) Knowledge - Emphasis is upon the psychological processes of remembering. Included are knowledge of specifics, knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics, and the knowledge of theories and generalizations which dominate a subject.

(2) Comprehension - The lowest level of understanding. Comprehen- sion does not necessarily mean an individual can relate this

85

understanding to other material or that he or she sees its fullest im- plications.

(3) Application - This implies the ability to use abstractions in concrete situations. These abstractions may be rules, general methods, or ideas (i.e., things which must be remembered and applied).

(4) Analysis - This implies the ability to break down written and oral communication into component parts for message clarification. The organization and manner in which a communication conveys its ef- fects are determined as well as are its basis and arrangement.

(5) Synthesis - The process of relating parts to the whole, pulling together a series of related ideas into one basic concept.

(6) Evaluation - The appraisal of ideas, movements, theories, and generalizations. The ability to draw inferences, to predict future ac- curacy, and to discover consistency and inconsistency in sets of data, ideas, or mathematical theories and processes. The ability to relate criteria to judgements of performance and to assess conclusions in light of consequences (Bloom, 1956, pp. 186-193).

According to Steele (1976), we often tell students it is important to view the world as a network of open, interdependent systems, but then we design classroom structures and experiences quite incongruent with that view. For example, much of the assessment process in management courses is de- signed to address only the first objective (e.g., true-false or multiple-choice questions). However, many &dquo;essay&dquo; questions do not develop intellectual skills and abilities because students are required to recall specific facts (e.g., Describe briefly the Miles & Snow, 1978, typology).

Steele (1976) suggests, and the present authors concur, that students should not only learn representative content, but also methods for observ- ing, diagnosing, synthesizing, theorizing, sharing, and applying this content to situations as well. These methods allow students to develop what Weick (1979) refers to as &dquo;complicated understanding.&dquo; This &dquo;complicated understanding&dquo; includes complex thinking skills as well as an awareness of the multiple perspectives that exist and the absence of a single &dquo;right answer.&dquo; According to Weathersby, Bartunek, and Gordon (1982), it also involves the ability to apply multiple, complementary perspectives in describing and analyzing events. Complicated understanding reflects the capability to differentiate and integrate that is frequently demonstrated by cognitively complex individuals (Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961) who operate at more advanced stages of development. &dquo;Complicated under- standing&dquo; enables students to avoid seeking simplistic solutions to organiza- tional problems. Moreover, individuals who develop this type of thinking should be better able to generate effective action alternatives because they are more fully aware of relevant organizational variables, including the validity of others’ perspectives and the premises on which they themselves

86

act. The ability to apply multiple, diverse perspectives allows individuals to understand complex problems more completely. This understanding in- creases the likelihood that they will respond suitably to complex, ill-defined &dquo;wicked&dquo; problems (Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Weick, 1979).

Students differ developmentally, and these differences contribute to each student’s ability to incorporate strategy concepts into his or her thinking. However, much can be accomplished while teaching business policy courses to facilitate student development. The assignment discussed herein is one method by which students can reach higher educational objectives in Bloom’s typology. The thrust of the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment&dquo; is on the four highest

levels of understanding. This assignment requires a student to select a research article and to write a critique following the guidelines discussed in the next section. The student must consider the &dquo;application&dquo; of the material. This involves the ability of the individual to use learned material in new concrete situations. The &dquo;analysis&dquo; involves the breakdown of a communication into its component parts. Analysis is intended to clarify and to indicate the organization and way in which a communication manages to convey its effects as well as its basis and arrangement. The next level, &dquo;syn- thesis&dquo; is the process of relating parts of the whole, pulling together a series of related ideas into the basic concept, and expressing unity in likeness and differences. Lastly, &dquo;evaluation&dquo; consists of the appraisal of ideas, movements, theories, and generalizations. It represents the ability to draw inference, to predict future accuracy, and to discover consistency and in- consistency in sets of data, ideas or mathematical theories and processes.

A Framework for Analysis

It is our position that the most important aspect of the teaching role is the design and use of appropriate educational experiences. Therefore, the ra- tionale for the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment&dquo; is to provide for the student educational experiences which facilitate their reaching successively higher objectives in the Bloom typology. Further, we believe that a clear understanding of the process by which these objectives are obtained is critical to the success of experiences such as the &dquo;Article Critique Assign- ment.&dquo; Kolb’s (1974) Experiential Learning Model describes this process. Because Bloom’s typology of educational objectives is seen as the ends to which the Kolb model provides the means, the analogies drawn in this sec- tion are not intended to represent a one-to-one mapping of Bloom’s educa- tional objectives onto the Kolb model stages.

In Kolb’s model, learning is accomplished in a four-stage cycle. Im- mediate, concrete experience (CE) is the basis for observation and reflection (RO). These observations are assimilated into a &dquo;theory&dquo; (abstract con- ceptualization - AC) from which new implications for action (active

87

experimentation - AE) can be deduced. These implications (or hypotheses) then serve as guides. According to this model (shown in Figure 1):

... a closer examination ... reveals that learning requires abilities that are polar opposites ... More specifically, there are two primary dimensions to the learning process. The first dimen- sion represents the concrete experiencing of events at one end and abstract conceptualization at the other (AC-CE dimension). The other dimension has active experimentation at one end and reflections/observations at the other (AE-RO dimension). (Kolb, 1974, p. 28).

FIGURE I

The Kolb Experiential Learning Model

The model serves as a framework for the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment,&dquo; and Table 1 provides an overview of the Kolb model stages and the cor- responding &dquo;questions/issues&dquo; which are listed in Table 2.

Concrete Experience

&dquo;Concreteness ... represents the immersion in and domination by one’s immediate experiences ...&dquo; (Kolb, 1974, p. 28). In the process of critiquing organizational research, this stage is considered to be analogous to descrip- tion. Because one of the most important skills to learn in strategy is problem

88

I 2 g LL, 0 .... -

-s ’C Ee-

ta <C

4c

89

identification, the student is required to address questions of description that facilitate problem recognition and definition. Students begin to look for and recognize different perspectives by examining the types of questions the author asked, the problem definitions used, and the type of reasoning utilized. Students come to realize that one’s perspective greatly affects how one views a problem.

TABLE 2

Article Critique Assignment Qu~~tion~l·s~u~~

90

Observations and Reflections

Second, the student &dquo;must be able to reflect on and observe these ex- periences from many perspectives&dquo; (Kolb, 1974, p. 28). This stage is con- sidered to be the evaluation of the article. The student is required to provide a rationale for assessing the relative merit of the article. Students come to understand that there are many ways in which to view reality, that com- peting views provide competing explanations, and that theories must be evaluated on the quality and value of the explanation they provide. We believe that students can be given an appreciation of the importance of most of the evaluation criteria, especially when students are repeatedly shown in class how to apply these criteria. Students are also challenged to develop and defend their own theoretical positions at this stage (Kersten, 1985).

Abstract Conceptualization

Third, the student &dquo;must be able to create concepts that integrate his observations into logically sound theories&dquo; (Kolb, 1974, p. 28). This stage is considered to be the analysis of the article. This is unquestionably one of the most difficult aspects of the assignment. A benefit of the assignment, most apparent at this stage, is its multidisciplinary approach suggested by LeBreton and Beard (1980) in their examination of the contributions of organizational behavior to teaching business policy and planning.

Active Experimentation

Fourth, &dquo;the student must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve problems&dquo; (Kolb, 1974, p. 28). This stage is considered to be the application of the article. The emphasis here is that an expanded view of &dquo;what affects results&dquo; in an organization is appropriate. According to Steele (1976), managers are often blind to factors affecting results because they adhere to norms concerning socially acceptable factors which should influence results. Therefore, managers ignore factors which may be operating but are not as socially acceptable. Because &dquo;acceptable&dquo; factors are not the only ones that affect organizations, students must realize that identification of the factors that affect the situation is a diagnostic question and not a normative issue. Students with this realization are more likely to become managers who are more able to deal with whatever factors are rele- vant.

Because it is in the application that theory comes to life, students are asked to relate the material in the article to actual situations in organiza- tions. They are asked how the material in the research report they have read and analyzed could help them determine organization situation-specific answers to the questions in Table 1. Students also learn at this stage what is and what is not explained and what can and cannot be explained within a given perspective. They develop an awareness of the practical relevance and limitations between explanation and practical application.

91

This assignment attempts to bring &dquo;earth to theory, or theory down to earth&dquo; (Kersten, 1985, p. 114). The ideas stressed throughout the assign- ment are that there are many ways to view reality, that competing views pro- vide competing explanations, and that theories must be evaluated based on the quality and value of the explanation they provide. Students should become aware of theoretical &dquo;biases&dquo; inherent in most research, be able to see the impact of theory on problem definition, and be able to determine the nature and importance of differences between perspectives. One important aspect of the assignment is that students are made aware

of their own assumptions as well as those of the researchers. Not only does this serve to correct any disinformation held by the student, but also, when the individual’s assumptions are called into question, interest in resolving the conflict is generated. Counterintuitive research findings examined through experiential exercises often arouse student interest (House, 1979). This interest may increase the probability that additional research will be read and applied by policy students in the future.

Denying the Student’s Assumptions

As suggested by Dreyfus (1982) and Mason and Mitroff (1981), the ex- ecutive faced with an important decision should be able to challenge his or her current perspective or assumptions. In order to do so, the individual should be able to focus attention on issues that might otherwise by dis- missed as nonsalient and to engage in reflective analysis. Activities that stimulate future managers to challenge their own assumptions and to ex- amine information and issues before discarding them as nonsalient will enhance future decision-making effectiveness.

In efforts to make management courses intuitively interesting, much of the material put forth may simply confirm what the student already &dquo;knows&dquo; about organizations. Davis (1971) contends that &dquo;some social science scholars carefully and exhaustively verify trivial theories&dquo; (p. 309). That is, research may (1) affirm the reader’s assumptions, (2) not speak to the reader’s assumptions at all, or (3) deny all of the reader’s assumptions (p. 329). However, an interesting proposition is one which denies the assumptions of members of its audience and tells them some truth they thought they already knew was wrong (p. 329). Therefore, the challenge for the instructor and student is to know both the theory and the audience. A key objective and valued outcome of the &dquo;Article Critique Assign-

ment&dquo; is to encourage students to examine their &dquo;assumption-base&dquo; (Davis, 1971) concerning the strategic management of organizations. Two examples are briefly discussed: the research addressing the market share-profitability relationship and the consensus in strategy formulation-performance rela- tionship.

92

Market Share Example

Business portfolio matrices, such as the &dquo;business screen&dquo; developed by General Electric and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) grid, emphasize the importance of the experience curve and market share growth for business success (see Hofer & Schendel, 1978). Empirical studies, many using the PIMS database, have provided support for such propositions (e.g., Buzzell, ~ale cl~ Sultan, 1975; Schoeffler, Buzzell & Heany, 1974), and such findings imply a lack of effective strategies for low-market-share businesses. However, a recent PIMS data base study by Prescott, Kohli, and Venkatraman (1986) had results inconsistent with the aforementioned studies and cautioned against the uncritical pooling of data. These research- ers found that the strength as well as the form of the market share- profitability relationship varied by industry environments. For example, market share was found to be a valid predictor of profitability in mature and declining environments but not in emerging environments. Also, the research of Woo and Cooper (1981), Hall (1980), and Rumelt and Wensley (1981) have run counter to the &dquo;market share imperative.&dquo; These studies have suggested strategies (e.g., intense marketing, high product value, careful cost control) as means by which low-market-share firms can achieve high performance. Exposure to studies such as these would help students broaden their assumption-base regarding strategic positioning in a given competitive environment. That is, perhaps a niche (Freeman & Boeker, 1984) or a focus (Porter, 1989) business strategy may be preferable to a blind adherence to the &dquo;market share imperative.&dquo; In suggesting a con- tingency perspective, Ghemawat (1985) considers industry structure, the relative positions of key competitors, and government impact as important variables which determine the relevance of the experience curve concept for a given company.

Strategy Formulation Example With regard to the strategy formulation process, there is evidence which

runs counter to the &dquo;normative ideal&dquo; of consensus among a firm’s top management on company objectives and competitive means. The desirabili- ty of consensus has been increasingly emphasized in the literature describing the Japanese style of management in which consensus-building is con- sidered a key element (see Ouchi, 1981). However, Bourgeois (1980), in his study of 12 companies, found that consensus on both the ends and the means did not yield the firm with the highest performance. Instead, the highest performing firms had consensus on the means but not on the ends:

... consensus on means always yields higher performance than disagreement on means, while allowing disagreement on less tangible goals tend to be associated with better performance.

93

Also, the worst performance results in goals agreement com- bined with means disagreement - i.e., when a firm agrees on where it wants to go but cannot agree on how to get there (p. 243).

In another study using a similar methodology, Dess (1987) examined 19 firms in the paints and allied products industry and found that consensus on competitive methods and company objectives were each positively cor- related with performance but that consensus on each issue did not have a joint impact on a firm’s performance. He hypothesized that the intensely competitive nature of this industry constrained resources and required a higher level of consensus for performance. Exposure to studies such as those described above helps sensitize students

to the contingent relationships in strategic management research and their implications for practicing managers. Furthermore, such studies encourage students to speculate not only as to &dquo;when&dquo; and &dquo;where&dquo; consensus is im- portant, but also as to &dquo;how&dquo; it may be achieved. Harrison (1982), for ex- ample, argues that consensus-building may be dysfunctional if it (1) is used for only trivial issues, (2) weakens accountability, (3) slows the decision- making process, (4) produces weak decisions in &dquo;what might be termed ’lowest common denominator’ decisions&dquo; (p. 385), or (5) is susceptible to domination by a strong personality. Therefore, the student learns not only to question consensus in strategy formulation as a &dquo;desirable outcome&dquo; in all situations, but also to consider alternate means for achieving such an outcome.

Discussion

We believe the &dquo;Article Critique Assignment&dquo; holds the potential for im- proving higher order cognitive skills and also for improving future managers’ affective responses to published research reports. The basic building blocks, in terms of skills, relate to the concept of requisite com- plexity, cognitive strategic sophistication (Keats & Montanari, 1986), and the ability to confront and challenge one’s own assumptions (Dreyfus, 1982; Mason & Mitroff, 1981). Given the complexity of the managerial decision-making environment, it is important that future managers develop the ability to cope with complexity. This involves a concomitant ability to tolerate ambiguity. Attempts to impose simplicity where it does not exist and is not appropriate may lead to performance decrements (Bourgeois, 1985). Thus, activities designed to enhance students’ tolerances for ambi- guity and their abilities to cope with complexity in policy are likely to in- crease their tolerances for the sometimes ambiguous outcomes of research projects, as well as their abilities to assess the applicability of research findings. As a result, students are likely to be more open to application of the findings to future situations, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of their individual decision making.

94

Research comparing decision-making behavior of new versus experienced managers suggests that decisions made by more experienced managers dif- fer significantly from those made by new managers (Fredrickson, 1985). These differences may be related, in part, to the concept of cognitive strategic sophistication (Keats & Montanari, 1986). This concept suggests that the ability to comprehend and apply normative models and techniques of strategic management is dependent upon a process of stage development, which in turn is dependent upon a series of environmental challenges. Ac- tivities designed to provide future managers with some exposure to the nature of these challenges, and to the effects of various responses to them, may serve to enhance these future managers’ &dquo;starting&dquo; levels of cognitive strategic sophistication, and thus their abilities to integrate research into practice. The pedagogical approach described above addresses knowledge acquisi-

tion, cognitive skill development, and affective responses. It is our belief that cognitive skill development is not much different from other forms of skill development, such as those required for performance in sports or music. That is, while the coach may diagram plays on a blackboard or the teacher may play a composition for the student to hear, it is not until the player or student actually engages in the activity that the skills are developed and refined. As noted by Weiss (1983), a management professor’s role is not &dquo;to summarize research for students in ’lecturettes’ and only ask them to read magazines such as Harvard Business Review&dquo; (p. 99). Such an ap- proach is unlikely to result in skill development. Furthermore, by encourag- ing familiarity with the literature and an appreciation for its relationship to practice, this approach discourages the attitude that scholarly writing has little to say to practicing managers or that it is somehow removed from the realm of &dquo;real&dquo; managerial activity.

Although a gap generally exists between researchers and potential users of research results due to &dquo;... very different values and ideologies, [and though] ... these differences impede utilization&dquo; (Beyer & Trice, 1982, p. 608), a continuing effort must be made to increase not only the relevance of our research, but also its dissemination to practicing managers. The &dquo;Arti- cle Critique Assignment&dquo; is suggested as a method of bridging the &dquo;gap.&dquo;

References

Administrative Science Quarterly. (1982-1983). 27-28, (special issue). Beyer, J , & Trice, H. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and the syn-

thesis of empirical findings Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591-622.

Bloom, B S (Eds ) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain New York David McKay

Bourgeois, L J (1985) Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments Academy of Management Journal, 28, 548-573.

Bazzell, R , Gale, B , & Sultan, R (1975). Market share &mdash; a key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 53, 97-106

95

Davis, M. (1971). That’s interesting? Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.

Dess, G.G. (1987). Consensus on strategy formulation and organizational performance: Competitors in a fragmented industry. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 259-277.

Dreyfus, S.E. (1982). Formal models vs. human situational understanding: Inherent limita- tions on the modeling of business expertise. Office Technology and People, 1, 133-165.

Frederickson, J.W. (1985). Effects of decision motive and organizational performance level on strategic decision processes. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 821-843.

Freeman, J., & Boeker, W. (1984). The ecological analysis of business strategy. California Management Review, 26, 73-86.

Ghemawat, P. (1985). Building strategy on the experience curve. Harvard Business Review, 63, 143-149.

Hall, W.K. (1980). Survival strategies in a hostile environment. Harvard Business Review, 58, 75-85.

Harrison, S. (1982). Consensus decision-making in the national health service - a review. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 377-394.

Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E., & Schroder, H.M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley.

Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul: West.

House, R.J. (1979). Experiential learning: A sad passing fad? Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, IV(3), 8-12.

Jelinek, M. (1980). Comments on the panel discussion at the 1980 OBTC. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, V(3), 19-21.

Keats, B.W., & Montanari, J.R. (1985). Stages of strategic sophistication: A developmental model. Working paper. Department of Management, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Kersten, A. (1985). Bringing theory down to earth. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, X(3), 112-114.

Kolb, D.A. (1974). On management and the learning process. In D.A. Kolb, I. Rubin & J.M. McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings (pp. 227-242). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

LeBreton, P.P., & Beard, D. (1980). Contributions of organizational behavior to the teach- ing of business policy and planning. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, V(4), 11-19.

Mason, R.O., & Mitroff, I.I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: Wiley.

Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper. Moore, L.F., & Pinder, C.C. (1978). Preparing students as consumers of organizational

behavior: A call for more emphasis on theory. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, III(2), 20-23.

Mowday, R.T. (1977). The need to train more sophisticated consumers of organizational behavior knowledge. The Teaching of Organizational Behavior, 2(4), 23-26.

Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z &mdash; How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Prescott, J.E., Kohli, A.K., & Venkatraman, N. (1986). The market share-profitability rela- tionship : An empirical assessment of major assertions and contradictions. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 7, 377.394.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Rumelt, R., & Wensley, R. (1981). In search of the market share effect. Academy of Manage- ment Proceedings, 2-6.

96

Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R., & Heany, D. (1974). The impact of strategic planning on profit performance. Harvard Business Review, 52, 137-145.

Schoeffler, S. (1985). The role of science in business strategy. In W.D. Guth (Ed.), Handbook of Business Strategy, (pp. 14-1&mdash;14-24). Boston: Warren, Gorman and Lamont.

Serey, T.T. (1980). Increasing the relevance of research in teaching organizational behavior. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, V(3), 25-28.

Steele, F. (1976). Unrealized opportunities in teaching organizational behavior. The Teaching of Organization Behavior, 2(1), 49-51.

Tannenbaum, R. (1975). Meta issues for teachers of the first-year o.b. course. The Teaching of Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 7-10.

Weathersby, R., Bartunek, J.M., & Gordon, J. (1982). Teaching for complicated under- standing. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, VII(4), 7-15.

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House.

Weiss, R. (1983). Getting applicable research to managers. Academy of Management Pro- ceedings, 95-99.

Woo, C., & Cooper, A. (1981). Strategies for effective low market share businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 301-318.