® Academy Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence ... et al (2002).pdf · Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education RICHARD E, BOYATZIS, ELIZABETH

® Academy oi Management Learning and Education. 2002, Vol. 1, No. 2, 150-162.

Learning Cognitive andEmotional IntelligenceCompetencies ThroughGraduate Management

EducationRICHARD E, BOYATZIS, ELIZABETH C. STUBBS. and SCOTT N. TAYLOR

Case Western Reserve University

A major challenge to MBA education is to develop the ability to use managementknowledge. Entering and graduating data from six full-time and three part-time cohortstaking an MBA program designed to develop these competencies is analyzed andcompared to baseline data on two full-time and two part-time cohorts. Results show thatcognitive and emotional intelligence competencies can be developed in MBA students,but not with a typical MBA curriculum.

INTRODUCTION

One primary objective of graduate managementeducation is to prepare people to be outstandingmanagers and leaders. This means helping peopledevelop the functional, declarative, procedural,and metacognitive knowledge needed. For exam-ple, market segmentation for a new product, thetime it takes a polymer to set, calculating thepresent value of a capital acquisition, and ethicalprinciples as applied in international businesstransactions, respectively. This knowledge is nec-essary but not sufficient for the leader or managerto add value to organizations. In this sense, knowl-edge bases are threshold talents.

To be an effective manager or leader, a personneeds the ability to use knowledge and to makethings happen. These can be called competencies,which Boyatzis (1982) defined as "the underlyingcharacteristics of a person that lead to or causeeffective and outstanding performance" (p. 21).Whether direct empirical research is reviewed(Boyatzis, 1982; Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974;Howard & Bray, 1988; Kotter, 1982; Luthans,Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Thornton & Byham,1982) or meta-analytic syntheses are used (Camp-bell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Goleman,1998; Spencer & Spencer, 1993), there are a set ofcompetencies that have been shown to cause or

predict outstanding manager or leader perfor-mance. Regardless of author or study, they tend toinclude abilities from three clusters: (1) Cognitiveor intellectual ability, such as systems thinking;(2) self-management or intrapersonal abilities,such as adaptability; and (3) relationship manage-ment or interpersonal abilities, such as network-ing. The latter two clusters make up what we callemotional intelligence competencies (Goleman,1998).

Beyond knowledge and competencies, the addi-tional ingredient necessary to outstanding perfor-mance appears to be the desire to use one's talent.This seems driven by a person's values, philoso-phy, sense of calling or mission, and unconsciousmotives and traits. These three domains of capa-bility (i.e., knowledge, competencies, and motiva-tional drivers) help us to understand what a personcan do (i.e., knowledge), how a person can do it(i.e., competencies), and why a person feels theneed to do it (i.e., values, motives, and unconsciousdispositions).

Although many schools acknowledge the impor-tance of competencies or skills in graduate man-agement education, many faculty still see them asthe responsibility of the career placement office oradjunct faculty hired to conduct noncredit work-shops. The challenge today is to integrate the de-velopment of these competencies into the curricu-

150

2002 Boyatzis, Stubbs, and Taylor 151

lum as an essential element in its mission; in otherwords, to adopt the challenge of developing thewhole person so that it is as fundamental to ourobjectives and methods as accounting. Instead ofasking about what we were teaching, early at-tempts at outcome assessment were an effort toanswer questions about what our students werelearning. With funding from foundations and fed-eral agencies in the U.S. outcome assessment be-gan to spread in the early 1970s to innovative col-leges and those concerned about "nontraditional"students (Mentkowski and Associates, 2000; Win-ter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1981). The early resultswere sobering, with only one clear conclusion—students graduating from our colleges were olderthan they were when they entered. Evidence wasreported of knowledge acquisition, improvementin competencies—including critical thinking—andshifts in motivation, but these were far less fre-quent than was predicted or expected (Banta, 1993;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Winter, McClelland,& Stewart, 1981).

Even before the humbling Porter and McKibbinReport (1988) showed that MBA graduates were notfulfilling the needs of employers or the promise oftheir schools, the AACSB started a series of out-come assessment studies in 1978. They showedfaculty to be effective in producing significant stu-dent improvement with regard to some abilities(Boyatzis & Sokol, 1982; Development DimensionsInternational [DDI], 1985). Boyatzis and Sokol (1982)showed that students had significantly increasedon 40-50% of the competencies assessed in twoMBA programs, while DDI (1985) reported that stu-dents in the two MBA programs had significantlyincreased on 44% of the variables assessed. Theyalso decreased significantly on 10% of the vari-ables in the Boyatzis and Sokol study. When theoverall degree of improvement in these abilitieswas calculated (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,2002), these studies showed about a 2% increase inemotional intelligence competencies in the 1-2years students were in the MBA programs. Unfor-tunately, the samples were not random, and mayhave been subject to volunteer effects. Given thecommon criticisms directed at MBA graduates, it isdifficult to believe that many MBA programs wereattaining even those modest gains.

In terms of program impact, as of the early 1990s,only a few management schools had conductedstudent-change outcome studies that comparedtheir students upon entry into the program and atgraduation (Albanese et al., 1990). Many schoolshave conducted other types of outcome studies,namely studies of their alumni or studies with em-

ployers and prospective employers (Kridel, 1998).Some schools have examined the student changefrom specific courses (Bigelow, 1991; Specht &Sandlin, 1991). Student-change outcome studieshave been a focus in undergraduate programs (As-tin, 1993; Banta, 1993; Mentkowski et al., 1991; Ment-kowski & Strait, 1983; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;Winter et al., 1981), but relatively little has beendocumented about the effects of graduate pro-grams.

Hence the question, "Can MBAs and participantsin executive education develop competenciesrelated to outstanding managerial and leaderperformance?"

Methods

Overall Design

This study uses a combination of cross-sectionaland longitudinal, time-series data collected aspart of a 50-year longitudinal study of multiplecohorts of MBA students at the WeatherheadSchool of Management (WSOM), Case Western Re-serve University. The longitudinal study focuseson the impact of the MBA program on the develop-ment of cognitive and emotional intelligence com-petencies. Since 1990, entering data have beencollected during a required course. Leadership As-sessment and Development (for a detailed descrip-tion of the course and the longitudinal study, seeBoyatzis, 1994, 1995; Boyatzis et al., 1995; Goleman,Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). The course leads stu-dents through assessments and activities abouttheir dreams and aspirations, current behavior,strengths and gaps as managers and leaders, andculminates in the writing of a learning plan. Stu-dents pursue the learning plan through the re-mainder of the program and afterward.

Data collected during years 1987-1989 reflect theresults of students' development prior to revisionsin the MBA program and are considered baselinesamples. Many of the results of the 1987-1996 stud-ies have been reported in conference presenta-tions, books, and journal articles. This article is thefirst to present the combined results for cohortsgraduating from 1988-1996 and introduces resultsfor 2000 and 2001 cohorts.

The samples are described in Table 1. In the fallof 1990, the revised MBA program went into effectfor all entering students. The graduating sampleswere randomly assigned to one assessment condi-tion; therefore, not all students completed all of theinstruments.

152 Academy o/ Management Learning and Education December

Cohort

1987-1988 FT1988 PT1988-1989 FT1989 PT1990-1992 FT1991-1993 FT1992-1994 FT1994 PT1993-1995 FT1995 PT1998 PT1998-2000 FT1999-2001 FT

Description of Samples andTABLE 1

Populations for Cohorts in This

Students Permission Assessed StudentsEntering (JV)

100260'=8975°

124105137230°140235°

189173

(%)

100°100°100°100°877976868986834782

(n)

7226"7022"

10883

104198125202

89142

G r a d u a t i n g (Af)

6145°717296"^7ld

127<*180146124182191189

Assessed(n)

27"23"17"26"7158582177353558^

123°

Study

Female(%)

31353148373045523534172535

Average Ageat Entry

26262626272727282727272927

JVofe. FT = full time; PT = part time.° Assessment was considered voluntary, but not everyone appeared at the orientation program for the full-time students. For the

randomly selected samples, participation was voluntary, so all assessed had given their permission."All randomly selected samples were comparable to the populations from which they were drawn as to age, gender, GMAT,

undergraduate GPA and percentage of international students.° Students entered in January, June, and August. The graduating samples were taken from those graduating in May only.'^ Some entering students did not graduate due to working toward a joint degree (e.g., MBA/JD) or transferring to the part-time

program. Of those that permitted their data to be included in the study, some students were dropped from the final sample due tovarious unforeseen circumstances (e.g., incomplete assessments).

" In 1997, participation in exit assessment near graduation became a required part of the program for full-time students. Of thesample granting permission to use their entering and graduating data in research, we were only able to recover part of the sampledue to losses in two computer crashes. Part-time students were not approached for exit assessment.

Instruments

All the instruments assessed competencies. TheLearning Skills Profile (LSP) is a card sort based onexperiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984; see Boy-atzis & Kolb, 1991 and 1995 for a discussion of theinstrument's reliability and validity). Individualsplace each of 72 skill statements into one of sevenstacks reflecting their own level of the skill. Thestacks are labeled: 1 = no skill or experience inthis area; 2 = now learning this skill or activity; 3 =can do this with some help or supervision; 4 = acompetent performer in this area; 5 = an above-average performer in this area; 6 = an outstandingperformer in this area; and 7 = a leader or creatorin this area. The 72 skill statements constitute 12scales: Leadership, Relationship, and Helping,considered relationship-management competen-cies; Sense-Making, Information-Gathering, Infor-mation Analysis, Theory-Building, Quantitative,and Technology, considered cognitive competen-cies; and Goal-Setting, Action, and Initiative, con-sidered self-management competencies. The totalscore of all 12 scales is said to reflect Self-Confi-dence (Boyatzis & Kolb, 1991, 1995), which was alsoconsidered a self-management competency.

The Critical Incident Interview (CII) is a 1-hour,audiotaped interview (Boyatzis, 1982; Flanagan,

1954; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) in which individualsare asked to describe in detail, two work experi-ences in which they felt effective and two experi-ences in which they felt ineffective. The tapes werecoded for 16 competencies; Efficiency Orientation,Planning, Initiative, Attention-to-Detail, Self-Control, Flexibility, and Self-Confidence, consid-ered self-management competencies; Empathy,Social Objectivity, Persuasiveness, Networking,Negotiating, Group Management, and DevelopingOthers, considered relationship-managementcompetencies; and Systems-Thinking and PatternRecognition, considered cognitive competencies.Two or three people independently coded the in-terviews. In this research, the coders averaged 89-90% interrater reliability on the 16 competencies.

The Group Discussion Exercise (GDE) is a 45-minute, videotaped simulation. Participants aregiven a set of three problems encountered by theirhypothetical management team and asked tomake recommendations to the CEO. The video-tapes were coded for the same 16 competencies asthe CII by the same coders. In this case, two peoplewho have already established the interrater reli-ability code the videotapes.

The Presentation Exercise (PE) is an assessmentof an individual's oral communication ability. In


the exercise, an individual is asked to deliver a10-minute speech about an organization in whichthey would like to work or that interests them. Theyare asked to view this as a recruiting talk to MBAs.The 10-minute presentation is followed by a5-minute question-and-answer session. The 15-minute exercise was videotaped and later codedfor the oral communication competency, which ispart of the relationship-management cluster andEnthusiasm. Two independent coders had an inter-rater reliability greater than 70%.

The Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) is a 73-item questionnaire in which the participants areasked to assess the frequency with which they dem-onstrate each behavior. The items assess 21 compe-tencies: Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Initiative,Attention-to-Detail, Self-Control, Flexibility, andSelf-Confidence, considered self-managementcompetencies; Empathy, Social Objectivity, Per-suasiveness, Networking, Negotiating, GroupManagement, Developing Others, and Oral Com-munication, considered relationship-managementcompetencies; and Use-of-Concepts, Systems-

Thinking, Pattern Recognition, Quantitative Anal-ysis, Use-of-Technology, and Written Communica-tion, considered cognitive competencies.

The External Assessment Questionnaire (EAQ) isa version of the SAQ in which students ask othersabout their behavior. The others may include aboss, work colleagues, subordinates, profession-als, family, fellow students, or friends. The EAQresponses ranged from 1 to 8 others (an average of3.3 and median of 3.0 others). It was not known asto how many of these "others" providing the infor-mation at entry were the same as those providinginformation near graduation from the program.

Results

Using the self-report. Learning Skills Profile, asshown in Table 2, full-time MBAs statistically andnear significantly improved on Leadership, Re-lationship, Helping, Sense-Making, Information-Gathering, Information Analysis, Theory-Building,Quantitative, Technology, Goal-Setting, Actionand Initiative skills, and Self-Confidence, derived

TABLE 2Comparison of FuU-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Scores on the Learning Skills Profile

Skill Scale

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Sense-Making

Information-Gathering

Information Analysis

Theory-Building

Quantitative

Technology

Goal-Setting

Action

Initiative

Total (Self-Confidence)

1987-1988n = 72-27°

23.8-24.7z = - .4528.3-29.7

z = -1.44'f25.8-26.4z = - .6125.9-28.4

z = -1.86*24.5-27.5

z = -3 .49"*22.9-28.6

z = -4.20***19.9-24.7

z = -3.70***19.1-26.7

z = -4.99***18.0-23.0

z = -3.79***23.8-25

z = - .6525.6-27.9

z = -2.37**27.3-30.1

z = -2.37**285-323

z = -4.05***

1988-1989n = 70-23°

25.7-26.0z = - .5029.8-31.6

z = -1.2327.4-29.1z = - .9727.2-27.6z = - .5827.2-28.5

z = -1.43+23.5-27.9

z = -3.43***21.5-25.1

z = -3.54***18.4-25.5

z = -4.33***18.6-22.9

z = -1.91*25.1-25.4z = - .0728.0-27.6z = - .4229.1-29.7z = - .52302-327

z = -2.30**

1990-1992n = 71"

27.7-27.2( = .70

30.0-30.4( = - .6927.7-28.9

( = -1.71*27.5-28.7

t = -1.79*26.7-28.3

( = -2.82**26.7-28.6

t = -3.25***25.2-27.4

* = -3.42***22.1-26.3

t = -4.82***21.5-25.5

t = -4.00***26.8-28.4

t = -2.65**30.3-30.3t = .09

29.4-29.8t = - .62322-340

( = -3.33***

1991-1993n = 55"

25.1-27.1( = -2.55**

29.3-30.5t = -1.88*27.8-28.8

t = -1.33+26.2-28.4

z = -3.51***25.9-27.9

( = -2.44**26.3-29.2

t = -4.66***22.9-27.2

* = -5.55***21.5-27.5

( = -6.86***20.7-25.2

( = -4.39***27.0-28.9

( = -2.30*29.2-30.1

/ = -1.30+27.7-29.1

t = -1.81*310-340

( = -5.12***

1992-1994n = 54"

26.8-28.0t = -1.66*31.9-31.0( = 1.40+27.6-29.3

t = -2.10*26.3-28.1

t = -2.47**25.7-28.7

t = -4.14***25.1-28.6

t = -4.81***22.5-26.4

( = -4.64***20.6-25.9

t = -5.40***18.9-25.0

t = -6.00***26.2-29.1

( = -4.80***29.1-30.5

t = -2.30**28.9-30.3

t = -1.87*310-341

( = -5.12***

1993-1995n = 73"

26.5-28.3t = -2.46**

30.5-30.7( = - .3228.5-29.3t = -1.2527.0-28.4

f = -2.33**26.0-28.7

t = -4.35***25.8-29.6

( = -6.24***23.8-27.0

f = -4.63***22.0-27.1

t = -6.39***19.6-24.5

f = -6.30***26.8-29.0

t = -3.19***29.2-30.5

t = -1.93*28.7-30.1

t = -1.87*315-343

( = -5.00***

1998-2000n = 56"

25.7-29.1t = -4.3***

29.4-32.2( = -3.6***

26.8-31.1t = -5.0***

26.9-30.9t = -5.0***

26.9-29.7t = -3.7***

25.5-30.6( = -6.3***

25.0-29.6* = -5.2***

21.1-28.0t = -7.5***

21.3-27.9^ = - 7 . 8 " *

25.8-29.4t = -4.4***

27.7-30.8t = -3.9***

28.3-30.9t = 3.2***310-360

t = -7.50***

1999-2001n = 123"

25.8-27.5( = -3.2***

28.7-30.4t = -3.5***

26.5-29.2t = -5.3***

26.2-28.7t = -5.4***

25.8-28.3t = -4.6***

26.0-29.1t = -5.9***

25.2-28.2t = -6.2***

24.0-27.3( = -6.1***24.8-27.2

t = -4.2***25.6-28.4

( = -5.2***27.0-29.9( = 5.2***27.9-29.6

t = -3.0**313-344

( = -7.06***

° Mann-Whitney U-tests were run with the z reported because the comparison was of groups of dramatically different sample size." Matched-pair (-tests were run with the t reported because a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels are one-tailed: + p <

.10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

154 Academy of Management Learning and Education December

from the total. Meanwhile, in the two baselineyears, full-time MBAs only showed statisticallysignificant or near significant improvement on Re-lationship, Sense-Making, Action, and Initiativeskills in one cohort. They improved on Information-Gathering, Information Analysis, Theory-Building,Quantitative, and Technology skills and Self-Confidence in both cohorts. When results were cal-culated for native English speakers only, four find-ings became nonsignificant: Relationship skills in1988 and 1994, Information-Gathering skills in 1989,and Sense-Making skills in 1992. All other resultsremained in the same direction and significant ornear significant. Both significant and near signifi-cant results are reported to show the overall pat-tern of findings across the multiple cohorts andmultiple measures.

Using the Learning Skills Profile, as shown inTable 3, part-time MBAs statistically, significantly,or near significantly improved on Leadership, Re-lationship, Helping, Sense-Making, Information-Gathering, Information Analysis, Theory-Building,Quantitative, Technology, Goal-Setting, Action,and Initiative skills, and Self-Confidence. Mean-

while, in the two baseline years, full-time MBAsonly showed statistically significant or near signif-icant improvement on Theory-Building and Quan-titative skills in only one cohort. There were nonon-native English speakers in the part-time pro-gram.

To assess behavioral change directly, analysisof the results from the Critical Incident Interviewsshowed that full-time MBAs statistically, signifi-cant, or near significant improved on EfficiencyOrientation, Planning, Initiative, Attention to De-tail, Self-Control, Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Em-pathy, Networking, Negotiating, Group Manage-ment, Systems-Thinking, Pattern Recognition, andSocial Objectivity. Results for Persuasivenesswere opposite to the predicted direction for the1995 cohort. When results were calculated for na-tive English speakers only, efficiency orientationin 1995 became nonsignificant. All other resultsremained in the same direction and significant ornear significant (see Table 4).

Analysis of the results from the Critical IncidentInterviews showed that part-time MBAs statisti-

TABLE 3Comparison of Part-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Scores on the Learning Skills Profile

Skill Scale

Leadership

Relationship

Helping

Sense-Making

Information-Gathering

Information Analysis

Theory-Building

Quantitative

Technology

Goal-Setting

Action

Initiative

Total (Self-Confidence)

1987-1988n = 26-23°

25.7-25.7z = - .0328.7-28.4z = - .1725.2-26.0z = - .5027.0-27.2z = - .1226.7-24.9

z = -1.4926.6-27.5z = - .6322.7-24.9

z = -1.3423.7-26.0

z = -1.3023.5-22.4z = - .7124.1-24.9z = -.3226.7-28.4

z = -1.3328.7-29.2z = - .74309-316

z = - .74

1988-1989n = 22-26°

25.5-26.4z = - .4930.6-30.2z = - .0227.6-28.1z = - .2528.2-28.2z = - .2827.1-28.8z = - .8826.4-27.7z = - .7222.0-25.5

z = -1.69*21.8-24.7

z = -1.28+25.5-22.9

z = -1.4125.5-24.9z = - .2927.3-27.2z = - .0730.1-29.9z = - .05318-324

z = - .33

1990-1994n = 21"

25.2-28.3( = -2.63**

29.0-31.3t = -2.36*25.5-28.3

t = -2.42**24.7-28.6

t = -4.05***24.0-28.0

( = -3.20**26.0-29.9

t = -4.49***22.4-26.2

t = -3.01**20.1-24.8

( = -3.96***21.6-26.6

t = -4.22***25.7-29.4

( = -3.53***30.1-32.8

t = -2.52*29.1-33.1

( = -3.70***304-347

* = -4.90***

1990-1995n = 32"

25.5-28.3t = -2.79**

29.3-31.0t = -2.00*26.6-28.3

t = -1.94*26.7-28.6

t = -2.99**25.6-27.5

t = -2.58**26.9-29.2

( = -2.38**24.3-25.8* = -1.1622.5-26.3

t = -2.77**22.9-26.3

t = -2.64**24.9-29.2

( = -4.66***28.9-31.4

* = -2.18*29.5-30.4( = -1.02314-342

( = -3.62***

1993-1996n = 35"

24.3-25.7t = -1.1929.1-28.5t = .54

26.5-27.2t = - .8625.8-27.1

( = -1.31+25.1-26.8

t = -1.89*27.3-29.5

t = -2.51**24.3-27.5

t = -3.33***25.5-28.9

f = -3.11**25.9-28.2

( = -2.05*25.7-27.6

t = -2.06*27.6-28.5( = -1.1427.1-28.8

f = -1.73*314-334

t = -2.88**

° Mann-Whitney U-tests were run with the z reported because the comparison was of groups of different sample size.'' Matched-pair (-tests were run with the f reported because a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels are one-tailed: + p <

.10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


TABLE 4Comparison of FuU-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Abilities From the Critical

Incident Interviews

Ability

Efficiency OrientationPlanningInitiativeAttention to DetailSelf-ControlFlexibilitySelf-ConfidenceEmpathySocial ObjectivityPersuasivenessNetworkingNegotiatingGroup ManagementDeveloping OthersSystems-ThinkingPattern Recognition

Entering1991-1993

1.261.35.68.44.09.06.38.47.12

1.59.24.03.03.53.29.21

Graduate(n = 34)

1.912.001.24.29.35.38.65.82.32

1.44.74.06.24.38.56.56

z°

-2.90**-2.87**-2.48**-1.29-1.83*-2.67**-2.71**-2.01*-1.49+

- .75-3.39***

- .58-2.65**-1.15-2.07*-2.45**

Entering1992-1994

1.941.72.78.33.28.28.61

1.58.67

2.61.67.00.17.61.78.83

Graduate(n = 18)

2.332.50.61.44.56.39.94

1.50.56

2.22.78.06.22.33.50.89

z"

-1 .35' f-2.40**

- .66-.71

-1.23+- .71

-2.45**.00

- .50-1.46- .37

-1.00- .45

-1.03-1.20

- .25

Entering1993-1995

2.072.331.15.40.42.07.58

1.33.22

2.56.93.05.15.51.93.73

Graduate(n = 55)

2.382.911.33.73.53.20.75

1.42.47

2.13''1.16.18.36.44.91

1.18

z°

-1.53+-3.22***-1.19-2.43**- .98

-1.94*-2.18**- .60

-2.01*-2.38*-1.43+-1.75*-2.83**- .49- .15

-2.59**

Note. Numbers are for entire sample. Significance levels and z scores may have changed slightly from earlier publications due toa change in the formula used by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as compared to earlier versions.

"Significance levels are one-tailed tests based on a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test: +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01-***p<.001.

'' A two-tailed significance level because it was in the opposite direction to that predicted.

cally significant, or near significantly improved onEfficiency Orientation, Initiative, Attention to De-tail, Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Networking, Ne-gotiating, Group Management, Developing Others,Systems-Thinking, Pattern Recognition, and Social

Objectivity (see Table 5). There were no nonnativeEnglish speakers in the part-time program.

Another direct measure of behavior change wasthe Group Discussion Exercise. Results from ana-lyzing these videotapes showed full-time MBAs

TABLE 5Comparison of Part-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Abilities From the Critical

Incident Interviews

Ability


Entering1990-1995

2.102.251.25.40.35.00.75

1.30.40

2.35.60.00.10.60

1.10.60

Graduate(n = 20)

2.702.651.60.90.40.40.95

1.35.65

2.701.25.20.35.45

1.201.05

z°

-1.75*-1.04-1.73*-1.90*

- .45-2.53**-2.00**- .27

-1.23-.96

-2.37**-1.63*-1.41+- .45- .37

-1.69*

Entering1993-1996

1.502.38

.74

.44

.47

.12

.821.74.53

2.44.76.18.18.35

1.09.79

Graduate(n = 34)

1.972.62

.85

.35

.65

.24

.942.09

.912.38

.65

.24

.15

.561.50.88

z°

-2.00*- .88- .58-.49

-1.05-1.27+-1.63*-1.24-2.12*

- .12- .64-.54-.28

-1.51+-1.95*-.61

° Significance levels are one-tailed tests based on a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-tanks test: Significance levels and z scoresmay have changed slightly from earlier publications due to a change in the formula used by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as comparedto earlier versions.

+ p < . 1 0 ; * p < .05;**p < .01.


statistically significantly, or near significantly im-proved on Efficiency Orientation, Planning, Initia-tive, Self-Confidence, Empathy, Networking, GroupManagement, Systems-Thinking, and Pattern Rec-ognition (see Table 6). They also showed a signif-icant decrease in Initiative and Systems-Thinkingfor the 1994 cohort. When results were calculatedfor native English speakers only, both the resultsfor Negotiating in 1994 and the opposite ofpredicted results for Persuasiveness in the class of1994 became nonsignificant. All other results re-mained in the same direction and significant ornear significant.

Analysis of another behavioral exercise from thePresentation Exercise videotapes showed that full-time MBAs improved statistically, significantly onOral Communication and Enthusiasm both of theyears assessed (see Table 7).

The graduating class of 2001 completed two ad-ditional assessments: (1) a behavioral assessmentby others, the EAO; and (2) another self-assess-ment, the SAO. Students appeared to be more crit-ical of their own growth as compared to others whoassessed them on the same competencies. Othersviewed their improvement through the ExternalAssessment Ouestionnaire. As shown in Table 8,students statistically significantly improved oneach of the 21 competencies. From the Self-Assess-ment Ouestionnaire, students significantly or near

significantly improved on 15 of the 21 competen-cies: Planning, Initiative, Attention to Detail, Self-Control, Flexibility, Self-Confidence, Empathy,Persuasiveness, Negotiating, Oral Communica-tion, Pattern Recognition, Use of Concepts, Ouan-titative Analysis, Use of Technology, and WrittenCommunication. When results were calculated forthe native English-speaking sample only. Plan-ning, Use of Concepts, and Use of Technology be-came nonsignificant. All other results remained inthe same direction and either increased in signif-icance or remained significant or near significant.

Discussion

In contrast to earlier studies, it appears that MBAscan develop emotional intelligence and cognitivecompetencies crucial to effectiveness as managersand leaders during their programs. The researchquestion posed in this article is supported by themultimethod, multitrait, multicohort data offered.The results from the six cohorts of full-time andthree cohorts of the part-time students assessedwith the Learning Skills Profile are summarizedand shown in Tables 9 and 10. The results from thethree cohorts of the full-time and two cohorts of thepart-time students assessed with the Critical Inci-dent Interview, the three cohorts of the full-timestudents assessed with the Group Discussion Ex-

TABLE 6Comparison of Full-Time Entering and Graduating Students' Abilities From the Group

Discussion Exercise

Ability


Entering1990-1992

.40

.55

.90

.10

.00

.00

.40

.00

.00

.15

.00

.05

.05

.00

.15

.20

Graduate(n = 20)

.60

.951.35.15.00.00.60.20.05.25.20.00.15.10.25.50

z

- .97-1.81*-1.64*

- .45- .45- .45

-2.00*-2.00*-1.00

-.82-2.00*-1.00-1.41+-1.00- .82

-2.12*

Entering1991-1993

.40

.271.33.07.00.00.43.00.03.30.00.03.00.03.03.10

Graduate(n = 30)

.87

.701.30.10.00.00.63.07.00.40.07.03.00.00.17.40

z

-2.10*-2.50**

-.18- .38- .38- .38

-1.73*-1.41+-1.00

- .91-1.41+

.00-1.73-1.00-1.63*-2.32*

Entering1992-1994

.731.31.96.42.00.00.73.23.04

1.19.00.00.19.04.85

• . 58

Graduate(n = 26)

.421.12.50.27.00.00.69.50.12.88.00.00.08.04.35.31

z

-1.20- .60

-2.29*°- .67- .67- .67- .33

-2.11*-1.00-1.38-1.38-1.38-1.00

.00-2.81**°-1.81

Note. Numbers are for entire sample. Significance levels are one-tailed tests based on a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test:+ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01.

The Wilcoxon test was appropriate because of the non-normal distribution of the behavioral coding in the Group DiscussionExercise (GDE). Significance levels and z scores may have changed slightly from earlier publications due to a change in the formulaused by SPSS starting with SPSS 7.0 as compared to earlier versions.

° A two-tailed significance level because it was in the opposite direction to that predicted.

2002

Comparison of

Ability

Oral Communication(total score)

Enthusiasm

FuU-Time

n

24

24

Entering and

Entering1990-1992

4.25

3.00

Boyatzis, Stubbs, and Taylor

TABLE 7Graduating Students' Abilities

Graduate

6.25

3.96

f

-5.54***

-4.18***

n

16

15

From the

Entering1991-1993

4.69

1.93

Presentation

Graduate

5.31

2.40

157

Exercise

f

-1.99*

-1.97*

Note. Numbers are for entire sample.° Significance levels are for paired-sample t-tests as one-tailed tests; *p < .05; ***p < .001.

ercise, and two cohorts of the full-time studentsassessed with the Presentation Exercise are sum-marized and shown in Tables 11 and 12. Alsoshown in Tables 9 and 10 are the time-series com-parisons to the impact of the earlier MBA programat WSOM before the changes implemented in 1990.

The summaries show a dramatic improvementover the impact of the baseline program in allthree clusters, for both the full-time and the part-time students. As mentioned earlier, the baselineimpact of the WSOM MBA program was consistentwith earlier AACSB studies (Boyatzis & Sokol, 1982;DDI, 1985) and the Porter and McKibbin Report(1988)—MBA programs primarily improve a per-son's analytic ability. Although these results areimportant to managerial and leadership effective-ness, they are only part of the recipe for outstand-ing performance and contribution to organizations.In contrast to some faculty fears, improvements inemotional intelligence abilities did not detractfrom the improvement of cognitive abilities andmay have even enhanced development of criticalthinking ability.

The differences between the impact of the pro-gram shown in Tables 9 and 10 versus 11 and 12may reveal a difference between self-report andbehavioral changes observed by others. This couldbe the result of different standards, perceptions, ordevelopmental progress; that is, the difference be-tween the behavior others see and what a personsenses within may be a function of different pro-cesses. For example, people may feel they havechanged a great deal, but the change is too smallto be apparent to others.

Some competencies are easier to observe thanothers. For instance, the behaviors coded forSystems-Thinking are remarkably similar to the,items in the Information Analysis scale of theLearning Skills Profile. There was strong and con-sistent improvement on Information Analysis butuneven direct behavioral results with Systems-Thinking. As a cognitive ability, Systems-Thinkingmay be more difficult to observe in someone's be-havior than behavior related to planning or influ-

encing others. If people do not express theirthoughts, it is impossible to code them in directbehavioral measures.

Another possibility is that people may sense achange in themselves before they show this intheir behavior, or show it consistently enough forothers to notice. Rhee (1997) interpreted this as asensitization effect. He studied 22 of the full-timegraduates of the 1995 cohort by interviewing andtesting them about every 6 weeks throughout their2-year program. His sample showed dramatic im-provement on all of the scales in the LearningSkills Profile and direct behavioral results slightlyless than the overall 1995 sample shown in Tables4 and 6, which were considerably less dramaticthan the self-report results.

The disparity could have been the result of theHawthorne Effect, or the result of cognitive disso-nance reduction. An MBA might think "I have spentall this time and money, I must have changed." Butthat would cause a self-justifying distortion in theself-report data, not the direct behavioral data.Regardless of the causes of the observed differ-ences, the multimethod, multicohort results pro-vide increased confidence when we observe re-sults from both self-report and measures directlyassessing behavior demonstrated in audiotapes ofwork samples and videotapes of their behavior insimulations.

There also may be cohort effects. For example,the class graduating in 1994 appeared to improveon fewer of the competencies than other cohorts.This was consistent on both direct behavioral mea-sures. Further, this cohort showed a significantdecrease on Initiative and Systems-Thinking asassessed through the Grpup Discussion Exercise. Itis not clear to those of us involved in the programduring these years why this particular cohortshould have shown this difference, but internalgroup dynamics may have affected their learning.

Another way to examine this difference is withthe same measure used as a self-report and as anassessment of the behavior others see. The full-time graduates of 2001 completed the self-assess-


TABLE 8Comparison of Full-Time Entering and

Graduating MBA Students' Scores on the EAQand SAQ

Skill Scale

Efficiency Orientation

Planning

Initiative

Attention to Detail

Self-Control

Flexibility

Self-Confidence

Empathy

Social Objectivity

Persuasiveness

Networking

Negotiating

Group Management

Developing Others

Oral Communication

Use of Concepts

Systems-Thinking

Pattern Recognition

Quantitative Analysis

Use oi Technology

Written Communication

EAQ 1999-2001(n = 80)

2.3-3.3( = -10.0***

2.3-3.2t = -8.6***

2.0-3.0t = -10.8***

2.4-3.2f = -8.3***

2.1-3.0( = -10.0***

2.2-3.1t = -8.6***

2.1-3.1t = -8.9***

2.3-3.2t = -9.5***

2.1-3.1t = -10.0***

2.1-3.0( = -10.1***

2.3-3.3f = -8.6***

2.1-3.1t = -9.2***

2.2-3.1t = -11.1***

2.2-3.1( = -9.5***

2.3-3.3t = -10.5***

2.2-3.1( = -9.8***

2.1-3.1t = -8.6***

2.0-3.0t = -10.1***

2.0-3.2t = -7.8***

2.0-3.0t = -7.7***

2.4-3.4t = -10.2***

SAQ 1999-2001(n = 71)

3.0-3.0( = -1.12.8-2.9

t = -1.7*2.4-2.7

t = -2.6**2.7-2.9

t = -2.3**2.6-2.8

t = -2.8**2.9-3.0

( = -2 .1*2.5-2.7

t = -2.9**3.1-3.2

t = -2.0*3.0-3.0

t = -0 .62.7-2.8

t = -2.6**2.9-3.0

( = -0.92.8-2.9

f = -1.5+2.7-2.8

* = -0.92.7-2.7

( = -0.82.9-3.1

t = —4.4***2.7-2.8

t = -1.6+2.6-2.7

( = -0 .82.5-2.7

( = -2.9**2.4-2.8

t = -2.8**2.3-2.5

t = -1.5+3.0-3.2

t = -3.9***

Note. Matched-pair t-tests were run with the t reported be-cause a longitudinal design was used. Significance levels areone-tailed: +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

ment on the competencies, as well as having oth-ers around them use the same questionnaire,effectively completing a partial 360 assessment(see Table 8). Others saw the students significantlyimproving on all 21 of the competencies assessed,including competencies from all three clusters.Meanwhile, in contrast to the data summarizedabove, the self-report showed significant improve-ment on only 12 competencies, and near-signifi-

cant improvement on an additional 3 competen-cies. These results contradict some of the possibleexplanations offered for the reversed differenceshown among the earlier cohorts. The competen-cies on which the MBAs in the 2001 graduatingcohort did not see themselves improving included:Efficiency Orientation, Networking, Group Man-agement, Developing Others, Social Objectivity,and Systems-Thinking.

The part-time program does not appear to havethe same degree of impact on competency im-provement as the full-time program. Faculty hadthought the work context of the part-time studentswould have enhanced the learning from the pro-gram; it did not. There are three possible explana-tions. First and foremost, we only assessed twosamples of the part-time MBAs with direct behav-ioral measures (and that was only one measure),as compared to the eight full-time samples as-sessed with these measures. Another explanationfor the differential impact is the concentrated as-pects of the full-time program. Even though thefull- and part-time, students take most electivestogether, full-time students are brought into theprogram and separated from their current workcontext. This break from their old reality, althougha source of anxiety, also frees them from havingthe constant reminder to use old habits. It is alsopossible that the work settings of the part-timestudents extinguish both new behavior, and theirattempts to use new things learned in the program.

The increased impact of the program shown inthe time-series results may have been the result offactors other than the curriculum change. A reviewof the full-time faculty teaching in the schoolshowed that from 1988/1989 to 1993/1995, 67% of thefaculty were the same. Although the program didnot change its admissions procedures and criteriaduring this period, as the new program becameknown it resulted in applications and enrollmentby students with higher scores on measures suchas GMAT, undergraduate GPA, the percentage offemales in the program, and higher scores on someof the competencies measures used across the co-horts in the time series. Even with this increase inentering ability, the improvements noted after theprogram changed were significant and dramatic.So these aspects of the school and program did notappear to have an impact on competency improve-ment.

These results are comparable to those obtainedin longitudinal studies of 45-55-year-old execu-tives and advanced professionals in WSOM's ex-ecutive education Professional Fellows Program(Ballou, Bowers, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 1999). The pro-gram had been designed for later, midcareer pro-


TABLE 9Summary of the Time-Series Results of Learning Skills for Full-Time MBAs

Evidence of ValueAdded

Strong improvement"

Some improvement''

No improvement

Self-Management

Self-confidence

ActionInitiative

Goal-setting

1987-1989 Program

RelationshipManagement

LeadershipRelationshipHelping

Cognitive

Information analysisTheory-buildingQuantitative

analysisUse of technology

Information-gathering

Sense-making

Self-Management

Goal-settingActionInitiativeSelf-confidence

1990-2001 Program

RelationshipManagement

LeadershipHelping

Relationship

Cognitive

Sense-makingInformation-gatheringInformation analysisTheory-buildingQuantitative analysisUse of technology

Note. Adjusted for native English speaking as well as the entire sample.° Strong improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on two thirds of the cohorts assessed.

Some improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on one or more up to one third of the cohortsassessed.

fessionals using many of the same curriculumcomponents as the post-1990 MBA program. Usingthe Learning Skills Profile, two cohorts showedsignificant improvement in Helping, Information-Gathering, Theory-Building, Use-of-Technology,and Goal-Setting skills, as well as Self-Confidencefrom the total score. One of the two showed signif-icant improvement in Sense-Making, QuantitativeAnalysis, and action skills as well.

What caused these dramatic improvements incognitive and emotional intelligence competen-cies from the MBA program? Unfortunately, we didnot have a research design in place to make spe-cific attributions, but the components of the MBAprogram that changed from the earlier programincluded (1) an explicit philosophy of educationand pedagogy (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995); (2) acourse on leadership assessment and develop-

TABLE 10Summary of the Time-Series Results of Learning Skills for Part-Time MBAs

1987-1989 Program 1990-1998 Program

Evidence of Value Self- RelationshipAdded Management Management

Self- RelationshipCognitive Management Management Cognitive

Strongimprovement"

Someimprovement''

No improvement





Quantitativeanalysis

Theory-buildingSense-makingInformation-

gatheringInformation analysisUse of technology

Sense-makingInformation-gatheringInformation analysisTheory-buildingQuantitative analysisUse of technology

Note. Adjusted for native English speaking as well as the entire sample.° Strong improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on two thirds of the cohorts assessed.^ Some improvement is classified as significant or near significant improvement on one or more up to one third of the cohorts

assessed.

160

Evidence

Summary

of Value Added

of the

Academy of Management Learning and Education

TABLE 11Results From Direct Behavioral Measures for Full-Time

Self-Management Relationship Management

MBAs

December

Cognitive

Strong improvement"

Some improvement''

No improvementDecrease

Efficiency orientationPlanningFlexibilitySelf-confidenceSelf-controlInitiativeAttention to detail

EmpathyNetworkingOral communicationsGroup management

Social objectivityNegotiatingDeveloping othersPersuasiveness

Pattern recognition

Systems-thinking

Note. Results from coding of behavior shown in audiotapes of the CII, videotapes of the GDE and Presentation Exercise, adjustedfor native English speaking sample as well as the full sample.

" Strong improvement is significant or near significant results on two thirds or more of the cohorts with one measure or one thirdto one half of the cohorts on all measures.

'' Some improvement is significant or near significant results on one cohort on one measure.

ment using self-directed learning theory as thebasis for its design (Boyatzis, 1994, 1995; Goleman,Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002); (3) a focus on specificcompetencies in selected courses while address-ing course material, such as the marketing coursethat assessed students on the presentation skills orthe operations management course using groupprojects assessing their group process competen-cies; (4) a dramatic increase in the percentage ofcourses requiring field projects in companies,group work, and student collaboration; and (5) op-portunities to participate in voluntary activities,such as a chapter for Habitat for Humanity andfunctional clubs, like the marketing club (whichthe part-time students did not have the time or

inclination to participate in). Our interpretationhas been that the leadership course and the widerange of learning activities integrated into theMBA program caused the results.

What if Learning Were the Purpose of Education?

Borrowing from the title of chapter 10 of Boyatzis,Cowen, and Kolb's (1995) book for the subtitle here,we can offer a promising answer. An MBA educa-tion can help people develop cognitive and emo-tional intelligence competencies needed to be out-standing managers and leaders. But we cannotuse the typical lecture-and-discussion methodswith their focus on knowledge acquisition only.

TABLE 12Summary of the Results From Direct Behavioral Measures for Part-Time MBAs

Evidence of Value Added Self-Management Relationship Management Cognitive

Strong improvement"

Some improvement''

Efficiency orientationSelf-confidenceFlexibilityInitiativeAttention to detail

Group managementSocial objectivityNetworkingNegotiatingDeveloping othersPersuasiveness"Empathy^

Systems-thinkingPattern recognition

No improvement PlanningSelf-control

Note. Results from coding of behavior shown in audiotapes of the CII, adjusted for native English speaking sample as well as thefull sample.

° Strong improvement is significant or near significant results on all (i.e., both) cohorts.^ Some improvement is significant or near significant results on 50% (i.e., one) cohort.•^Empathy and Persuasiveness showed no improvement from entry to graduation on the 2 cohorts, but when Wheeler (1999)

assessed 30 of the 54 people from these cohorts again about 2 years after graduation, they showed significant improved Empathy andPersuasiveness in the CII, which this smaller sample as well as the complete cohort sample had not shown from entry to graduation.


Rather, a more holistic approach can help dramat-ically improve our impact and the relevance of anMBA to students' future work organizations. Evenhere there is some doubt as to the knowledge re-tention of MBAs. In one study, professors readmin-istered the final exam from the required course inaccounting weeks after the same students took theexam (Specht & Sandlin, 1991). They reported thehalf-life of knowledge was 6 weeks.

One implication of these results should be toencourage schools to conduct outcome assessmentstudies to determine what their students are learn-ing. Schools can create baseline studies, then ex-periment and innovate in their programs and as-sess the impact. Another implication is to be waryof the threatened distraction from our mission ofpreparing people to manage and lead by overem-phasis or reliance on measures of selected compe-tencies for screening applicants and judging howwell a school is doing in measures such as rank-ings. For example, the GMAT is a measure of sev-eral of the cognitive abilities that predicts gradesin the first year of an MBA program and yet hasbecome a singular measure of a school's worth anda screening device for MBA students. Although theGMAT assesses some important characteristics,we should be using more comprehensive measureswith true multitrait designs. Further, placementstatistics, although considered an ultimate mea-sure of effectiveness of an MBA program, are alsonarrow. Such statistics are a reading of marketsatisfaction, but are a relatively short-term one.Schools do not report, and often do not even followplacement records of students beyond the 6 monthsto a year after graduation. The aphorism that "webecome what we measure" haunts higher educa-tion. Convenience of administration of certaintypes of tests and educational philosophies fromearlier eras have often resulted in many of us notknowing what our students are learning. As wediscover what distinguishes great managers andleaders, we should use these insights to guide ourcurriculum and pedagogy.

REFERENCES

Albanese, R. (chair), Bernardin, H. J., Connor, P. E., Dobbins,G. H., Ford, R. C, Harris, M. M., Licata, B. J., Miceli, M. P.,Porter, L. W., & Ulrich, D. O. 1990. Outcome measuremenfand management education: An Academy of Managementtask force report. Presentation at the Annual Academy ofManagement Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Astin, A. W. 1993. What matters in college? Four crificaJ years.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ballou, R., Bowers, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. 1999. Fellow-ship in lifelong learning; An executive development pro-

gram for advanced professionals. Journal of ManagementEducation, 23(4): 338-354.

Banta, T. W. (Ed.). 1993. Making a difference: Outcomes of adecade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bigelow, J. D. (Ed.). 1991. Managerial skills: Explorations in prac-tical knowledge. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The competent manager: A model for effec-tive performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1994. Stimulating self-directed change: A re-quired MBA course called Managerial Assessment and De-velopment. Journal of Management Education, 18(3): 304-323.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1995. Cornerstones of change: Building a path forself-directed learning. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. C. Cowen, & D. A.Kolb (Eds.), Innovation in professional education: Steps on ajourney from teaching to learning: 50-94. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., Baker, A., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Thompson, L.1995. Will it make a difference? Assessing a value-based,outcome oriented, competency-based professional pro-gram. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.),Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journeyfrom teaching to learning: 167-202. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. 1995. Innovation inprofessional education: Steps on a journey from teaching tolearning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. 1991. Assessing individuality inlearning: The learning skills profile. Educational Psychol-ogy, 11(3&4): 279-295.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. 1995. From learning styles to learn-ing skills: The executive skills profile. Journal of Manage-rial Psychology, 10: 3-17.

Boyatzis, R. E., Leonard, D., Rhee, K., & Wheeler, J. V. 1996.Competencies can be developed, but not the way wethought. Capability, 2(2): 25-41.

Boyatzis, R. E., Renio-McKee, A., & Thompson, L. 1995. Pastaccomplishments: Establishing the impact and baseline ofearlier programs. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, & D. A. Kolb(Eds.), Innovation in professional education: Steps on a jour-ney from teaching to learning: 95-119. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Sokol, M. 1982. A pilot project to assess thefeasibility of assessing skills and personal characteristics ofstudents in collegiate business programs. Report to theAACSB (St. Louis, MO).

Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. 1974. Formative yearsin business: A long term AT&T study of managerial lives.NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Weick, K. E.1970. Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness.NY: McGraw Hill.

Development Dimensions International (DDI). 1985. Final report:Phase III. Report to the AACSB (St. Louis, MO).

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 51: 327-335.

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. NY:Bantam.


Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leader-ship: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. 1988. Managerial lives in transition:Advancing age and changing times. New York: Guilford.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning; Experience as the sourceof learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice-Hall.

Kotter, J. P. 1982. The general managers. NY: Free Press.

Leonard, D. 1996. The impact of learning goals on self-directedchange in management development and education. Doc-toral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University, Cleve-land, OH.

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. 1988. Realmanagers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Mentkowski, M., & Associates. 2000. Learning that lasts: Inte-grating learning, development, and performance in collegeand beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Deemer, D., Ben-Ur, T., Reisetter, J.,Rickards, W., & Talbott, M. 1991. Understanding abilities,learning and development through college outcome stud-ies: What can we expect from higher education assess-ment? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-ican Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Mentkowski, M., & Strait, M. 1983. A longitudinal study of stu-dent change in cognitive development, learning styles, and

generic abilities in an outcome-centered liberal arts curric-ulum. Final Report to the National Institutes of Educationfrom Alverno College.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. 1991. How college affectsstudents: Findings and insights from twenty years of re-search. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, L., & McKibbin, L. 1988. Management education anddevelopment: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York:McGraw-Hill.

Rhee, K. 1997. Journey of discovery: A longitudinal study oflearning during a graduate professional program. Unpub-lished dissertation. Case Western Reserve University,Cleveland, OH.

Specht, L., & Sandlin, P. 1991. The differential effects of experi-ential learning activities and traditional lecture classes inaccounting. Simulations and Gaming, 22(2): 196-210.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. 1993. Competence at work:Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Thornton, G. C, III, & Byham, W. C. 1982. Assessment centers andmanagerial performance. New York: Academic.

Wheeler, J. V. 1999. The impact of social environments on self-directed change and learning. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Winter, D. G., McClelland, D. C, & Stewart, A. J. 1981. A new casefor the liberal arts: Assessing institutional goals and studentdevelopment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Richard E. Boyatzis is professor and chair of the Department of Organizational Behavior at theWeatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. His current researchfocuses on the development of emotional intelligence, leadership and management, outcomeassessment of graduate education, and coaching practices. His PhD is from HarvardUniversity.

Elizabeth C. Stubbs is a PhD student in organizational behavior at the Weatherhead School ofManagement. She completed her Master's degree in psychology, focusing on organizationalbehavior and evaluation at Claremont Graduate University. Her current research is focusingon both group and individual emotional intelligence, and team processes and competencies.

Scott N. Taylor is a PhD student in organizational behavior at the Weatherhead School ofManagement. Prior to pursuing a PhD, he was a manager of organization effectiveness. Hiscurrent research focuses on the development of self-awareness and emotional intelligence.His MBA is from Case Western Reserve University.

Documents

® Academy Learning Cognitive and Emotional Intelligence ... et al (2002).pdf · Emotional Intelligence Competencies Through Graduate Management Education RICHARD E, BOYATZIS, ELIZABETH