This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for BusinessPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Enhancing Critical Thinking by Teaching Two DistinctApproaches to ManagementBruno Dyck a , Kent Walker b , Frederick A. Starke a & Krista Uggerslev c aa University of Manitoba , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canadab University of Windsor , Windsor , Ontario , Canadac Northern Alberta Institute of Technology , Edmonton , Alberta , CanadaPublished online: 30 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Bruno Dyck , Kent Walker , Frederick A. Starke & Krista Uggerslev (2012) Enhancing CriticalThinking by Teaching Two Distinct Approaches to Management, Journal of Education for Business, 87:6, 343-357, DOI:10.1080/08832323.2011.627891

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.627891

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 343–357, 2012Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.627891

Enhancing Critical Thinking by Teaching TwoDistinct Approaches to Management

Bruno DyckUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Kent WalkerUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Frederick A. StarkeUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Krista UggerslevUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Northern Alberta Institute of Technology,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Keywords: alternative, conventional, critical thinking, individualism, management education,materialism, two approaches

“Critical thinking has become the mantra of higher educa-tion” (Halx & Reybold, 2005, p. 293), and is increasinglyemphasized in business school accreditation (e.g., Peach,Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007). However, researchers stillhave a limited understanding of how critical thinking is en-hanced in management education (e.g., Page & Mukherjee,2007), and management students fail to recognize that criti-cal reflection is a part of their education (Sampson, Moore,& Jackson, 2007). We contend that deliberately teaching stu-dents what management looks like from differing perspec-tives is one way to enhance students’ critical thinking abilities(Dehler, Welsh, & Lewis, 2001; Ghoshal, 2005; Mintzberg,2005; Pfeffer, 2005).

In this article, we describe what happened when under-graduate students in an introductory management course

Correspondence should be addressed to Bruno Dyck, University ofManitoba, Asper School of Business, Department of Business Adminis-tration, 658 Drake Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V4, Canada. E-mail:bdyck@ms.umanitoba.ca

were taught two different approaches to management. Thefirst approach—called the mainstream approach—has amaterialist-individualist emphasis on maximizing produc-tivity, profitability, and competitiveness. The other—calledthe multistream approach—emphasizes balancing multipleforms of well-being for multiple stakeholders (Dyck & Neu-bert, 2010; cf. Hamel, 2009, on Management 2.0). Our cen-tral purpose in this article is to examine whether deliberatelyteaching two management approaches enhances students’critical thinking ability significantly more than teaching onlyone approach. We begin by reviewing the relevant literatureand developing two hypotheses. We then describe our three-pronged research design, present our results, and discuss theimplications of our findings.

CRITICAL THINKING AND MANAGEMENTEDUCATION

There is widespread agreement that we should be encour-aging critical thinking among students in higher education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

344 B. DYCK ET AL.

(Halx & Reybold, 2005; Schamber & Mahoney, 2006; Smith,2003). This is especially important for business schools,because the Association to Advance Collegiate Schoolsof Business (AACSB) has identified critical reflection asan important goal for accreditation (AACSB, 2008; Page& Mukherjee, 2007; Peach et al., 2007). Critical thinkingis also important for business school graduates becauseresearch has shown that critical thinking is an essential skillfor managers in all types of settings (Muller & Turner, 2010).

There is some uncertainty about what critical thinking is,how it can be measured, and how it can be developed in stu-dents (Duarte, 2008; Lampert, 2007; Sampson et al., 2007;Tsui, 2006). This uncertainty is especially pronounced inthe management education literature (Monaghan & Cervero,2006; Page & Mukherjee, 2007). However, the literatureis fairly consistent in suggesting that critical thinking hastwo basic dimensions: (a) a technical dimension (performingtasks in a logical, rigorous, linear, and instrumental way) and(b) a philosophical dimension (recognizing and evaluatingthe underlying assumptions that determine which tasks toperform). The technical dimension emphasizes “purposeful,reasoned, and goal-directed thinking,” whereas the philo-sophical dimension emphasizes a “heightened awareness ofmultiple points of view and context, as well as the evaluationof one’s own thought processes before reaching a conclusion”(Halx & Reybold, 2005, pp. 294–295). The philosophical di-mension of critical thinking involves higher level cognitiveabilities and “is inherently comparative and self-consciouslyvalue-laden” (Feiner & Roberts, 1997, p. 327). These twodimensions are embedded in the Aristotelian idea of criticalthinking as the ability to think deeply (the technical dimen-sion) and from different perspectives (the philosophical di-mension) without necessarily accepting any of them (Halx &Reybold, p. 312).1

Research suggests that business schools may be doinga better job teaching the technical dimension than thephilosophical dimension. For example, studies using theCalifornia Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory toexamine undergraduate students across various subject areasfound that business and economics students had relativelylow scores on philosophical critical thinking factors suchas inquisitiveness, truth seeking, and maturity of judgment(Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, & Gainen, 1995; Giancarlo& Facione, 2001). Similarly, when Sampson et al. (2007)asked 110 students enrolled in business courses to provide afree-form written definition of critical thinking, they notablyfailed to address the philosophical dimension.

Given the argument that the philosophical dimension iswhat distinguishes critical thinking from other forms ofthinking, and that nurturing such thoughtful reflection is “thekey” to management education (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006,p. 422), a lack of emphasis on the philosophical dimension ofcritical thinking is problematic. Business educators do stu-dents a disservice if they fail to develop students’ “capacityto see and interpret organizational phenomena from multi-ple perspectives” (Cunha, Cunha, & Cabral-Cardaso, 2004,

p. 89). If we teach only one management approach, studentswill learn to expect a much simpler world than the one thatactually exists (Cunha et al., 2004; Martin, 2007).

When only one approach to management is taught, wealso run the risk of conveying in a subtle (but powerful)way that management is a value-neutral activity. Without acomparison approach, students may miss seeing the under-lying values that are implicit in the single approach that isbeing taught. The emphasis on materialism and individualismthat characterizes mainstream management may also lead tothe problem of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Ferraro, Pfeffer,& Sutton, 2005), and research suggests that business stu-dents’ values change and become more self-interested overthe course of their studies (Frank, Gilovich, & Regan, 1993,1996; Krishnan, 2003; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004). Thus, teachingonly a conventional approach to management may be prob-lematic for management students and for society at large(e.g., Ferraro et al.; Ghoshal, 2005; Mintzberg, 2005).

Nurturing Students’ Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be enhanced by focusing on content(what material is taught) and process (how material is taught;Currie & Knights, 2003; Reynolds, 1999a, 1999b; Ruggiero,1988). Beyond specific courses on critical thinking or busi-ness ethics, courses such as introductory management andorganizational behavior may be the most likely places in thecurriculum where business students can develop their crit-ical thinking skills (Currie & Knights). Such courses maychallenge the content of conventional thinking when theypropose ideas such as considering multiple stakeholders (notjust stockholders), the potential unintended consequences ofindividual performance goals, and the merits of job satis-faction and personal growth (not just productivity). Criticalthinking is enhanced insofar as these courses “problematize”the subject matter for students by having them discuss com-peting views on a topic (Dehler et al., 2001, p. 503; cf. Currie& Knights). This creates a sense of conflict that compels stu-dents to become more engaged with the material (Halx &Reybold, 2005). Along these lines, Dehler et al. encouragedstudents to exaggerate their polarized perceptions, the objec-tive being to improve their capacity to engage in paradoxicalthinking, and to recognize that two competing approachesmay be equally valid.

Introductory courses in management and organizationalbehavior may also employ various processes that have beenfound to facilitate critical thinking in the classroom. Re-search suggests that instructors can nurture critical think-ing in the classroom by: (a) facilitating class discussion toengage students (e.g., Tsui, 2002), (b) providing problem-solving activities such as cases to allow students to practicecritical thinking skills (Klebba & Hamilton, 2001), (c) invit-ing students to integrate ideas from different disciplines andwork experiences (Currie & Knights, 2003), and (d) askingstudents higher order review questions (Renaud & Murray,2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 345

Tsui’s (2006) holistic and grounded study provides a help-ful framework for understanding how content and processcan facilitate critical thinking. She described three hallmarksof critical thinking: self-efficacy, self-directed learning, andthinking outside the box. The first two of these—which focusprimarily on the technical dimension—may be especiallyamenable to enhancement via processes that instructorsuse. The third—which focuses more on the philosophicaldimension—is more directly related to the content of what istaught.

Tsui’s ideas are briefly summarized in Table 1.

Hypotheses

A review of the literature suggests that a significant opportu-nity exists for improving critical thinking in business schoolstudents by employing pedagogical initiatives that focus onenhancing the philosophical (vs. technical) dimension andenhancing the content (vs. process) dimension. This conclu-sion is based on two observations. First, business students’technical critical thinking is on par with other universitystudents, but business students may be relatively weak onthe philosophical dimension (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001;Sampson et al., 2007). Second, most past efforts—such asthe development of classroom supplementary materials andenhanced class discussions—have focused on enhancing theprocess side, whereas the content of the curriculum has re-mained fairly conventional. The process and technical dimen-sions are important, but we also need to examine how criticalthinking in management education may be enhanced via theunderdeveloped philosophical and content dimensions.

In sum, our review of the literature suggests that chang-ing the content of a course—via purposefully teaching morethan one approach to management—will improve the philo-sophical component of students’ critical thinking. But wealso speculate that changing content in this way will neitherenhance nor inhibit the technical component of students’critical thinking. Accordingly, we offer the following twohypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Philosophical critical thinking will behigher for students completing a course whose contentfocuses on two approaches to management than it willfor students completing a course that focuses on onlyone approach.

H2: Technical critical thinking will not differ between stu-dents who are completing a course whose content fo-cuses on two approaches to management compared withstudents who are completing a course that focuses ononly one approach.

METHOD

Overview

The research took place in six sections of an undergraduateintroduction to management course that were taught duringone 13-week semester at a large Canadian university. The

course content for all six sections was organized accordingto Fayol’s (1916) four management functions, but individualinstructors were free to choose which textbook they used. Inthree sections (taught by three different instructors), studentswere taught only a conventional management approach andused one of three different regular management textbooks(the control group; n = 123). In three other sections (taught bya fourth instructor), students were taught two approaches andused a textbook where each chapter explicitly presented botha mainstream and a multistream approach to management(the treatment group; n = 108).2

There were obvious differences in terms of the content ofcourse material in the treatment and control group classes.For example, in terms of planning, a mainstream approachemphasizes the importance of managers establishing an orga-nization’s purpose and setting SMART goals (specific, mea-surable, achievable, results-based, and time-specific). In con-trast, a multistream approach emphasizes managers workingalongside other stakeholders to establish purpose and to setSMART2 goals (significant, meaningful, agreed-upon, rele-vant, and timely). In terms of organizing, a mainstream ap-proach emphasizes factors such as standardization (specifydesired behaviors), specialization (provide job descriptions),and centralization (create authority structures), whereas amultistream approach emphasizes experimentation (encour-age constant improvement), sensitization (understand howoverall tasks fit together), and dignification (treat everyonewith respect). In terms of leading, a mainstream approachshows how motivation can be enhanced via meeting mem-bers’ needs for achievement (e.g., SMART goals), equity(being treated fairly vis a vis others), and personal power.In contrast, a multistream approach emphasizes needs ofsignificance (e.g., SMART2 goals), justice (e.g., ensure themarginalized are being treated fairly), and socialized power(shared among stakeholders). Finally, in terms of control-ling, a mainstream approach emphasizes how informationsystems help managers to monitor outcomes, whereas a mul-tistream approach emphasizes how information systems canenhance self-monitoring for members, processes, and infor-mation sharing.

An analysis of course outlines and discussion with in-structors showed that they all used similar processes asso-ciated with nurturing critical thinking, including lectures,class discussions, problem-solving activities, case studies,higher-order study questions, and inviting students to inte-grate ideas from other subject areas as they applied them toproblems and discussion topics. Each instructor had taughtthe course for at least five years. In the treatment group therewas one difference in process: students were regularly askedto place themselves along a mainstream-multistream contin-uum. We expected that this process would heighten studentengagement with the two approaches (e.g., Bodkin & Steven-son, 2007; MacFarlane, 2001). Students in the control groupcould obviously not be asked to engage in this type of reflec-tion because they were only presented with one approach tomanagement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

TAB

LE1

Sel

f-E

ffica

cy,S

elf-

Dire

cted

Lear

ning

,and

Thi

nkin

gO

utsi

deth

eB

ox

How

each

dim

ensi

onis

linke

dw

ithcr

itica

lthi

nkin

gT

his

dim

ensi

onca

nbe

appl

ied

toan

intr

oduc

tory

man

agem

ent

cour

seby

...

Item

sus

edto

mea

sure

each

dim

ensi

onfo

rm

anag

emen

tstu

dent

s.“T

ow

hate

xten

thas

this

cour

se:.

..”

Self

-effi

cacy

isen

hanc

edw

hen

stud

ents

enga

gein

proc

esse

sth

athe

lpth

emto

acqu

ire

and

appl

ykn

owle

dge.

Thi

sis

cons

iste

ntw

ithth

eob

serv

atio

nth

at“p

eopl

e’s

leve

lof

mot

ivat

ion,

affe

ctiv

est

ates

,and

actio

nsar

eba

sed

mor

eon

wha

tthe

y[e

mph

asis

adde

d]be

lieve

than

onw

hati

sob

ject

ivel

ytr

ue”

(Ban

dura

,199

7,p.

2).

...

prom

ptin

gst

uden

tsto

enga

gein

apr

oces

sof

lear

ning

abou

tand

usin

gte

chni

ques

and

know

ledg

ere

late

dto

the

func

tions

ofm

anag

emen

tfro

mdi

ffer

entp

ersp

ectiv

es,a

ndth

enpr

ovid

ing

oppo

rtun

ities

for

them

tode

velo

pth

eir

own

appr

oach

toen

actin

gth

ese

func

tions

.

α=

.64

1.Pr

ovid

edyo

uw

ithhe

lpfu

ltec

hniq

ues

and

know

ledg

eab

outt

hefo

urfu

nctio

nsof

man

agem

ent(

i.e.,

plan

ning

,org

aniz

ing,

lead

ing,

and

cont

rolli

ng)?

2.M

ade

you

confi

dent

that

you

can

deve

lop

your

own

appr

oach

tom

anag

emen

t?3.

Mad

eyo

uco

nfide

ntth

atyo

uca

nid

entif

yw

hat

isim

port

anti

nm

anag

emen

t?Se

lf-d

irec

ted

lear

ning

isfa

cilit

ated

whe

nst

uden

tsar

e“g

uide

dth

roug

ha

self

-dis

cove

rypr

oces

s[e

mph

asis

adde

d]of

lear

ning

rath

erth

anbe

ing

hand

edth

ean

swer

s,”

and

whe

repr

ofes

sors

ask

stud

ents

ques

tions

like

“Wel

l,w

hatd

oyo

uth

ink?

”(T

sui,

2006

,pp.

216–

217)

.

...

prom

ptin

gst

uden

tsto

enga

gein

apr

oces

sof

self

-dis

cove

ryof

wha

titm

eans

tobe

am

anag

er,a

ndto

refle

cton

wha

tthe

yth

ink

isim

port

anti

nm

anag

emen

t.T

hepr

oces

sof

stud

ents

findi

ngan

swer

sto

thes

equ

estio

nspr

omot

esse

lf-d

irec

ted

lear

ning

.

α=

.79

1.Pr

ompt

edyo

uto

enga

gein

apr

oces

sof

self

-dis

cove

ryab

outt

hem

eani

ngof

man

agem

ent?

2.Pr

ompt

edyo

uto

refle

cton

wha

tyou

thin

kis

impo

rtan

tin

man

agem

ent?

3.H

elpe

dyo

uto

impr

ove

your

criti

calt

hink

ing

skill

s?T

hink

ing

outs

ide

the

box

help

sst

uden

tsto

achi

eve

“gre

ater

insi

ghto

na

subj

ectb

ytr

ansc

endi

ngtr

adit

iona

lper

spec

tive

san

dap

proa

ches

[em

phas

isad

ded]

”an

din

clud

es“t

each

ing

ara

nge

ofth

eore

tical

pers

pect

ives

and

enco

urag

ing

stud

ents

tocr

itiq

ueth

eva

riou

sth

eori

es[e

mph

asis

adde

d]by

test

ing

them

agai

nstt

heir

own

know

ledg

ean

dex

peri

ence

”(T

sui,

2006

,p.2

06–2

07).

Itm

eans

aski

ngst

uden

tsqu

estio

nssu

chas

“Why

dow

edo

itth

isw

ay?”

and

“Whe

redo

thes

eth

ings

com

efr

om?”

(Tsu

i,20

06,p

.208

).

prov

idin

gco

nten

ttha

tena

bles

stud

ents

toth

ink

abou

t:(1

)ho

wdi

ffer

entv

iew

poin

tsin

fluen

ceho

wth

efu

nctio

nsof

man

agem

ent

are

carr

ied

out;

(2)

the

purp

ose

ofm

anag

emen

tfro

mdi

ffer

ent

pers

pect

ives

;and

(3)

nonc

onve

ntio

nalw

ays

ofm

anag

ing.

Stud

ents

who

rece

ive

cont

entt

hate

nabl

esth

emto

see

man

agem

entf

rom

ano

ncon

vent

iona

lper

spec

tive

are

able

toth

ink

outs

ide

the

box.

α=

.75

1.H

elpe

dyo

uth

ink

abou

tnon

conv

entio

nalw

ays

ofm

anag

ing?

2.H

elpe

dyo

uth

ink

abou

tthe

purp

ose

ofm

anag

emen

tfro

mdi

ffer

entp

oint

sof

view

?3.

Hel

ped

you

thin

kab

outh

owdi

ffer

entv

alue

sor

pers

pect

ives

influ

ence

the

four

func

tions

ofm

anag

emen

t?

346

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 347

As described subsequently, our quasi-experimental re-search design used three different measures to test our hy-potheses: a survey, student interviews, and case-based anal-ysis. The demographic data for students participating in thedifferent phases of the study were similar.3

Survey

Student participation in the survey was voluntary, and it wasadministered during class time during the second last week ofthe term. None of the four course instructors was involved indata collection. The survey contained nine items developed toassess critical thinking, which were based on Tsui (2006; seeTable 1). All items used a 5-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent).

Student Interviews

We recognize that pencil-and-paper measures of criticalthinking only get at part of the picture (Renaud & Murray,2008). We therefore recruited students from the treatmentand control groups to participate in 30-min interviews de-signed to explore the issue of critical thinking. To encourageparticipation, interviewees were paid $20 for their time. In-terviews were conducted with 26 students (13 from each ofthe treatment and control groups).

A research assistant blind to the research hypotheses andto which condition (treatment or control) a student was drawnfrom conducted the interviews and wrote out a near-verbatimtranscript of each one. As described in Appendix A, the re-search assistant started each interview by reading a state-ment and showing interviewees a card that described thetechnical and philosophical dimensions of critical thinking.Interviewees were then asked six open-ended questions fo-cusing on the extent to which they thought the course helpedthem to improve their critical thinking ability. They were alsoasked to provide examples. To allow quantitative statisticalanalysis of some of the interview data, students were alsogiven a short survey to complete at the conclusion of theinterview. For example, students were asked to use a 7-pointLikert-type scale (where 1 = not at all and 7 = to a greatextent) to indicate the extent to which the course helped to im-prove both the technical (M = 4.88, SD = 1.56) and the philo-sophical (M = 5.27, SD = 1.64) dimensions of their criticalthinking.

Data collected during the interviews were analyzedin three ways. First, we conducted analyses of variance(ANOVAs) on interviewee responses to the Likert-type scalequestions at the end of the interview. Second, the interviewtranscripts were placed in random order, and analyzed byan expert in critical thinking. This expert—a colleague fromanother faculty on campus who has taught critical-thinking-oriented courses for 7 years—has extensive PhD trainingin philosophy and critical thinking and was blind to thestudy’s hypotheses and central purpose. The expert evalu-ated the interview transcripts according to (a) the techni-

cal and philosophical dimensions of critical thinking (twoseparate scores), and (b) the processes and content of criticalthinking (two separate scores). The expert was instructed torate each student’s interview transcript on a scale rangingfrom 0 to 10 (0 = concept is not included in the student’sresponse; 1–2 = misunderstanding or limited evidence of theconcept; 3–4 = some evidence of the concept at a basic level;5–6 = some evidence of the concept at a developed level; 7–8= clear evidence of the concept at a developed level; 9–10= insightful or applied evidence of the concept at an ad-vanced level). Third, the first and second authors analyzedthe interviews for recurring themes, which involved an itera-tive process of re-reading the interviews, identifying themesthat were shared across numerous interviews, fine-tuning thedescription of those themes, and looking for differences andsimilarities between the treatment and control group inter-view transcripts (Yin, 1984).

Case-Based Analysis

A third method used to measure students’ critical thinkingability was based on a case analysis they were asked to per-form: “there seems to be general agreement that critical think-ing would best be measured in an open-ended essay formatcompared to a closed multiple-choice answer format” (Re-naud & Murray, 2008, p. 86). Responses in case analyses andreflective essays can be coded for their level of insight andlogic (e.g., Carson & Fisher, 2006). Moreover, added depthof understanding of students’ critical thinking can be gainedby examining not only students correct answers, but alsotheir incorrect answers (e.g., Hager, Sleet, & Kaye, 1994; cf.Levine & Drasgow, 1983).

For this research, we developed a case and response keythat was designed to measure students’ ability to (a) identifyand list various aspects of arguments (considered a technicalcritical thinking skill), and (b) avoid sloppy thinking or mak-ing errors in their analysis (i.e., a deeper, more discriminat-ing, philosophical dimension of critical thinking demandingthoughtful reflection and evaluation that goes beyond simplyidentifying key arguments; cf. Greenlaw & DeLoach, 2003;Smith, 2003). We predicted that there would be no differencebetween the students in the treatment and control groups interms of correctly identifying and listing competing argu-ments about an issue (technical critical thinking, H2), butthat students in the treatment group would be more likely toavoid incorrect analyses (philosophical critical thinking, H1;cf. Gambrill, 1990).

Students were given a short case (550 words; see Ap-pendix B) that described a situation where there were com-peting views as to whether a manager should pay a bonusto a subordinate. The case was adapted from a case in anout-of-print textbook (Starke & Sexty, 1992). It was chosenbecause it was generic and because it contained ambiguitiesthat would facilitate measuring how well students were ableto critically think about different views presented in the case.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

348 B. DYCK ET AL.

TABLE 2Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for

Critical Thinking Measures (n = 231)

Variable M SD 1 2 3

Thinking outside the box 4.15 0.64 (.75) .55∗∗ .61∗∗Achieving self- efficacy 4.06 0.57 (.64) .64∗∗Self-directed learning 3.89 0.74 (.79)

Note. Coefficient alphas are indicated in parentheses along the diagonal.Higher scores indicate greater critical thinking ability.

∗∗p < .01.

In general, the case exercise was completed in approximately25 min. It was administered during class time in the 11thweek of the term in all three sections of the treatment groupand in one section of the control group. Students’ criticalthinking ability was measured by asking them to provide awritten response to differentiate between: (a) strong versusweak arguments for paying the bonus and (b) arguments thatsupport versus undermine the decision to pay the bonus.

Students’ case analyses were placed in random orderacross treatment and control conditions, and a research as-sistant blind to the research hypotheses and condition (treat-ment or control) was hired to score student responses basedon a coding key (see Appendix B). Our analysis examinedstudents’ total number of correct answers and their total num-ber of incorrect answers to the two questions. Technical crit-ical thinking was measured by considering the total numberof arguments that students were able to correctly list andidentify, whereas philosophical thinking was measured byconsidering how well students were able to avoid makingjudgment errors as they differentiated between the variousarguments.

RESULTS

We report our results for each of the three methods: survey,interviews, and case analysis.

Survey

Consistent with H1, a one-way ANOVA revealed that thetreatment group (M = 4.33, SD = 0.56) had significantlyhigher scores for the “thinking outside the box” philosoph-ical component of critical thinking than the control group(M = 3.99, SD = 0.70), F(1, 229) = 17.58, p < .05, η2 =.07. Consistent with H2, there were no significant differencesbetween the control group (self-efficacy: M = 4.11, SD =0.55; self-directed: M = 3.85, SD = 0.87) and the treatmentgroup (self-efficacy: M = 4.00, SD = 0.50; self-directed: M= 3.94, SD = 0.64) for the technical components of crit-ical thinking, for self-efficacy, F(1, 224) = 2.32, p > .05and for self-directed learning, F(1, 224) = .77, p > .05. Ta-ble 2 shows descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix forcritical thinking measures.

Student Interviews

We used data collected in the interviews to test H1 and H2in three ways. First, we used one-tailed t-tests to analyzestudents’ Likert-type scale responses at the end of the inter-views. Consistent with H1, students in the treatment group(M = 6.08, SD = 0.64) rated their course significantly higherthan students in the control group (M = 4.46, SD = 1.90)in terms of promoting philosophical critical thinking, t(24)= 2.85, p < .05. Consistent with H2, there was no signifi-cant difference between the treatment group (M = 4.46, SD= 1.71) and the control group (M = 5.31, SD = 1.32) inthe extent to which the courses promoted technical criticalthinking, t(24) = 1.41, p > .05.

Second, we examined the expert’s ratings of intervieweecomments. Again, consistent with H1, there was a signif-icant difference between students taught one approach tomanagement (M = 4.62, SD =3.00) versus two approaches(M = 6.62, SD = 2.33) on the philosophical dimension,t(24) = 1.92, p < .05. Also, consistent with H2, there wasno significant difference between students in the treatmentgroup (M = 5.85, SD = 2.73) and students in the controlgroup (M = 4.77, SD = 3.42) along the technical dimen-sion, t(24) < 1, p > .05. We also explored the expert’sratings on how the interviewees described course contentand process. As anticipated, students in the treatment group(M = 7.31, SD = 2.81) were rated higher than controlparticipants (M = 3.54, SD = 2.30) on content, t(24) =4.30, p < .05, but not on process (M = 4.92, SD = 3.28 vs.M = 4.08, SD = 2.90), t(24) = 0.70, p > .05.

Third, we analyzed the interview transcripts and foundsimilarities and differences in themes that interviewees talkedabout. Overall, our analysis showed that there were (a) simi-larities in the way that both groups described important pro-cesses that enhanced their critical thinking, and (b) differ-ences in the way that students described the content of thephilosophical and technical dimensions of critical thinking.These themes are described subsequently. Treatment groupinterviews are labeled #1–13, and control group interviewsare labeled #14–26.

Process similarities. Students from both groups iden-tified similar processes (e.g., class discussion, case analy-ses, and applying course materials outside the classroom) asbeing important in facilitating their critical thinking. Theseprocesses related to two common themes, one having to dowith what instructors did to enhance critical thinking, andthe other having to do with what students did. With regardto the former, almost all interviewees noted that the coursehad improved their awareness of multiple perspectives (men-tioned in 19 interviews, 10 from the treatment group). Manystudents indicated that the course helped expand their hori-zons: “it does a good job of broadening your previous narrowrange of the way you should think about things” (interviewee#18). Often this occurred via class discussions (13 mentions,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 349

8 from the treatment group) and case analyses (11 mentions,6 from the treatment group). As one interviewee remarked: “Ifound that if someone had a different view, I would listen toit, and we’d both offer our points of view on something. Andit was good. You get to see both sides” (#5). Class discussionsprovided opportunities to learn from classmates, as illustratedby this comment from a student in the treatment group:

I think how the course has been presented is the most im-portant thing, because there has been a lot of time in classdiscussion. So you get to hear not only the textbook perspec-tive and the prof’s perspective, but also the other students’perspective on the topics. And you’re able to consider whereyou stand after hearing what someone else says. You eitheragree or disagree with it. So you are able to evaluate yourown opinion and think your way through how you feel andwhat’s most logical. (#4)

And this quote from a student in the control group:

I’m speaking more in this course than I have in any of myother courses, so being able to talk out your thoughts and hearothers’ points of view and work through problems I reallyimproved in communicating and participating [and helpedme to improve my critical thinking]. (#26)

The second process theme focused on what students didto improve their critical thinking, namely, applying coursecontent outside the classroom. Of the 15 students who hadapplied course material to situations outside of the course

(9 from the treatment group), 12 described examples relatedto their own jobs (6 from the treatment group), and otherstalked about applying it to everyday events such as evaluatingstories in the news. For example,

Already in my workplace I’ve found that I view things differ-ently. And again, it’s not this aspect of, “Alright I’m lookingat the four definitions that I’ve written down about this subjectarea.” It’s just my way of thinking. So I think that comparedto other courses I’m impressed with how I’ve tapped intothis. . . . There are situations that I’ve been in, or I’ve beenput in, where material that I’ve drawn from class almostsubconsciously comes forward in terms of how I assess thesituation. I have also been able to look at biases and take astep back, whether it’s looking at the bigger picture or re-assessing myself in terms of a decision I’m about to make orhow I’m dealing with certain situations. I find that I can catchmyself doing this stuff. Then I’ll relate it back to class andsay, “Oh, that’s when we were talking about this.” SometimesI might not do it until a week later. (#6)

In sum, the processes that enhanced critical thinking, bothin terms of what the instructors did and what the students did,were similar for the treatment and control groups.

Content differences. There were clear differencesbetween the students in the treatment and control groups interms of how they described the content of the philosophicaland technical dimensions of critical thinking (see Tables 3and 4). With regard to the philosophical dimension, the most

TABLE 3Interviewees’ Descriptions of the Philosophical Dimension of Critical Thinking

Treatment group Control group

Having the multistream and the mainstream perspective helps that [criticalthinking] a lot because you’re forced to look at it from two ways, whichkind of makes you think more that way. I’d have to say that that is thebiggest thing that would help you think critically about it. (#3)

. . . learning about both [approaches to management] kind of helps youvisualize the continuum that you could be on, and whether your solegoal is to maximize financial well-being, or to maximize the well-beingof all the stakeholders. Before the course I didn’t know such a thingexisted like that continuum. I think it’s probably the most helpful of allthe courses I’m taking this term in terms of improving my criticalthinking. (#1)

I think that because of how [the instructor] presented it, like there’s twosides to everything. Now when I look at a company I think of both sidesof what they’re doing and stuff. (#2)

We learned about different types of management and it was really up to usto decide which one is more suitable to ourselves and how we’d like toapply them. I’d say it was a pretty critically thinking oriented course.(#8)

It’s a broad course in some ways, but it helps you look at management asmore than just accounting or operations like all of the other classes do.It’s more the broader spectrum of general management. It helps you thinkof your own ways of how you would act in a situation, because there isnot really strict guidelines. You have to think critically and you have toknow what you’re doing, and you have to use some creativity. (#16)

Yeah, I think it probably has improved my critical thinking because it takesyou into more of how managers think and how managers create solutionsto problems. Just by broadening the spectrum of what they do and whattheir job incorporates, it’s done a lot for my critical thinking ability. (#24)

Also, the fact that the way things are supposed to work aren’t always theway they do work. So I would say, it definitely has helped me improvemy critical thinking skills on a real life aspect. (#14)

We did learn about culture and how culture affects a person’s decisionmaking, and that was really something that I’d never thought aboutbefore. So that was something interesting. (#20)

To be more aware [of the cultural and value-based differences betweenpeople] is probably the most important thing I’d take away from theclass. (#15)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

350 B. DYCK ET AL.

TABLE 4Interviewees’ Descriptions of the Technical Dimension of Critical Thinking

Treatment group Control group

. . . because [the instructor] does both [mainstream and multistreammanagement] it’s more philosophical, but if [the instructor] were to justdo the mainstream one, it would be more technical. Both ways show thatthere is more than one way to do it, so there’s different tools I can applyto whatever way I want to go. (#12)

You use the technical [aspect of critical thinking] to create which[implementation] options you have. In the technical aspect, I could goone route and say, “Okay, if I follow these technical steps I’ll get to anincreased profit for myself.” Or, “If I follow these [alternative] steps,then I will follow a more multistream perspective.” So in that sense it’stechnical, but the final decision comes back to a more philosophical wayof thinking, and which route am I going to take, and why. (#8)

I’ve talked to other students in other courses that don’t really know muchabout multistream and they have more of a narrow view . . . I candistinguish between the two and you can use both of them to be able toevaluate things better. (#10)

You really had to exercise your mind [compared to other courses like] Statsthat are all formulas. Even courses like Communications or OB, there’sno numbers or formulas, but there’s a certain way to do things, and youkind of learn it the right way. Whereas, in this course you learn bothways and you decide what the right way is. . . . [This] is a skill that Iwould much rather be good at than just technical thinking.” (#8)

I did take a critical thinking course, and I didn’t like it because it focusedon the technical aspect of critical thinking. (#13)

In the technical aspect, a lot. Pretty much every general issue inmanagement theory is broken down into little steps so you can doeverything in a logical way. I think philosophically, it probably makes ita little worse almost because they always remind you that every situationis different and you have to look at it from a different perspective, but alot of what you would have done if you hadn’t been taught the technicalside you just totally leave behind. I’ve never applied the stuff that I’vebeen learning, but I imagine in the situation I probably wouldn’t applythe philosophical side anymore once I have this breakdown of what Ishould be doing step by step. (#22)

It is mostly how to break down the steps and think through a problem. So ithelps a lot in that way. Say, when you are reasoning for an ethicaldecision—[my instructor] really pushes reasoning—make sure you gothrough a set of steps. So technical process to find a solution to aproblem, so they’d push that through. But, during the lectures they moreexplain the philosophical reasoning behind those technical steps. (#18)

I don’t think it [the course] really helped my critical thinking abilitybecause it’s mostly memorization of definitions and lists. (#17)

notable difference was that all 13 students in the treatmentgroup emphasized the importance of the mainstream-multistream distinction for facilitating critical thinking, withmost students mentioning this within the first sentence ortwo of the interview. As highlighted in Table 3, studentsnoted that learning two approaches “absolutely” (#12) helpsto enhance critical thinking, and that it compels students tothink about where they are along a continuum between thetwo:

It makes students think about how we use both kinds ofmanagement, to know yourself where you are [on the contin-uum]. . . . Other university courses have the standard formats,and only one answer is right. I think this course gives stu-dents a lot of space to have their own opinions. We can’t saymainstream is better or multistream is better. It gets you tothink about how you should balance yourself between thosetwo. (#9)

In contrast, students in the control group tended to de-scribe the content of the philosophical dimension in termsof having a better understanding of the “broad focus ofmanagement skills” (#14). Compared to courses with a rel-atively narrow focus (e.g., accounting, marketing), students

said that their management course encompassed many dif-ferent aspects of the organization, and that managers hadto use the four functions of management to draw every-thing together. Some students paid particular attention tothe need for this big picture of management to take intoaccount the fact that there is great diversity within organiza-tions. Overall, the sentiment of many students in the controlgroup was that their critical thinking had been enhanced be-cause the course had helped them to see the importance ofmanagers taking all of these differences and ambiguities intoconsideration.

There were also clear differences in how students in thetreatment and control groups viewed the technical dimen-sion of critical thinking, and in particular the relationshipbetween the philosophical and technical dimensions (see Ta-ble 4). Whereas most of the students in the control groupdescribed how learning step-by-step skills enhanced theircritical thinking (9 of 13, compared with only 4 students fromthe treatment group), most students in the treatment group (8of 13, compared with only 2 students from the control group)thought the course enhanced critical thinking precisely be-cause it went beyond the step-by-step approach found in mostother courses that simply say: “Here are the facts” (#13).Students in the treatment group believed that their critical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 351

thinking had been enhanced because they had learned therelationship between different perspectives (the philosoph-ical dimension) and management practices (the technicaldimension).

Put differently, students in the treatment group tended totalk about how the technical dimension was subservient tothe philosophical dimension (e.g., where you are along themainstream-multistream continuum determines the most ap-propriate management practices). In contrast, students in thecontrol group were more likely to see the philosophical di-mension as subservient to the technical dimension, sayingthings such as, “When you follow the steps they ask you tofollow [the technical dimension], you realize how much eas-ier it is to stop just holding your own opinion [philosophicaldimension]” (#22).

Thus, although students in the control and treatmentgroups had similar quantitative scores in terms of the tech-nical dimension of critical thinking, the analysis of the in-terview comments suggests that the meaning of student re-sponses was qualitatively different. Students in the treatmentgroup were concerned with discovering which managementapproach and set of steps to use in a particular setting,whereas students in the control group were concerned withhow to effectively use their (conventional) managerial stepsand skills in different situations.

Case-Based Analysis

Consistent with H1 for the philosophical component of crit-ical thinking, students in the treatment group (M = 2.08,SD = 1.77) made fewer judgment errors than students in thecontrol group (M = 2.67, SD = 2.06), t(148) = 1.84, p <

.05 (one-tailed). Consistent with H2, there were no signifi-cant differences between the treatment group (M = 5.26, SD= 2.15) and the control group (M = 5.69, SD = 2.44) forthe technical component of critical thinking (total number ofcorrect answers), t(148) = 1.07, p > .05 (one-tailed). Thus,students in the treatment and control groups were similar intheir ability to correctly identify and list the key competingarguments presented in the case study (the technical dimen-sion of critical thinking). However, students in the treatmentgroup were more discriminating and able to avoid makingjudgment errors (philosophical dimension).

DISCUSSION

Results from each of our three measures—survey, interviews,and the case analyses—showed that students who were taughttwo different approaches to management consistently hadhigher scores for the philosophical component of criticalthinking than students who were exposed to only one ap-proach (H1), and similar scores for the technical componentof critical thinking (H2). Though numerous scholars havemade the suggestion that critical thinking can be enhanced by

focusing on the content of what is taught (Currie & Knights,2003; Dehler et al., 2001; Elsbach, Sutton, & Whetton, 1999;Freire, 1973; Fulop, 2002; Gonzalez, 2008; Houghton, 2010;Lewis & Grimes, 1999; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Reynolds,1999a, 1999b; Taylor, 1998), to our knowledge the researchreported here is the first to provide empirical support for thespecific contention that teaching two approaches to manage-ment, one mainstream and one multistream, does enhancecritical thinking. This is of considerable significance, es-pecially in light of (a) the importance of critical thinkingin management education (e.g., AACSB), (b) the shortfallof philosophical critical thinking in management education(e.g., Giancarlo & Facione, 2001; Sampson et al., 2007), and(c) the lack of empirical support for previous interventionsdesigned to promote critical thinking in the managementclassroom (Monaghan & Cervero, 2006; Page & Mukherjee,2007). In the following paragraphs we discuss implicationsof our study for management education and suggestions forfuture researchers.

Implications for Management Education

Our empirical results may help overcome institutional obsta-cles to teaching alternative approaches to management (e.g.Ferraro et al., 2005; Grey & Mitev, 1994; Willmott, 1994)and help instructors and administrators to move from merelytalking about the merits of developing and teaching alterna-tive approaches toward actually practicing what they preach.This has implications for the design of textbooks (Cameron,Ireland, Lussier, New, & Robbins, 2003; Mir, 2003), coursesand programs of study. For example, the business schoolwhere this research was conducted recently decided to adda new required course that explicitly considers alternativeapproaches to management, and the school now encouragesinstructors in all courses to introduce alternate perspectivesalongside conventional material as appropriate.

Consider these three implications of teaching two ap-proaches to management at the course level. First, and per-haps most important, critical thinking may be enhanced whenstudents view the two approaches as ideal types that anchorthe extremes of a continuum, and that there is no pure ex-ample of (in our study) either a mainstream or a multistreammanager. The impact on critical thinking may be heightenedby encouraging students to think about where they wouldplace themselves along the continuum, and to consider whichdirection they would like to be headed. For instructors to tryto impose their own views is both unethical and ineffective.Optimal critical thinking occurs when students are compelledto think about what sort of manager they want to become,and why.

Second, critical thinking may be enhanced when studentsunderstand that the meaning of effective management issocially constructed. Through this lens, for example, stu-dents learn to appreciate the course content on the historyof management (rather than treat it with disdain), because it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

352 B. DYCK ET AL.

describes various forces that have shaped the historical de-velopment of conventional management theory and practice,as well as the forces that are at work shaping the meaning ofmanagement for their own careers. Just as management wasdifferent 40 years ago, students realize that management willbe different 40 years from now, and that they will be par-ticipating in the new social construction of the meaning ofmanagement. Once students are attuned to this, they realizethat it is both a great opportunity and a great responsibility.

Third, some instructors may be skeptical about the feasi-bility of teaching two approaches to management. As one col-league said, it’s hard enough to get students to learn the con-ventional material. However, our study suggests that learningalternative approaches may actually help students to masterthe conventional approach. Just as it is easier to understandthe importance and role of grammar in one language if youhave at least two languages to compare and contrast, stu-dents gain a much deeper understanding of how to developan organization’s strategy (or how to make a decision, orhow to motivate others) if they have two different ways ofdoing so. This enhanced critical thinking occurs when stu-dents are continually asked to compare and contrast the twolanguages of management, to explain when and why each isbeing spoken, to explain how the grammar is being used, andso on.

Does teaching two approaches create more work for the in-structor? Initially setting up the materials means more work,but the extra work is rewarded. Rather than perpetuating thedefault view that the conventional approach is value-neutral,teaching two approaches promotes the sort of critical thinkingthat allows students to see and understand for themselves thedifferent approaches to management and, most importantly,to make informed decisions regarding their own managementstyle in a way that promotes understanding and respect of oth-ers to do the same. This is rewarding for the students and theinstructor. In an end-of-term survey, students in the treatmentgroup (n = 116) were asked to imagine that a friend was seek-ing their advice regarding in which one of two sections of theintroduction to management course they should enroll. Theywere told to imagine that both sections would be taught bythe same instructor, but in one section the instructor wouldbe teaching two approaches to management, and in the othersection a single approach to management would be taught. Astrong majority of the students (76%) recommended the sec-tion that taught two approaches (11% were “ambivalent/notsure” and 13% recommended the section that taught one ap-proach). When asked which section they thought would betterimprove their critical thinking, 88% said the one that taughttwo approaches (9% were ambivalent, and 3% indicated theregular section). When asked which section would be morerewarding, 81% said the one that taught two approaches (14%were ambivalent and 5% said the section that taught a regularapproach).

Finally, our study also has practical implications for stu-dents after graduation, especially in light of our finding that

students in the treatment group were more discriminating andable to avoid making judgment errors (the philosophical di-mension of critical thinking). The ability to avoid judgmenterrors is valued in the workplace, and provides a strikingexample of the practical benefits of enhanced philosophicalcritical thinking. Thus, the philosophical dimension is notonly valuable for helping students to think about philosoph-ical questions such as the purpose of management, it alsohas important implications for an organization’s bottom line.If teaching two approaches to management can help man-agers reduce their judgment errors (and if it has no effect onthe number of correct decisions), then this is beneficial foreveryone.

Suggestions for Future Researchers

Future researchers may benefit from the inclusion of ad-ditional measures such as the California Critical ThinkingDisposition Inventory (Gaincarlo & Facione, 2001), mea-sures based on Bloom’s taxonomy (Athanassiou, McNett,& Harvey, 2003), or a more nuanced understanding of thephilosophical dimension of critical thinking (Mingers, 2000).Another improvement would be to increase the number ofinterviews. Although having 26 interviews is larger than pre-vious studies (e.g., Monaghan & Cervero, 2006), it would bedesirable to have even more interviews.

Given that our analysis of differences in processes usedby the four instructors was rather coarse-grained, one poten-tial refinement is to examine in greater detail what processeseach of several instructors teaching a given course use whenpresenting material to students. From a research design per-spective, it would also be desirable to have the same instructorteach two sections of a course, using a textbook with regu-lar content in one section and a textbook that presents twoapproaches in the other section (such a research design maybe unfair to half the students, because it is likely that theinstructor would favor one textbook over the other).4

It would be useful if future research examined how stu-dents’ critical thinking abilities are impacted by several mod-erator variables. These include the instructor’s preferred man-agement approach, the institutional norms evident in thecountry or the school where the course is being taught, dif-ferences between MBA students and undergraduate students,the personality types of the students, national and interna-tional cultural differences, and the ethics–values of students.It would also be worth examining whether similar improve-ments in critical thinking would occur by teaching two ap-proaches in other business disciplines (e.g., accounting, fi-nance, marketing).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides strong results for management educa-tors interested in improving students’ critical thinking. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 353

benefits of presenting different paradigms and viewpoints arewidely known (e.g., Elsbach et al., 1999; Freire, 1973; Lewis& Grimes, 1999). Our study provides empirical evidence ofhow these benefits can be realized in an introductory manage-ment course. Given the increasing emphasis on facilitatingcritical thinking in universities generally—and especially inbusiness schools (Peach et al., 2007)—the idea of presentingat least two approaches to management should be of interestto many business educators.

NOTES

1. The two dimensions are similar to other distinctionssuch as: the distinction between basic understandingversus critical reflection (Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2005);“cognitive activities such as logical reasoning” ver-sus “questioning the assumptions underlying estab-lished belief systems, discourse, and practices relatedto managing” (Duarte, 2008, p. 66); “rational skills”versus “open-mindedly seeking alternative explana-tions” (Meisel & Fearon, 2006, p. 153); “a technicalfunctional approach” versus “stepping outside oneselfand considering alternatives to the status quo” (Neville,2007, p. 101); thinking more/better/faster versus think-ing differently about knowledge (Halx & Reybold,2005); the distinction between exploitation versus ex-ploration (March, 1991); single- versus double-looplearning (e.g., Cope, 2003); and Weber’s distinctionbetween formal rationality and substantive rationality(Kalberg, 1980).

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

3. The average age of the 231 participants in the sur-vey was 21 years, 49% were men, 73% spoke Englishas a first language, and 57% identified themselves asCaucasian, 29% as Asians, and 14% as other. Theaverage participant was in his or her second year ofuniversity studies (M = 2.11, SD = 1.57) and 60%identified his or her major as management. Most par-ticipants were working part- or full-time (74%), andon average each participant had worked for 3.3 com-panies. The average age of participants in the inter-views was also 21, 57% were men, and 85% spoke

English as a first language. The average participantwas in his or her second year of university (M =2.12, SD = 1.03) and 62% identified management asa major. Most interview participants were currentlyworking part- or full-time (85%), and had worked foran average of 4.6 organizations. The 231 participantsin the six sections were not statistically different interms of gender, major, cultural background, employ-ment status, number of hours worked per week, educa-tion, or number of employers (all ps > .05). However,the average age of treatment group participants (M =20.50 years, SD = 2.08) was one year youngerthan the control group (M = 21.50 years, SD =3.42), and—given the power afforded by our samplesize—this difference was statistically significant, F(1,227) = 4.42, p < .05, η2 = .019. In addition, one of thethree control sections (the only section taught duringthe evening) had significantly fewer students who spokeEnglish as a first language, F(1, 228) = 4.20, p < .05, η2

= .018. To ensure that neither of these demographic dif-ferences could account for our findings, we examinedwhether our results varied by course section for bothhypotheses that were tested. We found no differences,thus the results we report include students from allsections.

4. Readers may wonder whether the higher critical think-ing scores in the treatment group were attributable to aparticularly effective instructor in the treatment group,we note that examination of student teaching evalua-tions showed that the average scores for the instructorin the treatment group sections were 3.92, 4.04, and4.06, whereas those for instructors in the three controlgroup classes were 4.23, 4.25, and 4.83.

REFERENCES

Aktouf, O. (1996). Traditional management and beyond: A matter of renewal(H. Kauffman & A. Cyr, Trans.). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Morin.

Aktouf, O. (2006). Le management entre tradition et renouvellement [Tradi-tional management and beyond: A matter of renewal] (4th ed.). Montreal,Quebec, Canada: Morin.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International.(2008). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accredi-tation. St. Louis, MO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/process/documents/AACSB STANDARDS Revised Jan08.pdf

Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in themanagement classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal ofManagement Education, 27, 533–555.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:W. H. Freeman.

Bodkin, C. D., & Stevenson, T. H. (2007). University students’ perceptionsregarding ethical marketing practices: Affecting change through instruc-tional techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 207–228.

Cameron, K., Ireland, R., Lussier, R., New, J., & Robbins, S. (2003). Man-agement textbooks as propaganda. Journal of Management Education,27, 711–729.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

354 B. DYCK ET AL.

Carson, L., & Fisher, K. (2006). Raising the bar on criticality: Students’critical reflections in an internship program. Journal of Management Ed-ucation, 30, 700–723.

Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection. Manage-ment Learning, 34, 429–450.

Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Cabral-Cardaso, C. (2004). Looking for com-plication: Four approaches to management education. Journal of Man-agement Education, 28, 88–103.

Currie, G., & Knights, D. (2003). Reflecting on a critical pedagogy in MBAeducation. Management Learning, 34, 27–49.

Daft, R. L. (2010). Management (9th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWest-ern/Cengage.

Dehler, G. E., Welsh, M. E., & Lewis, M. W. (2001). Critical pedagogy inthe ‘New Paradigm’. Management Learning, 32, 493–511.

Dessler, G., & Starke, F. A. (2004). Management: Principles and prac-tices for tomorrow’s leaders (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Duarte, F. (2008). Rekindling the sociological imagination as a pedagogical‘package’ in management education. Journal of Management Education,33, 59–76.

Dyck, B., & Neubert, M. (2010). Management: Current practices and newdirections. Boston, MA: Cengage/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Edfelt, R. B. (2010). Global comparative management: A functional ap-proach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I., & Whetton, D. A. (1999). Perspectives ondeveloping management theory, circa 1999: Moving from shrill mono-logues to (relatively) tame dialogues. Academy of Management Review,24, 627–633.

Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). Thedisposition toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44,1–25.

Fayol, H. (1916). Industrial and general administration. Paris, France:Dunod.

Feiner, S., & Roberts, B. (1997). Using alternative paradigms to teach aboutrace and gender: A critical thinking approach to introductory economics.The American Economic Review, 85, 367–371.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economic language andassumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Man-agement Review, 30, 8–24.

Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T. D., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying eco-nomics inhibit cooperation? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7,159–171.

Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T. D., & Regan, D. T. (1996). Do economists makebad citizens? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 187–192.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY:Seabury.

Fulop, L. (2002). Practising what you preach: Critical management studiesand its teaching. Organization, 9, 428–436.

Gambrill, E. (1990). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving theaccuracy of judgments and decisions about clients. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good man-agement practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4,75–91.

Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at thedisposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. TheJournal of General Education, 59, 29–55.

Gonzalez, J. M. (2008). Encyclopedia of bilingual education (Vol. 1). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if bothmattered. Management Learning, 37, 419–428.

Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking withelectronic discussion. Journal of Economic Education, 34, 36–52.

Grey, C., & Mitev, N. (1995). Management education: A polemic. Manage-ment Learning, 26, 73–90.

Hager, P., Sleet, R., & Kaye, M. (1992). The relationship between criticalthinking abilities and student study strategies. Higher Education Research& Development, 13, 179–188.

Halx, M. D., & Reybold, L. E. (2005). A pedagogy of force: Faculty perspec-tives of critical thinking capacity in undergraduate students. The Journalof General Education, 54, 293–315.

Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard Business Review,87(6), 91–98.

Hitt, M. A., Black, J. S., Porter, L. W., & Gaudes, A. J. (2009). Management(1st ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Houghton, J. (2010). Book & Resource Reviews: Management: Currentpractices and new directions. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation, 9, 354–355.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (2008). Contemporary management (5th ed.).New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Jonker, J., & Eskildson, J. (2009). Management models for the future. NewYork, NY: Springer.

Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones forthe analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal ofSociology, 85, 1145–1179.

Klebba, J. M., & Hamilton, J. G. (2001). Structured case analysis: De-veloping critical thinking skills in a marketing case course. Journal ofManagement Education, 29, 132–139.

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Do business schools change students’ values alongdesirable lines? A longitudinal study. In A. F. Libertella & S. M. Natale(Eds.), Business education and training: A value-laden process (Vol. 8,pp. 26–39). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Lampert, N. (2007). Critical thinking dispositions as an outcome of under-graduate education. The Journal of General Education, 56, 17–33.

Levine, M. V., & Drasgow, F. (1983). The relation between incorrect optionchoice and estimated ability. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 43, 675–685.

Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theoryfrom multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24, 672–690.

Linstead, S., Fulop, L., & Lilley, S. (2009). Management and organization:A critical text. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

MacFarlane, B. (2001). Developing reflective students: Evaluating effec-tive performance of business logs within a business ethics programme.Teaching Business Ethics, 5, 375–387.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

Martin, R. (2007). How successful managers think. Harvard Business Re-view, 85(6), 60–67.

Meisel, S. I., & Fearon, D. S. (2006). ‘Choose the future wisely’: Sup-porting business ethics through critical thinking. Journal of ManagementEducation, 30, 149–176.

Mingers, J. (2000). What is it to be critical? Toward teaching a criticalapproach to management undergraduates. Management Learning, 31,219–237.

Mintzberg, H. (2005). How inspiring. How sad. Comment on SumantraGhoshal’s paper. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,108.

Mir, A. (2003). The hegemonic discourse of management texts. Journal ofManagement Education, 27, 734–738

Monaghan, C., & Cervero, R. (2006). Impact of critical management studiescourses on learners’ attitudes and beliefs. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 9, 379–396.

Muller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of suc-cessful project managers. International Journal of Project Management,28, 437–448.

Neville, M. G. (2007). Using appreciative inquiry and dialogical learningto explore dominant paradigms. Journal of Management Education, 32,100–117.

Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by us-ing negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 251–257.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 355

Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing criticalthinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Educationfor Business, 82, 313–320.

Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learning con-tinuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27,250–273.

Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment onGhoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(4), 96–100.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Somelessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41,1501–1520.

Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build man-agement and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14,562–578.

Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2007). The validity of higher-order ques-tions as a process indicator of educational quality. Research in HigherEducation, 48, 319–251.

Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2008). A comparison of a subject-specificand a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity,3, 85–93.

Reynolds, M. (1999a). Grasping the nettle: Possibilities and pitfalls of a crit-ical management pedagogy. British Journal of Management, 9, 171–184.

Reynolds, M. (1999b). Critical reflection in management education: Reha-bilitating less hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Educa-tion, 23, 537–553.

Ruggiero, V. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York,NY: Harper & Row.

Sampson, D. C., Moore, R., & Jackson, M. J. (2007). Critical thinking: Dothey really have “it” if they don’t know what “it” is? Proceedings of theAcademy of Educational Leadership, 12, 47–51.

Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2006). Assessing and improving thequality of group critical thinking exhibited in the final projects of collab-orative learning groups. The Journal of General Education, 55, 103–137.

Schermerhorn, J. R. (2010). Management (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Smith, G. F. (2003). Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching

students how to think. Journal of Management Education, 27, 24–51.Starke, F. A., & Sexty, R. W. (1992). Contemporary management in Canada

(2nd ed.). Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Prentice-Hall Canada.Taylor, E. W. (1998). Transformative learning: A critical review (Infor-

mation Series No. 374). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,Career, & Vocational Education.

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. Jour-nal of Higher Education, 73, 740–763.

Tsui, L. (2006). Cultivating critical thinking: Insights from an elite liberalarts college. The Journal of General Education, 55, 200–227.

Warner, M. (Ed.). (2001). Comparative management critical perspective onbusiness and management. London, England: Routledge.

Willmott, H. (1994). Management education: Provocations to a debate. Man-agement Learning, 25, 105–136.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

APPENDIX A—Student Interviews

Background Information on Critical ThinkingProvided at Start of Interview

Critical thinking involves two important components: a“technical” element and a “philosophical” element.

1. The technical element teaches students to think analyt-ically and systematically about an issue, how to collect

and analyze data, and how to make a rational decision.In this course, the technical part of critical thinkingwould be evident in terms of how well you learnedabout planning, organizing and controlling, and howmanagers can be effective when performing these func-tions.

2. The philosophical element teaches students to thinkabout how values shape peoples’ views, and how aparticular issue will be viewed differently by peoplewho have different values. In this course, the philo-sophical part of critical thinking would be evident inhow well you learned that planning, organizing andcontrolling are seen in different ways by people whohold different values.

Interview Questions

1. To what extent do you think the course helped you im-prove your critical thinking ability? (Can you explainthat a bit more?)

2. Please give examples of how the course helped youimprove your critical thinking ability.a. Can you think of examples demonstrating ei-

ther the technical or philosophical part of criticalthinking?

b. In addition to things that the instructor did dur-ing the course, we are particularly interested inwhat you did that helped to improve your criticalthinking. Can you think of things you did duringthe course that helped you to improve your criticalthinking?

3. Of the examples you have given, can you tell me whichone or two were the most important in developing yourcritical thinking ability?

4. As you participated in the course, did you have any“Aha!” moments or instances where you recognizedthat your critical thinking ability had improved? Pleasetell me about those.

5. Do you feel that the course developed your criticalthinking ability to a greater or to a lesser extent thanother university courses you have taken? Please ex-plain.

6. Do you have any other thoughts that you would like toshare regarding critical thinking?

End-of-Interview Survey Instrument

Students’ were asked to provide a response to the followingquestions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = to agreat extent).

1. To what extent did this course help you improve thetechnical aspect of your critical thinking?

2. To what extent did this course help you improve thephilosophical aspect of your critical thinking?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

356 B. DYCK ET AL.

APPENDIX B—In-Class Case AnalysisCompleted by Students

Please Read the Following Case and ThenAnswer the Questions That Follow

“Organizational Solutions” is a management consulting orga-nization. It was started 25 years ago, and currently has about800 employees. The company has four different divisions:Business Customers Division; Public Sector Customers Di-vision; Human Resources Division; and Administration Di-vision.

About two years ago the company implemented its firstformal planning system, based on a professional develop-ment seminar that had been attended by one of the foundingVice Presidents. At the start of each year the top managementteam formulates the overall company objectives and depart-mental goals, and then communicates them to divisional anddepartmental managers throughout the organization. The fol-lowing describes what happened within the Accounting Ser-vices, one of four departments within the AdministrationDivision.

Christine Ashdon, the manager of the Accounting Ser-vice Department, has four supervisors reporting to her. Thesupervisors are responsible for Accounts Payable, AccountsReceivable, Payroll, and Customer Services. At the beginningof each year, Ashdon explains the company and departmentalobjectives to each of her four supervisors.

The payroll supervisor is Sam Chiu, a CMA who hasbeen with the company for 9 years, and who has 4 years ofrelated experience in a different company before coming toOrganizational Solutions. He is considered to be a compe-tent supervisor, and has eight clerks that report to him. Hisdepartment processes the payroll for all Organizational So-lutions employees. At the beginning of the year Ashdon hadprovided Chiu with the following goals.

1. Establish a consistent account reconciliation programfor the 160 payroll-related accounts in the GeneralLedger, by June 1.

2. Establish a cross-training program for the payrollclerks by June 1.

3. Create written documentation for all payroll depart-ment procedures by September 1 (to be consistent withthe company’s overall goals on policies and proce-dures).

4. Reduce turnover in the department to 15 percent duringthe year.

During the year the company experienced rapid growth,successfully adding about ten employees per month. More-over, turnover began in Payroll in February, and within threemonths Payroll had lost three experienced clerks. Thesechanges in personnel required considerable on-the-job train-ing for the new employees.

At the end of the year Ashdon met with Chiu to do an an-nual review. She found that although some progress had beenmade on each of Chiu’s four goals, none of those objectiveshad been accomplished. Although the overall track record ofthe Payroll Department was fine, she also noted that Chiuseemed to be less organized than her three other supervisors,and wondered why he didn’t come to her for help or to in-form her about his difficulties in meeting the four objectives.Based on these factors, Ashdon expressed great disappoint-ment with the overall performance of the payroll department,and explained that Chiu would not receive any performancebonus this year.

Chiu agreed that none of the four objectives had beenmet, but said that the employee turnover had greatly affectedhis ability to achieve them and he was proud that he was stillable to keep the ship afloat. “Of the people who were hired,only one was as competent as those who left.” Chiu thenasked Ashdon to reconsider giving him a bonus, especiallyin light of the fact that the other three supervisors werereceiving bonuses this year, and because Chiu really neededthe money to help make high monthly payments on a car hehad just purchased.

Case Questions (With “Key” in Italics Used toCode Students’ Responses)

Question #1. Chiu believes that he deserves an end-of-yearbonus. Use the information in the case to identify (a) whatyou think are strong arguments that suggest he does deservea bonus, and (b) what are weak arguments.

Strong arguments that Chiu deserves an end-of-year bonus:

1. In the midst of rapid organizational growth Chiumaintained good departmental performance/kept shipafloat/made some progress on 4 goals.

2. Despite/with less competent staff/required more train-ing, Chiu maintained good departmental perfor-mance/kept ship afloat/made some progress.

3. The 4 objectives were nonessential/bogus/not part ofevaluation (they are part of planning).

4. He was not given resources to complete the goals (e.g.,hiring/salaries for clerks).

5. There were no clear standards about what deserves abonus.

6. Goals were imposed top-down/lacked participa-tion/ownership [can be “strong” or “weak”].

Weak arguments that Chiu deserves an end-of-year bonus

1. Goals were imposed top-down/lacked participa-tion/ownership [can be “strong” or “weak”].

2. Needed money for car payments.3. Other supervisors were getting bonuses.4. Some progress had been made toward the four goals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4

ENHANCING CRITICAL THINKING 357

5. Chiu very experienced/loyal to organization/mightquit.

6. Goals were too demanding/tough/challenging.7. Maintained good performance/kept ship afloat BUT

NO MENTION OF rapid growth OR OF clerkturnover/training.

Question #2. Ashdon believes that Chiu does not deserve ayear-end bonus. Explain (a) what arguments support Ash-don’s decision, and (b) what arguments undermine her de-cision.

Arguments that support Ashdon’s decision:

1. Chiu did not meet four goals/objectives.2. Goals were achievable/even in light of rapid growth/

turnover.3. Chiu did not ask for help/provide updates.4. Chiu is not as organized as other supervisors.

Arguments that undermine Ashdon’s decision:

1. Despite rapid growth, overall the department perfor-med well and/or some progress was made on 4 goals.

2. Despite turnover, some progress was made on progresson 4 goals and/or overall the department performedwell.

3. The 4 objectives were nonessential/bogus/not part ofevaluation (they are part of planning).

4. Chiu was not given resources to complete the goals(e.g., hiring/salaries for clerks).

5. Goals were imposed top-down/lacked participa-tion/ownership.

6. There were no clear standards about what deserves abonus.

7. Ashdon did not offer timely feedback/help/regularmeetings for updates/monitoring.

8. Ashdon was inflexible/failed to account for unplannedevents/goals may have been unreasonable.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:40

09

Oct

ober

201

4