Applying learning organizations to the classroom.

Edwards, Ann-Lorraine

INTRODUCTION

This article is intended to address a common challenge experienced by teachers in higher education how to integrate theory with practice in the classroom. One of the key problems facing recent college graduates (and their employers) is the lack of key management competencies needed for the 21st century workplace (Mill, 2007). The root cause may be traced back to passive learning environments, minimal student engagement, and inconsequential collaborative learning in the classroom environment.

The topic is significant for many reasons. First, according to employment recruiters who were surveyed, "communication and interpersonal skills, leadership skills, the ability to work effectively within teams, analytical and critical thinking skills, adaptability, people and task management skills, and self-management skills" are among the most important competencies for four-year business school graduates entering the workplace (Calloway School of Business, 2004). Second, these competencies are particularly significant given the changing organizational structure and key workplace challenges facing businesses today--challenges that include globalization, technology development, knowledge management, ethics, and workplace diversity (Nelson & Quick, 2006).

Third, according to a report by ASTD, managers are asked to take undertake certain tasks without receiving proper training. Such tasks include project management, leadership, problem-solving, teamwork and managing people, among others (ASTD, 2009). Presumably, employers may have assumed that having these skill sets were necessary requirements in order for a student to graduate from a four-year college with a degree in business management. Not surprisingly then, U. S. employers spend billions of training and development dollars, annually, to help their employees develop and/or improve essential competencies.

Fourth, today's workplace challenges require changing the way in which commerce is conducted. The hierarchical structure of the 19th and 20th centuries, designed to create stability in the workplace, is in direct conflict with the rapid and constant changes evolving in today's business organizations (Lawler and Worley, 2006). Yet, current management and leadership practices influenced in part by complacent attitudes--reflect a focus on maintaining the status quo (Kotter, 1996; Lawler, 2006). The result is that the United States has become a less competitive nation. We in academia must prepare to offer our youth new and better learning constructs. Failure to do so may very well contribute to the continued erosion of the national--indeed the world--economy.

This conceptual paper proposes introducing college students to a learning organization model which, according to Daft, and introduced by Senge is "an attitude or philosophy of what an organization can become" (Daft, 2005). It is premised on the idea of operating with the intent to solve problems as opposed to focusing primarily on organizational efficiency. In recognizing that change is constant, one version of the learning organization invites employees to look for problems and empowers them to find solutions to those problems by working in teams and by sharing information across the board (Daft. 2005). The implications for converting to a model such as this are immense for both business and academia.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Undergraduate students earning degrees in business and other disciplines often are unprepared with the competencies required to make a solid contribution to the organizations that employ them (Mill, 2007). In an attempt to help employees develop or improve in these essential competencies as well as in other areas, each year employers spend billions of dollars on training costs. Depending on the area of training, with the costly post-graduation expenditure, the desired results may not always be productive, in part because some employees may lack training both in the need to learn and the ability to do so methodically. One might therefore make the case that a comprehensive learning process is perhaps the most important competence on which all other management competencies rest.

DEFINING ACTIVE LEARNING

Because of its signal importance, the concept of learning warrants precise description or definition. One such definition is that it is "a change in behavior acquired through experience" (Nelson & Quick, 2006). In this definition, the concept of "experience" implies not inertness but, instead, activity, doing, engaging action; and that, furthermore, it is through such activity that the best learning takes place, for it may involve the application of theory to practice. This is ideally what a student should strive for in his/her education and learning at the university level. During this process, it would be helpful to remember that the term "university" is based on the universe with a focus on higher learning, rather than strictly theoretical or pragmatic learning.

Senge (2006) points out that, to many of us, learning represents the "taking in of information". He himself defines learning as "a shift of mind" (Ibid.,), and is in agreement with Nelson & Quick (2006) that learning results in behavioral transformation, as opposed to maintaining the status quo. However, today's educational system operates using a passive learning format reliant on regurgitation of information rather than fostering original thought. While this approach may have had utility centuries ago, today it is ineffective in preparing our youth for entry into the modern workplace. Further, many of our current learning texts are antiquated, and promote passivity in the learning process. The status quo as it pertains to current points of reference do not, and cannot, accommodate the expanded knowledge base that has been brought about by the advent of the Space Age, scientific knowledge and technological knowledge (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Academia must necessarily further stimulate college students to embrace the college learning experience in a meaningful way. To accomplish this, professors and course directors need to create more courses, projects, and classroom environments conducive to active learning. It appears inadequate for one to argue that all learning is by nature merely active for the literature strongly advocates the need to go "beyond reading, writing and discussions to engaging in higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation" (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Similarly, research on adult learning principles reveals that adults learn better and retain more information when they are actively engaged in the process (Kestner & Ray, 2002; Pfeffer, 2007). In light of points raised above, the initial response to new teaching techniques and new information often meet with adverse reaction, and even with awkwardness; yet, students who practice this technique are able to acquire knowledge along with acquiring specific skill sets (Kestner and Bowman, 2002). Active learning may be promoted through various techniques such as cooperative learning, debates, role playing, simulations, and peer teaching (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Indeed, it may be possible to use different techniques in a given course, or spread over courses or, more especially, in project work. In the past, apprenticeships and other work-based learning activities have provided practical experience for better preparing students to become managers and industry leaders (www.findarticles.com). The demise of the apprenticeship program in the U. S. educational system has contributed to the lack of workforce preparation among our graduates at all levels of learning. It is an approach that may need to be revisited, despite the possible expense associated with these programs.

While it may be difficult for some to embrace the learning organization model, innovative teaching strategies such as the one described in this article will enable our future leaders and managers to alter their mindsets in favor of creating pragmatic business solutions. Under the existing model, students are externally motivated by grades to memorize and regurgitate course content for test-taking purposes. This approach fails to promote long-term retention of information. In essence, graduates may find themselves ill-equipped to make the link between theory and practice when required to do so (Ibid.).

Although the initial response to new teaching techniques and new information may be met with frustration and even awkwardness, with practice students are able to acquire theoretical knowledge while simultaneously learning and applying specific skill sets for future reference in the workplace (Kestner and Bowman, 2002). It should be noted that initial introduction of these new strategies may be labor intensive for the instructor.

EMERGENCE OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

Introduction to the learning organization model posits that individual learning fosters the ability to adapt to rapid changes in the workplace. This newfound ability to adapt as individuals serves to influence team performance which ultimately results in the organization's capacity to adapt to change more readily. Subsequent improvement in organizational performance means that the organization can now become more competitive (Kotter, 1996).

As discussed earlier, a key competence for managers is the ability to learn. It is therefore important to know how to operate within a community that facilitates the learning process. Such a community is known as a learning organization and may rely on a team-based structure, open sharing of information, and empowering employees to make decisions and solve problems (Fig. 1). As Daft points out, this is not the only construct for a learning organization model, but it is the one referenced in this article.

A useful discussion of the learning organization model receives attention and focus from Peter Senge who explains what it is, how it is formed, and its use as necessary and vital in the learning process of students. In The Fifth Discipline, Senge purports that today's managers tend to stymie an organization's accomplishments due to a habitual mindset left over from the days of the Industrial Revolution when work was completely structured. In borrowing a page from J. Edwards Deming's philosophy, Senge reiterated that "We will never transform the prevailing system of management without transforming our prevailing system of education. They are the same system" (Senge, 2006).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Senge (2006) identified the elements comprising this prevailing system of management. They include: 1) Management by measurement that focuses primarily on short-term objectives; 2) Compliance-based cultures, otherwise known as management by fear, that promotes the notion of getting ahead by pleasing the boss; 3) Management outcomes which refers to holding employees accountable for meeting management targets (whether or not doing so is feasible based on existing processes and structures); 4) Seeking right answers vs. wrong answers, a concept premised on technical problem-solving; 5)Uniformity which views diversity as a problem to be solved rather than embraced, and which therefore encourages superficial agreement as a means of overriding conflict; 6)Predictability and controllability which points to management's focus on three primary functions--planning, organizing and controlling at the expense of leading or motivating employees; and 7) Excessive competitiveness and distrust which indicates that desired organizational performance is achieved by promoting competition, rather than collaboration, between people (Senge, 2006,xiv).

Senge (2006) asserts that this old system of management is destroying our business organizations as well as our educational institutions. Both environments discourage independent thought in favor of rewards received from the teacher or boss for reinforcing what they want to hear, as opposed to doing what is best for the organization (Senge, 2006). This rather out-dated system often places greater importance on satisfying individual preferences rather than organizational requirements, and may be grounded in complacency and self-deception (Kotter, 1996; Arbinger Institute, 2002). According to the Arbinger Institute (2002), there is nothing more common in organizations than self-deception, otherwise known as insistent blindness. Indeed, the current global economic crisis may be reflective of this prevailing attitude that has resulted in failed financial institutions, sub-prime mortgages, a major Ponzi scheme, and other financial debacles with catastrophic economic consequences for the individuals and organizations involved. It may be one reason why U. S. President Barack Obama, in an unprecedented move, recently fired General Motors (GM) Chief Executive Rick Wagoner who had been with the company for over three decades. Under Wagoner's leadership, GM "... piled up billions of dollars in losses and sought government loans to stay alive" (www.suntimes.com).

Along similar lines, one may argue that the U. S. educational curriculum has been 'dumbed down' to such an extent that it promotes passivity in all aspects of our lives, including our propensity for learning. The new work environment requires individuals who are willing and able to think critically, creatively, and ethically to solve problems and pursue opportunities from which the masses will benefit. To begin addressing this prevailing system of management that Deming identified, we as a society must begin thinking for ourselves again.

LEARNING CAPABILITIES

As pointed out earlier, creating a mind shift is crucial at a time when 21st century business managers must deal with constant change, driven in part by the rapid pace with which knowledge is being created, technological innovations occur, and global markets expand. To help nullify the prevailing system of management referenced earlier, Senge identifies three core learning capabilities that individuals and organizations must embrace rather than leave learning to chance. These include: 1) fostering aspiration; 2) developing reflective conversation; and 3) understanding complexity (Senge, 2006).

The awareness of these three core learning capabilities will not only assist in acquiring fundamental theory, but it may also present an opportunity for developing requisite competencies by applying theories learned during class lectures. Developing this fundamental ability to learn is key to promoting life-long learning for the nation's citizens, and especially its college graduates. Again, life-long learning should be regarded as an essential competence in light of rapid and ongoing changes in the workplace (Kotter, 1996). A brief explanation of each of these three capabilities follows.

FOSTERING ASPIRATION

Fostering aspiration encompasses two disciplines: personal mastery and shared vision/teamwork. The first discipline, personal mastery, clarifies the things that really matter most to us (Senge, 2006). The second discipline, that of shared vision and teamwork, emphasizes the propensity for learning to occur in teams. As Senge and others point out, "teams are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations ... unless teams can learn, the organization cannot learn" (Ibid.). Teams therefore produce extraordinary results for the organization even as individual members experience more rapid growth than might otherwise occur (Senge, 2006).

The team-based structure recognizes constructive interdependence (Kotter, 1996,169) as the earmark of a successful team enterprise--whether it is formal or informal, self-directed or cross-functional. In the case of self-directed teams, an organization requires that they be prepared to operate with a high level of autonomy and creativity (Dyer, 2007). However, it is the propensity for these self-directed teams to also work across functions that will ultimately drive an organization's success. As part of their class projects, most students are generally assigned to work in self-directed teams, which take into account Tuckman's theory of group development and the accompanying stages of forming, storming, norming and performing (Nelson & Quick, 2006).

But it goes beyond that for organizations must, of necessity, operate using the cross-functional team approach. The cross-functional team structure promotes an awareness of the need for systems thinking, an understanding of how each part, or each department, contributes to the whole (Senge, 2006). Today's business environment requires that different departments work collaboratively to attain the organization's bottom line. Indeed, the business literature is filled with examples of corporate entities whose failure to do so caused employees their jobs, and over time, may have cost the organization its very existence given the sheer waste of an organization's resources.

Foy defines a cross-functional team as "a group of people with a clear purpose representing a variety of functions or disciplines in the organization, whose combined efforts are necessary for achieving the team's purpose" (Foy, 1994). Peele (2006) offers a more comprehensive definition in describing the cross-functional team as

"a core organizing methodology to enhance performance, creativity and innovation. In an effective team, persons drawn from a variety of functional specialties come together for a limited duration to solve a problem or complete a task. Improved problem-solving, business processes redesign, and product and service development result from the synergistic combination of functional specialties in cross-functional teams" (Ibid.,).

There are several advantages of working in cross-functional teams that include:

" i) an accelerated rate of speed for accomplishing tasks; ii) an organization's ability to solve complex problems; iii) an emphasis on customer focus for both the employees and the clients/consumers; iv) creativity which invites people of various backgrounds to contribute to the problem-solving process within the organization; v) organizational learning, given the sharing of information and skills, and cultural backgrounds that allow the organization to grow, and finally, vi) a single point of contact for decision-making pertinent to the customer" (Foy, 1994).

Such advantages take into account the disciplines of personal mastery along with shared vision and team work.

Reflective Conversation

The second of three core learning capabilities referenced by Senge is the Reflective Conversation, which speaks to two additional disciplines--mental models and dialogue. Mental models are defined as deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behaviors (Senge, 2006). The learning organization also depends on dialogue, or the sharing of information at all levels--between and among executives, middle managers and front-line employees. This discipline, along with team-based structures, fosters empowerment which is, itself, rooted in the sharing of information (Dyer, 2007). Dyer defines empowerment as ".simply gaining the power to make your voice heard, to contribute to plans and decisions that affect you, to use your expertise at work to improve your performance--and with it, the performance of your whole organization." Dyer further explains that "empowered people need to give and receive many kinds of information, to know how well they are performing and what is expected of them.... people need to know what is going on in the organization and how their work dovetails with others (Ibid.,). Indeed, we see a clear relationship between team-based structures, open information, and empowered employees.

Understanding Complexity

The third of Senge's three core learning capabilities is Understanding Complexity, which introduces the fifth discipline known as systems thinking, defined earlier as an understanding of how each part, or each department, contributes to the whole (Senge, 2006). An attempt has been made to fold these three learning capabilities into the semester-long team project.

METHODOLOGY

This article offers one illustration of teaching principles of management course by incorporating a class project that depends in large part on aspects of the learning organization model, in combination with several active learning techniques. This project emphasizes active, student-centered learning with a focus on introducing a version of the learning organization with its focus on building collaborative teams, sharing information across teams, and empowering students to actively participate in the learning process. The basis of the activity is a semester-long team assignment that is best accomplished by using the cross-functional team approach. It is intended to mirror the modern workplace where collaboration, within and across teams, must occur to ensure the organization's success.

The learning organization of the 21st century requires that management educators coach skills--especially the ability of learning how to learn--and apply that knowledge constructively. Classrooms using active learning techniques are best equipped to coach these skills. Instructors may find this strategy helpful in constructing other courses by creating a challenging and engaging classroom environment intended to promote active learning. Naturally, instructors can replicate the exercise allowing for adjustments they deem appropriate to their circumstances (Nikolai, 2006).

An overview of the team assignment

The School of Business at this state-operated university offers a course designed to introduce students to fundamental management principles and concepts. Students in this course section were informed that the class would be taught using a student-centered framework rather than a teacher-centered framework. As well, students were advised that they were considered to be members of an active learning classroom environment which meant that not only would they be introduced to theoretical management concepts but they would have the opportunity for pragmatic application of those concepts. They also learned that for the entire semester, the class would simulate a corporate environment, and that their behaviors needed to reflect such an environment, as a means of being held both responsible and accountable for their personal success and that of the project. As with the business environment, class attendance was not optional and neither was class participation, since both were essential to running an active learning classroom. Students were informed, also, that there would be a team-based, semester-long project where the class itself operated as one large hypothetical business organization divided into four distinct teams or "departments", each representing one of the four functions of management: planning, organizing, leading and controlling.

To ensure the project's success, teams were to operate cross-functionally. While team projects are the norm in most business schools, working in cross-functional teams is less common, presumably because of the sometimes chaotic process that may accompany this type of learning. Typically, there is no interaction with other teams, an approach that the author contends is unrealistic in today's business organizations where different departments, as part of a larger system, must share information across functions. Development of this new skill necessitates a level of constructive interdependence with which students are unfamiliar, but one that is realistic (Kotter, 1996).

The overall objective of the assignment was to formulate a business case. The intent was to find an initiative that would act as a catalyst to spur the revitalization of New Orleans, post-Katrina. Specifically, the assignment required creating a (hypothetical) first-class hotel and convention center that catered to the needs of business and leisure travelers. The project was motivated by the general manager of a major hotel chain who had successfully helped to revitalize an urban area by creating a first-class hotel and conference center in that area's historic downtown district. During the time the assignment was being developed, Hurricane Katrina had just impacted New Orleans, so the timing was purely serendipitous.

As a class, students worked together to create this hypothetical hotel and convention center with a reputation for offering the highest levels of customer service. Ultimately they would "pitch" their creation to actual corporate executives who would role play the collective decision of whether to hold a conference or trade show or other business venue there (See Appendix A). Through networking efforts, it was possible to identify corporate leaders in the surrounding community who would support this learning endeavor by taking time out of their work day to participate in the grading of the project.

In order to carry the project through to completion, students worked under the assumption that they had adequate funding to "create" this facility. Second, to help keep the project manageable, the class was asked to focus on creating only two departments within the hotel (i.e. Front Desk Operations, Food & Beverage, Housekeeping, Security, Convention Center, etc.,). Each of the four functional teams was required to become conversant with the specific concerns of these two departments from that team's own functional perspective. Third, students (and corporate guests) were asked to remember that, while the hotel's other departments were no less important than the two that had been selected for study this was not to be viewed as a course in hospitality management.

Establishing Trust in the Classroom

Since this is an unconventional way of both teaching and learning, it was necessary to minimize any feelings of intimidation students may have experienced. Hence, as an ice-breaker, and a way of establishing a level of trust, on the first day of class, individual students were required to go to the front of the classroom, briefly introduce themselves to the class, then return to their seats. It was one approach to removing them from their comfort zone in a non-threatening way while being introduced to this new learning paradigm. It was also a way for the class and the professor to become familiar with names and faces.

To further promote buy-in to the active learning process, students were introduced to the concept of team teaching on the first day of class, which entailed asking a few of them to explain and demonstrate their favorite hobbies to the class in three to five minutes. They were then asked to teach the instructor and other students these techniques which ranged from weight lifting, to fishing and hunting to martial arts, to German and Spanish phrases. This exercise accomplished several objectives which included a willingness to: 1) demonstrate personal mastery of a particular subject; 2) change their mental image of the learning process by recognizing that it is possible to learn from, and teach each other; 3) create dialogue rather than discussion; and 4) operate within a student-centered (i.e. involvement) classroom culture rather than the typical teacher-centered (i.e. consistency) culture familiar to most bureaucracies (Senge, 2006; Daft, 2005).

Team Selection for the Semester-long Assignment

In an effort to maintain some objectivity in the team selection process, the Reflected Best-Self (RBS) exercise model was used in an effort to help students create an awareness of their individual and collective strengths, with an eye toward learning how to manage to those strengths for the organization's benefit. Liesveld defines strength as "a combination of natural ability, education, and training that produces consistent, near perfect performance in a specific task" (Liesveld, 2005). Moreover, the RBS exercise, which relates to Senge's element of personal mastery, suggests that individuals manage tasks best when using their strengths rather than expending an inordinate amount of time and effort to improve their weaknesses (Roberts et al, 2005). Paradoxically, in our society, people tend to focus more on improving weaknesses although this may lead to inadequate results in both individual and organizational performance (Liesveld, 2005; Roberts et al, 2005). By trying to improve a lesser talent, individuals may be ignoring more productive talents and some fully developed strengths. The result is that their work efforts may become counterproductive, thereby compromising management operations (Liesveld, 2005). In a turbulent workplace, this results in a waste of resources that could deprive an organization of its competitive advantage (Kotter, 1996).

The RBS exercise requires that students identify and e-mail six to ten individuals (i.e. parents, siblings, best friends, significant others, etc.) who know them best. These individuals are asked to select one "best" quality of that student, and provide an account of how this student demonstrated that particular quality. Students have one week to collect these responses and to bring them to class where they have a full class period to review their own emails for the purpose of developing a profile of themselves based on their presumed strengths. At the end of the exercise, many of the students discover that they are unaware of their own individual strengths as revealed in the opinions and perceptions of those who know them best. From this exercise, the student may develop a new level of self-appreciation and self-awareness as a positive force. In essence, their own mental model of themselves undergoes a transformation.

At the end of the class period, these profiles were collected by the instructor for the purpose of objectively assigning them to one of four teams reflecting a particular function of management. It should be noted that no efforts were made to place students according to any other variables such as personality, academic achievement, grade point average, or registration as a business major. This practice was reflected in recent research literature as exemplified in the work of Nikolai (2006).

Team contract assignment

Each of the four teams completed a team contract for the purpose of determining team roles and goals, communication processes, and strategies for managing conflict. The team contract represents operational plans by which a department or organization would operate regardless of the specific project being addressed (Daft, 2005).

Establishing peer teaching teams

As mentioned earlier, students are encouraged to assume responsibility for their learning. Unlike the more passive learning environment that depends on lectures, detailed assignments, and regurgitation of material for testing purposes, active participation is encouraged by having students learn and impart key management concepts to their classmates. This approach assumes additional responsibility for learning. For instance, it requires that students read the textbook--at least the chapter for which they are responsible. This was critical since workplace literacy is a serious concern that can cost U.S. companies $60B annually in lost productivity (Baynton, 2001). Secondly, because they must deliver the lecture in (self-selected) teams of two or three, they have to focus on comprehending and delivering the material from which the class would benefit. Additionally, given the importance of effective communication in the workplace, they would have an opportunity to begin honing their public speaking skills. Not only were they able to use this experience to gauge their effectiveness in public speaking but it also became clear that they must be absolutely comfortable with the material before they could proceed with the project and ultimately, the executive presentation later in the semester.

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS

Students' grades were incumbent on meeting the criteria that was introduced in the syllabus on the first day of class. The grading rubric identified each criteria and its value in determining the final course grade, as follows: attendance (10%); class participation (10%); team contract (10%); semester-long team project (40%); peer teaching (10%); peer evaluation (10%); quizzes (10%).

Evaluation by executives

Class periods generally ran for either 55 minutes three times per week throughout the semester, or for 80 minutes two times per week. Earlier in the semester, 15-20 minutes of class time was allocated to discussing the project. Two-thirds of the way through the semester, half the class period was lecture-based (including peer-teaching) and the other half was devoted almost exclusively to developing the project. Two to three speakers per team were chosen to participate in the executive presentation, for a total of eight to twelve speakers. In the two or three classes directly preceding the final presentation, students were required to conduct a 'dry run' rehearsal with all teams present. The larger class provided critical feedback to the presenters. This was crucial since the executive evaluation constituted 40% of each student's course grade.

On the day of the presentation, invited executives provided feedback on the project based on their ability to assess and qualify the presentation. The panel of executives has included the President & CEO of an area bank, the General Manager of a major hotel chain, the Vice-President/COO of a major multinational corporation, and an entrepreneur. Most recently, former students familiar with this learning technique have also served as panelists and so offered a unique perspective to grading the presentation. In short, the executive panel determined the effectiveness of students learning outcomes. It was a totally objective approach and somewhat realistic in scope as their feedback reinforced the need for building skills in order to improve an organization's performance.

In the final class period the presenting teams of students--and two moderators -performed their respective roles (i.e. covered the salient points of the project from their team's perspective, observed time limitations, and were cognizant of any technology challenges associated with their presentation). A presentation protocol (see Appendix B) was provided as a guide. Presenters were required to dress in formal business attire while the rest of the class dressed in business casual attire.

Once all four teams had delivered their respective presentations, all presenters appeared together in front of the panelists for a 15 minute Q & A session. This required that they think on their feet. At no point did they have any idea as to the types of questions that would be posed, but given the extent to which active learning had occurred, they felt adequately prepared to offer an appropriate response. Through this event, an observer perceives students' willingness to operate with synergy, composure, and poise. The presentation to executives was chosen, in large part, to help in retaining a level of objectivity in the grading process, particularly since the instructor had provided extensive coaching to the students. Additionally, students felt that they had more to lose with respect to receiving feedback from business professionals and prospective employers who understood the importance--and benefits of--this new learning technique (and the associated competencies) that they reportedly sought from their own employees.

Peer Evaluations

Peer evaluations were essential for determining the participation levels of individual team members, and their contribution to the learning process. Peer evaluations were also a critical factor in determining each student's final grade. Each student was asked to evaluate his/her teammates and him/herself, with respect to: attendance, dependability, quantity and quality of work, contribution to decision-making and problem-solving, and of course, teamwork. At the end of the evaluation form, each student allocated to each of his teammates the percentage points they felt were representative of the effort put forth toward the project. They also need provided a narrative in support of the team 'grade' they awarded to their respective teammates. These forms were submitted to the instructor via email and held in strictest confidence. Thus, as the research seems to indicate, this approach increased the likelihood of students providing the appropriate feedback without fear of retribution from their teammates (Dommeyer, 2006). The peer evaluation constituted 10% of each students final grade, again serving as motivation that each team member would carry his/her weight in an effort to contribute to the team's overall success.

ANALYSIS

Team Building

In short, there were no less than nine teams that contributed to the project's overall success. Further, none of these sub-teams operated in isolation. This is key, given that in the general workplace environment, "managers state that it is not uncommon to be on three or more teams at a given time. Students develop better understanding of the complexities, challenges and advantages of working effectively in a group" (Chapman & VanAuken, 2001).

By the end of the semester, nine sub-teams had emerged including the four teams representing the four management functions: Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling. The presence of several sub-teams contributed to the project's overall success. These sub-teams included the liaison team, the peer teaching teams, the team of presenters representing each of the four management functions. There was the team of individuals who coordinated and developed uniform PowerPoint slides for the final class presentation. And there was the team of executives who served as panelists. This point was almost lost by the class, but was addressed following the presentations when the class discussed learning outcomes and the emergence of an organic structure that could adapt to the needs of its participants.

Challenges of working within and across teams

One of the many challenges of the project was getting students accustomed to working across teams, via a liaison member. As the semester progressed, the liaison team (or a member of the class) felt comfortable requesting of the instructor, class time to update the class or seek their input in making key decisions. This was comparable to having a staff meeting. And as the four core teams began to recognize the significance of the liaison members, they developed more effective communication strategies. It was interesting to watch dynamics go from reluctance and even resistance among and between team members, to cooperation, and even collaboration.

Another challenge of the project was team size. There were, on average, between 36 to 40 students per class each semester, so nine or ten students comprised each team. This made meeting times outside of class difficult for some, given their other scholastic and personal commitments and responsibilities. It was also difficult in that students were accustomed to working in teams of three to four students, so this was, at best, somewhat overwhelming initially. In the future, it may be helpful to use meeting management technology such as Wiggio or Blackboard.

As well, teams took the initiative to meet with the instructor for help in clarifying expectations of their teams operations. Sometimes, this required that the instructor meet with them for half an hour before a class began, or later in the day, or well into the evening hours when their schedules permitted. All in all, their willingness to seek assistance demonstrated their burgeoning commitment not only to learning, but to achieving excellence in the learning process. During these meetings, it was possible for the instructor to observe team dynamics as well as answer questions or provide added direction.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

That active learning has taken place is apparent as revealed by the facility with which the students made their presentations. In "pitching" their hotel to the executive panel, presenters were able to explain, concisely, their understanding of various management concepts as applied to this project. The evidence is indisputable that many of them developed strong presentation skills along with a commitment to working in both self-directed and cross-functional teams. Indeed, through coaching and active learning practices, they themselves witnessed the importance of integrating theory and practice and more importantly, the significance of the learning organization. Past learning experiences focus on the hierarchical construct--tell me what to do and give me a grade.

This exercise has taught them the value of analysis and critical thinking, and the importance of learning how to learn together (Senge, 2006). In a rather simple way they were able to demonstrate the disciplines of personal mastery, shared vision and team-building, changing mental images, and systemic thinking. They have, individually and collectively, demonstrated the development of key competencies such as learning, teamwork, leadership, effective communication, and critical thinking skills. And they have also developed an understanding of the learning organization model and its utility in today's business environment. In their feedback, the panelists expressed their appreciation for the caliber of students and their obvious commitment to the learning process.

When asked what they were able to take away from this unique learning approach, several students reported that they have learned much more about themselves and their strengths, and that this awareness would be applied to the rest of their academic careers as well as to their future management positions. Many of the students were able to 'find their voices' and 'trust themselves' to make decisions on behalf of the team--the learning community.

Several students initially resisted, or were intimidated by, the student-centered classroom approach. In fact, some students initially thought that they were being punished for being asked to actively participate in the classroom environment, and were somewhat hesitant to trust the process. However, when given the option of abandoning the project virtually every student voted to continue with it. When infighting occurred among teams, students were asked to consider the following the scenario. "If this was your $100,000/year salary, and you had disruptive department members, what would "you" do?" With that in mind, they experienced a level of empowerment that did not necessarily call for their first option--firing the individual from the team, or for the instructor to take corrective action. Rather, they realized that, despite the frustrations, each individual was both responsible and accountable for the outcome of the project. Penalties were registered when it came time to conduct peer evaluations and since these were completed and submitted to the instructor in confidence, students felt empowered to truthfully evaluate their peers without fear of reprisals.

Finally, the instructor who is committed to creating this student-centered classroom experience may find it difficult to resist providing students with what might be considered obvious direction. To do so would be to defeat the purpose of empowering them to develop and trust their own decision-making and problem-solving abilities and to have those decisions validated by an objective party. Despite the stresses and frustrations, by semester's end, the majority of students commented that they enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to learn the principles of management using this method. Further, they learned more about working effectively in teams.

This particular class activity has been offered for five consecutive semesters, and involved seven sections of this course. Over time, adeptness in using this approach has resulted in overall improvement of the executives' score for the project--from an initial score of 8 out of 10 to the most recent score of a resounding 9.5 out of 10 points. The experience has, in fact, empowered the students to take on actual fund-raising projects as a direct result of this effort. One group of students, at the end of the semester, actually sought to do fund-raising for Hurricane Katrina victims. Because of the policies and legalities involved in fund-raising for out of state organizations, they focused instead on local fund-raising efforts. Indeed, as Senge expressed it, a "shift of mind" has occurred by virtue of this type of learning experience. In time, the prevailing system of management may be altered by transforming the prevailing system of education.

In conclusion, the human constructs in the workplace, such as teamwork, is a very fluid aspect to business, both on the personal and organizational levels. It must be established that the idea of teamwork is actually the sharing of strengths. In order to establish this level of co-operation, one must examine one's own situation and make an honest determination as to whether they are fully equipped to function efficiently as an independent unit. This means that aspects of health, desires, and resources are all functioning efficiently and effectively. Once this has been determined, then individuals of like mind can agree to a project with a level of commitment that may be determined by an equitable percentage of effort from each individual. The structure is then established with the correct procedures in place to make the enterprise a success. This means that each individual remains secure in their unit and therefore has no fear of loss because of the structure agreed to. This is a concept of UNITY that can be demonstrated in different facets of business or life. In other words, Empowerment + Empowerment = UNITY.

Given President Barack Obama's recent call for educational reform, academicians have an obligation to develop the human capital that will once again help to create a competitive America. We must commit to transforming our educational institutions by introducing a more active learning process en masse. This is critical to preparing future managers and leaders to work in a constantly changing environment. It is our responsibility to lead change by promoting the discipline of lifelong learning (Kotter, 1996; Senge, 2006; Lawler & Worley, 2006). The urgency to develop relevant workplace competencies is immediate.

APPENDIX A: TEAM PROJECT ASSIGNMENT, MGT 2XX--BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

To assist in the revitalization efforts of New Orleans by creating a first-class hotel and conference center catering to both business and leisure travelers.

Methodology

1. Students are learning about the four functions of management: Planning, Organizing, Leading and Controlling.

2. As a class, students will be creating a privately-owned, full-service, first-class hotel and convention center located in New Orleans, LA. The "departments are comprised of the four management functions, listed above. Each "department" or team has between 6- 9 team members.

3. For the purposes of this assignment, the class will focus on one aspect of hotel management, Food & Beverage Services. Students will also need to work as cross-functional teams.

a. Planning Team: i) provide an over view of the need for this type of hotel and convention center; ii) discuss the opportunities it will present to the stakeholders; iii) establish the overall image of the hotel; iv) discuss revenue generation; and iv) consider issues of social responsibility.

b. Organizing Team: will examine the staffing and resources necessary for your operation to be effective.

c. Leading Team: will establish the culture and image of the hotel from an employee and client perspective.

d. Controlling Team: will establish standards of performance and monitor accordingly.

Final Project

As their final project, students will need to do an Executive Presentation on what makes for a first-class hotel, and why potential clients should choose to do business with them. The panelists will be executives from various organizations and will determine the final grade for the project based on the presentation and a Question and Answer session.

APPENDIX B: PRESENTATION PROTOCOL

1. Moderator introduces each of the panelists: 1 minute

2. Moderator introduces/explains the project and the presentation protocol: 1 minute

3. Presentations by each of four (4) teams: Planning, Organizing, Leading, Controlling--10 minutes for each presentation + 2 minutes for each panelist to deliberate and complete grading rubric following each presentation: 48 minutes

4. Questions from panelists to all presenters: 15 minutes

5. Panelists leave the room to deliberate privately to determine a project grade: 8 minutes

6. Panelists announce overall grade with accompanying comments: 6 minutes

7. Moderators make closing remarks and thank panelists for their participation and distribute token gifts of appreciation: 1 minute

8. Total: 80 minutes

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to thank Dr. John Huonker of SUNY Oswego, and retired educator, Dr. Alexander Edwards, for their contributions to this article.

REFERENCES

A report to stakeholders: on the condition and effectiveness of postsecondary education. Part three: employers. Change. 34 (1) 23-38. Jan-Feb. 2002. ED639448. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington DC: George Washington University.

Arbinger Institute (2002). Leadership and self-deception: getting out of the box. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

ASTD, "Asked to perform, but not trained." (n.d.) Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/75E995AD-0736-4970-935D605F06841270/ 20164/LXBNewsletter_Jan09.pdf

Baynton, D. (2001, May). America's $60 billion problem. Training.

Bonwell, C. C; Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ED340272. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington DC: George Washington University.

Chapman, K. J.; VanAuken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: an examination of the role of the instructor on students' perceptions of group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 117.

Daft, R. L. (2005). Management. (Seventh Edition). Mason, Ohio: Thomson-Southwestern.

Dommeyer, C. J. (2006). The effect of evaluation location on peer evaluations. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 21-26.

Dyer, W. G. (2007). Team-building: proven strategies for improving team performance (Fourth Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

Foy, N. (1994). Empowering people at work. England: Gomer Publishing

Kestner, P.; Bowman, R. L. (2002). The conflict resolution training program: participant's workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Lawler, E.; Worley, C. (2006). Built to change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

Liesveld, R. (2005). Teach with your strengths: how great teachers inspire their students. New York: Gallup Press.

Mill, R. C. (2007). Meeting the needs of business: are we teaching the right things? Journal of College Teaching & Learning. 4(8), 7-12.

Nelson, D.; Quick, J. C. (2006). Organizational behavior: foundations, realities and challenges (Fifth Edition). Ohio: Thomson South-Western.

Nikolai, Loren A. (2006). How to integrate a business plan into your introductory accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education. 24(2/3) 72-84.

Peele III, Henry E. (2006). Appreciative inquiry and creative problem solving in cross-functional teams. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 447-467.

Pfeffer, J. (2007, Jan/Feb). What's right and still wrong with business schools. BizEd. 42-48.

Roberts, L. M.; Spreitzer, G.; Dulton, J; Quinn, R.; Heaphy, E.; Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 74-80.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Wayne Calloway School of Business and Accountancy. (2004). A Report on Recruiters' Perceptions of Undergraduate Business Schools and Students.

Ann-Lorraine Edwards, State University of New York at Oswego