Are We Teaching Strategic Management Right?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida] On: 21 August 2011, At: 11:08 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

Are We Teaching Strategic Management Right? a

b

Fevzi Okumus , Kevin K. F. Wong & Levent Altinay c a

Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA b

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China c

Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom Available online: 21 Aug 2009

To cite this article: Fevzi Okumus, Kevin K. F. Wong & Levent Altinay (2009): Are We Teaching Strategic Management Right?, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 8:4, 329-350 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220903047938

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:08 21 August 2011

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

1531-3239 1531-3220 WTTT Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism Tourism, Vol. 8, No. 4, June 2009: pp. 1–35


Okumus,ofWong, Journal Teaching andinAltinay Travel & Tourism

Are We Teaching Strategic Management Right? Fevzi Okumus Kevin K. F. Wong Levent Altinay

ABSTRACT. This article reports the key findings from a research project that investigated how strategic management (SM) courses are taught in tourism and hospitality (T&H) schools. Further to conducting an extensive literature review, a survey was designed and data were collected from faculty members who were teaching SM in T&H schools. The research results did not reveal any significant differences between the undergraduate and graduate level SM courses in terms of course objectives, content, and teaching methods. Overall, they highlight the fact that, the traditional top-down planning school of thought is still very dominant in teaching SM in T&H schools. In-class lectures and case study analysis were found to be main teaching methods used when delivering SM at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Given the changing trends and new developments in the business environment as well as in SM approaches, the findings raise important questions about the appropriateness of objectives, content, and teaching methods of SM courses in T&H schools. The article provides a number of Fevzi Okumus, PhD, is Associate Professor at Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA (E-mail: fokumus@ mail.ucf.edu). Kevin K. F. Wong, PhD, is Associate Professor at School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China (E-mail: [email protected]). Levent Altinay, PhD, is a Reader at Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom (E-mail: [email protected]). This article is part of a research project which was funded by the School of Hotel and Tourism Management, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, SAR China. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 8(4) 2008 © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved. doi:10.1080/15313220903047938

329

330

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM

conclusions and recommendations for future research and teaching this course in T&H schools.


KEYWORDS. Education, hospitality, management, strategic management, strategy, teaching, tourism

INTRODUCTION Many undergraduate and graduate tourism and hospitality (T&H) programs include a capstone course, which is often called business policy, strategy analysis, strategic management (SM), or corporate strategy. Strategic management will be used in this article for all these terms. Typically, this course aims to integrate knowledge gained in previous courses into a managerial perspective; prepare students to analyze complex business situations from a holistic view; evaluate an organization’s competitive position; develop decision-making and problem-solving skills; propose organizational changes; and provide a set of managerial attitudes, skills, and knowledge (Macfarlane & Perkins, 1999; Thomas, 1998). In today’s dynamic business environment, not only do senior managers need such type of knowledge and skills, but middle managers and frontline employees as well are expected to hone such skills and knowledge so they can contribute to their organization’s continuing survival and success. Therefore, this capstone course is essential in developing highly competent and competitive future managers and leaders in our field (Okumus & Wong, 2005, 2007). From the mid-1970s onward, numerous studies have looked at content and teaching methods of SM courses in business colleges/schools. These studies mostly discussed and paid attention to closely interrelated areas such as course objectives, prerequisites, course contents, focused firms, and teaching methods (Alexander, O’Neil, Snyder, & Townsend, 1986; Boyd & Summers, 1983; Eldredge & Galloway, 1983; Guth, 1982; Hegarty, 1976; Payne, Whitfield, & Flynn, 2002; Thomas, 1998; Wolfe & Roge, 1997). In terms of teaching SM in T&H programs/schools, several studies do exist but they either are conceptual (Okumus & Wong, 2004, 2005) or focus on using business simulation games when teaching the subject (Kendall & Harrington, 2003; Martin & McEvoy, 2003; Russell & Russell, 1996). In other words, there is a dearth of research about the real life complexities of teaching SM in the T&H. In particular, it is not yet known how SM is taught at undergraduate


Okumus, Wong, and Altinay

331

and graduate levels, and more importantly the current literature lacks a thorough analysis of the deficiencies of current SM teaching. Having identified this gap in the field, an empirical research project was undertaken to investigate how SM courses are taught in T&H programs. This article aims to report on the findings of an empirical study on how SM is taught at T&H schools in Europe, North America, and Asia. First, a critical review of the relevant literature is provided. Second, the research methodology used in this study is explained. Then, the empirical findings are subsequently presented and discussed. Finally, a number of emerging conclusions from this study are stated, and recommendations for practice and future research are proposed. It is believed that the research findings of this article have implications for teaching and learning SM practices and thus offer value in terms of preparing and developing future leaders in the T&H field. This is particularly important because T&H education has come a long way from an on-the-job training orientation to a more broad-based liberal curriculum for study and reflection (Airey & Tribe, 2000). Such a pragmatic shift challenges the inherited skills and practices and also raises questions about how the curriculum should be taught. Educators in our field are now being encouraged to use reflective learning approaches that stimulate the development of intellectual and critical thinking skills (Airey & Tribe, 2000). This is one of the first empirical articles advocating for reflective learning in the area of SM and it is, therefore, hoped that the research findings contribute to the body of knowledge in teaching and learning in general and SM in T&H in particular.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS Differences may exist between academic institutions in offering SM courses. As stated by Bongiorno (1993), SM can be offered as a singular and compulsory course, whereas some institutions may offer multiple SM courses. As to when such subjects are introduced, Eldredge and Galloway (1983) found in their survey of 198 deans of business schools in the United States that 96.5% of undergraduate SM courses were taught at the senior level. Similar suggestions have been made in previous studies that SM should be taught toward the end of a degree program (Guth, 1982; Thomas, 1998). This is because students are often expected to study a number of prerequisites such as economics, statistics, operations management, marketing, human resources, accounting, and finance to acquire the necessary foundation knowledge for integrative analysis and synthesis at a higher cognitive level.


332


Several course objectives are identified in previous studies (Alexander et al., 1986; Betts, 1978; Boyd & Summers, 1983; Guth, 1982; Hegarty, 1976; Macfarlane & Perkins, 1999; Okumus & Wong, 2005, 2007; Payne et al., 2002; Thomas, 1998; Wolfe, 1997) included helping students integrate previously learned concepts on functional disciplines, understand the big picture of managing organizations, provide students with a working knowledge of SM concepts, develop and apply decision-making skills, and gain teamwork and communication skills. Previous studies provided findings and discussions about which topics should be covered in SM courses. For example, Hegarty (1976) collected data via a survey from 130 professors in U.S. business schools and found that differences existed in the objectives and content of this course. College professors were inclined toward giving more focus on formulating strategy than on its implementation. Boyd and Summers (1982) collected empirical data on this area from 75 firms in the United States via a survey. Their research findings revealed different content areas for SM courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. For example, for the undergraduate level SM courses, the three most important areas included setting objectives, integrating functional activities, and evaluating results. For the graduate level SM courses, the three most important concepts were integrating functional activities, guiding toward goals, and examining the role of top management’s value system in decision making. Boyd and Summers (1983) later extended their study by collecting data from 57 professors from U.S.-based business schools. The findings of this second study were similar to their earlier study and also to the findings of Hegarty (1976). In another study, Alexander et al. (1986) found that concepts mostly covered in SM courses in U.S.-based business schools were internal analysis; external analysis; strategic alternatives, goals, and objectives of the firm; and determining a firm’s business. In their studies, Guth (1982), Keys (1997), Knotts and Keys (1997), and Summer et al. (1990) identified several teaching areas, which include defining strategy, mission, and objectives; carrying out external analysis, internal analysis, and selection of strategies; and finally, strategy implementation and evaluation. Many SM textbooks are structured around the above key areas (David, 2000; Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2004; Lynch, 2000; Thompson & Strickland, 2003; Wheelen & Hunger, 2003). For example, Wolfe and Roge (1997) carried out a content analysis of seven strategy textbooks of U.S. origin. Their analysis revealed 15 major areas. Hence, they found that strategic analysis and strategic choices received more attention in these texts than strategy implementation and evaluation.



333

Traditional management education often focuses on rational and linear models, which have limited use in daily complex business environments (Mintzberg, 2004). In response to these criticisms, the focus in the SM field has now shifted from linear and rational views toward behavioral and nonlinear areas such as the resource-based view (RBV), knowledge management, the formation of new ventures, cross-cultural issues, strategy implementation, learning organizations, globalization, conflict management, and the complexity view (Drew, 1999; Greiner, Bhambri, & Cummings, 2003; Hitt, Gimeno, & Hoskisson, 1998; Kesner, 2001; Pettigrew, Thomas, & Whittington, 2002; Whitehill, 1996; Wilson, 1998). Reflecting this trend, it is recommended that the above areas should be included when teaching SM courses. For example, in relation to inclusion of the RBV, Schneider and Lieb (2004) state that “as the RBV has had a large impact on the practice of strategy, its relative omission from—or poorly executed inclusion in— the strategic management course damages the course’s relevance to the current generation of students” (p. 171). There are a number of teaching and learning methods available, which include lecturing, the use of case studies, simulation games, company projects, problem-based learning, role-playing exercises, guest speakers, videos, article-critiquing assignments, and Web-based education (for in-depth discussions, see Alexander et al., 1986; Eldredge & Galloway, 1983; Jennings, 1996, 2002; Kesner, 2001; Thomas, 1998; Okumus & Wong, 2004, 2007; Wolfe, 1997). The case method has received more attention and support than other teaching methods (Jennings, 1996, 2002; Kesner, 2001; Summer et al., 1990). This method meets the main objectives of teaching SM including providing the big picture to students, integrating functional areas, putting theory into practice, and developing interpersonal and teamwork skills. However, each method has its advantages and limitations; therefore a combination of different teaching methods should be employed to maintain the effectiveness of SM courses (Greiner et al., 2003; Kesner, 2001; Okumus & Wong, 2004; Thomas, 1998). Despite these convergences and developments in teaching methods, there have been ongoing criticisms about the heavy use of lectures, cases, and simulation games in teaching SM. For example, Mockler (1994) claims that SM is often taught as theoretical concepts to be understood rather than performed. According to Betts (1978), contrary to the business cases given to students, in real business life, managers are not always presented with a readily defined problem. In line with the above criticisms, Mintzberg and his colleagues have been critical of traditional management education (see Mintzberg, 1994; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998; Mintzberg &

334


Gosling, 2002). They claim that management education relies on theoretical discussions, written case studies, or simulation games, which may fail to reflect real business life.


METHODOLOGY A survey approach was employed in this exploratory research study, as this technique made it possible to collect the relevant data from a sizable population in a highly economical way, and the subsequent findings can be expressed in numerical terms (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003; Schutt, 2003). The questionnaire consisted of five main sections. The first section included questions relevant to titles of strategy courses and the required prerequisites. The next section included Likert scale questions on course objectives, course contents; and on which T&H firms SM courses mainly focus. The fourth section had questions on teaching methods. The final section had background questions about the instructors. The questionnaire was designed based on a critical review of the relevant literature on teaching this course (Alexander et al., 1986; Betts, 1978; Boyd & Summers, 1982, 1983; Eldredge & Galloway, 1983; Hegarty, 1976; Guth, 1982; Knotts & Keys, 1997; Okumus & Wang, 2005; Thomas, 1998; Wolfe & Roge, 1997). Several faculty members and research students were invited to provide feedback about the initial survey. Based on their critical and constructive feedback, the questionnaire was revised and finalized. Given the objective to obtain global representation with the data, it was decided to administer this survey via the online system with the belief that it would save time and resources for both the researchers and participants. No definitive list of T&H schools/programs worldwide could be found. Therefore, several strategies were followed in order to reach those faculty members teaching and researching SM in the T&H field. First, the strategy literature in the T&H was reviewed (Olsen, 2004; Olsen & Roper, 1998; Tse & Olsen, 1999; Okumus, 2004) and scholars who published papers related to SM were identified and contacted via e-mail asking for their participation in the survey. Second, Web pages of T&H schools/programs were searched worldwide, and faculty members who taught SM courses were identified and contacted. Third, with the permission of the conference organizers, an e-mail was sent to participants of 2nd Annual Asia Pacific Hospitality and Tourism Educators (APacCHRIE) Conference, 2004 Annual Asia Pacific Tourism Association Conference and 2004 International Society of Travel and Tourism Educators (ISTTE) Conference.



335

In such e-mail communications, it was requested the receiver of the e-mail to forward the message to appropriate faculty in her/his institutions if she/he was not teaching the course. In addition, e-mails were also sent to tourism e-mail groups such as SM in Tourism e-mail Forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SM-tourism), Trinet-L ([email protected]), and ATLAS ([email protected]) informing its members of the research project and asking for participation of appropriate teaching faculty in the project. In these e-mails, the receiver of the e-mail was asked to forward the message to appropriate faculty members in his/her institutions if s/he was not teaching the course. In all these communications, it was promised that when disseminating the research findings, the names of institutions and the academic staff would be kept anonymous. The intention was to reach as many faculty members as possible worldwide teaching SM courses. The data collection process took place from January 2004 to the end of December 2004. Overall, the online survey received around 450 hits, but notably only 114 respondents participated in the survey. However, 28 of the completed questionnaires were omitted from the analysis, as they were incomplete. Of the 86 questionnaires included in the analysis, 39 (45%) of them were filled in by faculty members who were teaching SM only at the undergraduate level and 16 of them (19%) were completed by respondents who were teaching SM only at the graduate level. The remaining 31 questionnaires (36%) were filled in by academics who were teaching SM both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In total, there were 70 completed questionnaires for the undergraduate level and 47 completed questionnaires for the graduate level. The research results are presented below.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 presents the research findings about the background of academics who participated in the study. In terms of country of origin, 86 academics from 24 countries participated in the survey. These respondents were grouped in five geographical areas. Notably, the highest participation in the online survey was from Europe (39.5%) and North America (23.2%), with relatively less responses from the Far East (17.4%). Surprisingly, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test results did not reveal any significant differences among geographical areas in terms of course objectives, content, and teaching methods. This may be explained by the fact that

336



TABLE 1. Demographic Information About the Respondents

Region Europe North America Far East Australia & New Zealand Middle East & Africa Total Gender Female Male Total Age Between 20 and 29 Between 30 and 39 Between 40 and 49 Between 50 and 59 60 or above Total Position Professor Associate Professor/senior lecturer Assistant Professor/lecturer Other Total Highest education level attained Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctoral degree Total Teaching experience 1 to 3 years 4 to 9 years 10 years or above Total Work experience

No experience 1 to 3 years 4 to 9 years 10 years or above Total

n.

%

34 20 15 11 6 86

39.5 23.2 17.4 12.8 6.9 100

24 62 86

27.9 72.1 100

4 39 21 20 2 86

4.7 45.3 24.4 23.3 2.3 100

14 24 42 5 86

16.3 27.9 48.8 7.0 100

2 18 66 86

2.3 20.9 76.8 100

8 34 44 86

9.3 39.5 51.1 100 Managerial experience

n.

%

n.

%

10 36 22 18 86

11.6 41.9 25.6 20.9 100

33 27 18 6 86

38.3 31.4 20.9 7.0 100



337

faculty members who teach SM probably followed SM texts in the hospitality field published in the United States and the UK. Strategic management is taught by a majority of male (72.1%) faculty members. In terms of age, faculty in the age group of 30–39 years (45.3%) and 40–49 years (24.4%) had the highest percentages. Concerning academic positions, mostly assistant professors (48.8%) and associate professors (27.9%) were found to teach SM courses. Most of the participating academics in the study (76.8%) completed their final degrees. A high majority of the participants (90.6%) had over 4 years of university level teaching experience. However, in terms of industry experience, 53.5% of the respondents had less then 4 years of work experience and 38% of them had no managerial experience in the T&H industry. Similarly, about 27% of the participants had no consultancy experience whereas about 46% of them had limited (1–2 projects) consultancy experiences. Relative to publications, almost 30% of the participants did not have any publications related to SM and of those who did publish in this area; their publications were usually related to strategic planning and environmental scanning. This finding confirms several previous studies on SM literature in the hospitality management field (Okumus, 2004; Olsen & Roper, 1999). Based on these findings, one can claim that SM is taught by those individuals who are not active researchers and/or by those whose research area is not primarily in the strategy field. Again, faculty members teaching SM do not seem to have extensive managerial experience. According to the research findings, SM is taught at the undergraduate level mainly in the final year of degree programs. This is consistent with the findings of several previous studies (Eldredge & Galloway, 1983; Guth, 1982; Macfarlane & Perkins, 1999; Thomas, 1998). In line with Bongiorno (1993), SM is offered either as a compulsory or an elective course, and again, some institutions offer more than one SM course. For example, at the undergraduate level, 66% of the respondents stated that their institutions offer only one compulsory SM course, whereas 16% of the respondents reported that SM is offered as an elective course. Another 10% of the respondents stated that their schools offer two compulsory SM courses and the remaining 4% noted that they offer two SM courses, but one is compulsory and the other one is elective. At the graduate level, 50% the respondents stated they offer only one compulsory SM course, 10% of the respondents stated that they offer only one SM course, which is elective. Another 12% of the respondents stated they offer two compulsory SM courses, and the remaining respondents (8%) noted that they offer two SM courses, but one is compulsory and the other one is elective.


338


The research results suggest that SM is the typical and most popularly adopted title both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This finding is in line with SM education in the generic management field (Thomas, 1998). At the undergraduate level, more than half of the strategy courses (53%) were called SM. Strategic Planning (14%), Advance Hotel Management (12%), Tourism Policy (11%), Business Strategy (8%), and Leadership (5%) were found to be the other titles used. At the graduate level, 59% of courses were called SM. Tourism Policy (19%), Strategic Planning (12%), Services Management (6%), Business Policy (5%), and numerous others (9%) were the remaining given titles. At the graduate level, more than half of the programs did not require any prerequisites prior to studying SM, whereas this ratio is 27% at the undergraduate level. Marketing, accounting and finance, operation management, economics, and human resource management were the main prerequisites in undergraduate and graduate programs that required them. This is consistent with previous studies such as Guth (1982), Okumus and Wong (2005, 2007), and Thomas (1998). In terms of class sizes, at the undergraduate level, 44% of the respondents reported that their class size ranges from 26 to 50 students and 19% stated that their class size is less than 25 students. At the graduate level, two-thirds of the respondents reported that their class size is less than 25 students and 15% stated that their class size is between 26–50 students. Table 2 presents the research findings concerning course objectives. The mean scores for objectives for the graduate level SM courses were found to be higher than the undergraduate level SM courses in most items. However, except for one item providing up-to-date knowledge in the SM field, the results do not reveal significant differences among the importance of objectives between the undergraduate- and graduate-level SM courses. Table 3 presents the research findings reflecting which concepts and models are mainly covered in SM courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Similar to the above findings, the mean scores of most SM concepts in the graduate level courses were found to be higher than the undergraduate level SM courses. However, between the undergraduate and graduate SM courses, the t test results indicated significant differences only in 5 out of 26 areas, and there were no significant differences in the remaining areas between the undergraduate and graduate level SM courses in terms of concepts and models covered. Overall, internal analysis, competitive advantage, corporate strategy, defining SM, and strategy and internationalization/globalization were found to


339

TABLE 2. Objectives of SM Courses at the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels


Mean score

Apply SM into practice Understand the big picture of managing T&H firms Better analyze the external and internal environments Integrate previously learned concepts into a single perspective Provide up-to-date knowledge in the strategic management field Recommend methods for strategy implementation and evaluation Identify and plan for the required strategic changes Learn and have experience with working in groups Improve communication skills

Mean diff.

T test (sig.)

Undergrad

Graduate

4.21 4.19

4.43 4.40

0.22 0.21

0.14 0.23

4.11

4.40

0.29

0.11

4.31

4.29

0.02

0.88

3.60

4.13

0.53

0.00*

3.71

3.98

0.27

0.16

3.66

3.93

0.27

0.15

3.66

3.73

0.07

0.72

3.60

3.70

0.10

0.58

Scale: 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “a very great extent”. *Significant difference at p = .05.

receive more attention in the graduate level SM courses. At the undergraduate level, vision, mission and objectives, Political, Economic, Socio-Cultural and Technological (PEST) analysis, internal analysis, defining SM, and strategy and competitive advantage were found to receive greater attention than other areas. These research findings clearly indicated that academics in T&H schools focused particularly on strategic analysis and formulation compared to strategy implementation and evaluation. In other words, the research findings suggest that the planning school dominates the content of SM courses. This finding is indeed very similar to the findings of several previous studies undertaken in business schools in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Alexander et al., 1986; Boyd & Summers, 1982, 1983; Guth, 1982; Hegarty, 1976; Keys, 1997; Wolfe & Roge, 1997). However, this is also disappointing, since there have been ongoing criticisms about the fact that the tools and techniques proposed by this traditional planning school have shortcomings and limited use in complex and dynamic business

340


TABLE 3. Contents of SM Courses at the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels


Mean score

Internal analysis Competitive advantage Defining SM and strategy Vision, mission and objectives PEST analysis Internationalization/globalization Corporate strategy/options Industry structure analysis Porter’s generic business strategies Resource allocation Entrepreneurship Leadership Strategy evaluation and feedback Measuring performance Organizational culture Organizational structure Human resource issues Value chain analysis Formal long-range planning Managing change Corporate social responsibility Scenario planning Different schools of thought Resource-based view Knowledge-based view BCG’s growth share matrix

Undergrad

Graduate

4.04 3.84 4.03 4.07 4.07 3.41 3.43 3.77 3.43 3.42 3.21 3.47 3.29 3.28 3.36 3.41 3.30 3.14 3.09 2.96 3.04 2.91 2.62 2.74 2.64 2.78

4.41 4.30 4.11 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.04 3.93 3.75 3.65 3.61 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.58 3.57 3.57 3.51 3.37 3.36 3.30 3.29 3.21 3.20 3.07 3.00

Mean diff.

T test (sig.)

0.38 0.46 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.61 0.16 0.32 0.23 0.40 0.12 0.30 0.31 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.37 0.28 0.40 0.26 0.38 0.59 0.46 0.43 0.22

0.03* 0.01* 0.65 0.97 0.98 0.00* 0.00* 0.42 0.12 0.24 0.07 0.55 0.11 0.10 0.28 0.44 0.23 0.10 0.15 0.07 0.24 0.07 0.02* 0.08 0.07 0.27

Scale: 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “to a very great extent”. *Significant difference at p = .05.

environments (Choo, 2005; Mockler, 1994; Mintzberg, 2004; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998; Schneider & Lieb, 2004). The research results further indicate that faculty members teaching SM seemed to focus more on large and international companies (see Table 4). The mean scores for the T&H firms were higher in the graduate level SM courses. However, the t test results revealed significant differences only in one item, hotels. Faculty members who participated in this study seemed to focus on hotel firms more in undergraduate SM courses than


341

TABLE 4. Types of Tourism and Hospitality Firms Focused in SM Courses


Mean score

International/global Large companies Hotels Food & beverage companies Small & medium-sized Travel companies Nonprofit organizations Cruise lines & entertainment

Undergrad

Graduate

3.67 3.77 4.13 3.32 3.12 2.88 2.43 2.48

3.89 3.86 3.57 3.09 3.09 2.93 2.64 2.58

Mean diff.

T test (sig.)

0.22 0.09 0.54 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.10

0.31 0.70 0.03* 0.34 0.91 0.84 0.36 0.59

Scale: 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “to a very great extent”. *Significant difference at p = .05.

graduate level instructors. This is perhaps related to the fact that the hotel industry is the largest sector in the T&H field, and it would be easy for instructors and students to relate to and apply SM concepts to hotels. The respondents were asked about the percentage of time they devote to certain teaching and learning methods when they deliver SM courses. At the undergraduate level, the top three teaching methods were lecturing (37%), case study analysis (20%), and seminars and tutorials (18%). At the graduate level, the top three teaching methods were again the same: lectures (29%), case analysis (24%), and seminars and tutorials (16%). These findings, particularly on lecture and case studies, are very similar to the previous research studies (Jennings, 1996, 2002; Kesner, 2001; Summer et al., 1990). The heavy reliance on lectures and case studies is not usually recommended (Mockler, 1994; Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002) since they fail to reflect real business issues and challenges and do not often help students to develop problem-solving and people skills. For example, Schneider and Lieb (2004) claim that “the portrayal of strategy as simplistic and prescriptive is a grave disservice to students’ intellectual and professional development. The inclusion of a diverse array of perspectives, if presented well, should serve to encourage students to think about the perspectives, how they fit together, and their respective areas of applicability and limitations” (p. 184). Respondents were further asked about the perceived effectiveness of certain teaching methods when teaching SM. As presented in Table 5, a

342


TABLE 5. Effectiveness of Teaching Methods When Teaching Strategic Management


Mean score

Case study discussions Company projects Consultancy projects by students Seminars Reading assignments Guest speakers Lecturing Business simulation games Video Online education

Undergrad

Graduate

4.03 3.61 3.04 3.76 3.43 3.55 3.74 3.02 2.98 2.85

4.36 4.00 3.86 3.78 3.74 3.69 3.68 3.23 3.00 2.89

Mean diff.

T test (sig.)

0.33 0.39 0.82 0.02 0.31 0.14 0.06 0.21 0.02 0.04

0.71 0.07 0.00* 0.90 0.07 0.48 0.74 0.39 0.93 0.86

Scale: 1 = “Very ineffective” to 5 = “Very effective”. *Significant difference at p = .05.

different picture emerged from the research findings. The case study method was still perceived as the most effective method in delivering SM courses. However, the respondents also perceived company projects, seminars, consultancy projects prepared by students, and reading assignments as very effective teaching methods. Similar to the above findings, the mean scores were higher at the graduate level in all items except for lecturing. However, the t test results did not indicate significant differences between the undergraduate and graduate levels in teaching methods except for consultancy work. This is perhaps based on the perception of the respondents that undergraduate students might have less knowledge and skills in preparing consultancy projects compared to graduate students.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study aimed to investigate how SM courses are taught in T&H programs/schools. Based on the study results and their discussions above, a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, SM is found to be the most preferred title for strategy subjects at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This is in line with trends in the generic field. Second, the findings indicate that the contents of SM courses in T&H schools do not really



343

reflect recent and advanced developments in the generic SM field. In view of the new developments in both the generic strategy field and the business environment, objectives and contents of SM courses may need to seriously consider shifting their focus toward the areas of RBV, strategy implementation, knowledge management, conflict management, team work, communication, management of international hospitality organizations, and corporate social responsibility. Third, faculty members seem to heavily rely on lecture and case study teaching methods. While these methods have certain advantages, other teaching and learning methods need to be incorporated in teaching SM courses to add new dimensions to strategy planning, execution, and control. Fourth, in terms of course objectives, course contents, and teaching methods, there are important similarities between the undergraduate and graduate level SM courses. Certainly, the graduate level SM courses should be differentiated more from undergraduate ones in terms of aiming toward higher learning levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), advance and current SM topics, and flexible teaching methods. Given the recent developments in the generic SM field and considering the expectations of the T&H industry from degree and graduate programs in T&H schools, the research findings suggest that administrators and faculty members should question the appropriateness of the objectives, course content, and teaching methods of SM courses. Strategic management is generally taught as a capstone course, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, which aims to develop decisionmaking and problem-solving skills and provide a set of integrated concepts so that future managers can analyze issues from a holistic perspective. In addition, it also aims to develop a set of managerial attitudes, skills, and knowledge so that future managers can communicate well, work in teams, and take the leadership roles when there are opportunities. Given the importance of these aims in developing future leaders, SM courses play a key role in management education in T&H programs and schools. However, the research findings from this study imply that deans, chairs, and faculty members in T&H schools need to revisit issues on how SM courses are taught in their programs and question how these courses can be refreshed for better assimilation of knowledge and application of this knowledge in the industry. The study findings and above discussions have both theoretical and practical implications for teaching SM in T&H schools. We know that SM is a relatively new subject in the curriculum not only in T&H schools but also in business schools. As noted by leading strategy scholars (Hafsi & Thomas, 2005; Mintzberg et al., 1998; Pettigrew et al., 2002; Stacey,


344


2003; Whittington, 2001), the SM field is still evolving and there are opposite views about how to define “strategy,” how this field should be named, what the key issues are, and what topics should be included when teaching SM courses. The research findings from this study did not reveal important differences between the objectives of the undergraduate and graduate SM courses. One would accept that the graduate level SM courses should focus more on application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of business issues than understanding, explaining and defining SM theories. As SM is a capstone course, it requires a higher level of learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003; Bloom, 1956), such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which should be achieved not only at the graduate level but also at the undergraduate level. Thus, graduates of T&H programs should be able to analyze and evaluate strategic issues from a broader and a more holistic view, select and recommend appropriate strategic options, and manage the strategic change process. In terms of course content, the research findings reveal that at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, SM courses focus on the first two elements of SM, namely, strategy analysis and strategy formulation, whereas limited attention is given to strategy implementation and evaluation. As noted above, this finding implies that SM is usually taught from the dominant (prevailing) traditional strategic planning view. Unfortunately, this school of thought offers basically linear and standard solutions to complex business problems and fails to consider the importance of soft skills and people issues in organizations (Mintzberg, 2004; Pettigrew et al., 2002; Whittington, 2001). Moreover, it is noteworthy that many organizations face more difficulties in implementing strategy, managing knowledge, facilitating communication, developing distinctive competencies, and changing organizational structure and culture (Mintzberg, 2004; Mockler, 1994; Okumus, 2001; Pettigrew et al., 2002; Schnedier & Lieb, 2004; Stacey, 2003). It is, therefore, suggested that SM courses should include the above topics so that in addition to developing analytical skills and knowledge, students can develop knowledge and skills in the areas of communication, teamwork, negotiation, conflict management, development of distinctive competencies, knowledge management, strategy implementation, and corporate responsibility. In addition, students need to understand that strategy development and implementation is a dynamic and complex process, and it is not always good or possible to separate formulation from implementation. Therefore, a holistic view should be presented to students so that they can better understand the complexities and dynamics in this process.



345

According to the research findings, lecture and case study analysis are the common teaching methods in delivering SM courses. This finding raises a pertinent question: What should be the appropriate teaching and assessment methods to deliver SM courses? This is because choosing certain type of teaching and assessment methods will have implications for delivering SM courses, achieving the intended learning outcomes, and developing desired skills. For example, according to Mockler (1994), SM is often taught as an amalgamation of models and concepts to be understood rather than to be performed. This criticism is certainly aimed more at courses relying heavily on lectures and written examinations. Mintzberg (2004) suggests that in real business life, managers are not always presented with clearly defined problems. In addition, practicing managers can neither find clear answers to their problems in the suggested textbooks nor solve their problems by memorizing key concepts or models. Strategic management certainly embraces very complex and iterative managerial processes that cannot be understood and explained from the traditional planning or positivist perspective (Choo, 2005). It is not just about setting long term goals, mission, and vision, but it is about risk taking, informal learning, handling emotions, dealing with politics, and reflection. Traditional lectures and case study methods may not be sufficient alone to illustrate these dimensions. Therefore, more innovative and hands-on teaching and learning methods should be used when teaching SM in T&H schools so that students not only learn SM theories and concepts but also apply them in practice, recognize potential challenges in this process, and see the limitations of SM theories and concepts. Some of these teaching methods may include using a combination of lectures, case studies, living company projects, consultancy projects, problem-based learning, role-playing, Web-based learning, discussion of current industry issues, and guest lectures. Through employing these methods, students can analyze real business issues and problems; decide which SM models, theories, and frameworks to employ; and learn their limitations. This can further facilitate a deeper and functional knowledge rather than superficial and declarative knowledge. Liberal education calls for a paradigm shift in the academic role played by faculty members in the T&H field from that of an “experience sharer” to a learning catalyst. In terms of teaching and studying SM, it is particularly important that there is more effective and meaningful knowledge transfer between students, academics, and managers in the industry. This will only happen with academia-industry collaboration: academics engaging in SM research and acting as coproducers of knowledge with the


346


industry and feeding this back to the classroom. Such an approach can demonstrate the real life complexities of SM and help develop T&H students’ engagement with strategic issues rather than mere operational practices as well as build higher-order thinking involving knowledge construction and development. This new role as a learning catalyst requires that faculty members continually upgrade their research skills in order to keep in touch with current industry developments as they related to SM. It also involves questioning students about their learning needs and integrating the study of SM into other aspects of T&H courses. Based on the research findings and the above discussions, one may question how an idealized SM course should be taught in T&H schools. Certainly, considering the contextual factors that each institution and the faculty member may face (Okumus & Wong, 2005, 2007; Schneider & Lieb, 2004) giving a definite answer for this question may not be feasible. Comments made by Lampel (2005) illustrate the challenging nature of teaching SM: “If economics is the dismal science, strategy must surely qualify as the frustrating science. It is not only frustratingly difficult to practice; it is even more frustratingly difficult to teach” (p. 20). However, to provide some guidance to teaching faculty certain recommendations can still be made based on the research findings. First, strategy courses should be called SM, as it is the most commonly accepted title both in the generic SM field and also in T&H schools. Second, in terms of course objectives, capstone SM courses should target higher levels of learning (Biggs, 2003) such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of SM issues. Fourth, concerning, course content, SM courses should not mainly focus on strategic analysis and formulation. They should specifically focus on more recent and advanced strategy topics, including RBV; managing change; complexity theory; conflict, risk, and crisis management; social responsibility; business ethics; and knowledge management. Fifth, in relation to teaching methods, it can be suggested that rather than relying on traditional lecture and case study analysis, more innovative and flexible methods including problem-based learning, company projects, and role plays should be utilized so that students can develop and improve their skills in decision making, problem solving, and handling uncertainty. Sixth, faculty teaching SM courses should try to achieve an alignment among the learning outcomes, course contents, teaching pedagogy, and assessment methods. Finally, the graduate level SM courses should be differentiated from the undergraduate level SM courses. Given the overall aim of graduate programs, SM courses at the graduate level should be able to achieve more than just providing knowledge, comprehension, and



347

application. The research findings did not reveal important differences among geographical locations in terms of titles, course objectives, content, and teaching methods. One may question that depending on the location and characteristics of the general environment, perhaps faculty members may need to differentiate course objectives, content, and teaching methods. The final recommendation is that doctoral students and faculty members need to be prepared about what should be included in SM courses in terms of course objectives and content, and how to deliver such courses. It is apparent from the research findings that not all faculty members who teach SM courses in T&H programs have extensive knowledge, experience, and publications in this area. Therefore, they need to be prepared and supported to teach this important capstone course. In addressing some of the key challenges and problematic areas in teaching and delivering SM courses in T&H schools, this article presents fresh and new insights to deal with obsolete and traditional approaches. It is hoped that this study stimulates further research studies not only on teaching SM but also on other areas such as marketing, finance, human resources, and information technology. Future studies on these areas can certainly help T&H schools to improve teaching and learning practices so that future managers and leaders in this industry are better prepared. This study collected data from 86 faculty members who taught SM. Given the number of T&H schools and departments worldwide, the study findings should not be generalized based on the research findings from only 86 respondents. Future studies should collect data from more faculty members as well as from students studying SM. It would also be interesting to collect data from alumni to investigate their views on delivering SM courses in T&H schools.

REFERENCES Airey, D., & Tribe, J. (2000). Education for hospitality. In C. Lashley and A. Morrison (Eds.), In search of hospitality: Theoretical perspectives and debates (pp. 276–291). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Alexander, L., O’Neill, H., Snyder, N., & Townsend, J. (1986). How academy members teach the business policy/strategic management case course. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2(3), 334–344. Betts, R. (1978). The teaching of business policy. Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, 6(6), 515–522. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University: What the student does (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: The Open University.


348


Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. Longman, NY: David McKay. Bongiorno, L. (1993). Raise your hand if you are sure strategy is being taught in American business schools. Journal of Business Strategy, 14(5), 36–41. Boyd, C., & Summers, I. (1982). Executives’ views of strategic management concepts and models. Academy of Management Proceedings, 26–30. Boyd, C., & Summers, I. (1983, November 16–19). Business policy course content and the distinct discipline issue: A survey of professors. In D. F. Ray (Ed.), Applying systematic knowledge to problems of organization and management. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association Meeting, Southern Management Association, Atlanta, pp. 1–3. Choo, K. L. (2005). The praxis of strategic management in contemporary organisations: What are the implications for research and teaching? Problems & Perspectives in Management, 3(4), 104–115. David, F. (2000). Strategic management: Concepts (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Drew, S. (1999). Building knowledge management into strategy: Making sense of a new perspective. Long Range Planning, 32(1), 130–136. Eldredge, D., & Galloway, R. (1983). Study of the undergraduate business policy course at AACSB-accredited universities. Strategic Management Journal, 4(1), 85–90. Greiner, L., Bhambri, A., & Cummings, T. (2003). Searching for a strategy to teach strategy. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(4), 402–420. Guth, W. (1982). Teaching corporate strategy. In R. D. Freedman, C. I. Cooper and S. A. Stumpf (Eds.), Management Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hafsi, T., & Thomas, H. (2005). The field of strategy: In search of a walking stick. European Management Journal, 23(5), 507–519. Hegarty, W. H. (1976). Contextual and pedagogical differences in teaching business policy among academics. In P. J. LaPlaca (Ed.), The New Role of the marketing professional (pp. 125–129). Chicago, IL: AMA. Hitt, M., Gimeno, J., & Hoskisson, R. (1998). Current and future research methods in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 6–44. Jennings, D. (1996). Strategic management and the case method. Journal of Management Development, 15(9), 4–12. Jennings, D. (2002). Strategic management: An evaluation of the use of three learning methods. Journal of Management Development, 21(9), 655–665. Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2002). Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow, England: Financial Times. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2004). Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow, England: Financial Times. Kendall, K., & Harrington, R. (2003). Strategic management education incorporating written or simulation cases: An empirical test. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 27(2), 143–165. Kesner, I. (2001). The strategic management course: Tools and techniques for successful teaching. In M. Hitt, R. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (pp. 671–696). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.



349

Keys, B. (1997). Strategic management games: A review. Simulation and Gaming, 28(4), 395–422. Knotts, U., & Keys, J. (1997). Teaching strategic management with a business game. Simulation and Gaming, 28(4), 377–394. Lampel, J. (2005). New perspectives on teaching strategy. European Business Forum, 21, 20–21. Lynch, R. (2000). Corporate strategy. Essex, UK: Pitman Publishing. Macfarlane, B., & Perkins, A. (1999). Reconceptualizing corporate strategy in business and management education. Education + Training, 41(1), 20–26. Martin, D., & McEvoy, B. (2003). Business simulations: A balanced approach to tourism education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(6), 336–339. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 64–76. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari. London: Prentice Hall. Mockler, R. (1994). Strategic management research and teaching—critical problems and possible solutions. Management Learning, 25(3), 371–385. Okumus, F. (2001). Can hospitality researchers contribute to the strategic management literature? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2), 105–110. Okumus, F. (2003), A framework to implement strategies in organizations. Management Decision, 41(9), 871–883. (Thomson ISI index). Okumus, F. (2004). Potential challenges of employing a formal environmental scanning approach in hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(2), 123–143. Okumus, F., & Roper, A. (1999). A review of disparate approaches to strategy implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(1), 20–38. Okumus, F., & Wong, K. (2004). A critical review and evaluation of teaching methods of strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16(2), 22–33. Okumus, F., & Wong, K. (2005). In pursuit of contemporary content for courses on strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(2), 259–279. Okumus, F., & Wong, K. (2007). A content analysis of strategic management syllabi in tourism and hospitality schools/departments. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 7(1), 77–96. Olsen, M. (2004). Literature in strategic management in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(5), 411–424. Olsen, M. D., & Roper, A. (1998). Research in strategic management in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17 (Special Issue), 111–124. Payne, S., Whitfield, J., & Flynn, J. (2002). Assessing the business capstone course through a method based on the SOTL and the stakeholder process. Journal of Education for Business, 78(2), 69–74. Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (2002). Strategic management: The strengths and limitations of a field. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, and R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 3–30). London: Sage.


350


Russell, K., & Russell, D. (1996). Computer simulations and strategic hospitality management: A teaching strategy for future. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(2), 33–36. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods. New York: Prentice Hall. Schneider, M., & Lieb, P. (2004). The challenges of teaching strategic management: Working towards successful inclusion of the research based view. Journal of Management Education, 28(2), 170–187. Schutt, R. (2003). Investigating the social world. London: Sage. Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Summer, C., Bettis, R., Duhaime, H., Grant, J., Hambrick, D., Snow, C., et al. (1990). Doctoral education in the field of business policy and strategy. Journal of Management, 16(2), 361–398. Thomas, A. (1998). The business policy course: Multiple methods for multiple goals. Journal of Management Education, 22(4), 484–497. Thompson, A., & Strickland, A. (2003). Strategic management concepts and cases (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Tse, E. C., & Olsen, M. (1999). Strategic management. In B. Brotherton (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary hospitality management research (pp. 351–374). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wheelen, T., & Hunger, J. (2003). Strategic management and business policy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Whitehill, M. (1996), Strategy foresight: The future of strategy research. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 249–254. Whittington, R. (2001). What is strategy, and does it matter? (2nd ed.). London: Thomson Learning. Wilson, I. (1998). Strategic planning for the millennium: Resolving the dilemma. Long Range Planning, 31(4), 507–513. Wolfe, J. (1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation and Gaming, 28(4), 360–376. Wolfe, J., & Roge, J. (1997). Computerized general games as strategic management learning environments. Simulation and Gaming, 28(4), 423–441.

SUBMITTED: June 23, 2008 FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED: November 26, 2008 FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED: December 1, 2008 ACCEPTED: December 2, 2008