It focuses on positive examples of times when folks have found ways to voice, and thereby implement, their values (or worldview) in the workplace.THUS FAR WE HAVE PRESENTED THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF ENTRE-preneurial leadership—cognitive ambidexterity, SEERS, and self- and social awareness—and have provided examples of how these principles can be taught through various exercises, cases, and courses. For most readers, however, one nagging question remains: How can I get started?
Can it be done only through a radical change to management education that is driven from academic leadership, or can it begin with individual faculty members who act as entrepreneurial leaders? We believe that faculty must walk the talk. If we believe that our students need to learn entrepreneurial leadership, we should model that behavior as we develop our courses and engage students outside of the classroom. We can take action and modify individual class sessions or develop our own courses, as we have illustrated throughout this book.
We would like to thank Mary C. Gentile for her assistance in developing this chapter. Mary is the creator and director of Giving Voice to Values (http://www3.babson.edu/babson2ndgen/GVV/default.cfm) and a senior research scholar at Babson College. She has authored many books, including Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010).
In this chapter we present another pedagogical approach—a new case method—for teaching management students the principles that underlie entrepreneurial leadership. This pedagogical approach is an alternate case method that we believe is particularly valuable for teaching students the principles that are outlined in this book. What is unique about this approach is its flexibility and adaptability—an educator can adopt it as an alternative way to teach existing cases or topics. By modifying a case discussion using this approach, an educator is able to reorient students’ thinking toward engaging action and analysis; toward engaging values that consider social, environmental, and economic impact; and toward aligning who they are with what they say and do.
For years management educators have relied on the case-based method of teaching. The case method was designed to simulate action in the classroom so that business students would learn to apply theory and analytics rather than simply read and talk about them. A favorite metaphor, attributed to Benson Shapiro, is that case-based learning is akin to jumping—or being thrown—into the pool rather than standing poolside, talking about the breaststroke. This all made sense, and many management educators committed to this approach.
Today new cases are being developed that include a wide variety of organizations (nonprofits, for-profits, and government and non-government organizations); discuss scenarios with various social, environmental, and economic implications; and examine global issues. These cases develop an awareness of the challenges faced by all organizations, the rights and interests of a variety of stakeholders, and the possibilities of simultaneously creating social and economic value. Many of these cases present students with a decision that needs to be made and require detailed analysis of the situation to arrive at the decision. By introducing these cases, we expose students to new business models, new corporate responsibilities, and examples of various leadership approaches. This pedagogical approach can be used to expose students to some of the principles of entrepreneurial leadership and is an easy first step for educators.
When trying to teach a creation logic that should be embedded in an action-based pedagogy, however, the traditional case method can be limiting. Rather than true action learning, the focus of the case methodology is on awareness and analysis; that is, it familiarizes students with the types of challenges they are likely to encounter and it provides opportunities for them to analyze—applying quantitative methods or frameworks in a prediction approach—and discuss different arguments for and against various choices.
In some instances—particularly for the cases that pose ethical decisions or discuss the tradeoffs among social, environmental, and economic value creation—this traditional case method approach feels as if it were focused on teaching students the “professional rationalizations” (as one professor named them) that would enable them to defend their focus on short-term shareholder wealth creation in spite of negative social and environmental effects or their decision to take questionable actions.
The question then becomes: How can we build on the traditional case methodology that focuses on awareness and analysis to focus on action and implementation? The solution to this teaching dilemma seems quite clear: instead of focus on the decision-making, we need to focus on post-decision-making. Rather than decide the right thing to do, we need to develop cases in which the protagonist has already decided what to do and needs to follow through on the decision. In the place of cases that help students arrive at decisions that maximize only economic value, we need to offer cases that consider social and environmental value as well. Finally, instead of considering one way to implement a decision, we need students to develop implementation-scripts based on their own skills, relationships, and style as well as on the situation or context of the protagonist.
Implementation-scripting cases, a new case pedagogy developed by Mary Gentile, can be used to teach these missing elements. This curriculum is called Giving Voice to Values (GVV, GivingVoice ToValues.org). The GVV approach was initially developed to teach business ethics and value-based leadership. Rather than ask students whether to do what they think is right, GVV cases ask them how to do it. Employing a creation approach, students act themselves into new ways of thinking by actually saying and doing what we want them to learn to do—rather than talk about it or, worse, talk themselves out of it. Instead of using the language and the tools of philosophy and ethics to address business issues, they develop scripts that use the language and the tools of the discipline wherein the problem lies. For example, if they are being pressured to “cook the books,” arguments that use the language of the Financial Accounting Standards Board—or even more persuasively, ROI—will be more effective than allusions to philosophers Singer or Aristotle.
As we prepare leaders to make decisions based on a fundamentally different worldview, we need to enable them to practice and develop their skills for acting on and implementing their decisions. We believe that the GVV implementation-scripting case approach can be an effective tool for engaging students in action-based learning across disciplines and programs.
Like traditional decision-making cases, an implementation-scripting case focuses on a particular business challenge, set within an entrepreneurial venture or existing organization, and presents the situation from the perspective of an individual case protagonist or actor. Unlike traditional cases, where a decision is required and a thorough analysis would lead to a solution, the implementation-scripting case study ends at the point where the protagonist has already decided what to do and needs to build an action plan and a script to get it done. The implementation-scripting cases present students with a series of scenarios in which the protagonist already knows what he or she believes is the ethical or right decision, but it is unclear how this decision will be accepted by the various stakeholders and what the first steps should be. The GVV cases are about how a manager raises these issues effectively; what he or she needs to do and say to be heard; and how to correct an existing course of action when necessary.
A GVV Case Example
“This Whole System Seems Wrong”: Felipe Montez and Concerns about the Global Supply Chain is a wonderful GVV case for a core operations management or supply-chain management class. It helps students consider issues of social responsibility and supplier management as well as the challenges of managing a global supply chain. Most importantly, it asks students to develop a script and experiment with taking action.
The case presents a situation in which Felipe Montez was hired to be a purchasing director and product designer for a Spanish electronics company. The company has a 27-year history of working with a Hong Kong distributor. On Felipe’s first trip to China, he visited several factories and found a wide range of conditions. He was most concerned about the conditions (which included child workers and unsafe working conditions) in the factory that produced the majority of his company’s goods. When he returns from China, he speaks with his manager, who largely dismisses his concerns. After reviewing other industry practices, Felipe decides that he would like the company to develop more-stringent requirements for its factories.
The focal questions for this GVV class discussion become: How can Felipe get this done? What information will be needed? What arguments will be effective? What allies are needed? What steps should be taken—and in what sequence?
Source: Gentile and Klepper 2010.
The implementation-scripting case study is typically much shorter than traditional decision-making cases. It may be as brief as a paragraph or as long as three or four pages. Because the cases are shorter, they are more suggestive, relying on students’ own experience and knowledge as well as outside research (such as reading and practitioner interviews). For this reason students often benefit from team preparation of their action plans so that they can share data-gathering and interviewing tasks. They can also use peer coaching and brainstorming to generate effective and persuasive scripts for building support for the protagonist’s decision.
With this team-based approach, the class discussion begins with structured questioning wherein students anticipate the arguments they are likely to face when they propose their values-based positions. Here students can apply their prediction logic, assess the social contexts, and consider arguments from many perspectives. They then work together to craft the most effective scripts for how to respond to those arguments, and they practice voicing the scripts out loud in front of their peers, who stand in for the audiences they will need to persuade in the workplace. Finally, rather than critique classmates’ scripts, as would be the process in traditional adversarial role-playing, students use peer coaching to refine and enhance each other’s arguments. By the end of the class, all students have created a credible and workable set of arguments and implementation plans for values-based action.
Here are just some of the benefits of the GVV case approach:
It focuses on positive examples of times when folks have found ways to voice, and thereby implement, their values (or worldview) in the workplace.
It emphases the importance of finding an alignment between one’s individual sense of purpose and that of the organization (an alignment that involves self-assessment and a focus on one’s individual strengths).
It provides the opportunity to construct and practice responses to the most frequently heard reasons and rationalizations for not acting on one’s values.
It challenges leaders to build commitment by providing repeated opportunities for them to practice delivering their responses and to learn to provide peer feedback and coaching to enhance effectiveness.
With its focus on action, the GVV methodology allows students to practice responding to the question What do I do next? (as opposed to What do I do … permanently?), which is at the heart of cognitive ambidexterity.
In teaching future entrepreneurial leaders to engage a cognitively ambidextrous mindset and to articulate a SEERS worldview, the Giving Voice to Values curriculum can be a central component of the “pedagogical portfolio” discussed in chapter 1. GVV is a thought experiment, an iterative process, and a method for both developing and practicing values-driven leadership—all elements that are important in a pedagogy for teaching entrepreneurial leadership. GVV cases help students apply prediction logic to anticipate arguments from stakeholders and pose counterarguments. They also help students use creation logic to develop new and innovative approaches to practice problem solving by taking action.
While education for action is essential, that action must be guided by the principles, objectives, and means of our individual identities, our organizations, and our entrepreneurial ventures. And these principles, objectives, and means—this purpose—brings us to SEERS. The raison d’être for GVV is the development of a pedagogy that engages students in the response of creative thinking and practice around the pursuit of social, environmental, and economic responsibility and sustainability. GVV asks students to develop practical scripts and action plans for values-driven entrepreneurial leadership. Furthermore, it asks students to consider how to respond to the various demands and perspectives of the stakeholders in the case. This shift from asking whether SEERS can be addressed to asking and answering how it can be done is a fundamental premise of the GVV pedagogy.
Finally, as we turn to the third principle behind entrepreneurial leadership—self- and social awareness—we see how it too is aligned with the GVV approach. Entrepreneurial leaders are more likely to be able to voice and act on their values if they frame their choices in ways that play to their strengths: If I see myself as a pragmatist, I will work best if I find ways to frame my actions on my values as pragmatic. If I see myself as a risk-taker, I will frame the values-based choice as the bold move. If I see myself as cautious, I will frame my values-driven decision as the conservative choice. Through implementation and scripting, GVV helps entrepreneurial leaders find alignment between who they are and what they say and do.
Thus, when the only way to lead in an unknowable world is through action, GVV is all about action—but it’s action that is informed by analysis and planning and the lessons of research about decision-making biases and heuristics and that is enabled by prescripting and literal practice. If global business leaders are “redefining the context” for their decision-making, as Wilson and Eisenman (2010) point out, the GVV approach is entirely suited to this endeavor. GVV enables students to learn the “new narrative” about the choices entrepreneurial leaders face and to be empowered and enabled to shape social and economic opportunity in creative and responsible ways.
While the GVV curriculum is but one approach, it is one that we can easily use in our classrooms. In fact, all cases are free and available to all. We hope that this discussion will encourage you to act as entrepreneurial leaders who create new GVV cases, traditional cases, and other teaching materials for educating our students and future leaders. Whether they center around the principles of cognitive ambidexterity, SEERS, or self- and social awareness, if materials are developed, tested, and shared across the academic community, we can change the course of management education.
Gentile, M. C., and W. Klepper. 2010. “This Whole System Seems Wrong”: Felipe Montez and Concerns about the Global Supply Chain, Columbia CaseWorks Collection (#081803) and Giving Voice to Values program, available at http://www.babson.edu/GVV/Student/4_Individual-Cases-and-Modules/Felipe-Montez_S.pdf.
Wilson, H. J., and E. J. Eisenman. 2010. Business Uncertainty: 2010 Global Survey Results. Babson Executive Education report. Accessed March 3, 2011, http://www3.babson.edu/bee/uncertainty.