ALIGNMENT OF EMPLOYER AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS COMMUNICATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

August 1999

Jerry D. Estenson, DPA
Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior
California State University, Sacramento
College of Business Administration
6000 J Street
Sacramento, California 95819-6088
Email: jestenso@ns.net

ALIGNMENT OF EMPLOYER AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS
OF STUDENT COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES:
A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the use of a collaborative process using literature searches, market surveys and focus groups to develop business communication curriculum. Survey data collected prior to joint faculty-employer focus groups indicates that business communication faculty and employers perceive interpersonal skills as the most important business communication competency. Both groups ranked competence in the use of communication technology last. Placement of the five remaining competencies used in the study varied between the groups. Data provided by surveys completed by participants, after meeting in a joint focus group, indicates that both groups changed their first ranking to cross-cultural communication with communication technology remaining last. Post-focus group rankings by faculty placed oral communication competence second while the employer group ranked both writing mechanics and interpersonal competence second. The remaining four competencies were ranked the same by both groups. Data gathered during the process provided the faculty an externally validated basis for establishing course objectives; faculty input measurement, and methods to assess course outcomes. The collaborative process assisted the school in modeling continuous improvement and meeting AACSB accreditation requirements.

ALIGNMENT OF EMPLOYER AND FACULTY EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES:
A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS COMMUNICATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

     Schools of Business Administration are being challenged to adopt curriculum that is continually improving while holding faculty accountable for graduating students who meet employer's needs. Schools are attempting to meet these demands by evaluating and validating the content of their undergraduate and graduate courses and continuing to involve faculty in the development of courses. During the past three years California State University, Sacramento, College of Business Administration, a mid-sized regional institution, has attempted to meet the challenge by creating a collaborative problem solving orientation among stakeholders (faculty, students, administration, and with the local employer community). The framework for these changes has been a continuous process improvement (CPI) model adopted from business applications. The foundation for CPI is found in total quality management (TQM) and industry's continuous process improvement (CPI) literature and practices.

     At the core of TQM and CPI is a change in how organizations view and manage ideas, concepts, and conflict. To help organizations change, collaborative problem solving models have been introduced and applied in a number of venues. This case study discusses how one faculty used elements of collaborative problem solving to bring together the unique perspectives of faculty and business community members. The result was the creation of a business communication curriculum that provides valued competencies to students.

     From the academic literature, Waner (1995) reduced the number of quality principles applicable to the academic setting to (a) explicitly stating outcomes and (b) validation of these outcomes by organization customers. Ruben (1995) adds further refinement by presenting a view of quality in higher education, which integrates traditional mission-driven approaches to defining quality in education with the corporate customer-driven approach. This model maintains the best of both approaches by:

underscoring the interdependence of institutional missions/ vision/ goals relative to instruction, scholarship, outreach, support, and operational services on the one hand, and the evolving needs and expectations of key constituencies for whom these services are being provided on the other (165). . . . a university can contribute as is its tradition - an analytical, theoretical, and critical perspective to the quality in organization discussion (171).

     The integration of traditional academic approaches to curriculum development and a business approach with its expanded definition of customer (students, employers, graduates schools) provides an expanded framework to assist in focusing core course context. It is this framework which was used by faculty to create stakeholder-focused curriculum.

     Business Communication is a core course in the School's undergraduate program. The course recently received increased attention when a survey of local employers indicated dissatisfaction with its recent graduate's communication skills. Given the high visibility of the course, the Organizational Behavior and Environment Department (OBE) faculty decided to develop and test a curriculum development model that would attempt to link employer expectations of student communication competencies with faculty perceptions of relevant curriculum content. From the onset, faculty was concerned that student apathy toward the course might hinder the development of market-appropriate curriculum. McPherson (1998) supported this concern and indicated that students may not value business communication courses and therefore not take them seriously. Given the scope of potential student apathy, the Policies Commission (Policies, 1997) challenged business educators to develop student's business skills even if a student does not understand the important role business communication will play in their career development. Waner (1995) suggests that even if agreement exists between employers, faculty, and students on the need for business communication skills, differing perceptions about which communication competencies should have priority may still exist (Waner, 1995).

     The purpose of this case study was to address the issue of criticality of subjects taught and skills developed by attempting to determine if business communication faculty and business professionals perceive selected business communication competencies with the same degree of importance. In addition, the study assessed if the data generated could be used to determine course objectives, input metrics, and output assessments.

     Kanungo and Misra's (1992) provided a distinction between skills and competence. Skills were defined as the ability to or capability to engage in specific behaviors, including covert behavior and cognitive activities to accomplish specific routine tasks. Skills could be learned through training or result from experience. Competence is the ability to engage in non-routine cognitive and intellectual activities, which could be used to cope in uncertain environment (Kanungo and Misra, 1992). This study defined competence in this manner and examined perceptions of communication competence (see table 1 for attributes associated with competence) in the following areas:

Cross Cultural Communication
Writing Mechanics
Interpersonal Communication
Oral Presentations
Writing Style
Managerial Skills
Technology

     Given the limited time available to teach a broad range of subjects, competence was determined to be the primary objective. It was assumed that if the students were competent in given areas they would be able to develop and utilize skills related to the specific competence.

     A process of bringing groups with possibly divergent views together requires establishing a common definition of critical competency and language to capture the essence of each critical element. Estenson (1997) conducted a study of nurse managers directing the work of a multi-lingual work force. The study found that effective cross-cultural managers established a common language and sought agreement on behaviors critical to patient treatment. Waner (1995) and others provide a thoughtful perspective on previous research related to the needs for agreement between businesspersons, students, and business faculty on the criticality of certain communication skills (Adkins, 1982; Quible, 1991). Waner (1995) indicates that there is general agreement between faculty, students and employers on certain broadly defined skills, but found that business professionals placed greater importance on specific skills (55). Waner's conclusion was that faculty needed to regularly survey and collaborate with business professionals to keep their curriculum both current and relevant. Waner's recommendations as well as others, cited research on communication competence indicated the importance of agreement on critical terms used to define competence. Given the College's regional nature and the national/international scope of local employer operations, it was agreed by the faculty that the definition of critical terms was an important first step to develop a prioritized list of competencies. Once definitions were established, the faculty would continue to use the collaborative process to operationalize terms and establish curriculum priorities

METHODOLOGY

     Fischer and Ury (1981) suggest that the use of external standards to determine the goodness of fit of an approach to a problem may help a diverse group sort through a number of value-laden ideas or problems. To start the process, the parties create a climate in which a general dialogue can take place. The dialogue will allow for moving toward agreement on what external standards can be used to help determine the goodness of fit of options.

     Problem solving and creating common commitment through dialogue is grounded in social psychology theory. This discipline's research into dialogue as problem solving provides several frameworks, which can be used to create solutions to sensitive subject matter (Harre and Gillett, 1994; Shotter, 1993; Turner, 1988). For the purpose of this study, faculty who taught business communication was polled to provide an initial list of perceived business communication competencies. Faculty then checked their list against subject matter contained in highly used business communication texts. The text list included: Boone's Contemporary Business Communication (1994), Bovee's Business Communication Today (1997), Lahill's Business Communication Strategies and Skills (1997), and Lesikar's Basic Business Communication (1996). In an effort to narrow the lists developed from the literature search, faculty agreed to use Fisher and Ury's (1981) external objective standard. In this application, frequency of appearance in the above named texts was the agreed upon primary criteria for inclusion on the list.

     The literature search, review of current business communication texts, and extensive faculty discussions resulted in establishing a set of competencies viewed as important. English's (1997) survey instrument used to determine the perceived value of selected communication competencies by AACSB College of Business Deans, Business Communications Instructors and local Human Resource Managers was adopted to fit this use. Categories used in this study differed from English's survey with the addition of communication technologies and cross-cultural communications. The two additional competency categories (cross-cultural and use of technology) were added to reflect unique requirements of the local employment market. The final set of competencies agreed to by the faculty were:

Cross Cultural Communication
Writing Mechanics
Interpersonal Communication
Oral Presentations
Writing Style
Managerial Skills
Technology

For the purpose of this study, students exhibiting the following behaviors would demonstrate competency in each category.

(Insert Table 1:Competency Attributes here)

The instrument developed for the study utilized the above attributes or behaviors to create statements, which the respondent was asked to evaluate using a Likert-type scale with 4 = being extremely essential (competency is absolutely essential for employment and advancement), 3 = very essential (competency is quite essential for employment and advancement), 2 = essential (competency is somewhat essential but could be learned on the job), 1 = not essential (competency is not essential for employment or advancement) and 0 = undecided (can't decide if competency is essential).

     It was determined that the instrument had face validity given the rigor of a literature search conducted by faculty specialized in teaching the subject and the intensity of faculty discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of certain competencies. Faculty also agreed that the instrument had curricular validity (Croker and Algina, 1986), indicating that the items reflected objectives contained in business communication curriculum used in nationally recognized business schools.

     Given the time pressures associated with re-accreditation, it was determined that surveys would be distributed to a limited group of local area companies and government agencies. The criteria for selection included organizations offering business school student internships, having a representative speak to school business clubs, and those actively recruiting on campus. To assist in acquiring a high rate of return, senior managers in each of these organizations were contacted and asked to support the study.

     Surveys were sent to pre-selected individuals from each of the organizations and the data collected was used to create a set of descriptive statistics. The statistics allowed for ranking of respondent's perception of how critical each competence was to the hiring and promotion of a new college graduate. Data was displayed in tables constructed to facilitate understanding of the degree of alignment between faculty and employer perceptions. The tables were then sent to all participants for their review prior to attending a focus group discussion.

     Quible (1998) discusses the possible use of focus groups as a means to collect qualitative information related to business communication courses. The article quotes O'Donnell's view on the popularity of technique:


First they provide qualitatively different information from that obtained in individual interviews, thus yielding a broad range of information because the group setting encourages spontaneous and candid reactions; second for some topics, no other valid or reliable quantitative data-collection methods are available (Quible, 1998, 29).

     This study used survey data to develop a simple rank order of perceived value for each group (Group one - eight CSUS business communication faculty, Group two - seven large employers hiring program graduates). Two weeks after completion of the survey, a focus group of the same population was conducted to discuss the results of the survey and to provide an opportunity for dialogue between participants. Kolb (1993, 143) supports this approach and indicates that dialogue can be used as a means to assist diverse groups in framing, considering, and resolving differences through communicant interaction.

     Following the focus group discussion, the same survey instrument was administered to participants to determine if changes in perception occurred. Data from the second survey was placed in a matrix to determine the degree of alignment between faculty and employer perceptions. The rankings reflected in the second matrix were used to guide faculty in order to set course goals, develop curriculum, establish objectives, and create metrics used to assess course outcomes. Faculty agreed to adjust curriculum, method of content delivery, and assessment metrics to reflect priorities generated by the process.

SAMPLE

     Eight CSUS faculty members who taught business communication participated in the survey. Seven faculty members participated in focus group discussions and completed the second survey. A faculty member from the OBE Department, who was contemplating teaching the business communication course, replaced one initial faculty participant member. A search of college placement records indicated a significant number of graduates had been placed in a relatively small number of organizations. This short list of employers generated the names of seven organizations that chose to respond to the survey, with six participating in the focus group. The employer group had maintained a high profile on campus by actively recruiting, sending representatives to speak to business clubs, and sponsoring internships. The group employed 10,275 in the region and hired 576 college graduates in the year preceding the study. Organizational participants included MCI, Lucent Technologies, Packard-Bell, Vision Service Plan, 3M, The Money Store, and the State of California Franchise Tax Board.

FINDINGS

     Pre-meeting data indicated that faculty and employers agreed that technology (as defined in Table 1.) was the least critical communication competency. There was no agreement on the placement of the remaining competencies. The greatest variance (8.5%) occurred in the ranking of public speaking skills where the employer group ranked the skill higher than faculty. Table 2 provides a comparison of pre-meeting rankings.

(Insert Table 2: Pre-Meeting Competency Ranking here)

     Post-focus group meeting data indicates that both groups ranked cross-cultural communication, writing mechanics, and public speaking in the top three competencies. The number one placement was given to cross-cultural communication by both the faculty and employers. Placement at the second and third position varied with faculty ranking speaking skills second and writing mechanics third while employers reversed the order. Technology remained least important. This finding is consistent with Maes, Weldy, and Icenogle (1997) and Rynes and Gerhard (1990). Focus group discussion notes indicate that employers assumed graduates had basic computer skills and that they would teach specific computer application in their own employee development programs. The most significant deviation in data during this iteration was 1.0 in value or 7.4% in the perceived value of technological competence. Table 3 provides comparisons.

     The value of using dialogue to reach agreement is seen in the changes in the ranking assigned to each competency by both groups. In the first survey, faculty and employers were at least 1% apart in their perception of the importance of each competency. The highest degree of difference was 8.5% and closest was a difference of 1.6%. After the focus group discussion, the greatest degree of difference was 7% and three items had a difference of less than 1%.

(Insert Table 3: Post-Focus Group Rankings here)

APPLICATION

     As part of the re-accreditation process, AACSB provided guidelines to the College on areas, which would strengthen the college's business curriculum. Using this information the faculty developed subjects which would contribute to the college's academic programs. These areas included:

Ethics
Global Aspects of Business Operation
Political Forces Impacting Business
Impact of Changes in Society on Business Operations
Legal Aspects of Business Operations
Regulatory Impact on Business Operations
Technology
Diversity in the Workplace

     Utilizing Ruben's (1995) strategy to reduce education gaps, data collected from the survey and focus groups was integrated with AACSB guidance to develop objectives for the multi-section business communication course. Table 4 details the collaboratively determined objectives for the course.

(Insert Table 4: Business Communication Course Objectives here)

     The objectives were translated into a set of input metrics, which could be used to assist in providing consistency between multiple sections. Degree of cross-section consistency would be determined using the data provided by these metrics. Examples of metrics include:

Amount of time scheduled to develop competency.
Number of assignment related to competency.
Coverage of competencies in test material.
Course weight given to demonstration of competency (points earned toward final grade).

      Outcome measures were also linked specifically to data gathered during the collaborative process. Measurement was broken down into the seven competencies used in the initial data collection process. Samples of the outcome metrics are provided in Table 5.

(Insert Table 5: Assessment of Student Learning here)

SUMMARY

     Initial feedback from individuals involved in the process indicates that a curriculum developed using a model which provides for double loop learning (Argyris, 89) assists in curriculum acceptance by many stakeholders. The process used in this case study started with an open dialogue between faculty teaching the course. Frequency of appearance of competency in nationally recognized text was used to resolve faculty differences regarding competency criticality. This use extensive literature searches acted as a moderating factor which assisted instructors in moving the level of dialogue to an even higher level. The clarity provided by thoughtful discussion provided the foundation for creation of a survey, which was used to solicit business community input in the process. The data collected from the survey helped focus discussion between business leaders and teaching faculty. The compilation of data from surveys and a focus group assisted faculty in developing metrics to determine levels of competency- relevant teaching activities and metrics to determine learning. (See figure 1 for a model of the process)

     The process used by the faculty is based on the concept of continual improvement (CI). CI theory indicates that an effective way to address rapid change and maintenance of critical focus is to meet the needs of the marketplace. Change in this environment requires review of product (curriculum) and that these reviews be conducted in the spirit of CI. The essence of CI is the recognition that all data be viewed as valuable and that information not to be used to penalize individual efforts (Senge 1990, 249 ), (Argyris 1982, 274). Deming (1982, 59 ) and others writing on CI and learning organizations caution against the use of data a weapon to punish. Neutral use of information appears to be difficult in an academic environment where there may be a tendency to use data as a tool to achieve support for a personal agenda.

(Insert Figure 1: Curriculum Development Model here)

CONCLUSION

     Some business schools appear to be having a difficult time creating curriculum, which is responsive to employer, needs. This struggle for curriculum relevance coupled with a strong desire to be reaccredited by AACSB provided the impetus for this college to use a collaborative model to focus faculty and community energy to create a relevant core course.

     Collaborative models, such as the one used in this study, tend to help create environments, which contribute to learning by a broad spectrum of stakeholders. This was accomplished by creating multiple opportunities for dialogue, establishing meaningful objective standards, developing objectives and metrics, and encouraging modification and experimentation.

     A further exploration of collaborative models being used by schools to problem solving where there is not critical external pressure to change would assist in determining the general applicability of the model. It may also be of value to know if the collaborative process is used once this school has moved past the crisis.

     This curriculum development model was viewed by those directly involved as challenging, time consuming, and rigorous but rewarding. Rewards came from a sense that a curriculum had been developed to provide faculty confidence that class activities contributed to the creation of competencies which were valued by the employing community. Employers were rewarded with a pool of potential employees who were qualified to work in a competitive global business environment. The utilization of multiple stakeholders to create curriculum appears to have generated a sense of community linkage to the school as seen by even greater employer participation in school programs.

     This model's ability to travel to this academic setting may be its reliance on a human need for interaction coupled with the organization's requirement to become more responsive to their external environments. Whatever the impetus for action, the model appears to have moved the curriculum development process from a somewhat inbred to an expanded worldview. The value of this expanded perspective will be demonstrated by the performance of students being taught using the new curriculum.

REFERENCES

Adkins, B. (1982). Analysis of business communications skills and knowledge as perceived by selected businesspersons, teachers, and students in Kentucky. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 24, 70-81.

Argyris, Chris (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boone, Louis E., Kurtz, David L,. Block, Judy R. (1994). Contemporary Business Communication. Englwood Cliffs, NK: Prentice Hall

Boove, Courland. & Thill, John V. (1997). Business Communication Today 4th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Crocker, L., and J. Algina (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston.

Deming, Edwards W. (1982). Out of Crisis Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

English, Donald, Janet I. Walker, and Edgar J. Manton (1997). AACSB College of Business Deans, Business Communication Instructors and Human Resource Managers perceived value of selected communication competencies. Academy of Business Communications. Fall 1997 Proceedings.

Estenson, J. (1997). Communication competence: Monolingual managers in a multi-lingual work force. Unpublished Dissertation University of Southern California. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI 9816022.

Fisher, Roger & Ury, William (1981). Getting to Yes. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Harre, Rom, and Grant Gillett. (1994). The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Kanungo, R. N. and S. Misra (1992). Managerial resourcefulness: A reconceptualization of management skills. Human Relations, 45, 1311-1332.

Kolb, Deborah M. (1993). Her place at the table: Gender and negotiation. In Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain: The basic seminar of the program on negotiation at Harvard Law School. Lavina Hall Editor. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Lahill, James M. & Penrose, John M. (1997). Business Communication Strategies and Skills 5th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lesikar, Raymond, Pettit, John D., and Flatley, Marie. (11996). Lesikar's Basic Business Communication 7th Ed. Chicago: Irwin.

Quible, Z. K. (1991). Writing competencies needed by business employees. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 33, 35-51.

Maes, Jeanne D., Teresa G. Weldy, and & Marjorie L. Icenogle (1997). A managerial perspective: Oral communication competency is most important for business students in the workplace. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 1, 67-80.

McPherson, Bill (1998). Student Perceptions About Business Communication in Their Careers. Business Communication Quarterly, 61, 2, pp. 68-79.

Policy Statements: Policies Commission on Business and Economic Education: 1959 - 1996. Cincinnati: SouthWestern.

Rynes, S. L., and & B. Gerhart (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant "fit": An exploratory investigation. Personal Psychology, 43, 13-35.

Ruben, Brent D. (1995 ). Defining and assessing "Quality" in higher education: Beyond TQM. Brent D. Ruben Ed. Quality in Higher Education. Transactions Publishers.

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday

Shotter, John. (1993). Conversational Realities: Constructing Life Through Language. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Turner, Jonathan H. (1988). A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford: Stanford Press.

Waner, Karen K. (1995). Business Communication Competencies Needed by Employees as Perceived by Business Faculty and Business Professionals. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 4. pp. 51-56.

Table 1:Competency Attributes

Table 2: Pre-Meeting Competency Ranking

Table 3: Post-Focus Group Rankings

Table 4: Business Communication Course Objectives

Table 5: Assessment of Student Learning

Figure 1: Curriculum Development Model