University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

(USC Thesis Other)

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of th e
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CURRENT AND FUTURE MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY, AND/OR MATERIAL PROCESSING
FUNCTIONS
©2000
By
Clifford S. Barber
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2000
Clifford S. Barber
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number: 3017986
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3017986
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Beil & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
o f M w iiw
Los Angeles, California 90099-0031
This dissertation, written by
wider the direction o f hH— Dissertation Committee, and
approved by ail members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by dm Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
Doctor of Education
8/31/99
T K u S i
Dissertation Committee
, / ChaUpenm
—
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
Acknowledgements
I could not have achieved my professional goals without the support and
assistance of my family, professors, colleagues, and friends. First of all, I thank from the
bottom of my heart, my wife Amy and children, Kyle and Devin, for their love and
patience as I disappeared early in the day and late at night to complete this dissertation.
Secondly, I extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Robert Baker for
his genuine support, professionalism and devotion to his students and to the educational
community. He has provided excellent counsel, great patience and wisdom. Without his
understanding and dedication my professional goals could not have been achieved.
Additionally, I am indebted to Dr. Stu Gothold and Dr. Dennis Hocevar for their
willingness to serve as members of my dissertation committee.
Thirdly, I am very grateful to my mentor and colleague Dr. Roger Keep for his
support and tireless example as an educator devoted to his students and to his profession.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables..........................................................................................................................ix
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1...................................................................................................................................1
Introduction to the Study................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem............................................................................................ 3
Cal Poly State University......................................................................................... 4
Curriculum Issues..................................................................................................... 6
Purposes of the Study...................................................................................................... 8
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................8
Significance of the Study............................................................................................... 10
Research Questions........................................................................................................11
Assumptions...................................................................................................................12
Delimitations and Limitations...................................................................................... 13
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................14
Chapter 2.................................................................................................................................17
Review of Literature...............................................................................................................17
Introduction.....................................................................................................................17
Business Environment................................................................................................... 17
The Business School Environment...............................................................................18
Curriculum Development and Evaluation....................................................................21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
Management Competency Requirements.....................................................................23
Goal and Action Management Cluster..................................................................34
Directing Subordinates Cluster............................................................................. 34
Leadership Cluster..................................................................................................34
Focus on Other Clusters......................................................................................... 34
Human Resource Cluster....................................................................................... 34
Specialized Knowledge.......................................................................................... 34
Related Research Studies on Competencies.................................................................37
Planning..................................................................................................................43
Organizing...............................................................................................................43
Leading/Directing...................................................................................................43
Interpersonal Relations.......................................................................................... 43
Controlling..............................................................................................................44
Administrative........................................................................................................ 44
General Administrative.......................................................................................... 44
Efficiency Orientation............................................................................................52
Proactivity...............................................................................................................52
Diagnostic Use of Concepts...................................................................................52
Summary.........................................................................................................................56
Chapter 3................................................................................................................................ 56
Methods and Procedures...............................................................................................56
Modified Delphi Method...............................................................................................57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Procedures for Identifying Participants........................................................................ 59
Development of the Instrument.................................................................................... 61
Round 1 (KSV) Managerial Competency Questionnaire.....................................61
Initial questionnaire format.................................................................................... 61
Revised questionnaire format................................................................................. 61
Initial questionnaire format.................................................................................... 61
Characteristics of Expert Panelists........................................................................ 64
Revised questionnaire format.................................................................................64
Development of Scales.................................................................................................. 65
The Utilization of the Internet for Conducting Delphi Method Research.................. 66
Questionnaire Quality.............................................................................................67
General Analysis of D ata.............................................................................................. 67
Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................69
Results and Discussion.................................................................................................. 69
Logically Derived Scales............................................................................................... 70
Empirically Derived Scales...........................................................................................70
Descriptions of the Factor-Based Scales......................................................................72
Knowledge Scales..........................................................................................................75
Kscalel: Foundational Systems.............................................................................75
Kscale2: Competitive Strategies........................................................................... 75
Kscale3: Requisite Management............................................................................75
Kscale4: Project Management...............................................................................76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kscale5: Materials Management........................................................................... 76
Skill Scales.................................................................................................................... 77
Sscalel: Technical Analysis...................................................................................77
Sscale2: Transformational Leadership..................................................................77
Sscale3: Diagnostic Efficiency.............................................................................. 77
Sscale4: Workforce Development.........................................................................78
Sscale5: Organizational Strategies........................................................................78
Value Scales................................................................................................................... 78
Vscalel: Credibility Management......................................................................... 78
Vscale2: Assertive Leadership.............................................................................. 79
Vscale3: Collaborative Management....................................................................79
Vscale4: Responsiveness Management.................................................................79
Descriptive Data Results...............................................................................................80
Knowledge Scales..................................................................................................80
Skill Scales..............................................................................................................86
Value Scales............................................................................................................87
Skill Scale Scores by Group..................................................................................89
Second Order Factor Analysis......................................................................................92
Scale 1: Organizational Leadership.......................................................................92
Scale 2: Responsiveness Planning.........................................................................92
Scale 3: Technical Foundations............................................................................. 97
Future Competency Significance................................................................................101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Chapter 5...............................................................................................................................I l l
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................... I l l
The Problem.......................................................................................................... I ll
Methodology.................................................................................................................111
Selected Findings......................................................................................................... 112
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................114
Curriculum Implications.......................................................................................116
Recommendations........................................................................................................120
Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 122
Appendices........................................................................................................................... 130
A. Expert Participant E-mail Letter.........................................................................132
B. Participant Follow-up E-mail Letter................................................................... 134
C. Round 1 KSV Managerial Competency Questionnaire.....................................135
D. 109 Round 1 Competencies.................................................................................139
E. Original Round 2 Questionnaire Instructions....................................................144
F. Revised Round 2 Questionnaire Instructions..................................................... 146
G. Round 2 KSV Managerial Competency Questionnaire.....................................149
H. Individual Scales and Competencies.................................................................. 154
I. Final Revision of Competencies to 93................................................................ 158
J. Heezen Competencies.......................................................................................... 162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
List of Tables
Table
1. Franz (1988) Behavior Competencies and Examples..................................................52
2. Keech Study Competencies...........................................................................................52
3. Characteristics of Expert Panelists.............................................................................. 62
4. Logical Scales and Alpha Reliabilities........................................................................ 71
5. Empirically Derived Scales and Alpha Reliability Coefficients................................ 75
6. Inter-Scale Correlation.................................................................................................. 75
7. Knowledge Scale Scores bv Group..............................................................................82
8. Knowledge Scale ANOVA...........................................................................................84
9. Knowledge Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD........................................... 85
10. Skill Scale Scores bv Group..........................................................................................88
11. Skill Scale ANOVA.......................................................................................................90
12. Skill Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD....................................................... 91
13. Value Scale Scores bv Group....................................................................................... 93
14. Value Scale ANOVA.................................................................................................... 94
15. Value Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD.....................................................95
16. Second Order Factor Analysis. Alpha Scores and Factor Loadings...........................96
17. Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Organizational Leadership Scale 98
18. Second Order Organizational Leadership Scale ANOVA.......................................... 98
19. Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Responsiveness Planning Scale 99
20. Responsiveness Planning Scale ANOVA....................................................................99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
21. Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Technical Foundation Scale 100
22. Technical Foundations Scale ANOVA......................................................................100
23. Technical Foundations Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD................................101
24. Paired Samples Statistics...........................................................................................103
25. Paired Samples Correlation’s .................................................................................... 104
26. Paired Samples T-Test................................................................................................105
27. Case Mean Summaries................................................................................................108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
Organizations that include a manufacturing, assembly and/or material processing
(MAMP) component have become increasingly complex, competitive, and ever
changing. Successful organizations that rely on MAMP components are placing increased
emphasis on recruiting, developing, and retaining management talent to gain a
competitive edge in the marketplace. Changing demographics have resulted in a
shrinking labor pool, mandating proper staffing, head count reductions and defined
competencies in today's cost-conscious business environments. Undergraduate business
curricula should reflect these changes to ensure that graduates have the appropriate
knowledge, values, and skills to become successful managers of MAMP components
within organizations.
The purpose of this study was to identify first-level manufacturing, assembly
and/or material processing (MAMP) management competencies perceived to be
important by three critical stakeholder groups:
1. An expert panel made up of employers of graduates from Cal Poly
2. Graduates of Cal Poly who are currently employed in one of the sample
companies
3. Selected expert faculty members
The results will serve as a guide for developing, evaluating and restructuring the
proposed MAMP management curriculum within a business college undergraduate
curriculum. A secondary purpose was to assign each competency to a category or theme
that would serve as a guide in developing direct instructional procedures and appropriate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xi
outcomes. A third purpose was to assess the present and future level of importance
assigned to each competency, by business employers, business faculty and recent first-
level Cal Poly State University business college graduate managers from a cross section
of MAMP organizations. The level of importance would also indicate priority
considerations in the restructuring of the MAMP management curriculum
The results indicate that organizational leadership competencies have been
identified as essential components having significant purpose throughout the proposed
MAMP business curriculum. The importance of the interpersonal competencies required
of managers to credibly communicate is significant. Competencies enabling managers to
transform, motivate, negotiate and mentor others need to be provided in a business school
curriculum. With consideration to the mission of a polytechnic university, the inclusion
of leadership competencies at the expense of technical foundation competencies within
the curriculum will cause considerable debate between practitioners and theorists.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Study
Business schools according to Shipper (1999) have long been criticized for not
addressing the needs of today’s ever changing, increasingly competitive and technology
driven business environment. Many business schools believe that their primary customers
are the organizations that hire their graduates, and in turn need to respond to the concerns
of that customer.
Much speculation over the years has been made in regards to the direction of
business. Possibilities include flattening of the organizational structure, giving first line
workers more control, employee empowerment, inter-functional cooperation,
reengineering, team problem solving and continuous improvement. All of the above
mentioned speculation has become reality in today’s business organizations. The rapidly
changing business environment of today requires that businesses of all types have
managers who have the depth of expertise to operate the complex information systems,
production equipment and processes within their companies. Equally important is the
breadth of knowledge to do so wisely and ethically, and the ability to adapt to change.
This makes the education of the nation’s future business managers a matter of critical
importance (Smith, 1988).
Business schools have been often criticized for failing to provide students desiring
to become managers with the competencies required in the new workplace (Applebome,
1995). Business schools as they design the curriculum for the educational development of
managers will continue to be in the process of change. Business school curriculums need
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
to respond to a greater diversity of students, changes in technology, rising costs,
decreasing resources, increased consumer expectations, and greater demand for services
and accountability. The business managers of the future require new management
technologies, policies, communication skills, practical production understanding and
leadership styles to respond, manage, and cope with change. According to Badawy
(1995) the job of the manager in the twenty-first century will clearly be more complex.
At the heart of these challenges is the universal need for effective and competent
managers. The manager is the driving force; without his1 services, resources would stay,
as they are, they would never become products or services. Managers, therefore, are the
ones who make things happen.
Since production, manufacturing and information technologies are a key resource
of profound importance for corporate profitability and growth, the need for competent,
broad-based managers of technology cannot be overemphasized. This means that the
successful preparation and transformation of technologists into managers is one of the
most formidable tasks and challenges facing management in the future. These technology
managers are charged with managing the technical operations of a company. The
organization, coordination, direction, allocation, and control of the resources at their
disposal are managers prime responsibilities. How well they perform these tasks will
largely determine the firm’s survival and growth (Badawy 1995).
1 To avoid redundancy, the masculine pronoun will be used to refer to both male and
female managers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
As business colleges attempt to update curriculums, adapt management
programs for greater relevancy, and address the concerns mentioned above, the
curriculum, method of instruction and specific course offerings become the focus of
attention and distinctions need to be made.
Background of the Problem
The College of Business within the California Polytechnic State University
system in the city of San Luis Obispo (COBSLO) is one of the major business schools
within the state system. In an effort to maintain a high level of distinction, the COBSLO
monitors the needs of its customers (business organizations) very carefully. This
monitoring process includes feedback from the Dean’s advisory council, comprised of
numerous upper management executives from large corporations. The COBSLO is
currently in the process of formulating a niche of distinction for its curriculum; a niche
that the COBSLO hopes might address some of the problems presented by Magill (1998)
regarding business schools in general. Problems include being under pressure from
declining enrollments and stakeholder accusations of misguided curriculums. Business
schools are currently undergoing some dramatic soul searching. Exacerbating the
declining interest in business degrees is increased competition for students, from arts and
sciences programs, and declining funding for higher education. Business schools across
the nation are attempting to justify their existence by improving their curriculums,
documenting the value of their degrees, and identifying niches to specialize in. Two
primary factors lie behind this intense curricular scrutiny . (1) serious charges by public
officials, business leaders, and a growing number of business academicians that business
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
schools are simply teaching their students the wrong things; (2) the demand by various
groups for business schools to demonstrate accountability.
In an effort to address some of the potential problems mentioned, a possible niche
for the COBSLO has been identified as Industrial Technology Management (ITM),
defined more specifically in this study as the management of manufacturing, assembly
and/or materials processing component within an organization. The ITM program would
be designed to equip managers to meet the needs of organizations that include a
manufacturing, assembly and/or material processing (MAMP) component.
Cal Polv State University
The California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly)
distinguishes itself by providing a relevant and problem based style of learning. This style
is practical, applied, technologically literate and competency based. This style of learning
has continually enhanced Cal Poly State University’s excellent engineering and
agriculture programs reputation. The engineering reputation is so prevalent that it is often
the presumption of employers that this applied competency-based, technically proficient
environment will have an influence on the other colleges within the university. The
perception is that business graduates from CalPoly will have had exposure to this
learning environment. Currently, the perceived exposure to technically based, applied
competencies necessary for success in manufacturing, assembly and/or materials
processing (MAMP) is assumed to be very limited. It is one of the purposes of this study
to define those competencies and address those limitations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
When employers from MAMP component organizations hire graduates from Cal
Poly they expect them to hit the ground running. In other words they expect students
from the COBSLO to be technically sound MAMP managers, already having a
technologically proficient, industrial specific understanding of the business they are to
manage. The technical MAMP supervisor or manager is primarily concerned with
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the activities of engineers, production
workers, research and development people (R&D), designers, draftsmen, individual
contractors, maintenance individuals and other technical and non technical personnel. All
the above mentioned employees need to be managed to successfully achieve desired
goals in R&D, product design and development, manufacturing process control, facility
maintenance, quality control and workforce management. According to Badawy (199S),
because of the increasing complexity of technology, industry, and modem life in general,
the effective manager of technology requires a technical approach accompanied by an
understanding of modem complex organizations as sociotechnical systems. At no other
time in history has the need for good technical managers been greater than it is today.
The support and credibility for an industrial technology MAMP manager niche
stems from the re-organizational effort of the COBSLO five years ago. At that time the
college recognized the potential needs described above, and invited the Industrial
Technology Department, a successful program that was a part of another college within
the university, to join them.
The Industrial Technology (IT) program could have the potential to develop
MAMP competent managers who can make informed decisions about managing people
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
and technology, yet needs to continue in the development of its curriculum supported by
the competencies identified in this study. Industrial Technology graduates are specialists
prepared to help employers, whether large or small, make better decisions about investing
in or managing technologies that can add value to materials, processes, products and
services. The individuals majoring in Industrial Technology enjoy the interpersonal
aspects of technical problem solving.
The focus of the IT program is not only directed toward producing graduates who
will develop new or technologically advanced products and services, but also aims
toward ways to effectively apply and manage technological systems for profit. The goal
of understanding and using technology in business is not simply for the sake of
technological excellence, but for business success on a national and international level.
The existing IT curriculum is a broadly based program covering all major aspects
of technical leadership, utilizing some of the traditional strengths of engineering and
business curriculums and combining them to produce a hybrid.
The Industrial Technology Department recognized the possibilities of a strong
alliance. They joined the COBSLO and became an additional functional area along with
the other traditional business school functional areas of marketing, finance, accounting,
and management. However, the problem remains of defining the competencies necessary
to develop a niche curriculum that will adequately prepare the MAMP manager.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Curriculum Issues
This newly formed COBSLO structure is currently in a state of transition. The
integration of the Industrial Technology department into the college has provided many
challenges. One of those challenges concerns accreditation standards.
The College of Business within the California Polytechnic State University is a
member of the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and
attempts to subscribe to the curriculum requirements explained in the accreditation
standards.
According to the AACSB (1994-95):
Curricula are central to the implementation of degree programs. Creating and
delivering high quality curricula requires planning and evaluation. Similar
academic objectives may be achieved through curricula with different structures
and approaches. Curricula should provide an understanding of perspectives that
form the context for business. Coverage should include ethical and global issues,
the influence of political, social, legal and regulatory, environmental and
technological issues, and the impact of demographic diversity on organizations.
The perspectives indicated above might be addressed via individual courses with
titles that explicitly identify the perspective being treated. However, it is not the
intent of this standard to require a separate course for any one or for any
combination of these perspectives. Schools may approach any or all of these
topics by interweaving them throughout other required curricular elements.
The AACSB further states that:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Undergraduate programs in business require work in those academic areas
necessary for an appropriate foundation of descriptive and analytical approaches
to the study of communications, humanities, natural sciences, accounting,
economics, behavioral sciences, and mathematics/statistics. A school may
structure its curricula differently to fit its mission and educational philosophy.
According to Gordon and Howell (1959), the original intention of curriculum
design in business was to provide a balance between the broad liberal education and the
practical business education or “professional core”. This intention could be accused of
failing to address the differences, if any, between the graduate’s need for first level skills
into the workplace versus the need for long range general managerial development.
Purposes of the Study
The primary objective of this study was to identify first-level manufacturing,
assembly and/or material processing (MAMP) management competencies perceived to be
important by three critical stakeholder groups:
1. An expert panel made up of employers of the graduates from Cal Poly
2. Graduates of Cal Poly who are currently employed in one of the sample
companies
3. Selected expert faculty members
The results will serve as a guide for developing, evaluating and restructuring the
proposed MAMP management curriculum within the business colleges’ undergraduate
curriculum. A secondary purpose was to assign each competency to a category or theme
that might serve as a guide in developing direct instructional procedures and appropriate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
outcomes. A third purpose was to assess the present and future level of importance
assigned to each competency, by business employers, business faculty and recent first-
level Cal Poly State University business college graduate managers from a cross section
of MAMP organizations. The level of importance would also indicate priority
considerations in the restructuring of the MAMP management curriculum.
Statement of the Problem
The general problem facing the College of Business at Cal Poly State University,
and perhaps other AACSB accredited business degree programs, is aligning the
curriculum and competency expectations of its students with the organizational
competency expectations of managers that are philosophically and strategically
consistent. More specifically, the Cal Poly State University College of Business, as well
as other business degree programs, have identified the importance of developing niche
programs for the preparation of students in the ever-changing world of business. A
possible niche was identified by the Cal Poly State University College of Business to be
industrial technical management, which is defined in this study as the management of
manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing functions within an organization.
The curriculum for this proposed niche will need to include a common integrated body of
knowledge that includes general management competencies as well as industrial and
technical management competencies. This combination will prepare students for roles in
an ever changing, multi-functional technology based business community following
graduation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
The College of Business at Cal Poly State University now has two curriculums
in management. One provides traditional management education and the other industrial
MAMP management education. A large percentage of Cal Poly business graduates are
hired as first-level managers in organizations that have core competencies supported by
technologies in manufacturing, assembly and/or material processing. The need exists to
identify managerial competencies needed by the manager now and in the future for these
organizations, and implement them into a new MAMP curriculum. According to Eraut
(1994), qualifications that are based on competencies of professionals are different from
the competencies that are found in the syllabi of universities preparing students for
management. Eraut noticed discrepancies within the higher education design of what
students are expected to know in order to become qualified for first-line managerial
positions.
Significance of the Study
The curriculum serves as a logical starting point to examine undergraduate
programs in business. What universities do with and to students is in large measure a
function of the curriculum (Porter and McKibbin, 1988). The curriculum specifies the
content and sequence of the educational delivery system of an institution and therefore
provides the structure of the transmission process.
The curriculum also serves another important purpose. For observers, it provides
indicators of the educational objectives that faculty think should be pursued. The
importance is well-stated by Hofstadler and Hardy (1952, cited in Porter and McKibben
1988):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
A college curriculum is significant chiefly for two things: it reveals the educated
community’s conception of what knowledge is most worth transmitting to the
cream of its youth, and it reveals what kind of mind and character an education is
expected to produce.
This study is very important at this time for several reasons. First, with constantly
changing needs of technology and business environments, the College of Business must
be responsive to the needs of the business graduates who are entering an ever-changing
business community. In an effort to effectively prepare students for roles within the
contemporary business community requiring MAMP management understanding, the
College of Business must continually assess the effectiveness of the curriculum. The
information collected in this study may be valuable to the curriculum committee and
decision-makers in the College of Business as they examine the curriculum for future
changes.
Secondly, this study will provide recent business graduates an opportunity to
evaluate the curriculum as it relates to competency requirements of MAMP managers.
Recent graduates recognizing, understanding and evaluating their competencies in the
workplace provide a perspective not available elsewhere.
Finally, the Cal Poly College of Business is investigating the possibility of change
toward a much more integrated curriculum (combining several business functional area
subjects in one course) in the near future. This change will necessitate major
restructuring of the existing curriculum. This study will also provide valuable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
competency requirements and MAMP specific information regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the present curriculum, which may be beneficial to decision-makers.
Research Questions
The general purpose of the study is the determination of industry-based
competencies needed currently and in the future by Cal Poly State University College of
Business graduates for successful first-level managerial employment in organizations that
contain a manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing component. Additional
purposes are to classify those competencies into domains of learning, and to determine
hierarchies within those domains. Therefore, the following research questions were
investigated:
1. What knowledge, skill and value competencies regarding first-level MAMP
management positions do experts identify for successful employment
presently and in the future?
2. What levels of importance did experts, former students in first-level MAMP
manager positions and faculty establish regarding the knowledge, skill and
value competencies?
3. What were the differences among experts, employees and educators on the
level of present agreement and level of future importance ratings of
competencies for first-level MAMP management positions?
Assumptions
The investigator made the following assumptions regarding the study conducted:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
1. Participants would respond to the survey questionnaire in a genuine and
candid manner.
2. The faculty and curriculum committee in the College of Business would find
the data collected through the survey to be useful when evaluating the
curriculum.
3. Corporate employers had exposure to employment standards for and
performance appraisals of first-level management hires within his or her
organization from which to base his or her perceptions.
4. It was assumed that faculty in management and industrial management
academic programs were aware of professional advancement requirements
regarding the preparation of students.
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations are potential threats to the external validity of the study and are
typically within the control of the researcher. The primary delimitation that the researcher
had control of in this study was the selection of the expert panel comprised of advisors
and employers of Cal Poly State University College of Business Industrial
Technology/Production Management and General Management students. This limits the
relevance of this study to other universities and organizations. Other delimitations and
concerns not directly related in this study include:
1. The rounds of the modified Delphi method utilized a Likert-type scale, the
results might be biased based on the possibility of some respondents
consistently selecting the mean, high or low ratings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
2. This study is not longitudinal, meaning inability to measure changes over
time. The results can only reflect a specific point in time.
Limitations are potential threats to the internal validity of the study, and are not
typically within the control of the researcher. A limitation of this study could be the E-
mailed initiated Internet web-site questionnaire method of data collection. It is not known
what level of response to expect from this method of survey.
The study will be limited to the Industrial Technology/Business Administration
Bachelor of Science graduates from the College of Business, who have graduated within
the last five years.
Definition of Terms
Values: beliefs, feelings, attitudes, opinions, ethics, expectations: a psychological
tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or
disfavor (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).
Business Administration graduates: those students who have completed the
Bachelor of Science degree graduation requirements with a major field of study in one of
the following areas in the College of Business at California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo: Industrial Technology and General Management.
Consensus: to converge toward agreement on a particular subject; determined by
statistical agreement among the participants as a total group.
Curriculum: a system of performance improvement opportunities (such as
courses, programs, learning intervention, or other forms of performance improvement
opportunities), the content specifications for them, and a conceptual framework for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
linking the opportunities in a sequential manner which will provide efficient and
effective learning opportunities for students (Dubois, 1993).
Delphi Technique: a systematic approach to group decision making which utilizes
several rounds of specific questions interspersed with feedback from respondents
(Dalkey, 1969).
Educators: individuals employed in higher education involved in teaching and
research in industrial technology or management curriculum areas.
First-level manager: those who directly supervise individuals doing technical
work; they work directly with the line workers, subordinates that are non-managers. A
fust-level manager deals directly with the employees performing the technical function;
his technical skills must be equivalent for effective planning, control and direction of the
workers’ activities. This is the management level focused on in this study.
Graduates: those students who have completed the graduation requirements for a
Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the College of Business at
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
Industrial Technology Management: A combination of numbers one and six from
the management definition listed below that includes managers who can make informed
decisions about managing people and technology.
Job Competency: an underlying characteristic of an employee (i.e., motive, trait,
skill, aspects of one’s self-image, social role, or a body of knowledge) which results in
effective and/or superior performance in a job (Boyatzis, 1982).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Job skills and competency needs: this study will use Kanungo and Misra’s
(1992), definitions of skills and competencies. A skill is the ability or capability to
engage in specific behaviors, including overt behavior and cognitive activities, to
accomplish specific tasks. Skills are learned from training and experience. A competency
is the ability to engage in non-routine cognitive and intellectual activities. Competencies
are used to cope with uncertainty in the environment. Competencies are transferable
across a wide array of situations, and are generic in that they apply to many different
types of jobs.
Management: According to Gray (1987), all activities to which organizational
undertakings give rise can be divided into the following six functions:
1. Technical (engineering, production, manufacture, adaptation).
2. Commercial (buying, selling, exchange).
3. Financial (search for the optimum use o f capital).
4. Security (protection of assets and personnel).
5. Accounting (stocktaking, balance sheets, costs, statistics).
6. Managerial (planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, controlling).
Problem Solving: a logical, step-by-step procedure that allows the decision maker
to drill down a collection of information, identify the key problem, and discriminate
alternatives.
Traditional general manager: a person working for an organization who practices
management, solves problems, monitors individual workers and makes critical decisions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Managers are usually those charged with functional responsibilities, but who do not
directly manage those that conduct the technical work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Introduction
Concepts such as a flattening organizational structure, wider spans of control,
decentralized decision-making, work teams, empowered employees, reengineering, total
quality management and continuous improvement are reality in today's business
organizations. Recently, business schools have been criticized for failing to provide
students with the competencies and skills required in the new workplace (Applebome,
1995).
The purpose of this review of literature is to provide a context for the research
problem. This chapter will present what has been researched in the specific areas that
formulate the research problem. First, the literature regarding the business environment in
general will be addressed, followed by a review of literature concerning the current
business school condition. Second, is a review of relevant literature on curriculum
development in business schools, followed by a review of literature on management
competency requirements and previous management competency related studies.
Business Environment
American companies are experiencing major changes in three broad groups of
variables: economic, demographic, and societal. Changes in these variables have
implications for the external and internal environments within which companies have to
operate (Porter and McKibbin, 1988).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
According to Howardell (1999), to survive today, companies must produce
world-class, quality products and services; design those products to meet the specific
customer’s needs; and deliver them quickly anywhere in the world at a competitive price.
This worldwide competition requires the creation of a faster, smarter, better organization;
the Next Generation Workforce (NGW). This NGW must be able to thrive in a changing
environment, work as a team, exhibit creativity, respond to customers, improve the
process, manage their lives and careers, and turn policy into action.
More of the specific variables impacting American business might include, a
rapidly growing role for high technology, the increasingly international nature of the
world economy and the consequent competition from foreign competitors, the growth in
entrepreneurism and small companies, and changes in the nature of work. References to
all these variables can be found in (Johnston, 1986; Naisbitt and Aberdeen, 1990; Porter
and McKibbin, 1988; Toffler, 1990; and Useem, 1989).
Many business schools profess to "prepare men and women for positions of
managerial responsibility" according to Buckley, Peach, & Weitzel (1989). To
accomplish this objective, business schools must have an understanding of the
competencies required for success in a managerial position today.
The Business School Environment
A major complaint directed at colleges of business is the emphasis on
memorization of content versus the acquiring of competencies needed for workplace
performance. Business literature is overflowing with articles doubting how well business
schools can meet the current and future needs of business organizations. Some authors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
think that the overall curriculum is out of touch with the needs of corporate America
(Arben, 1997).
In an article by Raelin (1995), there is a comparison made between two different
models o f management pedagogy: the traditional professional education model and the
action learning model. These differing management models essentially describe the
competing views that exist within the COBSLO. Most of the literature concerning
disappointment of management education by business organizations is directed towards
the professional education model. The beginning of the criticisms directed at professional
management education, in regard to outcomes, seems to have started with Hayes and
Abernathy (1980). Apparently, graduates from the professional model emphasize analytic
detachment to the detriment of insight, have narrow focus, are oriented toward the short
term and have a reduced commitment to lifelong learning.
Cheit (1985), in an article that is arguably relevant today, reviewed hundreds of
articles and categorized them into four general observations: business schools have
embraced the wrong pedagogical model, failed to meet the needs of society, ignored
important work related competencies, and instilled undesirable attitudes (values) in their
graduates. However, according to the research, the traditional model has a very important
purpose: to provide the theoretical underpinnings that develop the practical applications.
A study by Vilijeon, Holt and Petzall (1990) of existing managers before their enrollment
in a Business program revealed that the managers had good practical management skills
related to their specific managerial tasks within their own organization. However, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
managers were challenged when it came to identifying the theory behind the skill
development.
On the other side of the argument is the action learning model. According to
Raelin (1995), this model is based on the idea that as students, managers learn most
effectively with and from other managers and teachers while all are engaged in the
solution of actual, real-time problems in their work settings. Action learning essentially
emphasizes learning by doing. The action learning model is one that most closely
resembles the approach to educational practices that would be a necessary component in
the design of a MAMP curriculum.
Additional articles suggest that business schools are failing to help students
develop needed competencies and skills. According to Maes (1997), many of the recent
articles are based on data collected in the 1970s or earlier, for example, a study by
Buckley, Peach, & Weitzel, done in 1989. Maes provides an additional observation that
some articles are based on sample sizes that are too small, for example, a study by
Thompson & Smith, 1992 with an N = 20 wouid not indicate a very reliable survey. This
type of information seems to indicate a need for more recent and reliable data.
The educational preparation of future managers is a critical component of the
response to the changes with which American business must cope (Useem 1989).
Managers need to move beyond specialties, work in cross-functional teams, and manage
complex interdependencies (Kanter, 1983).
Caudron (1993) reveals that, as a part of total quality efforts, many companies'
training needs lie in the areas of teamwork, communication, decision-making, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
problem solving. Changes in managerial competencies have experts asking whether
business schools are putting the correct emphasis on development of these competencies.
Curriculum Development and Evaluation
The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has
recently revised its standards to emphasize written and oral communication as an
important characteristic in the business curriculum (AACSB, 1994-1995). Standards of
quality for business school undergraduate programs can be defined in terms of faculty
credentials, student credentials, placement success, and publication rankings. A primary
objective is accreditation of the business school and its curriculum by the AACSB.
According to Ferketich (1998), of the 1,200 plus college and university business degree
programs in the United States, less than 400 are accredited by AACSB. The
undergraduate business program at Cal Poly State University is a fully accredited
program. AACSB accreditation is highly desirable because it has rigorous standards that
stress curriculum design, faculty qualifications, admission standards, as well as other
criteria (AACSB, 1994).
According to Finch, (1984) curriculum evaluation is considered a critical step in
the curriculum development process because it enables curriculum decision-makers to
review and modify existing programs before major problems arise.
Business schools across the country have been taking a closer look at their
curriculum offerings. “ I don’t think you would have seen as much change or
experimentation in the business curriculum anytime during the past 30 years as you see
right now,” says Charles Hickman, director of projects and member services at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in Mason (1992).
Hickman goes on to explain that thirty years ago business schools were fighting for
credibility. Now business schools need to fight a curriculum based on theory and move it
in the direction of more practicality.
In respect to differing points of view on curriculum development, Ferketich
(1998) suggests that educators like to discuss, analyze, meditate, and reflect. Faculty
members protect their courses, design curricula, and react to students, while
administrators react to external and internal pressures for quality programs. Practitioners
ask educators to prepare students for work and life by introducing relevant curricula.
While corporate stakeholders are asking for quicker responsiveness to their needs, there
is an inherent tendency by some entrenched faculty to resist curricula change.
Motillia (1997) identified a few reasons to explain resistance to change by
business faculties: a threat to individual autonomy/academic freedom; a lack of trust
about qualitative evaluation versus quantitative evaluation; a lack of commitment to
AACSB accreditation standards; and the perception that business organizations make
curriculum change requests based on the latest fads.
Anderson and Ball (1978) organized general evaluative purposes into the
following categories of academic program evaluation:
1. program installation
2. program continuation, expansion or certification
3. program modification
4. support for a program
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
5. opposition to a program
6. contributions to the understanding of basic psychological, sociological, or
other processes.
Even though the methodologies of program reviews differ, all seem to be based
on the administration of an organized curriculum. In all cases evaluation needs to be well
organized and should include faculty, students, graduates, and those who employ or
otherwise supervise graduates. The assessment should thoroughly address how, and to
what extent the stated philosophy, purposes and objectives of the academic program are
being met within the conceptual framework.
Management Competency Requirements
Chris Pierce (1994) discusses the difficulty of defining "competency."
"Competence," he says, means "performing work in an efficient and effective manner"
and "competency" means a dimension of management ability and behavior required for
competent performance". In introducing the need to establish competencies, he comments
further:
The competencies of executives have been receiving unprecedented scrutiny from
both practitioners and interested observers recently; many companies have now
realized that the development of their human resources, particularly at executive
level, can provide a key source of sustainable competitive advantage and, as a
consequence, training and human resource development specialists have been
developing competency frameworks at every level of management. Further
evidence of this interest in competencies is provided by the fact that there are an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
increasing number of conferences taking place focused on the use of such
frameworks. (Pierce 1994).
The terms competent, competency, and competency standards seem to have little
difference: they all come from the Latin root competere, which means, "to be suitable." In
today's workplace, however, each word has taken on a more defined meaning according
to Ayer (1998):
Competent retains most of the original meaning: a competent manager is properly
or sufficiently qualified to manage a project, product or people. But competence is
also dependent on the characteristics of the project, product or people involved.
For example, a manager who is competent to manage residential home
construction may not be competent to manage nuclear power plant construction.
Competency is now widely used to refer to a specific, observable characteristic or
behavior that leads to excellent performance. This leads to an interesting anomaly:
a competent manager may be missing one or more competencies! Competencies
can be difficult to define because of the need to establish a causal link between
the behavior and the accomplishment.
Competency standards return us to the traditional meaning: they describe what is
expected of a competent employee in the workplace. They differ from traditional
job descriptions in that they emphasize results rather than activities. Competency
standards normally address multiple levels of performance and also include a
description of how to assess competence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Fayol (1949), one of the first researchers to investigate the nature of managerial
work, identified the five classical management competencies of planning, organizing,
commanding, controlling, and coordinating. Reference to Fayol’s work is found in most
of today’s management texts.
A different classification scheme was presented in 1955, when Katz (1974) first
published his findings of observable skills o f executives. He classified managerial skills
as technical, human, and conceptual.
According to Dubrin (1994), a manager is a person working for an organization
that practices management, solves problems, monitors the work of individuals, and makes
decisions.
Five separate studies, according to Plutsky (1996) confirm the importance that
business communication competency holds in the curriculum. These studies included
Gustafson, Johnson, and Hovey’s survey (1993) of undergraduate and graduate students,
alumni, and business leaders, which revealed that communication was crucial to their
successful job search upon graduation. In the same study, alumni believed that
communication is the most important area of knowledge for advancement to higher levels
of responsibility.
In an article regarding competence specificities in organizations by Nordhaug
(1998), a classificatory framework for work-related competencies held by employees is
proposed. These competencies are defined as the composite of human knowledge, skills,
and aptitudes that can serve productive purpose in firms. Nordhaug continues with the
point that when applying the human-capital theory to technology related competencies,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
the competencies identified are typically organizational and equipment specific in order
to create a perfect fit between competencies and work tasks. The point is that these
identifiable specific organizational competencies do not inclusively need to be attached to
specific work tasks and procedures particular to individual organizations. The time spent
on defining task-specific competencies is inappropriate when considering the flexibility
and efficiency needed for most organizations to compete in the ever-changing world of
business. The technology specific competencies typically established by organizations
need to be complemented with what Nordhaug defines as organization-related firm
specific competencies, non-task specific competencies like (political process
identification, organizational culture understanding, and interpersonal network
development.
Carroll and Gillen (1987) reported that identification of specific managerial
competencies and skills is important for a number of reasons, including selection,
performance appraisal, management education, and management training programs.
A technical manager has many responsibilities. He is responsible to his workers, to
upper management, and to society as a whole. Badawy (1995) asserts that this role is one
of many contradictions:
1. He must provide exact answers with inexact and incomplete input.
2. He must do this on a schedule and within a budget, both of which are usually
too restrictive.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
3. He must do this in a world of detail, with a broad understanding of the
overall problem. Too little attention to detail can lead to incompletion,
frustration, and lack of recognition o f the overall objectives.
4. He must work with people, who are primarily his only resource, who must
take the natural sciences and materials and translate them economically into a
useful product.
5. He must provide proper planning, organization, standards, control of results,
and measurement systems while creating an atmosphere conducive to high
creativity and innovation.
6. He must balance short-range goals against long-range viability.
7. He must develop and maintain competence in specialized technical skills and,
at the same time, develop broad-gauged products of systems engineers and
integrate their combined contributions.
8. He must provide technical growth and continuity for the parent organization
while meeting the needs of individuals.
9. He must constantly strive for synergism o f all the interrelationships and
related technologies with his activity.
10. He must be constantly feeding back experience of his predecessors,
competitors, and the results produced by his organization into this engineering
process.
Due to the above-mentioned concerns, the first-level MAMP manager must be
continuously aware of the requirements of his organization and the competition from
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
other suppliers and new emerging technologies. He needs to be continuously
exchanging and integrating information throughout the other functional areas within the
organization and throughout similar industries as well. According to Badawy (1995),
first-line technical managers must be knowledgeable, flexible and well prepared to adapt
to and influence change. Therefore, managing an engineering organization is like
designing a technical product; it is a compromise.
A study by Kane (1993), reported that MBA recruiters of Fortune 500 companies
assumed that graduates had the requisite technical skills and, therefore, they focused on
evaluating candidates' people skills. Respondents to Kane’s study reported that the top
three criteria for general management positions include strong interpersonal skills,
communication skills, and team-oriented skills. In addition, Marteil and Carroll's (1994)
survey of 115 managers in Fortune 500 companies showed that the managerial skills and
personal characteristics needed for effective performance are the same across all
functional areas, but that the technical skills required depend on the particular functional
area.
According to Rosenbaum (1991), there is enough uniqueness in technical
professionals to warrant special training for the people who lead them. Traditional
management principles only meet with minimal success when applied to technical
professionals. Technical leadership takes a special combination of knowledge about
science and technology to acquire respect; knowledge about behavior; and skill to lead.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Based on the research and professional experience of Badawy (1995), there
seems to be examples of common problems facing first-level technical supervisors at
many organizations:
1. Handling difficult performance appraisals. They need to develop the ability
and willingness to give thorough and effective appraisals without avoiding
difficult problem areas where constructive comments are needed.
2. Overcoming the "mother hen syndrome." Inexperienced managers with strong
technical interests often frustrate their engineers by acting as super-project
engineers rather than as managers.
3. Neglecting managerial aspects of job. Managers sometimes have difficulty
realizing that their job involves much non-technical work such as recruiting,
budgeting, forecasting, and so on. They tend to neglect these areas, seeing
them as distractions rather than as an inherent part of the job.
4. Developing enthusiasm and motivation. Managers vary widely in their ability
to develop enthusiasm and motivation in their employees. Special problems
can arise in keeping people motivated during both overload and slack periods;
other problems can result from slow business growth and the resulting lack of
promotion opportunities and salary compression.
5. Developing decisiveness. Some managers delay making important decisions
because they never have enough facts to suit them. They need to appreciate
that a potentially wrong decision is often better than no decision. They also
need to develop sensitivity to situations in which they slowly drift down a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
dead-end road trying to solve a potentially unsolvable problem. This often
delays the day of reckoning when drastic action must finally be taken.
6. Developing employees. Some managers fail to realize that a part of their job is
to develop their employees' overall capabilities so that they are prepared for
advancement when the opportunity arises.
7. Communicating adequately. Managers are often negligent in communicating
pertinent facts and news about the business to their staff. This often goes
along with the failure to have group meetings that give their employees a
chance to interact and to make them feel that they are a part of a team.
8. Playing favorites. Inexperienced managers may spend most of their time with
one or two employees and totally neglect the less interesting activities of the
rest of the group.
9. Holding a narrow perspective of job. Managers will sometimes launch
important new projects without first gaining an understanding of customers'
needs and without understanding the product being offered by the
competition.
10. Recognizing special performance. Managers often fail to give suitable
recognition to employees who have performed beyond the call of duty in
completing rush projects.
11. Understanding matrix management. Managers often have difficulty working
comfortably within a matrix management situation. Coping with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
requirements of both their line managers and program managers causes a
surprising amount of confusion and frustration.
12. Having financial consciousness. Some managers are not really interested in
financial matters and neglect to control the manufacturing costs of their
products as well as the development costs.
Despite the importance of managerial competencies, studies have failed to
identify the complete range of competencies required for effective performance. Maes
(1997) reveals that, one stream of research focuses on determining which skills
employers seek in new college recruits (Atkins & Kent, 1988; Caudron, 1993; Kane,
1993; Kaufman, 1994; Martell & Carroll, 1994; Olney & Bednar, 1989; Pritchard, 1995;
Scheetz& Stein-Roggenbuck, 1994; Siegel & Sorensen, 1994; Thompson, 1988;
Thompson & Smith, 1992). Apparently according to Maes, a study by (Buckley, Peach,
and Weitzel 1989) compared the results of two studies conducted in 1975 and 1983 that
investigated the importance of specific applicant qualifications in hiring decisions. Maes
continues with how the results illustrated the importance of certain qualifications that
changed between 1975 and 1983. In 1975, oral and written communication was not
among the five most important qualifications. However, eight years later communication
was the top ranking qualifier, followed by work habits, which moved from the fifth
ranked qualification to second. The authors apparently anticipated that as the economy
moved toward service-oriented businesses the importance of communication was likely
to increase. The Buckley, Peach, & Weitzel study recommended that business schools
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
use "client-oriented, strategic planning techniques" to work closely with businesses in
developing curricula according to (Maes 1997).
Over 25 years ago, Livingston (1973) pointed out that while business schools
were emphasizing problem-solving and decision-making, an imbalance had been created
between analytical ability, which tended to be over-developed, and the ability to take
action and make things happen, which remained largely under-developed. In addition,
Webber (1976) suggested that new graduates often lack interpersonal skills, including the
ability to empathize or cope with the emotional reactions of others that naturally occur on
the job, thus limiting their own ability to learn and grow.
Following the suggestion of Carroll and Gillen (1987), Kanungo and Misra (1992)
presented a convincing argument for differentiating between the competencies and skills
needed for successful managerial performance. They argued that competencies represent
fundamental generic cognitive characteristics needed for all non-routine tasks.
Competencies are viewed, as elements needed for managerial achievement. They
distinguished skills, as capabilities needed to perform specific routine tasks.
Thompson and Smith (1992) surveyed 20 human resource managers and found
that many business graduates are not adequately trained in problem solving,
communications, computer skills, and teamwork. One manager suggested that colleges
and universities should conduct market research to identify the needs of businesses and
attempt to satisfy these needs in the curricula. Now that the distinctions among
competencies, skills, and personal characteristics are more clearly understood, studies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
must be conducted to identify the competencies that businesses expect of college
graduates aspiring to managerial positions.
Although most management texts continue to use Fayol's classification scheme
for presenting the nature of managerial work (Carroll & Gillen, 1987), the changing
nature of today's business environment will likely prove this classification scheme
inadequate for identifying the competencies required of future managers. In addition,
research is needed to identify specific skills that comprise and support each competency.
Research of previous studies concerning first-level manager qualifications
demonstrated that the qualifications employers value change over time; therefore, studies
conducted 10 or more years ago are inadequate for identifying current business needs,
However, they are reviewed in this study for a point of reference.
To prepare business school students for first-level MAMP managerial positions
business schools must have an understanding of the competencies required for success in
a managerial position today. Maes (1997) performed two studies that attempted to
identify the competencies that organizations consider when selecting college graduates.
Oral communication was consistently identified as the most important competency.
These studies add credibility to the notion that first-level MAMP managers must have the
appropriate understanding of a technological vocabulary that is prevalent in the technical
businesses of today.
Plutsky (1996) points out that employer’s view effective communication skills as
a key to success in business. Consequently, university business school faculties have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
come to realize that they must equip students with the communication skill employers’
demand if their programs are to succeed.
According to Wood (1998) the concept of competencies grew out of the pressures
on organizations to make themselves more effective through selecting, developing and
rewarding the right people. It was in the context of managerial assessment that Richard
Boyatzis, first coined the term “competencies”. His book, according to Wood (1998), The
Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, laid down the agenda for the
competency debates to follow. Page one of the book declares, “It is the competence of
managers that determines, in large part, the return that organizations realize from their
human capital, or human resources.”
According to Boyatzis (1982) people can be described in terms of 21
competencies.
Goal and Action Management Cluster
Efficiency orientation
Productivity
Diagnostic use of concepts
Concern with impact
Directing Subordinates Cluster
Developing others
Use of unilateral power
Spontaneity
Leadership Cluster
Self-confidence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Use of oral presentations
Logical thought
Conceptualization
Focus on Other Clusters
Self-control
Perceptual objectivity
Stamina and adaptability
Concern with close relationships
Human Resource Cluster
Use of socialized power
Positive regard
Managing group processes
Accurate self-assessment
Specialized Knowledge
Memory
Specialized knowledge
Wood (1998) developed a list of competencies called The Fettercom Competency
Framework divided up into three main sections; Thinking, Feeling and Acting.
THINKING
Analysis
Identifies information to analyze and applies reasoning skills to help inform decisions.
• Identifies information required for analysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
• Identifies patterns and themes in data
• Uses both “hard” and “soft” data for analysis
• Demonstrates inductive and deductive reasoning
• Makes objective decisions based on analysis.
Learning ability
The desires to continually learn and improve ones own knowledge and understanding.
Takes learning opportunities and learns quickly.
• Learns from their mistakes
• Learns new techniques/processes rapidly
• Identifies and takes opportunities to learn
• Learns in a variety of ways, e.g., from experience, books, people, etc.
• Prepared to change approach in the light of experience.
FEELING
Influencing
The ability to win people around to their way of thinking, using logical fact-based
argument and persuasive skills and tactics.
• Identifies the key people to influence
• Identifies the needs and wants of those to be influenced
• Uses logical argument based on fact when persuading
• Uses tactics, such as involving people, tailoring the message, or bargaining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
• Presents counter arguments in a constructive, neutral way.
Interpersonal skills
Empathizes with others, and respects people as individuals. Balances the need to be
directive and consultative when required.
• Listens actively to others
• Values differences and treats people with respect
• Uses appropriate non-verbal/body language
• Communicates own needs/feelings in a clear way
• Does not react defensively/take things personally.
ACTING
Planning and organizing
The ability to visualize a sequence of actions needed to achieve a goal and to estimate the
resources required; a preference for acting in a structured, thorough manner.
• Manages own time and personal activities
• Breaks complex activities into manageable tasks
• Identifies possible obstacles to planned achievement
• Produces contingency plans for possible future occurrences
• Estimates in advance the resources and time scales needed to meet objectives.
Achievement drive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
The motivation and drive to achieve results and get things done. A preference for
persistence and resilience.
• Is proactive at identifying areas in which to add value
• Completes tasks set to time/budget/quality
• Finds ways around problems/setbacks
• Volunteers for extra tasks/duties
• Inspires others to put in extra effort
Marcus and Pringle (199S) also take their shot at identifying the competencies
that distinguish top performers. The six competencies, which they maintain define
individual excellence, include: strategic leadership; creative resourcing; change mastery;
resilience; appetite to learn; and, influence without authority.
Related Research Studies on Competencies
Bemardin and Villanova (1998) provide insight to the significance of performing
periodic job competency analysis, “with greater frequency in order to better capture the
dynamic changes in jobs and to better inventory what contextual aspects of job
performance may lend themselves to measurement.”
In a recent study by Craft (1998) the researcher attempted to identify and rank
order digital imaging technical competency areas that first-line managers and potential
managers in the digital printing industry should have in order to be effective. The purpose
of the study was to provide graphic arts imaging technology and printing management
educators and planners with competency areas useful for the development of an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
undergraduate digital imaging first-line management curriculum. The competency areas
and sub-areas discovered in the study are presented below. The competencies that could
be applicable in this study are provided with a bullet.
Job Engineering
• Workflow Management (service times, capacities, employee work loads, etc.)
• Job Estimating (create guidelines and direct the production process).
• Interpersonal Skills for Customer Service-Understanding How to Maintain
Customer Retention, Customer Satisfaction, and Maintenance of Customer
Data.
• Understanding the Customer (requirements and expectations)
• Assessing Customer Expectations-Customer Interaction (maintaining a
professional relationship or climate)
• Time Analysis for Job Production- budget hourly rates
• The Ability to Properly Assess the Training Needed By the Customer Service
Representative to Adequately Guide Customers Through Job Specifications
Image Acquisition
Ability to Judge Color Correction
Understand Mode Conversion
Calibration of Digital Imaging Hardware
Assembly (no new competency sub-areas)
Output
Finishing/Laminating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Materials (vinyl’s, laminates, and other substrates)
Media (Films, CD-ROMS, Web Page Services, etc.)
Knowledge and Understanding of Digital Printing Operations-A Study of
Trends
Advanced Knowledge and Training of Digital Printing Methods (inkjet,
electrostatic, thermal transfer, dye sublimation)
Advanced Working Knowledge of Major High Volume Printing Processes
(offset lithography, flexography, and screen-printing)
Technical Services
• File Management-Back-up/Archiving
Digital Imaging Management Operations
• Communication Skills Leadership Skills
• Conflict Resolution Skills
• Learning Skills
• Research Skills
• Analysis Skills
• Marketing Skills
Imaging Services
• Resource Management-maximizing the skills of employees
• Communication with Vendors
Employee Supervision-Retention and Morale
Employee Retention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Knowledge of Computers
• Software-Spread Sheets
• Page Layout Programs
• Image Editing Programs
• Draw and Paint Programs
• Cross-Platforming
• Computer Operating Environments
Production Techniques
• Foundational Design Concepts
• Understanding of Digital Printing and Imaging
• Quality Control
• Digital Imaging Workflow Analysis
According to Craft (1998) the following statement represents the cohesiveness and
essence of the panelists’ comments, rating and rankings from his study: It is important for
any manager to have some knowledge of the tasks that his employees are accomplishing,
but in depth or detailed knowledge is not necessarily required. A manager needs to know
what is possible, what is reasonable to expect and what is good quality.
In another study, Heezen (1998) sought managerial competencies and readings
that city managers, public library directors and graduate school of librarianship
management instructors agreed were essential in their job performance. After surveying
the three groups Heezen derived a list of competencies found in (Appendix J).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Heezen explains that without offering conclusive findings, his study indicates
similarities in the panelists’ belief systems. Library directors agreed that the following
skills were essential: adaptability/flexibility; automation awareness; communication; and
vision. City managers unanimously valued similar skills (with different names) as
essential, including change mastery; community involvement; planning; political
maneuvering; problem solving; stress reduction; and technological literacy. Apparently
there was little correlation of the above selections with the responses from the graduate
schools, most schools it seems were not oriented toward specific competencies.
In a study by Aliakbarzadeh (1987), the purpose was to determine the extent of
agreement on designated management functions, attributes and skills among engineering
and non-engineering managers within an aerospace company in Southern California. The
results of the study indicated that engineering managers believed that a higher level of
competence in planning, leading/directing, controlling, and general administration was
required for managers, than did the non-engineering managers. Non-engineering
managers favored high levels of competence in organization, interpersonal relations and
administration. Aliakbarzadeh (1987) provided his survey participants with the following
list o f competencies without explanations to choose from:
1. Planning. Consists of a manager's specific skills in forecasting, developing
objectives, programming, scheduling, and finance/budgeting. The manager’s
ability to complete staff work is also included within planning.
2. Organizing. Consists of a manager's ability to develop organizations, delegate
responsibility, develop relationships, and appropriately staff his/her unit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
3. Leading/directing. Consists of a manager's ability or competence in making
decisions, communicating, motivating, selecting, and developing individuals.
4. Interpersonal relations. Consists of a manager’s ability to relate to senior
supervisors, peers, subordinates, and client/customer relationships.
5. Controlling. Consists of a manager's ability to develop performance standards,
measure performance, evaluate performance, correct performance, and to take
follow-up action to ensure productivity and performance improvement.
6. Administrative. Consists of a manager's ability to manage company policies
and procedures, to initiate changes and to follow through on the completion of
work assignments.
7. General Administration. Consists of a manager's ability to develop
management information systems, to establish a project management unit, to
manage a materials/supply organization, and to individualize the legal aspects
of his/her function.
Aliakbarzadeh provided a questionnaire with the seven main competencies listed
above along with several sub-competencies listed under each heading:
Planning
Forecasting
Developing Objectives
Programming
Scheduling
Finance/Budgeting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Completed Staff Work
Organizing
Develop Organizations
Delegating Responsibility
Developing Relationships
Staffing
Leading/Directing
Decision-Making
Communicating
Motivating
Selecting People
Developing People
Interpersonal Relations
Supervisors
Peers
Subordinates
Client/Customer
Controlling
Develop Performance Standards
Measuring Performance
Evaluating Performance
Correcting Performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Administrative
Policies
Procedures
Initiating Changes
Follow Up/Work Completion
General Administrative
Management Information Systems
Materials/Supply Management
Project Management
Legal
In a similar study by Franz (1988), an attempt was made to describe the nature of
the effective performance of first-level managers from the two distinctive perspectives of
Group Leaders and Senior Managers within a high technology manufacturing
corporation. Franz’s study came up with 596 behaviors that were classified into
competencies identified by the Boyatzis Generic Manager Competency Model. Franz’s
study emphasized what effective managers do as opposed to what their personality traits
are. According to Franz, there were several key areas of agreement, the data clearly
defined key areas of disagreement. Both sets of observers agreed that behaviors that
support training, expert help and other resources available to help workers in job
proficiency and stimulate teamwork are of primary importance. The differences were
senior managers high ranking of efficiency and goal accomplishment while group leaders
specified respect for employees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Franz (1988), came up with general competency statements then defined them in
terms of behavior competencies and then gave behavior examples for each. Table 1,
shows the competency statements and behavior competencies from Franz’s study.
A study by Keech (1998) had some interesting insight in regards to competencies
by assigning each competency to a category of learning. The purpose of the study was to
identify entry-level retail management competencies and use them to develop retail
management curriculums. Keech divided the identified competencies into the objective
categories of knowledge, attitude and skill. Keech’s study had several similarities to this
study and was found to be insightful. Table 2, identifies competencies developed in the
Keech study. Keech’s (1998) study concluded that leadership, team building, problem
solving and decision making are important competencies to develop in the retail
management curriculum. In another related study, Vaccaro (199S) set out to discover the
necessary competencies that would enhance an employee’s chances for promotion in
twenty-first century organizations. The designed instrument contained twelve
competencies; organizational loyalty, networking, who you know, professional image,
leadership skills, technical competency, organizational longevity, education level, age,
customer orientation, teambuilding and international experience. The results indicated
that being competent in networking and (who you know) were most important, while
international experience was least important.
Kuo (1998) in a study to discover leader’s competencies or skills necessary in the
fields of sport administration, higher education, and business in Taiwan, came up with a
final list of 47 competencies. Of the final 47 competencies, experts seemed to agree upon
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
the following 11 leader’s competencies as being significant for leaders in their fields
regardless of the culture:
Leadership style and ability
Written and oral communication
Proper delegation of responsibility
Project management, planning, implementation and evaluation
Ability to analyze before decision making
Creativity
Risk taking and risk management
Legal concepts and implications
Interpersonal skills and good personal relationships with others
Empathy and putting yourself in others shoes.
The research on managerial competency questionnaires uncovered the Managerial
Competency Questionnaire (MCQ) developed by Stephen P. Kelner for McBer and
Company (1997). The MCQ was developed to measure the use of seven competencies
that have been found to be critical for effective managers. Apparently, the Hay/McBer
training resources group has developed the MCQ based on research of hundreds of
managerial competency models. According to the MCQ Profile and Interpretive Notes,
Dr. David McClelland (founder and now Chairman Emeritus of McBer and Company,
Inc.) began exploring new research methods to identify variables that could predict job
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
performance. Hay/McBer claim that specific sets of competencies apply to different
types of jobs, superior managers share a general profile of competencies. The
competencies Hay/McBer (1997) find to be the most critical include:
Achievement Orientation: A concern for working well or for surpassing a standard of
excellence.
Developing Others: Involves a genuine intent to foster the long-term learning or
development of others, with an appropriate level of need analysis and other thought or
effort.
Directiveness: Implies the intent to make others comply with one’s wishes by
appropriate and effective use of personal power or the power of one’s position, with
the long-term good of the organization in mind.
Impact and Influence: Implies an intention to persuade, convince, influence, or
impress others in order to get them to go along with or to support one’s own agenda.
Interpersonal Understanding: Implies wanting to understand other people. It is the
ability to accurately hear and understand the unspoken or partly expressed thoughts,
feelings, and concerns of others.
Organizational Awareness: The ability to learn and understand the power
relationships in one’s own organization or in other organizations (customers,
suppliers, etc.).
Team Leadership: The intention to take a role as leader of a team or other group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1.
Franz (1988) Behavior Competencies and Examples
50
General competency: Making things happen consistent with a plan or goal
BEHAVIOR COMPETENCIES BEHAVIOR EXAMPLES
Efficiency Orientation
Manager sets goals for the department.
Proactivitv
Takes the first step in sequence of
activities rather than wait for something
to happen.
Diagnostic Use of Concepts
Having a model, theory or framework
with which to interpret events and inform
judgements
Concern with Impact
Being concerned with ones power in the
organization and how it impacts on others
After returning from a visit to a
customer’s site, Manager sets new goals
to improve quality of product shipped.
Third shift manager calls superior at
home to alert him to a rather significant
problem rather than wait until the end of
the shift.
Manager eliminates paperwork system of
former manager for production control,
appoints two group leaders to ensure that
work is moving through the
manufacturing cycle and to see that
people are reporting to work on time.
Accounting manager insisting that Q.C.
manager reduce staff and increase
throughput as his justification for the
purchase of capital asset.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1. (continued)
Franz (1988) Behavior Competencies and Examples
51
General Competency: Stimulating the interest and involvement of people by
communicating themes, values, goals and concern for performance and people in a
forceful, impressive manner.
BEHAVIOR COMPETENCIES BEHAVIOR EXAMPLES
Self Confidence
Inspiring confidence in verbal and non
verbal actions.
Use of Oral Presentation
Verbally communicating effectively.
Logical Thought
Listing or charting actions and events
arranged in order reflecting rational,
causal sequence.
Conceptualization
Developing something new by identifying
or recognizing a pattern in an assortment
of information.
If employee ideas are rejected and
employee still feels that the idea is good,
then the employee has permission to go
over the manager’s head.
Manager makes presentation and wins
approval for new program.
Faced with rush order, manager gathers
staff, distributes action lists and
empowers supervisors to cross-
departmental lines to assist each other
with their sequenced activities.
By talking with software user group,
manager sorts files in new manner that
cuts three days off report generation time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table I. (continued)
Franz (1988) Behavior Competencies and Examples
52
General Competency: Coordinating the efforts of groups by stimulating cooperation
and pride in the group.
BEHAVIOR COMPETENCIES BEHAVIOR EXAMPLES
Use of Socialized Power
Using forms of influence to build
alliances, networks, coalitions or teams
that did not exist before.
Positive regard
Demonstrating verbal and nonverbal skills
that cause others to feel valued.
Managing group process
Stimulating others to work together
effectively in group settings.
Accurate Self Assessment
Having realistic view of themselves.
Manager call in vendor, customer, and
key reports to determine ways to improve
quality.
Manager asks employee for ideas on how
to solve a problem on the Plating line.
At staff meeting attended by other shifts,
manager encourages employees to vent
feeling on poor communication and
search for solutions to improve situation.
Manager admits unfairness of past
practice of rewarding overtime based on
longevity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Table 2.
Keech Study Competencies
Knowledge Competencies
Legal restraints/issues Trend analysis
Retail work schedules Vendor analysis
Situation analysis Computer Literacy
Organizational Strategies Academic preparation in
Product knowledge retail management
Critical thinking Business ethics
Retail environment Sourcing
Analytical thinking Accounting
Competitive analysis Finance
Strategic planning Multicultural issues
Marketing concepts Operational procedures
Visual presentation Contingency planning
Attitude Competencies
Adventuresome Ethical
Leadership Assertive
Goal-oriented Open-minded
Innovative thinker Competitive
Action-oriented Enthusiastic
Open to criticism Flexible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Table 2. (continued)
Keech Study Competencies
Attitude Competencies
Detail-oriented Strong work ethic
Self-confident Proactive
Customer-oriented Focused
Optimistic Energetic
Team player Self-discipline
Responsible Creative
Communication/relationships
Skill Competencies
Stress management Risk/crisis management
Oral communication Motivation Strategies
Delegation Conflict management
Decision making Supervision
Problem solving Data analysis
Prioritization Precision/accuracy
Written communication Salesmanship
Retail experience Diversity management
Negotiation Time management
Human resource management Public relations
Interpersonal Computer literacy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Ferketich (1998) conducted a study to discover the differences in the beliefs of
the business community and academics concerning the preparation of students in MBA
programs. The results indicated that business managers and academic faculties agreed on
the importance of the essential skills required by business organizations. Ferketich points
out that both groups rated Soft Skills, those more oriented toward the interactions of
employees as more essential than the Hard or Conceptual Skills. Ferketich, listed the
following skills in his survey and had the participants rate each skill:
Analytical/Quantitative
Computer
Customer Orientation
Decision Making
Entrepreneurial/Initiative
Leadership/Interpersonal
Negotiation/Conflict Resolution
Oral Communication
Planning and organizing
Risk Taking
Team Building
Written Communication
Of the twelve skills presented, the soft skills defined as: Customer orientation,
leadership, oral, decision making and team building were determined by business
managers to be highly essential to the organization. The Hard/Conceptual Skills; Written,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
planning, computer, analytical, risk taking and entrepreneurial were all ranked in the
lower half. Ferketich did not anticipate the strength of the preferences for soft skills over
the hard.
Additional research on competencies for the future revealed an article in which
Allred et al. (1996) claim that competencies that typify a managerial career today are
shifting along with developments in organization structure. Based on an analysis of
organizational trends, as well as on interviews and a questionnaire survey, Allred et al.
identified the mix of competencies required for a successful career in business
organizations of the future. Allred continued with the point that managers of several
leading-edge companies, as well as members of the International Association of
Corporate & Professional Resources a group of human resource executives and executive
recruiters, agreed that future managerial careers will be based on.
A knowledge-based technical specialty
Cross-functional and international experience
Competence in collaborative leadership
Self-management skills
Personal traits of flexibility, integrity, and trustworthiness
Traditionally, according to Allred (1996), only upper-level managers were
expected to exercise comprehensive technical, commercial, collaborative and self-
governance skills. In the organization of the future, most managers will need and utilize
these skills.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Collaborative knowledge and abilities are the defining managerial competency
of the future. Collaboration involves three types of relationships and skills: referral,
partnering, and relationship management. Referral skills rely on the ability to analyze a
problem and prescribe a solution within the firm and across its partners. The traditional
mentality of do-it-all-yourself according to Allred has given way to a focus on doing only
what you do best. Partnering skills, Allred explains, refer to the capacity to conceptualize,
negotiate, and implement mutually beneficial outcomes. Many network organizations are
multifirm, so managers within the network must know how to connect other firms'
resources quickly and effectively to their own so that both parties benefit. Relationship
management involves giving high priority to the needs and preferences of key customers
and partners. In addition, future managers will need much stronger computer literacy than
today’s managers will. Information will be the key mechanism by which collaborative
problem solving occurs.
Summary
Current business related literature on the subject of competencies, indicate many
new directions theories and requirements involving the possibilities of enhancing
management competency curriculums. It would seem prudent for business schools to
address the concerns and suggestions noted and adjust their curriculums accordingly to
satisfy the inadequacies identified. Not only will the development and identification of
managerial competencies help the individual manager, it will also help companies adapt
quickly and set and achieve goals to remain competitive.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
Organizations that incorporate a component that involves the management of
manufacturing, assembly and/or material processing functions are continuously changing.
Changes in equipment, machinery, materials, processes and products, changes in the
technologies available to enhance the above mentioned areas, increased focus on
competitive priorities like service, quality, and on time delivery have combined to alter
the business landscape now and in the future. Many of these changes have a significant
influence on the competencies needed by first-level MAMP managers. This chapter
describes the procedures implemented in the development and execution of the
Knowledge, Skill and Value managerial competency questionnaire (KSV). The KSV
questionnaire format design used in this study is similar to the design format presented by
Keech (1998).
The Purpose of the study was to determine from a modified triangulation Delphi
study, the perceptions of (the ultimate client) employers of COBSLO business
administration students, as they relate to (the new managers) recent Bachelor degree in
business administration first level managers, and the perceptions of (the academic)
members of business school faculty, in regards to meeting current competency
requirements for the perspective MAMP managers. Additionally, the study will attempt
to provide some input regarding what the curriculum should accomplish in meeting
perceived competency requirements of the future. This proposed competency-based
approach to curriculum development would provide a degree of accountability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Accountability, according to Kohlman (1975), as it relates to the curriculum within
academic degree programs, emphasizes relevancy, adequacy, effectiveness and
efficiency.
Finally, a modified Delphi technique was used that was employer driven. That is,
the initial list of competencies was provided by employers who were in corporate
positions that were directly relevant to the functions o f MAMP managers.
Modified Delphi Method
This study will utilize the Delphi technique to gather information. Alexander
(1999) states that:
Planners have long realized that the answers to their problems cannot be found
through the use of an oracle. In ancient Greece, however this was not the case.
One of the most acclaimed oracles of ancient times was at Delphi, atop Mount
Parnassus. Here worshipers came from all over Greece to search for the wisdom
they needed. Today, planners must look not to an oracle, but rather to experts, for
their opinions in developing plans for the future. If experts always agreed on the
solutions to problems, the solutions would be easier to implement. In reality,
however this rarely happens. The Delphi Technique offers a way to bring those
expert opinions together.
According to Sackman (1975), the Delphi is an attempt to elicit expert opinion in
a systematic manner for useful results. It usually involves iterative questionnaires
administered to individual experts in a manner protecting the anonymity of their
responses. Feedback of the results accompanies each iteration of the questionnaire, which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
continues until convergence of opinion, or point of diminishing returns, is reached. The
end product is the consensus of experts, including their commentary, usually organized as
a written report by the Delphi investigator.
The Delphi technique, which was developed at the Rand Corporation in the early
1950s (Linstone & Turnoff, 1975, Dalkey, 1969), attempts to achieve a reliable
agreement of opinion of a group of experts through a series of questionnaires provided
with controlled feedback.
The general procedure for the Delphi technique is as follows according to (Uhl,
1983):
1. The participants are asked to list their opinions on a specific topic such as
curriculum revision or planning priorities.
2. The participants are then asked to evaluate the total list by a criterion such as
importance, chance of success, and so on.
3. The participants receive the list and a summary of responses to the items. If
the participants are in the minority, they are asked to revise their opinions or
indicate their reasons for remaining in the minority.
4. The participants again receive the list, an updated summary, minority
opinions, and another chance to revise their opinions.
A modification of the general approach is to skip the first procedure and provide a
structured questionnaire. A list of items is provided for the participants, who are asked to
indicate their importance on a five, seven, nine, or eleven-point Likert scale. Space is
provided on the questionnaire for panel members to make comments and add additional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
items that they believe are important. This alternative has specific advantages: it is less
frustrating for participants and assures consideration of a wide variety of ideas.
Apparently, because of the first advantage, Uhl (1983) found that the dropout rate of
respondents was much lower with this alternative than with the use of an open-ended
questionnaire.
Procedures for Identifying Participants
In a typical Delphi study, the study population is known as a panel of experts or
respondents. According to Ziglio (1996), expertise is the primary requirement in the
selection of members for the panel. In the present study, criteria that defined expertise
included:
1. Mid-level and above managers of organizations that contain a manufacturing,
assembly and/or material processing (MAMP) component in the state of
California who have a significant role in either hiring and/or advisement in the
preparation of Cal Poly State University College of Business graduates.
2. Employed for at least five years with their current organization.
3. Assurance from the potential member that sufficient time would be dedicated
to the Delphi exercise.
In general, selection of participants for the expert panel was made based on their
knowledge, expertise and commitment in regards to management in general, and the
success of Cal Poly State University College of Business graduates.
A list of potential expert panelists from various organizations was compiled by
the researcher from the COBSLO advisory board members list and by recommendations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
from faculty and former students. A pool of approximately 32 potential panelists was
established. In regards to the sample size of the panel, according to Ziglio (1996), the size
of a panel will vary. With homogeneous groups of experts, good results can be obtained
even with small panels of 10 to IS individuals.
Each potential panelist was contacted by E-mail (Appendix A) and presented with
the specifics of the research study. Initially, 31 potential panelists responded to the
research study, one participant dropped out with the following response: “I looked over
your questionnaire and think that the categories and definitions you selected are too
nebulous and subject to interpretation to get correlatable answers. I'd suggest that you
have multiple choice selections (say, IS choices for 5 competencies) for each competency
to be sure you get apples to apples responses. I might be an isolated opinion, but I think
your survey results would have more meaning if you approached it in this manner”. An
additional participant dropped out with the following response: “I did take a look at your
questionnaire over the weekend, but I was unable to understand what it was that you were
asking. Since I can only do this kind of work in the evenings or on weekends, your
phone number is of little use. I'm afraid that, lacking an understanding of what you are
driving at, I will have to say no thanks”. Two additional participants dropped out for the
following reasons: “I appreciate the invitation. However, I may not be the right candidate
for your panel. I am responsible for corporate development here at Solectron. I manage
primarily software engineers, of which two were interns from Cal Poly. I do have two IE
grads from Cal Poly on staff as analysts, but my main background is in systems
development. Is this the type of background you were expecting”? “I am willing to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
participate however, I looked at the questions and feel that my responses will be useless.
I am a trade association manager not a mfg. and process mgr. My knowledge of the mfg.
floor in this industry is casual at best. Thanks for the compliment but I may screw up
your data. Let me know if you agree”.
The final panel of experts for this study consisted of 26 members. Under the
circumstances, the resulting panel of experts represented a precise fit for MAMP
curriculum purposes. Table 3, describes the expert panelist characteristics in regards to
organization represented and corporate title.
Development of the Instrument
The purpose of the instrument was to determine the alignment level of employer’s
(experts) MAMP manager competency expectations with those of, academic faculty
(facilitators) responsible for developing suitable curriculum and with those of the
students (stakeholders) who are the recipients of a curriculum that hopefully has been
designed to prepare them for a successful induction into a MAMP management position.
Round 1 (KSV) Managerial Competency Questionnaire
A panel of experts in Round 1 generated the KSV competencies for this study.
After an initial return rate of S4% a follow up e-mail (Appendix B) was sent on June 30,
1999, to the expert panelists requesting completion of the questionnaire by July 2, 1999.
By July 2, 1999, there was a 100% return rate. The Round 1 KSV Questionnaire
(Appendix C) initially generated 265 competencies in the knowledge, skill and value
categories.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Responses to Round I questionnaire were independently analyzed by two
researchers using content analysis to categorize the competency statements. The initial
265 competencies were reduced to 109 by the two independent researchers. The 109
competencies (Appendix D) were presented in a pilot test questionnaire, the questionnaire
format, length, and style was evaluated as well as the wording, potential duplication and
relevance of each competency by an independent panel of five business faculty members.
The pilot test questionnaire was returned and amended with the following changes:
1. The agreement rating section was revised to be consistent with the left to right
increasing value format established in the importance rating section.
Initial questionnaire format
AGREEMENT RATING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATING
SA A N D SD Persuasiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Revised questionnaire format
AGREEMENT RATING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATING
SD D N A SA Persuasiveness 1 2 3 4 5
2. The Importance Rating section was changed to read Future Importance
Rating.
Initial questionnaire format
AGREEMENT RATING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATING
SD D N A SA Persuasiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Table 3.
Characteristics of Expert Panelists
Organization
Rocketdyne
Pacific Plastics & Engineering
Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
Flexible Packaging Association
The Spice Hunter
Wilkins Division of Zum
Antara LLC.
Intergraph Computer Systems
General Mills
Packard Bell NEC
Eng. Operations - Boeing
TRW Defense Systems Division
Boeing Company
Wilkins/Zum Industries
Toyota
Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
Sunrise Medical - Fresno
WW Manufacturing and QWBS
Solectron
Title
Manager, Process Eng.
CEO
Director, Quality
President
Operations Manager
Manufacturing Manager
CEO
Vice President
Plant Manager
Vice President Manufacturing.
Manager - Mfg. Engineer
Deputy Division Manager
Manufacturing Manager
General manager
Administration Manager
Quality Manager
V.P. - Manufacturing
VP Manufacturing
Director, Prod Ops
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Table 3. (continued)
Characteristics of Expert Panelists
Organization
Williams-Sonoma, Inc
Sun Microsystems
Rockwell Automation
Univsco Plastics
Marko Foam Products
Woodtech
Hewlett Packard
Revised questionnaire format
CURRENT FUTURE
AGREEMENT RATING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATING
SD D N A SA Persuasiveness 1 2 3 4 5
3. The competencies were reduced from 109 to 93. (Appendix I)
4. The instructions for Round 2 questionnaire were changed from the first
version in (Appendix E) to the Revised Version in (Appendix F).
5. Definitions were included in the instructions. It was proposed that the
additional definitions would more accurately describe the difference between
knowledge, skill and value.
6. Examples of a knowledge, skill and value competency were provided for a
subject (Weather Forecasting) that all participants would be familiar with.
Title
Director of Packaging
VP Operations
Process Control Systems
CEO
Consultant
CEO
Production Control Manager
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
The Content validity for the Round 2 KSV questionnaire was established by the
results from the Round 1 KSV questionnaire and the independent faculty pilot test. The
revised Round 2 KSV questionnaire (Appendix G) was resubmitted to the expert panel,
and concurrently submitted to the faculty and student panels in a three section
questionnaire format (a) a five-point Likert scale agreement section, (b) a five-point
Likert scale future importance section, (c) the KSV competencies.
Example:
CURRENT FUTURE
AGREEMENT RATING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATING
SD D N A SA Persuasiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Development of Scales
The MAMP managerial competencies identified in the KSV questionnaire will be
used, primarily by curriculum developers to achieve educational improvements. Due to
the overwhelming number of individual KSV competencies (93), it seemed to be sensible
to subject the 93 competencies to exploratory principal component factor analysis in an
attempt to identify empirically the underlying dimensions as perceived by the
participants. The competency items are listed and will be analyzed in three independent
categories:
1. 33 Knowledge Competencies
2. 33 Skill Competencies
3. 27 Value Competencies
A factor analysis was conducted on each of the categories in an effort to reduce
the data into more manageable scales. According to Baker, Mednick & Hocevar (1991),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
if there is sufficient reliability and meaning reflected in the dimensions (competency-
clusters) identified, each factor may be transformed into a scale made up of the algebraic
sum of those items that posses the highest loadings on the factor.
As presented in Matakovich (1999) the final scale specification procedure
includes considerations posed as questions applied to the competency categories
analyzed.
1. Does each factor or scale possess interpretable meaning?
2. Do the resulting scales possess adequate reliability?
3. Do the scales, in the aggregate, reflect the logical relationships of the original
individual categories?
4. Do the scale titles accurately represent the essence of the aggregate
competencies?
The Utilization of the Internet for Conducting Delphi Method Research
The issue of time as it relates to the ability of the expert panelist to participate in
this study was of great concern. To accelerate the process the use of the Internet
facilitated the Delphi rounds of questioning. All of the participants in this study utilized
electronic mail and the Internet as part of their daily routine. It was believed that this
form of communication would enhance the interest and participation level of the
participants. The panelists were able to fill out the questionnaire as soon as they received
the e-mail letter requesting their participation in the study. The e-mail letter provided the
participants with the uniform resource locator (URL) to the Web site that contained the
KSV questionnaire. Participants were able to review the questionnaire at the time of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
choosing. After providing responses to the questionnaire the participant simply pointed
to the submit button and clicked. The scoring of the KSV questionnaire consisted of
assigning a Likert numeric scale value (1-S) to each response. The scale-valued responses
were automatically tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet and later each response became a
single variable coded in an SPSS data file consistent with its item number on the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire Quality
Requiring the expert panel to arrange competencies into the logically derived
educational objective categories of knowledge, skill and value assumed a degree of
responsibility and ability to do so. Variables within the skill and value categories can
often be interchangeable or have definitions that are relational in either category.
Curriculum development committees would need to make a distinction in order to
provide an accurate assessment of competency development within the curriculum.
General Analysis of Data
After completing the initial factor analysis of the 93 competencies that were
categorized into three independent categories, knowledge, skill and value, a
determination was made regarding the results and the transformation into new scales in
order to identify if the three categories were in fact independent in terms of importance
and curricular design. The resultant 14 scales were then submitted to a second order
factor analysis to identify potential meaningful overlaps in the categories. This process
was duplicated on both sections of the questionnaire (current agreement and future
significance). The resulting scale scores were used in all subsequent analyses of the data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Next, the newly formed scales were analyzed in regards to alpha reliability
coefficients and item correlation. Each scale was analyzed to determine proper scale
assignment. To continue with the normative statistics, ANOVAs will be used to identify
the differences between groups, (experts, students and faculty) in regards to the scales. If
a significant F ratio was found, a post hoc comparison, Tukey’s HSD test, was applied to
determine where significant differences exist.
A paired sample T-Test was performed to compare the current agreement
competency ratings against the future significance competency ratings.
The descriptive statistical information reflecting the scale score means concerning
individual item competency level will be most useful in the curriculum development
effort when it comes to evaluating existing management courses and new course
proposals in regards to competency relevance. Additionally, the corresponding
descriptions of scale content and scores will contribute toward curriculum integration
efforts and overall curriculum improvement process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
Reduction of the original MAMP KSV managerial competencies into concise
concepts for curriculum development was accomplished in several steps:
1. The original expert generated competencies were analyzed for redundancy
and validity and then reduced by independent researchers into a manageable
number.
2. Three distinct groups (employers, students and faculty) then rated the
competency items in terms of current agreement and future significance; the
ensuing current agreement data were reduced by factor analysis.
3. The factor-analyzed agreement items were reduced and combined into 14
scales (S knowledge, S skill and 4 value). The items were then correlated to
insure proper relationships.
4. The 14 agreement scales were then submitted to a second order factor analysis
to identify any meaningful overlaps and thematic relationships across the three
areas; the analysis resulted in 3 additional scales.
3. All the agreement scales were checked for reliability using an alpha reliability
coefficient.
6. The scales were titled in an effort to summarize the themes of the individual
competencies.
7. A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the scales in
order to make inferences about the population means.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
8. A post hoc multiple comparison was performed to determine any statistical
significance between the groups (expert, student, and faculty).
9. The individual future significant competencies were incorporated and
analyzed within the existing 17 agreement scales by applying steps (5,7 &8).
The discussion of the results begins with scale development and descriptions,
continues with the scale descriptive data results, and concludes with the second order
analysis discussion.
Logically Derived Scales
Typically, the first step in curriculum development is the identification of
educational objectives. There are several educational objective classification systems
currently in existence. Educational objectives are most often categorized into three
distinct domains; cognitive, affective and psychomotor. In keeping with this logic,
categories were developed for this study to segregate competencies into each domain.
The title of knowledge was selected to represent the cognitive domain, value for the
affective and skill for the psychomotor.
Scale ratings for each group (expert, student and faculty) were computed based on
the individual competency assignment to the three categories (knowledge, skill and
value). Table 4, shows the three scales and their alpha coefficients of reliability. The
individual competencies can be found in (Appendix H).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Empirically Derived Scales
The empirically derived agreement scales comprised of the individual
competency components are presented in Appendix H. Table S, provides the 14
agreement scales and their alpha coefficients of reliability. The reliabilities ranged from
Table 4.
Logical Scales and Alpha Reliabilities
Scale Alpha Scale Title
1. 0.87 Knowledge Competency
2. 0.90 Skill Competency
3. 0.91 Value Competency
61 to .86 the mean being .75; three scales were marginally under .70, which is the
reference for this type of analysis.
Five items were removed from the Agreement Knowledge Scale prior to factor
analysis due to unreliability. The knowledge competency item Product Packaging was
moved from kscalel to kscale2 for content validity and reasonable factorial significance
reasons.
Three items were removed from the Agreement Skill Scale prior to factor analysis
due to unreliability. The skill competency item Diversity Management was moved to
sscale4 for content validity and reasonable factorial significance reasons.
One item was removed from the Agreement Value Scale prior to factor analysis
due to unreliability. All other items remained unchanged. In all cases, the items that were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
eliminated did not effect the content validity of the scales. Table 6 provides the 14
individual scale inter-correlations.
Descriptions of the Factor-Based Scales
The 14 scales developed by factor analysis represent the MAMP managerial
competencies that were dimensionalized by the three participant groups, employers,
students and faculty. Matakovich (1999) points out that the descriptive label assigned to
a factor is an “art form.” It is an attempt to succinctly define the latent construct that the
items loaded on the factor sum to measure; thus, it is important for the reader to
thoroughly analyze the common nuclear element that appears to be present in all of the
items.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Table 5.
Empirically Derived Scales and Alpha Reliability Coefficients
KNOWLEDGE SCALES
KSCALEl = Foundational Systems Alpha =.83
KSCALE2 = Competitive Strategies Alpha =.74
KSC ALE3 = Requisite Management Alpha =.75
KSCALE4 = Project Management Alpha =.67
KSCALE5 = Materials Management Alpha =.69
SKILL SCALES
SSCALE1 = Technical Analysis Alpha =.81
SSCALE2 = Transformational Leadership Alpha =.82
SSCALE3 = Diagnostic Efficiency Alpha = .82
SSCALE4 = Workforce Development Alpha = .71
SSCALE5 = Organizational Strategies Alpha=.61
VALUE SCALES
VSCALE1 = Credibility Management Alpha = .86
VSCALE2 = Assertive Leadership Alpha =.78
VSCALE3 = Collaborative Management Alpha = .77
VSCALE4 = Responsiveness Management Alpha = .70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
< s m - ITl ( N I f )
< N r o
W
d
W
d
U
d
s
W
a
W
d
w
d
w
d
<
V
<
o
<
u
<
C J
<
o
<
u
<
o
<
o
<
o
<
u
Vi
u o
<
u
Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi
Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi
Vi C /5 VI
U > 4 Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi > > > >
KSCALE1 .362** .383** .393** .207 .118 .163 .663** .110 .128 .049 .391** .172 .146
KSCALE2 .320** .219* .468** .458** .365** .440** .227* .310** .092 .263* .233* .496**
KSCALE3 .527** .412** .510** .462** .473** .434** .316** .381** .464** .310** .567**
KSCALE4 .261* .304** .428** .485** .307** .214 .469** .478** .355** .286**
KSCALE5 .510** .414** .364** .315** .316** .233* .319** .222* .533**
SSCALE1 .565** .472** .606** .503** .597** .474** .502** .782**
SSCALE2 .371** .587** .383** .604** .525** .534** .582**
SSCALE3 .380** .259* .300** .512** .513** .412**
SSCALE4 .440** .608** .458** .578** .575**
SSCALE5 .435** .367** .431** .450**
VCSALE1 .470** .612** .543**
VSCALE2 .566** .484**
VSCALE3 .417**
VSCALE4
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
- j
o \
Inter-Scale Correlation
77
Knowledge Scales
Kscalel: Foundational Systems
The theme that runs through this set of items is grounded in the basics of
mechanical and manufacturing understanding. A group (employer, student or faculty) that
scores a high rating on this scale indicates a recognized level of importance in the applied
or practical system understandings. This scale focuses on the rudimentary underpinnings
of manufacturing equipment, processing and materials.
Kscale2: Competitive Strategies
The common themes for this scale are the required tools and concepts necessary
for staying ahead of the competition. The group that rates these competencies high
recognizes the role that information technology plays in customer satisfaction. Using the
speed and efficiency of computer technology to design, present and market a quality
product is the focus of this scale. A high rating on this scale also identifies a keen
understanding of the organizational wide inter-functional relationships that are required
for the successful product all along its life cycle.
Kscale3: Requisite Management
This scale includes competencies that center on successful manufacturing system
necessities that occasionally are overlooked to the detriment of the organization. The
focus is on compliance to standards that enable employees to produce a quality product in
a safe, comfortable, well-organized and controlled environment. Knowledge of these
concepts would provide a manager with a good foundation in the area of total quality
management.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Kscale4: Project Management
The common elements in this scale are directed toward the successful completion
of a project. Knowledge of planning and scheduling are essential here. The group that
rates high on this scale recognizes that the only way to manage a successful project is to
understand the constraint areas that might prevent the steady rate of work. A consistent
level of quality combined with a steady rate of throughput enables a project to be
managed efficiently.
Kscale5: Materials Management
High ratings on this scale indicate that the group recognizes the importance of
regulating the flow of materials in an organization. Lowering the amount of money tied
up in inventory is the theme for this set of knowledge competencies. Additionally, the
critical understanding of the following operational measurements is evident in the scale.
1. Throughput: the rate at which money is generated by the organization through
sales.
2. Inventory: all the money that the organization has invested in purchasing
things it intends to sell.
3. Operating expenses: all the money that the organization spends to turn
inventory into throughput.
The significance of computer technology to enable the materials management
effort is a common link within the scale.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Skill Scales
Sscalel: Technical Analysis
The theme of this scale is implementing the technical skills that are necessary to
analyze a situation and institute a remedy. It is essential that the remedy be based on
sound technical constructs. The analysis that is developed can conceivably be improved
upon continually by an ever-growing base of resources. The group that rates high on this
scale reveals a critical appreciation for the numerous tools and resources that are
available when making comprehensive decisions. The skills that make up this scale
establish a foundation in the techniques of situational analysis.
Sscale2: Transformational Leadership
A high rating on this scale encompasses the importance of leadership skills in the
role of an effective manager. The focus is on interpersonal relationships as a critical area
in terms o f overall organizational effectiveness. The MAMP manager that excels in the
skills that make up this scale will recognize that leadership is an evolving discipline that
matures by experience and adaptation toward established benchmarks. Transformational
leadership requires the gathering of skills to become more sensitive, conscious and
proactive toward the transformation of an organization by example.
Sscale3: Diagnostic Efficiency
After a problematic situation has been identified by technical analysis this scale
focuses on the applied skills and techniques that diagnose a situation further. A high
rating would indicate a significant value has been placed on the applied dimension. The
emphasis is in moving from the theoretical toward the actual. The application of the skills
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
that make-up this scale could add a dimension of expediency and efficiency in
regulating the situation in question.
Sscale4: Workforce Development
A group that rates high on this scale identifies the skills that build positive
relationships with the workforce as essential. The skill set provides managers with the
tools to identify, relate, respect and utilize employees in an effective manner. This scale
has added significance in the light of today’s organizational recognition of employees
being the backbone of the company.
Sscale5: Organizational Strategies
The final skill scale emphasizes decision-making skills and their relationship to
the organization as a whole. While the focus of the scale is on the decision making
process the inclusion of teamwork and customer awareness provides direction and
priority to the process. Since most problems are viewed as a potential crisis in some area
of the organization, it is critical to understand that a team effort is usually exponentially
better and the customer’s problems should always be looked upon as a potential crisis.
Value Scales
Vscalel: Credibility Management
The focus of this scale is on the values that a manager holds that would enhance
credibility. A high rating on this scale would indicate that a successful manager must
establish a high level of credibility in order to be followed. Mastery of certain skills and
knowledge certainly play a role in ones credibility, however, this scale more accurately
depicts a manager’s character trait credibility.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SI
Vscale2: Assertive Leadership
A high rating score on this scale would indicate that a group recognizes the
importance of being able to manage from an assertive position. A successful manager
must be able to avoid being manipulated by another’s behavior, or be undermined by
others false expectations and assumptions. It is critical that the assertive leader values and
practices the competencies identified in vscale3 to prevent communications with others
from seeming aggressive.
Vscale3: Collaborative Management
The focus of this scale is on sensitivity and participation. The collaborative
manager cares deeply about others by developing their self worth and self-respect both
from a personal standpoint and an organizational one as well. To avoid being
manipulated the collaborative values must be balanced with the assertive values
presented in vscale2. A high rating of this scale recognizes a commitment to developing
positive organizational climates through an individuals positive self-image which results
in high morale and increased productivity.
Vscale4: Responsiveness Management
The focus of this scale is on taking action. A high group rating of this scale
indicates the importance of self-directed incentive. A successful manager must value the
process of careful listening and understanding o f the inputs and the satisfaction of
transforming them into outputs without much hand-holding direction. The world of
business today is all about change so the ability to be responsive to that change is much
valued.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Descriptive Data Results
The resultant data were initially separated into the logically derived scales of
knowledge, skill and value competency. The participant groups then analyzed the
competencies in terms of current agreement level.
Knowledge Scales
Beginning the analysis with the knowledge competency scales, Table 7 depicts
the results, means and standard deviations by group (expert, student and faculty). Table 8
presents the results of an ANOVA that was performed on the knowledge scales to
uncover any significant differences between groups. The ANOVA revealed that kscalel
was significant between groups at the .02 level indicating a 98% confidence level.
Kscale2 depicting a .058 significance and 94% confidence level was considered to have a
valid difference for this study even though it is fractionally above the .05 level typically
established. Since the ANOVA F was considered to be significant in the two scales a post
hoc multiple comparison, specifically a Tukey honestly significant differences (HSD) test
was performed. The results of the Tukey test shown in Table 9 reveals that the student
rating score is significantly higher than that of the experts in regards to the importance
level of Kscalel (Foundational Systems) and to a lesser degree for Kscale2 (Competitive
Strategies). The remaining three knowledge scales produced relative agreement levels
between the three groups. The results would seem to indicate that the student group (first-
level MAMP managers) recognized that their jobs required knowledge of foundational
concepts and competitive strategies that comprise the MAMP environment. It could be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
proposed that the experts are too far removed from the day to day challenges of the job
to recognize the importance level as significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7.
Knowledge Scale Scores by Group
84
Scales Group N Mean Std. Deviation
KSCALE1 Experts 26 20.31 4.71
Foundational Students 34 23.26 3.35
Systems Faculty 24 22.63 4.21
Total 84 22.17 4.21
KSCALE2 Experts 26 27.90 4.98
Competitive Students 34 30.55 3.37
Strategies Faculty 24 29.34 4.29
Total 84 29.38 4.28
KSCALE3 Experts 26 27.42 4.03.
Requisite Students 34 27.34 3.49
Management Faculty 24 27.65 2.77
Total 84 27.46 3.45
KSCALE4 Experts 26 26.50 2.30
Project Students 34 27.38 2.53
Management Faculty 24 27.17 2.22
Total 84 27.05 2.38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Table 7. (continued)
Knowledge Scale Scores by Group
Scales Group N Mean Std. Deviation
KSCALE5 Experts 26 24.08 3.42
Materials Students 34 24.35 3.26
Management Faculty 24 24.71 3.01
Total 84 24.37 3.21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 8.
Knowledge Scale ANOVA
Scales Groups Sum of Sq. df Mean Sq. F
Sig-
KSCALE1 Between Groups 135.89 2 67.943 4.126 0.020
Foundational Within Groups 1333.78 81 16.466
Systems Total 1469.67 83
KSCALE2 Between Groups 103.15 2 51.574 2.945 0.058
Competitive Within Groups 1418.70 81 17.515
Strategies Total 1521.84 83
KSCALE3 Between Groups 1.39 2 0.695 0.057 0.944
Requisite Within Groups 984.34 81 12.152
Management Total 985.73 83
KSCALE4 Between Groups 11.95 2 5.973 1.057 0.352
Project Within Groups 457.86 81 5.653
Management Total 469.81 83
KSCALE5 Between Groups 4.99 2 2.495 0.238 0.789
Materials Within Groups 850.57 81 10.501
Management Total 855.56 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Table 9.
Knowledge Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD
Dependent (I) Group (J)Group Mean Std.
Sig-
Variable Difference (I-J) Error
KSCALEl Experts Students -2.96 1.06 0.02
Faculty -2.32 1.15 0.11
Students Experts 2.96 1.06 0.02
Faculty 0.64 1.08 0.83
Faculty Experts 2.32 1.15 0.11
Students -0.64 1.08 0.83
KSCALE2 Experts Students -2.65 1.09 0.05
Faculty -1.44 1.18 0.45
Students Experts 2.65 1.09 0.05
Faculty 1.21 1.12 0.53
Faculty Experts 1.44 1.18 0.45
Students -1.21 1.12 0.53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Skill Scales
Table 10 shows the descriptive statistics by group for the current agreement skill scales.
Table 11 provides the results of an ANOVA that was performed on the skill scales to
reveal any significant differences between groups. The ANOVA revealed that sscale3
was significant between experts and students at the .002 level as well as significant at the
.03 level between experts and faculty. Sscalel indicated a .058 significance level between
experts and students exhibiting a 94% confidence level, which in this study was
determined to be significant even though it is fractionally above the referenced .05 level.
Since the ANOVA F scores were considered to be significant in the two scales, a post
hoc multiple comparison Tukey’s HSD test was performed. The results of the post hoc
test shown in Table 12 indicate that Diagnostic Efficiency sscale3 competencies are
estimated to be more important to students and marginally less to the faculty than they
are to the experts. The students’ higher rating on this scale possibly indicates the experts
being too distant from the factory floor where most of these skills are implemented.
However, of the five skill scales, all three groups rated Diagnostic Efficiency least
important. Technical Analysis resulted in a marginally significant difference of
agreement between experts and students; once again the student group indicated a higher
agreement level. Technical Analysis received the second highest agreement rating from
all groups. The highest rated scale in all dimensions is a member of the skill group of
scales; Transformational Leadership. Transformational Leadership received a mean score
of 3.85 on a 5 point scale that ranked number one of all the 14 scales. Within the
Transformational Leadership scale, Interpersonal Skills was the highest rated individual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
competency not only within the scale but the survey overall. Foreign Language, which
was also a competency within the Transformational Leadership scale, received the lowest
agreement rating in the survey. Evidently, speaking the right language doesn’t make you
a leader. Clearly, there is a strong message being sent regarding the presence of human
relation leadership competencies within the MAMP curriculum.
Value Scales
The analysis of the value scales begins with Table 13 and an evaluation of the
scale descriptives. Table 14 presents the ANOVA results for the value scales, which
revealed a .053 significance level between groups within Vscale2. Vscale2 was
submitted to a post hoc test the results are shown in Table 15. The student participant
group in this study rated the competencies that enable assertive leadership qualities,
higher than the faculty group. All three groups rated the competencies necessary for
becoming a credible manager as most important. Vscalel credibility management
received the second highest rating of all scales in the study; perhaps indicating a
relationship with the interpersonal competency development recognized in the skill
scales.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Table 10.
Skill Scale Scores bv Group
Scales Group N Mean Std. Deviation
SSCALE1 Experts 26 28.05 4.27
Technical Students 34 30.03 2.81
Analysis Faculty 24 29.44 2.56
Total 84 29.25 3.34
SSCALE2 Experts 26 38.51 4.19
Transformational Students 34 39.29 3.27
Leadership Faculty 24 37.54 5.71
Total 84 38.55 4.37
SSCALE3 Experts 26 21.15 4.16
Diagnostic Students 34 24.53 3.06
Efficiency Faculty 24 23.79 3.66
Total 84 23.27 3.84
SSCALE4 Experts 26 25.04 2.71
Workforce Students 34 25.29 2.65
Development Faculty 24 25.21 4.15
Total 84 25.19 3.13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Table 10. (continued)
Skill Scale Scores bv Group
Scales Group N Mean Std. Deviation
SSCALE5 Experts 26 26.88 2.50
Organizational Students 34 26.29 2.48
Strategies Faculty 24 27.38 2.22
Total 84 26.79 2.43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Table 11.
Skill Scale ANOVA
Scales Groups Sum of Sq. df Mean Sq. F Sig.
SSCALE1 Between Groups 58.92 2 29.461 2.754 0.070
Technical Within Groups 866.61 81 10.699
Analysis Total 925.53 83
SSCALE2 Between Groups 43.11 2 21.554 1.132 0.328
Transformational Within Groups 1542.56 81 19.044
Leadership Total 1585.66 83
SSCALE3 Between Groups 176.89 2 88.444 6.824 0.002
Diagnostic Within Groups 1049.81 81 12.961
Efficiency Total 1226.70 83
SSCALE4 Between Groups 0.97 2 0.487 0.049 0.953
Workforce Within Groups 809.98 81 10.000
Development Total 810.95 83
SSCALE5 Between Groups 16.81 2 8.403 1.438 0.243
Organizational Within Groups 473.34 81 5.844
Strategies Total 490.14 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Table 12.
Skill Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev’s HSD
Dependent (I) Group (J) Group Mean Std. Sig.
Variable Difference (I-J) Error
SSCALE1 Experts Students -1.98 0.85 0.058
Technical Faculty -1.39 0.93 0.294
Analysis Students Experts 1.98 0.85 0.058
Faculty 0.58 0.87 0.781
Faculty Experts 1.39 0.93 0.294
Students -0.58 0.87 0.781
SSCALE3 Experts Students -3.38 0.94 0.002
Diagnostic Faculty -2.64 1.02 0.030
Efficiency Students Experts 3.38 0.94 0.002
Faculty 0.74 0.96 0.723
Faculty Experts 2.64 1.02 0.030
Students -0.74 0.96 0.723
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Second Order Factor Analysis
The three logically derived scales consisting of knowledge, skill and value
competencies are assumed to be independent from one another based on expert
delineation and educational objective classifications. A second order factor analysis was
completed in order to examine meaningful competency overlaps across the three areas.
The second order factor analysis generated the following three scales shown in Table 16.
Scale 1 : Organizational Leadership
Table 17, provides the statistical descriptives for the Organizational Leadership
Scale and Table 18, presents the results from the ANOVA which indicated no significant
differences between the groups; in fact, the means are almost identical. The
organizational leadership scale is comprised entirely of skill and value competencies. The
scale clearly contains a high level of conceptual overlap focusing on the interpersonal
side of management.
Scale 2: Responsiveness Planning
Table 19 lists the descriptive statistics for the second order scale extracted from
the original 14 current agreement scales. Table 20 provides the results from an ANOVA
analysis, which indicated very small amount of difference between the groups. The
Responsiveness Planning scale focuses on the knowledge competencies necessary to
enable a manager to take action on a decision item. The group that rates this scale high
recognizes the need for a quick proactive response however it must be based on sound
MAMP principles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Table 13.
Value Scale Scores bv Group
Scales Group N Mean Std. Deviation
VCSALE1 Experts 26 38.28 2.73
Credibility Students 34 38.45 2.81
Management Faculty 24 37.70 4.41
Total 84 38.18 3.30
VSCALE2 Experts 26 29.18 4.25
Assertive Students 34 30.76 3.21
Leadership Faculty 24 28.39 3.93
Total 84 29.59 3.85
VSCALE3 Experts 26 32.53 2.57
Collaborative Students 34 32.76 3.16
Management Faculty 24 32.84 4.49
Total 84 32.71 3.40
VSCALE4 Experts 26 23.73 3.97
Responsiveness Students 34 24.28 2.14
Management Faculty 24 25.06 1.99
Total 84 24.33 2.81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Table 14.
Value Scale ANOVA
Scales Groups Sum of Sq. df Mean Sq. F
Sig-
VCSALE1 Between Groups 8.28 2 4.14 0.375 0.689
Credibility Within Groups 895.39 81 11.05
Management Total 903.67 83
VSCALE2 Between Groups 86.12 2 43.06 3.046 0.053
Assertive Within Groups 1145.17 81 14.14
Leadership Total 1231.29 83
VSCALE3 Between Groups 1.35
2
0.68 0.057 0.944
Collaborative Within Groups 956.64 81 11.81
Management Total 958.00 83
VSCALE4 Between Groups 22.30 2 11.15 1.421 0.247
Responsiveness Within Groups 635.37 81 7.84
Management Total 657.67 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Table 15.
Value Scale Multiple Comparisons. Tukev's HSD
Dependent (I) Group (J) Group Mean Std.
Sig-
Variable Difference (I-J) Error
VSCALE2 Experts Students -1.589 0.980 0.242
Assertive Faculty 0.789 1.064 0.740
Leadership Students Experts 1.589 0.980 0.242
Faculty 2.378 1.002 0.052
Faculty Experts -0.789 1.064 0.740
Students -2.378 1.002 0.052
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Table 16.
Second Order Factor Analysis. Alpha Scores and Factor Loadings
Scale Alpha
Component
Factor Loadings
1 2 3
Scale 1 Organizational Leadership .88
Individual Component Scales
Vscalel: Credibility Management 0.87 0.03 0.12
Sscale4: Workforce Development 0.77 0.25 0.11
Vscale3: Collaborative Management 0.75 0.04 0.30
Sscale2: Transformational Management 0.68 0.33 0.21
Sscalel: Technical Analysis 0.63 0.61 0.09
Vscale2: Assertive Management 0.56 0.15 0.53
SscaleS: Organizational Strategies 0.53 0.38 0.03
Scale 2 Responsiveness Planning .73
Individual Component Scales
Kscale2: Competitive Strategies 0.01 0.78 0.29
KscaleS: Materials Management 0.18 0.75 0.16
Vscale4: Responsiveness Management 0.56 0.67 0.09
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Table 16. (continued)
Second Order Factor Analysis. Alpha Scores and Factor Loadings
Scale Alpha
Component
Factor Loadings
1 2 3
Scale 3 Technical Foundations .78
Individual Component Scales
Kscalel: Foundational Systems 0.12 0.18 0.87
Sscale3: Diagnostic Efficiency 0.24 0.31 0.77
Kscale4: Project Management 0.40 0.03 0.67
Kscale3: Requisite Management 0.38 0.39 0.49
Scale 3: Technical Foundations
Table 21 lists the descriptive statistics for the Technical Foundations Scale. Table
22, provides the results from an ANOVA which revealed a significant difference in the
rating scores between groups. Table 23, shows the post hoc analysis which defines the
relationships between the groups revealing that the student participants recognize the
importance of having a knowledge base that allows them to make accurate diagnoses that
enables efficient managerial decisions throughout the organization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Table 17.
Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Organizational Leadership Scale
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Experts 26 31.21 2.49
Students 34 31.84 2.18
Faculty 24 31.21 3.30
Total 84 31.47 2.62
Table 18.
Second Order Organizational Leadership Scale ANOVA
Groups Sum ofSq. df Mean Square F
Sig-
Between Groups 8.009 2 4.005 0.578 0.564
Within Groups 561.616 81 6.934
Total 569.625 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Table 19.
Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Responsiveness Planning Scale
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Experts 26 25.24 3.77
Students 34 26.39 2.10
Faculty 24 26.37 2.38
Total 84 26.03 2.81
Table 20.
Responsiveness Planning Scale ANOVA
Groups Sum of Sq. df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 23.63 2 11.82 1.52 0.23
Within Groups 631.54 81 7.80
Total 655.17 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Table 21.
Statistical Descriptives for the Second Order Technical Foundation Scale
Group N Mean Std. Deviation
Experts 26 23.85 2.98
Students 34 25.63 2.48
Faculty 24 25.31 2.55
Total 84 24.99 2.74
Table 22.
Technical Foundations Scale ANOVA
Groups Sum of Sq. df Mean Square F
Sig-
Between Groups 50.38 2 25.19 3.55 0.03
Within Groups 574.66 81 7.09
Total 625.04 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Table 23.
Technical Foundations Multiple Comparisons. Tukey’s HSD
(I) Group (J) Group Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Experts Students -1.78 0.69 0.03
Faculty -1.46 0.75 0.13
Students Experts 1.78 0.69 0.03
Faculty 0.32 0.71 0.89
Faculty Experts 1.46 0.75 0.13
Future Competency Significance
A paired samples T-Test was performed to compare the rating scores of the
current agreement scales with the scores from the future significance scales. Table 24
presents the paired samples statistics. It is interesting to note that for all scale pairs except
pair 14 Responsiveness Management, the participants rated the current significance of the
competencies higher than the future significance. Table 25 provides correlations between
the two paired scores; it is evident that all pairs are highly correlated. Table 26 shows the
two paired samples T-Test which revealed seven pairs that have a significant difference;
in each case the current agreement competencies are rated higher. The results of these
comparisons perhaps indicate an uncertainty level regarding what the future holds for
MAMP managers. If a competency was identified as necessary for the future the
participant possibly reasoned it should also be necessary today. Table 27 presents the
case mean summaries for all the competency scales.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Table 24.
Paired Samples Statistics
Pairs Scales N Mean
Pair 1 KSCALE1 84 22.17
FKSCAL1 84 20.69
Pair 2 KSCALE2 84 29.38
FKSCAL2 84 29.08
Pair 3 KSCALE3 84 27.46
FKSCAL3 84 27.13
Pair 4 KSCALE4 84 27.05
FKSCAL4 84 26.24
Pair 5 KSCALE5 84 24.37
FKSCAL5 84 23.74
Pair 6 SSCALE1 84 29.25
FSSCAL1 84 29.06
Pair 7 SSCALE2 84 38.55
FSSCAL2 84 37.99
Pair 8 SSCALE3 84 23.27
FSSCAL3 84 22.17
Pair 9 SSCALE4 84 25.19
FSSCAL4 84 24.61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Table 24. (continued)
Paired Samples Statistics
Pairs Scales N Mean
Pair 10 SSCALE5 84 26.79
FSSCAL5 84 26.23
Pair 11 VSCALE1 84 38.18
FVSCAL1 84 37.47
Pair 12 VSCALE2 84 29.59
FVSCAL2 84 28.79
Pair 13 VSCALE3 84 32.71
FVSCAL3 84 31.80
Pair 14 VSCALE4 84 24.33
FVSCAL4 84 24.37
Pair 15 SECORD1 84 31.47
FSECORD1 84 30.62
Pair 16 SECORD2 84 26.03
FSECORD2 84 25.73
Pair 17 SECORD3 84 24.99
FSECORD3 84 24.06
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Table 25.
Paired Samples Correlation’s
Pairs Scales N Correlation
Sig-
Pair 1 KSCALE1 & FKSCAL1 84 0.698 0.000
Pair 2 KSCALE2 & FKSCAL2 84 0.548 0.000
Pair 3 KSCALE3 & FKSCAL3 84 0.431 0.000
Pair 4 KSCALE4 & FKSCAL4 84 0.507 0.000
Pair 5 KSCALE5 & FKSCAL5 84 0.502 0.000
Pair 6 SSCALE1 & FSSCALl 84 0.468 0.000
Pair 7 SSCALE2 & FSSCAL2 84 0.562 0.000
Pair 8 SSCALE3 & FSSCAL3 84 0.680 0.000
Pair 9 SSCALE4 & FSSCAL4 84 0.607 0.000
Pair 10 SSCALE5 & FSSCAL5 84 0.343 0.001
Pair 1 1 VCSALE1 & FVSCAL1 84 0.617 0.000
Pair 12 VSCALE2 & FVSCAL2 84 0.689 0.000
Pair 13 VSCALE3 & FVSCAL3 84 0.774 0.000
Pair 14 VSCALE4 & FVSCAL4 84 0.576 0.000
Pair 15 SECORD1 & FSECORD1 84 0.609 0.000
Pair 16 SECORD2 & FSECORD2 84 0.458 0.000
Pair 17 SECORD3 & FSECORD3 84 0.548 0.000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Table 26.
Paired Samples T-Test
Pairs Scales Paired Mean
Difference
SD t df
Sig-
(2-tailed)
Pair 1 KSCALE1 - FKSCAL1 1.48 3.46 3.91 83 0.000
Pair 2 KSCALE2 - FKSCAL2 0.31 4.30 0.65 83 0.516
Pair 3 KSCALE3 - FKSCAL3 0.32 4.08 0.72 83 0.473
Pair 4 KSCALE4- FKSCAL4 0.81 3.59 2.07 83 0.042
Pair 5 KSCALE5 - FKSCAL5 0.63 3.73 1.55 83 0.125
Pair 6 SSCALEl - FSSCAL1 0.19 3.84 0.46 83 0.644
Pair 7 SSCALE2 - FSSCAL2 0.55 5.08 1.00 83 0.320
Pair 8 SSCALE3 - FSSCAL3 1.11 3.37 3.02 83 0.003
Pair 9 SSCALE4 - FSSCAL4 0.58 3.28 1.63 83 0.107
Pair 10 SSCALE5 - FSSCAL5 0.56 4.10 1.25 83 0.214
Pair 11 VCSALE1 - FVSCALl 0.71 4.20 1.55 83 0.126
Pair 12 VSCALE2- FVSCAL2 0.80 3.43 2.14 83 0.035
Pair 13 VSCALE3 - FVSCAL3 0.91 3.08 2.69 83 0.009
Pair 14 VSCALE4 - FVSCAL4 -0.04 2.82 -0.12 83 0.908
Pair 15 SECORD1 - FSECORD1 0.85 3.26 2.38 83 0.020
Pair 16 SECORD2 - FSECORD2 0.30 3.32 0.83 83 0.409
Pair 17 SECORD3 - FSECORD3 0.93 3.12 2.73 83 0.008
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Table 27
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP RANKING
1 2 3 4 5
Expert SSCALE2 VSCALE1 FSSCAL2 FVSCALl VSCALE3
Mean 38.51 38.28 37.50 37.16 32.53
Student SSCALE2 FSSCAL2 VCSALE1 FVSCALl VSCALE3
Mean 39.29 38.59 38.45 37.49 32.76
Faculty FVSCALl VCSALE1 FSSCAL2 SSCALE2 VSCALE3
Mean 37.79 37.70 37.68 37.54 32.84
Total SSCALE2 VCSALE1 FSSCAL2 FVSCALl VSCALE3
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 38.55 38.18 37.99 37.47 32.71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Table 27. (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
6 7
RANKING
8 9 10
Expert SECORD1 FVSCAL3 FSECORD1 VSCALE2 FVSCAL2
Mean 31.21 30.99 30.09 29.18 28.38
Student FVSCAL3 SECORD1 FSECORD1 VSCALE2 KSCALE2
Mean 31.88 31.84 31.00 30.76 30.55
Faculty FVSCAL3 SECORD1 FSECORD1 FKSCAL2 FSSCAL1
Mean 32.58 31.21 30.65 30.09 29.46
Total FVSCAL3 SECORD1 FSECORD1 VSCALE2 KSCALE2
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 31.80 31.47 30.62 29.59 29.38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Table 27. (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
11 12
RANKING
13 14 15
Expert FSSCAL1 FKSCAL2 SSCALEl KSCALE2 KSCALE3
Mean 28.31 28.25 28.05 27.90 27.42
Student SSCALE1 FVSCAL2 FSSCAL1 FKSCAL2 KSCALE4
Mean 30.03 29.92 29.34 29.00 27.38
Faculty SSCALE1 KSCALE2 VSCALE2 FKSCAL3 KSCALE3
Mean 29.44 29.34 28.39 28.08 27.65
Total SSCALEl FKSCAL2 FSSCAL1 FVSCAL2 KSCALE3
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 29.25 29.08 29.06 28.79 27.46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Table 27. (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
16 17
RANKING
18 19 20
Expert SSCALE5 FKSCAL3 KSCALE4 FSSCAL5 FKSCAL4
Mean 26.88 26.79 26.50 25.50 25.38
Student KSCALE3 FKSCAL3 SECORD2 SSCALE5 FKSCAL4
Mean 27.34 26.73 26.39 26.29 26.06
Faculty FVSCAL2 FKSCAL4 SSCALE5 FSSCAL5 KSCALE4
Mean 27.64 27.42 27.38 27.29 27.17
Total FKSCAL3 KSCALE4 SSCALE5 FKSCAL4 FSSCAL5
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 27.13 27.05 26.79 26.24 26.23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Table 27. (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
21 22
RANKING
23 24 25
Expert FSECORD2 SECORD2 SSCALE4 FVSCAL4 FSSCAL4
Mean 25.27 25.24 25.04 24.17 24.15
Student FSSCAL5 SECORD3 FSECORD2 SSCALE4 FSSCAL4
Mean 26.03 25.63 25.38 25.29 24.88
Faculty FSECORD2 SECORD2 SECORD3 FVSCAL4 SSCALE4
Mean 26.72 26.37 25.31 25.25 25.21
Total SECORD2 FSECORD2 SSCALE4 SECORD3 FSSCAL4
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 26.03 25.73 25.19 24.99 24.61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Table 27 (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
26 27
RANKING
28 29 30
Expert KSCALE5 SECORD3 VSCALE4 FKSCAL5 FSECORD3
Mean 24.08 23.85 23.73 23.38 22.97
Student SSCALE3 KSCALE5 VSCALE4 FSECORD3 FVSCAL4
Mean 24.53 24.35 24.28 24.17 23.90
Faculty FSECORD3 VSCALE4 FKSCAL5 KSCALE5 FSSCAL4
Mean 25.08 25.06 24.83 24.71 24.71
Total FVSCAL4 KSCALE5 VSCALE4 FSECORD3 FKSCAL5
N 84 84 84 84 84
Mean 24.37 24.37 24.33 24.06 23.74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Table 27. (continued)
Case Mean Summaries
GROUP
31 32
RANKING
33 34
Expert SSCALE3 FSSCAL3 KSCALE1 FKSCAL1
Mean 21.15 20.58 20.31 19.12
Student KSCALE1 FKSCAL5 FSSCAL3 FKSCAL1
Mean 23.26 23.24 22.79 21.09
Faculty SSCALE3 FSSCAL3 KSCALE1 FKSCAL1
Mean 23.79 23.00 22.63 21.83
Total SSCALE3 KSCALE1 FSSCAL3 FKSCAL1
N 84 84 84 84
Mean 23.27 22.17 22.17 20.69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Chapter 5
Summary. Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the study citing the major
findings and providing a list of conclusions and recommendations for further study.
The Problem
The educational preparation of future managers is a critical component in
response to the change efforts that business organizations need to stay competitive. The
literature clearly indicates that business schools are failing to help students develop the
needed competencies and skills to be successful in keeping up with change. It has
become critical that business schools begin aligning the curriculum and competency
expectations of theirs students with organizational competency expectations of successful
managers, which are philosophically and strategically consistent. By identifying the
knowledge, skill and value competencies required of successful MAMP managers, the
stakeholders of the Cal Poly State University College of Business will be better served
during the curriculum development process.
Methodology
Competency based management and the taxonomy of educational objectives were
the conceptual framework that directed this study. This study utilized a modified Delphi
method to investigate the perceptions of three groups (experts, students and faculty)
regarding the present and future managerial competencies necessary for successful
employment in a MAMP position.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
Selected Findings
The following findings were selected to summarize the most significant results
and to answer the research questions of the study. Data obtained from the two Delphi
rounds and the pilot study were used to determine the findings of the study.
1. What knowledge, skill and value competencies regarding first-level MAMP
management positions did experts identify for successful employment
presently and in the future? The experts indicated a strong preference for the
Organizational Leadership scale, with the highest scores given to
Transformational Leadership and Credibility Management competencies
needed presently and in the future. In all the scales except one (in which the
difference was negligible) the three groups were in relative agreement in
terms of future importance. In each case the groups indicated a lower score for
the future importance in relation to the present agreement, perhaps indicating
a lack of understanding regarding what the future holds.
2. What levels of importance did experts, former students in first-level MAMP
manager positions and faculty establish regarding the knowledge, skill and
value competencies? It was very evident in this study that in general all
groups of participants indicated a high level of importance toward the skill
and value scales. Specifically the leadership competencies, or what are often
called soft skills rated high. The student and faculty groups indicated a higher
level of importance to the knowledge competencies. Specifically the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
competitive strategies centered on customer awareness and the requisite
management knowledge that enables safe and effective facilities.
3. Students differed significantly from the experts in regards to the present
agreement and future importance of knowledge competencies. Students
indicated a higher level of importance to knowledge requirements regarding
the basics of manufacturing and the factors that enable customer satisfaction.
4. The skill scales revealed a difference between the experts and the students.
Students indicated a higher level of importance toward the technical problem
solving scales defined as technical analysis and diagnostic efficiency. The
faculty somewhat supported the students in being significantly higher than the
experts in respect of diagnostic skills.
5. Of all the scales, the Transformational Leadership skills were rated highest by
the experts and students, while the faculty identified credibility and ethics as
the most important value competency.
6. Assertive leadership values were agreed upon by the students to be
significantly more important than the faculty proposed.
7. The scales that were comprised primarily of technical or applied knowledge
and skill competencies received the lowest ratings.
8. The results indicate the necessity to make a curricular distinction between
managers and technicians. Although the leadership competencies received the
higher ratings, the assumption could be that the technical competencies that
received a lower rating are equally important but are perceived to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
prerequisite in the process of becoming a good manager. This would seem to
necessitate a curriculum development effort that makes a distinction between
the problem-based curriculum required for organizational leadership and the
technology-based curriculum required for technical proficiency and effective
responsiveness.
9. The Cal Poly State University College of Business has an excellent reputation
in providing MAMP managers with the polytechnic, application and
implementation foundations necessary for success in the business world. The
recognized importance of the organizational leadership competencies
recommended in this study will enable the COBSLO to produce an even better
product.
Discussion of Findings
The development of an undergraduate business degree curriculum that would
provide the necessary competencies required for successful indoctrination into first level
MAMP managerial positions was the focus of this study. This study examined an
extensive list of significant knowledge, skill and value competencies that were combined
into 14 thematic scales built upon established business core curriculum standards. The
results indicate that MAMP managers not only need the competencies that are necessary
to manage the day to day activities but they additionally need to have the interpersonal
leadership competencies to be effective managers. The analysis of the data in this study
revealed a significant distinction between management and leadership competencies that
was not apparent at the outset. Kotter (1990) has defined this distinction best by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
indicating that today’s managers must know howto lead as well as manage. Without
leading as well as managing, organizations face the threat of extinction. Kotter draws the
following distinction between management and leadership: Management is more formal
and scientific than leadership. It relies on skills such as planning, budgeting, and
controlling. Management is an explicit set of tools and techniques, based on reasoning
and testing, that can be used in a variety of situations. Leadership, in contrast to
management, involves having a vision of what the organization can become. Leadership
requires eliciting cooperation and teamwork from a large network of people and keeping
the key people in that network motivated, using every manner of persuasion. Many of
the competencies uncovered in this study have a direct relationship to MAMP
management tasks. This task level competence is the capability that a manager brings to
the situation. According to Boyatzis (1982) task competence may be a specific aptitude or
ability o f knowledge that is relevant to meeting the requirements of the successful
performance in a particular setting. The findings of this study indicate that task
competencies are not only essential for effective management they are also a requisite to
leadership management competencies. Several studies have documented the importance
of technical competence to a person’s success and effectiveness as a leader (Penner,
Malone, Coughlin and Herz 1973; Farris 1971). It has been said that leaders manage and
managers lead, but according to Mann (1965) the two activities are not synonymous.
Leaders facilitate interpersonal interaction and positive working relations; they promote
structuring of the task and the work to be accomplished. They often plan, organize, and
evaluate the work that is done. Managers plan, investigate, coordinate, evaluate,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
supervise, staff, negotiate and represent. All these management competencies can
potentially provide leadership; all the leadership activities can contribute to managing.
For curriculum building purposes this study has reinforced the concept that once a
manager has developed a reasonable level of task competence they must focus on the
more statistically significant competencies of interpersonal leadership. The significance
of the interpersonal leadership competencies revealed in this study demands a careful
examination and position in the restructuring of business core curriculums. The
curriculum development challenge will be integrating the organizational leadership
competencies identified in this study along with the responsiveness planning and
technical foundation competencies that are typically already existing in an business core
curriculum. The following is a list of specific comments and suggestions.
Curriculum Implications
1. Due to the exploratory nature of this study and the specificity of the
participant groups, implications for curriculum development should be made
with caution until findings are validated with other samples.
2. The first step in curriculum development is the identification of educational
objectives. This study attempted to classify the significant managerial
competencies discovered into the three domains of learning: cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor. The scales were logically derived and categorized
into an educational objective taxonomy. This methodology enables the
classification of educational goals which, supports the curriculum
development effort.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
3. The MAMP curriculum should provide an environment for students to
develop interpersonal leadership competencies by maintaining cooperative
work relationships within student project teams along with establishing trust,
commitment, loyalty and respect within those teams. Learning situations need
to be developed to help students recognize contributions with genuine
warmth, empathy and fairness toward all members. Leadership needs to be
developed with examples of coaching others towards performance
improvement as well as alignment with organizational, professional and
personal goals.
4. Prospective MAMP managers need to have the cognitive capacity that allows
them to synthesize information from various sources. The curriculum should
develop the ability to view problems from different angles, to recognize
patterns, trends or causes of events that require the development of
explanations as well as strategies. Complex problems or processes should be
introduced that can be systematically broken down into parts, significant
issues identified and logical conclusions drawn. The results indicate that
prospective managers must identify the implications and consequences of
their decisions, including the ability to anticipate obstacles, develop proactive
strategies and determine what is needed to reach a goal.
5. This research reveals the importance for MAMP managers to understand
accountability as well as the ability to behave in a prudent and responsible
manner while carrying out managerial responsibilities. Competent MAMP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
managers evaluate performance by monitoring implementation, then make
adjustments and evaluate results including the impacts on people and issues.
6. Skill development as a leader and in relating to others is a very significant
requirement at all levels of management.
7. Factor analysis of the data provided 14 scales comprised of individual
competencies that contained similar factors. These combined competency
groupings provide a new dimension to the efforts of integrated curriculum
planning. The 14 scales required the researcher to discover previously
unrecognized relationships and integrations between competencies that exist
within the same category, similar, in the way that curriculum developers are
striving to integrate concepts and functions within the classroom in an effort
to more accurately emulate today’s business organizations. These 14 thematic
scales could provide an excellent framework for curriculum building efforts.
8. In an effort to discover any significant overlap of the three competency areas,
a second order factor analysis revealed that there was considerable conceptual
similarity and some redundancies between the scales. The three scales
extracted from the second order analysis could be the framework for a
thematic based program. For example, the curriculum can be designed to first
address the Technical Foundations (Scale 3) of a functional subject area which
includes many of the task specific, foundational competencies of that subject
area. Secondly, develop the Responsiveness Planning competencies in (Scale
2). This stage of the curriculum would demonstrate the implementation of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
(Scale 3) competencies in a more strategic management fashion which would
requires a substantial level of understanding regarding (Scale 3) competencies.
The third and final level would take all the understood competencies from
scales two and three and communicate them utilizing the Organizational
Leadership competencies from (Scale 1). This competency based thematic
curriculum could focus on the acquisition of the knowledge, skill and value
competencies identified in this study and take this acquisition to the next level
of application and practice. A business curriculum can only develop the
competencies identified in this study by providing students the opportunity to
practice them and receive constructive feedback from someone who
comprehends these competencies. Students must be given the opportunity to
understand, practice and apply the competencies and then be assessed in
relation to “real world” settings.
9. In this study organizational leadership competencies have been identified as
essential components with significance throughout the proposed MAMP
business curriculum. Within the confines of a polytechnic university business
program, which specializes in task specific technical curriculum, the inclusion
of organizational leadership competencies will realize strong competition
from the identified and more familiar technical foundation and responsiveness
planning competencies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
10. A potential curriculum development roadblock could come from the difficult
that instructors may have with the intangible concepts regarding leadership
development including the inability to accurately assess levels of competence.
11. The generalizability of the 17 factor scales is limited to Cal Poly State
University College of Business; however, it could be replicated to another
sample to establish their own scales.
12. The organizational leadership, responsiveness planning and technical
foundations competency scales establish a starting point for the development
of a competency-based MAMP management curriculum. The scales provide a
framework that reveals an interesting distinction between a manager that
needs to manage using leadership competencies and a manager that needs to
manage using technical competencies. The indication is that both are
important, but perhaps curriculum efforts should focus on the situational
analysis determining the appropriateness of each.
13. Cal Poly State University is expected to develop technically proficient
students. The results of this study indicates that the successful preparation and
transformation of technologists into managers is perhaps one of the most
formidable tasks and challenges facing the curriculum development process.
Recommendations
The characteristics and attributes that typify a MAMP managerial career are
changing along with developments in organizational structure. The competencies needed
by successful managers that were discovered in this study might be inadequate in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
developing organizational forms of the next century. Curriculum committees need to
continually update their information regarding competency relevance.
As the COBSLO continues in its efforts to develop a niche program and
curriculum in MAMP Management it is evident that organizations not only expect a
technically competent manager but one that is a leader as well. The greatest challenge
could be the integration of technical proficiency and interpersonal relationship concepts.
Due to the exploratory nature of this study and a lack of expertise, the researcher
recommends further analysis of this data by curriculum specialists.
The expert groups’ educational and experiential background could be very
influential in terms of familiarity with the practical/technical competencies identified in
this study. Further study could take a look at the impacts of those constraints.
Finally, the following question needs to be examined, with the constraints on the
number of courses a student can take in four years, is the seemingly unending list of
competencies required by organizations today, possible to develop in the confines of an
undergraduate business curriculum?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bibliography
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Aliakbarzadeh, G. A. (1987). Managerial competencies as perceived bv engineering and
non-engineering managers in a high-tech aerospace company in southern
California. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, United States International
University, San Diego.
Allred, B.B., Snow, C.C., & Miles, R. E. (1996), Characteristics of managerial careers of
the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive. 10 (41. 17-27.
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1994-95). Accreditation
Council Policies. Procedures and Standards. St. Louis, MO.
Anderson, D. B. & Ball, S. (1978). The profession and practice of program evaluation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Applebome, P (1995). Employers wary of school system: Survey finds broad distrust of
younger job aspirants. New York Times, pp. Al, A13.
Arben, P. D. (1997). The integrating course in the business school curriculum, or
whatever happened to business policy? Business Horizons. 40. 65-70
Atkins, C. P., & Kent, R L. (1988). What do recruiters consider important during the
employment interview? Journal of Employment Counseling. 25. 98-103.
Ayer, Frederick L. (1998). Project manager competence and competencies. PM Network.
June.
Badawy, M. K. (1995). Developing managerial skills in engineers and scientists. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Baker, R. L., Mednick, B. R., & Hocevar, D. (1991). Utility of scales derived from
teacher judgements of adolescent academic performance and psychological
behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 51. 271-286.
Bemardin, H.J. & Villanova, P. (1998). Job Analysis. In H. J. Bemardin & J. E. A.
Russell (Eds). Human Resource Management: An Experimental Approach.
McGraw-Hill.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Buckley, M. R., Peach, E. B., & Weitzel, W. (1989). Are collegiate business programs
adequately preparing students for the business world? Journal of Education for
Business. 65. 101-105.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Carroll, S. J., & Gillen, D. J. (1987). Are the classical management functions useful in
describing managerial work? Academy of Management Review. 12. 38-51.
Caudron, S. (1993). How HR drives TQM. Personnel Journal. 72. 48.
Cheit, E. F.,(1985). Business schools and their critics. California Management Review.
27* 43-62.
Craft, J. R. (1998). The identification of technical competency areas and subareas
essential for first-line managers in the digital printing industry. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 58 (06), 245A. (University Microfilms No. AAD
9825983).
Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi Method: An experimental study of group opinion.
Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Dubois, D. D. (1993). Competencv-Based performance improvement: a strategy for
organizational change. Amherst MA: HRD Press.
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S., (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, Harcourt
Brace.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. Washington, DC:
The Falmer Press.
Farris, G. F. (1971). Colleagues’ roles and innovation in scientific teams (working paper
No. 552-71). Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, M.I.T.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. (C. Storrs, Trans.). London,
England: Pitman. (Original work published 1916).
Ferketich, M. L., (1998). Managerial skill preparation in MBA programs for the 21st
century: a critical evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International. 58 (05). 663A.
(University Microfilms No. AAD 9902796)
Finch, C. R. & Crunkilton, J. R. (1984). Curriculum development in vocational and
technical education. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Franz, W. T., (1988). Critical requirements of first level managers in a high technology
manufacturing corporation. Dissertation Abstracts International. 49 (021.423A.
(University Microfilms No. AAD 8814174)
Gordon, R. A. & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Gray, I. (1987). General and industrial management: Henrv Favol. Belmont, California:
David S. Lake Pub.
Green, P. E. (1978). Analyzing multivariate data. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
Gustafson, L. V., Johnson, J. E., & Hovey, D. H. (1993). Preparing business students-Can
we market them successfully? Business Education Forum. 47141. 23-26.
Hay/McBer. (1997). Training resources Group. Managerial competency questionnaire.
profile and interpretive notes handbook. Boston. Mass.
Hayes, R. H. and Abernathy, W. (1980). Managing our way to economic decline.
Harvard Business Review. 59. 67-77.
Heezen, R. R. (1998). Analysis of the management canon: an internet delphi study of
management readings and competencies deemed essential by leaders in the fields
of public administration and public library direction compared with readings
required and competencies taught at their respective graduate schools.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 58 (OIL 118A. (University Microfilms No.
AAD 9832219)
Howardell, D. (1999). Creating the next generation workforce. APICS the performance
advantage. 9 .. 3.
Johnston, J. S. Jr. (1986). Educating managers for change. In Educating managers:
Executive effectiveness through liberal learning, by Joseph S. Johnston et al, 1-
20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jones, C. G. (1984). A descriptive study of a business school curriculum design as it
relates to the skill and knowledge needs of recent graduates. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 45 ('021.396A. (University Microfilms No. AAD
8508185)
Kane, K. R. (1993). MBA: A recruiter’s-eye view. Business Horizons. 36. 65-68.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanungo, R. N., & Misra, S. (1992). Managerial resourcefulness: A reconceptualization
of management skills. Human Relations. 45, 1311-1332.
Katz, R. L. (1974, September/October). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Business Review. 52. 90-102.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Kaufman, B. E., (1994, September). What companies want from HR graduates.
HRMagazine. 39. 84-86.
Keech, K. M., (1998). Industry-based competencies for entry-level retail management
positions: a national Delphi study. Dissertation Abstracts International. 58 (040.
625A. (University Microfilms No. AAD 9841975)
Kohlman, E. L. (1975). A model for competency-based teacher education. Journal of
Home Economics. 67. 5.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New
York: The Free Press.
Kuo, S. F. (1998). Perceived necessary leaders’ competencies or skills in the fields of
sport administration, higher education, and business in Taiwan. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 58 (041. 398A. (University Microfilms No. AAD
9839212)
Livingston, J. S. (1973). Myth of the well-educated manager. Harvard Business Review.
49,79-88.
Maes, J. D. (1997). A managerial perspective: oral communication competency is most
important for business students in the workplace. Journal of Business
Communication. 34. 67-80.
Magill, S. L. & Herden R. P. (1998). Using educational outcomes and student portfolios
to steer management education. Journal of Management Education. 5. 67.
Marcus, S. H. & Pringle, A. (1995). What new competencies are needed in a changing
environment. Human Resources Professional. 8. 19-23.
Mason, J. C. (1992). Business schools: striving to meet customer demand. Management
Review. 81. 10-16.
Matakovich, M. A. (1999). Utilization of Criteria of the California State Department of
Education and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in Designing a
School Improvement Process. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of
Southern California.
Motilla, D. T., Hatfield, L., Taylor, R., & Stone, S. (1997). The view from the trenches:
A steering committee’s retrospective on implementing the new AACSB
accreditation standards. The Journal of Education for Business. 72. 289-292.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Naisbitt, J., and Aberdeen, P. 1990. Megatrends 2000. New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc.
Nordhaug, O. (1998). Competence specificities in organizations. International Studies of
Management & Organization. 1. 8-29.
Olney, E. J., & Bednar, E. A. (1989, January). Identifying essential oral presentation
skills for today’s business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business. 64.
161-164.
Penner, D. D., Malone, D. M., Coughlin, T. M., & Herz, J. A. (1973). Satisfaction with
U. S. Army leadership. U. S. Army War College, Leadership Monograph series,
No. 2.
Pierce, Chris. (1994). Executive competencies: research issues, activities and responses.
Executive Development. 4. 18-20.
Plutsky, S. (1996). Faculty perceptions of students’ business communication needs.
Business communication Quarterly. 59. 69-75.
Porter, L. W., and McKibben L. E. (1988). Management education and development:
Drift or thrust into the 21 st. century. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Raelin, J. A. (1995). Reformulating management education: Professional education,
action learning, and beyond. Selections. Autumn, 20.
Rosenbaum, B.L., (1991). Leading today’s professional. Research Technology
Management. 34. 30-38.
Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi Critique: expert opinion, forecasting, and group process.
Massachusetts, Lexington Books.
Scheele, D. S.,(1975). Reality contruction as a product of Delphi interaction. In H. A.
Linstone & M. T. TurofF (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Scheetz, L. P., & Stein-Roggenbuck, S. (1994, October). Learn to market your liberal arts
degree for a lifetime career. The Black Collegian. 25. 111-117.
Shipper, F., (1999). A comparison of managerial skills of middle managers with MBAs,
with other masters’ and undergraduate degrees ten years after the Porter and
Mckibben report. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14. 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Smith, P. (1988). Forward to Management education and development: Drift or thrust
into the 21st. century, by Lyman W. Porter and Lawrence E. McKibbin, xvii.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Theodorson, G. A., & Theodorson, A. G. (1969). Modem dictionary of sociology. New
York: Crowell.
Thompson, C., & Smith, B. (1992). Are college graduates missing the corporate boat?
HR Focus. 69. 23.
Wood, R. & Payne, T. (1998). Competency-based recruitment and selection. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Vaccaro, J. P., (1995). A comparative study of perceived promotion criteria and predicted
employee competency needs for twentv-first century organizations. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. Spalding University Louisville Kentucky.
Vilijoen, J. Holt, D. and Petzall, S. (1990)’ The MBA experience: Participants’ entry-
level conceptions of management. Management Education and Development. 21.
1- 12.
Ziglio, E., (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In M.
Adler & E. Ziglio, (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its
application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers Ltd.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Appendix
A. Expert Participant E-mail Letter
Date
Dear
Hello, my name is Cliff Barber, Faculty College o f Business Cal Poly State University
SLO. I am hoping that you have the time to participate in the manufacturing, assembly
and materials processing (MAMP) managerial competency project. This project utilizes
the Delphi Technique that requires a group o f experts to reach consensus on specific
manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing (MAMP) managerial competencies
in the areas of knowledge, skill, and value. Participation is voluntary. All your responses
will be kept confidential and will be used for statistical analysis as part of this project.
The goal of this project is to try and obtain consensus on individual competencies in each
area: knowledge, skill and value. You have been selected to be a participant on this panel
based on your knowledge and expertise as well as your commitment to Cal Poly State
University. Your thoughtful participation in this project should be beneficial in a couple
of ways. First of all you can compare your position on managerial competencies with
other mid to upper level management individuals. Secondly, it will provide you an
opportunity to have an impact on future, undergraduate curriculum development efforts.
Could you please try and submit this first round questionnaire, as soon as possible it
should only take about IS min. The following round should take less time.
Please go to the following WEB site: http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/cbarber/
Then fill out the online questionnaire.
Please call me a t______________ with any questions.
Thank You,
Cliff Barber
Faculty
Cal Poly State University, College of Business.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Appendix
B. Participant Follow-up E-mail Letter
Date
Dear
Hello, it is Cliff Barber again Faculty College of Business Cal Poly State University
SLO. I won’t bother you again, but I’ll make one more plea. I am hoping you will
participate in the manufacturing, assembly and materials processing (MAMP) managerial
competency project. Our students could benefit from your insight. This project utilizes
the Delphi Technique that requires a group of experts to reach consensus on specific
manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing (MAMP) managerial competencies
in the areas of knowledge, value, and skill. Participation is voluntary. All your responses
will be kept confidential and will be used for statistical analysis as part of this project.
Please try and submit this first round questionnaire by July 2n d there are no wrong
responses.
Please go to the following WEB site: http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/cbarber/
Then fill out the online questionnaire.
Please call me at (805) 756-2139 with any questions.
If this project is of no interest reply to this message with a no thanks.
Thank You, Cliff Barber
Cal Poly State University, College of Business.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Appendix
C. Round 1 KSV Managerial Competency Questionnaire
ROUND 1 MANGERIAL COMPETENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
In the context of this research project, the following definition is considered:
MAMP manager - a first level position involving the management of a manufacturing,
assembly and/or material-processing component within an organization.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. Your Name:________________ 2. Job Title____________
How many years have you been involved in management of an organization that includes
a manufacturing, assembly and/or material-processing (MAMP) component?
How many years have you been employed with your current organization?
What responsibilities have you had in the employment process of recent college graduate
first-level MAMP positions?
(Check all that apply)
□ Job development/description
□
Job competency requirements
□
Interview process
□
Other:
□
Not involved in employment process
Gender Female d Male E
7. Educational Background
□ High School
□ Associate Degree Area of Study
□ Bachelor’s Degree Area of Study
□ Graduate Degree Area of Study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
All responses will be kept confidential and will be used for statistical analysis as part of
this research project. Read instructions for each section. Please provide competency
requirements based on your knowledge and experience in hiring and managing recent
college graduates in first-level MAMP management positions within your organization.
For this first round, please enter at least three, but not more than six, managerial
competency statements, in three categories (Knowledge, Skills and Values) on the
following pages.
KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCIES
In this study, knowledge is defined as understanding, comprehension, familiarity; the
concepts, facts and principles of information that a MAMP manager needs to know,
either by memory or referenced when needed. Examples of knowledge for a Weather
Forecaster could be (Cloud formations, Wind patterns).
INSTRUCTIONS: In the space provided enter your competency descriptions. The
specific competencies should refer to first-level MAMP management positions.
On the final line indicate additional not previously mentioned competencies you propose
will be most critical for the future success of MAMP managers.
1._______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 ._______________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 .________________________________________________________________
4 ._____________________________________________________________
5 .__________________________________________________________
6 ._______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Future knowledge
competencies:_______________________________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
SKILL COMPETENCIES
In this study, skill is defined as the ability to demonstrate a system and sequence of
behavior that are functionally related to attaining a performance goal, it must result in
something observable (Boyatzis (1982). The aptitude and proficiency necessary to
perform and demonstrate job functions. Examples of skill competencies for a Weather
Forecaster could be (Map reading, Charting).
INSTRUCTIONS: In the space provided enter your competency descriptions. The
specific competencies should refer to first-level MAMP management positions.
On the final line indicate additional not previously mentioned competencies you propose
will be most critical for the future success of MAMP managers.
1 .________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.________________________________________________________________________
3.
4 ._____________________
5 ._____________________
6 ._____________________________________
Future Skill Competencies:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
VALUE COMPETENCIES
In this study, Values are defined as feelings, attitudes, opinions, standards, ethics, beliefs:
an abstract, generalized principle of behavior to which the members of a group feel a
strong* emotionally toned positive commitment and which provides a standard for
judging specific acts and goals. Theodorson (1969). Example of value competencies for a
Weather Forecaster could be (Patience, Bravery).
INSTRUCTIONS: In the space provided enter your competency descriptions. The
specific competencies should refer to first-level MAMP management positions.
On the final line indicate additional not previously mentioned competencies you propose
will be most critical for the future success of MAMP managers.
1._____________________________________________________________________________________
2 .________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 .___________________________________________________________
4 .___________________________________________________________
5 .___________________________________________________________
6 .___________________________________________________________
Future Value Competencies:_______________________________________________
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Appendix
D. 109 Round 1 Competencies
Knowledge Competencies
Assembly processes
Basic Electronics
Broad Base (Jack of all Trades)
Business Finance (budgeting)
Computer Process Simulation
Control Systems (Distributive controls, PLC, etc.)
Cost Accounting
Customer Relations
E-commerce
Employee Training (Benefits)
Enterprise Resource Planning
Ergonomics
Facility Layout
Industrial Safety
Information Technology (management)
Inventory Control (JIT, Kanban)
Legal Restraints
Manufacturing Processes (machining, welding etc.)
Marketing
Material Requirements Planning
Mathematics (statistics)
Mechanical Drawings (Blueprints)
Physical sciences
Pneumatic Systems
Process Design (work-flow)
Product Design (Development)
Product Packaging.
Production Scheduling
Project management
Properties of Materials (metals, plastics etc.)
Purchasing
Quality Control (assurance)
Regulatory Compliance
Risk Management
Statistical Process Control
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Surface Mount Technology
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
Skill Competencies
Anticipation
Benchmarking
Computer Aided Design & Drafting
Conceptual Problem Solving
Conflict Resolution
Cost/Benefit analysis
Creativity
Crisis Management
Critical Thinking
Customer Awareness (understanding)
Debugging skills
Delegation
Directing
Diversity Management
Employee Utilization
Establishing Goals
Flow Charting (control charting)
Forecasting
Foreign Languages
General Computer Literacy
Inspection
Interpersonal Skills (human relations)
Learning
Mechanical Trouble Shooting
Mentoring/Coaching
Monitoring
Motivational Strategies
Multiple Priority Management
Negotiating
Networking
Ownership
Prioritization
Resourcefulness
Stress Management
Team building/Teamwork
Technical Research
Test Design
Time management
Verbal Communication (presentation)
Written Communication (technical)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Value competencies
Achievement-orientation (competitive)
Adaptable to change
Ambitious (initiative)
Approachable
Bravery
Charismatic
Comfortable in ambiguity
Common sense (objectivity)
Company Loyalty (profitability)
Confronting
Credibility (authentic)
Customer oriented
Empathy (fairness, approachable)
Enthusiasm
Ethical Behavior (honesty)
Fairness
Future Vision
Good Listener
Humility
Learning
Love what you do (passion, enthusiasm)
Patience
Question Authority
Responsible (consistent)
Results-focused
Risk-Taking
Self-confident
Strong Work Ethic (Diligent)
Team player
Valuing Difference
Willingness to get one's hands dirty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Appendix
E. Original Round 2 Questionnaire Instructions
ROUND 2 MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Your Name
2. Job Title
3. Organization
INSTRUCTIONS
The following lists of Knowledge, Skill and Value competencies for first level
manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing managers arc the compilation of the
competencies generated from the expert panelists in Round 1. In this round, you are to
evaluate each competency as to your level o f agreement and level of importance for the
future.
The level of agreement means the extent to which you agree or disagree the competency
is necessary for first-level manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing
managers.
STRONGLY DISAGREE = SD
DISAGREE = D
NO OPINION = N
AGREE = A
STRONGLY AGREE = SA
The level of importance rating indicates your perceived level of importance for the
competency in the future.
EXTREMELY UNIMPORTANT = 1
UNIMPORTANT = 2
MODERATELY IMPORTANT = 3
IMPORTANT = 4
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT = 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Appendix
F. Revised Round 2 Questionnaire Instructions
ROUND 2 MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Your Name
2. Job Title
3. Organization
INSTRUCTIONS
The following lists of Knowledge, Skill and Value competencies for first level
manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing managers are the results of the
competencies generated from the expert panelists in Round 1. At this stage the
competencies have not rated in terms of current or future importance to first level MAMP
managers. In this round, you are to evaluate two things for each competency, your level
of current agreement value on the left side and your level of importance for each
competency in the future on the right side.
The level of agreement means the extent to which you agree or disagree the competency
is necessary for first-level manufacturing, assembly and/or materials processing
managers.
STRONGLY DISAGREE = SD
DISAGREE = D
NO OPINION = N
AGREE = A
STRONGLY AGREE = SA
The level o f importance rating indicates your perceived level of importance for the
competency in the future.
EXTREMELY UNIMPORTANT = 1
UNIMPORTANT = 2
MODERATELY IMPORTANT = 3
IMPORTANT = 4
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT = 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix
G. Round 2 KSV Managerial Competency Questionnaire
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCES
The ability to understand how pieces of information (concepts, principles,
understandings) can be used with context, to solve problems that are new but are similar
to previous actions.
AGREEMENT
RATING COMPETENCY RATING
SD D N A SA Assembling Processes 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Basic Electronics 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Broad Base (Jack of all Trades) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Computer Process Simulation 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Cost Accounting (budgeting) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Customer Relations 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA E-Commerce 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Employee Training (Benefits of) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Enterprise Resource Planning 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Equipment Control Systems (PLC, etc.) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Ergonomics 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Facility Layout & Design 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Flexible Manufacturing 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Industrial Safety 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Information Technology (management) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Inventory Control (JIT, Kanban) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Manufacturing Processes (machining, etc.) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Marketing Principles 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Material Requirements Planning 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Mechanical Drawings (blueprints) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Pneumatic Systems 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Process Design (work-flow) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Product Design (development) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Product Packaging 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Production Scheduling 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Project Management 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Properties of Materials (plastics etc.) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Purchasing 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Quality Control (assurance) 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Regulatory Compliance 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Risk Management 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Statistical Process Control 1 2 3 4
SD D N A SA Supply Chain Management 1 2 3 4
FUTURE
IMPORTANCE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
SKILL COMPETENCIES
The ability to demonstrate a system and sequence of behaviors that are functionally
related to attaining a performance goal. It must result in something observable (Boyatzis
1982).
AGREEMENT
RATING COMPETENCY
FUTURE
IMPORTANCE
SA A N D SD Benchmarking
RATING
1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Computer Aided Design & Drafting 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Conceptual Problem Solving 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Conflict Resolution 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Cost/Benefit analysis (ROI) 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Crisis Management 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Critical Thinking 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Customer Awareness (understanding) 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Debugging skills 1 2 3 4 5
SA ANDSD Delegation (Directing) I 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Diversity Management I 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Employee Utilization 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Flow Charting (control charting) 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Forecasting 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Foreign Languages 1 2 3 4 5
SA ANDSD General Computer Literacy 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Humor 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Inspection 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Interpersonal Skills (human relations) 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Learning 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Mechanical Trouble Shooting I 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Mentoring/Coaching 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Monitoring I 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Motivational Strategies 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Multiple Priority Management 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Negotiating 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Networking 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Stress Management I 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Taking Ownership 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Team building/Teamwork 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Technical Research 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Verbal Communication (presentation) 1 2 3 4 5
SAAND SD Written Communication (technical) 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
VALUE COMPETENCIES
The feelings, attitudes, opinions, standards, ethics, beliefs; an abstract, generalized
principle of behavior to which members of a group have a strong emotional commitment
toward.
FUTURE
AGREEMENT COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE
RATING RATING
SAANDSD Achievement-orientation (competitive) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Adaptable to change 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Ambitious (initiative) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Charismatic 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Comfortable in ambiguity 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Common sense (objectivity) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Company Loyalty (profitability) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Confronting 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Credibility (authentic) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Cultural Diversity 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Customer oriented 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Empathy (fairness, approachable) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Ethical Behavior (honesty) 1 2 3 4 5
SA A N D SD Future Vision 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Good Listener 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Humility I 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Learning 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Love what you do (passion, enthusiasm) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Patience 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Question Authority 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Responsible (consistent) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Results-focused 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Risk-Taking 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Self Confidence 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Strong Work Ethic (Diligent) 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Team player 1 2 3 4 5
SAANDSD Willingness to get one's hands dirty 1 2 3 4 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix
H. Individual Scales and Competencies
AGREEMENT KNOWLEDGE SCALES
KSCALE1 = Foundational Systems Alpha = .83
Mechanical drawing (blue prints)
Manufacturing Processes (machining welding)
Equipment control systems (PLC’s starters etc.)
Properties of Materials (metals plastics)
Pneumatic systems
KSCALE2 = Competitive Strategies Alpha = .74
Product Packaging
Computer Process Simulation
Customer Relations
Information Technology Management
Marketing Principles
Product design and development
Electronic Commerce
KSCALE3 = Requisite Management Alpha = 75
Regulatory Compliance
Ergonomics
Risk Management
Industrial Safety
Facility layout and design
Statistical Process Control
KSCALE4 = Project Management Alpha = .67
Project management
Production Scheduling
Flexible Manufacturing
Process Design (work flow)
Quality Control
KSCALE5 = Materials Management Alpha = .69
Enterprise Resource planning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Supply Chain management
Purchasing
Material Requirement Planning
Cost Accounting (budgeting)
AGREEMENT SKILL SCALES
SSCALE1 = Technical Analysis Alpha = .81
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Networking
Written Communication (technical)
General Computer Literacy
Forecasting
Learning
SSCALE2 = Transformational Leadership Alpha = .82
Negotiating
Motivational Strategies
Multiple Priority Management
Conflict Resolution
Interpersonal Skills (human relations)
Benchmarking
Mentoring/Coaching
Verbal Communication (presentation)
Foreign Languages
SSCALE3 = Diagnostic Efficiency Alpha = .82
Mechanical Trouble Shooting
Computer Aided Design & Drafting
Inspection
Technical research
Flow Charting (control charting)
SSCALE4 = Workforce development Alpha = .71
Employee Utilization
Stress management
Humor
Taking Ownership
Diversity Management
SSCALE5 = Organizational Strategies Alpha = .61
Conceptual Problem Solving
Crisis Management
Customer awareness
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Critical thinking
Team Building/teamwork
AGREEMENT VALUE SCALES
VSCALE1 = Credibility Management Alpha = .86
Responsible (consistent)
Self Confidence
Strong Work Ethic (diligent)
Common Sense (objectivity)
Learning
Ethical Behavior (honesty)
Credibility (authentic)
Results-focused
VSCALE2 = Assertive Leadership Management Alpha = .78
Achievement Orientation (competitive)
Confronting
Charismatic
Question Authority
Risk-Taking
Company Loyalty (profitability)
Ambitious (initiative)
VSCALE3 = Collaborative Management Alpha = .77
Empathy (fairness, approachable)
Team Player
Patience
Willingness to get one’s hands dirty
Humility
Customer Oriented
Love what you do (passion, enthusiasm)
VSCALE4 = Responsiveness Management Alpha = .70
Future Vision
Comfortable in Ambiguity
Good Listener
Adaptable to Change
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Appendix
I. Final Revision of Competencies to 93
Knowledge Competencies
Assembly processes
Basic Electronics
Broad Base (Jack of all Trades)
Computer Process Simulation
Equipment Control Systems (PLC, etc.)
Cost Accounting (budgeting)
Customer Relations
E-commerce
Employee Training (Benefits of)
Enterprise Resource Planning
Facility Layout & Design
Flexible Manufacturing
Ergonomics
Industrial Safety
Information Technology (management)
Inventory Control (JIT, Kanban)
Manufacturing Processes (machining, welding etc.)
Marketing Principles
Material Requirements Planning
Mechanical Drawings (Blueprints)
Pneumatic Systems
Process Design (work-flow)
Product Design (Development)
Product Packaging
Production Scheduling
Project management
Purchasing
Quality Control (assurance)
Properties of Materials (metals, plastics etc.)
Regulatory Compliance
Risk Management
Statistical Process Control
Supply Chain Management
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Skill Competencies
Benchmarking
Computer Aided Design & Drafting
General Computer Literacy
Conceptual Problem Solving
Conflict Resolution
Cost/Benefit analysis (ROI)
Crisis Management
Critical Thinking
Customer Awareness (understanding)
Debugging skills
Delegation (Directing)
Diversity Management
Employee Utilization
Flow Charting (control charting)
Forecasting
Foreign Languages
Inspection
Interpersonal Skills (human relations)
Learning
Mechanical Trouble Shooting
Mentoring/Coaching
Monitoring
Motivational Strategies
Multiple Priority Management
Negotiating
Networking
Taking Ownership
Stress Management
Team building/Teamwork
Technical Research
Verbal Communication (presentation)
Written Communication (technical)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Value competencies
Achievement-orientation (competitive)
Comfortable in ambiguity
Ambitious (initiative)
Adaptable to change
Charismatic
Common sense (objectivity)
Company Loyalty (profitability)
Confronting
Credibility (authentic)
Customer oriented
Empathy (fairness, approachable)
Ethical Behavior (honesty)
Future Vision
Good Listener
Humility
Learning
Love what you do (passion, enthusiasm)
Patience
Question Authority
Responsible (consistent)
Results-focused
Risk-Taking
Self-confident
Strong Work Ethic (Diligent)
Team player
Valuing Difference
Willingness to get one's hands dirty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix
J. Heezen Competencies
155
Heezen Competencies
Adaptability
Advocacy
Ambition
Appetite to learn
Budgeting
Building teams
Change management
Communicating
Community building
Conflict managing
Controlling
Coordinating
Sharing credit
Technological literacy
Cost/benefit analysis
Creativity
Curiosity
Directing
Discussion leading
Energy
Fundraising
Innovating
Involvement with
Professional assoc.
Meeting leading
Mentoring
Negotiating
Open-mindedness
Organizing
Planning
Vision
Political
Problem solving
Recruiting
Reporting
Researching
Risk taking
Self esteem
Sensitivity to Diversity
Staffing
Thinking critically
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparative analysis of academic achievement for CalWORKs students in a K--12 public school system

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

A teamwork skills questionnaire: A reliability and validity study of the Chinese version

PDF

An analysis of teachers' perceptions of the efficacy of an instructional method for English language development using music and singing paired with movement

PDF

An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Curriculum policy and educational practices: A study of primary classroom music education in Kern County, California

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

GEAR UP and TRIO: Redirecting the fight to preserve access and opportunity in the Higher Education Act

PDF

Corporate investment in education: Motivational factors and trends in direct giving

PDF

An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

PDF

An assessment of general education requirements in Taiwanese higher education

PDF

Cognitive efficiency of animated pedagogical agents for learning English as a second language

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

Is the Strength Deployment Inventory a valid research instrument for measuring motivational values in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture?

PDF

Effective practices of a Spanish -bilingual and -bicultural principal vs. a non -Spanish -bilingual and -bicultural principal and the effects of their language proficiency and cultural knowledge ...

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

Asset Metadata

Creator Barber, Clifford Stephen (author)

Core Title Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, business,education, curriculum and instruction,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Baker, Robert (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-58694

Unique identifier UC11328616

Identifier 3017986.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-58694 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3017986.pdf

Dmrecord 58694

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Barber, Clifford Stephen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA