Pedagogical Approaches to Develop Critical Thinking and Crisis Leadership

Abstract

Management schools must be prepared to aid leaders and managers to succeed in uncertain environments. We offer two approaches, each designed for critical thinking skill development, to teach graduate management students about leading in and through potential disruption to organizational life. First, we present a personalized case method that relies on a critical incident approach to examine crises students personally experienced at work. We provide a description of the student assignment and a process for student analysis. Second, we present a group project involving a poster session in which students collaboratively work on complex crisis leadership challenges and present their analysis to their peers. We describe how these two approaches develop the critical skills effective crisis leaders possess.

Keywords

crisis leadership education critical thinking leadership character resilience

Business schools do not typically emphasize crisis management education and leadership in crisis (Cirka & Corrigall, 2010). While models and approaches to managing human threats and crises abound, management professors are often constrained to disciplinary and subdisciplinary teaching material, which empowers them only to address crisis anecdotally. Moreover, many largely view crises from the perspective of business failure resulting from ethical lapses, economic downturn, or productivity and market share loss. A key message from a recent special issue in this journal on crisis management (Comer, 2013) was that management schools need to prepare their students better to lead in challenging contexts and changing environments, sometimes unexpected and other times anticipated and imminent.

We begin with a brief discussion of emerging ideas in the area of leadership and crisis leadership. We then discuss critical thinking and models for structuring learning for critical thinking skill development. Next, we present two pedagogical approaches we use to teach crisis leadership in an introductory organizational behavior course at the graduate level. We outline a personalized case method and provide a description of the student assignment and process for student analysis. We then highlight a group project involving a poster session in which students collaboratively work on complex crisis leadership challenges and present their analysis to their peers. We developed these methods with military leaders in an MBA program, but they may be easily adapted for undergraduate management and traditional MBA students. We suggest that these two teaching tools enable the development of crisis leadership and critical thinking skills.

Developing Leaders for Crises

Crisis management and leading in crisis have not been a significant emphasis in teaching organizational behavior, strategic management, or leadership development. A few recent examples have shifted the trend. Waller, Lei, and Pratten (2013) suggest that crisis management education ought to address team capability for dealing with crisis. Clemson and Samara (2013) showed that crisis management simulations using narrative inquiry help determine transformative learning. A recent special issue on crisis management education in this journal presents approaches for case studies (McDonald, 2013), using evidence-based management (Wright, Nichols, McKechnie, & McCarthy, 2013) or developing communication skills with leaders (Foote, 2013). Aside from these pedagogical approaches, the way crisis leadership is taught remains important (Shrivastava, Mitroff, & Alpaslan, 2013), yet leadership is a key factor in effective crisis management (Hess & Cameron, 2006; Mitroff, Pauchant, & Shrivastava, 1988). A few scholars have made efforts to examine leadership in extreme contexts that could be considered crises (e.g., Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009) and others have looked at crisis management from a positive perspective (e.g., Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, & Kanov, 2002; James & Wooten, 2010; Powley, 2009). In recent years, crisis leadership of a different kind has gained increasing attention in organizations due to the effects of September 11 and threat of terrorism. What this new direction reveals is that to develop leaders who handle crisis situations requires emphasis on communication, caring, and vision (Klann, 2003); empathy and expertise (Pagonis, 2001; Powley & Taylor, 2006); and providing experiences that shape and test ability to lead (Bennis & Thomas, 2002).

Bennis and Thomas (2002, p. 45) capture much of this recent focus on the character of the leader (i.e., who a leader is) with a framework outlining what critical skills and capacities effective crisis leaders possess. First, they have “a sense of integrity and a strong set of values,” which guide and direct their behavior when times are tough. Crisis leaders also have a “distinctive and compelling voice” such that external and internal hearers have a clear understanding of the leader’s intent and purpose. Third, crisis leaders “engage others in shared meaning,” that is, they look outward and demonstrate empathy, thus building a cooperative and community-based organizational culture. Finally, crisis leaders possess “adaptive capacity,” or the ability to flexibly manage crisis and transcend adversity. Crisis leaders are effective because they possess the awareness of themselves and others in the context of dynamic, tenuous, and shifting situations.

Embedded in Bennis and Thomas’s (2002) framework is the idea that crisis leadership is about who a leader is and how a leader responds to crisis. Leaders must not only possess the ability to manage crisis, but they must represent and embody characteristics that enable them to transcend difficulty. Leadership of this kind has been represented in constructs such as servant leadership (Spears & Lawrence, 2004), spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003), relational leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006), authentic leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005), resonant leadership (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002), fundamental states of leadership (Quinn, 2004), and eighth-habit leadership (Covey, 2004). These forms of leadership contend that one’s internal resources serve as guides to enable leaders to focus outward, especially in crisis (Useem, 1998; Dutton et al., 2002; Powley & Taylor, 2006; Taylor, 2010) and often lead to achieving extraordinary performance (Cameron, 2008). For example, Quinn proposes a kind of leadership that is internally directed, other-focused, externally open, and purpose-centered (Quinn, 2004), where the leaders act selflessly and transcend self-serving needs in favor of serving others.

We find the general principles offered by Bennis and Thomas (2002) helpful, and we operationalize and build on those in this article. Crisis readiness, though, involves not only training to specific situations but also developing attributes of crisis leadership infused with inclinations toward strong character and moral values (Bennis & Thomas, 2002). Furthermore, Sankar (2003) notes, “The leader’s character is a strategic source of power for infusing the culture of his/her organization with a code of ethics, moral vision, imagination, and courage” (p. 54). In essence, crisis leadership is more than just a set of behavioral skills but also includes a person’s fundamental aspirations, character, and values (Kouzes & Posner, 2002) and, as we take up in the next section, the ability to critically think through the challenges posed by crises (Lalonde & Roux-Dufort, 2013).

Critical Thinking and Learning

Organizational leaders are the central figures in helping create and maintain their organizations when crises affect processes and relationships. Regardless of their position, organizational members have the responsibility to support systems, structures, processes, and relationships that maintain clearly defined routines that minimize the extent and effects of unpredictability (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006; Pagonis, 2001). To address these challenges, tensions, dilemmas, and dynamics (Gardner, 1990; Pearce & Sims, 2002), we argue that critical thinking skill development holds solutions for how students might learn crisis leadership.

Critical thinking (Fisher, 2001; Kiltz, 2009) stems from the learning theorists. Dewey (1909) called it “reflective thinking,” and defined it as “active persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Glaser (1941) further articulated critical thinking as “being disposed” to consider thoughts and ideas within one’s experience base supported by methods of “logical inquiry” and the skill to apply those methods (p. 5). Embedded in both Glaser’s and Dewey’s definitions are two core ideas: reasons for believing and implications of beliefs, both of which require skillful reasoning by asking learners to raise questions, challenge ideas, and seek confirming and disconfirming information. Dewey saw critical thinking as an active process where individuals generate questions, thoughts, relevant information, and solutions rather than passively take in information from someone else (Kiltz, 2009).

A third key figure, Ennis, extends Dewey’s action orientation to critical thinking. He suggested “critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking . . . focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1993, p. 180). His contribution further anchored critical thinking as a substantively active process of reflection and inquiry about the merit, value, and usefulness of concepts. Others have continued the tradition set forth by these scholars (e.g., Paul & Elder, 2001; Paul, Fisher, & Nosich, 1993). For example, learning scholars conceive of critical thinking as an individual competency and structure learning to foster critical thinking with students through discussion and exercises.

For Dewey, critical thinking is about learners’ “engagement with a problem” and “problems . . . evoke students’ natural curiosity and stimulate both learning and critical thought” (Kiltz, 2009, p. 5). By working with real-world problems in this way, the rationale goes, students are more apt to understand the challenges and find ways out of them as they activate prior knowledge (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010). This line of thought is foundational for the learning approaches discussed in this article. Each of the approaches asks students to reflect, write about, discuss, and present problems and challenges that they have or will potentially face in the future. Kurfiss (1988) “contended that critical thinking [is] required for solving unstructured problems that [have] no single correct answer” (Peach, Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007, p. 314).

In fact, given the often unexpected, complex nature of crisis, critical thinking serves as an excellent context for crisis leadership skill development. Specifically, critical thinking represents “an academic competency” (Fisher & Scriven, 1997, p. 21), which serves an important pedagogical purpose to develop learning in an active way. Critical thinking is one approach to structure learning activities such that it conditions intellectual development (Perry, 1999). Moreover, “there is widespread agreement that critical thinking in a university environment involves students’ abilities to identify issues and assumptions, recognize important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority, and deduce conclusions” (Kiltz, 2009, p. 10; see also Tsui, 2002). The two approaches we conduct are crafted in such a way to promote these critical thinking abilities. The personalized cases culminate in a poster session where students apply and integrate their learning.

In our teaching, we challenge students to consider the models and theories presented, question their applicability, and articulate variations and differences based on their own experiences, and as such to develop critical thinking skills and knowledge for managing and leading through complex and challenging crisis problems. To build more awareness and invite deeper thought about individual leadership and management ability in complex situations, we draw on Perry’s (1999) model of intellectual development. Perry’s stages take adult learners through a process in which they model movement from dualistic and multiplicity toward relativism and commitment. The model shapes ways to structure student learning, thus helping them develop broader understanding of course concepts, integrate those concepts, and apply them appropriately. For instance, students may at first be committed to fixed understandings based on assumptions and perceptions, but class discussion of complex cases, writing about their experiences, and presenting their work challenge preconceived ideas and increase awareness. In the process, students begin to question previous positions. Doing so guides them on toward a commitment to challenging preconceptions and assumptions about crises. Moreover, our multistage case pedagogy drives at increasing student learning such that students work together to support each other to achieve learning and build knowledge for managing and dealing with complex unstructured problems (Kurfiss, 1988).

Learning Objectives

The next sections of the article present two guided approaches to help students develop and practice awareness of skills for complex and challenging situations. The two teaching approaches aim to (a) increase self-awareness to improve self-understanding and strengthen character development, (b) increase critical thinking skills to assess the challenges and circumstances of crisis situations, and (c) help students draw on these skills and prior knowledge to apply them in different situations. The structure of the course and the assignments presented here build on critical thinking and leadership models. Others have offered similar approaches that may also yield positive results and prove useful (e.g., Kiltz, 2009; Kurfiss, 1988). We begin with a personalized case and then finish with a poster session. We situate these two approaches at different points in the academic term to build on student knowledge and information previously presented in class. Table 1 outlines the respective objectives of the two approaches and their connection to important components of crisis leadership and critical thinking.

Table 1.

Objectives for the Approaches to Teaching and Developing Crisis Leadership and Critical Thinking.

Objectives	Critical thinking and learning	Crisis leadership
Personalized Case
1. Increase individual character and collective capacity to handle disruption and challenges	• Increase intellectual development and integrate learning through thoughtful consideration of experience (Ennis, 1993; Kiltz, 2009)	• Create a distinctive and compelling voice (Bennis & Thomas, 2002)
2. Develop analytical skills to make sense of complex situations	• Identify, question, and evaluate experience and personal behavior to determine what constitutes effective practice (Ambrose et al., 2010; Paul & Elder, 2001)	• Develop awareness of individual behavior and ability to activate resilience in challenges (Powley & Taylor, 2006)
	• Intellectual empathy (Paul & Elder, 2001)	• Focus on how to embody integrity and a strong set of values (Bennis & Thomas, 2002)
Poster Session
1. Analyze and assess crisis situations using appropriate analytical tools	• Solve unstructured problems that have multiple and complex dynamics (Kurfiss, 1988)	• Develop empathy and mindfulness for challenges and others involved (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005)
2. Develop systems awareness of potential crisis faced by organizations	• Engage with problems to stimulate learning and critical thought (Kiltz, 2009)	• Engage others in shared meaning to build cooperative culture (Bennis & Thomas, 2002)
	• Identify, question, and evaluate others experience and behavior to determine what constitutes effective practice (Ambrose et al., 2010; Paul & Elder, 2001)	• Increase competence for adaptive capacity to embody flexibility (Bennis & Thomas, 2002)
	• Confidence in reasoning and fair mindedness (Paul & Elder, 2001)

Our teaching context lends itself to discussing these topics in depth. Throughout their careers, our students have worked with a variety of managers, peers, direct reports, teams, and organizations. They may have had significant experience managing supply lines and large operations with sizeable budgets, or overseeing large numbers of people, supplies, and expensive projects and equipment. The pedagogical practices we propose may be easily adapted to various other management education contexts. An experienced MBA or EMBA cohort would draw from professional experiences where a current or past organization faced major financial, operational, ethical, or leadership challenges, whereas an undergraduate class might be asked to respond to crises from case studies, films, or current affairs.

A Personalized Case Approach

Our first approach for teaching and developing crisis leadership is a personalized case. This individual writing assignment, in the form of a critical incident (Flanagan, 1954), encourages students to think deeply about the implications of leading in crisis and their own leadership practice. Using such an approach increases students’ critical thinking and develops learning for how to lead in crises. The critical incident approach incorporates experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and critical thinking (Fisher, 2001; Glaser, 1941; Norris & Ennis, 1989; Paul & Elder, 2001) as a means to develop significant learning (Fink, 2003). The various contexts to which these students have been exposed give them a rich database of work experience that provides a springboard for making sense of organizational life, understanding themselves, and retaining and transferring learning (Cormier & Hagman, 1987). The critical incident activity (detailed in Appendix A) facilitates direct observation of intellectual development of students and integrates transformational learning through thoughtful consideration (Perry, 1999). Appendix C lays out the evaluation criteria for the personalized cases.

We use an extreme personalized case approach to bring into relief those lessons students may draw on to lead organizations in crisis. By extreme, we mean cases that are disruptive to the status quo. Such cases tend to be high in volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and/or ambiguity (Johansen, 2006). By personalized, we mean cases that originate from the lived experiences of the students themselves or as part of a team or functional group. Students’ direct experiences, sometimes fraught with strong emotions or significant failure, represent a rich source from which to facilitate reflection and transfer of learning (Cormier & Hagman, 1987) and promote further intellectual development. From a critical thinking perspective (Paul & Elder, 2001) and learning theory perspective (Kolb, 1984), this case approach enables students to reflect on, assess, and learn from their own personal experience.

In line with criteria from Bennis and Thomas (2002) for developing crisis leadership capability, the personalized case provides a forum for students to create a “distinctive and compelling voice.” As they articulate their own experiences with crisis and assess their level of adaptive capacity in that situation, they attune themselves to what they value at the time of the crisis and how to handle those circumstances. This meets one of our key objectives, that is, to engage students in a self-directed, reflective process to build awareness of their individual behavior and ability to activate resilience (Powley & Taylor, 2006). Instead of providing a prescriptive set of leadership traits and character attributes, our hope is that when confronted with serious challenges, as leaders they will know through their own analysis how to effectively lead in crises (Bennis & Thomas, 2002; James & Wooten, 2010).

Finally, we use the personalized case to engage our students in reflective writing and practice (Ferris, 1998; Rosenberg, 2010; Seibert & Daudelin, 1999). Aside from the restorative effects of writing about crisis (Pennebaker & Harber, 1993), the personalized case study format helps students think critically about their experiences and guide their responses to challenges they face. In the process, they come to know themselves and establish their most hoped for, ideal character traits. Research clearly shows that when individuals systematically and constructively reflect on their experiences, their learning increases dramatically (e.g., Raelin, 2008; Seibert & Daudelin, 1999). This occurs because writing and reflection clarify one’s thinking, foster commitment to one’s ideas, and empower the ability to communicate one’s ideas more effectively to others.

Analysis of crisis leadership is likely to be more effective from more than one perspective and with multiple teaching activities to enable students to develop the strategies and skills necessary to manage and lead in crisis (Medina, 2008; Rock, 2009). We accomplish our learning objectives by helping students uncover their own lessons learned and determine what, for them, accounts for effective leadership in crisis. Therefore, as an extension to the personalized case, we also hold an in-class workshop to help students develop their “distinctive and compelling voice” and to learn how to “engage in shared meaning” (Bennis & Thomas, 2002). The workshop gives them an opportunity to articulate to classmates and receive feedback from them on assessments of their crisis leadership ability. In this approach, we want to engage students in a critical thinking process (Paul & Elder, 2001) by identifying, questioning, and evaluating crisis leadership characteristics from the case study and then, in concert with the course design, begin to develop a personal set of leadership qualities and skills. We refer readers of this article to a case study that follows this pattern of student writing (Powley & Taylor, 2010). The teaching note for the case includes a set of discussion questions to further enhance students’ crisis leadership.

Group Poster Session Approach

Our second approach for teaching how to lead through and manage crisis involves a Group Poster project that culminates in a 2-hour, in-class poster presentation session. The Group Poster Session is usually the final class exercise during the term and may accompany or replace a standard group project presentation. This exercise follows the personalized case workshop and any case study discussions about crisis leadership. The primary purpose of the session is to provide students an opportunity to work on a crisis leadership scenario. In the process they have chance to present their analysis of crisis cases to peers and further integrate their leadership learning. Students identify leadership characteristics and propose ways to lead in crisis. This experiential exercise builds on the personalized case activity, reinforces previous learning (Cormier & Hagman, 1987; Fink, 2003), and continues to build on the critical thinking aims of the course.

The Group Poster Session has two primary objectives: (a) to help students analyze and assess crisis situations using appropriate tools, which supports the critical thinking objectives; and (b) to help students develop systems awareness of potential crisis faced by organizations, which supports an integrated method to learning. As a group, students work together to solve the problem and then present their analysis, findings, and model to the class in a poster session format. An outline of the poster session activity is in Appendix B, and Appendix D contains the criteria used to evaluate the poster projects.

To set up the poster session, groups of no more than five or six students select from several cases involving leaders who faced crisis and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses. Cases we have used in the past include Wagner Dodge and the Mann Gulch fire (Useem, 1998), Eugene Kranz and the Apollo 13 mission (Useem, 1998), Arthur Anderson and the Waste Management crisis (Diermeier, Crawford, & Synder, 2011), McDonald’s in Russia (Moon & Herman, 2002), or the Friendly Fire shoot down in Northern Iraq, April 1994 (Snook, Freeman, & Norwalk, 2004). These cases present leaders who demonstrate (or do not demonstrate) the four critical skills of leaders who lead effectively in crisis, offered by Bennis and Thomas (2002). Other similar cases would also be suitable material. Each group is also assigned a particular framework, which the students use to analyze the case. Frameworks include, but are not limited to, team leadership, leader and group member motivation, communication challenges, perceptions and decision-making, impact of organizational culture or structure, systems dynamics, ethical dilemmas, and so forth. The goal is to use the assigned framework as a lens to analyze the leader’s ability to deal with the crisis.

Student groups then meet outside of class to discuss and analyze the case. Once they feel prepared with their analysis, the groups decide how to visually present their results. This consists of, first, analyzing the case in the context of their chosen framework (e.g., team leadership) and, second, seeking feedback from the instructor who insures that the posters are distinct and have enough analytical rigor to hold an in-depth conversation with peers about the case. Posters are intended to be visually appealing, complete with charts, graphs, diagrams, pictures, and text, and should be able to stand-alone without the aid of a presenter.

The poster session is an open forum where students begin to integrate their learning about the larger system dynamics of crisis and its impact on management and leadership challenges. From a critical thinking perspective, the poster session is a primary mechanism to encourage retention of concepts and transfer learning (Cormier & Hagmam, 1987), in this instance through presentation and in-depth discussion with peers or responding to challenging questions. During the 2-hour session, the instructor and students rotate from poster to poster, taking approximately 10 minutes for each one, until everyone has seen each project. Each group member is expected to be able to present his or her group’s poster. The session concludes with a class discussion about the leadership and management implications for managing crises. Again, this discussion, like the others described earlier, affords students time to reflect on how they might lead crisis situations. Students then write about their participation in the poster session, thinking about what they have learned and what they might do differently as leaders who may face crisis.

Evaluation

While we have not conducted empirical tests on whether students apply and practice their learning from these activities outside the classroom, we have collected and examined preliminary qualitative data from both students and a third-party expert from a faculty center for teaching (Schmidt-Wilk, 2010). These data suggest that the assessment tools and the assignments are at least initially, effective measures to gauge student learning, and that more in-depth investigation is needed. The first author’s experience with the exercises finds that students are energized and engaged through the in-class activities, the feedback process, and the in-class discussions. Students listen carefully to others’ comments, challenges, and questions and become more reflective of their own situation and approach to their respective crisis. This fosters reflection on what works and what does not. Moreover, students appreciate the feedback we offer and the feedback they receive from peers during the writing process and during the in-class working groups.

The qualitative comments reveal important themes about the effectiveness of the teaching approaches and suggest a high degree of face validity for them. Students appreciate the integration of material and the interactive nature of the assignments. The combination of experiential and discussion-based learning enables students to see readily the connections between the course materials and professional experiences. Students report in the course evaluation that they have a stronger sense of how to manage crisis and point to two primary lessons learned from the exercise. First, students recognize the interconnected nature of the concepts covered in the course as they begin to see causal relationships more clearly. For example, they come to understand (a) how individual motivation affects team dynamics, process, or outcomes in a crisis; (b) how values-based leadership and personal character enables effective crisis management (sense of integrity and personal values; Bennis & Thomas, 2002); or (c) how poor communication by a leader during a crisis negatively affects the perceptions of team members. Second, students realize that to understand problems requires more than singular focus on one or two dynamics (i.e., adaptive capacity; Bennis & Thomas, 2002). For example, from the Friendly Fire case (Snook et al., 2004), some students assume that leadership is the primary cause of failure; others see groups and teams as the critical breakpoint, while others highlight the failure of technology or following established protocols. When groups see the final posters though, and learn about the differences, they begin to appreciate the importance of variance and multiple perspectives (i.e., shared meaning and distinctive voice; Bennis & Thomas, 2002). The experience raises awareness about what may be required to manage in future assignments and further develops their critical thinking.

In terms of developing leadership, students have greater confidence in their ability to take these principles forward. In particular, students appreciate the direct application to challenges they have or potentially will face. Students report that they see the importance of leaders who are in touch with their personal identities, values, and ideal aspirations, and focus attention on others rather than themselves as essential to build resilience and to enable healing. A selection of student comments shows the linkages to the four criteria Bennis and Thomas (2002) argue are essential for effective crisis leadership (as noted below in parentheses):

“The thing I liked best was the poster session. It made me really dig into the subject matter. It challenged my ideas about myself as a leader, and how I interact with others.” (i.e., sense of integrity and personal values; distinctive and compelling voice) (Student, Course Evaluation)

“I have definitely learned some very good concepts that will help me to deal with certain situations better then I probably did in the past. The group discussions and projects help to give a different perspective from other student’s experiences.” (i.e., adaptive capacity and shared meaning to build community) (Student, Course Evaluation)

“I learned how to be an effective leader and I’m confident that I gained new skills and techniques to motivate and lead my subordinates very effectively.” (i.e., distinctive and compelling voice) (Student, Course Evaluation)

“Thanks to this course, I am able . . . to analyze organization problems and flaws. And I obtained the knowledge to seek proper and adequate corrections and solutions for these flaws.” (i.e., adaptive capacity, or the ability to flexibly manage crisis and transcend adversity) (Student, Course Evaluation)

“I wish I had this prior to serving as a [mid-level manager], because understanding how leadership and motivation tie into leading is very important.” (i.e., sense of integrity and values) (Student, Course Evaluation)

“The poster session was worthwhile. It gave us an opportunity to work in groups (after studying the dynamics of how a group is formed and works) in order to deliver a product. That it would be graded by our peers made each one of us want to put significant effort into ensuring it looked good and was presentable.” (i.e., shared meaning to build community) (Student, Course Evaluation)

The effectiveness of these assignments help students move beyond the course content, see connections between discussion of content or theory and the real-world experience. Comments from course end evaluations point to how the students connect models and theories to real-world experience. Several students remarked that the “real-world case studies clarified various models and theories,” and that the individual paper and poster session were “very effective and useful tools in the real-time/real-world application of models and concepts from the lectures, textbooks, and readings.” Another noted that the application of the model’s to real-life examples, “helps drive home the points and I retain the ideas better when I can associate it with something concrete.” And a third student indicated value of the personal writing exercise and case study helped [him/her] “understand how the concepts applied to [his/her] own work experience.”

Finally, the first author engaged an expert from the faculty teaching center to observe and assess the teaching activities, in particular the poster session and the overall structure of these course activities. The faculty center expert attended sessions in three quarters. Her feedback represents another source of external validity supporting our learning objectives on critical thinking and for developing the case activity and poster session.

“The poster session is a promising instructional practice that can be used to promote critical thought and the integration and application of knowledge, skills, and abilities.” (Poster Session objective: develop system awareness supporting integrated learning; Faculty Center Expert)

“The poster session leverages adult learning theory and learner-centered pedagogy to produce direct observations that can be used to measure the achievement of complex learning outcomes. The integration of adult learning theory with appropriate learner-centered methods is evidenced by the intentional alignment of course outcomes and well defined learning objectives with structured methods for guided inquiry, experiential learning, developmental feedback, and authentic assessments. Designed as a culminating activity to integrate course concepts and develop appreciation for complex problems, the poster session validates the integration of knowledge with specific skills and abilities.” (Poster Session objective: develop system awareness supporting integrated learning; Faculty Center Expert)

“The posters, developed by student groups, synthesize cognitive and experiential learning demonstrating the capacity to learn with and from peers, to perform cognitive skills and processes, and to correctly apply organizational models and interpret a complex case.” (Poster Session objective: develop positive working group; Faculty Center Expert)

“The benefits of this method [poster session] are easily observed through authentic student engagement in the learning process characterized by personal reflection and through qualitative feedback and academic interactions that support their intellectual development and increase the meaning and value of the learning experience.” (Poster Session objective: develop positive working group; Faculty Center Expert)

These comments from the faculty center expert highlight the effectiveness of the activities that reflect the overall aims and objectives for the Group Poster Session and the overall course objectives we articulated at the opening of our article. First, students demonstrate an increase in self-awareness and understanding as they reflect on their experience and the authentic feedback offered among peers. She notes that, second, the exercises increase critical thinking skills to assess the challenges and circumstances of varying crisis situations. And finally, the exercises also help students draw on critical thinking and learning skills in addition to prior knowledge to apply them to organizational models and interpretation of complex cases.

Conclusion

A key contribution of this article has been the multiple approaches to help students develop leadership capacity for dealing with crisis. Our students have or will face crises that require leadership capacity that involves better critical thinking. The pedagogical exercises presented in this article offer at least two ways to equip students with the leadership ability and critical thinking skills needed to meet future challenges. The personalized case and class workshop enables students to “imaginatively put themselves in the place of others” and helps them release “the egocentric tendency to identify truth with immediate perceptions” (Paul & Elder, 2006, p. 16). The case helps students engage in shared meaning with other students and critical skills to crisis leadership (Bennis & Thomas, 2002). As students look for thematic patterns, they recognize other viewpoints and reasoning, thus increasing not only their understanding but also their personal capacity to lead in crisis. Likewise, the poster session engages students in an alternative learning environment (Kolb, 1984), which fosters different thought processes and opportunities to develop critical thinking further. The primary focus for the poster session is to develop confidence in reasoning and fair-mindedness (Paul & Elder, 2006). As the student group develops an analytical framework for their given case, they innovate new ways to understand the case thus providing new insights, “drawing reasonable conclusions, thinking coherently and logically” (Paul & Elder, 2006, p. 17). Moreover, through the poster session, students persuade their peers by reason and arguments that their analyses stand valid. Their analyses and presentations focus on different aspects of organizational analysis and leadership. In concert, the assignment and activities have the potential to strengthen or develop leadership ability for crisis management.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Evaluation Criteria: Personalized Case

Key Task	Exemplary—4	Satisfactory—3	Below Satisfactory—2	Unsatisfactory—1
Overall Purpose	• Accurately identifies the assignment purposes and prepares a precise, organized, and reasoned response to all elements of the assignment	• Identifies the assignment purposes and prepares an organized somewhat reasoned response to all elements of the assignment	• Identifies the assignment purposes and prepares a vague and somewhat organized response to some elements of the assignment	• Does a poor job of identifying assignment purposes and prepares a vague response to a few elements of the assignment
Summarizes the Incident	• Is well organized and articulates critical elements	• Is told simply with relevant data included	• Lacks detail and/or details need further explanation	• Is too short (e.g., outcome not included, key players not identified, confusing logical sequence)
	• Writing engages readers, clearly conveying what is at stake	• Writing does little to engage readers	• Writing may be wordy, and logical sequence makes it hard for readers to follow	• Is too long and/or incident has unnecessary details (too many of them) leading the reader away from important details
	• Brings players to life with rich description and/or detail
Articulates the Main Concern(s)	• Clearly defines the main concern(s); accurately identifies the contributing core issues	• Defines the main concern(s); identifies core issues, but may not fully explore its depth and breadth	• Defines the main concern(s), but poor (superficially, narrowly); may overlook some core issues	• Fails to clearly define the main concern(s) (discusses task of incident instead); does not recognize the core issues
	•Appreciates depth and breadth of main concern	• Demonstrates fair-mindedness (standpoint vis-à-vis all stakeholders)	• Has trouble maintaining a fair-minded approaches (standpoint vis-à-vis all stakeholders)	• Fails to maintain a fair-minded approach (standpoint vis-à-vis all stakeholders)
	• Demonstrates fair-mindedness (standpoint vis-à-vis all stakeholders)
Resolution of the Main Concern(s): Implications, Consequences, Lessons Learned	• Provides clear concise discussion of factors that explain how and why the main concern(s) was (or was not) resolved	• Summarizes several factors that together explain how the main concern(s) was (or was not) resolved	• Deals with how management and leadership should deal with the incident	• Reiterates the outcome of incident
	•Identifies the most significant implications and most consequences of the reasoning (whether positive or negative)	• Identifies significant implications and consequences and distinguishes probable from implications, but not with the same insight and precision as a “4” (general lessons learned)	• Has trouble identifying significant implications and consequences; identifies improbable implications (a few poorly described lessons learned)	• Ignores significant implications and consequences of reasoning (no lessons learned)
	• Distinguishes probable from improbable implications (fundamental lessons learned)
Concepts	• Identifies and accurately explains/uses the relevant key concepts chosen for analysis of the case	• Identifies and accurately explains and uses the key concepts but not with the depth and precision of a “4”	• Identifies some (not all) key concepts, but use of concepts is superficial and inaccurate at times	• Misunderstands key concepts or ignores relevant key concepts altogether
	• Makes key linkages between concepts

Source. Adapted material from the Foundation for Critical Thinking (www.criticalthinking.org).

Appendix D

Evaluation Criteria: Group Poster Session

Key Task	Exemplary—4	Satisfactory—3	Below Satisfactory—2	Unsatisfactory—1
Overall Purpose	• Accurately identifies the assignment purposes and prepares a precise, organized, and reasoned response to all elements of the assignment	• Identifies the assignment purposes and prepares an organized somewhat reasoned response to all elements of the assignment	• Identifies the assignment purposes and prepares a vague and somewhat organized response to some elements of the assignment	• Does a poor job of identifying assignment purposes and prepares a vague response to a few elements of the assignment
Key Question, Problem, or Issues	• Clearly defines the issue or problem; accurately identifies core issues of the case	• Defines the issues of the case; identifies the core issues, but may not fully explore their depth and breadth	• Defines the issue, but poorly (superficially, narrowly); may overlook some core issues in the case	• Fails to clearly define the issue or problem; does not recognize the core issues of the case
	• Appreciates depth and breadth of the problem faced by the key players in the case	• Demonstrates fair-mindedness	• Has trouble maintaining a fair-minded approach toward the problem	• Fails to maintain a fair-minded approach toward the problem
	• Demonstrates fair-mindedness toward the problem
Information	• Gathers sufficient, credible, relevant information: observations, statements, logic, data, facts, questions, graphs themes, assertions, descriptions, etc. about the case	• Gathers sufficient credible, and relevant information about the case	• Gathers some credible information, but not enough for a solid analysis; some information may be irrelevant	• Relies on insufficient, irrelevant, or unreliable information
	•Includes information that opposes as well as supports the argued position	• Includes some information from opposing views	• Omits significant information; includes some counterarguments	• Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counterarguments
	•Distinguishes between information and inferences drawn from the information	• Distinguishes between information and inferences drawn from it	• Sometimes confuses information and the inferences drawn from it	• Confuses information and inferences drawn from that information
	• Draws on external data or models to help make sense of the case
Concepts	• Identifies and accurately explains/uses the relevant key concepts chosen for analysis of the case	• Identifies and accurately explains and uses the key concepts but not with the depth and precision of a “4”	• Identifies some (not all) key concepts, but use of concepts is superficial and inaccurate at times	• Misunderstands key concepts or ignores relevant key concepts altogether
	• Makes key linkages between concepts

Source. Adapted material from the Foundation for Critical Thinking (www.criticalthinking.org).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ambrose

S. A.

Bridges

M. W.

Lovett

M. C.

DiPietro

Norman

M. K.

(2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bennis

W. G.

Thomas

R. J.

(2002). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 39-45.

Boyatzis

R. E.

(1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boyatzis

R. E.

McKee

(2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cameron

K. S.

(2008). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cirka

C. C.

Corrigall

E.A.

(2010). Expanding possibilities through metaphor: Breaking biases to improve crisis management. Journal of Management Education, 34, 303-323.

Clemson

Samara

(2013). Crisis management simulations: Narrative inquiry into transformative learning. In Ramos

(Ed.), European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (pp. 100-107). Kidmore End, England: Academic Conferences International.

Comer

D.R.

(2013). Educating students to prepare for and respond to crisis that affect organizations: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Management Education, 37, 3-5.

Cormier

Hagman

(1987). Transfer of learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

10.

Covey

S. R.

(2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free Press.

11.

Dewey

(1909). How we think. Boston: MA: Heath.

12.

Diermeier

Crawford

Snyder

(2011). Arthur Anderson (a): The waste management crisis (Case KEL558-HCB-ENG). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

13.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

P. J.

Worline

M. C.

Lilius

J. M.

Kanov

J. M.

(2002). Leading in times of trauma. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 54-61.

14.

Ennis

R. H.

(1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32, 179-186.

15.

Ferris

W. P.

(1998). Fear, stress, and second-guessing in leadership decision making: Using interior monologues, reflective nonfiction, and spiritual approaches. Journal of Management Education, 22, 26-48.

16.

Fink

D. L.

(2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Fisher

(2001). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Fisher

Scriven

(1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Norwich, England: Edgepress and Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.

19.

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-335.

20.

Foote

L. M.

(2013). Honing crisis communication skills: Using interactive media and student-centered learning to develop agile leaders. Journal of Management Education, 37, 79-114.

21.

Fry

L. W.

(2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.

22.

Gardner

J. W.

(1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.

23.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

Luthans

May

D. R.

Walumbwa

(2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

24.

Glaser

(1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Advanced School of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

25.

Goleman

Boyatzis

R. E.

McKee

(2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

26.

Hannah

S. T.

Uhl-Bien

Avolio

B. J.

Cavarretta

F. L.

(2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897-919.

27.

Hess

Cameron

K. S.

(2006). Leading with values: Values, positivity, virtue, and high performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28.

James

E. H.

Wooten

L. P.

(2010). Leading under pressure: From surviving to thriving before, during, and after a crisis. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

29.

Johansen

(2006). Get there early: Sensing the future to compete in the present. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

30.

Kiltz

(2009). Developing critical thinking skills in homeland security and emergency management courses. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6(1), 1-23. (Article No. 36)

31.

Klann

(2003). Crisis leadership: Using military lessons, organizational experiences, and the power of influence to lessen the impact of chaos on the people you lead. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

32.

Klein

K. J.

Ziegert

J. C.

Knight

A. P.

Xiao

(2006). Dynamic degradation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590-621.

33.

Kolb

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

34.

Kouzes

J. M.

Posner

B. Z.

(2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Kurfiss

J. G.

(1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2). Washington, DC: ASHE.

36.

Lalonde

Roux-Dufort

(2013). Challenges in teaching crisis management: Connecting theories, skills, and reflexivity. Journal of Management Education, 37, 21-50.

37.

McDonald

L. M.

(2013). Using student-constructed cases to investigate crises. Journal of Management Education, 37, 115-134.

38.

Medina

(2008). Brain rules: 12 Principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

39.

Mitroff

I. I.

Pauchant

T. C.

Shrivastava

(1988). The structure of man-made organizational crises: Conceptual and empirical issues in the development of a general theory of crisis management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33, 83-107.

40.

Moon

Herman

(2002). McDonald’s Russia: Managing a crisis (Case 9-503-020). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

41.

Norris

S. T.

Ennis

R. H.

(1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software.

42.

Pagonis

W. G.

(2001). Leadership in a combat zone. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 107-117.

43.

Paul

Elder

(2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

44.

Paul

Elder

(2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

45.

Paul

Fisher

Nosich

(1993). Workshop on critical thinking strategies. Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University, Foundation for Critical Thinking.

46.

Peach

B. E.

Mukherjee

Hornyak

(2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 313-320.

47.

Pearce

C. L.

Sims

H. P.

(2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behavior. Group Dynamics, 6, 172-197.

48.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Harber

K. D.

(1993). A social stage model of collective coping: The Loma Prieta earthquake and the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 125-145.

49.

Perry

W. G.

(1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50.

Powley

E. H.

(2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human Relations, 62, 1289-1326.

51.

Powley

E. H.

Taylor

S. N.

(2006). Values and leadership in organizational crisis. In Hess

Cameron

(Eds.), Leading with values: Values, positivity, virtue, and high performance (pp. 194-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Powley

E. H.

Taylor

S. N.

(2010). Leading healing in a broken unit: Case Study No. 9, teacher edition. In Guttieri

(Series Ed.), Complex operations case studies series. Washington, DC: Center for Complex Operations, National Defense University.

53.

Quinn

R. E.

(2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide for leading change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Raelin

J. A.

(2008). Work-based learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

55.

Rock

(2009). Your brain at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

56.

Rosenberg

L. R.

(2010). Transforming leadership: Reflective practice and the enhancement of happiness. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 11(1), 9-18.

57.

Sankar

(2003). Character not charisma is the critical measure of leadership excellence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45-55.

58.

Schmidt-Wilk

(2010). Evidence: Where scholarship meets artistry. Journal of Management Education, 34, 195-199.

59.

Seibert

K. W.

Daudelin

M. W.

(1999). The role of reflection in managerial learning: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum.

60.

Shrivastava

Mitroff

Alpaslan

C. M.

(2013). Imagining an education in crisis management. Journal of Management Education, 37, 6-20.

61.

Snook

S. A.

Freeman

L. J.

Norwalk

L. J.

(2004). Friendly fire (Case No. 404083-HCB-ENG). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

62.

Spears

L. C.

Lawrence

(Eds.). (2004). Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

63.

Taylor

S. N.

(2010). Redefining leader self-awareness by integrating the second component of self-awareness. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(4), 57-68.

64.

Tsui

(2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 740-763.

65.

Uhl-Bien

(2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

66.

Useem

(1998). The leadership moment. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

67.

Waller

Lei

Pratten

(2013). Focusing on teams in crisis management education: An integration and simulation-based approach. Academy of Management Learning and Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0337

68.

Wright

A. L.

Nichols

McKechnie

McCarthy

(2013). Combing crisis management and evidence-based management: The Queensland Floods as a teachable moment. Journal of Management Education, 37, 135-160.