Competitions Versus Classes: Exploring the Impact of Case Competitions and Communication Coursework on MBA Ranking

Abstract

Business communication programs and business school competitions are a prevalent component of graduate-level business education. Both activities help students develop problem-solving skills, critical thinking, high-level communication, and applied experiential learning. While business competitions may aid in the development of advanced communication skills, to date there has been no comparison of the effectiveness of coursework, competitions, or both. UsingU.S. News & World Reportrankings of the top 100 U.S. MBA programs as a proxy for program quality, we find that business communication coursework provides greater benefits when compared with internal case competitions. Specifically, findings indicate a higher ratio of graduate business communication classes tointernalcompetitions correlated to higher rank. Furthermore, reputational advantage was also associated withrequiredcommunication coursework and a higher number of internal competitionsofferedfor graduate business student participation.

Keywords

academic leadership MBA higher education Internet experiential learning communication competitions faculty

Business school competitions, frequently referred to ascase competitions, have become an increasingly prevalent component of graduate-level business education. Institutions of higher education have long recognized the value such competitions provide to students in areas such as the development of problem-solving skills, critical thinking, flexibility, teamwork, high-level communication, applied experiential learning, and, recently, giving students a real-world taste of new business start-ups in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors (Corner et al., 2006;Huster et al., 2017;Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2003;Sachau & Naas, 2010). Furthermore, business competitions bring benefits to schools in terms of alumni involvement opportunities, partnerships with industry, and enhanced reputation.

Coursework in business or managerial communication for business students addresses a related but distinct set of long-standing concerns among graduate business educators and employers: that business students complete degrees without having developed high levels of communication skills across a range of settings. These include interpersonal communication, listening, managerial and team communication, influencing/persuading, and presenting effectively to groups at all levels of the organization (Alshare, Lane, & Miller, 2011;Andrews & Higson, 2008;Stowe, Parent, Schwartz, & Sendall, 2012).Hill, Mehta, and Hynes (2014)demonstrated significant improvements from pretesting to posttesting in all these areas among graduate business students enrolled in a required managerial communication course.

While participation in business competitions may aid in the development of advanced communication skills, to date there has been no comparison of which approach is more effective: coursework, competitions, or both. While scholars have conducted periodic analyses of individual competitions (Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2003;Sachau & Naas, 2010) and of communication coursework and requirements in top MBA programs (Bogert & Butt, 1996;Knight, 1999,2005;Navarro, 2008), the field lacks a comprehensive review of the correlations between course offerings and their interaction with business competitions.

Answering these questions becomes challenging because information about the prevalence and value of business competition participation often is anecdotal. While research on individual competitions has begun to emerge, currently the field lacks a recent and comprehensive summary of the pervasiveness and character of business case and new venture competitions, as well as an assessment of the relationship between graduate business communication courses, case competitions, and measurable outcomes. In particular, since few schools of business have departments that focus on the development of communication knowledge and ability among graduate business students, we wonder whether such competitions by themselves are a viable way to strengthen the desired and required communication mind-set within this student cohort.

This study explores and compares the utility of following these two compelling paths with communication skill development among graduate business students, namely, via participation in case competitions and via completing coursework in graduate business communication. Indeed, each may complement the other and the combination may produce even stronger MBA communicators. Using a list of the top 100 U.S. MBA programs as ranked byU.S. News & World Report(USNWR, 2014-2017), we examine the prevalence ofinternal(i.e., nonintercollegiate) graduate business competitions in these schools; the schools’ provision of graduate-level business communication required and elective courses; and relationships among competitions, business communication offerings and requirements, and reputation. We also provide information about the faculty who teach such courses.

Business competitions typically follow one of two paths.Intercollegiatecompetitions draw from teams representing a number of different colleges and universities.Internalcompetitions are held at or near the home campus and invite participation from the school’s current students (and sometimes alumni). Recognizing the benefits to students and institutions, business schools promote participation in these competitions, especially intercollegiate ones, bringing, as they do, the chance to enhance winning schools’ reputations among peer institutions and via the Internet and other media, while also offering the possibility of attractive prizes.

To provide greater numbers of students with the aforementioned benefits, however, business schools increasingly have sponsoredinternalcompetitions, including new venture competitions. Such competitions differ from intercollegiate ones in several ways. Most intercollegiate competitions permit entry from only one team per school and also may limit the total number of competing teams. Teams are typically comprised of three to five students, so the number of students participating from any one school is usually less than 1% of an average-size MBA class. The monetary and temporal expenses of traveling, in addition to registration and other costs, can severely limit the ability of students to participate in intercollegiate competitions, since school funding is not universally available. Intercollegiate competitions often utilize judges representing a variety of industries. By contrast, most internal competitions encourage broad participation, whether within the business school or across the campus as a whole. Such competitions often engage industry but also faculty judges, and participation in internal competitions does not require travel from the home school.

While internal case competitions provide participation and time-saving benefits, sponsorship of and participation in these business competitions come with very real monetary, logistical, and temporal costs (Kolodny, 2010). While corporate sponsorship provides relief from some of these costs, the prevalence of competitions has encouraged some sponsors to demand data supporting a competition’s effectiveness at achieving the sponsor’s goals.

As institutions of higher education face increasing budgetary pressures, some administrators, faculty, and students question whether the investment in business competition participation might be better spent in ways more directly linked to improved performance of all students and overall institutional reputation. The growing number of intercollegiate business competitions exacerbates these pressures.

The investment of resources raises further questions about the prevalence of graduate competitions in business education. If they are a de facto component of business programs, we may be concerned that failure to participate in high-visibility intercollegiate competitions might negatively affect schools and students. On the other hand, there may be elements of competitions that can be reproduced more cost effectively for a greater number of on-site students.

In addition to budgetary concerns, questions surrounding the role of graduate-level communication instruction have also arisen in academia’s resource-challenged times. Educators and practitioners agree that the need for business students to effectively present, persuade, and communicate with colleagues is highly desired and often required by employers, including for MBA graduates (Archer & Davison, 2008;Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006;Gray & Murray, 2011;Jackling & De Lange, 2009;Jackson, 2010;Kavanagh & Drennan, 2008;Kesner, 2008;Lin, Grace, Krishnan, & Gilsdorf, 2010;Melaia, Abratt, & Bick, 2008;Robles, 2012;Stevens, 2005). These studies, which include reviews of employers’ preferences and gaps in business students’ proficiencies, demonstrate that there remains a need for business communication development in business students, including at the graduate level. Thus, we formulated two research questions.

Research Question 1:What is the prevalence of graduate business communication coursework and internal case competitions at the top 100 U.S. MBA programs?

Research Question 2:To what extent do internal competitions and business communication coursework correlate to enhancements to reputation, measured by ranking?

Literature Review

To provide a framework for the exploration of academic business competition characteristics and prevalence in business school graduate programs, literature was explored in three general areas: experiential learning in business communication, academic business competitions, and communication coursework in graduate business programs.

Developing Advanced Communication Capabilities via Experiential Learning

Kolb (1984)provided a foundational definition of experiential learning, proposing that such learning reflects a process enabling the creation of knowledge through the transformation of experience. His definition of experiential learning placed particular emphasis on the process of learning, rather than its outcome. Kolb further highlighted the transformation of knowledge, rather than a view of knowledge as a distinct and unmalleable entity. Of particular interest isKolb’s (1984)explanation of the four stages characteristic of experiential learning: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Experiential learning occurs when students engage in some activity, reflect on the activity, derive insight from the analysis, and incorporate the result through a change in understanding. In essence, the experiential learning process is captured by programs that provide hands-on and direct experiences, which serve to develop and/or reinforce knowledge and skills. It is therefore iterative in nature, meaning the insights derived from experience subsequently undergo testing viaactive experimentation, or repeated tries in cycles of experience, reflection, and abstract conceptualizing.

Experiential learning has been established as an effective way for students to develop their communication skills and capacities.Tucker, McCarthy, Hoxmeier, and Lenk (1998)andCyphert (2006)discussed communication and business service learning projects which engage community organizations and found that they increase students’ skills and abilities in presenting, communicating in teams, effectively interacting with people from a wide range of ages and backgrounds, listening to elicit relevant information, and managing meetings. Other business disciplines have used experiential learning in relevant contexts to enable students to develop profession-specific communication competencies, including in auditing (Plant & Slippers, 2015), financial planning (Rossetto & Murphy, 2010), information systems development (Qurban & Austria, 2009), management board governance (Bruni-Bossio & Willness, 2016), and professional sales (Inks, Schetzsle, & Avila, 2011). These authors emphasized the importance of engaging inrealtasks withrealconsequences and no single right answer. AsSherman, Sebora, and Digman (2008)noted in their exploration of the role of experiential learning in entrepreneurship programs,

Some have compared teaching entrepreneurship without the experiential process to teaching someone to swim without a pool. The fundamentals can be taught, but the individual will not really know what it’s like to swim until the person dives into the pool and begins to swim. (p. 29)

Case and new venture competitions certainly offer these kinds of opportunities. These events go beyond academic readings, problem sets, and internships to offer a uniquely communication-intensive hybrid activity. Like traditional coursework, case competitions usually require students to prepare by reading a Harvard, Ivy, or comparable case, or to analyze a case written by competition organizers, and then prepare a recommendation based on thorough analysis. Another common approach to business competitions involves the development of new business ventures or business ideas, including social enterprises. These often require two rounds of preliminary competitions and presentations, includingpitch competitions, prior to a final set of comprehensive presentations covering the entire scope of a new business plan, including pitching to investors or vying for start-up money and resources.

However, competitions also differ from traditional academic activities because they require participants, as team members, to face an unknown, likely nonacademic audience as they present recommendations or new business ideas, field questions, and receive feedback. Advancing participants must then revise recommendations and make presentations in subsequent rounds. Additionally, many MBA case competitions increasingly offer a live competition experience (e.g., The Ohio State University’s Fisher Invitational Big Ten MBA Case Competition and University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign’s MBA Strategy Case Competition), meaning teams must complete analyses while having one, two, or even three interactions with corporate representatives during which teams receive feedback and suggestions that call for revision before recommendations are pitched. In this way, the competition enables quasidirect engagement with firms involved in the cases.

The growing tendency to create a real-time event moves case competitions from purely academic events to hybrid ones that more closely resemble experiential learning. This evolution is encouraging to those justifying the investment in case competition, particularly at the MBA level, and many MBA programs have begun highlighting the provision of experiential learning activities to potential students. For example,Harvard Business School’s (2015)news story about preparing future leaders for tomorrow’s challenges boasted that “experiential learning has been incorporated into 11 extended field courses in the Elective Curriculum this year, attracting about two-thirds of the Class of 2016” (para. 2).Georgetown University McDonough School of Business (n.d.)also recognized the importance of experiential learning when it explained, “Through complex coursework, experiential learning, and the case method, the Georgetown MBA curriculum inspires collaboration among both students and faculty” (para. 1).Stanford University Graduate School of Business (n.d.),Syracuse University Martin J. Whitman School of Management (n.d.), andThe Ohio State University Fisher College of Business (n.d.)also have mentioned experiential learning as an important element of their MBA programs. Case competitions seem to provide experiences that closely resemble experiential learning events. Drawing on theory and abstract concepts, competitors analyze a business problem and prepare a case pitch, thereby engaging in a concrete, hands-on learning activity. After delivering the pitch and receiving feedback, students have an opportunity to reflect and gain additional insight before continuing with subsequent rounds of the competition, thereby engaging in an iterative experience.

Many business researchers have explored the potential benefits gained from other kinds of experiential learning activities. For example,Kurpis and Hunter (2017)merged experiential learning theory with cultural intelligence theory in their study of 69 marketing and English-as-a-second-language students. These researchers found that students displayed a significant increase in intercultural abilities as a result of their participation in cultural awareness experiential learning activities.

Of particular interest to the current study is research testing the use of experiential learning activities in business curricula and in MBA programs. Business education has appropriately recognized the value of experiential learning in graduate programs. AsJaved (2012)noted, “The faculty, deans and executives realize/recognize that the most important and critical aspects of leading and managing are learned through practice rather than through traditional classroom-based pedagogy” (p. 797).Li, Greenberg, and Nicholls (2007)also pointed out that a variety of business school stakeholders call for greater experiential learning in business education. In this vein,Prussia and Weis (2004)studied the longitudinal effects of experiential learning opportunities on student retention. The researchers drew on 8 years of pre-MBA and post-MBA retention data from 860 students to explore whether retention improved after they participated in a specifically designated MBA experiential learning course. Retention was tested in the subsequent term, and two and three terms later. In all three periods, Prussia and Weis found improved retention resulting from participation in the experiential learning course. Likewise, inSherman et al.’s (2008)study of factors affecting students’ decisions to become entrepreneurs, experiential approaches were more effective in encouraging students to become entrepreneurs.Li et al. (2007)measured MBA student learning and satisfaction outcomes after adopting Marketplace, “a purely experiential learning course” (p. 25). Findings from 588 respondents indicated statistically significant advantages to the experiential learning course over traditional lecture-based approaches. Finally,Corner et al. (2006)stated that “a grounded learning exercise reflects four basic elements: It creates a real-world experience, optimizes learning transfer, integrates theory and practice, and shifts learning responsibility more directly to students” (p. 433). They concluded that the internal case competition held for their strategic management seniors encompassed all four elements in a highly successful way.

What, then, keeps business schools in general and MBA programs in particular from increasingly providing experiential learning opportunities to students? If experiential learning offers a great variety of benefits to students, why not require experiential learning activities in all business curricula, as proposed byMcCarthy and McCarthy (2006)? It seems reasonable to suspect that the increased financial, temporal, and personnel demands, asJaved (2012)postulated, discourage the provision of experiential learning activities. However, internal case competitions might provide an effective vehicle to foster experiential learning in graduate business programs.

Academic Business Competitions

Academic business competitions, frequently categorized as case, business plan, and new venture competitions, have become a common component of business education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, so much so that they have been referred to as the “varsity sport” of business schools (Sachau & Naas, 2010). A typical case competition provides students with a true experiential learning opportunity. Students receive a business case that addresses real-world and often real-time problems. They work alone or in teams to analyze it, practically apply theoretical frameworks and models from a variety of core academic subjects, practice sound decision-making, develop a response to the problem posed, present a recommendation, and receive feedback from judges and/or academic coaches. Similarly, business plan and new venture competitions provide students with specific guidelines calling for careful market analyses and detailed pitches. Competition time frames can vary from hours to weeks and even months; likewise, judging can range from faculty and staff judges to industry leaders.

All these elements point to the potential for deep engagement in open-ended, real-world business challenges where stakeholders (including company executives) may have a direct interest in implementing students’ proposed solutions. By the same token, competitors must demonstrate excellence in many communication aspects to prevail. Participants must draw on team communication skills to address typical issues of personalities, priorities, and processes in order to develop a strong proposal. Some competitions require written as well as oral proposals; many teams focus on oral presentations based on slide decks. Therefore, strong presentation skills, as well as the ability to successfully respond to difficult questions from more experienced faculty and business people who serve as judges, are also crucial to team success (Kirchner, 2015).

A small number of researchers has explored business competition learning effects.Bansak and Smith (2015)examined the active learning benefits gained from undergraduate student participation in the College Fed Challenge, an annual intercollegiate competition sponsored by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The researchers documented enhanced student mastery of principles and theories of economics, as well as increased postcourse professional opportunities that resulted from students’ participation.Orlitzky and Benjamin (2003)studied 138 participants in a 3-day internal business school case competition involving undergraduate and MBA students and analyzed outcomes for analytical rigor, communication skills, and quality of strategic recommendations. Their findings stressed that effective case competitions must incorporate a sound assessment instrument and “norming” of judges, and they provide support for analytical, strategic, and presentational gains achieved via participation.Corner et al. (2006)employed a required case competition for business management majors in their study of a case competition’s ability to optimize learning transfer. The researchers’ postcompetition assessment found that participating students evaluated the competition experience highly and gave a higher rating of the overall course. In particular, students cited improved confidence as a direct result of competition participation.

Sachau and Naas (2010)also examined the effectiveness of case competitions for both managerial and communication learning. After the competition’s conclusion, these researchers obtained survey data from 135 challenge participants, asking them to reflect on the benefits from participating in the competition. Their findings indicated that students saw clear benefits to case competitions in several areas, including communication, which they saw as critical in their current jobs. Specifically, 82.5% said the competition improved their ability to persuade a client, 89.5% to answer difficult questions, 81.5% to win agreement from a client for a new project, and 76.3% to present technical data in an easily comprehensible way (Sachau & Naas, 2010).

In addition, scholars have provided some evidence that competitions confer real advantages for entrepreneurial development and education.Huster et al. (2017)found significant benefits for finalists in a global social entrepreneurship competition offered by the University of Washington, primarily in the areas of mentoring and networking. Furthermore,Jansen, van de Zande, Brinkkemper, Stam, and Varma (2015)showed that business plan and other kinds of new venture competitions form part of effective entrepreneurship education and development, even for students with expressed entrepreneurial intentions.

The aforementioned studies of case competitions provide some support for the efficacy of these events as vehicles for both business and communication learning, regardless of the nature of the competition or academic level of participating students. In addition to subject matter and goal variations, these competitions evidence differences in time frames and formats. However, all competitions include communicative elements in the form of team interaction, presentation(s), and/or written documents. Yet the role of communication abilities as a factor affecting competition participation and outcomes, and improved communication abilities resulting from participation in case competitions, remains relatively unexplored. Furthermore, the intersection of communication and content raises interesting questions for case competition participants and facilitators. Specifically, given the consistent call from industry to see improved communication capabilities in newly minted business graduates, it is important to know how common such programs are in business education today. Finally, in MBA programs arguably designed to prepare future business leaders, it is reasonable to ask whether business competitions are an effective means of augmenting or perhaps replacing inconsistent course offerings in graduate business communication.

Communication in the MBA Curriculum

There are several perspectives from which to examine the place of communication studies in the MBA curriculum; two offer particular insight into the current study. First, faculty, students, and potential employers provide relevant and sometimes differing perspectives on the need for communication programs at this level. Another perspective relates to the presence of coursework and other modalities of communication instruction and how these compare to programs provided in other business disciplines.

From an employer perspective, several studies have established that good communication capabilities are necessary for successfully managing employees, for both emerging and developing leaders, and for effective consulting (Andrews & Higson, 2008;Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013;Banai & Tulimieri, 2013;de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010;Ensari, Riggio, Christian, & Carslaw, 2011;Hunt & Baruch, 2003;Mast, Jonas, Cronauer, & Darioly, 2012;Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003;Robles, 2012).Reinsch and Gardner (2014)explored reasons given by executives in promotion decisions. Of 23 factors elicited, “strong interpersonal skills” ranked fourth while “oral communication skills” ranked eighth. These studies are of particular interest to MBA students and employers, since MBAs are preparing for managerial and executive positions.

Beyond employers, another perspective on the need for graduate business communication programs stems from business students themselves.Burk (2001)reported in a study of MBA students that their levels of communication anxiety did not significantly differ from those of undergraduate students, based on a mean score for the Personal Report of Communication Anxiety established by James McCroskey. This finding suggests that, despite their typically older age and greater work experience, MBA students still would benefit from opportunities to develop their communication skills. Likewise, more frequent presenting among business professionals has been associated with reduced levels of communication apprehension (Marcel, in press), something coursework can be designed to foster.

Hill et al. (2014), who studied self-reports of communication competence among 143 graduate business students, also found support for graduate coursework. At the posttest phase, all of the students, who were enrolled in a required managerial communication course at two public universities, reported statistically significant improvement across all communication areas measured, including interpersonal communication and making presentations. Likewise,Marcel’s (2017)study of 1,610 recent business school alumni in their twenties and thirties asked respondents to consider their self-perceived need for a business communication course if they were to start a master’s degree program in a business field. Of the respondents, 31% had already completed a master’s degree, 90% of these in a business discipline. In all, 56% responded that it would bevery importantand 29%somewhat importantto take such a course as part of their graduate business studies. Thus, among graduate business students and business graduates, there is solid evidence of a self-perceived need and desire for graduate-level business communication courses.

High-stakes competitions do offer the chance to present to real-world audiences. However, with one preliminary round and a subsequent final round populated by a small minority of participants, the majority of competitions offer fewer presentation opportunities than structured coursework, which may require multiple presentations and offer mutiple rounds of feedback during a semester.

When we turn to graduate business communication course offerings, very few studies examine the position and extent of such coursework and other learning modalities in U.S. MBA curricula.Bogert and Butt (1996)found that, of the 53 top MBA programs whose curricula they examined, only 9.9% reported no communication “program,” though at the time of the study one was in the process of creating such a program. The researchers analyzed syllabi and reported that 23 schools, or 43%, required the course(s) for which syllabi were analyzed. The majority focused on oral communication skills, but some also offered instruction in writing. Building on this stream of research,Knight (1999)reviewed a list of 32 top-ranked MBA programs and found that 18, or 56%, required communication courses, with an additional two utilizing an integrated model.

In comparing the 32 schools reviewed byKnight (1999)with those onBogert and Butt’s (1996)list, one cannot help but note how much flux was evident in communication requirements. Nine schools, or 28%, listed communication requirements in both studies and 10, or 31%, had none in both studies. However, two schools, or 6%, had dropped their requirement by 1999, while 11, or 34%, hadaddeda communication requirement by 1999. Interestingly, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School MBA program, ranked fourth nationally in 2017, announced on its web page in May 2017 that “in its most recent review of the MBA curriculum, Wharton faculty voted to double the communication course requirement for all MBA students” (The University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, 2018, para. 1). It is interesting to ponder whether this much fluctuation surrounds other MBA “core” disciplinary courses across as many schools in such a short time period.

More recently, the prevalence of graduate-level communication courses has been explored byPeter Navarro (2008), who reviewed overall curricula of top-50 MBA programs. He reported that 60% included communication in their core curricula; it was the highest offered of his cluster of “soft skills” courses. This compared to 66% for managerial/cost accounting, 56% for organizational behavior, and 66% for macroeconomics and was far lower than, for example, marketing, corporate finance, financial accounting, operations and supply chain management, corporate strategy, and managerial economics, all of which were offered at above 90% across all 50 schools. Quantitative analysis, which includes statistics, ranked at 88%.

Outside the United States,Knight (2005)found that 10 of the 24 MBA programs reviewed, or 42%, required communication coursework. These courses primarily focused on oral communication. She noted that many of the schools considered communication an integral part of management skills, and not a field that could be separately assessed.

Based on this review, we conclude, then, that employers and graduate business students perceive the need for graduate-level business communication coursework and skills development. Likewise, since 1996, the majority of top domestic MBA programs have offered, and even required, such courses. But with the growth in popularity of graduate business competitions, redesigns and refreshes of MBA curricula, the increasing interest in experiential learning, and shifting levels of resources at many universities, we formulated the two research questions noted earlier.

Method

This study analyzed the provision of business communication graduate-level coursework, noncredit communication activities, faculty, and case competitions provided by top business schools. The data set was obtained via an examination of the top 100 MBA programs at U.S. business schools in 2016 as ranked byUSNWR. Although a plethora of business school rankings exist,USNWRprovides a well-known annual ranking that is referenced by industry, higher education institutions, and the general public. We additionally compared theUSNWRranking with other “top MBA” lists (Forbes, The Economist, andBusiness Insider). Rankings of MBA programs, and indeed all kinds of academic programs and universities, have become a fraught issue, with critics and proponents of the ranking process in abundance. We chose to use theUSNWRranking based on its ubiquity, and because it provides rankings for the top 100 U.S. schools, more than most of the other lists. Given the different methodologies and yet consistent presence of the overwhelming majority of schools across all four lists, we felt that theUSNWRranks were reasonable to use for our purposes.

A review of all four lists revealed surprising consistency in inclusion—all but two schools appeared on all four lists for 2016, for a grand total of 94 schools, shown inTable 1. We then addressed the issue of rankingswithintheUSNWRlists for 2014 to 2017 for the schools included in the 2016 and 2017 lists. The magazine handled ties differently across the years, sometimes granting equal ranks while at other times forcing a disaggregation. In order to mitigate this effect, we averaged rankings for the 4 years in question to arrive at what we will refer to as acomposite rank, which we used in our analysis. We focused on full-time MBA programs primarily and other graduate-level business programs secondarily. We were particularly interested in the prevalence of internal business competitions as a form of experiential learning in such programs. Business competitions, both case based and business plan/new venture, provide students with rich learning experiences designed to foster a multitude of skills in graduate-level business students. They also tend to be open to a very wide range of graduate business students, rather than the handful on any given intercollegiate team. Given their communication-intensive nature and the constraints faced by many MBA programs, we were interested in exploring the extent to which such internal competitions may complement or possibly displace formal instruction in graduate business communication.

Table 1.

Composite Ranks.

Rank	School	Rank	School
54	University of Alabama (Manderson Graduate School of Business)	59	Missouri (Trulaske College of Business)
61	The University of Arizona (Eller College of Management)	5	MIT (Sloan School of Management)
35	Arizona State University (W. P. Carey School of Business)	52	North Carolina State University (Jenkins MBA)
60	Babson College (Olin)	58	Northeastern University (D’Amore-McKim)
57	Baylor University (Hankamer School of Business)	6	Northwestern University (Kellogg School of Management)
88	Binghamton University (School of Management)	26	University of Notre Dame (Mendoza College of Business)
41	Boston University (Questrom School of Business)	20	New York University (Stern School of Business)
50	Boston College (Carroll School of Management)	27	The Ohio State University (Fisher College of Business)
31	Brigham Young University (Marriott School of Business)	84	Pepperdine University (Graziadio Business School)
82	University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (School of Management)	42	The Pennsylvania State University (Smeal College of Business)
18	Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper School of Business)	47	Purdue University (Krannert School of Management)
71	Case Western Reserve University (Weatherhead School of Management)	25	Rice University (Jones Graduate School of Business)
81	Chapman University (Argyros School of Business and Economics)	86	Rochester Institute of Technology (Saunders College of Business)
3	The University of Chicago (Booth School of Business)	53	Rutgers University (Rutgers Business School)
10	Columbia University (Graduate Business School)	48	Southern Methodist University (Cox School of Business)
14	Cornell University (Johnson Graduate School of Management)	89	St. Louis University (Richard A. Chaifetz School of Business)
85	Baruch College, The City University of New York (Zicklin School of Business)	2	Stanford University (Graduate School of Business)
8	Dartmouth College (Tuck School of Business)	87	Syracuse University (Whitman School of Management)
79	DePaul University (Kellstadt Graduate School of Business)	43	Temple University (Fox School of Business)
12	Duke University (Fuqua School of Business)	32	Texas A&M University (Mays Business School)
19	Emory University (Goizueta Business School)	63	Texas Christian University (Neeley School of Business)
37	University of Florida (Hough Graduate School of Business)	17	The University of Texas at Austin (McCombs School of Business)
83	Fordham University (Gabelli School of Business)	68	Tulane University (A.B. Freeman School of Business)
51	The George Washington University (School of Business)	65	University of Cincinnati (Lindner College of Business)
22	Georgetown University (McDonough School of Business)	78	University of Colorado (Leeds School of Business)
55	University of Georgia (Terry College of Business)	69	University of Connecticut (School of Business)
34	Georgia Institute of Technology (Scheller College of Business)	90	University of Kansas (School of Business)
1	Harvard University (Harvard Business School)	76	University of Massachusetts at Amherst (Gabelli School of Business)
91	Howard University (School of Business)	64	University of Arkansas (Sam M. Walton College of Business)
39	University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Gies College of Business)	92	University of Houston (C. T. Bauer College of Business)
23	Indiana University (Kelley School of Business)	93	University of Kentucky (Gatton College of Business and Economics)
46	The University of Iowa (Tippie College of Business)	44	University of Maryland (Robert H. Smith School of Business)
73	Iowa State University (Ivy College of Business)	70	University of Miami (Graduate School of Business)
62	Louisiana State University (E. J. Ourso College of Business)	28	University of Minnesota (Carlson School of Management)
13	University of Michigan (Ross School of Business)	94	University of Mississippi (School of Business)
36	Michigan State University (Eli Broad College of Business)	66	University of Oklahoma (Rainbolt Graduate School of Business)
40	University of Rochester (Simon Business School)	77	University of California San Diego (Rady School of Management)
74	University of South Carolina (Darla Moore School of Business)	15	University of California, Los Angeles (Anderson School of Management)
30	University of Wisconsin (School of Business)	16	University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler Business School)
4	University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School)	75	University of Louisville (College of Business)
56	University of Pittsburgh (Katz Graduate School of Business)	33	University of North Carolina (Marshall)
67	The University of Tennessee (Haslam College of Business)	38	The University of Texas at Dallas (Naveen Jindal School of Management)
80	University of Utah (David Eccles School of Business)	24	Vanderbilt University (Owen Graduate School of Management)
29	University of Washington (Foster School of Business)	11	University of Virginia (Darden School of Business)
7	University of California, Berkeley (Haas School of Business)	21	Washington University (Olin Business School)
45	University of California, Davis (Graduate School of Business)	72	William & Mary (Raymond A. Mason School of Business)
49	University of California, Irvine (Paul Merage School Of Business)	9	Yale University (Yale School of Management)

Note.Bolded schools are private institutions.

To complete the analysis and explore the research questions previously outlined, we first definedinternal business competitionas any competition offered only to students and alumni of the school itself, where graduate business students were permitted to participate. Thus, some schools had internal competitions in the school of engineering or architecture; we did not include these unless there was evidence of business student inclusion. If a competition had multiple stages, as many new venture competitions do, we counted each stage separately if a student could participate in one without the others. For example, many new venture competitions begin with a “pitch” contest, in which individual students present new business ideas in a very short form to judges without any supporting documentation. They may proceed to a second stage with a more formal written proposal submitted by teams. And, finally, they may participate in a culminating competition where well-developed proposals are presented by teams using slides and additional documentation, for monetary and in-kind prizes that may be quite substantial. As long as students could jump in or out at any phase, we counted these separately.

For graduate business communication courses, we included any course designated as such, regardless of the department in which it was offered. Many business schools do not have a business communication department; frequently, management or business administration faculty offer communication courses. For business communication noncredit programs, we included executive education courses and workshops or programs offered through career services or other offices which were described as courses but which did not confer course credit.

The researchers manually collected information about theUSNWRtop 94 ranked schools’ provision of internal case competitions and venture competitions found for 2013 through 2017, graduate business communication course offerings and MBA communication requirements, business communication noncredit programs, and business communication faculty and faculty standing.

Collection of information on these business schools was completed by visiting each school’s website, with a primary focus on the business school site and, if needed due to a lack of information there, a secondary focus on the university-wide registrar’s site for specific course and faculty information. A third tier of information was obtained from a review of business schools’ public Facebook pages,onlyif the business school website did not provide information relevant to the key research-related questions under investigation. Facebook review was required for 21 of the schools included on theUSNWR2016 list.

Current literature provides some evidence suggesting that website exploration is a viable method for obtaining data. Several research studies have utilized university websites to explore the presence and presentation of academic information online, including for MBA programs (Bal, Anitsal, & Anitsal, 2014;Ćelić, Cucilić, & Valčić, 2016;Else & Crookes, 2015;Han, Hwang, & Jeon, 2015;Zhang & O’Halloran, 2013). These studies generally collected data by accessing the sites in question over a relatively short time frame. Since our data collection took place over several months and in several stages, we were cognizant of how postings can change over time. Therefore, we made several return visits to sites to validate any numbers that would be cited as findings.

For assembling information about internal graduate business competitions, we included references to internal competitions from 2013 through 2017. Some competitions seemed like relatively well-established, annual offerings, while others were more ad hoc or opportunistic, without a clearly consistent pattern of offerings. We included all that we found, since in our estimation, all afforded students the chance to participate. We counted each competition once, regardless of whether it was offered once or multiple times in the time frame we studied, as when schools annually offered a named competition. We included any internal competition that graduate business students at a school were eligible to enter. Thus, a business school department or center along with external companies and donors supported some competitions, while other competitions were university wide and encouraged multidisciplinary teams. The latter type was especially prevalent among new venture competitions.

To begin the data collection, we divided the list of schools. We then accessed each school’s web page and navigated to the business school page. To gather program-specific information, we began by using the business school’s web page search function and entered words and phrases (see theappendix) to tabulate business school competition and course offerings explored in the current study. We then explored program-specific links on the business school’s website to augment the initial tabulation. For instance, we specifically visited a business school’s pages for MBA programs and communication course requirements, professional master’s programs, PhD programs, and communication-related clubs and support pages. For the graduate-level business courses and corresponding faculty, we used the university’s registrar site if course and faculty information was not available on the business school and/or program pages. Data were collected between June 2016 and May 2017.

Finally, we collected information about the prevalence and type of noncourse-related business communication support (e.g., public speaking clubs, business communication centers, noncredit-bearing business communication workshops, etc.), the number of business communication faculty listed on the business school’s website, and evidence of business school faculty standing in terms of tenure versus nontenure rank.

Findings

Findings suggest that a majority of both public and private higher ranking schools provide some form of communication coursework for MBAs; less prevalent among these schools was the provision of internal case competitions.

Using the composite ranks, 52 institutions included in the current study were publicly supported with an average rank of 52.4 (Mdn= 52). The remaining 42 institutions were private, with an average rank of 41.43 (Mdn= 32). Overall, of the 94 schools evaluated, 52.1% had a communication course requirement for full-time MBA students, with an average composite rank of 44.22 (M= 40). The remaining 44 schools having no requirement had a mean composite rank of 52.05 (M= 54). Additionally, 23.4% of all schools required participation in at least one internal case competition during the MBA program of study.

We then looked at requirements, in terms of MBA courses in communication and/or participation in an internal business competition. We sorted business schools into four groups: (a) those that required neither coursework nor competitions, (b) those that required a competition but no course, (c) those that required only coursework, and (d) those that required both coursework and competitions (Table 2).

Table 2.

Course and Internal Competition Requirements.

	n	%	Average composite rank	Public,n	Average composite rank	Private,n	Average composite rank
No course/no competition	36	38.30	50.69	19	50.79	17	50.56
No course/competition	8	8.51	53.62	6	60.00	2	34.5
Course/no competition	36	38.30	40.64	19	46.58	17	34.00
Course/competition	14	14.89	53.43	8	64.37	6	38.83

The analysis revealed that 38.3% of schools had no required course or internal case competition of any kind; of these, 47.2% were private institutions. Overall, the average rank of these schools with no requirement was 50.7 (Mdn= 53). In the second group, about 8.5% of schools required competition participation but no coursework. Among this required competition group, 28.6% of the institutions were private. Overall, the average rank was 53.6 (Mdn= 55). Third, about 38.3% of schools required coursework but no participation in any internal competition, with an average rank of 40.6 (Mdn= 33). About 47.2% of schools in the required coursework group were private institutions. Finally, 14.9% required both coursework and participation in at least one internal competition. Of these, 35.7% were private universities. The overall average rank for this group that required both coursework and competition participation was 53.4 (Mdn= 48). It is important to note that researchers found evidence at virtually every school that business graduate students, including MBAs, participate inintercollegiatecase competitions.

We then analyzed schools by offerings, shown inTable 3. Internal business competitions were offered, but not required, by 84% of schools; 54% of these were public and 46% private. The average composite rank of these schools was 43.7 (Mdn= 37).

Table 3.

Schools Offering Both Case and New Venture Competitions.

Total competitions offered	Two competitions	n	Three competitions	n	Four to seven competitions	n	Total
Schools	19.44%	7	41.67%	15	38.89%	14	36
Competitions	11.02%	14	35.43%	45	53.54%	68	127
Mean composite rank	45.57		44.2		27.14		37.83

The average composite rank for the 55.3% of schools offering traditional case competitions was 39.46 (Mdn= 36). We found 93 such competitions offered by those schools, for an average of 1.79 per school. On the other hand, 67% of schools offered internal new venture competitions, with an average composite rank of 43.86 (Mdn= 46). These schools offered a total of 109 competitions, for an average of 1.73 per school. Finally, 38.3% of schools offered both types of competitions, with a mean composite rank of 38.85 (Mdn= 36).

It is notable that for both case and new venture competitions, about one third of the total number of competitions was offered by a small percentage of institutions. That is, only 13.5% of case competition schools accounted for 32.3% of such offerings. Likewise, 14.3% of new venture schools offered 30.3% of those competitions. In both cases, about half the schools offering each type offered one competition (case: 51.9%; new venture: 50.8%); about a third offered two (case: 34.6%; new venture: 34.9%).

In contrast, of the 16% of schools offering no internal competition of either type, overall average rank was 67.5 (Mdn= 70). Of these, 60% were public and 40% private. Although the general pattern in this study was for private institutions to generate better average composite ranks, in this case the mean rank for public schools offering no internal competition was 66.44, whereas it was 69 for private schools.

As an index of the importance of business communication coursework in the graduate business curriculum, and in particular for full-time MBA students, additional analyses were conducted to determine which schools have business or managerial communication departments housed inside their business schools, as well as which schools have undergraduate majors in business communication disciplines (public relations, advertising, and strategic communication) housed elsewhere in the university. We took this as an index of the stability and presence of the discipline within a particular university environment.

Overall, 16% of the top 94 schools have some type of business communication department within the business school itself. Among schools with no MBA communication course requirement, 13.3% of schools have a business communication department of some kind within the business school. However, within this group, another 33.3% have undergraduate majors in advertising, public relations, strategic communication, or another business communication field, and 11.1% offer a major with a communication concentration, despite having no business school communication department. Overall, 46.7% of these no MBA requirement schools have either a business communication department within the business school or offer an undergraduate major outside of it and post an average composite rank of 64. A total of 20% were private.

In schools with an MBA communication course requirement, 18% have a business communication department of some kind within the business school. This includes one, the University of Southern California, which has communication departments both within and outside the business school. Another 38% of schools within this group have undergraduate business communication majors situated outside the business school, while 4% offer concentrations in some form of business communication outside the business school. Overall, 60% of schools with a required MBA communication course have either a business school department or an undergraduate major in a business communication discipline outside of the business school. The average composite rank was 49 (Mdn= 44); 26% were private.

Less positive for business communication educators is the finding that only 8.9% of the 231 faculty listed as teaching 256 graduate business communication courses appeared to hold tenured or tenure-track positions, based on title. So despite having a robust level of required coursework for full-time MBA students—53.2% require it, and The Wharton School recently doubled its requirement—few schools have departments inside the business school, and fewer still appeared to have tenured or tenure-track faculty in this discipline. This number is even lower thanLawrence and Galle (2011)reported for the discipline as a whole.

To generate a picture of the overall richness of opportunities for developing wide-ranging business communication capabilities at the graduate level, we combined the following scores: number of internal new venture and case competitions offered, number of MBA communication courses offered, presence of a managerial communication department of some kind inside the business school, number of faculty teaching these courses established via evidence online, number of tenured or tenure-track faculty, and the total number of identified noncredit options. We included student organizations, such as Toastmasters and public speaking clubs, as well as executive education courses and programs and on-campus resource centers.

The results (Table 4) suggest a strong correlation between the richness of communication offerings and MBA ranking. The group of schools offering the highest level of resources for improving business communication competence had the highest mean ranking: Seven schools offering an average of 34.23 resources had a mean composite rank of 14.57 (the range was from 23 to 53 offerings). In the second group, offering between 10 and 19 resources, 15 schools averaged 13.53 resources and had a mean composite rank of 31.33. The final group, those offering zero to nine resources, was further divided into two groups: those with five or more offerings and those with fewer than five offerings. Again, a clear differentiation in rank emerged. Thirty-four schools offered, on average, 6.21 resources in five or more categories and scored a composite mean rank of 43.71. But those 38 schools with resources in fewer than five categories only offered 3.39 on average and compiled a mean composite rank of 63.42.

Table 4.

Richness of Offerings.

Level of offerings	Schools,n	New venture competitions	Case competitions	MBA courses	Business school department	Business communication faculty	ntenured	Total noncredit	Total offerings	Mean offerings	Mean composite rank
20 to 55	7	13	9	34	6	142	3	34	241	30.12	14.57
10 to 19	15	25	16	36	5	84	10	27	203	13.53	31.33
1 to 9 in 5+ categories	34	33	50	47	3	37	4	37	211	6.21	43.71
1 to 9 in < 5 categories	38	38	18	24	0	10	1	38	129	3.39	63.42

In a more direct comparison, the ratio between total competitions offered and total graduate business communication classes offered is revealing. For the top-ranked group of seven schools, there are 1.62 classes offered for every competition. For the second highest ranked group of 15, there are .88 classes offered for every competition. For the last two groups, of 34 and 38, there are .57 and .43 classes offered for every competition, respectively. This finding suggests that the number of graduate business communication courses offered is a more important contributor to program reputation (as evidenced by rank) than the number of competitions offered.

Discussion

This study explored the current state of communication education provided to graduate business students. Using university rank as a proxy for quality of business program, this study examined the relationship between business school case competitions, business credit- and noncredit-bearing communication programs, and university ranking. Specifically, the current study explored two research questions: What is the prevalence of graduate business communication coursework and internal case competitions at the top 100 U.S. MBA programs? To what extent do internal competitions and business communication coursework correlate to enhancements to reputation, measured by ranking? Additionally, the study offered insight about the faculty who provide such programs.

On measures of rankings between MBA programs requiring communication coursework versus those without requirements, the reputational advantage of required coursework with no other requirements emerged. Those schools’ mean composite rank was 40.6, versus 50.7 to 53.6 for the other three groups. Notably, requiring both courseworkandparticipation in an internal competition (53.4) did not confer significant reputational advantage over either competition alone (53.6) or no requirement at all (50.7), and least of all over coursework alone (40.6), suggesting in part a negative answer to our second research question.

Schools offering internal competitions certainly ranked higher on average than those that did not—44.17 (Mdn= 42) versus 67.5 (Mdn= 70). Those offering both case and new venture types ranked somewhat higher (38.85) than those offering traditional case competitions (39.46) or new venture competitions (43.86) alone. These findings provide fairly clear evidence thatofferingcompetitions, rather thanrequiringcompetition participation, correlates with enhanced reputation.

However, the clearest reputational advantage was associated with a higher ratio of classes to competitions. The schools with the highest composite ranks offer more communication courses than competitions, while the inverse pattern holds true for the schools with the lowest average composite ranks. These findings support the notion that strong business schools recognize that communication abilities are a desired characteristic of business school graduates. Thus, despite speculation that business competitions can lead to reputational enhancement for MBA programs, higher levels of graduate business communication coursework relative to competitions offered appear to provide the greatest result. When there is a choice between requiring coursework versus not, or replacing required coursework with required competitions, the current study finds that coursework alone confers the advantage.

Finally, although underrepresented in terms of business school departments, this study’s findings suggest that schools providing more opportunities for developing managerial and business communication capabilities at the graduate level correlate with higher composite rankings, which in turn are associated with higher measures of educational quality and positive outcomes for students.

Future research on schools outside the top rankings would be of interest, to see whether these same reputational advantages hold. Additionally, future research should enable a more thorough exploration of the role played by faculty in the development of business communication programs and subsequent institutional reputation. This, in turn, would be helpful for administrators making decisions about where best to apply resources to strengthen MBA programs. While competitions may offer exciting and important one-off experiences, experiential learning in more formal communication programs provides students the chance to iterate the cycle and continue to improve, and it ultimately provides schools with a more positive reputation and ranking.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

A version of this article was presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Dublin, Ireland, 2017.

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.

ORCID iD

Mary Marcel

Author Biographies

Mary Marcelis an assistant professor of information design and corporate communication at Bentley University. Her research focuses on communication anxiety over the life span, improving business communication pedagogy, and cultural and rhetorical matters in communication, including news. She has also coached graduate case teams since 2011.

Nancy Ross Mahonis an associate clinical professor of business communication at Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include executive presence, storytelling, and the effective use of graphics in business presentations. Current research projects explore elements of business case competitions and the inclusion of creative elements in traditionally quantitative presentations.

References

Alshare

K. A.

Lane

P. L.

Miller

(2011).Business communication skills in information systems (IS) curricula: Perspectives of IS educators and students.Journal of Education for Business,86,186-194.

Andrews

Higson

(2008).Graduate employability, “soft skills” versus “hard” business knowledge: A European study.Higher Education in Europe,33,411-422.

Archer

Davison

(2008).Graduate employability: What do employers think and want?Retrieved fromhttp://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A25673

Bakker-Pieper

de Vries

R. E.

(2013).The incremental validity of communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes.Human Performance,26,1-19.

Bal

Anitsal

M. M.

(2014).AACSB accredited MBA programs in the US: What schools communicate about the graduate programs in their websites.Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,18(2),35-43.

Banai

Tulimieri

(2013).Knowledge, skills and personality of the effective business consultant.Journal of Management Development,32,886-900.

Bansak

Smith

J. K.

(2015).The College Fed Challenge: An innovation in cooperative learning.Eastern Economic Journal,41,470-483.

Bogert

Butt

(1996).Communication instruction in MBA programs: A survey of syllabi.Business Communication Quarterly,59(2),20-44.

Bruni-Bossio

Willness

(2016).The “Kobayashi Maru” meeting: High-fidelity experiential learning.Journal of Management Education,40,619-647.

10.

Burk

(2001).Communication apprehension among master’s of business administration students: Investigating a gap in communication education.Communication Education,50,51-58.

11.

Casner-Lotto

Barrington

(2006).Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Retrieved fromhttp://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf

12.

Ćelić

Cucilić

Valčić

(2016).Komparativna analiza web sjedišta visokihpomorskih učilišta[A comparative analysis of maritime universities websites].Annals of Maritime Studies/Pomorski Zbornik,51,147-160.

13.

Corner

P. D.

Bowden

Clark

Collins

Gibb

Kearins

Pavlovich

(2006).Grounded learning from a strategy case competition.Journal of Management Education,30,431-454.

14.

Cyphert

(2006).Real clients, real management, real failure: The risks and rewards of service learning.Business Communication Quarterly,69,185-189.

15.

de Vries

R. E.

Bakker-Pieper

Oostenveld

. (2010).Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes.Journal of Business and Psychology,25,367-380.

16.

Else

F. C.

Crookes

P. A.

(2015).The online presence of teaching and learning within Australian university websites.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,37,363-373.

17.

Ensari

Riggio

R. E.

Christian

Carslaw

(2011).Who emerges as a leader? Meta-analyses of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence.Personality and Individual Differences,51,532-536.

18.

Georgetown University McDonough School of Business. (n.d.).Full-time MBA program curriculum. Retrieved fromhttps://msb.georgetown.edu/mba/curriculum

19.

Gray

F. E.

Murray

(2011).“A distinguishing factor”: Oral communication skills in new accountancy graduates.Accounting Education,20,275-294.

20.

Han

K. H.

Hwang

Jeon

(2015).A navigation pattern analysis of university department’s websites using a processing mining approach.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,52,485-498.

21.

Harvard Business School. (2015).Preparing future leaders for tomorrow’s challenges. Retrieved fromhttps://www.alumni.hbs.edu/stories/Pages/story-bulletin.aspx?num=4995

22.

Hill

Mehta

Hynes

G. E.

(2014).Do they think they can communicate? Graduate students’ perceptions of their communication competencies.Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,18,275-286.

23.

Hunt

J. W.

Baruch

(2003).Developing top managers: The impact of interpersonal skills training.Journal of Management Development,22,729-752.

24.

Huster

Petrillo

O’Malley

Glassman

Rush

Wasserheit

(2017).Global social entrepreneurship competitions: Incubators for innovations in global health? Journal of Management Education,41,249-271.

25.

Inks

Schetzsle

Avila

(2011).Taking the professional sales student to the field for experiential learning.Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education,19,35-47.

26.

Jackling

De Lange

(2009).Do accounting graduates’ skills meet the expectations of employers? A matter of convergence or divergence.Accounting Education,18,369-385.

27.

Jackson

(2010).An international profile of industry-relevant competencies and skill gaps in modern graduates.International Journal of Management Education,8,29-58.

28.

Jansen

van de Zande

Brinkkemper

Stam

Varma

(2015).How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University.International Journal of Management Education,13,170-181.

29.

Javed

(2012).Redesigning the MBA: A curriculum development symposium.Pakistan Business Review,13,793-805.

30.

Kavanagh

M. H.

Drennan

(2008).What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations.Accounting & Finance,48,279-300.

31.

Kesner

R. M.

(2008).Business school undergraduate information management competencies: A study of employer expectations and associated curricular recommendations.Communications of the Association for Information Systems,23,633-654.

32.

Kirchner

(2015,July 15).Case competitions can boost your profile in the jobs market.Financial Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ft.com/content/4e6bf944-f4d2-11e4-8a42-00144feab7de?mhq5j=e6

33.

Knight

(1999).Management communication in US MBA programs: The state of the art.Business Communication Quarterly,62(4),9-32.

34.

Knight

(2005).Management communication in non-U.S. MBA programs: Current trends and practices.Business Communication Quarterly,68,139-179.

35.

Kolb

D. A.

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

36.

Kolodny

(2010,April 8).You’re the boss; why a business competition shut down in New Orleans.The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://archive.nytimes.com/query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage-9801E1DD153DF93BA35757C0A9669D8B63.html

37.

Kurpis

L. H.

Hunter

(2017).Developing students’ cultural intelligence through an experiential learning activity: A cross-cultural consumer behavior interview.Journal of Marketing Education,39,30-46.

38.

Lawrence

Galle

(2011).Tenure, status and workload: Fundamental issues among business communication faculty.Journal of Business Communication,48,319-343.

39.

Greenberg

B. A.

Nicholls

J. A. F.

(2007).Teaching experiential learning: Adoption of an innovative course in an MBA marketing curriculum.Journal of Marketing Education,29,25-33.

40.

Lin

Grace

Krishnan

Gilsdorf

(2010).Failure to communicate: Why accounting students don’t measure up to professionals’ expectations.CPA Journal,80,63-65.

41.

Marcel

(2017).User feedback: Alumni on workplace presenting and improving courses.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,80,484-515.

42.

Marcel

(in press).Communication anxiety across the career span.International Journal of Business Communication.

43.

Mast

M. S.

Jonas

Cronauer

C. K.

Darioly

(2012).On the importance of the superior’s interpersonal sensitivity for good leadership.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,42,1043-1068.

44.

McCarthy

P. R.

McCarthy

H. M.

(2006).When case studies are not enough: Integrating experiential learning into business curricula.Journal of Education for Business,81,201-204.

45.

Melaia

Abratt

Bick

(2008).Competencies of marketing managers in South Africa.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,16,233-246.

46.

Navarro

(2008).The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education,7,108-123.

47.

Orlitzky

Benjamin

J. D.

(2003).The effects of sex composition on small-group performance in a business school case competition.Academy of Management Learning & Education,2,128-138.

48.

Plant

Slippers

(2015).Improving the business communication skills of postgraduate internal audit students: A South African teaching innovation.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,52,310-321.

49.

Prussia

G. E.

Weis

W. L.

(2004).Experiential learning effects on retention: Results from a required MBA course.Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice,5,397-407.

50.

Qurban

M. H.

Austria

R. D.

(2009).Improving the communication skills of IS developers during requirements elicitation using experiential learning.Journal of Information Systems Education,20,301-311.

51.

Reinsch

N. L.

Jr. Gardner

J. A.

(2014).Do communication abilities affect promotion decisions? Some data from the C-suite.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,28,31-57.

52.

Riggio

R. E.

Riggio

H. R.

Salinas

Cole

E. J.

(2003).The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,7,83-103.

53.

Robles

M. M.

(2012).Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.Business Communication Quarterly,75,453-465.

54.

Rossetto

L. C.

Murphy

(2010).Embedding communication skills for future financial planners.Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal,4(4),73-85.

55.

Sachau

D. A.

Naas

P. A.

(2010).The consulting challenge: A case competition.Journal of Management Education,34,605-631.

56.

Sherman

P. S.

Sebora

Digman

L. A.

(2008).Experiential entrepreneurship in the classroom: Effects of teaching methods on entrepreneurial career choice intentions.Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,11,29-42.

57.

Stanford University Graduate School of Business. (n.d.).Experiential learning. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gsb.stanford.edu/stanford-gsb-experience/learning/social-innovation/experiential-learning

58.

Stevens

(2005).What communication skills do employers want? Silicon Valley recruiters respond.Journal of Employment Counseling,42,2-9.

59.

Stowe

Parent

J. D.

Schwartz

Sendall

(2012).Are business school students prepared to present? The pedagogy of presentation skills in business schools.Journal of the Academy of Business Education,13,105-121.

60.

Syracuse University Martin J. Whitman School of Management. (n.d.).Syracuse MBA full-time experience. Retrieved fromhttps://whitman.syr.edu/programs-and-academics/programs/whitman-mba-experience/fulltime-mba-experience/index.aspx

61.

The Ohio State University Fisher College of Business. (n.d.).Full-time MBA. Retrieved fromhttps://fisher.osu.edu/graduate/ftmba

62.

The University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School. (2018).Wharton Communication Program. Retrieved fromhttps://communicationprogram.wharton.upenn.edu/

63.

Tucker

M. L.

McCarthy

A. M.

Hoxmeier

J. A.

Lenk

M. M.

(1998).Community service learning increases communication skills across the business curriculum.Business Communication Quarterly,61(2),88-99.

64.

Zhang

O’Halloran

K. L.

(2013).“Toward a global knowledge enterprise”: University websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education.Critical Discourse Studies,10,468-485.