This research examined the effect of the case method of teaching the strategic management course on students' tolerance for ambiguity. Ambiguity tolerance, locus of control, and several demographic variables were assessed at pre- and postcourse intervals to determine if ambiguity tolerance increased with the use of narrative cases. When compared to the control group, the results suggest that case teaching can improve ambiguity tolerance of student participants. Performance in the course was also associated positively with tolerance for ambiguity. Implications of the change in ambiguity tolerance and future research directions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aram, E., & Noble, D. (1999). Educating prospective managers in the complexity of organizational life. Management Learning, 30, 321-342.
2.
Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3.
Budner, J. (1962). Tolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-40.
4.
Dollinger, M. J., Saxton, T., & Golden, P. A. (1995). Intolerance of ambiguity and the decision to form an alliance. Psychological Reports, 77, 1191-1198.
5.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179-199.
6.
Ghosh, D. (1994). Tolerance for ambiguity, risk preference, and negotiator effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 25, 263-281.
7.
Ghosh, D., & Ray, M. R. (1997). Risk, ambiguity tolerance, and decision choice: Some additional evidence. Decision Sciences, 28, 81-104.
8.
Gupta, P. P., & Fogarty, T. J. (1993, fall). Governmental auditors and their tolerance for ambiguity: An examination of the effects of a psychological variable. Government Accountants Journal, 42(3), 25-35.
9.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.
10.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647.
12.
Phillips, J. M. & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792-802.
13.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
14.
Schere, J. (1982). Tolerance of ambiguity as a discriminating variable between entrepreneurs and managers. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 45, 404-407.
15.
Schwenk, C. R. (1982). Effects of inquiry methods and ambiguity tolerance on prediction performance. Decision Sciences, 13, 207-221.
16.
Segall, R. R., & Wynd, C. A. (1990). Health conception, health locus of control and power as predictors of smoking behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 4, 338-344.
17.
Simon, C. (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 307-322.
18.
Stewart, K. A., & Winn, J. (1996). The case debate: A new approach to case teaching. Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 48-59.
19.
Stone, D. N., Shelley, M. K., & Pincus, K. V. (1997). Educating for expertise: A field study discussion. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 35-74.
20.
Tompson, G. H., & Dass, P. (2000). Improving students' self-efficacy: The relative impact of cases and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 31, 22-41.
21.
Yoshida, Y., Banning, K. C., & Cross, T. C. (1999). Use of the case method in management education. Konodai Keizai Kenkyu, 10(1), 19-33.
