- Email: [email protected]
The right moves: Creating experiential management learning with chess
The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The International Journal of Management Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme
The right moves: Creating experiential management learning with chess Mark V. Cannice* Department of Entrepreneurship, Strategy, and International Business, School of Management, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 August 2012 Received in revised form 12 October 2012 Accepted 30 November 2012
Management principals are often challenging to teach to students who may not have extensive business experience. This paper describes the objectives and process for using a “chess simulation”, an experiential learning method, that some faculty may consider using to help introduce or illustrate important management concepts to their students. This simulation requires numerous levels of involvement from students (e.g. planning and analysis, discussion and negotiation, teaching and learning, seeing and touching, feedback and application), and, thus, may provide an enduring lesson to participants. The simulation objectives and debrief points correlate the activities that the students experience during the chess match to specific management principles. As the simulation unfolds students will apply most of these principles, and, during the debrief, students will discover that they had been utilizing management principles in the game, and, thus, had gained experience in the application of these principals. To sum, I have found that the chess simulation has proven to be an effective and enjoyable method for illustrating and reinforcing management concepts in the classroom. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Experiential learning Chess simulation Management simulation
Management principals are often challenging to teach to students who may not have significant business experience. While many strategic management and general management concepts can be readily understood at a superficial level, alternative pedagogical methods to lecture can be used to better engrain these concepts in students. In fact, multiple methods of teaching management skills have been advocated (Stephen, Parente, & Brown, 2002) and empirically supported (Teach & Govahi, 1993). For example, case studies (Christensen, 1989; Fisher, 1978), films (Gallos, 1993), analogies to the ancient military strategies of Sun Tszu (Krause, 1995), battlefield tours (McCarthy, 2001), and various other projects are used to help students attain a deeper understanding of management concepts. In the following I describe an experiential learning method that some faculty may wish to consider in their efforts to help prepare their students for the practice of management. As the title of this paper implies, I use the game of chess as the main driver of this learning simulation. As the readers of this paper are no doubt aware, the game of chess is a foundational game of strategy and tactics. Therefore, with some preparation, the experience of playing chess can be leveraged to assist student learning of certain strategic management and general management concepts. 1. Theoretical underpinnings Experiential learning models (e.g. Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1984) have been applied in academic settings to provide methods to better engrain key concepts in students. Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre’s model incorporates experience, reflection, and * Tel.: þ1 415 385 9591; fax: þ1 415 422 2502. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1472-8117/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2012.11.002
26
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
conceptualization to enhance learning. Similarly, action learning (Revans, 1980) and active learning (Lawson, 2006; Ross, 2011) focuses students’ academic experience on learning by working on real organizational problems. Other models of learning (e.g. social learning theory and behavioral model training) have been used to improve student learning by other methods. (Please see Hess (2007) for a discussion of social learning theory, experiential learning theory, and behavioral model training.) In fact, there exists a significant debate and alternative theoretical views on the most effective process of learning (McEvoy, 1998); for example Ramsey (2005) identifies three problematic assumptions within an experiential framework. And another learning process model, problem-based learning (Brownell & Jameson, 2004), has been advocated for helping students link theory to practice (Sherwood, 2004). With due respect to alternative and effective models of learning, the chess simulation discussed in this paper leverages the experiential learning model most directly (beginning with the experience of playing chess, moving on to a reflection process (Hedberg, 2009) to discover what was learned, and onto a conceptualization time to apply that learning to management situations), and, thus, it will serve as the basis for the discussion and analysis of this simulation. As the chess simulation is based on team play, additional benefits of team experience and shared learning (Isaacs, 1993; Katzenbach & Smith, 2006; Michaelson, Knight, & Fink, 2004) also can be leveraged during and after the simulation. The chess simulation works in quite nicely with management material in a variety of class offerings, from organizational behavior to business planning, and, of course, strategic management. Some of the strategy concepts that are applied in the chess simulation include: strategic planning (Brandt, 1981), environmental scanning and competitive strategy (Porter, 1980; Stevenson, 1976), niche focus strategy (Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Hofer & Schendel, 1977), core competency (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), first mover advantage (Kerin, Varadarajan, & Peterson, 1992), and resource scarcity and resource development (Wernerfelt, 1984). While the simulation provides opportunities for the application of a number tools of strategic management, views on strategic management, itself, have been the focus on an on-going debate (e.g. Freeman, 2010; Hamel, 2007; Watson, 2000). Still, this simulation requires numerous levels of participation from students (e.g. planning and analysis, discussion and negotiation, teaching and learning, seeing and touching, feedback and application), and, thus, may prove to be a suitable alternative for management professors who believe that active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) helps students better internalize desired content. The chess simulation can also complement other existing strategy-focused simulations. For example, computer-based strategy simulations include: Capsim (Smith & Watters, 2002), an interactive simulation that teaches strategy and other functional business areas by having students control competing companies that impact each other through their decisions; StratSim (Interpretive Solutions, 2002), a customer-oriented strategy simulation that has students compete directly for customers in a simulated marketplace; and Microworld (Strategy Dynamics, 2002), which provides a business simulation accompanied by a case study. Other board games such as Acquire (Avalon Hill, 1999), which focuses on real estate development and acquisition, and Risk (Parker Brothers, 1959), a game of military conquest, may also be used to illustrate strategic management concepts. Additionally, Siciliano and Gopinath (2001) provide a text that offers a series of exercises and cases that reinforce a comprehensive menu of strategy topics. Finally, Stakeholder Chess Simulation (Carpenter, 2002) also uses chess; however, its focus is to examine the varying claims and capabilities of company stakeholders. An early concern of mine, and perhaps of some readers, is that some students may not know how to play chess. While this has been my experience, this fact actually appears to enrich the learning experience by necessitating more communication (teaching and learning) between students. Still, additional steps, described later in this paper, can be taken to help ensure most students have enough of a working knowledge of the game to be able to benefit from the simulation. 2. A brief history and perspective on chess Chess, originally called, Chaturanga, originated in northwest India in the fifth century A.D. It later spread to Persia in the sixth century and Europe around the 10th century, becoming widely popular there by the 12th century (Golombek, 1972). The chess matches between Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky in 1972 took on a national metaphorical level of significance in the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and elevated chess in the US public imagination in the 1970s (Roberts, Wyndham, Alexander, Fischer, & Spassky, 1972) while they inspired a new generation of young players. The current number one rated chess player in the world, according to the World Chess Federation (2011), is Magnus Carlsen of Norway (FIDE). The World Chess Federation (also known as FIDE from its French acronym for Federation Internationale des Echecs) was founded in Paris in 1924 and was recognized as an International Sports Federation in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee (FIDE). FIDE organizes chess tournaments around the world and maintains official rankings of players. Beyond professional chess circles, chess is played by successful CEOs and investors. That group includes: Microsoft founder, Bill Gates; business magnate, George Soros, and activist investor, Carl Icahn; as well as Peter Thiel, co-founder and former CEO of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, and Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay. And Roelof Botha, a venture capitalist with Sequoia Capital, and investor in YouTube, plays chess at the masters’ level (Chess.com, 2011). As chess hones skills in opportunity recognition, threat assessment, and analytical thinking, it is not surprising that successful CEOs and investors are not shy about sharing their fondness for the game. The thinking that chess promotes and hones in players of all types suggests that useful lessons can be learned by those who pursue professions that require strong analytical and reasoning skill sets. In the following sections I describe the desired learning outcomes, the simulation process and debrief, the potential timing and context of the simulation, feedback data from students who have participated in the simulation, and the simulation’s
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
27
limitations. To sum, I have found the simulation is well received by students at the undergraduate and graduate levels as both an enjoyable and valuable exercise. 3. Desired learning outcomes Table 1 provides the conceptual learning objectives for the chess simulation. These objectives have been identified during the development and initial uses of the chess simulation exercise. Faculty using the simulation may find that additional and unexpected learning results will occur. In the learning objectives, I correlate specific management concepts (e.g. environmental analysis, first mover advantage, etc.) to distinct simulation activities during the process of the game. Again, the Table 1 objectives correlate the activities that the students experience to specific management principles. As the game unfolds students will apply most of these principles, and, during the debrief, students should discover the management principles they had been using in the game. While the learning objectives describe a framework for faculty, I believe it is best to provide these objectives for the students during the simulation debrief, in order to better allow students to step up the cognitive ladder from physical experience to discussion of an activity to conceptual understanding. 4. The simulation exercise In the following I provide for specific step by step instructions for faculty to prepare for, carry out, and debrief the chess simulation for maximum effectiveness. While familiarity or experience in chess is helpful for faculty it is not a pre-condition for the successful implementation of the simulation. 4.1. Guidelines for faculty 4.1.1. Required materials One chessboard with instructions and pieces for every four to six students. Sturdy chess games can be bought at Amazon, Target or other discount stores for about $12 each. The minimum time required for the simulation is approximately 75 min; however, the simulation can be run for up to 2 h with increasing learning benefits. 4.1.2. Procedures 4.1.2.1. Step 1. Pre-simulation preparation (optional). Provide chess instructions to students about one week in advance of the simulation and ask students to review the rules. (A one to two page copy of chess rules are found in nearly all chess sets.) Consider placing two chess sets on reserve in the library where students can access them if desired. Alternatively, a link to online chess instructions (e.g. www.chess.com) can be sent to students with minimal experience in chess to review the basic rules prior to class. 4.1.2.2. Step 2. Introduction and demonstration. Introduce the general notion of the simulation (e.g. that students will be playing chess to employ some management principals and that the class will discuss these principals in relation to the chess game in the later part of the class). Provide a brief history of chess (indicated earlier in this transcript) and give some examples of successful executives who play chess (also included earlier in this paper) to enhance interest and motivation in the chess simulation before getting started. Demonstrate by white board or chalkboard or overhead transparency the basic movements of each chess piece and the initial set up of the chessboard. Please see Fig. 1, which can be converted into a slide or transparency and used for this purpose. 4.1.2.3. Step 3. Form teams. Divide students into groups of two or three (depending on the size of the class). There must be an even number of groups (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.). Ideally, one student in each group of two or three will have, at least, some minimal Table 1 Learning objectives. Conceptual learning objective
Simulation activity
1. Assess the scope and rules of the operating environment.
1. The initial placement and capabilities of the chess pieces (resources). 2. Devise tactics and strategies to win the game. 3. Plan opening and subsequent moves in the game. 4. Assess chessboard and pieces to identify winning moves and determine opponent’s threats. 5. Coordinate pieces to attack opponent’s exposed position. 6. Anticipate possible opponent’s responses to your moves. 7. Protect King from attack. 8. Trade pieces to improve tactical position. 9. First player to move (white) will win if no mistakes are made.
2. Set interim and final objectives. 3. Determine how to deploy and redeploy limited resources. 4. Exercise scanning skills in identifying threats and opportunities in the environment. 5. Focus limited resources to exploit a specific niche. 6. Anticipate competitor’s responses to your own actions. 7. Protect core competency. 8. Sacrifice resources to attain higher objectives. 9. Develop an understanding of the importance of timing and first mover advantage.
28
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33 Chess Board: Initial Set-up R
kn
B
Q*
K
B
kn
R
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
kn
B
Q*
K
B
kn
R
Fig. 1. Chessboard: initial set up. Q* – for initial set up of pieces, queen is set on a square of the same color (e.g. black queen goes on black square). K ¼ King: may move/capture 1 square at a time in any direction. Q ¼ Queen: may move/capture any number of squares in any direction. B ¼ Bishop: may move/capture diagonally any number of squares. kn ¼ knight: moves/captures in an L-shape (2 squares forward and 1 square to left or right; or 1 square forward and 2 squares to left or right; may also jump over pieces). R ¼ Rook: may move/capture horizontally and vertically any number of squares. P ¼ Pawn: moves 1 square forward at a time (may move 2 squares on initial move); captures diagonally.
experience with chess. At a minimum, one student from each pair of competing teams will have some experience with chess. In order to accomplish this pairing, ask students to raise their hands if they have played chess before and ask those who do not raise their hands to identify those with their hands up as potential partners. On average, I have found that between half and twothirds of the students in each class have at least some experience playing chess. If only a small number of students have any chess experience, students will take a bit longer to review the rules and begin play. It is not necessary that the professor have much experience playing chess, although it is helpful. Faculty with no experience with chess can get up to speed by simply reading the instructions for a chess game, playing a game or two, and following this guide closely. 4.1.2.4. Step 4. Pair up teams and set up room. After dividing the class into teams of two to three, have the teams pair off with another team and give each pair of teams one chessboard. (A copy of Fig. 1 of this paper may be distributed with each chess set as a quick reference guide for players with little experience playing chess.) Again, at this point it is helpful if at least one person within either team understands the basic concepts of chess. Student teams should be facing each other, so desks and chairs may need to be arranged somewhat to accommodate this. Give the students time (5 min or so) to review the instructions together and then begin a game. The professor should only ensure that the board is set up properly before play, but, otherwise, allow the teams to explain to each other the objectives and rules of the game (as this is part of the learning process). 4.1.2.5. Step 5. Play chess. Give teams about 35–45 min to play one game. Give the teams a 10-min and a 5-min warning that the play will pause for a review. Not every game will be finished, but that is fine. If there is time left after the debrief, students can complete the game. If some teams finish early, have them begin another game. As students play chess, it is helpful if the faculty visits each game in progress and simply asks, “whose move is it?” That question will often lead to clarification questions as well as an opportunity for linking some aspects of the game (e.g. position or capabilities of pieces) to management principals. Faculty should confirm the end of each game (e.g. position of checkmate) and congratulate the teams for their play and have them begin another game if time remains. 4.1.2.6. Step 6. The debrief and lessons learned. The simulation debrief is the point where most of the learning is discovered by students, so the nature and flow of the debrief is critical to maximize the learning of the participating students. It is important for the professor to ask most of the questions in Table 2 to the class (allow at least 20 min for debrief) to help ensure that the class gains as much as possible from the simulation. The professor may not need to ask all of the debrief questions, especially ones dealing with a chess move that the professor may not be familiar with. Alternatively, the professor may wish to add other questions relating to a topic of particular importance to the class. The professor may wish to diagram certain chess positions on the board to better illustrate the chessboard situation and allow a clearer analogy to be made to management concepts. Please note that the last question in Table 2 requires a written response by each student. Give students about 5 min to write a response and then ask students to volunteer to present their response to the class. This question is a crucial part of the debrief as it provides an opportunity for each student to reflect on learning individually (Hedberg, 2009) and then to articulate and share than learning with the class. After students share the insights gained from the chess simulation, the faculty member should summarize the differences between chess and the actual business environment as described in Table 3. At the end of class, faculty should distribute the
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
29
Table 2 Debrief questions for professor to ask (most questions have a follow-up to help direct students to learning goals). Professor questions
Answers
1. What was the first thing you had to do? 1a. Is there an analogy to running a business?
1. Set up the pieces and discuss the rules. 1a. Understand the environment you are operating in and learn how to deploy your resources. 2. How to move the pieces.
2. Once you set up the pieces, what else did you need to know? 2a. What is the management corollary? 3. What is the objective of the game? 3a. Is this the most important objective? 3b. What is the strategy corollary? 4. How many ways are there to achieve your primary objective (checkmate opponent’s king)? 4a. What is the strategy corollary? 5. If during the game, most of your pieces are captured, can you still attain your objective (capturing your opponent’s king)? 5a. What is the strategy corollary? 6. If your opponent has all of her pieces, and you have only your king, queen, and 1 bishop; can you still win the game? 6a. What is the strategy corollary? 7. What was your first move? 7a. Why did you move there? 7b. What is the strategy corollary? 8. What is the best first move? 8a. Why the center of the board? 8b. What is the strategy corollary? 9. How should you deploy your bishops? 9a. Why? 9b. What is the strategy corollary? 10. How should you deploy your pawns? 10a. What is the strategy corollary? 11. What happens if your pawn gets to the other side of the board? 11a. What is the management corollary? 12. After several moves, what did you do before making a move? 12a. What is the strategy corollary? 13. Did any one exchange a pawn or lower valued piece to capture a higher value piece? 13a. What is the strategy corollary? 14. Did anyone exchange a higher value piece for a lesser value one? 14a. Why? 14b. What is the strategy corollary?
15. Did anyone castle (put her King in a corner)? 15a. Why? 15b. What is the strategy corollary? 16. What type of player will usually win?
2a. Understand the capabilities of all of your resources (people and technology). 3. Checkmate the opponent’s king. 3a. Yes (some may think that taking as many of their opponents’ pieces are important, but it is not). 3b. Keep focused on the primary objective; don’t get sidetracked by less significant issues. 4. Almost infinite.
4a. There are many different ways to achieve your prime objective, but keep focused on that objective. 5. Yes, but you must make do with available pieces (resources).
5a. You must effectively use available resources, even if limited, to achieve objective. 6. Yes, if opponent makes mistakes and you focus your resources (pieces) on one point of execution to take the king. 6a. Focus your resources to adequately penetrate an important niche, and you can defeat an opponent with vastly more resources. 7. Lots of possibilities. 7a. Every move must have a purpose. 7b. Every action must have a purpose. A company cannot afford to waste time. 8. To the center of the board. 8a. If you control the center, you control the board. 8b. Gain control of the industry; become the operating standard. 9. On long diagonals. 9a. To fully leverage the bishops’ capabilities. 9b. Deploy resources correctly to leverage their maximum abilities. 10. In a diagonal line or triangle formation for best effect; this is a much stronger position than a solitary pawn. 10a. A weak resource by itself may be useless, but when combined in a proper manner; it can be powerful. 11. You can exchange it for a more powerful piece. 11a. A weak resource/person properly developed can become a very valuable resource. 12. Each player needs to assess the entire board for opportunities and threats. 12a. You must assess the environment you are in for opportunities and threats, but focus your resources on one objective. 13. Most likely.
13a. From time to time, it may be necessary to sacrifice a small resource to gain a tactical advantage (position or exchange). 14. Possibly. 14a. To gain an advantage in position on the board to win the game. 14b. Sometimes you must sacrifice good assets to achieve higher goals (i.e. merger requirement to divest of a business to meet regulatory approval in order to make a strategic acquisition). 15. Perhaps. 15a. To protect the king. 15b. The king is critical to the game, and like your company’s core competency, must be protected from loss. 16. The one who can think many moves ahead and predict her opponent’s potential moves. (continued on next page)
30
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
Table 2 (continued ) Professor questions
Answers
16a. What is the strategy corollary?
16a. You need to plan out your moves and anticipate what your competition’s reactions might be. 17. Perhaps.
17. Did anyone encounter a discovered check or fork move (check is called that makes he loss of a piece unavoidable)? 17a. What is the strategy corollary? 18. Who moved first? 18a. What is the strategy corollary?
17a. The unanticipated threat is usually more dangerous than the one you had been expecting. 18. Should be White. 18a. If both players play perfect game, white will always win, because it moved first (first mover advantage).
19. New additional question to highlight key management principal. 20. Individual written response: describe one management principal you used in the chess match that you could effectively apply in your own management career. Give an example of that application.
learning objectives (Table 1) and the debrief questions (Table 2) to the students and may advise students that the debrief points from the simulation are testable. At this point, some students may wish to complete their game if it is still in progress. If more time remains, proceed to Step 7. 4.1.2.7. Step 7. Optional continuation. If there is more time available after the debrief (e.g. 30–60 min), have the teams begin to play another game. The students usually want another chance to make fewer mistakes and will apply some of the points of the debrief. After the second game a second short reflection debrief can be given with the following questions. These can be offered verbally to the entire class or students can be asked to provide a written response to one or more questions. 1. What did you do differently? Why? Were you more or less effective that earlier? 2. What aspects of chess strategy or related management principals have you experienced or seen in a business context? Which seemed to be most effective? 3. How might you approach business strategy and management differently after today? What aspects of chess strategy or management theory can you readily apply in your workplace? 4. Do you see other applications here for your strategy of developing your business? Faculty may wish to ask other questions about concepts they wish to reinforce through this simulation. 4.1.2.8. Step 8. Final instructions. If not done already, hand out the list of objectives (Table 1) and debrief points (Table 2). Make sure students return the chessboard with all the pieces. Faculty may also want to include one or two questions from this simulation on an exam to reinforce the importance of the concepts learned. 4.2. Context of the simulation An important question to resolve is when to administer the chess strategy simulation. The answer to that question is contingent on the content of the class taught and the level of the students in the class. For example, I primarily use this simulation in my undergraduate senior-level (4th year) Entrepreneurial Management class, to introduce the strategy component of the course. Therefore, in my class the simulation is primarily used to introduce strategy concepts to my students, which we subsequently discuss in more depth in class meetings following the simulation. Faculty who plan to use this simulation for a semester long strategy class, may wish to administer the simulation several weeks into the semester after some introductory strategy concepts or cases have already been covered. Table 3 Differences between chess strategy and business strategy. Chess
Business
One constant environment Two players Constant rules One objective Final definitive winner
Multiple dynamic environments Many players Changing rules Multiple changing objectives Never ending game
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
31
For graduate level classes, the simulation may be introduced somewhat earlier in the course, as experienced students should be more familiar with strategy concepts and make the connection to chess more quickly. 4.3. Outcomes: student reaction to the chess simulation I have been able to run this chess simulation with both senior-level undergraduate and graduate classes. The students have reacted enthusiastically at both levels, with lots of discussion, both during the simulation game and during the follow-up discussion. The competitive and consultative nature of the simulation appears to highly engage students and focuses their concentration on the game at hand (e.g. essentially no texting or Web browsing occurs during the simulation.) Usually at least one group of students wants to stay past class time to finish a game. Beyond the outward reactions that I have observed, I have also administered a short survey during some administrations of the simulation to better understand how much the students get out of the simulation. I list average responses to the evaluation questions below, and I break down the results between undergraduate and graduate. The survey was a Likert-type scale ranging from ‘five’ indicating strong agreement to ‘one’ strong disagreement with the statement. There were 113 usable undergraduate responses and 17 useable graduate responses. (I have collected formal feedback after seven administrations of the simulation, and I report all of the rating data from the survey.) 1. The chess simulation helped me learn about some strategic management issues. Undergraduate response (n ¼ 113): 4.37 out of 5 possible, indicating agreement that the simulation helped students learn about strategic management issues MBA student response (n ¼ 17): 4.29 out of 5 possible, indicating agreement that the simulation helped students learn about strategic management concepts. 2. The chess simulation helped me gain a deeper understanding of strategic management issues I was already aware of. Undergraduate response (n ¼ 113): 4.14 out of 5 possible, indicating a still useful mechanism for gaining a deeper understanding of strategic management issues, but not as positive as for newly introduced issues. MBA student response (n ¼ 17): 4.0 out of 5 possible, indicating a still useful mechanism for gaining a deeper understanding of strategic management issues, but not as positive as for newly introduced issues. In the most recent administration of the survey with undergraduate students I also collected commentary from student participants as to how the simulation helped them learn or gain a deeper understanding of strategic management concepts. In the following I provide several of the anonymous responses from the sample. Student 1: “Playing chess helped in ‘connecting the dots’ with strategic management concepts.” Student 2: “I found myself actively relating concepts that I had simply memorized to the game being played. It made it real (sort of).” Student 3: “I had never imagined that playing a game of chess was going to teach me ‘real business’ concepts.” Student 4: “Chess is basically a small world of business. The use of correct skills, management and thought delivers the right outcome.” Student 5: “It was creative to learn strategic management from playing chess. By summarizing after the game, I learned more than I thought.” The student survey responses suggest that the simulation is useful at both the undergraduate and graduate levels for introducing strategic management concepts. It was also useful, although somewhat less so, at helping students gain a deeper understanding of strategy issues they were already aware of. These findings suggest that the simulation is somewhat better at introducing new strategy concepts than reinforcing them. Thus, faculty may wish to take this into account when planning the timing of the simulation. The student commentary suggests that the simulation may serve as a useful alternative for providing an experiential learning tool for faculty who wish to provide students an opportunity to employ some of the concepts that they are learning in lecture and case discussion. 5. Limitations of the simulation This paper provides one potential hands-on exercise for students to learn of and apply strategic management concepts. While this simulation has been well received by students at graduate and undergraduate levels, it clearly is not comprehensive in introducing all strategy or management concepts or going into sufficient depth with most of the concepts introduced. Still, I have found that the simulation does provide an additional tool to introduce and discuss management concepts in a non-lecture and non-case context. As discussed earlier, some students in the simulation may have little or no knowledge of chess. While this situation may trigger additional discussion and teaching/learning with each chess group, it may also lead some students to turn-off to the simulation if not closely supervised. This result may be mitigated, however, by providing instructions to students in advance of the class and reviewing some basic chess rules at the beginning of the simulation. The professor should also actively engage those students that seem to be recoiling from the group play and discussion.
32
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
Further, this simulation tends to present management concepts in a linear, rule-bound fashion, and, thus, does not provide an adequate representation of a multi-player, dynamic environment that describes the complex backdrop of strategic decision making. Alas, this is an artifact of a rule-bound game. However, this element of the simulation may provide the backdrop for a compelling comparison of the chessboard environment to that of modern business. Please find in Table 3 below which should be used as an additional element of the debrief of the chess simulation that points out the differences of chessboard bound strategy to that of modern management decision making. We hope this additional discussion of the comparison of chess and business strategy may further illuminate strategy concepts to skeptical students. 6. Conclusions I have found that the chess simulation proves to be a good alternative and complement for introducing and reinforcing important management concepts. To date, it has been the most successful game/simulation I have used in any of my classes. Again, as an active and experiential learning tool (Kolb et al., 1984), the chess simulation may allow students to develop a deeper and longer lasting knowledge of management concepts that they can apply in their professional careers. Another advantage of the simulation is that it does not critically depend on the prior preparation of the students, such as closely reading a case before class. Although a review of chess rules is helpful for the uninitiated. I have also found that some students, who are normally quiet and seldom volunteer to answer questions, appear to be less reluctant to participate in the simulation and follow-up discussion. Having conducted this simulation in my classes for nearly ten years now, I have found that alumni that contact me often recall this element of their education experience more quickly than others. In sum, the chess simulation has proven to be an enjoyable and useful way for business students to learn of and apply management concepts and may provide an alternative experiential learning method for use by management faculty. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Ms. Cathy Chang and Dr. Sun-Young Park as well as the anonymous reviewers, editor, and many student simulation participants for their helpful feedback on the simulation exercise and paper. References Avalon Hill. (1999). Acquire. http://www.webnior.com/bob/sid/acquire.htm. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. E. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Brandt, S. C. (1981). Strategic planning in emerging companies. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. Brownell, J., & Jameson, D. A. (2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: an integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28, 558–577. Carpenter, M. A. (2002). Stakeholder chess simulation. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin. http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/mcarpenter/professional/toolkit/bpstools.htm. Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: how small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482. Chess.com. (2011). http://www.chess.com/news/chess-generates-silicon-valley-wealth. Christensen, C. R. (1989). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fisher, C. F. (1978). Being there vicariously by case studies. In O. Milton (Ed.), On college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Gallos, J. V. (1993). Teaching about reframing with films and videos. Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 127–132. Golombek, H. (1972). The game of chess. Penguin. Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Harvard Business School Press. Hedberg, P. R. (February 2009). Learning through reflective classroom practice. Journal of Management Education, 33(1), 10–36. Hess, P. W. (2007). Enhancing leadership skill development by creating practice/feedback opportunities in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 31, 195–213. Hofer, C. V., & Schendel, D. (1977). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Interpretive Solutions, Inc.. (2002). StratSim. Interpretive Solutions. http://www.interpretive.com/faculty/products/stratsim/default.htm. Isaacs, W. (1993). Dialogue: the power of collective thinking. The Systems Thinker, 4(3), 25–29. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2006). The wisdom of teams. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Kerin, R. A., Varadarajan, P. R., & Peterson, R. A. (1992). First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, October, 56, 33–52. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krause, D. G. (1995). The art of war for executives. New York: Berkley Publishing Group. Lawson, K. (2006). The trainer’s handbook (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. McCarthy, J. F. (2001). Learning from the heat of battle: the Gettysburg staff ride. Journal of Management Education, 25(5), 495–515. McEvoy, G. M. (1998). Answering the challenge: developing the management action skills of business students. Journal of Management Education, 22(5), 655–670. Michaelson, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Parker Brothers. (1959). Risk. http://www.hasbro.com/games/pl/page.viewproduct/product_id.9491/dn/default.cfm. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (May/June 1990). The core competency of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79–91. Ramsey, C. (2005). Narrative: from learning in reflection to learning in performance. Management Learning, 36(2), 219–235. Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs. Roberts, R., Wyndham, F., Alexander, C. H., Fischer, B., & Spassky, B. V. (1972). Fischer/Spassky: The New York Times report on the chess match of the century. New York: Times Books. Ross, S. (2011). Focused active learning to improve organizational performance. International Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 39–49.
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
33
Sherwood, A. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in management education: a frame-work for designing context. Journal of Management Education, 28, 535–557. Siciliano, J. I., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Strategize! Experiential exercises in strategic management with InfoTrac College edition. South-Western College Publishing. Smith, D., & Watters, C. (2002). Strategy capstone simulation. Management Simulations, Inc.. http://www.capsim.com/products/products.cfm Stephen, J., Parente, D. H., & Brown, R. C. (2002). Seeing the forest and the trees: balancing functional and integrative knowledge using large-scale simulations in capstone business strategy classes. Journal of Management Education, 26(2), 164–193. Stevenson, H. H. (1976). Defining corporate strengths and weaknesses. Sloan Management Review, Spring(17), 3. Strategy Dynamics. (2002). Microworld. Strategy Dynamics. http://www.strategydynamics.com/products/microworlds.htm. Teach, R. D., & Govahi, G. (1993). The role of classroom techniques in teaching management skills. Simulation and Gaming, 24(4), 429–445. Watson, T. J. (2000). Search of management: culture, chaos, and managerial work. Cengage Learning EMEA. Wernerfelt, B. (Sep–Oct 1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 171–180. World Chess Federation. (2011). http://www.fide.com/fide/fide-world-chess-federation.html. Mark V. Cannice, Ph.D., is chair and professor of entrepreneurship and innovation with the University of San Francisco School of Management. Dr. Cannice’s research centers primarily on entrepreneurship, venture capital, and technology management. In addition to numerous academic articles and textbooks, he authors quarterly research reports on venture capital confidence in Silicon Valley and China that have been cited internationally (e.g. NY Times, Financial Times, WSJ, Economist). Professor Cannice received his Ph.D. from Indiana University.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The International Journal of Management Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme
The right moves: Creating experiential management learning with chess Mark V. Cannice* Department of Entrepreneurship, Strategy, and International Business, School of Management, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 August 2012 Received in revised form 12 October 2012 Accepted 30 November 2012
Management principals are often challenging to teach to students who may not have extensive business experience. This paper describes the objectives and process for using a “chess simulation”, an experiential learning method, that some faculty may consider using to help introduce or illustrate important management concepts to their students. This simulation requires numerous levels of involvement from students (e.g. planning and analysis, discussion and negotiation, teaching and learning, seeing and touching, feedback and application), and, thus, may provide an enduring lesson to participants. The simulation objectives and debrief points correlate the activities that the students experience during the chess match to specific management principles. As the simulation unfolds students will apply most of these principles, and, during the debrief, students will discover that they had been utilizing management principles in the game, and, thus, had gained experience in the application of these principals. To sum, I have found that the chess simulation has proven to be an effective and enjoyable method for illustrating and reinforcing management concepts in the classroom. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Experiential learning Chess simulation Management simulation
Management principals are often challenging to teach to students who may not have significant business experience. While many strategic management and general management concepts can be readily understood at a superficial level, alternative pedagogical methods to lecture can be used to better engrain these concepts in students. In fact, multiple methods of teaching management skills have been advocated (Stephen, Parente, & Brown, 2002) and empirically supported (Teach & Govahi, 1993). For example, case studies (Christensen, 1989; Fisher, 1978), films (Gallos, 1993), analogies to the ancient military strategies of Sun Tszu (Krause, 1995), battlefield tours (McCarthy, 2001), and various other projects are used to help students attain a deeper understanding of management concepts. In the following I describe an experiential learning method that some faculty may wish to consider in their efforts to help prepare their students for the practice of management. As the title of this paper implies, I use the game of chess as the main driver of this learning simulation. As the readers of this paper are no doubt aware, the game of chess is a foundational game of strategy and tactics. Therefore, with some preparation, the experience of playing chess can be leveraged to assist student learning of certain strategic management and general management concepts. 1. Theoretical underpinnings Experiential learning models (e.g. Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1984) have been applied in academic settings to provide methods to better engrain key concepts in students. Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre’s model incorporates experience, reflection, and * Tel.: þ1 415 385 9591; fax: þ1 415 422 2502. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1472-8117/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2012.11.002
26
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
conceptualization to enhance learning. Similarly, action learning (Revans, 1980) and active learning (Lawson, 2006; Ross, 2011) focuses students’ academic experience on learning by working on real organizational problems. Other models of learning (e.g. social learning theory and behavioral model training) have been used to improve student learning by other methods. (Please see Hess (2007) for a discussion of social learning theory, experiential learning theory, and behavioral model training.) In fact, there exists a significant debate and alternative theoretical views on the most effective process of learning (McEvoy, 1998); for example Ramsey (2005) identifies three problematic assumptions within an experiential framework. And another learning process model, problem-based learning (Brownell & Jameson, 2004), has been advocated for helping students link theory to practice (Sherwood, 2004). With due respect to alternative and effective models of learning, the chess simulation discussed in this paper leverages the experiential learning model most directly (beginning with the experience of playing chess, moving on to a reflection process (Hedberg, 2009) to discover what was learned, and onto a conceptualization time to apply that learning to management situations), and, thus, it will serve as the basis for the discussion and analysis of this simulation. As the chess simulation is based on team play, additional benefits of team experience and shared learning (Isaacs, 1993; Katzenbach & Smith, 2006; Michaelson, Knight, & Fink, 2004) also can be leveraged during and after the simulation. The chess simulation works in quite nicely with management material in a variety of class offerings, from organizational behavior to business planning, and, of course, strategic management. Some of the strategy concepts that are applied in the chess simulation include: strategic planning (Brandt, 1981), environmental scanning and competitive strategy (Porter, 1980; Stevenson, 1976), niche focus strategy (Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Hofer & Schendel, 1977), core competency (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), first mover advantage (Kerin, Varadarajan, & Peterson, 1992), and resource scarcity and resource development (Wernerfelt, 1984). While the simulation provides opportunities for the application of a number tools of strategic management, views on strategic management, itself, have been the focus on an on-going debate (e.g. Freeman, 2010; Hamel, 2007; Watson, 2000). Still, this simulation requires numerous levels of participation from students (e.g. planning and analysis, discussion and negotiation, teaching and learning, seeing and touching, feedback and application), and, thus, may prove to be a suitable alternative for management professors who believe that active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) helps students better internalize desired content. The chess simulation can also complement other existing strategy-focused simulations. For example, computer-based strategy simulations include: Capsim (Smith & Watters, 2002), an interactive simulation that teaches strategy and other functional business areas by having students control competing companies that impact each other through their decisions; StratSim (Interpretive Solutions, 2002), a customer-oriented strategy simulation that has students compete directly for customers in a simulated marketplace; and Microworld (Strategy Dynamics, 2002), which provides a business simulation accompanied by a case study. Other board games such as Acquire (Avalon Hill, 1999), which focuses on real estate development and acquisition, and Risk (Parker Brothers, 1959), a game of military conquest, may also be used to illustrate strategic management concepts. Additionally, Siciliano and Gopinath (2001) provide a text that offers a series of exercises and cases that reinforce a comprehensive menu of strategy topics. Finally, Stakeholder Chess Simulation (Carpenter, 2002) also uses chess; however, its focus is to examine the varying claims and capabilities of company stakeholders. An early concern of mine, and perhaps of some readers, is that some students may not know how to play chess. While this has been my experience, this fact actually appears to enrich the learning experience by necessitating more communication (teaching and learning) between students. Still, additional steps, described later in this paper, can be taken to help ensure most students have enough of a working knowledge of the game to be able to benefit from the simulation. 2. A brief history and perspective on chess Chess, originally called, Chaturanga, originated in northwest India in the fifth century A.D. It later spread to Persia in the sixth century and Europe around the 10th century, becoming widely popular there by the 12th century (Golombek, 1972). The chess matches between Bobby Fisher and Boris Spassky in 1972 took on a national metaphorical level of significance in the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and elevated chess in the US public imagination in the 1970s (Roberts, Wyndham, Alexander, Fischer, & Spassky, 1972) while they inspired a new generation of young players. The current number one rated chess player in the world, according to the World Chess Federation (2011), is Magnus Carlsen of Norway (FIDE). The World Chess Federation (also known as FIDE from its French acronym for Federation Internationale des Echecs) was founded in Paris in 1924 and was recognized as an International Sports Federation in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee (FIDE). FIDE organizes chess tournaments around the world and maintains official rankings of players. Beyond professional chess circles, chess is played by successful CEOs and investors. That group includes: Microsoft founder, Bill Gates; business magnate, George Soros, and activist investor, Carl Icahn; as well as Peter Thiel, co-founder and former CEO of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, and Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay. And Roelof Botha, a venture capitalist with Sequoia Capital, and investor in YouTube, plays chess at the masters’ level (Chess.com, 2011). As chess hones skills in opportunity recognition, threat assessment, and analytical thinking, it is not surprising that successful CEOs and investors are not shy about sharing their fondness for the game. The thinking that chess promotes and hones in players of all types suggests that useful lessons can be learned by those who pursue professions that require strong analytical and reasoning skill sets. In the following sections I describe the desired learning outcomes, the simulation process and debrief, the potential timing and context of the simulation, feedback data from students who have participated in the simulation, and the simulation’s
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
27
limitations. To sum, I have found the simulation is well received by students at the undergraduate and graduate levels as both an enjoyable and valuable exercise. 3. Desired learning outcomes Table 1 provides the conceptual learning objectives for the chess simulation. These objectives have been identified during the development and initial uses of the chess simulation exercise. Faculty using the simulation may find that additional and unexpected learning results will occur. In the learning objectives, I correlate specific management concepts (e.g. environmental analysis, first mover advantage, etc.) to distinct simulation activities during the process of the game. Again, the Table 1 objectives correlate the activities that the students experience to specific management principles. As the game unfolds students will apply most of these principles, and, during the debrief, students should discover the management principles they had been using in the game. While the learning objectives describe a framework for faculty, I believe it is best to provide these objectives for the students during the simulation debrief, in order to better allow students to step up the cognitive ladder from physical experience to discussion of an activity to conceptual understanding. 4. The simulation exercise In the following I provide for specific step by step instructions for faculty to prepare for, carry out, and debrief the chess simulation for maximum effectiveness. While familiarity or experience in chess is helpful for faculty it is not a pre-condition for the successful implementation of the simulation. 4.1. Guidelines for faculty 4.1.1. Required materials One chessboard with instructions and pieces for every four to six students. Sturdy chess games can be bought at Amazon, Target or other discount stores for about $12 each. The minimum time required for the simulation is approximately 75 min; however, the simulation can be run for up to 2 h with increasing learning benefits. 4.1.2. Procedures 4.1.2.1. Step 1. Pre-simulation preparation (optional). Provide chess instructions to students about one week in advance of the simulation and ask students to review the rules. (A one to two page copy of chess rules are found in nearly all chess sets.) Consider placing two chess sets on reserve in the library where students can access them if desired. Alternatively, a link to online chess instructions (e.g. www.chess.com) can be sent to students with minimal experience in chess to review the basic rules prior to class. 4.1.2.2. Step 2. Introduction and demonstration. Introduce the general notion of the simulation (e.g. that students will be playing chess to employ some management principals and that the class will discuss these principals in relation to the chess game in the later part of the class). Provide a brief history of chess (indicated earlier in this transcript) and give some examples of successful executives who play chess (also included earlier in this paper) to enhance interest and motivation in the chess simulation before getting started. Demonstrate by white board or chalkboard or overhead transparency the basic movements of each chess piece and the initial set up of the chessboard. Please see Fig. 1, which can be converted into a slide or transparency and used for this purpose. 4.1.2.3. Step 3. Form teams. Divide students into groups of two or three (depending on the size of the class). There must be an even number of groups (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.). Ideally, one student in each group of two or three will have, at least, some minimal Table 1 Learning objectives. Conceptual learning objective
Simulation activity
1. Assess the scope and rules of the operating environment.
1. The initial placement and capabilities of the chess pieces (resources). 2. Devise tactics and strategies to win the game. 3. Plan opening and subsequent moves in the game. 4. Assess chessboard and pieces to identify winning moves and determine opponent’s threats. 5. Coordinate pieces to attack opponent’s exposed position. 6. Anticipate possible opponent’s responses to your moves. 7. Protect King from attack. 8. Trade pieces to improve tactical position. 9. First player to move (white) will win if no mistakes are made.
2. Set interim and final objectives. 3. Determine how to deploy and redeploy limited resources. 4. Exercise scanning skills in identifying threats and opportunities in the environment. 5. Focus limited resources to exploit a specific niche. 6. Anticipate competitor’s responses to your own actions. 7. Protect core competency. 8. Sacrifice resources to attain higher objectives. 9. Develop an understanding of the importance of timing and first mover advantage.
28
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33 Chess Board: Initial Set-up R
kn
B
Q*
K
B
kn
R
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
kn
B
Q*
K
B
kn
R
Fig. 1. Chessboard: initial set up. Q* – for initial set up of pieces, queen is set on a square of the same color (e.g. black queen goes on black square). K ¼ King: may move/capture 1 square at a time in any direction. Q ¼ Queen: may move/capture any number of squares in any direction. B ¼ Bishop: may move/capture diagonally any number of squares. kn ¼ knight: moves/captures in an L-shape (2 squares forward and 1 square to left or right; or 1 square forward and 2 squares to left or right; may also jump over pieces). R ¼ Rook: may move/capture horizontally and vertically any number of squares. P ¼ Pawn: moves 1 square forward at a time (may move 2 squares on initial move); captures diagonally.
experience with chess. At a minimum, one student from each pair of competing teams will have some experience with chess. In order to accomplish this pairing, ask students to raise their hands if they have played chess before and ask those who do not raise their hands to identify those with their hands up as potential partners. On average, I have found that between half and twothirds of the students in each class have at least some experience playing chess. If only a small number of students have any chess experience, students will take a bit longer to review the rules and begin play. It is not necessary that the professor have much experience playing chess, although it is helpful. Faculty with no experience with chess can get up to speed by simply reading the instructions for a chess game, playing a game or two, and following this guide closely. 4.1.2.4. Step 4. Pair up teams and set up room. After dividing the class into teams of two to three, have the teams pair off with another team and give each pair of teams one chessboard. (A copy of Fig. 1 of this paper may be distributed with each chess set as a quick reference guide for players with little experience playing chess.) Again, at this point it is helpful if at least one person within either team understands the basic concepts of chess. Student teams should be facing each other, so desks and chairs may need to be arranged somewhat to accommodate this. Give the students time (5 min or so) to review the instructions together and then begin a game. The professor should only ensure that the board is set up properly before play, but, otherwise, allow the teams to explain to each other the objectives and rules of the game (as this is part of the learning process). 4.1.2.5. Step 5. Play chess. Give teams about 35–45 min to play one game. Give the teams a 10-min and a 5-min warning that the play will pause for a review. Not every game will be finished, but that is fine. If there is time left after the debrief, students can complete the game. If some teams finish early, have them begin another game. As students play chess, it is helpful if the faculty visits each game in progress and simply asks, “whose move is it?” That question will often lead to clarification questions as well as an opportunity for linking some aspects of the game (e.g. position or capabilities of pieces) to management principals. Faculty should confirm the end of each game (e.g. position of checkmate) and congratulate the teams for their play and have them begin another game if time remains. 4.1.2.6. Step 6. The debrief and lessons learned. The simulation debrief is the point where most of the learning is discovered by students, so the nature and flow of the debrief is critical to maximize the learning of the participating students. It is important for the professor to ask most of the questions in Table 2 to the class (allow at least 20 min for debrief) to help ensure that the class gains as much as possible from the simulation. The professor may not need to ask all of the debrief questions, especially ones dealing with a chess move that the professor may not be familiar with. Alternatively, the professor may wish to add other questions relating to a topic of particular importance to the class. The professor may wish to diagram certain chess positions on the board to better illustrate the chessboard situation and allow a clearer analogy to be made to management concepts. Please note that the last question in Table 2 requires a written response by each student. Give students about 5 min to write a response and then ask students to volunteer to present their response to the class. This question is a crucial part of the debrief as it provides an opportunity for each student to reflect on learning individually (Hedberg, 2009) and then to articulate and share than learning with the class. After students share the insights gained from the chess simulation, the faculty member should summarize the differences between chess and the actual business environment as described in Table 3. At the end of class, faculty should distribute the
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
29
Table 2 Debrief questions for professor to ask (most questions have a follow-up to help direct students to learning goals). Professor questions
Answers
1. What was the first thing you had to do? 1a. Is there an analogy to running a business?
1. Set up the pieces and discuss the rules. 1a. Understand the environment you are operating in and learn how to deploy your resources. 2. How to move the pieces.
2. Once you set up the pieces, what else did you need to know? 2a. What is the management corollary? 3. What is the objective of the game? 3a. Is this the most important objective? 3b. What is the strategy corollary? 4. How many ways are there to achieve your primary objective (checkmate opponent’s king)? 4a. What is the strategy corollary? 5. If during the game, most of your pieces are captured, can you still attain your objective (capturing your opponent’s king)? 5a. What is the strategy corollary? 6. If your opponent has all of her pieces, and you have only your king, queen, and 1 bishop; can you still win the game? 6a. What is the strategy corollary? 7. What was your first move? 7a. Why did you move there? 7b. What is the strategy corollary? 8. What is the best first move? 8a. Why the center of the board? 8b. What is the strategy corollary? 9. How should you deploy your bishops? 9a. Why? 9b. What is the strategy corollary? 10. How should you deploy your pawns? 10a. What is the strategy corollary? 11. What happens if your pawn gets to the other side of the board? 11a. What is the management corollary? 12. After several moves, what did you do before making a move? 12a. What is the strategy corollary? 13. Did any one exchange a pawn or lower valued piece to capture a higher value piece? 13a. What is the strategy corollary? 14. Did anyone exchange a higher value piece for a lesser value one? 14a. Why? 14b. What is the strategy corollary?
15. Did anyone castle (put her King in a corner)? 15a. Why? 15b. What is the strategy corollary? 16. What type of player will usually win?
2a. Understand the capabilities of all of your resources (people and technology). 3. Checkmate the opponent’s king. 3a. Yes (some may think that taking as many of their opponents’ pieces are important, but it is not). 3b. Keep focused on the primary objective; don’t get sidetracked by less significant issues. 4. Almost infinite.
4a. There are many different ways to achieve your prime objective, but keep focused on that objective. 5. Yes, but you must make do with available pieces (resources).
5a. You must effectively use available resources, even if limited, to achieve objective. 6. Yes, if opponent makes mistakes and you focus your resources (pieces) on one point of execution to take the king. 6a. Focus your resources to adequately penetrate an important niche, and you can defeat an opponent with vastly more resources. 7. Lots of possibilities. 7a. Every move must have a purpose. 7b. Every action must have a purpose. A company cannot afford to waste time. 8. To the center of the board. 8a. If you control the center, you control the board. 8b. Gain control of the industry; become the operating standard. 9. On long diagonals. 9a. To fully leverage the bishops’ capabilities. 9b. Deploy resources correctly to leverage their maximum abilities. 10. In a diagonal line or triangle formation for best effect; this is a much stronger position than a solitary pawn. 10a. A weak resource by itself may be useless, but when combined in a proper manner; it can be powerful. 11. You can exchange it for a more powerful piece. 11a. A weak resource/person properly developed can become a very valuable resource. 12. Each player needs to assess the entire board for opportunities and threats. 12a. You must assess the environment you are in for opportunities and threats, but focus your resources on one objective. 13. Most likely.
13a. From time to time, it may be necessary to sacrifice a small resource to gain a tactical advantage (position or exchange). 14. Possibly. 14a. To gain an advantage in position on the board to win the game. 14b. Sometimes you must sacrifice good assets to achieve higher goals (i.e. merger requirement to divest of a business to meet regulatory approval in order to make a strategic acquisition). 15. Perhaps. 15a. To protect the king. 15b. The king is critical to the game, and like your company’s core competency, must be protected from loss. 16. The one who can think many moves ahead and predict her opponent’s potential moves. (continued on next page)
30
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
Table 2 (continued ) Professor questions
Answers
16a. What is the strategy corollary?
16a. You need to plan out your moves and anticipate what your competition’s reactions might be. 17. Perhaps.
17. Did anyone encounter a discovered check or fork move (check is called that makes he loss of a piece unavoidable)? 17a. What is the strategy corollary? 18. Who moved first? 18a. What is the strategy corollary?
17a. The unanticipated threat is usually more dangerous than the one you had been expecting. 18. Should be White. 18a. If both players play perfect game, white will always win, because it moved first (first mover advantage).
19. New additional question to highlight key management principal. 20. Individual written response: describe one management principal you used in the chess match that you could effectively apply in your own management career. Give an example of that application.
learning objectives (Table 1) and the debrief questions (Table 2) to the students and may advise students that the debrief points from the simulation are testable. At this point, some students may wish to complete their game if it is still in progress. If more time remains, proceed to Step 7. 4.1.2.7. Step 7. Optional continuation. If there is more time available after the debrief (e.g. 30–60 min), have the teams begin to play another game. The students usually want another chance to make fewer mistakes and will apply some of the points of the debrief. After the second game a second short reflection debrief can be given with the following questions. These can be offered verbally to the entire class or students can be asked to provide a written response to one or more questions. 1. What did you do differently? Why? Were you more or less effective that earlier? 2. What aspects of chess strategy or related management principals have you experienced or seen in a business context? Which seemed to be most effective? 3. How might you approach business strategy and management differently after today? What aspects of chess strategy or management theory can you readily apply in your workplace? 4. Do you see other applications here for your strategy of developing your business? Faculty may wish to ask other questions about concepts they wish to reinforce through this simulation. 4.1.2.8. Step 8. Final instructions. If not done already, hand out the list of objectives (Table 1) and debrief points (Table 2). Make sure students return the chessboard with all the pieces. Faculty may also want to include one or two questions from this simulation on an exam to reinforce the importance of the concepts learned. 4.2. Context of the simulation An important question to resolve is when to administer the chess strategy simulation. The answer to that question is contingent on the content of the class taught and the level of the students in the class. For example, I primarily use this simulation in my undergraduate senior-level (4th year) Entrepreneurial Management class, to introduce the strategy component of the course. Therefore, in my class the simulation is primarily used to introduce strategy concepts to my students, which we subsequently discuss in more depth in class meetings following the simulation. Faculty who plan to use this simulation for a semester long strategy class, may wish to administer the simulation several weeks into the semester after some introductory strategy concepts or cases have already been covered. Table 3 Differences between chess strategy and business strategy. Chess
Business
One constant environment Two players Constant rules One objective Final definitive winner
Multiple dynamic environments Many players Changing rules Multiple changing objectives Never ending game
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
31
For graduate level classes, the simulation may be introduced somewhat earlier in the course, as experienced students should be more familiar with strategy concepts and make the connection to chess more quickly. 4.3. Outcomes: student reaction to the chess simulation I have been able to run this chess simulation with both senior-level undergraduate and graduate classes. The students have reacted enthusiastically at both levels, with lots of discussion, both during the simulation game and during the follow-up discussion. The competitive and consultative nature of the simulation appears to highly engage students and focuses their concentration on the game at hand (e.g. essentially no texting or Web browsing occurs during the simulation.) Usually at least one group of students wants to stay past class time to finish a game. Beyond the outward reactions that I have observed, I have also administered a short survey during some administrations of the simulation to better understand how much the students get out of the simulation. I list average responses to the evaluation questions below, and I break down the results between undergraduate and graduate. The survey was a Likert-type scale ranging from ‘five’ indicating strong agreement to ‘one’ strong disagreement with the statement. There were 113 usable undergraduate responses and 17 useable graduate responses. (I have collected formal feedback after seven administrations of the simulation, and I report all of the rating data from the survey.) 1. The chess simulation helped me learn about some strategic management issues. Undergraduate response (n ¼ 113): 4.37 out of 5 possible, indicating agreement that the simulation helped students learn about strategic management issues MBA student response (n ¼ 17): 4.29 out of 5 possible, indicating agreement that the simulation helped students learn about strategic management concepts. 2. The chess simulation helped me gain a deeper understanding of strategic management issues I was already aware of. Undergraduate response (n ¼ 113): 4.14 out of 5 possible, indicating a still useful mechanism for gaining a deeper understanding of strategic management issues, but not as positive as for newly introduced issues. MBA student response (n ¼ 17): 4.0 out of 5 possible, indicating a still useful mechanism for gaining a deeper understanding of strategic management issues, but not as positive as for newly introduced issues. In the most recent administration of the survey with undergraduate students I also collected commentary from student participants as to how the simulation helped them learn or gain a deeper understanding of strategic management concepts. In the following I provide several of the anonymous responses from the sample. Student 1: “Playing chess helped in ‘connecting the dots’ with strategic management concepts.” Student 2: “I found myself actively relating concepts that I had simply memorized to the game being played. It made it real (sort of).” Student 3: “I had never imagined that playing a game of chess was going to teach me ‘real business’ concepts.” Student 4: “Chess is basically a small world of business. The use of correct skills, management and thought delivers the right outcome.” Student 5: “It was creative to learn strategic management from playing chess. By summarizing after the game, I learned more than I thought.” The student survey responses suggest that the simulation is useful at both the undergraduate and graduate levels for introducing strategic management concepts. It was also useful, although somewhat less so, at helping students gain a deeper understanding of strategy issues they were already aware of. These findings suggest that the simulation is somewhat better at introducing new strategy concepts than reinforcing them. Thus, faculty may wish to take this into account when planning the timing of the simulation. The student commentary suggests that the simulation may serve as a useful alternative for providing an experiential learning tool for faculty who wish to provide students an opportunity to employ some of the concepts that they are learning in lecture and case discussion. 5. Limitations of the simulation This paper provides one potential hands-on exercise for students to learn of and apply strategic management concepts. While this simulation has been well received by students at graduate and undergraduate levels, it clearly is not comprehensive in introducing all strategy or management concepts or going into sufficient depth with most of the concepts introduced. Still, I have found that the simulation does provide an additional tool to introduce and discuss management concepts in a non-lecture and non-case context. As discussed earlier, some students in the simulation may have little or no knowledge of chess. While this situation may trigger additional discussion and teaching/learning with each chess group, it may also lead some students to turn-off to the simulation if not closely supervised. This result may be mitigated, however, by providing instructions to students in advance of the class and reviewing some basic chess rules at the beginning of the simulation. The professor should also actively engage those students that seem to be recoiling from the group play and discussion.
32
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
Further, this simulation tends to present management concepts in a linear, rule-bound fashion, and, thus, does not provide an adequate representation of a multi-player, dynamic environment that describes the complex backdrop of strategic decision making. Alas, this is an artifact of a rule-bound game. However, this element of the simulation may provide the backdrop for a compelling comparison of the chessboard environment to that of modern business. Please find in Table 3 below which should be used as an additional element of the debrief of the chess simulation that points out the differences of chessboard bound strategy to that of modern management decision making. We hope this additional discussion of the comparison of chess and business strategy may further illuminate strategy concepts to skeptical students. 6. Conclusions I have found that the chess simulation proves to be a good alternative and complement for introducing and reinforcing important management concepts. To date, it has been the most successful game/simulation I have used in any of my classes. Again, as an active and experiential learning tool (Kolb et al., 1984), the chess simulation may allow students to develop a deeper and longer lasting knowledge of management concepts that they can apply in their professional careers. Another advantage of the simulation is that it does not critically depend on the prior preparation of the students, such as closely reading a case before class. Although a review of chess rules is helpful for the uninitiated. I have also found that some students, who are normally quiet and seldom volunteer to answer questions, appear to be less reluctant to participate in the simulation and follow-up discussion. Having conducted this simulation in my classes for nearly ten years now, I have found that alumni that contact me often recall this element of their education experience more quickly than others. In sum, the chess simulation has proven to be an enjoyable and useful way for business students to learn of and apply management concepts and may provide an alternative experiential learning method for use by management faculty. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Ms. Cathy Chang and Dr. Sun-Young Park as well as the anonymous reviewers, editor, and many student simulation participants for their helpful feedback on the simulation exercise and paper. References Avalon Hill. (1999). Acquire. http://www.webnior.com/bob/sid/acquire.htm. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. E. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Brandt, S. C. (1981). Strategic planning in emerging companies. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. Brownell, J., & Jameson, D. A. (2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: an integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28, 558–577. Carpenter, M. A. (2002). Stakeholder chess simulation. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin. http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/mcarpenter/professional/toolkit/bpstools.htm. Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: how small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482. Chess.com. (2011). http://www.chess.com/news/chess-generates-silicon-valley-wealth. Christensen, C. R. (1989). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fisher, C. F. (1978). Being there vicariously by case studies. In O. Milton (Ed.), On college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Gallos, J. V. (1993). Teaching about reframing with films and videos. Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 127–132. Golombek, H. (1972). The game of chess. Penguin. Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Harvard Business School Press. Hedberg, P. R. (February 2009). Learning through reflective classroom practice. Journal of Management Education, 33(1), 10–36. Hess, P. W. (2007). Enhancing leadership skill development by creating practice/feedback opportunities in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 31, 195–213. Hofer, C. V., & Schendel, D. (1977). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Interpretive Solutions, Inc.. (2002). StratSim. Interpretive Solutions. http://www.interpretive.com/faculty/products/stratsim/default.htm. Isaacs, W. (1993). Dialogue: the power of collective thinking. The Systems Thinker, 4(3), 25–29. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2006). The wisdom of teams. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Kerin, R. A., Varadarajan, P. R., & Peterson, R. A. (1992). First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, October, 56, 33–52. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krause, D. G. (1995). The art of war for executives. New York: Berkley Publishing Group. Lawson, K. (2006). The trainer’s handbook (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. McCarthy, J. F. (2001). Learning from the heat of battle: the Gettysburg staff ride. Journal of Management Education, 25(5), 495–515. McEvoy, G. M. (1998). Answering the challenge: developing the management action skills of business students. Journal of Management Education, 22(5), 655–670. Michaelson, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Parker Brothers. (1959). Risk. http://www.hasbro.com/games/pl/page.viewproduct/product_id.9491/dn/default.cfm. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (May/June 1990). The core competency of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79–91. Ramsey, C. (2005). Narrative: from learning in reflection to learning in performance. Management Learning, 36(2), 219–235. Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs. Roberts, R., Wyndham, F., Alexander, C. H., Fischer, B., & Spassky, B. V. (1972). Fischer/Spassky: The New York Times report on the chess match of the century. New York: Times Books. Ross, S. (2011). Focused active learning to improve organizational performance. International Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 39–49.
M.V. Cannice / The International Journal of Management Education 11 (2013) 25–33
33
Sherwood, A. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in management education: a frame-work for designing context. Journal of Management Education, 28, 535–557. Siciliano, J. I., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Strategize! Experiential exercises in strategic management with InfoTrac College edition. South-Western College Publishing. Smith, D., & Watters, C. (2002). Strategy capstone simulation. Management Simulations, Inc.. http://www.capsim.com/products/products.cfm Stephen, J., Parente, D. H., & Brown, R. C. (2002). Seeing the forest and the trees: balancing functional and integrative knowledge using large-scale simulations in capstone business strategy classes. Journal of Management Education, 26(2), 164–193. Stevenson, H. H. (1976). Defining corporate strengths and weaknesses. Sloan Management Review, Spring(17), 3. Strategy Dynamics. (2002). Microworld. Strategy Dynamics. http://www.strategydynamics.com/products/microworlds.htm. Teach, R. D., & Govahi, G. (1993). The role of classroom techniques in teaching management skills. Simulation and Gaming, 24(4), 429–445. Watson, T. J. (2000). Search of management: culture, chaos, and managerial work. Cengage Learning EMEA. Wernerfelt, B. (Sep–Oct 1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 171–180. World Chess Federation. (2011). http://www.fide.com/fide/fide-world-chess-federation.html. Mark V. Cannice, Ph.D., is chair and professor of entrepreneurship and innovation with the University of San Francisco School of Management. Dr. Cannice’s research centers primarily on entrepreneurship, venture capital, and technology management. In addition to numerous academic articles and textbooks, he authors quarterly research reports on venture capital confidence in Silicon Valley and China that have been cited internationally (e.g. NY Times, Financial Times, WSJ, Economist). Professor Cannice received his Ph.D. from Indiana University.