Chuck out the chintz? “Stripped floor” writing and the catalogue of convention

Abstract

Contends that the conventions of writing about management inquiry limit the choices for creativity, and potential wider audiences. Using examples taken from teaching and PhD research, critical incidents are explored to demonstrate different forms of writing that offer the potential for alternative ways of sense making. Research indicates the strength of discourses managers encounter in modern‐day workplaces that restricts their capacity to act differently, the same forces are present in the researchers own work environment within a UK university business school. These discourses have resulted in a paring down of behaviours amidst a clamour for improvement and advancement. Experimentation with different forms of writing – journal keeping, poetry, creative writing to stimulate conversations, metaphor – have more potential to address the practising manager or researcher's “lived experience”.

Fostering an action‐reflection dynamic amongst student practitioners

“…Importantly, a social approach to learning allows for more attention to be paid to the questioning of “taken‐for‐granteds – social, cultural and political – which is the hallmark of critical reflection ” (Trehan and Rigg, 2005, p. 12; Fenwick, 2005). It means developing insights into the social and political forces in which reflection is embedded, and how these may constrain critical inquiry, such as the dominant business discourses framing what we see as important, and new ways of being and doing (Harvey, 2007; Woerkom, 2004).…”

“…Harvey (2007) provides a rich example of this dynamic, in reflecting upon his experience as a lecturer. Drawing on a sample of 15 CIPD students, he describes how their capacity to take a critical look at alternate perspectives appeared to be reduced by the tendency to conform to dominant business doctrines such as “lean management”, which framed students' notions of being “successful” in their studies.…”

“…Drawing on a sample of 15 CIPD students, he describes how their capacity to take a critical look at alternate perspectives appeared to be reduced by the tendency to conform to dominant business doctrines such as “lean management”, which framed students' notions of being “successful” in their studies. He explains that the scope to challenge such doctrines within the HE domain is restricted both by the conformity of professional body regulations, and the pressure for students within the lean environment which they inhabit, to obtain their award “as cleanly and quickly as possible, and move on in their career” (Harvey, 2007, p. 193). In this context it is a difficult challenge to create what Harvey describes as a “critical climate” within educational institutions, one where students move beyond a largely instrumental view of their CPD to engage in a form of reflective practice in which they are contextually aware, are sceptical of universal “truths”, and question the underlying assumptions for doing things (Harvey, 2007, p. 193).…”

Non‐employee critical HRD: empowerment and communities

“…The task and development discourses, encountered through the author's doctoral research (Harvey, 2005), emphasised empowerment as “doing” and “being done to”, yet the lived encounters with empowerment rhetorics for the participants involved in the research, concerned “not knowing”, anxiety and isolation. Here, the mechanistic view of empowerment, linked to lean management practices (Harvey, 2007), and individual development programmes, was experienced by participants in a different form. Their work/life contexts were characterised by a lack of certainty of job and future employment, resulting heightened anxiety, as well as a sense of separation from colleagues.…”

Frameworks of managerial competence: limits, problems and suggestions

“…It is a short path from Lawler's programme to the shortfalls identified by Harvey (2004) wherein “lean management” results in a harmony of “well‐drilled backing singers, slick and together but potentially antiseptic and soulless” (Harvey, 2004, p. 673). As Meldrum and Atkinson (1998) point out, knowing what to do is simply not enough.…”