Reflexive Management Learning

Abstract

The scale and reach of the recent global financial has created a fresh wave of interest in exploring more sustainable forms of management. A central thrust behind this trend in the practice of management development and education has been the accentuation of reflexivity. There are many variations in how reflexivity is understood, and this article aims to explore the various philosophical roots and contemporary understandings of reflexive management learning (which we refer to in this article as RML). Rather than assuming that RML is "one thing," we attempt to integrate disparate understandings of it in classical and contemporary theory and propose a conceptual typology of the various forms of RML as it is studied and practiced. We conclude by reviewing some of the problematic aspects of RML and signpost further avenues of research in the field.

A Decade of Reviews on Leadership: A Conceptual Perspective and Direction

“…Lacerenza et al (2017), for example, found that soft-skill training and development improved organizational and subordinate outcomes. Other research found that leadership development in the form of peer-mentor training improved outcomes for undergraduate nursing students (Wong, Stake-Docet, Lombardo, Sanzone & Tsimicalis, 2016), coaching was found to contribute to continual leader development (Carey, Philippon & Cummings, 2011), reflective learning-reflection on self-perception-was identified as a necessary component of leader development (Cotter & Cullen, 2012) and training focused on relationships improved outcomes in developing educators (Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008). Additionally, teamwork training, including transformational leadership, was found to positively affect team outcomes (Nielsen et al, 2010).…”

Ventriloquial reflexivity: Exploring the communicative relationality of the ‘I’ and the ‘it’

“…Reflexivity is ‘a central and yet confusing topic’ where ‘it can be difficult to establish just what is being claimed’ (Lynch, 2000: 26), so it comes as no surprise that studies into reflexivity exhibit ‘definitional confusion’, ‘conceptual diversity’ and ‘a multi-layered nature’ (Cotter and Cullen, 2012: 228). This necessitates the assertion that not just one, but many reflexivit ies exist (Alvesson et al, 2008).…”

“…The first breaks the flow of routine, often articulated as the ‘experience of “being struck” or “noticing”’, which then ‘triggers’ subsequent self-examination (Hibbert et al, 2010: 55). This process can lead to ‘a critique of habitual practices’ (Cunliffe and Jun, 2005: 226), a recognition and testing of assumptions and, ultimately, the ability to ‘reconceptualize’ experience (Cotter and Cullen, 2012: 234). Initially predicated on a retrospective review of something that has happened, reflexivity then takes an overall direction that emphasizes changing and embedding alternative ways of paying attention and acting.…”

“…Collective forms of reflexivity are deemed not only quantitatively different (more than one actor involved) but also qualitatively different in terms of what they orient towards and how they normatively locate themselves. For instance, Cotter and Cullen (2012: 235) argue that collective forms of reflexivity are better suited than individual forms to ‘take into account how social, political, and cultural considerations influence the way in which organizational decisions are made and enacted’. Similarly, Vince and Reynolds (2009) propose that more collective forms of reflexivity enable reflexivity to be applied to real-world organizational practices in a more situated and contextualized manner.…”

“…. researching how efforts to mobilize it fare in real-life scenarios’ (Cotter and Cullen, 2012: 243). In this inquiry, we seek to directly redress both preoccupations by conducting a situated and processual exploration of reflexivity right at the point of interaction.…”