Introduction

‘Often people, even those who loved the book,have said, “this book completely paralyses us”.The effect was intentional. My project is preciselyto bring it about that they no longer know what to do, so that the acts, gestures, discourses that up until then had seemed to go without sayingbecome problematic, difficult, dangerous.’

Michel Foucault2

Although there have been increasing demandsby management academics for a more criticallyreflective approach to the education of managers(see for example Alvesson and Willmott, 1992b;Reed and Anthony, 1992; Grey and Mitev, 1995),less attention seems to have been paid to the

more problematical consequences of introducinga critical pedagogy.3 There have been proposalsfor translating critical principles into educationaldesign (Willmott, 1994; Prasad and Caproni,1997) and some examples of ‘critical pedagogy’ inpractice (Grey, Knights and Willmott, 1996; Nordand Jermier, 1992). But while authors writing inthe context of adult or management educationmake passing reference to the possibility of crit-ical reflection being discounted or discouraged,and to the disruptive consequences for those whoadopt it, it is difficult to find studies in any depthof these less welcome aspects.

This paper draws together cautionary observa-tions from writers in both adult and managementeducation in order to provide a basis for furtherinquiry. It considers two broad areas of possibility.

British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, 171–184 (1999)

Grasping the Nettle: Possibilities and Pitfalls of a

Critical Management Pedagogy1

Michael ReynoldsThe Management School, Department of Management Learning, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK

The focus of the paper is a review of the more problematical aspects of introducing acritical perspective into the practice and content of management education. As anintroduction, the author summarizes the arguments for critical reflection in theeducation of managers, the characteristics which distinguish it from ‘reflection’ – themore familiar concept in the literature – and ‘critical thinking’. The ways that a criticalperspective can be reflected in educational method as well as in the content of thecurriculum are also elaborated before describing the problems and complications ofimplementing such an approach from accounts in the literature of adult and man-agement education. The paper outlines the reasons why critical reflection might beresisted, the mental or social disruption which can result from its application and theimplications of both for the practice of management teachers.

© 1999 British Academy of Management

1 The author thanks Stephen Davies, Ian James, MikePedler, David Rothwell, Lesley Timings and theanonymous reviewers for their critical and encouragingcomments on this paper.2 From an interview (Miller, 1993, p. 235). The bookreferred to is Discipline and Punish.

3 I use the term ‘pedagogy’ to cover all aspects of aparticular educational practice – its design, content,methods, assessment, ethos, tutor–student roles andrelationships and so forth. By ‘critical pedagogy’, Imean an approach which is based on the principles of critical reflection and which in turn, is capable ofstimulating and supporting critical reflection in others.

The first asks why critical reflection might bediscounted or rejected by managers or manage-ment students as a perspective for questioning the nature and purpose of professional work. Thesecond looks at the more disruptive consequenceswhich can result when critical reflection isadopted and draws particularly on Brookfield’saccount (1994) of what he called ‘the dark side’ ofcritical reflection – the more troublesome per-sonal and professional consequences of engagingwith a critical perspective.

As background to reviewing the ‘dark sides’ of critical pedagogy, there follows first a briefsummary of what critical reflection consists of andthe reasons for its increasing prominence in theeducation of managers. Following that, there aredescription of examples of educational designsbased on the principles of critical pedagogy.References for more detailed accounts have beendrawn as much from the writing of ‘radical’ adulteducators as from the management educationliterature because until recently, that is where the debates about critical pedagogy were to befound. The implications for management educatorsare considered, underlining the importance ofreflexivity – of applying the principles of criticalreflection to one’s own practice – and raising ques-tions about teachers’ professional responsibility,given the part they can play in contributing to the more disruptive effects on the lives of theirstudents.

The purpose of this account is to counsel cautionbut not despair. It is certainly not intended as anargument for abandoning the emerging criticalproject in management education. Nor is there an implication that only ‘critical’ educators needto be aware of the impact of their teaching. Ideas from any source which contradict exist-ing beliefs can prove unsettling, and uncriticalapproaches can prove disempowering, as illus-trated by Sinclair’s (1995) account of the exclusionof women’s experience from an MBA pro-gramme; both in the content of the curriculumand through an approach to teaching based onstatus, hierarchy and a highly pressurized classenvironment. Sinclair found that while theprogramme perpetuated the belief that genderwas an irrelevance in the context of management,it undermined the confidence of women studentsthrough its endorsement of ‘the values of anexclusive and masculine executive culture’ (1995,p. 310).

The critical turn in managementeducationThe essentials of critical pedagogy and reasonsfor its adoption

Critical perspectives have been informed bydifferent schools of thought, including Marxism,feminism, postmodernism, social constructionism,critical theory and liberationist (Freirean) theo-logy.4 In adult education critical thought has been influenced by feminist scholarship (see forexample Gore, 1993) and in particular, by JurgenHabermas’ writings in critical theory.5 Manage-ment educators have also drawn on Habermas’ideas, although not uncritically, the developmentof a critical pedagogy in management also havingbeen influenced by post-structuralist critique.From this latter perspective, critical theorists are regarded as having taken insufficient accountof the oppressive tendency inherent in makingnormative prescriptions from an all-embracingframework intended for universal application(Alvesson and Willmott, 1996).6

‘. . . the idea that human reason has emancipatorypotential can produce a form of social theory –namely, Critical Theory – that privileges abstracttheorizing and critiques over the fostering ofcritical insights into mundane philosophies andpractices; or, worse, there is the risk that CriticalTheorists ‘know best’ and establish themselves asAuthorities, thereby silencing a dialogue that theyprofess to promote.’ (1996, p. 166)

Nevertheless, whether the terms used are‘critical reflection’ (Kemmis, 1985), ‘critical socialscience’ (Nord and Jermier, 1992), or ‘criticalpedagogy’ (Grey et al., 1996), there are somemore or less shared principles which can provide

172 M. Reynolds

4 There are useful and more detailed summaries ofdifferent critical perspectives in Gibson (1986) withinan educational context, and in Nord and Jermier (1992)in relation to management education.5 For further reference see Habermas (1972, 1973) andfor discussion of his theories in a higher educationcontext Barnett (1997), in adult education Kemmis(1985), and in a management education context,Forester (1992).6 These debates are complex. For more detailedaccounts of critical theory, post-structuralist critiquesof critical theory see Alvesson and Willmott (1996) –particularly Chapters 3 and 7 (including consequentredefinition of the concept of emancipation), Cavanaughand Prasad (1996), and Grey and French (1996).

a basis for understanding the more problematicalconsequences of introducing critical perspectivesfrom whichever source. These principles include:

• questioning the assumptions and taken-for-granteds embodied in both theory and profes-sional practice;

• foregrounding the processes of power andideology subsumed within the social fabric of institutional structures, procedures andpractices;

• confronting spurious claims of rationality andobjectivity and revealing the sectional inter-ests which can be concealed by them;

• working towards an emancipatory ideal – therealization of a more just society based onfairness and democracy.

‘Critical’ reflection is therefore significantlydifferent from the more familiar concept of‘reflection’, which – certainly as described in mostadult education and management writing – paysless attention to social or political processes, andfrom ‘critical thinking’, which is usually used tosignify a disciplined approach to problem solving.7

In one form or another, critical reflection is theapplication of what Collins (1991) describes aspeople’s ability to

‘put aside the natural attitude of their everydaylife-world and adopt a sceptical approach towardstaken-for granted innovations “necessary for pro-gress”, supposedly “acceptable” impositions asthe price of progress, and seemingly authoritativesources of information that describe for us the land-scapes of contemporary social reality.’ (1991, p. 94)

In management education critical reflection isseen as capable of challenging the unquestionedpursuit of economic expansion with its conse-quential inequalities in privilege. Critical reflectionprovides a perspective from which to question theassumption that hierarchy is natural and inevit-able, or to examine the ways roles and relation-ships for men and women have been defined andlimited through prevailing social opinion. It alsoprovides the basis of addressing such concerns as‘environmental husbandry [and] the developmentof workplace democracy’ (Alvesson and Willmott,1992b p. 434).

Perhaps educational theorists writing from a critically reflective position have been par-ticularly drawn to the ideas of Habermas – even iffrom a postmodernist standpoint some mighthave difficulty accepting his central theme ofemancipation – because unlike Marx, and morethan earlier members of the Frankfurt School towhich he belonged, Habermas puts learning atthe core of his concept of ‘critical theory’. Radicaleducators (see for example Hindmarsh, 1993;Kemmis, 1985) have seen in Habermas’s ideas thebasis for contesting the prevailing preoccupationwith means, which displaces questioning of endsand purposes. They have looked to critical reflec-tion as a way of providing a counter-influence tothe perpetuation of instrumental systems of organ-ization and administration which will otherwisepervade all aspects of social and community life,including education.

As critical educationalists see it, learning and communication is ‘distorted’ by asymmetriesof power which instrumental processes support(Welton, 1995). As a consequence, the ability ofmen and women to participate in the manage-ment of work or the community is diminished andsectional interests come to seem as inevitable asthe values which gave rise to them. By contrast,critical reflection can provide the basis for de-veloping people’s competence to ‘take part’ andoffers them the possibility of transforming theirsocial world through understanding and question-ing it. In Fay’s terms, and in contrast with aninstrumentalist conception of theory and practicegoverned by preoccupation with efficiency – analternative or ‘educative’ conception provides

‘the means by which people can achieve a muchclearer picture of who they are, and of what thereal meaning of their social practices is, as a firststep of becoming different sorts of people withdifferent sorts of social arrangements.’ (Fay, 1987,p. 89)

The urgency of the case for a more criticalapproach to management education follows fromthe appreciation of the considerable influencewhich managers as a professional group exert onthe lives of employees, the community and theenvironment. It reflects increasing concern thatoccupying positions of influence should be matchedby a corresponding sense of responsibility. Alvessonand Willmott (1992a) argue that ‘management istoo potent in its effects on the lives of employees,

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 173

7 For an elaboration of these distinctions see Reynolds(1998).

consumers and citizens to be guided by a narrow,instrumental form of rationality’ (1992a, p. 1).Similarly, Reed and Anthony have stressed theessentially moral nature of managers’ work, giventheir pivotal position in society and the authoritywhich they are able to exercise as ‘among thecentral characters of the contemporary world’(1992, p. 609). Nevertheless a critical perspectivehas yet to make significant inroads into businessschool curricula (Cavanaugh and Prasad, 1996)and ‘mainstream’ management academics are seenas contributing to this neglect by being primarilyconcerned with improving effectiveness throughthe acquisition of techniques (Grey and Mitev,1995).

‘Critical management academics, on the otherhand, are concerned to analyse management interms of its social, moral and political significanceand, in general terms, to challenge managementpractice rather than seek to sustain it.’ (p. 74)

Reed and Anthony’s challenge to managementteachers is that as academics, they are in a goodposition to encourage a critical approach, uphold-ing ‘the virtues of objectivity, concern for truth,reflective understanding, sceptical enquiry andresearch’ (1992, p. 608). Hollway (1991) has simi-larly pointed to the position of higher educationinstitutions as ‘still sufficiently independent ofmanagerialist priorities’ for the application ofcritical perspectives, although as she observed,this independence is increasingly in question asuniversities become more dependent on businesscorporations for their financial support (p. 184).

Management education therefore needs to sup-plement what has developed as a predominantlytechnical curriculum – within which the search formeans is given pre-eminence over questionsabout ends and where working relationships are evaluated on the basis of expediency – withtheory and research from a more critical perspect-ive. This is in contrast to the view of academics ashaving ‘pandered’ to demands for technical solu-tions (Grey and Mitev, 1995) or even of managershaving learned to avoid a more intellectuallydemanding curriculum from business schoolteachers who were afraid this level of discussionwould be unwelcome (Anthony, 1986). Grey(1996) argues that managers would be in a betterposition to deal with the ‘postbureaucratic’ worldif they had been ‘encouraged to problematize,

rather than to celebrate, bureaucracy’ (p. 11) andin similar vein, Reed and Anthony (1992) find itunacceptable that management education shouldfail to broaden its agenda to deal with social andethical issues. In their view, educators who neglectthe critical element in their work with managersin favour of a ‘narrow vocationalism’ focused ontechnical skills, are deserving of contempt.

Critical management education in practice

It is important from the outset to emphasize thata critical pedagogy can be expressed either in its content (curriculum), its process (structures,methods, relationships) or both. Some proposalsfor a more critical approach to managementeducation have focused on the curriculum and theperspectives which it should reflect (see forexample Reed and Anthony, 1992; Stablein andNord, 1985). However this could result in thedissemination of critical ideas by traditional edu-cational methodology, a contradiction to whichGiroux (1981) has drawn attention.

‘At stake here is whether radical pedagogyrepresents more than simply providing the “cor-rect” analysis for students. It is also a matter ofdeveloping a compatible radical educational style. . . Divorcing content from process not only sug-gests a rather crude pedagogical simplification, italso helps to reproduce a social division of labourthat prevents radical praxis.’ (1981, p. 67)

Giroux makes a useful distinction betweencontent-focused radicals and strategy-based radicals.Content-focused radicals introduce critical ideasand perspectives through the curriculum (criticalcontent). Strategy-based radicals – conscious ofthe ways conventional classroom relationshipsmirror social hierarchy – have developed edu-cational designs and methods based on moreparticipative values (critical process). Ideally, acritical management pedagogy would involveboth content and process (see Figure 1).

Critical methods of a kind have been used sincethe 1950s in management development and in-company programmes, influenced by the ‘trans-formative’ approaches of student-centred andexperiential learning. However these methodshave not always reflected a critical perspective.The tutor’s role is often no less authoritarian thanin traditional education, and organizational,

174 M. Reynolds

group and management processes generated by experiential approaches have usually beensubjected to a predominantly psychological andtherefore overly individualized analysis – a per-spective which is scarcely adequate to the task ofexplaining complex social and political processes.From a critical perspective, as Grey et al. (1996)point out, applied in this way such methods fail to‘problematize the knowledge which they seek totransmit’ (p. 99).

It is unfortunate that the tendency for student-centred and experiential methods to be character-ized by psychologistic analysis has undermined itspotential as a critical approach. However, in hiscritique of ‘experiential’ management education,Vince (1996) points out that ‘the content of allprogrammes of management education is affectedby power and equality, since all management isundertaken within the context of organisationsthat replicate the social systems around them’(1996, p. 128). By the same token, participativeexperiential methods can be used to illustratealternative, more democratic social systems inmicrocosm. This is a fundamental but oftenneglected aspect of experiential learning. How-ever contrived, a learning event can ‘have a sig-nificance and manifestation which is wider thanthe event itself’ (Hudson, 1983, p. 81). From this perspective, participative educational designsprovide the basis for a critical pedagogy andshould not be neglected because their imple-mentation to date has often been flawed.

Examples of critical pedagogy

In an account of applying critical reflectivity to a management programme, Nord and Jermier

(1992) describe how they incorporate ideas from‘critical scholarship’ – Marx, feminism, criticaltheory – which have emancipatory potential andwhich they have incorporated in an analysis ofmanagement and organization. Specifically, theideas Nord and Jermier introduced to managersincluded ‘an analysis of language and discourse,consideration of the “real” conditions of politicaleconomy, and problems associated with thegender structuring of society’ (1992, p. 206). Theirapproach to management studies has much in com-mon with the proposal by Giroux and McLaren(1987) that a critically reflective curriculum shouldinclude the study of language, power, history andculture in order to counter the dominant socialdiscourse. Nord and Jermier found managers re-ceptive and interested in critical analysis, especiallyif they were disenchanted with the prevailingorganizational ideology or frustrated with theircurrent professional circumstances.

More recently still, Caproni and Arias (1997)describe their approach to helping managementstudents develop reflexivity informed by culturalcritique. They used readings in critical theory,inter-group theory, feminist enquiry and researchon cultural diversity, all of which students wereencouraged to apply to their own context. Simi-larly, Thompson and McGivern (1996) describehow they encourage students to draw on a widerange of ideas including, for example, labourprocess theory, literary criticism and post-structuralist feminist theory, as well as on morefamiliar sources such as psychology and sociology.Their approach also illustrates an application of experiential learning which is consistent withcritical pedagogy, in encouraging students ‘torecognize the social and political nature of theirbehaviour’ (p. 25), in studying the dynamics withinthe classroom. In his account of a similar ap-plication of experiential method, Roberts (1996)contrasts the more familiar use of psychology inMBA courses in the form of manipulative tech-niques, with a more reflective approach which‘whatever its difficulties . . . confronts studentswith a realistic sense of the conditions and con-sequences of their own and others’ practice’ (p. 71).

The undergraduate programme described byGrey and colleagues (Grey et al., 1996) is an evenmore comprehensive example of a critical man-agement pedagogy based on educational methodas well as course content. Their approach to the

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 175

Traditional education

traditional content

traditional process

Content-focused radicals

critical content

traditional process

Strategy-based radicals

traditional content

critical process

Critical pedagogy

critical content

critical process

Figure 1. Content, process and alternative pedagogies (afterReynolds, 1997b)

literature – including explorations of such ‘key’concepts as identity, power and inequality – wascomplemented by the value they attached to thestudents’ experiences of everyday life, both as asource of learning in itself and an influence on theevolving content of the programme. ‘In this waywe attempt to relate the content of lectures tostudents’ experiences as well as seeking to involvethem directly in the construction, or at least themodification, of the content of the lectures’ (1996,p. 101). In addition, students were invited tocritique the programme, and assessment methodswere designed to test ‘the quality of thinking, not the quantity of what is thought’ (1996, p. 104).These authors demonstrate how a critical per-spective can be expressed through the overalldesign of a course and not only through itscurriculum.

Further examples of a critical pedagogy involv-ing both content and method can be found inaccounts of adult education. Brah and Hoy (1989)adopted a participative approach to working withissues of race in that students were encouraged todraw on their own experiences which they couldrelate to the studies of history and communityincluded in the course content. Thompson’s ‘sec-ond chance for women’ programme (Thompson,1983) also demonstrates how participative methodscan be used in conjunction with critical ideasdisseminated through more conventional means.Tutor-led sessions – including law, literature, history– were designed to reflect the actual circumstancesand realities of the women on the programme,who also took part in group projects and work-shops based on their own agendas. The tutors’approach was based on valuing the women’sexperience and intelligence while avoiding the‘pathological model of the individual’ inferred by an emphasis on need – so often a feature ofstudent-centred learning (Thompson, 1983, p. 155).

Pitfalls of a critical pedagogy

However pressing the need for a more criticallyreflective pedagogy, there are hazards likely toaccompany attempts to introduce it, as writerssympathetic to a more critical ‘turn’ in adult edu-cation generally (Collins, 1991), or in manage-ment education in particular (Grey et al., 1996)have warned. The question has even been askedwhether critical reflection should be expected to

take root in a management context characterizedby preoccupations with efficiency and product-ivity (Marsick, 1988). Educators have also beenaware of the possibility of adverse psychologicalor social consequences for anyone who chooses toengage in critical reflection – although there seemto be few studies which have sought to exploreexperiences of this in any detail.

The more problematical aspects of introducingcritical reflection into management education canbe considered in two broad categories. In the first,for one reason or another – not least its aim tocontest ‘the rationality ascribed to conventionalwisdom and established practices’ (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996, p. 213) – critical reflection isresisted by managers, or its principle ideas assimi-lated by management educators into existingbelief systems. Either way, engagement in criticalreflection as a questioning process is discountedor avoided altogether. The second category ofproblem is where a critical approach is adoptedbut with disruptive consequences – mental,emotional or social – resulting from managersadopting a more questioning attitude towardstheir work, its purpose, organization and relation-ships. This section considers each of thesecategories of complication and their implicationsfor management educators if ‘nettles’ such asthese are to be grasped.

Resistance and assimilation

Resistance. Although Nord and Jermier (1992)found that management graduates who hadexperienced discrimination at work were quitereceptive to a critical approach, some resistancefrom managers as a professional group would behardly surprising given its emphasis on con-fronting vested interests, inequities of privilegeand the differences in power which underlie them.In any case it is the function of critical reflectionto make complexities and complications apparentrather than to simplify them, which in the shortterm is unlikely to lessen the burden of un-certainty with which managers contend. Nor is the critical project helped by the sense of‘disdain for managing’ which can sometimes seemto colour academics’ treatment of the subject(Burgoyne, 1995, p. 95).

Jackall (1988), in his analysis of the moralconflicts which managers experience in organ-izational life, predicted that any concerns they

176 M. Reynolds

might have had to exercise critical or ethicalresponsibility would be overwhelmed in the inter-ests of expediency.

‘What matters in the bureaucratic world is notwhat a person is but how closely his many per-sonae mesh with the organisational ideal; not hiswillingness to stand by his actions but his agility inavoiding blame; not his acuity in perceiving falsityor errors but his adeptness in protecting others . . .not what he believes or says but how well he hasmastered the ideologies and rhetorics that servehis corporation; not what he stands for but whomhe stands with in the labyrinths of his organ-isation.’ (1988, p. 193)

Jackall’s pessimistic portrayal is characterizedby Reed and Anthony (1992) as the ‘ultimateobjection’ to introducing a more critically reflect-ive approach to management education, based onthe assumption that managers would think of it as‘irrelevant, unreal and impractical, (interfering)with the bureaucratic process of commodification’(1992, p. 607).

But it is possible that management teachersassume too readily that managers will be averseto considering social or environmental issues andplay their part in reinforcing a preoccupation withthings technical. This assumption, as Anthony(1986) has pointed out, helps to perpetuate aversion of management education which isintellectually impoverished. It might be morerealistic to assume that managers are fully awareof their wider responsibilities to the communityand would welcome support in discharging them.Watson’s account of the managers in his ethno-graphic study (1994; 1996) strongly supports thispoint of view. His interviews with managers at thetelecommunications manufacturing and develop-ment plant of ZTC leads him to state that themajority of managers ‘would be incapable ofacting as amoral and unfeeling agents of remotefinancial interests’ (1994, p. 210). Watson’s pictureof a manager is of someone conscious of having toattend to principles as well as practicalities, and ofdeveloping a sense of integrity on which theireffectiveness in working relationships depends.

‘Is it possible for work organizations to functionsuccessfully if moral principles are completelyseparated from pragmatic actions in managerialthinking and behaviour? ZTC managers, in largepart, seemed to think not.’ (1996, p. 333)

Resistance may also be a response to the wayideas are presented. Critical theorists have beentaken to task for neglecting workable proposals in favour of grand utopian utterances (Gibson,1986), and for making their ideas inaccessible to all but to a selective and largely academicaudience (Bowers, 1991; Soltis, 1993). As Prasadand Caproni comment, ‘it is unfortunate that forthe most part, discussions of critical theory arerelegated to esoteric intellectual speculations andremains confined primarily to research efforts’(1997, p. 285). The conceptual language of keywriters (Foucault or Habermas for example) isnotorious for its obscurity, and interpretations ofcritical theory in educational literature, thoughclearer, are often characterized by a vocabularyand rhetoric sufficiently opaque to deter all butthe most persistent reader. As a consequence,‘gaining an basic appreciation, not to mention alevel of competence, in the critical mode is moredifficult than it need be’ (Cavanaugh and Prasad,1996, p. 79), and as Grey (1996) suggests criticalwork may have marginalized itself through itslanguage, ‘and arguably, its self-righteousness’ (p. 18).

Assimilation. The contribution of criticalreflection can be just as effectively undermined ifits ideas and propositions are incorporated intoprevailing management discourse.8 Writing andteaching play an equal part in this process and theway ‘critical reflection’ is presented in manage-ment education literature is a case in point. Thedistinction between reflection – reflecting onexperience – and critical reflection – involvingquestions of power and sectional interest – isoften blurred in management literature, ‘criticalreflection’ being used in the weaker sense todescribe thoughtful analysis or problem-solving.Even where the use of the term does imply ref-erence to the social or cultural context the focus isoften limited to the influence these processesexert on individuals’ personal psychology ratherthan to any critical analysis of them. Valuable asthis might be in developing an understanding of individual experience, it does not provide ananalysis of the context in the detail necessary to

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 177

8 For an application of discourse analysis to manage-ment and management education, including referencesto descriptions of different ‘management discourses’,see Fairclough and Hardy (1997).

support more fundamental questioning, let alonerearrangement, of social structures implicated(see Griffin, 1987 for an elaboration of this pos-ition). Stripping reflection of any socio-politicalelement weakens its capacity for analysis andredefinition while leaving a superficial impressionthat a more critical approach has been applied.

In a similar way, the significance of ‘praxis’ hasbeen watered down through assimilation into theconceptual vocabulary of management education,meaning little more than the translation of ideasinto action. Whereas from a critical perspectivepraxis should involve individual or social action asa consequence of questioning assumptions andideologies in relation to history, context and theway these processes intersect social patterns ofpower and privilege (Wilson, 1994). As a result,traditions and practices are either justified orbecome subjects for change. Conversely, conceptssuch as critical reflection or praxis (other casualtiesmight include ‘empowerment’, ‘sustainability’,‘diversity’, ‘culture’) may be incorporated into thevocabulary of management education, but if theirmeaning is diminished in the process, so is theirpotential for helping managers ‘rationally con-struct their own conditions of institutional exist-ence’ (Steffy and Grimes, 1986, p. 330).9

Alvesson and Willmott (1992b) make a similarpoint in relation to both organizational develop-ment practice and much of the thinking aboutwomen in management, in as much as insufficientaccount is taken of the social context in develop-ing an understanding of ‘the more profoundrelationship between gender relations and organ-izational arrangements and goals’ (1992b, p. 453).The inclusion of subjects such as women-in-management and business ethics add a ‘criticaltouch’ without significantly affecting mainstreamunderstanding (Grey and Mitev, 1995, p. 74).Indeed Mills (1997) sees the introduction ofwomen-in-management courses and programmesinto the business school curriculum as serving tomarginalize the study of gender.

Underlying many of these examples of assimila-tion is the tendency to reduce complex socialprocesses to psychological ones. This lies at the

core of organizational analysis in mainstream man-agement education and development (Hollway,1991) and anyone hoping to introduce criticalreflectivity into management learning should take account of the likelihood of its being over-whelmed by this tradition.

The ‘dark side’ – disruptive consequences

Having considered the ways critical reflectionmay be resisted, the second broad category ofpitfalls comprises the consequences which maybefall anyone who does choose to apply its prin-ciples. Engaging in critical reflection can proveunsettling, mentally or emotionally and a sourceof disruption at home or at work. It carries the risk to employment and even – if we includestress-related illness – to life itself. Little seems to have been written about the consequences ofadopting a critical approach in a managementeducation context, and not many accounts fromadult education are available from which to drawparallels. A notable exception is Brookfield’sphenomenographical research (1994), which pro-vides a balance to the unquestioning idealism inmuch of the radical education literature. The doubtsand confusions reported by the postgraduatestudents in Brookfield’s study provide a usefulstarting point in considering the more problem-atical outcomes of introducing people to a criticalperspective.

Brookfield (1994) analysed autobiographicalaccounts of ‘critical thinking episodes’ (from con-versations and personal journals over an eleven-year period) of adult education teachers attendinga postgraduate programme. The teachers wereencouraged to engage in three interrelated pro-cesses which can be summarized as follows:

• questioning assumptions accepted as ‘com-mon sense’ by a dominant majority;

• taking an alternative perspective on social orpolitical structures or on personal or collectiveaction;

• ‘attending to hegemonic aspects of adult edu-cational theory and practice’ – the ways ideasbecome taken-for-granted in professionalthought and action (1994, p. 204).

The students – most of whom were women, andwith ethnic minorities well represented – gaveaccounts of their experience of the programme

178 M. Reynolds

9 More positively however, it might be that if suchterms are adopted into the vocabulary of the workplacea useful bridge may have been constructed, in that theiracceptance, albeit with diminished significance, pro-vides management educators with a starting point fromwhich to develop a more critical analysis.

as empowering and liberating, often amounting towhat Brookfield describes as a process of ‘trans-formative breakthrough’ (p. 205). What providesthe main theme of his paper, however, is the‘darker side’ of students’ experiences as a resultof the dissonance which was generated from crit-ical reflection. These experiences included feel-ings of ‘impostorship’ – doubting one’s worthinessto question the ideas of eminent scholars, feelingsof ‘lost innocence’ as personal taken-for-grantedswere questioned and found wanting, despair incontemplating the consequences of undertaking aradical analysis of their professional context, andthe experience of ‘cultural suicide’ – encounteringother people’s resentment or hostility to theirnew-found enthusiasm for critically questioningaccepted practice.

The experience of Brookfield’s postgraduatesreinforces the concerns of other writers who havebeen alert to the potentially problematical con-sequences of critical pedagogy. It is understand-able that learning which entails the dismantling ofideas or assumptions which up until that pointhad seemed ‘true’ – or true enough to provide abasis for choosing and acting – should be trouble-some. So for example, in encountering the theoryand practice of ‘participative management’, managers who have been convinced by its lesshierarchical interpretation of their professionalroles, have sometimes been unsettled by thedoubts these alternative beliefs also raised abouttheir practices as parents. For some, critical reflec-tion may involve replacing one set of certaintieswith another, but for others the disconfirmationwhich accompanies the fracturing of firmly-held beliefs may result in profound anxiety and aloss of the sense of identity which those earlierbeliefs had supported (Alvesson and Willmott,1992b).

Simon (1992), describing attempts to encour-age graduate students to ‘open up and thinkthrough questions of how education might beunderstood as a moral and political practice aswell as a technical one’, observes that this processnot only raises hope but provokes fear, as ‘oldinvestments’ are questioned and either modifiedor discarded (1992, p. 81). By the same token, it isnot surprising that becoming more aware of thehistorical and contextual forces which have helpedshape our circumstances may, by underminingassumptions of individual autonomy, induce asense of powerlessness.

Hindmarsh (1993) has written about the disap-pointment felt by social workers on a post-graduate programme whose sense of criticallyimproved practice was thwarted on returning towork.

‘Constraints arose from principles dominatingwork settings which opposed those held importantby the graduates. Work settings were experiencedto be characterised by hierarchical decision mak-ing; agency-defined work procedures; practicebased on prescribed tasks and job descriptions;case work; busyness; no change; mono-culturalism,racism and sexism; and task and efficiency super-vision.’ (1993, pp. 106–107)

Disappointments like these are a familiar pitfallin traditional management education, let aloneone designed to encourage critical reflection.Perhaps more so because as Freedman (1996)observes in his comparison of critical manage-ment education with radical social work of the1970s, there is arguably less space in businessorganizations for ‘oppositional practices’ todevelop. Participants’ enthusiasm for changingprofessional practice can result in frustration iftheir aspirations are undermined by disinterestedor unsupportive colleagues. ‘Re-entry’ problems,as they have come to be called, are particularlydiscouraging if the learning is not only about‘things to do’ – skills, solutions to technicalproblems – but involves a change in convictionabout what represents ‘good practice’.

As well as indifference, the graduate studentsin Brookfield’s study met with resentment andsuspicion on returning to work. This consequenceof critical reflection Brookfield called ‘culturalsuicide’, depicting the threat that

‘critical learners perceive that if they take acritical questioning of conventional assumptions,justifications, structures and actions too far theywill risk being excluded from the cultures thathave defined and sustained them up to that pointin their lives.’ (1994, p. 208)

Similar risks of becoming marginalized attendmanagement-development programmes, par-ticularly when managers attend without theircolleagues, underlining the benefits of situatingdevelopment programmes in natural work groupsor at least of setting time aside for ‘applica-tion’ sessions, as for example in the Tavistock In-stitute’s working conferences. Participants have

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 179

an opportunity to consider the possible con-sequences of taking their ideas – and theirenthusiasm – back into the workplace, and to plantheir re-entry with this in mind.

Brookfield’s observations support concernsexpressed by Alvesson and Willmott (1992b)writing in the context of management education.They conjecture how critically reflective em-ployees might appear less ‘motivated’ as a resultof questioning just whose interests are served bystrenuous pursuit of the ‘work ethic’. Women atwork who come to understand how the ‘caring’role is constructed for them as a product oforganizational socialization may be experiencedby their colleagues as more distant. More hazard-ous still, as these authors point out, ‘enhancedecological consciousness and greater freedom and creativity at work – likely priorities emergingfrom emancipatory change – may result in bank-ruptcy and unemployment’ (1992b, p. 448).

The experience of a group of women managerswho had attended a ‘women’s development’ pro-gramme illustrates the (added) risks of hostilityand marginalization from involvement in a morepoliticized approach to management education.They returned from the programme in time for ageneral meeting which had been called for theentire management team. As the group of womenentered the conference room their male col-leagues greeted their arrival with a prolongedslow handclap. Such dark sides of critical reflec-tion can be felt at home as well as at work.Thompson’s account of her ‘second chance forwomen’ programme includes women’s experi-ences of renegotiated and improved relationshipsbut it also contains descriptions of withdrawal of support, and how some women were verballyabused and belittled by their partners (Thompson,1983).

Participants who are thought not to haveunderstood or been willing to accept a criticalapproach can of course become marginalizedwithin the course itself (Simon, 1992). They may be seen as resistant, deluded or mystified(Buckingham, 1996) and by not sharing withtutors and their peers in what Keddy refers to asa ‘reciprocity of perspective’, may be disadvant-aged (Keddy, 1971).

Proposals: reflexivity and responsibilityThe need for reflexivity

It could be argued that any resistance frommanagers to working from a critical perspectiveunderlines the need for reflexivity on the part ofmanagement teachers. How do we present theconcept and purpose of critical reflectivity, and towhom? Do we include those who have the poweror authority to encourage or suppress criticalreflection in rank and file management? Brook-field (1987) has proposed that when introducingcritical reflection to professional people, teachersshould develop a ‘voice’, presenting their ideas inrelation to the professional context. Similarly,Alvesson and Willmott (1992b; 1996) have statedtheir intention to make critical theory ‘morerelevant to the mundane world of managementand organisation’ (1992b, p. 434) and their con-cept of microemancipation – a means of focusingon specific processes in preference for offeringgrand but impracticable prescriptions – contributesto this.

In addition to aiming for clarity in language andconcept Ellsworth (1992) argues for criticaleducators to be explicit about their purpose andto be clear what their specific targets are (whetherhierarchy, institutionalized sexism and so forth)rather than use the idea of critical reflection as a‘cloak of invisibility’ (1992, p. 93). Ellsworth’sproposal raises the more general need for edu-cators to be aware of inconsistencies between anycritical position they espouse and their practice –as expressed in the programme designs, curriculaand their interpretation of roles and relationships.Grey and colleagues support this view and, takingEllsworth’s cautionary observation that the crit-ical perspectives which have informed pedagogicalpractice are often ethnocentric and gendered,warn how students can be marginalized, excludedand disempowered as a result. Consequently, theystress the importance of working to ‘recognize,challenge and have challenged for us, the natureand limitations of our authority’ (Grey et al., 1996,p. 108). Inconsistencies between theory and prac-tice should at least be acknowledged and under-stood, even if they cannot always be reconciled.Such reflexivity, as Grey et al. conclude, is thewhole point of taking a critical position.

Perhaps the clearest case for reflexivity inpostgraduate or post-experience education is inachieving consistency between content and method,

180 M. Reynolds

avoiding the contradiction between a criticallybased curriculum and an educational methodwhich has left the authoritarian nature of staff–student relationships – assessment proceduresincluded – undisturbed (Reynolds, 1997b). With-out addressing this anomaly, references to criticalreflection and even application of its principles instudent essays, examination answers and projectreports may simply indicate successful cue-seeking (Miller and Parlett, 1974), studentsreproducing without conviction the conceptualvocabulary they expect to be rewarded. In thesame way, adopting a different ‘managementstyle’ as a result of an organizational-change pro-gramme does not necessarily reflect commitmentto it but could merely indicate an understandingof what must be done to survive if not to succeed.Academics have their own hidden curriculum, of course, and may adopt the rhetoric of criticalreflection in writing and teaching without neces-sarily translating its principles into their own edu-cational practice, resulting in the inconsistenciesbetween content and process described earlier.

Collins (1991) extends this argument in makingthe case for critical educators to be aware of in-consistencies between the content of their teach-ing and the structures and procedures of theirinstitutions. Hollway (1991), critical of the aca-demic tradition of assumed neutrality, points outthat academics are employees too and it wouldhelp if they were generally more reflective abouttheir institutional context. It is equally importantfor educators to be conscious of who they are – interms of gender, race, age and institutional status,how this relates to the critical focus of theirteaching and how in turn it effects the credibilitystudents are prepared to attach to what they haveto say (Ellsworth, 1992).

Questions of responsibility

The proposition that teachers should feelresponsible for the effects of learning on students’state of mind is not given much attention inhigher education. Tutors and student counsellorsare more likely to concern themselves with howwell students are coping with the intellectual leveland workloads demanded of them. Critical reflec-tion on the other hand, is likely to be associatedwith disconfirmation and discontinuity and notsimply with an incremental acquisition of ideasand information. Indeed, an absence of some

degree of intellectual disruption might indicatethat critical ideas are not being engaged with.

The academic tradition, which implies thatideas can be seen as separate from the personwho holds them, hardly provides the supportnecessary for students who experience the moredisruptive effects of engaging in critical reflection– anxiety, loss of self identity or marginalization.Indeed, such possibilities raise questions for edu-cators about whether they are either inevitable ordefensible. Thayer-Bacon (1993) proposes analternative approach to critique for both tutorsand students which is in the spirit of valuing andcaring for other’s ideas – whether in disagreementor in agreement. She makes the point that

‘if we do not teach students that a critical thinkeris also a caring person, many voices will continueto be silenced and excluded from the conversationbecause their worth will not be recognised.’ (1993,p. 331)

Brookfield (1994) makes a case for tutors to beaware of the more disruptive consequences andthat where there are risks to emotional well-beingor to job security, students should be in a positionto make an informed choice as to whether to en-gage in critical reflection or not. But this assumesthat critical reflection is necessarily planned andpredictable, which cannot hold true for all circum-stances. Nevertheless, a significant finding fromBrookfield’s study is the value which post-graduate students placed on a supportive peercommunity, helping each other to be aware of thepossibilities of disappointment and powerlessnesson returning to work. While this level of supportmight emerge naturally within the student group,management teachers could at least make it partof their initial educational design. A descriptionfrom one of the postgraduate students in Brook-field’s study illustrates the value of support in thecontext of critical reflection.

‘If I hadn’t had this group I don’t think I could havemade it. They pulled me through some bad times,boosted my confidence when I thought I was donefor – and I tried to help them out in return, youknow pay something back maybe.’ (1994, p. 213)

Conclusion

In their description of a management coursebased on a critical pedagogy, Grey et al. (1996)

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 181

note the institutional and professional pressureswhich potentially undermine its aims – resourceshortages which constrain method, and the im-position of ‘managerialist’ notions of relevance by which teaching and research is increasinglyevaluated. The review in this paper deals with the more problematical consequences of a criticalpedagogy but hopefully, also provides somepointers for its introduction.

The discussion of resistance and assimilationhighlights the importance of reflexivity, for writersand teachers to be aware of how they present acritical perspective and the extent to which theyapply it to their own practice, resisting the literaryaffectations which have come to characterize theways academics write for each other, and lookingfor consistency between word and deed. Just asimportant is to guard against the assumption thatthe critical approach – as broadly defined in thispaper – is the exclusive domain of academics.

It is worth making the point that simplisticassumptions that associate disconfirmation withexperiential or other less conventional approachesto teaching, are unreliable (Boot and Reynolds,1997). The potential for disturbance of some kindis a possibility all management teachers shouldconsider if they are encouraging critical reflect-ivity – regardless of the methods used. Theimportant choice is not between methods so muchas between either engaging with critical reflectionor avoiding it. And whether challenging existingvalues and beliefs through experiential methods,a critically informed curriculum content or a com-bination of these, the responsibilities of a man-agement educator should include being alert tothe possibilities of troublesome – if ultimatelywelcome – consequences.

The possibility of disruptive consequences formanagers’ and students’ intellectual, emotionaland social lives through adopting a critical per-spective has implications for the degree ofresponsibility accepted by teachers in introducingit. There are however participative methodologiesin current use which have the potential to providethe peer support which Brookfield’s studyidentified as playing an important role in helpingpostgraduate professionals anticipate and copewith these consequences. For example, actionlearning (Pedler, 1997; Willmott, 1997) with itsemphasis on groups of managers working in self-managed learning ‘sets’, or the learning commu-nity (Reynolds, 1997b) similarly based on notions

of individual choice and collective responsibility,provide opportunities for critical reflection basedon a supportive community of peers. In the con-text of the workplace, Myerson and Scully’s ideaof the ‘tempered radical’ is helpful for peoplehoping to stand for their beliefs without becomingmarginalized, ‘struggling to act in ways that areappropriate professionally and authentic person-ally and politically’ (1995, p. 587).

There is a residual dilemma for teachers com-mitted to a critical pedagogy. It arises from theinevitable tension between its democratic prin-ciples and the authority conventionally vested inthe educator’s role. The stronger their conviction,the greater the risk of assuming a position ofenlightened superiority, of ‘knowing what’s goodfor them’ which becomes a new, and coercive,orthodoxy, or ‘doctrinaire blueprint’ (Grey, 1996,p. 17). In any case as Grey argues, the recon-struction of management education should beinfluenced by managers’ understanding of theircircumstance and context, a position which reflectsBurgoyne’s (1995) ideal of engaged criticality.

In arguing for a more critical perspective inmanagement education, Reed and Anthony (1992)call management teachers to account, insisting ontheir responsibility ‘to recover their institutionaland pedagogical nerve’ (1992, p. 610) in sup-porting managers in critical reflection of theirwork and its purposes, notwithstanding theinherent conflicts of interests which may come tolight. The function of management educationshould not be to help managers fit unquestion-ingly into the roles traditionally expected of thembut to assist them in engaging with the social andmoral issues inherent within existing manage-ment practice and to become more conscious ofthe ideological forces which constrain their actions.The pitfalls and dilemmas which may confrontmanagement teachers who intend to encouragecritical reflection through dialogue with col-leagues and with students should not be avoided.They are nettles to be grasped if critical reflectionis to be a significant feature of managers’ education.

‘People might have persuasive reasons for refus-ing emancipatory invitations, including both fearof failure and fear of “successful” emancipation.These fears can only be addressed if they are fully recognized, not dismissively swept away as“irrationality”.’ (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996, p. 174)

182 M. Reynolds

ReferencesAlvesson, M. and H. Willmott (eds) (1992a). Critical Manage-

ment Studies. Sage, New York.Alvesson, M. and H. Willmott (1992b). ‘On the Idea of

Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies’,Academy of Management Review, 17(3), pp. 432–464.

Alvesson, M. and H. Willmott (1996). Making Sense ofManagement: A Critical Introduction. Sage, London.

Anthony, P. D. (1986). The Foundation of Management.Tavistock, London.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education: a Critical Business. TheSociety for Research into Higher Education and OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham.

Boot, R. L. and M. Reynolds (1997). ‘Groups, Groupworkand Beyond’. In: J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds),Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theoryand Practice. Sage, London.

Bowers, C. A. (1991). ‘Some Questions about the Ana-chronistic Elements in the Giroux-McLaren Theory of aCritical Pedagogy’, Curriculum Inquiry, 21(2), pp. 240–251.

Brah, A. and J. Hoy (1989). ‘Experiential Learning: a NewOrthodoxy’. In: S. W. Weil and I. McGill (eds), MakingSense of Experiential Learning. SRHE and Open UniversityPress, Milton Keynes.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers. OpenUniversity Press, Milton Keynes.

Brookfield, S. D. (1994). ‘Tales from the Dark Side: aPhenomenography of Adult Critical Reflection’, Inter-national Journal of Lifelong Education, 13(3), pp. 203–216.

Buckingham, D. (1996). ‘Critical Pedagogy and MediaEducation: a Theory in Search of Practice’, Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 28(6), pp. 627–650.

Burgoyne, J. G. (1995). ‘The Case for an Optimistic, Con-structivist and Applied Approach to Management Education:A Response to Grey and Mitev’, Management Learning,26(1), pp. 91–102.

Caproni, P. J. and M. E. Arias (1997). ‘Managerial SkillsTraining from a Critical Perspective’, Journal of Manage-ment Education, 21(3), pp. 292–308.

Cavanaugh, J. M. and A. Prasad (1996). ‘Critical Theory andManagement Education: Some Strategies for the CriticalClassroom’. In: R. French and C. Grey (eds), RethinkingManagement Education. Sage, London.

Collins, M. (1991). Adult Education as Vocation: a CriticalRole for the Adult Educator in Today’s Society. Routledge,London.

Ellsworth, E. (1992). ‘Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering?Working Through the Repressive Myths of CriticalPedagogy’. In: C. Luke and J. M. Gore (eds), Feminisms andCritical Pedagogy. Routledge, New York.

Fairclough, N. and V. Hardy (1997). ‘Management Learning asDiscourse’. In: J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds), Manage-ment Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory andPractice. Sage, London.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science. Polity Press, Cambridge.Forester, J. (1992). ‘Critical Ethnography: on Fieldwork in a

Habermasian Way’. In: M. Alvesson and H. Willmott,Critical Management Studies. Sage, New York.

Freedman, P. (1996). ‘Haven’t We Been Here Before? Ex-plorations in Critical Management Education’, Unpublishedpaper, Southampton Institute.

Gibson, R. (1986). Critical Theory and Education. Hodder andStoughton, London.

Giroux, H. A. (1981). Ideology, Culture, and the Process ofSchooling. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Giroux, H. A. and P. McLaren (1987). ‘Teacher Education as a Counter-Public Sphere: Notes Towards Redefinition’.In: T. S. Popkewitz (ed.), Critical Studies in TeacherEducation, pp. 266–297. Falmer Press, London.

Gore, J. M. (1993). The Struggle for Pedagogies. Routledge,New York.

Grey, C. (1996). ‘Introduction’ (to special section on critiqueand renewal in management education), ManagementLearning, 26(1), pp. 7–20.

Grey, C. and R. French (1996). ‘Rethinking ManagementEducation: An Introduction’. In: R. French and C. Grey(eds), Rethinking Management Education. Sage, London.

Grey, C. and N. Mitev (1995). ‘Management Education: a Polemic’, Management Learning, 26(1), pp. 73–90.

Grey, C., D. Knights and H. Willmott (1996). ‘Is a CriticalPedagogy of Management Possible?’ In: R. French and C. Grey (eds), Rethinking Management Education. Sage,London.

Griffin, C. (1987). Education as Social Policy. Croom Helm,London.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests.Heinemann, London.

Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and Practice. Beacon Press, Boston.Hindmarsh, J. H. (1993). ‘Tensions and Dichotomies between

Theory and Practice: a Study of Alternative Formulations’,International Journal of Lifelong Education, 12(2), pp. 101–115.

Hollway, W. (1991). Work Psychology and OrganizationalBehaviour. Sage, London.

Hudson, A. (1983). ‘The Politics of Experiential Learning’. In:R. L. Boot and M. Reynolds (eds), Learning and Experiencein Formal Education. Manchester Monographs, Universityof Manchester, Manchester.

Jackall, R. (1988). The Moral Mazes: The World of CorporateManagers. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Keddy, N. (1971). ‘Classroom Knowledge’. In: M. F. D. Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control. Collier-Macmillan,New York.

Kemmis, S. (1985). ‘Action Research and the Politics of Reflec-tion’. In: D. Boud, R. Keogh and D. Walker (eds), Reflection:Turning Experience into Learning. Kogan Page, London.

Marsick, V. (1988). ‘Learning in the Workplace. The Case forReflectivity and Critical Reflectivity’, Adult EducationQuarterly, 38(4), Summer, pp. 187–198.

Miller, C. M. L. and M. Parlett (1974). Up to the Mark: a Studyof the Examination Game. Society for Research into HigherEducation, London.

Miller, J. (1993). The Passion of Michel Foucault. Harper-Collins, London.

Mills, A. (1997). ‘Gender, Bureaucracy, and the BusinessCurriculum’, Journal of Management Education, 21(3), pp. 325–342.

Myerson, D. E. and M. A. Scully (1995). ‘Tempered Radical-ism and the Politics of Radicalism and Change’, Organ-ization Science, 6(5), pp. 585–600.

Nord, W. R. and J. M. Jermier (1992). ‘Critical Social ScienceFor Managers? Promising and Perverse Possibilities’. In: M. Alvesson and H. Willmott, Critical ManagementStudies. Sage, New York.

Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management Pedagogy 183

Pedler, M. (ed.) (1997). Action Learning in Practice. Gower,Aldershot.

Prasad, P. and P. J. Caproni (1997). ‘Critical Theory in theManagement Classroom: Engaging Power, Ideology, andPraxis’, Journal of Management Education, 21(3), pp. 284–291.

Reed, M. and P. Anthony (1992). ‘Professionalizing Manage-ment and Managing Professionalization: British Managementin the 1980’s’, Journal of Management Studies, 29(Sept), pp. 591–613.

Reynolds, M. (1997a). ‘Learning Styles: a Critique’, Manage-ment Learning, 28(2), pp. 115–133.

Reynolds, M. (1997b). ‘Towards a Critical ManagementPedagogy’. In: J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds), Man-agement Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory andPractice. Sage, London.

Reynolds, M. (1998). ‘Reflection and Critical Reflection inManagement Learning’, Management Learning, 29(2), pp. 183–200.

Roberts, J. (1996). ‘Management Education and the Limits ofTechnical Rationality: The Conditions and Consequences ofManagement Practice’. In: R. French and C. Grey (eds),Rethinking Management Education. Sage, London.

Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching Against the Grain. Bergin andGarvey, New York.

Sinclair, A. (1995). ‘Sex and the MBA’, Organization, 2(2), pp. 295–317.

Soltis, J. F. (1993). ‘Democracy and Teaching’, Journal ofPhilosophy of Education, 27(2), pp. 149–158.

Stablein, R. and W. Nord (1985). ‘Practical and EmancipatoryInterests in Organisational Symbolism: a Review andEvaluation’, Journal of Management, 11(2), pp. 13–28.

Steffy, B. D. and A. J. Grimes (1986). ‘A Critical Theory ofOrganisational Science’, Academy of Management Review,11(2), pp. 322–336.

Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (1993). ‘Caring and its Relationship to Critical Thinking’, Educational Theory. 43(3), pp. 323–340.

Thompson, J. (1983). Learning Liberation: Women’s Responseto Men’s Education. Croom Helm, London.

Thompson, J. and J. McGivern (1996). ‘Parody, Process and Practice: Perspectives for Management Education?’,Management Learning, 27(1), pp. 21–35.

Vince, R. (1996). ‘Experiential Management Education as thePractice of Change’. In: R. French and C. Grey (eds),Rethinking Management Education. Sage, London.

Watson, T. J. (1994). In Search of Management: Culture, Chaosand Control in Managerial Work. Routledge, London.

Watson, T. J. (1996). ‘How Do Managers Think? Identity,Morality and Pragmatism in Managerial Theory andPractice’, Management Learning, 27(3), pp. 323–341.

Welton, W. R. (1995). In defence of Lifeworld: Critical Perspec-tives on Adult Education. State University of New YorkPress, Albany.

Willmott, H. (1994). ‘Management Education, Provocations toa Debate’, Management Learning, 25(1), pp. 105–136.

Willmott, H. (1997). ‘Critical Management Learning’. In: J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds), Management Learn-ing: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Sage,London.

Wilson, A. L. (1994). ‘To a Middle Ground: Praxis and Ideo-logy in Adult Education’, International Journal of LifelongEducation, 13(3), pp. 187–202.

184 M. Reynolds