An invitation – to discuss the impact of the DMan on your practice and leadership
Douglas Board and I are two graduates of the DMan programme, graduating with our doctorates in 2010. Since then new avenues have opened up for us both. One joint piece of work is a book commission from Palgrave Macmillan: it is likely to be called The Social Development of Knowledge and Leadership.
At this year’s CMC conference we are looking invite you to a conversation around the following: for those people who have experienced the DMan programme (current, past and even prospective) how has the deeply reflexive process changed and how does it continue to change your leadership? Linked to this we are also interested to explore how your developing leadership has affected those whom you work and interact with. And, what does this say about our knowledge of organisations and what we all do together in the process of organising?
It would be great to share narratives or ideas on this, even before the CMC conference is underway. Please feel free to post your thoughts here and to get others involved, or to drop me a note directly, particularly if you would like to hear more of our ‘project’.
The following is an abridged version of the talk given at the Complexity and Management Conference on 6th June 2010.
What would it mean for the practice of management education and research if we were to take up the ideas in the body of thought we are calling complex responsive processes of relating? How do the ideas in complex responsive processes of relating compare and contrast with critical management studies, for example?
Drawing on an eminent exponent of critical management studies (CMS) such as Mats Alvesson as an example, we would find that complex responsive processes and CMS share a lot in common. Both are concerned to engage in critical reflection on institutions; both resist the strong pressures of normalisation; both would entertain the idea that all knowledge creation is political, value-laden and interest-based. Alvesson’s ‘4 I’ framework (identity, institutions, interests and ideology) is a very helpful way for organisational researchers to think about the research they are undertaking (how are identities being constructed in this episode of organisational life; how are people engaged in thinking about the institution; whose interests are being served and what does this say about the ideological claims?). Alvesson encourages reflection and reflexivity as a way of producing complex and rounded accounts of organisational life, accounts which are ‘rich in points’. Continue reading →