Critically Reflective

 See attachment for instructions: 

* 3 or 4 paragraphs in length

* No plagiarism

* APA citing 

* Due within 48 hours

Critical Reflective Assignment

Cohesive response based on your analysis of the “Critical Reflective by Ann” see pdf and your professional experience.

Be sure to discuss the following:

· Your assumptions and interpretations of critically reflective practice, as discussed within the Cunliffe (2016) article.

· Your role as a leader in your professional life or within your community and how the critically reflective practice can benefit you.

· Be sure to support your ideas by connecting them to the “Critical Reflective reading, as well as other credible resources you have read, or what you have observed and experienced.

· 3 or 4 paragraphs in length, as a general expectation/estimate.

· No plagiarism

· APA citing

Journal of Management Education
2016, Vol. 40(6) 747 –768

© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1052562916674465

jme.sagepub.com

Lasting Impact Award 2016

Republication of “On
Becoming a Critically
Reflexive Practitioner”

Ann L. Cunliffe1

Abstract
Critically reflexive practice embraces subjective understandings of reality as a
basis for thinking more critically about the impact of our assumptions, values,
and actions on others. Such practice is important to management education,
because it helps us understand how we constitute our realities and identities
in relational ways and how we can develop more collaborative and responsive
ways of managing organizations. This article offers three ways of stimulating
critically reflexive practice: (a) an exercise to help students think about the
socially constructed nature of reality, (b) a map to help situate reflective
and reflexive practice, and (c) an outline and examples of critically reflexive
journaling.

Keywords
reflexivity, social constructionism, journals, ethics

Setting the Scene: Definitions and Reasons

What is critically reflexive practice and why is it important to manage-
ment education? Pollner (1991) defined reflexivity as “an ‘unsettling,’i.e.,

1California State University—Hayward, Hayward, CA, USA

This article was original published as: Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically
reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426. (Original
doi:10.1177/1052562904264440)

Corresponding Author:
Ann L. Cunliffe, Department of Public Administration, California State University—Hayward,
Hayward, CA 94542, USA.
Email: acunliff@csuhayward.edu

674465 JMEXXX10.1177/1052562916674465Journal of Management EducationCunliffe
research-article2016

mailto:acunliff@csuhayward.edu

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1052562916674465&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-10-24

748 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

an insecurity regarding the basic assumptions, discourse and practices
used in describing reality” (p. 370). In practical terms, this means exam-
ining critically the assumptions underlying our actions, the impact of
those actions, and from a broader perspective, what passes as good man-
agement practice. The concept of reflexivity has been debated across a
variety of disciplines including sociology, the natural sciences, and psy-
chology (e.g., Clifford, 1986; Gergen, 1994; Latour, 1988) and more
recently in organization and management studies (e.g., Calás & Smircich,
1999; Chia, 1996b; Hardy & Clegg, 1997; Weick, 1995). However, it is
often difficult to translate the conceptual and theoretical aspects into
practical implications for managing. In this article, I suggest that the prac-
tice of critical reflexivity is of particular importance to management edu-
cation because by thinking more critically about our own assumptions and
actions, we can develop more collaborative, responsive, and ethical ways
of managing organizations.

If we accept that management education is not just about helping man-
agers become more effective organizational citizens but also about helping
them become critical thinkers and moral practitioners, then critical reflex-
ivity is of particular relevance. Managers and administrators influence oth-
ers—individuals, communities, societies, and the environment (Reynolds,
1999). They find themselves dealing with accelerating rates of change,
uncertainty, and ambiguity and often work in politicized organizations
where they have to deal with a wide variety of ethical issues. Recent scan-
dals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom, the FBI’s response to information on terror-
ist activity) have raised questions about the nature of ethical action and the
pressures managers face when trying to act in morally responsible ways.
Consequently, it is becoming more important to develop different ways of
thinking, organizing, managing, and relating to people. Critically reflexive
practice offers a way of surfacing these pressures by encouraging us to
examine the assumptions that decisions are justified solely on the basis of
efficiency and profit, that there is one rational way of managing, that main-
taining current managerial practice is paramount, and that as professionals
we know what is best for others. In examining these assumptions, we can
uncover their limitations and possibilities, become less prone to becoming
complacent or ritualistic in our thoughts and actions, and develop a greater
awareness of different perspectives and possibilities and of the need to
transform old ways of theorizing and managing. In this article, I explore
three ways in which we can help our students become critically reflexive
practitioners.

Cunliffe 749

Critical reflexivity draws upon very different ways of thinking about the
nature of reality as well as a different way of thinking about management
learning. In particular, it means focusing on three issues:

Existential: Who am I and what kind of person do I want to be?

Relational: How do I relate to others and to the world around me?

Praxis: The need for self-conscious and ethical action based on a critical
questioning of past actions and of future possibilities (Jun, 1994).

It is crucial for educators and students to recognize these issues, because
otherwise critical reflexivity becomes just another technique rather than a
philosophy-driven practice in which we take responsibility for creating our
social and organizational realities. In the following section, I outline the
assumptions of reality underlying critical reflexivity and their impact on ped-
agogy and learning. In the remainder of the article, I draw on these assump-
tions to offer ways of helping students become critically reflexive
practitioners.

Assumptions Underlying Critically Reflexive
Practice: Implications for Learning

The work of Paulo Freire (1972) was instrumental in drawing attention to the
need for critically reflexive practice in education. He suggested that tradi-
tional pedagogies are often emphasized at the expense of critical pedagogies
and that we need to redress the balance. Each draws upon different assump-
tions about the nature of reality and leads to a different way of teaching.
Freire argued that traditional pedagogies encompass the banking approach to
learning and assume that:

•• Social reality is objective. There are things out there we act into, for
example, organizational structures, norms, behaviors, and ideologies.

•• Learning is a disembodied, structured, cognitive activity. In other words,
learning takes place inside the head as an intellectual activity in which
mind and body, intellect and emotion, thinking and acting are separate.

•• We can apply knowledge to practice and use it to change situations,
people, and events. We therefore teach techniques, principles, and
models that can be used to align individual actions with the organiza-
tional goals of efficiency and effectiveness.

750 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

Teachers therefore deposit information with students who learn to see the
world in objective ways and separate knowing and being. In practical terms,
this often means teaching management and administration as a system and set
of principles; as relationships involving authority, control, and accountabil-
ity; as a process of making and implementing objective rational decisions;
and as a concern with means rather than questioning ends. Critical thinking,
as commonly defined, is also based on this idea that there is a reality out there
that we can analyze in a systematic way, using established conceptual knowl-
edge, and to which we can apply universal, rational standards (Caproni &
Arias, 1997; Elder & Paul, 2001). This way of thinking still requires us to
separate ourselves from reality and think about situations objectively, that is,
thinking about reality. In essence, traditional approaches take the person and
subjectivity out of management theory.

Freire (1972) suggested that a critical pedagogy is one that transforms
reality and unites critical thinking and dialogue to develop a more humanistic
approach to learning—one that puts a self-conscious being able to think criti-
cally about the impact of his or her actions firmly at the center of learning. I
wish to develop the idea of critically reflexive practice by linking Freire’s
ideas with social constructionist conceptions of reality. This is particularly
important because critically reflexive practitioners hold subjective under-
standings of reality and think about the impact of their own actions in creat-
ing reality and knowledge, that is, thinking in realities.

Social constructionism gained prominence with the work of Goffman
(1959), Garfinkel (1967), and Berger and Luckmann (1967). Contemporary
authors have assessed the implications of social constructionism for our orga-
nizational lives (e.g., Cunliffe, 2001; Gergen, 1994; Hatch 1997; McNamee
& Gergen, 1999; Watson 1994; Weick, 1995). Essentially, it is based on the
notion that our social realities and sense of self are created between us in our
everyday interactions and conversations—through our oral and written lan-
guage. This reality-constituting process is ongoing and never fully under our
control, because it emerges in the spontaneous, taken-forgranted, nonverbal/
verbal, subjective, un/conscious ways in which we respond, react, and nego-
tiate meaning with others. Our knowledge of the world is also constructed
through our interaction, and we make sense of what is happening around us
as we interact with our surroundings (Prasad & Caproni, 1997). Knowledge
is not just theory or information; it also incorporates knowing from within, a
tacit practical consciousness of everyday sense making in which we implic-
itly know things about our surroundings (people, places, actions) and act
from this (Giddens, as discussed in Pleasants, 1996; Shotter, 1993). Thus, a
self-conscious person is at the center of understanding and learning; as

Cunliffe 751

Gouldner (1970) said, “There is no knowledge of the world that is not a
knowledge of our own experience of it and in relationship to it” (p. 28).

From a social constructionist perspective, learning also becomes an embod-
ied (whole body), responsive understanding in which we become more aware
of, and skilled in, constituting and maintaining our realities and identities. In
practical terms, we can equate learning with moments in which we are “struck”
(Wittgenstein, 1980, p. 85) and moved to change our ways of talking and act-
ing. Essentially, being struck involves our spontaneous response (emotional,
physiological, and cognitive) to the events or relationships occurring around
us. It may result from a comment, an event, a sense of unease or anxiety (Vince,
1998), or an aha! moment. This terminology can be very powerful in helping
students recognize and work through learning opportunities. Both they, and we,
use the language intuitively: “I was struck by the idea that . . . “ and “What
struck you about this reading?” Once students recognize that people are struck
by different issues, they may become more tolerant of different perspectives, of
the idea that we are each responsible for our own learning, and of the impor-
tance of developing their own skills as critically reflexive practitioners.

To contrast these assumptions with the banking ones outlined previously:

•• We construct our social realities and sense of self between us in our
everyday interactions.

•• We utilize taken-for-granted ways of sense making that draw on the
flow of our everyday activity—a “knowing-from-within” (Shotter,
1993, p. 18) or tacit form of knowing (Polanyi, 1966). Learning is an
embodied, responsive process that may arise from being struck.

•• Thus, instead of applying theory to practice, critical reflexivity empha-
sizes praxis—questioning our own assumptions and taken-for-granted
actions, thinking about where/who we are and where/who we would
like to be, challenging our conceptions of reality, and exploring new
possibilities.

From this perspective, teaching focuses on enabling students to think more
critically about themselves, their assumptions, actions, and situations they
encounter; to see multiple interpretations and constructions of reality; and to
see praxis as a relational activity in which we question our actions and work
with others to achieve collaborative and ethical goals (French & Grey, 1996;
Giroux, 1988; Jun, 1994).

In the remainder of the article, I offer ways of teaching critical reflexiv-
ity: first by outlining a map that helps situate and define critically reflexive
practice, second by helping learners grasp the underlying suppositions of

752 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

intersubjective realities through a simple class activity, and third by offering
excerpts from student journals to illustrate how writing can help students
think in critically reflexive ways. These three practices offer ways of helping
students recognize the role they play in constituting their everyday organiza-
tional realities for developing critically reflexive practice.

Developing Critically Reflexive Practice

How can we help students understand the socially constructed nature of
experience and the need to think and act in critically reflexive ways? We
can develop critically reflexive practice by encouraging students to think
about how they, with others, construct realities and identities. The supposi-
tions and approaches to learning outlined above are complex and very dif-
ferent from the educational experiences of the majority of students. It is
therefore important to build up to critical reflexivity and to situate it in
practical circumstances. When doing so, I find it useful to introduce two
ideas early in my courses (undergraduate and graduate Organizational
Behavior and Organizational Change courses). I refer to Schön’s (1983)
idea of “reflective practitioners” before moving on to critically reflexive
practice. Students also find Argyris’s (1982, 1991) distinction between
single- and double-loop learning useful and often refer back to his 1991
article throughout the course. They readily identify single-loop learning as
reflective (problem solving, identifying, and correcting errors) and begin
to think about double-loop learning (thinking more critically about behav-
ior; questioning assumptions, values, and espoused theories; disconfirm-
ing, inventing, producing, and evaluating new theories in action) as the
beginning of critical reflexivity.

Throughout the course, I try to be deliberately opportunistic and introduce
critical reflexivity by asking the following questions (or different versions) at
opportune moments:

•• What is reality? Do we each see reality in the same way?
•• What is knowledge?
•• What is theory?

and by highlighting multiple perspectives. Three teaching practices I find par-
ticularly useful in helping students develop their skills as critically reflexive
practitioners are (a) the idea of reflex interaction/reflective analysis/ critically
reflexive questioning, (b) a class activity to highlight a different way of thinking
about how we constitute reality, and (c) the use of critically reflexive journals.

Cunliffe 753

A Map: Reflex Interaction, Reflective Analysis,
Critically Reflexive Questioning

Figure 1 helps students grasp the different ways we make sense of
experience.

Reflex interaction refers to the instantaneous, unselfconscious, reactingin-
the-moment dialogue and action that characterizes much of our experience.
We respond to other people on the basis of instinct, habit, and/or memory
(reflex), and in doing so, we draw intuitively on our tacit knowing (Polanyi,
1966) and on who we are. Much of our interaction is reflex—routine, habit-
ual actions, and immediate responses to those around us. As we talk we
respond to the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of others, often in an intuitive,
subconscious way. Reflex interaction is therefore a primitive preordering or
state of unawareness connected with an image, emotion, and moment of
being struck. Our learning depends on our ability to take this reflex interac-
tion further and reflect on or in the process.

Typically, when talking about reflective analysis, we are assuming that
there is an object to reflect upon—something we can think about, categorize,
and explain. Reflective analysis (single-loop learning) means creating order
and making connections, often using theory to help us see our practice in dif-
ferent ways (Bailey, Saparito, Kressel, Christensen, & Hooijberg, 1997).
Schön (1983) best summarized this form of analysis when he talked about
reflection in action as an objective, analytical process in which we make con-
nections and construct an understanding of a situation by testing “intuitive
understandings of experienced phenomena” (p. 241). Reflective analysis can
be both retrospective—making sense of something that happened in the past
and examining reasons why we made a decision or acted in a particular

Figure 1. Reflex Interaction, Reflective Analysis, and Critically Reflexive
Questioning.

754 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

way—and anticipatory—planning our future actions. It draws on traditional
assumptions of objective reality as a basis for a reasoned, impartial assess-
ment of action or ideologies using universal principles or values (Mezirow,
1998). Much of what we do in the classroom incorporates reflective analysis:
We ask students to use theory and principles to discuss and analyze case stud-
ies, reflect on questions or problems, and observe and analyze role plays.
These reflective conversations can be important in processing learning,
because they help us make sense and develop new understandings of situa-
tions. I offer an example of reflective analysis in a student journal (I discuss
the format and use of journals later):

I feel our group is in the process of socialization among the members. Pascale
(1985) describes socialization as the “process in which individuals become
members of the group, learning the ropes, and being taught how one must
communicate and interact to get things done.” All individuals within our group
are experimenting with ways to create an effective and efficient team.
…Following Pascale’s steps of socialization, it becomes apparent that the first
exam served as a “humility inducing” experience for the group. . . . Creating a
multicultural group (Cox, 1991) will provide significant benefits to group
interaction and eventually lead to a shared vision (Senge, 1990). (Journal
Excerpt 1)

The writer is reflecting upon the group as an objective entity. He speaks
seemingly as an outside observer and applies theory to make sense of his
experience.

I use a simple activity to illustrate the difference between reflex interac-
tion and reflective analysis. I ask students to fold their arms, and then I ask
them to fold their arms the opposite way. The former is reflex interaction,
something we do without having to think about how we do it; it is comfort-
able, habitual, and unselfconscious. Most of us have to think about folding
our arms the opposite way—we must reflect on how we position and inter-
weave our arms—and the outcome is not always comfortable.

The difference between reflective analysis and critically reflexive ques-
tioning is more complex. Whereas reflective analysis draws on traditional
assumptions that there is an objective reality that we can analyze using logic
and theory, critically reflexive questioning draws on social constructionist
assumptions to highlight subjective, multiple, constructed realities. This
means exploring how we might contribute to the construction of social and
organizational realities, how we relate with others, and how we construct our
ways of being in the world. Critically reflexive questioning also means
exposing contradictions, doubts, dilemmas, and possibilities (see Hardy &
Palmer, 1999, for further discussion). In doing so, we can expose unspoken

Cunliffe 755

assumptions that influence (unconsciously or otherwise) our actions and
interactions: We can surface silences in conversations—what is not said or
interpretations that may remain hidden or unspoken (Martin, 1990). Critically
reflexive practitioners therefore question the ways in which they act and
develop knowledge about their actions. This means highlighting ideologies
and tacit assumptions—exploring how our own actions, conversational prac-
tices, and ways of making sense create our sense of reality. A critically reflex-
ive stance can be seen in the student journal excerpt below:

My expectations (espoused theories) and my knowledge proved to be incorrect.
Today I feel as though I have shared too openly and trusted too much. In turn,
I feel that there is nothing left in disguise and I feel vulnerable—the reciprocal
relationship [between the student and other course members] is lacking (Cohen
& Bradford, 1989). The more I offer, the more taken for granted my source of
information seems to become (at least in my mind), and therefore the lesser the
value of my perceived influence. When I desire clarification or need assistance,
I am often puzzled by the reaction [of course members] to my attempts at open
discussion. . . . Through all of this, I have still not altered my behavior. My
desire to share and communicate openly overpowers my feeling of exclusion
(Hall, 1973). Why? (Journal Excerpt 2)

In this example of critically reflexive questioning, the student discusses con-
tradictions, doubts, dilemmas, and (later in the journal) possibilities (Chia,
1996a). Whereas reflective analysis is concerned with a systematic searching
for patterns, logic, and order, critically reflexive questioning opens up our
own practices and assumptions as a basis for working toward more critical,
responsive, and ethical action.

Grasping the Nature of Intersubjective Realities:
A Class Activity1

A short activity I find particularly useful in helping students think about how we
construct our realities is one I first saw demonstrated in a session on the relation-
ship between improvisation and organization theory at the Academy of
Management in 1999. I ask for four volunteers to stand at the front of class. The
rules are (a) no one can speak; (b) at any given time, one person has to stand, one
sit, one lean (on a chair, desk, or other person), and one fold their arms; and (c)
participants may stay in one position for no longer than 20 seconds. The activity
lasts for 2 to 3 minutes. I initially ask the audience for their observations and
then ask participants to comment, summarizing both on a flip chart. These com-
ments form the basis for drawing out ideas about the constructed and responsive
nature of reality, the tacit aspects of knowledge, and reflex interaction. This

756 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

provides a basis for further discussion of the ideas in Figure 1 and leads in to the
journals and how critically reflexive questioning means writing from within
experience. Table 1 provides a list of questions and some typical responses.

The instructor can help students make connections between the activity,
their comments, and the socially constructed nature of reality by discussing
the following issues:

•• We constitute our realities in spontaneous and taken-for-granted ways.
Each movement is unique and creative, as are our daily conversations
and interactions. We experience socially shared moments that we are
not able to anticipate or plan. This means our actions and conversa-
tions are never wholly the same. There may be some repetition, but the
unique peculiarities of each interaction call out different responses
from people. This constitutes much of our social interaction.

•• Interactions are responsive relationships (Bakhtin, 1986). We act in
response to others and our surroundings. We react to eye contact,
movement, and facial expressions. Some of this is reflex—spontane-
ous reactions—and some reflective. As we begin to pick up patterns in
others’ behavior, we can coordinate our own responses. We are sensi-
tive to, yet not necessarily fully conscious of, movement; that is, we
gain an implicit understanding of what others are doing, although we
may not be able to articulate it. These ideas can be applied to our day-
to-day interactions.

•• There is intertwined complexity in what may seem like a simple activ-
ity. We are not wholly responsible for our own actions, because we act
in response to others and they act in response to us. Shotter (1993)
called this a “third realm of activity”—jointly and intricately struc-
tured yet under no one person’s control. How does this relate to what
good managers do? They must be responsive listeners and responsive
speakers and help organizational members make connections and rela-
tions given a chaotic welter of impressions (see Cunliffe, 2001, for
further explanation).

•• The activity draws on a practical, tacit understanding—one initially
difficult to articulate but that has a powerful impact on our actions, for
example, picking up and responding to nonverbal clues.

•• In relation to Figure 1, the activity incorporates reflex interactions on
the part of participants, and we (particularly the audience) can reflec-
tively analyze those actions as observers. However, from our discus-
sion, we can see the activity is subject to multiple and sometimes
differing interpretations (participants, audience, instructor). Critically

Cunliffe 757

Table 1. Typical Questions and Responses to the Class Activity.

Questions Responses

Audience: Audience:
What struck you when

observing the activity?
It wasn’t planned, they improvised, they

watched each other carefully, B did
his own thing, they all remained very
close to the chair, C tried to trick the
others.

Who controlled the
actions?

No one person, it varied at different
times, it looked as though A and B
were collaborating, C was obviously
trying to control others.

How did the participants
act?

Carefully, ignored others, they helped
each other by moving slowly, watched
each other.

Participants: Participants:
What struck you about this

activity?
It was fun, we were interdependent, we

had to watch each other.
Why did you do _____ at

this point?
Because A did ___ so I __, I thought B

was . . .
To what extent can you

anticipate your next move
or the move of others?

You can’t, you can watch the beginning
of the movement and react, I watched
C—he kept doing the same two
activities.

How simple is the activity? It’s not as easy as you might think, I had
no idea who was going to do what, it
does get easier.

What kind of
understanding does this
activity involve?

You have to pick up nonverbal
clues, you can’t plan, spontaneous
responses.

If we did the activity again,
what might happen?

We couldn’t do exactly the same, I’d
have a better idea of what to do
because I’d watch each person.

Did the audience give a
true interpretation of
events?

Not really, because I wasn’t doing that, I
wasn’t trying to control others, when
they laughed I had no idea why.

Can an observer say, “Let
me tell you what is really
happening here?”

No, there are different interpretations,
we do not see the activity in the same
way as observers or each other.

So what does this tell us
about theorizing and/or
making assumptions about
what others are doing?

See below.

758 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

reflexive questioning can help surface differing interpretations, under-
lying assumptions, and taken-for-granted actions.

The activity therefore offers an example of the practical implications of social
constructionism and how we can draw out practical understandings from
within experience. It also highlights a crucial aspect of critically reflexive
practice: the differences between developing theory about something/ some-
one else—that is, observing and reflecting (an outside-in approach, Journal
Excerpt 1)—and creating theory in practice—surfacing and questioning tacit
knowledge (an inside-out approach, Journal Excerpt 2). Baker and Kolb
(1993) contrasted these two approaches to learning, the traditional one being
the “outside-in approach which leaves human affairs to the experts” and
focuses on the analysis and application of theory to practice, and the “inside-
out perspective, which is rooted in our personal experience” (p. 26). They
argued that the latter is more effective in valuing diversity and plurality in
organizations, a view I extend to recognizing our ability to shape situations
through our shared, responsive interactions. The second approach is crucial
in developing skills as critically reflexive practitioners, because it draws
attention to how we relate with each other ethically, which Deetz (1995) saw
as resting “not in agreement to principles, but in avoidance of the suppression
of alternative conceptions and possibilities [italics added]” (p. 223).

In other words, by emphasizing the nature of our being in relation to oth-
ers and the creative and responsive manner in which our identities, experi-
ences, and opportunities for action are shaped, then we recognize a moral
requirement to make available opportunities for others to communicate
(Shotter, 1993, p. 163). This means recognizing our place in creating ethical
discourse, respecting the rights of those around us to speak, and understand-
ing how our use of words orients responses and ways of relating—a “know-
ing how, knowing how to live, knowing how to listen” (Lyotard, 1984, p. 18).
A critically reflexive practitioner not only questions her basic assumptions
but also whether she may be silencing the voices of others, and she is more
aware of how she constitutes and maintains realities and identities through
responsive interaction.

Becoming A Critically Reflexive Practitioner: Using
Journals

Journals can be powerful in helping students develop their skills as critically
reflexive practitioners, because they are a means by which students engage in
their own learning (Bickford & Van Vleck, 1997) and surface tacit knowing.
In explaining the purpose and nature of the journals, I often use the previous

Cunliffe 759

activity to highlight the difference between writing in reflective and critically
reflexive ways. I use one of two approaches: Students complete three jour-
nals over the semester, moving from a reflective analysis of a situation they
encountered to a critically reflexive questioning of their own learning (about
6 to 8 pages each), or they complete one journal (8 to 12 pages) to be handed
in at the end of the semester (see appendix). The idea of using journals in the
learning process is not new. Journals can be used to improve writing skills,
improve analytic and creative thinking, and build self-awareness. Locke and
Brazelton (1997) suggested that writing is itself a learning process, because it
offers a way of surfacing, articulating, and rethinking our conceptualizations
of the world. I include excerpts from graduate student journals to show the
form critically reflexive journals take. From a critically reflexive perspective,
journal writing is not just thinking about thinking but thinking about self
from a subjective perspective. It requires us to be attentive to our assump-
tions, our ways of being and acting, and our ways of relating. As one student
wrote:

So who am I, who am I becoming? I have been puzzled, frustrated, curious, and
anxious throughout this semester. . . . I have experienced on a personal level
both the “unfreeze” and “movement” stages (Lewin, 1951) yet seem to
teetertotter between the two. I have been very open to self-analysis and find
learning about others and myself in a critical manner very intriguing. (Journal
Excerpt 3)

This and the following excerpts illustrate a crucial aspect of the inside-out
form of writing—”finding one’s voice” (Boys, 1999, p. 131) and beginning
with lived experience and writing about me, my feelings and frustrations, my
assumptions and actions, that is, talking from within. We can begin the pro-
cess by engaging in double-loop learning—being open and identifying
assumptions and then moving to a critically reflexive questioning of those
assumptions and actions and recognizing uncertainty and contradictions. In
doing so, we may not only find our own voice but the voice of others and
voices we may silence by our words and actions.

From a teaching perspective, this form of journaling means listening to
those voices, needs, hopes, and concerns, often at an intellectual and visceral
level, as students explore their experiences. It also means being critically
reflexive about our own teaching practices and the voices we might silence,
as Reynolds (1999) suggested when he called for coherence between teach-
ing others how to take a critical stance and taking a critical stance ourselves.
The journal excerpt below caused me to do some critically reflexive ques-
tioning of my own:

760 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

The process of questioning ones assumptions and values is disconcerting and
tortuous. It is uncomfortable to truly look inwards and then reflect on all the
assumptions and values that one has built over almost a lifetime. I have always
assumed that my values and goals were just right for me and proceeded almost
with single-minded purpose to achieve them. There was no reason for me to
question them. Yet, I have been forced to be conscious [italics added] of this
process over the past weeks especially as I become increasingly aware of the
applicability of the course material to myself. (Journal Excerpt 4)

Although this student talked about the relative and nonabsolute nature of
knowledge and voice, the language he used struck me: Have I “forced” oth-
ers? Have I acted inconsistently by claiming students must consider multi-
ple perspectives? I need to look at my own teaching practices to ensure I am
enacting the values I espouse.

I discuss at least one draft of the journal with each student. This is impor-
tant in helping each person grasp how to write from an inside-out, critically
reflexive stance. Typically, many students begin from an outside-in stance
because this is the term-paper approach they are familiar with, and most have
not experienced this way of writing and questioning before. In our conversa-
tions, I highlight reflexive comments they may have written, ask them to think
about their assumptions, surface any contradictions in language use that might
affect their actions (e.g., “we need to work as a team, so what I want to do is .
. . “), and suggest what to avoid. I also emphasize the importance of asking
questions and raising issues and state that I am not looking for answers but
possibilities.

Journal Excerpts 5 and 6 illustrate the process of critical reflexivity— writ-
ing as an involved insider, from a prospective stance, questioning assumptions
and taken-for-granted ways of acting and thinking. Theory and readings are
used in reference to experience, not as tools to analyze external events. Students
find these excerpts helpful to their understanding of reflexive writing:

I willingly subscribed to the notion that management (and sometimes, life
itself) is a “scientific, technically-rational, value-free” system of theories and
practices and believed that “goal achievement carries with it no implicit moral
commitments and consequences” (MacIntyre, 1981). I considered with interest
those who swore that “conscience is but a word that cowards use, devised at
first to keep the strong in awe” (Shakespeare’s Richard III). I believed in totally
being motivated to achieve ones goals. . . . This is perhaps the kind of mindset
Peter Drucker (1999) had in mind when he advised all of us to discover whether
our intellectual arrogance was causing disabling ignorance so that we may at
least overcome it.

Cunliffe 761

Having started with such a frame of mind, the tendency to reinforce longheld
objectives and values to reinvent and perpetuate the old system was always
present. Therefore, fuelled by what I can now see was an inherent fear of
change and an instinctive desire to protect the system of values I’ve subscribed
to over a lengthy period, I initially looked for loopholes and weaknesses in the
theories and practices to disapprove them to myself. The fact that there existed
a relationship that could best be described as murky between some of the
theories we discussed and real-world management practices lent credibility to
this process. My first impulse therefore, for quite some time, was to play the
devil’s advocate as a part of me instinctively resisted the changes that I was
undergoing. Though I based my initial reluctance to change my old assumptions
and ways by trying to convince myself that a mere exchange of schemas (a new
set of values for the ones I was contemplating to modify) would not be
successful, I became aware that these were defensive mechanisms (Argyris,
1991) aimed at clouding the issue. Looking back, the extent to which these
single-loop schemas formed a part of me is startling. I was starting with the
premise that my goals were the preferred ones for all “right-thinking”
individuals. (Journal Excerpt 5)

Basic human interaction is built on how we interact, or relate to each other. I
am more likely to respond to those individuals who respond to me and will, in
most cases, emulate their attitude towards me. The old adage (again from my
grandmother), “Treat others the way you would like to be treated,” sounded
good, but I rarely practiced it. For me, the psychological contract (Rousseau,
1995; Sherwood & Glidewell, 1972) of reciprocity has always been somewhat
etched in stone, only now after a particularly difficult year in terms of
relationships at work do I stop and consider why. . . . Asthis year has progressed
I have learned that it is the efforts of many individuals (with different views)
within the department that are needed for organizational effectiveness, not just
myself directing individual efforts. I have also come to accept that we all have
different ways of achieving results and that each way has merit. It took a
criticalreflexive analysis of myself to make me realize that I needed to step
back and let other people contribute to the solution(s). Now, putting this
realization into practice has been a different story! My need to direct the
situation may be appropriate at times—what has been difficult for me is taking
a different, more collaborative course of action when appropriate. (Journal
Excerpt 6)

Both journals illustrate critical reflexivity and the concept of praxis—ques-
tioning our reflex actions, creating our own theories from experience, and
using these as a basis for changing our own realities. Reflexive journals,
therefore, offer a means of exploring new possibilities for being and acting.

762 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

Issues Relating to the Journals

1. Comfort Zone

Some students feel uncomfortable writing in this way. They see it as
too personal or too ambiguous and unstructured. I try to accommo-
date these feelings by offering a second approach based on Drucker’s
(1999) article, “Managing Oneself” (see appendix). These students
usually find the ideas in this article helpful in providing a framework
for structuring their writing and see it as a less touchy-feely approach.
In offering this option, I hope I am being responsive to individual dif-
ferences while still encouraging students to question and reflect. I use
these two approaches in both graduate and undergraduate courses.
Many undergraduates prefer the Drucker approach, which helps them
develop their skills of reflective analysis. Some do move on to a criti-
cally reflexive approach as they examine their assumptions and begin
to think about ideologies and what constitutes ethical practice or
moral responsibility. Graduate students usually have more work
experience and a feeling that organizational practices could be
improved. They often find it easier to recognize implicit power rela-
tions, contradictions, and dilemmas.

2. Is This a Diary?

Students often ask this question. No, it is not a description of daily
activities but, rather, a critical questioning of experiences. Students
often want to begin by describing their life history. I emphasize that
this is important and excerpts can be woven into their journal as sup-
porting information; however, summarizing life history can result in
a book-length journal and be descriptive rather than analytical. A use-
ful start point is for each student to list his or her struck bys, why they
are important, assumptions made, and their impact on action and
reactions (see appendix, Approach 1). Students taking Approach 2
find it helpful to work through the ideas in the Drucker article (“Am I
a reader/listener, what are my values?”)

3. Are Critically Reflexive Journals Just Naval Gazing?

The answer is no. I expect students to take their reflexive questioning
and assess possibilities for change. I ask them to end their journals
by answering the question, “So what am I/we going to do now?” As
one student wrote:

Cunliffe 763

We must first know and understand ourselves before we are at
peace internally. We must be at peace internally to participate in
our world in an effective manner. When we are at peace we natu-
rally exhibit characteristics of integrity, honesty, openness, and
trustworthiness. True success comes with truly knowing oneself
and having an internal comfort zone so that we can openly express
ourselves and openly accept the expression of others. . . . True suc-
cess is powerful; mere power is not success. It takes me some time
to reach my own “true success,” my ideal of “what might be.” The
process of creating this paper, however, made me realize it is most
definitely attainable. (Journal Excerpt 7)

The writer is drawing out her own practical theories (Shotter, 1993)
from her experience—theories that are likely to be all the more power-
ful because they are her own and not imposed externally.

4. And You Grade These . . . ?

One issue that still remains problematic is how to grade this form of
writing. It is difficult to create a grading structure, and I find it impos-
sible to allocate percentages for individual elements. Rather, I ask
myself whether I think this is an A, B, C, and so forth paper. When
discussing the brief for the journal in class, I state that the nature of this
form of writing requires a different way of grading; there are no right
or wrong answers. I outline my grading criteria in the brief (see appen-
dix). Students seem to see these criteria as acceptable and often say
that they found the journal a difficult but enlightening experience.
My written comments in journals consist of questions and possibilities
rather than judgments: “Have you thought about . . . ? Are there other
possible interpretations? Might this be interpreted as a defensive state-
ment? How might you do this? Is there an implicit power issue here?
How might the language you use(d) in this instance influence/have
influenced the response of . . . ? Might this behavior be self-sealing?
How might this relate to the reading by ___?” In other words, my com-
ments are aimed at helping students ask further questions, explore pos-
sibilities, or make connections (practical or theoretical).

Final Thoughts

This type of journal is not necessarily appropriate for every student or every
faculty member; it depends upon the comfort zone of each. It is a

764 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

timeintensive process for a student and a faculty member, but it can be a
rewarding experience for both. One benefit I have discovered is that many
students come to class saying that they cannot change anything because they
are not the boss. By understanding reality as relational and socially con-
structed and by developing their ability to question in a critically reflexive
way, they realize they can influence situations.

Two journal writers have the last word:

I am confused. I am becoming more confused. And “they” say this is a good
thing? …Irecognize that change can be good, and I realize that from confusion
there is so much more for me to learn. (Journal Excerpt 8)

Being reflexive is something new for me, a concrete experiencer, and a
person of action, although I do like it. More than the chance to learn, it’s a
chance to catch my breath and absorb. It’s kind of like the difference between
yoga and high-impact aerobics. Mentally, I have come to a place in my life
and career where both have merit, even with the doubts I have. It is this
realization that makes me think I’m headed in the right direction after all.
(Journal Excerpt 9)

Appendix

The Critically Reflexive Journal

The reflexive journal is based on assumptions that learning is meaningful
when embodied, when we interweave theory and experience, and when
we focus on developing skills of lifelong learning. It challenges students
to think about learning in relation to the topics covered in the course,
explore their learning, and create a personal development plan. This
means:

— Reviewing information learned about yourself during the course and
finding integrative themes and interrelationships.

— Identifying and questioning your assumptions and behavior in a situa-
tion (double-loop learning) and how they might have influenced the
other person’s response.

— Thinking about the unspoken assumptions that influence (uncon-
sciously or otherwise) our actions and interactions, silent voices in a
conversation, what is said and not said, and whether there are multiple
interpretations. How might/ do these relate to current/potential contri-
butions (Drucker, 1999)?

— Identifying possibilities for self development—new roles, stretching
abilities, risk-taking, and more complex and integrative thinking.

Cunliffe 765

My grading criteria include the following:

Linking personal experience to ideas, theories, and material from class and
exploring how these may offer possibilities for practices.

Ability to make connections between actions and responses.
Drawing out insights.
Evidence of critical reflexivity and double-loop learning.
Challenging his or her thinking and ways of acting.
Exploring possibilities.
Asking questions.
Following the basic standards of writing, grammar, and presentation.
Expressing key points clearly and persuasively.
Citing material correctly.

Students choose one of the two approaches below.

Approach #1: A Critically Reflexive Approach— What Have
You Been Struck By?

1. Identify personal insights, issues, moments of critical questioning,
and revelation/connection with ideas, moments, and comments (by
you, other course members, me) that struck you and offered the poten-
tial for reflective insight or significant learning.

2. Describe why these are important to you. What impact did they have
and/or what dilemmas, questions, or possibilities did they raise? Have
these resulted in order or chaos for you?

3. So what are you going to do now? What issues, questions, and dilem-
mas are you going to explore further? Why and how? How will this
influence who you are and how you relate to others? What relational
nets can you construct/ connect with to continue this process of reflec-
tive and critical learning?

Approach #2: Feedback Analysis (Drucker, 1999)

Reread the Drucker article. Think about the following:

1. How do I perform/what are my strengths?
2. What are my values?
3. What can I/do I want to contribute?
4. What areas do I need to work on?

Formulate your learning plan. What can I do in the short-, medium-, and
long-term to manage myself?

766 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

•• How you will construct learning opportunities, overcome your limita-
tions, and practice your learning skills?

•• What is the social support system you plan to set up to maintain your
continuing learning activities?

Note

1. I am indebted to John Shotter for the idea behind this activity.

References

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review,
69(3), 99- 109.

Bailey, J. R., Saparito, P., Kressel, K., Christensen, E., & Hooijberg, R. (1997). A model
for reflective pedagogy. Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 155-167.

Baker, A., & Kolb, D. A. (1993). Diversity, learning and good conversation. In R.
R. Sims & R. F. Dennehy (Eds.), Diversity and differences in organizations: An
agenda for answers and questions (pp. 17-32). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.;
C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original
work published 1979)

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise
on the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bickford, D., & Van Vleck, J. (1997). Reflections on artful teaching. Journal of
Management Education, 21(4), 448-463.

Boys, M. C. (1999). Engaged pedagogy: Dialogue and critical reflection. Teaching
Theology and Religion, 2(3), 129-136.

Calás, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative
directions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671.

Caproni, P. J., & Arias, M. E. (1997). Managerial skills training from a critical per-
spective. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 292-309.

Chia, R. (1996a). Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: University
business schools and the entrepreneurial imagination. Journal of Management
Studies, 33(4), 409- 428.

Chia, R. (1996b). The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: Towards a
postmodern science of organization. Organization, 3(1), 31-59.

Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.),
Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understand-
ing of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351-371.

Deetz, S. (1995). Character, corporate responsibility and the dialogic in the postmod-
ern context: A commentary on Mangham. Organization, 2(2), 217-225.

Cunliffe 767

Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 64-75.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: Thinking with concepts. Journal of

Developmental Education, 24(3), 42-44.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
French, R., & Grey, C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking management education. London:

Sage.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Postmodernism and the discourse of educational criticism.

Journal of Education, 170(3), 5-30.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.
Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis in Western sociology. New York: Basic

Books.
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-

paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(Special Issue),
S5-S17.

Hardy, C., & Palmer, I. (1999). Pedagogical practice and postmodernist ideas. Journal
of Management Education, 23(4), 377-395.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of
a management team. Organization Science, 8, 275-288.

Jun, J. S. (1994). Philosophy of administration. Seoul, Korea: Daeyoung Moonhwa
International.

Latour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. In S. Woolgar (Ed.),
Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 155-
176). London: Sage.

Locke, K., & Brazelton, J. K. (1997). Why do we ask them to write, or whose writing
is it anyway? Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 44-57.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender
conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339-359.

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999) Relational responsibility: Resources for sus-
tainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-199.
Pleasants, N. (1996). Nothing is concealed: De-centering tacit knowledge and rules

from social theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 26(3), 233-254.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Pollner, M. (1991). Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflex-

ivity. American Sociological Review, 56, 370-380.
Prasad, P., & Caproni, P. J. (1997). Critical theory in the management classroom:

Engaging power, ideology and praxis. Journal of Management Education, 21(3),
284-291.

768 Journal of Management Education 40(6)

Reynolds, M. (1999). Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating
less hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 537-553.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.

Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language.
London: Sage.

Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management
Education, 22(3), 304-319.

Watson, T. (1994). In search of management. Culture, chaos and control in manage-
rial work. London: Routledge.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology, Vols. 1 and 2.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell.