Reviewing Management Learning: The field and the journal

Abstract

We trace the origins and development of the management learning movement that has come to be closely associated with the journal Management Learning and explain how ideas that shaped the creation of business schools influenced the inception of this field. We then examine themes and trends that have been prevalent in the field in the second half of the journal’s 50-year history, through an analysis of its coverage over a 24-year period from 1994 to 2018. During this time, there has been a marked shift away from an applied focus on manager and management development towards a more theoretical perspective of the field, in keeping with trends in academic journals more generally. We focus on the journal’s contribution to the scholarship of management and organisational learning through an analysis of both strong and weak themes and its most cited papers. Finally, we propose ways in which our analysis of the past might offer new ways of thinking about our scholarship and we propose a future direction for the field and the journal that connects to the original intentions to shape organisational practice in order to address broader issues of social and economic exchange.

Animal activism in the business school: Using fierce compassion for teaching critical and positive perspectives

“…Yet much academic work – what we research, what topics we teach and how we think about them – are based on values which may (inadvertently) support unsustainable or socially unjust behaviours (Ergene et al, 2021). While unethical and damaging business behaviours may be the unwitting outcome of complex commercial activity (Anderson et al, 2020), many critical scholars perceive them as the privileging of greed (see Gabriel, 2009; Ghoshal, 2005) over a desire to work towards creating thriving and flourishing for all societal stakeholders – human and nonhuman alike.…”

In praise of holistic scholarship: A collective essay in memory of Mark Easterby-Smith

“…As a value-laden undertaking (Khakee, 2003), evaluation offers potential to connect theory and practice through a deeper questioning of what value, for whom and for what purpose, surfacing differences, and tensions among and between different sets of values. With calls for robust conceptual frameworks that reflect and interrogate the complexity of management learning with a view to social change (Anderson et al, 2019), perhaps it is timely, honouring Mark's legacy, for a renewed focus on Evaluation.…”

“…In the early 1990s, Mark and I worked together on a major evaluation project with Ford Motor Company (Stead and Easterby-Smith, 1995). Reflecting on this project, and ideas of evaluation, brought to mind Anderson et al’s (2019) observations in their review of the 50-year history and field of management learning. They remark on a shift from an applied focus on manager and management development, toward a more theoretical perspective, that has strengthened management learning’s conceptual underpinnings but with less obvious links to practitioners.…”

Enlarging sustainability learning through integrative thinking with a focus on cultivating virtues

“…While sustainability is currently a “hot topic” in management learning (Anderson et al , 2020), business schools face multiple challenges with integrating and growing sustainability within their curricula (Thomas, 2018; Rasche and Gilbert, 2015; Rasche et al , 2013; Solitander et al , 2012; Young and Nagpal, 2013; Baets and Oldenboom, 2013) and in creating capacities for management executives to be aware of the reality of growth not being inclusive nor sustainable (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger, 2014). This criticism is part of a larger debate on relevance, curricula, pedagogy and impact of business school management education and Master of Business Administration (MBA) programmes (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005; Birnik and Billsberry, 2008; Chia and Holt, 2008; Datar et al , 2011; Ghoshal, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004; Mitroff et al , 2015; Moldoveanu and Martin, 2008; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002; Schlegelmilch and Thomas, 2011; Thomas and Cornuel, 2012).…”