Leadership as a Profession? The Significance of Reflexive Judgment

  • Lone Hersted
  • Mette Vinther Larsen


Management today is characterized by complexity and constant change. Often very little time is left for reflexivity in a fluctuating organizational life. We argue that it is crucial to supplement the practice of leadership with semi-formal learning spaces where reflexive conversations between leaders and researchers can unfold. In the chapter, we present examples from conversations between leaders and researchers. What is crucial here is that these conversations take departure from within the specific situations and the specific organizational contexts, based on challenges defined by the leaders themselves, and that these conversations are carried out carefully based on mutual respect. It is our argument that these kinds of reflexive dialogues are necessary in order to explore and discuss the multiple ways to deal with organizational challenges.


Management Reflexivity Dialogue Semiformal learning spaces 


  1. Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  2. Cunliffe, Ann L. 2002. “Reflexive Dialogical Practice in Management Learning.” Management Learning 33:35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cunliffe, Ann L. 2004. “On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner.” Journal of Management Education 28:407–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunliffe, Ann L., and Guiseppe Scaratti. 2017. “Embedding Impact in Engaged Research: Developing Socially Useful Knowledge Through Dialogical Sensemaking.” British Journal of Management 28:29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. French, Robert, and Christopher Grey. 1996. Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Gergen, Kenneth J. 1994. Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gergen, Kenneth J., and Lone Hersted. 2016. “Developing Leadership as Dialogic Practice.” In Leadership-as-Practice: Theory and Application, edited by Joseph A. Raelin, 178–97. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  8. Goodall, Amanda H. 2011. “Experts Versus Managers: A Case Against Professionalizing Management Education.” In Business Schools Under Fire: Humanistic Management Education as the Way Forward, edited by Wolfgang Amann, Claus Dierksmeier, Michael Pirson, Heiko Spitzeck, and Ernst von Kimakowitz, 122–9. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grey, Christopher. 2001. “Re-imagining Relevance: A Response to Starkey and Madan.” British Journal of Management 12(S1):27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hersted, Lone. 2017. “Relational Leading and Dialogic Process.” PhD diss., Aalborg University, Denmark.Google Scholar
  11. Hersted, Lone, and Kenneth J. Gergen. 2013. Relational Leading: Practices for Dialogically Based Collaboration. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Khurana, Rakesh, and Nitin Nohria. 2008. “It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession.” Harvard Business Review 86(10):70–7.Google Scholar
  13. Larsen, Mette V., and Jørgen G. Rasmussen, eds. 2015. Relational Perspectives on Leading. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Larsen, Mette V., and Søren Willert. 2017. Using Management Inquiry to Co-construct Other Memories About the Future. Journal of Management Inquiry. Accessed on August 5, 2017.
  15. Martin, Roger L. 2010. Management Is Not a Profession: But It Can Be Taught. Harvard Business Review, July 1. Accessed on 17 September 2017.
  16. Mead, George H. 1974. Mind, Self and Society From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mintzberg, Henry. 2004. Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.Google Scholar
  18. Parks, Sharon D. 2005. Leadership Can Be Taught. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. Reed, Michael, and Peter Anthony. 1992. “Professionalizing Management and Managing Professionalization: British Management in the 1980s.” Journal of Management Studies 29:591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ripamonti, Silvio, Laura Galuppo, Mara Gorli, Guiseppe Scaratti, and Ann Cunliffe. 2015. “Pushing Action Research Toward Reflexive Practice.” Journal of Management Inquiry 25:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schein, Edgar H. 1968/1988. “Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management.” Sloan Management Review 30(1):53–65.Google Scholar
  22. Shotter, John. 1993. Conversational Realities: Constructing Life Through Language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Shotter, John. 2010. “Situated Dialogical Action Research: Disclosing ‘Beginnings’ for Innovative Change in Organizations.” Organizational Research Methods 13:268–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spender, JC. 2007. “Management as a Regulated Profession: An Essay.” Journal of Management Inquiry 16:32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Starkey, Ken, and Paula Madan. 2001. “Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research.” British Journal of Management 12(S1):3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Weick, Karl E. 2001. “Gapping the Relevance Bridge: Fashion Meets Fundamentals in Management Research.” British Journal of Management 12(S1):71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lone Hersted
    • 1
  • Mette Vinther Larsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Learning and PhilosophyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Business and ManagementAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations