Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx

Critical management studies
and “mainstream” organization
science
A proposal for a rapprochement
Max Visser
Nijmegen School of Management, Institute of Management
Research,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a
rapprochement between the field of critical
management studies (CMS) and what is constructed here as the
“mainstream” of organization theory
and research.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper contains a
comparative analysis of relevant literature
from the fields of organization theory, political science and
political psychology.
Findings – It is found, first, that at least four instances of
“mainstream” theory and research more or
less share CMS assumptions; second, that CMS and
“mainstream” may benefit from mutual contact
(using the example of the “power elite” discussion in the 1950s
and 1960s); third, that CMS and
“mainstream” may benefit from “mainstream” operationalization

of CMS-concepts (using the example
of the development of the F-scale in the 1930s and 1940s).
Originality/value – The paper ranks among the first to search
for convergences between two fields
that seem firmly divided in both theoretical and institutional
terms.
Keywords Critical management, Organizational theory,
Management power
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Since the 1970s a field of organization studies has emerged that
explicitly takes a
critical stance towards modern practices of management and
organization and to
(what is constructed in this paper as) the “mainstream”[1] of
scientific theory and
research on these practices (Grey and Willmott, 2005a). Given
this dual purpose of
critiquing management and the studies thereof, this field has
appropriately labeled
itself as critical management studies (CMS).
Although the field of CMS is not easily defined and demarcated,
some common lines
of thought can be discerned. Put briefly, CMS scholars argue
for a critical conception of
management “in which research is self-consciously motivated
by an effort to discredit,
and ideally eliminate, forms of management and organization
that have institutionalized
the opposition between the purposefulness of individuals and
the seeming givenness

and narrow instrumentality of work-process relationships”
(Alvesson and Willmott,
1992, p. 4). This givenness (or naturalness) of relationships
needs to be critically
examined (or de-naturalized), because what is treated as natural
or given often masks
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
The author thanks Jos Benders, Yvonne Benschop, Rene ten
Bos, Hans Doorewaard,
Erik Poutsma, and the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for
their critical (both with and
without capital C) and stimulating comments on earlier drafts of
this paper.
IJOA
18,4
466
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2010
pp. 466-478
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1934-8835
DOI 10.1108/19348831011081912
underlying structural power and ideological differences (e.g.
between managers and

employees, capital and labor, men and women). Further, narrow
instrumentality,
according to which knowledge and truth are only valued in
relation to effective and
efficient managerial performance, is countered by an anti-
performative stance, in which
broader concerns (like just working relationships, human
development and ecological
effects) are brought into the discussion (Alvesson and Willmott,
1992; CMS Manifesto;
Fournier and Grey, 2000; Grey and Willmott, 2005a).
Ultimately, the ideals of CMS are human emancipation and
enlightenment, based
on the:
[. . .] assumption of the possibilities of a more autonomous
individual, who, in the tradition of
Enlightenment, in principle can master his or her own destiny in
joint operation with peers
(Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, p. 9; Nord and Jermier, 1992).
Although sharing a critical conception, CMS scholars differ in
their stance towards the
objects of their critiques. Regarding management, some scholars
want to engage with
practice, using critique pragmatically to effect desired changes
in organizations, while
others want to disengage with practice, fearing a colonization of
CMS terms and ideas
by practitioners (Fournier and Grey, 2000; Huff and Huff, 2002;
Nord and Jermier,
1992). However, some consensus seems to emerge among CMS
scholars that
engagement with practice is desirable when it creates
“thoughtful practitioners capable

of engaging these issues both inside the corporation as
managers and outside it as
citizens” (CMS Manifesto, p. 2). Such engagement could take
the form of teaching
prospective managers in business and professional schools and
of organizational
consulting (Grey and Willmott, 2005a; see also the discussion
among Clegg et al., 2006;
Phillips, 2006; Willmott, 2006).
Although CMS scholars thus appear to have found ways to
meaningfully engage
with management, their engagement with studies, i.e.
“mainstream” theory and
research on management and organization, seems less clear cut.
Although there exists
a fair amount of empirical research in the CMS field, its theory,
methods and results
tend to be rather narrowly confined to that field. Apart from
critiquing, CMS scholars
in general do not engage with “mainstream” organization
scientists in discussing
theory or comparing empirical findings.
This divide between CMS and “mainstream” organization
science seems
unfortunate for both sides. The ideals and critiques of CMS
have direct relevance
for management and organization studies, but they tend to
remain relatively isolated
and remote from the bulk of these studies. Although many of the
concerns CMS
scholars raise often have been noted and supported by
“mainstream” scientists, these
concerns tend to remain abstract and devoid of a firm empirical
base (Walsh and

Weber, 2002). Proper “mainstream” understanding is often not
encouraged by the
complex language CMS scholars sometimes resort to (Huff and
Huff, 2002; Phillips,
2006), or by the fact that research in the CMS field sometimes
appears to be less critical
of its own assumptions (like managerial domination, structural
inequality, etc.) than of
those of “mainstream” organization science (Clegg et al., 2006;
Wray-Bliss, 2003).
In this paper, I propose a rapprochement between CMS and
“mainstream”
organization science from a “mainstream” perspective. Claims
by CMS scholars may
gain strength and recognition when they can be connected to
similar claims within
the “mainstream,” and when they can be backed up by
“mainstream” methods
Critical
management
studies
467
of empirical research. In doing so, I will primarily inquire into
mechanisms of theoretical
and conceptual fit and comparison, and less into inter- and
intragroup processes that
also may determine rapprochement in a more social sense. The
theoretical and empirical
possibilities of rapprochement are the prime focus of inquiry in

this paper.
In the remainder of this paper, I will attempt to connect CMS
and “mainstream” in
three ways. In the first section, I will point out and briefly
discuss “mainstream”
organizational theory and research that to some degree appears
to share
CMS-assumptions. In the second section, I will show how CMS
and “mainstream” may
benefit from mutual contact through the example of the power
elite debate in the 1950s
and 1960s. In the third section, I will show how CMS and
“mainstream” may benefit from
“mainstream” operationalization of CMS-concepts through the
example of the
development of the F-scale in the 1930s and 1940s. Finally,
some conclusions are drawn.
Connecting CMS and “mainstream” theory and research
Several instances of “mainstream” organizational theory and
research to some degree
appear to share CMS assumptions. First, the work of Chris
Argyris seems pertinent
here. From his first (Argyris, 1957) to his last book (Argyris,
2004), Argyris has posited
a fundamental discrepancy between basic human needs for self-
actualization and
development and common organizational practices. While
employees want to develop
and actualize themselves and to increase their competence and
autonomy, they are
thwarted in these wants and needs by the formal structure,
culture and management
style of most organizations. This discrepancy causes apathy,
alienation and a

materialistic orientation among employees, leading to
dysfunctional behavior within
organizations. In his later work with Donald Schön, Argyris has
elaborated this
discrepancy in terms of defensive routines, Model I norms and
behavior, and limited
learning systems. To remedy this discrepancy, Argyris and
Schön advocate a Model II
learning culture and double loop learning, embracing the norms
of valid information,
free and informed choice, and internal commitment to choices
thus made. Managers
and employees should put up their own assumptions and values
for discussion and
testing and display maximal openness and minimal
defensiveness in their
communication (Argyris and Schön, 1974, 1978, 1996).
Argyris’ general position and the concepts of Models I and II
may be of interest to
CMS scholars, because they seem to resonate well with the
concerns of many CMS
scholars with just working relationships and human
emancipation, a fact already
acknowledged by some CMS scholars (Nord and Jermier, 1992).
Furthermore, Model II
bears considerable resemblance to Habermas’ idea of
“Herrschaftsfreie Diskussion”
that informs many CMS ideals (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992).
A second instance of “mainstream” organizational theory and
research that to some
degree appears to share CMS assumptions ironically comes from
a “mainstream”
critique on the overall desirability of double loop learning and
other higher levels of

organizational learning. Various authors have pointed at the
dangers of implicit
ideological control, dominance and exploitation inherent in
these levels of learning
(Driver, 2002; Salaman, 2001; Snell and Chak, 1998). Others, in
particular Edgar Schein,
have compared these forms of learning to coercive persuasion,
practiced in Korean and
Chinese prisoner camps in the 1950s. They have argued that
learning organizations,
through various “golden chains,” subtly coerce their employees
into a process of openly
discussing their norms and values (Coutu, 2002; Schein, 1999).
Such a process may
IJOA
18,4
468
represent a psychologically painful forced choice situation,
because employees
ultimately may be forced to choose between changing their own
deepest values and
endangering working relations with their colleagues, or even
losing their jobs.
The pathological effects of such forced choice situations have
been firmly established
in the experiments on obedience to authority (Milgram, 1974)
and line judgments
(Asch, 1952; 1955).
The concepts of coercive persuasion and forced choice situation
may be of interest

to CMS scholars, because they signify the behavioral micro-
dynamics of control,
dominance and power and the pathological effects thereof. CMS
scholars may use these
results to refine their analyses of structural power and
ideological differences within
organizations and devise new ways to research these
differences.
A third instance of “mainstream” organizational theory and
degree appears to share CMS assumptions is concerned with the
role of emotions.
Emotions still appear to be a difficult issue in organizations,
stemming from a basic
incompatibility between the elusive nature of emotions and
principles of modern
management. Modern management usually aims at the reduction
of unforeseeable
events, focusing on the control of input, throughput and output
of all organizational
processes. Since emotions usually evade any form of such
control, there is no proper
place for them in modern organizations (Albrow, 1992;
Fineman, 1996). When the role of
emotions is acknowledged, many management practices are
primarily directed at
controlling emotion. Such management of emotion focuses on
effortful coping with one’s
own emotions and the emotions of others and on the elimination
of ineffective thoughts
and feelings. It aims at the obliteration of unmanageable aspects
of emotion by
neutralizing, buffering, prescribing and normalizing emotions,
for example in the form of
feeling rules at work and emotional labor (Ashforth and

Humphrey, 1995; Doorewaard
and Benschop, 2003; Hochschild, 1983).
The concepts of emotional control and emotional labor may be
of interest to CMS
scholars, because they are indicative of the subtle ways in
which narrow instrumentality
and managerial domination may endanger human development,
identity and
authenticity. More than the “mainstream,” CMS may be in a
theoretical position to
critically analyze the interplay of emotions, rationality and
power in work situations and
to provide input for further research on these issues.
A fourth instance of “mainstream” organizational theory and
degree appears to share CMS assumptions is concerned with the
role of paradox and
double binds in organizations. Paradox in social interactions
occurs when messages
are incongruent at the verbal and non-verbal levels in such a
way that they lead to
confusion and uncertainty in the person receiving these
messages. Paradoxical
communication becomes part of a double bind situation under
four conditions:
(1) two or more persons are involved in an intense relationship
with a high
(physical or psychological) survival value for at least one of
them;
(2) in this relationship messages are regularly given that at the
verbal level of
communication assert something, at the non-verbal level negate

or conflict with
this assertion, and at both levels are enforced by punishments or
signals that
threaten survival;
(3) in this relationship the receiver of the incongruent messages
is prevented from
withdrawing from the situation or commenting on it; and
Critical
management
studies
469
(4) double binding in this sense is a long lasting characteristic
of the situation,
which, once established, tends towards self-perpetuation. A fair
amount of
organizational research evidence suggests that a prolonged
exposure to double
binding communication patterns may lead to a variety of
psychopathological
symptoms, including stress, anxiety and behavioral disturbances
(Dopson and
Neumann, 1998; Tracy, 2004; Visser, 2003a, b, 2007a, b).
The concepts of paradox and double bind may be of interest to
CMS scholars, because
they signify the interactional and communicational patterns that
accompany
managerial domination and manipulation and specify the
detrimental effects thereof

on employees’ psychological well-being.
Connecting CMS and “mainstream” through research: the power
elite
debate, 1953-1963
CMS and “mainstream” organizational science may benefit from
mutual contact on the
basis of empirical research. Several theoretical claims that
appear to divide CMS and
“mainstream” may be modified and enriched by critically
comparing results of
empirical research from both sides. I offer the power elite
debate between 1953 and
1963 as an example.
Mills’ (1956) The Power Elite is generally regarded as an
important precursor of
CMS (Fournier and Grey, 2000; Grey and Willmott, 2005b). In
this paper, Mills
analyzed the power structure of US society at the national level.
For him those people
have power, who are able to realize their will, even against the
will of others; the
ultimate kind of power is violence. Power is first and foremost
institutional, based on
the access to the command of major institutions. Institutional
power is shared by only a
small cohesive group of people, called the power elite:
[. . .] those political, economic and military circles which as an
intricate set of overlapping
cliques share decisions having at least national consequences. In
so far as national events are
decided, the power elite are those who decide them” (Mills,
1956, p. 18).

However, the power elite do not rule alone. Below the elite are
the middle levels of
power, which comprise Congress, pressure groups and the new
and old upper classes
at the local and regional level. At the bottom of the pyramid
resides the great mass of
politically powerless citizens.
The sociologist Hunter (1953) applied a similar framework to
the power structure of
the metropolitan community of Regional City (Atlanta,
Georgia). Using a reputational
method, he identified a group of 40 people who are, reputedly,
dominating major
decision making in industry, banking and commerce. Below this
top group there
appears a larger group, the political understructure, consisting
of political parties,
trade unions and civic organizations. A still larger group, at the
bottom of the
pyramidal power structure, is the powerless majority of ordinary
people.
The elitists’ work ignited a lively debate in the political and
administrative sciences
on the conceptualization and localization of power.
“Mainstream” pluralist social
scientists raised several methodological and theoretical issues.
Methodologically,
Hunter’s use of a reputational method was criticized as a form
of circular reasoning: to
ask a panel to name the community’s top leaders is to
presuppose that such a group of
top leaders exists (Kaufman and Jones, 1954; Polsby, 1960,
1980). Theoretically, the
approach by Hunter and Mills was criticized for isolating the

decisions of the power
IJOA
18,4
470
elite from the systemic context of the interests those decisions
serve and for focusing
upon an abstract and a-historical image of bureaucratic
hierarchies, with command
posts at the top (Alford and Friedland, 1985). Instead, pluralist
social scientists argued,
theory and research should concentrate on concrete decisions on
important public
issues and on the question whether there is a cohesive elite that
dominates all major
issues (Bell, 1958; Dahl, 1957, 1958).
The prime empirical pluralist answer to the elitist model was
Dahl’s (1961) Who
Governs?. His book dealt with the principal question: “in a
political system where nearly
every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social
position, access to officials,
and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually
governs?” (Dahl, 1961, p. 1).
Studying patterns of decision making in New Haven,
Connecticut, in the areas of
education, party nominations and urban renewal, Dahl found
that only a few people
make the actual decisions, of which the mayor and his aides are
the most dominant.
Their power is based on the support of the political stratum, a

small group of highly
politically involved individuals. This stratum is not a
homogeneous and closed class, but
a heterogeneous and open group easily accessible to people
from the apolitical stratum of
the community. Dahl also found that the elected officials are
more powerful than the
economic or social elite. New Haven constitutes a pluralist
democracy, in which a few
leaders make the important decisions, but under democratic
constraints.
Important objections to both the elitist and pluralist approaches
were raised by
Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963). They argued that the
pluralist model does not take
account of the fact that power may be, and often is, exercised
by confining the scope of
decision-making to relatively safe issues. This occurs when
power wielders attempt to
create or reinforce social and political values and institutional
practices that limit the
scope of public consideration to only those issues that are
comparatively innocuous to
them. Some issues are organized into politics while others are
organized out:
organization is the “mobilization of bias” (Bachrach and Baratz,
1962, p. 949).
Furthermore, pluralists tend to inquire into issues generally held
to be significant, thus
using the same reputational method they disapprove of in the
elitist approach.
Several reviewers of the power elite debate between elitists and
pluralists have
deplored the lack of scientific progress, theoretical dissension

and academic bickering on
the issues of community power and decision making (Polsby,
1980; Ricci, 1984). Yet they
seem to neglect the possibility to momentarily ignore
theoretical and methodological
differences and to concentrate on empirical findings instead. A
comparison of
Dahl’s New Haven and Hunter’s Atlanta studies will illuminate
this point.
In New Haven Dahl discovered by empirical means that only a
few people make the
actual decisions in the three policy areas he selected.
Nevertheless, this rule of the few
is called pluralist democracy, because of the democratic
constraints existing on that
rule. With regard to Hunter’s work, several reviewers (Kaufman
and Jones, 1954;
Polsby, 1980) have argued persuasively that the Atlanta power
elite face constraints as
well. For example, the leaders engage in bargaining with the
black community on the
subject of school facilities (Hunter, 1953, p. 222), in a time that
the South was still
segregated and the civil rights movement still nascent. Also it
was indicated that the
power leaders rarely innovate or execute policies, but instead
“have action initiated for
them (by the under-structure personnel) more often than they
initiate action” (Hunter,
1953, p. 226). The point is that, while Dahl and Hunter started
out with quite different
Critical
management

studies
471
theoretical approaches, their empirical findings were much
closer to one another: both
discover elites, who make decisions under certain kinds of
constraints.
The example of the power elite debate offers some clear
parallels to more recent
developments in CMS. Many CMS scholars posit the existence
of managerial
domination, structural inequality and manipulation in
organizations in identical ways
the older elitists posited the existence of an all powerful elite in
communities and
countries (Ailon, 2006). In some cases research methods in
CMS are open to identical
objections as the pluralists raised against the elitists (Clegg et
al., 2006; Wray-Bliss,
2003). At the same time, “mainstream” organizational scientists
have almost
universally recognized the role of power in and around
organizations (Mintzberg, 1983;
Morgan, 1997). Unwittingly they may have come to conclusions
that are supportive of
CMS conceptions in identical ways the pluralists came to
conclusions close to the elitist
position. Concentrating on empirical research and critically
comparing results from
both sides may provide support for CMS conceptions from
rather unexpected corners
of “mainstream” organization science. Fairly recently, in a

number of text books steps
appear to have been taken in this direction (Darwin et al., 2002;
Knights and Willmott,
2007; Palmer and Hardy, 2000).
Connecting CMS and “mainstream” through operationalization:
the
development of the F-scale, 1929-1950
Finally, CMS may benefit from operationalizing its key
concepts with “mainstream”
methodology to perform empirical research and develop a body
of knowledge that
cannot be discounted by “mainstream” scholars on
methodological grounds. I offer the
developmental history of the F-scale between 1929 and 1950 as
an example.
The work of the Frankfurt “Institut für Sozialforschung”
(hereafter IfS) is generally
regarded as an important precursor of CMS (Alvesson and
Willmott, 1992; Nord and
Jermier, 1992). In the 1930s, the IfS was mainly concerned with
the rise of fascism and
national-socialism in Europe ( Jay, 1973). One of its senior
members, the psychoanalyst
Erich Fromm, sought to find an explanation for this rise by
combining Freudian
psychoanalysis and Marxist social philosophy. From Freud he
borrowed the insight
that individuals are driven by drive-needs (such as sex, hunger,
thirst, fatigue, etc.).
These needs often press for instant and real gratification, the
absence of which causes
anxiety in the individual. From Marx he borrowed the insight
that gratification of
needs is dependent upon the socio-economic structures of

society, in particular the
modes of economic production and organization. Since society
is characterized by a
sharp economic inequality between the owners of production
means and the working
classes, it follows that the latter class has fewer opportunities
for drive need
satisfaction than the former. Consequently, the proletarians are
forced to suppress their
needs far more than the ruling class (Fromm, 1932).
As a next step, Fromm posed the question how working class
individuals deal with
these repressed needs and how the societal structure holds
together, in spite of the sharp
class dichotomy. Here he asserted that these individuals learn
from an early age on to
suppress their needs through an excessive dependence upon
authority, first that of their
parents and later that of society as a whole. In other words, they
develop an authoritarian
personality. Only a full identification with authorities liberates
the authoritarian
individual from the anxiety, caused by unfulfilled needs. At the
same time, however,
these authoritarians feel hostility towards the powerful
authority figures, but they
IJOA
18,4
472
suppress this hostility and displace it on less powerful persons

and groups, which they
come to hate and despise. If therefore society is structured in
such a way that the
authoritarians can submit to a strong authority and at the same
time unleash their
repressed hostility on designated out-groups and minorities, the
societal structure will
remain intact. The authoritarian personality is the
“psychological glue” that binds the
ruled masses to the ruling few and which maintains the unequal
socioeconomic structure
in society (Fromm, 1936, 1941).
While this explanation for the rise of fascism and national-
socialism was
theoretically well-developed, it lacked empirical
operationalization and corroboration.
An early attempt to obtain empirical evidence on the
psychological character of the
working class and its possible receptiveness to authoritarian
ideologies included a
large survey among German white and blue collar workers, held
in 1929 under
Fromm’s supervision. However, due to the forced emigration of
the IfS to the USA in
1933, during which half of the questionnaires were lost and
increasing discord between
Fromm and other leading IfS members, the results of the survey
were not published
until half a century later (Fromm, 1984; Jay, 1973).
A more comprehensive attempt to combine Freudian-Marxist
insights with modern
psychological measurement techniques was undertaken by a
joint research team of
European and US scholars during Second World War. In 1943,

the American
psychologists Nevitt Sanford and Daniel Levinson started a
study on anti-Semitism. The
study was refunded and extended to a broad assessment of the
relationship between
personality and prejudice, and the two researchers were joined
by psychologist
Else Frenkel-Brunswik, an émigré from Vienna. As the work
proceeded, additional
funds became available from the American Jewish Committee
through the intervention
of Max Horkheimer, the exiled director of the IfS. This made it
possible for one of the IfS’s
leading social philosophers, Theodor Adorno, to join the
research group. The search
continuously widened as more general aspects of anti-Semitism
and prejudice were
uncovered, finally leading to the conception and publication of
The Authoritarian
Personality (Adorno et al., 1950). The title indicates that the
final results had come close
to Fromm’s (and others’) earlier conceptions ( Jay, 1973;
Sanford, 1973; Smith, 1997).
One of the best-known instruments to come out of this huge
scientific endeavor was
the F-scale, a 38-item scale intended to measure potential
fascism in the individual.
Developed on the basis of clinical interviews, projective tests
and surveys among
selected samples, the scale purports to measure underlying
dimensions of personality
through projective items, which seemingly have nothing to do
with fascism. As such it
represented one of the first attempts “to make depth-
psychological processes amenable

to mass-statistical treatment” (Sanford, 1973, p. 152).
Initially, several follow-up studies criticized The Authoritarian
Personality on
methodological grounds. Yet as research proliferated, much of
this criticism quickly
became obsolete. The F-scale was applied to a large number of
subjects of different
national, ethnic, social and occupational backgrounds, and none
of these applications
came to results incompatible with those of the original research.
Often they found the
F-scale to be related to other attitude scales or overt behaviors
in ways consistent with
theoretical expectations in The Authoritarian Personality. The
validity of the F-scale
gradually became well-established, as over the years consistent
high scores were
ascertained among groups as British fascists, American
ultranationalists, former
German SS-members and white South African segregationist
students, where most
Critical
management
studies
473
other groups attained significantly lower scores. All in all, the
correlations and
expectations by Adorno et al. tended to be (re)confirmed,
“strengthening the argument

in favor of a central and relatively deep-seated personality
structure, which helps to
determine behavior in a wide variety of situations” (Sanford,
1973, p. 156; Meloen, 1997;
Roiser and Willig, 2002; Smith, 1997).
The example of the development of the F-scale seems to offer a
promising direction for
CMS scholars. Similar to Fromm and Adorno, they may attempt
to develop key concepts
like managerial domination, structural inequality and
manipulation, and to translate
them into appropriate instruments and designs for empirical
research. Such an approach
would permit a comparison and discussion of empirical results,
rather than a discussion
of theoretical differences, which in its turn could lead to the
joint development of a
shared body of knowledge between CMS and “mainstream”.
Further, such an approach
could force CMS concerns more to the center of discussion
within “mainstream”
organization science, and they also could become relevant for
practitioners.
Discussion and conclusions
In this paper, I have proposed a rapprochement between CMS
and “mainstream”
organization science in three ways. In the first section, I have
pointed out four instances
of “mainstream” theory and research that more or less share
CMS assumptions: the
work of Argyris (and Schön); the critique by Schein and others
on higher levels of
organizational learning; theory and research on emotions in
organizations; theory and

research on paradox and double binds in organizations. In the
second section, I have
shown how CMS and “mainstream” may benefit from mutual
contact through the example
of the “power elite” discussion in the 1950s and 1960s. In the
third section, I have shown
how CMS and “mainstream” may benefit from “mainstream”
operationalization of
CMS-concepts through the example of the development of the
F-scale in the 1930s and
1940s.
Several points of discussion may be raised here. As a first
point, this paper has
concentrated on the theoretical and empirical possibilities of
rapprochement, rather than
the social and institutional possibilities. Nevertheless,
intragroup processes within CMS
and “mainstream,” as well as intergroup processes between
CMS and “mainstream” will
play an important role in rapprochement. One can think of the
relative positions of CMS
and “mainstream” in the various national academies of
management, at universities,
business and professional schools, and in other institutions. The
ways in which these
positions will develop and leading scholars at both sides will
act towards one another
will be influential in determining actual rapprochement (Walsh
and Weber, 2002;
Zald, 2002).
As a second point, this paper has concentrated on the academic
world and its internal
discussions. Nevertheless, the points argued in this paper have
immediate relevance for

practicing managers and employees, in two ways. First,
questions of power differences,
inequality and just working relationships directly impact
organizational life and
performance. Second, it is increasingly realized in organizations
around the world that
corporate responsibility should encompass more than just
increasing profit and
performance, also including wider concerns of human growth
and sustainable ecological
and global development. A rapprochement between CMS and
“mainstream” may put an
end to insider academic bickering and mark the beginning of
becoming more relevant to
the world outside academia.
IJOA
18,4
474
To conclude, although written from a “mainstream” perspective,
the proposal for
rapprochement in this paper is intended as a genuine invitation
for joint reflection and
dialogue between CMS and “mainstream” scholars. In many
ways the concerns raised
by CMS scholars are too important to be left to the field of
CMS, nor should the task of
being critical be exclusively delegated to that field. Critical
reflection should be a
natural task for all organization scientists. The sheer existence
of a separate field of
CMS indicates that this task has been neglected in the past

decades and needs to be
restored to its proper place in organization science.
Note
1. The dichotomization of the organizational scientific
community into CMS scholars and
“mainstream” scholars is admittedly a very crude representation
of reality, since it is very
well possible for organizational scholars to be critical in one
part of their work and
“mainstream” in another part. However, for the clarity of
presentation I propose to maintain
this division momentarily, in which the “mainstream” is defined
as all organizational theory
and research not explicitly positioning itself as CMS, as defined
in this paper.
References
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and
Sanford, R.N. (1950), The Authoritarian
Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
Ailon, G. (2006), “What B would otherwise do: a critique of
conceptualizations of ‘power’ in
organizational theory”, Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 771-
800.
Albrow, M. (1992), “Sine ira et studio – or do organizations
have feelings?”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 313-29.
Alford, R.R. and Friedland, R. (1985), Powers of Theory:
Capitalism, the State, and Democracy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), “Critical theory and
management studies: an introduction”,
in Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical Management
Studies, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA, pp. 1-20.
Argyris, C. (1957), Personality and Organization: The Conflict
Between System and the Individual,
Harper, New York, NY.
Argyris, C. (2004), Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to
Organizational Knowledge,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1974), Theory in Practice:
Increasing Professional Effectiveness,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II:
Theory, Method and Practice,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Asch, S.E. (1952), Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New York,
NY.
Asch, S.E. (1955), “Opinions and social pressure”, Scientific
American, Vol. 193 No. 5, pp. 31-5.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995), “Emotion in the
workplace: a reappraisal”, Human
Relations, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 97-126.

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1962), “Two faces of power”,
American Political Science Review,
Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 947-52.
Critical
management
studies
475
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1963), “Decisions and non-
decisions: an analytical framework”,
American Political Science Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 632-42.
Bell, D. (1958), “The power elite – reconsidered”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 238-50.
Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M., Carter, C. and Rhodes, C. (2006),
“For management?”, Management
Learning, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Coutu, D.L. (2002), “The anxiety of learning: interview with
Edgar H. Schein”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 100-6.
Dahl, R.A. (1957), “The concept of power”, Behavioral Science,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 201-15.
Dahl, R.A. (1958), “A critique of the ruling elite model”,
American Political Science Review, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 463-9.

Dahl, R.A. (1961), Who Governs? Power and Democracy in an
American City, Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Darwin, J., Johnson, P. and McAuley, J. (2002), Developing
Strategies for Change, Pearson,
Harlow.
Doorewaard, H. and Benschop, Y. (2003), “HRM and
organizational change: an emotional
endeavor”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
16 No. 3, pp. 272-86.
Dopson, S. and Neumann, J.E. (1998), “Uncertainty,
contrariness and the double bind: middle
managers’ reactions to changing contracts”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 9,
pp. 53-70 (special issue).
Driver, M. (2002), “The learning organization: Foucauldian
gloom or utopian sunshine?”, Human
Fineman, S. (1996), “Emotion and organizing”, in Clegg, S.R.,
Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 543-63.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000), “At the critical moment:
conditions and prospects for critical
management studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 7-
32.
Fromm, E. (1932), “Über Methode und Aufgabe einer
analytischen Sozialpsychologie:

Bemerkungen über Psychoanalyse und historischen
Materialismus”, Zeitschrift für
Sozialforschung, Vol. 1, pp. 28-54.
Fromm, E. (1936), “Sozialpsychologischer Teil”, in
Horkheimer, M. (Ed.), Studien über Autorität
und Familie: Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für
Sozialforschung, Alcan, Paris,
pp. 77-135; 230-238.
Fromm, E. (1941), Escape from Freedom, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, NY.
Fromm, E. (1984), The Working Class in Weimar Germany: A
Psychological and Sociological
Study, Berg, Warwickshire.
Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2005a), “Anticipating critical
management studies”, in Grey, C. and
Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical Management Studies: A Reader,
Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 17-20.
Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2005b), “Introduction”, in Grey, C.
and Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical
Management Studies: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 1-15.
Hochschild, A. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization
of Human Feelings, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Huff, A.S. and Huff, J.O. (2002), “In sight, but out of mind:
dilemmas that diminish the chances for
reconstructed policy sciences”, Organization, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
447-52.

Hunter, F. (1953), Community Power Structure, University of
North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
IJOA
18,4
476
Jay, M. (1973), The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the
Frankfurt School and the Institute of
Social Research, 1923-1950, Heinemann, London.
Kaufman, H. and Jones, V. (1954), “The mystery of power”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 205-12.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (2007), Introducing
Organizational Behavior and Management,
Thomson, London.
Meloen, J.D. (1997), “The humdrum of rhetorics: a reply to
Durrheim’s ‘theoretical conundrum’”,
Political Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 649-56.
Milgram, S. (1974), Obedience to Authority: An Experimental
View, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Mills, C.W. (1956), The Power Elite, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and Around Organizations,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.

Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organization, 2nd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nord, W.R. and Jermier, J.M. (1992), “Critical social science
for managers? promising and
perverse possibilities”, in Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (Eds),
Critical Management
Studies, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 202-22.
Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2000), Thinking about Management:
Implications of Organizational
Debates for Practice, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Phillips, N. (2006), “The adolescence of critical management
studies? A postscript to Clegg”,
Kornberger, Carter and Rhodes, Management Learning, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 29-31.
Polsby, N.W. (1960), “How to study community power: the
pluralist alternative”, Journal of
Politics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 474-84.
Polsby, N.W. (1980), Community Power and Political Theory: A
Further Look at Problems of
Evidence and Inference, 2nd ed., Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Ricci, D.M. (1984), The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics,
Scholarship and Democracy,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Roiser, M. and Willig, C. (2002), “The strange death of the
authoritarian personality: 50 years of
psychological and political debate”, History of the Human
Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 71-96.

Salaman, G. (2001), “A response to snell: the learning
organization: fact or fiction”, Human
Sanford, R.N. (1973), “Authoritarian personality in
contemporary perspective”, in
Knutson, J.N. (Ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 139-70.
Schein, E.H. (1999), “Empowerment, coercive persuasion and
organizational learning: do they
connect?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 163-
72.
Smith, M.B. (1997), “The authoritarian personality: a re-review
46 years later”, Political
Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 159-64.
Snell, R. and Chak, A.M.K. (1998), “The learning organization:
learning and empowerment for
whom?”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 337-64.
Tracy, S.J. (2004), “Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind?
Analyzing and theorizing employee
reactions to organizational tension”, Journal of Applied
Communication Research, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 119-46.
Visser, M. (2003a), “Communicational gestalten: a theoretical
analysis”, Gestalt Theory, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 299-306.
Visser, M. (2003b), “Gregory Bateson on deutero-learning and
double bind: a brief conceptual

history”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.
39 No. 3, pp. 269-78.
Critical
management
studies
477
Visser, M. (2007a), “Deutero-learning in organizations: a
review and a reformulation”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 659-67.
Visser, M. (2007b), “System dynamics and group facilitation:
contributions from communication
theory”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 453-63.
Walsh, J.P. and Weber, K. (2002), “The prospects for critical
management studies in the
American academy of management”, Organization, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 402-10.
Willmott, H. (2006), “Pushing at an open door: mystifying the
CMS Manifesto”, Management
Learning, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 33-7.
Wray-Bliss, E. (2003), “Research subjects/research subjections:
exploring the ethics and politics
of critical research”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 307-25.
Zald, M.N. (2002), “Spinning disciplines: critical management
studies in the context of the
transformation of management education”, Organization, Vol. 9

No. 3, pp. 365-85.
Further reading
CMS Manifesto (n.d.), available at:
http://group.aomonline.org/cms/About/Domain.htm (accessed
28 September 2010).
About the author
Max Visser is an Assistant Professor at Nijmegen School of
Management, Radboud University,
The Netherlands. He received his PhD from University of
Twente. His research interests include
consistency, learning and communication in organizations, on
which subjects he has published
in Academy of Management Review, System Dynamics Review,
Journal of the History of
the Behavioral Sciences and Political Psychology, among
others. Max Visser can be contacted at:
[email protected]
IJOA
18,4
478
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Volume XXVIII, Number 2, Winter 1986
© 1986, The Regents of the University of California

The Study of Social Issues
in Management: A Critical
Appraisal
David Vogel
Competing Frameworks
The academic field of Social Issues in Management is now two
decades
old. Over this period, research in this area has primarily fallen
into one of
two broad categories: it has either been concerned with the
relationship
of business and society or with the interaction of business and
government.
The first research framework dates from the 1960s. It was
originally
associated with the concept of corporate social responsibility.
The premise
of this concept is that society's legitimate expectations of
business extended
beyond the making of profits. It held that in addition to their
economic
responsibility to stockholders, managers of the corporation also
had an
obligation to consider the impacts of their decisions on other
diverse con-
stituencies. Among the most important of these constituencies
was the
urban poor, whose exclusion from the mainstream of the
American econ-
omy represented the most pressing domestic policy issue of that
decade.
The unit of analysis of this research framework was the

corporation, which
was conceived of as a social as well as an economic institution.
Scholarly
writing sought both to describe and evaluate how managers
were adjusting
to the public's changed expectations of their role.
The business and society framework assumed that managers
enjoyed
substantial discretion in balancing the demands of "society"
with those of
their more traditional constituencies, i.e., stockholders,
suppliers, custom-
ers, and lenders. However, by the early 1970s, this assumption
had become
much less valid. The dramatic expansion in the scope of
government
regulation during the late 1960s and early 1970s drastically
narrowed the
boundaries of managerial discretion. By the mid-1970s, for a
corporation
to make its products safe, reduce its emissions, hire women and
minorities,
and design a safer workplace did not constitute evidence that
the managers
were behaving responsibly; it simply meant that they were
obeying the
142
THE STUDY OF SOCIAL ISSUES IN MANAGEMENT 143
law. In effect, many of the social demands previously made on
business

became politicized: corporate social policy was now being
formulated not
at board meetings, but at congressional committees, regulatory
agencies,
and judicial proceedings. "Society" had thus become collapsed
into "govem-
ment. " As a result, in many companies the management of
corporate social
policy became a component of corporate public affairs.
This shift in the political environment of the firm did not mean
that
scholars ceased to be interested in the relationship between
business and
society. The former supplemented the later, it did not supplant
it. The
continued salience of the business-society framework was
reflected in
studies of subjects such as the corporate social audit, corporate
codes of
conduct, shareholder activism, the relationship of corporate
social perform-
ance to corporate profitability, corporate govemance, and
business ideol-
ogy. In many respects, the recent revival of interest in business
ethics—
with its emphasis on the ethical responsibilities of managers—
demon-
strates the continued viability of this way of approaching the
study of the
corporation. (Significantly, the two most extensively studied
topics in busi-
ness ethics, namely corporate involvement in South Africa and
the market-
ing practices of the manufacturers of infant formulas overseas,
both repre-

sent areas in which corporate conduct is not constrained by
American law.)
However, research in the Social Issues in Management field has
become
increasingly dominated by studies of the relationship between
business
and govemment. The latter encompasses govemment
regulation—its for-
mulation and its implementation—as well as corporate political
strategies—
including campaign contributions, lobbying, coalition building,
grass-roots
organizing, and corporate public affairs and the role of public
interest and
other advocacy groups. In contrast to the study of business and
society,
which was primarily topic oriented, much of this research has a
strong
disciplinary orientation—primarily derived from political
science or eco-
nomics, or in the case of political economy, from both. Its
analytical focus is
not so much the corporation as the interaction of business and
govemment.
Notwithstanding the growing volume of research generated by
both
frameworks, the issues they address have diminished in
importance over
the last five years. Twenty years ago, one could argue
persuasively that
coming to grips with changing public expectations of corporate
social per-
formance was the most pressing challenge confronting American
manage-

ment. A decade ago, a similar assessment could be made of the
importance
of govemment regulation. Neither remains t m e . The issues
traditionally
addressed by those who study Social Issues in Management are
no longer
at the cutting edge of management practice. Both the political
and social
environments of business are now more stable, more predictable
and man-
ageable than at any time over the past two decades. Thanks in
part to
economic de-regulation and increased foreign competition, it is
now the
economic environment of business that constitutes the major
area of uncer-
tainty for the managers of most companies.
144 DAVID VOGEL
This is not to suggest that business no longer faces political or
social
challenges; it certainly does and will always do so. New
regulatory issues,
such as those involving the safety of chemical plants and the
most effective
way of cleaning-up toxic wastes, continue to emerge. Rather it
is to argue
that given the current political climate, these challenges are
much less
threatening to corporate profits and prerogatives than was the
case when
our field originally emerged. The major legislative,
administrative, and

judicial battles over the direction and scope of government
regulation are
over: the contemporary politics of regulation primarily focus on
implemen-
tation.
The most obvious index of this development is the recent
cutback in
corporate resources devoted to public affairs. A number of
corporations
have made major reductions in both the size of their Washington
offices
and in their headquarters staffs responsible for monitoring the
external
environment. Compared to the situation in the 1970s, relatively
few of
the new CEOs of the 1980s have been chosen because of their
skills at
external relations; rather, their background is more likely to be
a technical
or scientific one. Even more dramatic is the virtual atrophy of
the Business
Roundtable, the clearest symbol of the heightened politicization
of manage-
ment that occurred in the 1970s. The Roundtable still exists, but
its political
role is much less important than it was five years ago.
From another perspective, our field is the victim of its own
sucess. Is
there any competent manager of an American corporation who
still needs
to be persuaded that social and political forces can have as
much impact
on the bottom line as the decisions of his or her competitors?
While such

a perspective was novel 10-15 years ago, now it has become
part of the
conventional wisdom of the business community.
Significantly, while there have been a growing number of
indictments
of management education, it is noteworthy that no one claims
that business
schools are not adequately preparing future managers to cope
with the
external political environment. Rather, critics have focused on
the exces-
sive emphasis on quantitative skills and the lack of sufficient
coursework
in production management and international business. There is
no shortage
of explanations for the competitive failures of American
industry, but the
inadequacy of the political skills of America managers is
conspicuously not
among them. It is thus problematic whether business schools
will commit
additional resources to the business-govemment-society field.
They are
more likely to place increased emphasis on international
business, corporate
strategy, and production management.
New Directions
What then is the likely future of our field? In fact, the process
of building
from these two frameworks has already begun. As I survey our
field, it
appears to be moving in two somewhat different but equally
promising

directions. The first focuses on the study of intemational
business and
global competition and the second emphasizes corporate
strategy.
The growing importance of intemational competition to the
future of
American business scarcely requires elaboration. Imports and
exports as
a percentage of GNP doubled in the United States between 1970
and 1980;
70% of all domestic markets now face foreign competition.
Intemational
competition is to the 1980s what government regulation was to
the 1970s.
Japanese companies have replaced American regulatory
agencies as the
most important challenge to the future of the modem
corporation. The
most critical problem for GM is no longer whether it can
comply with
EPA; it is whether it will survive the competitive challenge
from Toyota.
Research in Social Issues in Management has always had an
intemational
dimension, but in the past this has largely focused on the social
and political
behavior of American multinationals overseas. However,
"intemational
business" no longer happens exclusively outside the United

States. On
the contrary, issues of intemational competition now dominate
the domestic
political agents; during the 1980s, the impact of public policy
on the inter-
national competitiveness of American industry emerged as the
central
issue of business-government relations in the United States. As
the issue
of plant closings illustrates, it has even spilled over into the
study of
business and society.
It is important that we significantly expand our research in the
intema-
tional area. We need to train, recmit, and develop intellectual
and institu-
tional ties with area specialists as well as with scholars in
intemational
management. In addition, we need studies that describe how
different
capitalist nations have addressed issues such as plants closings,
the regu-
lation of dangerous substances, corporate political power, the
rights of
whistle-blowers, and the assessment of technological risks.
These are
subjects which, for the most part, scholars in our field have
studied with
exclusive reference to the United States. By giving our analysis
of the
relationship among business, government, and society a
comparative di-
mension, we will not only enrich our knowledge of the global
environment
within which American industry must now operate, but also

sharpen our
understanding of our own political and social system.
The second promising direction in which our field has begun to
move
involves the integration of the management of the extemal
environment
with corporate strategy. The links between business policy and
Social
Issues in Management have always been strong. Indeed, in many
schools,
the latter is taught under the rubric of the former. Moreover,
many of
the recent texts in our field and much recent research on
corporate political
activity emphasizes the strategic dimension of corporate public
affairs.
Clearly, research into business-government relations is
becoming more
"managerially" oriented. We are slowly beginning to understand
that a
corporation's choice of political strategy is shaped by the same
kinds of
factors that govem its investment decisions.
146 DAVID VOGEL
But we need to move a step further. We need to study the
interrelation-
ship of a corporation's economic and political decisions, i.e.,
the way in
which a firm's investment decisions are shaped by its political
options and
the way in which a firm's political strategies are infiuenced by

its market
position. We need studies of corporate political activity that are
explicitly
informed by an understanding of how the firm tries to compete
in the
marketplace. Unlike the 1970s, when corporate public affairs
primarily
involved defending the firm from challenges from non-business
interest
groups, government relations has increasingly become a vehicle
by which
firms seek to enhance their firm's competitive position, both
domestically
and internationally. The recent demands of a number of
industries for trade
restrictions as well as the extensive intra-industry battles over
the pace
of economic deregulation illustrate this shift. Moreover, the
links between
corporate public affairs and corporate strategy are particularly
important
in the area of international business, where public policy plays
such a
critical role in the shaping of the competitive position of plants,
divisions,
firms, and industries.
In addition, there is a potential for increased intellectual
exchange be-
tween students of corporate strategy and business ethics. The
develop-
ment of business ethics over the last five years has been
disappointing, a
subject to which I will return in the next section of this article.
But in one
respect, it is extremely promising. Though their language may

differ, there
is a striking similarity between the descriptions of "well-
managed" firms
offered by students of management and that of "socially
responsible" cor-
porations offered by students of corporate social performance.
Peters and
Waterman's description of how a well-run corporation treats its
employees,
customers, and suppliers bears a remarkable resemblance to the
portraits
others have offered of socially responsible companies. A more
recent book
in this genre. Vanguard Management by James O'Toole, makes
this rela-
tionship explicit. Throughout his book, O'Toole argues that a
sense of
ethics is a critical component of a "Vanguard Management."
More gener-
ally, many of same structures and values that characterize a
well-run firm
also appear to characterize an ethically managed firm. At the
same time,
a firm's value system can be seen as an integral component of
its "corporate
culture."
By moving in one or both of the two directions outlined above,
our field
will both become more relevant to the practice of management
and reduce
its isolation from the other components of management
education. The
study of either area requires a better understanding of how a
corporation
performs its central mission, i.e., mobilizing capital and labor

to create
additional wealth. We have long argued that those who study
management
need to better appreciate the political and social dimensions of
business.
But the opposite is now true as well. Those who write about
business-
govemment-society relations urgently need to enrich their
understanding
of management.
The Politics of Teaching and Research
My second observation about the direction of research in SIM
concems
business ethics and social responsibility. I am concemed that we
have
inadvertently allowed our writing about these topics to become
politicized.
Too often the way we treat these subjects remains rooted in the
conven-
tional wisdom of 1970s liberalism. The problem is not that
members of
our field have allowed their research and teaching to be shaped
by their
political and social values. Such a perspective is both
unobjectionable and
unavoidable. It is rather that they have confused the realms of
ethical and
political discourse. Instead of justifying their political
preferences in their
own terms, they have tended to equate them with "corporate

responsibil-
ity." Let me provide a few examples.
Recently, a number of corporations have begun to provide
financial aid
to the rebel forces in Nicaragua. Given our conventional
definition of cor-
porate social responsibility, these contributions would appear to
provide
a perfect illustration of this phenomena. Not only are companies
attempting
to compensate for a reduction in govemment funding, but the
corporations
involved in this effort will only benefit indirectly from their
commitment.
Rather, their motivation is presumably similar to those
companies that
have ratified the Sullivan principles. In both cases, firms are
using their
economic resources to change the political system of another
country so
that it more closely reflects their vision of a decent and just
society. But
while scholars in our field have published numerous analyses of
the respon-
sibility of corporations to end racial injustice in South Africa,
not a word
has been written—or is ever likely to be written—on the
responsibility
of companies to stop the spread of forces hostile to private
property and
political pluralism in Latin America. Why not? What is the
difference? Is
a company only acting "responsibly" when it seeks political
outcomes that
fall on one side of the political spectrum?

More generally, there is a remarkable dearth of literature on the
ethical
and social implications of corporate investment and trade with
communist
countries. For example, in Africa, the Govemment of Angola is
engaged
in a civil war against pro-Westem forces that now control one-
third of the
countryside. The former's military expenses are largely financed
by reve-
nues generated by Chevron, and Cuban troops defend the region
in which
the company's refinery is located. When the Portugese ruled
Angola, there
was extensive discussion of Chevron's role in perpetuating
colonialism and
a number of articles examined its responsibilities to the people
of Angola.
The current govemment of Angola is at least as oppressive as
the Por-
tugese colonial administration. Yet the same scholars who now
write about
the responsibilities of American corporations in South Africa
are strangely
silent about the ethical responsibilities of Chevron to the people
of Angola.
To take another example, I have yet to read a single article or
case-study
analyzing the moral or social responsibility of corporations
seeking to in-
148 DAVID VOGEL

crease their sales to the Soviet Union by pressuring the
Department of
Commerce to relax its regulations governing the export of
advanced tech-
nology. Does not East-West trade also involve moral issues?
And why is
it that those who have written about the way Western firms
market infant
formulas in the third world have ignored the marketing practices
of state-run
firms in socialist countries?
One finds a similar political bias in the analysis of domestic
political and
social issues. For example, those who have written about the
social dimen-
sions of plant closings invariably equate keeping a plant open
with being
"responsible," and closing it with being "irresponsible." Yet one
could just
as persuasively argue that a company that keeps an unprofitable
plant open
is delaying the adjustment of the American economy to a
rapidly changing
and highly competitive international environment in order to
avoid public
criticism. Such a policy may be in the immediate interests of the
residents
of the community in which the plant operates. But in the long-
run its
decision may make all Americans somewhat poorer. Yet this
latter analysis
—which strikes me as no more nor less ethically informed than
the
former—has been remarkably absent from the literature on plant

closings.
Most of the cases on personal ethics used in business and
society courses
deal with a conflict in values between the corporation and those
who work
for it. Almost invariably, the subordinate's values are being
challenged by
his or her superior, who is generally assumed to be acting in the
interests
of the corporation and its stockholders. That such conflicts
occur with
considerable frequency cannot be doubted, and surely we have a
respon-
sibility to prepare our students for them. But there is another
kind of
ethical conflict which also occurs in the real world, namely the
tension
between a manager and a government official. The literature on
government
regulation is replete with examples of corporate executives
being pressured
by regulators to comply with rules and regulations that offend
their profes-
sional training and personal values. Yet, somehow, this
particular sort of
ethical dilemma is absent from the literature on business ethics.
Why is it that unethical behavior on the part of government
officials is
invariably defined as caving in to corporate political pressures,
and never
as their attempt to impose unreasonable demands on business?
We have
numerous descriptions of supervisors coercing engineers to cut
comers

on product or worker safety, but not one case detailing the
tribulation of
an environmental engineer under pressure from EPA to install a
scrubber
that he believes is unreliable and ineffective. We have many
cases describ-
ing company efforts to resist the efforts of regulatory officials
to remove
unsafe products, but not one chronicling the dilemma of a
corporate scientist
who sincerely believes that a particular product he or she has
designed
and tested is safe and effective according to his or her scientific
standards,
but is unable to secure permission to market it due to the
uninformed or
politically motivated opposition of a regulatory official.
If we can accept the fact that a corporation can act
irresponsibly, even
though its behavior is legal, is it also not conceivable that there
might be
occasions when a corporation could violate a particular
regulation, but still
be acting responsibly? More fundamentally, how should we
teach our
students to respond to unreasonable government demands? For
example,
do we wish to recognize the phenomenon of "corporate civil
disobedience"
—the intentional violation of a law by a company on the
grounds that it is

illegitimate? These are important issues, but those who write
our textbooks
on business ethics have ignored them.
Moreover, too much of current writing and teaching on business
ethics
tends to echo uncritically the conventional wisdom of the
media. How
many of those who teach about the irresponsibility of Hooker
Chemical
Company with respect to its toxic waste disposal practices in
Love Canal
are aware of a subsequent study that found that there was no
increase in
abnormalities among residents who lived near the former
Hooker Chemical
site and that therefore their physical relocation by EPA was
entirely unwar-
ranted—and therefore irresponsible. More recently, the Reagan
Adminis-
tration has been strongly criticized for its lack of commitment
to the
enforcement of health, safety, and amenity regulations. But how
many
scholars working in the business and society field have sought
to measure
the actual impact of the Administration's regulatory policies on
public health,
safety, and environmental quality in the United States?
My reading of the literature on business ethics and corporate
social
responsibility suggests that far too often these terms are used
simply as
expressions of the personal values of their writers. That this
process is

often unconscious does not make it any the less invidious. Too
many of
those who write in our field dress up their political preferences
in the
language of business ethics and assume a consensus on what
constitutes
"right" and "wrong," "responsible" and "irresponsible," when in
fact, there
is often none. It is far more likely to be the case that the same
decision
can fall into either category, depending on the assumptions of
the individual
scholar making the assessment.
There is a place for the analysis of business decisions and
dilemmas in
terms of the categories of ethical theory. But these categories
must be
employed with considerable care and discipline. In fact, the
standards of
ethical discourse are far more rigorous than those of political
discourse.
Ethical judgements cannot be made on an ad hoc basis. They
must be
rooted in a clearly specified set of principles and applied
consistently.
Consider the current controversy surrounding the role of
American
corporations in the Republic of South Africa. As a citizen, one
is entitled
to espouse whatever position on this issue one choses. But if
one wishes
to make an ethical argument as a scholar, one must both clearly
specify
the broader principles that underlie one judgment and be

prepared to apply
them on a universal basis. What, after all, makes investing in
South Africa
150 DAVID VOGEL
wrong? If it is because it is ruled by a repressive minority, then
one is
obligated to condemn corporate trade and investment in much of
the world,
including virtually all of the rest of Africa and East Europe.
Now South
Afinca is distinctive in that it is the only government in which
political
representation is based on race. But why is elite rule based on
race any
worse than oppression based on religion (as in much of the
Muslim world),
tribe (as in much of Africa), caste (as in India), or on
membership status
in the Communist Party?
My point is not to defend the Government of South Africa or
justify the
presence of American corporations there. It is rather to argue
that as
scholars, we cannot simply echo the chants of students for
disinvestment
and divestment outside our classrooms. If we are going to use
the language
of moral discourse, we must do so honestly and consistently,
however
much that serves to complicate the problems we address. Nor do
I mean

to suggest that the answers to the questions I raise are self-
evident. It
may well be the case that trading with the Soviet Union is
morally preferable
to investing in the Republic of South Africa or that aiding the
Contras is
an example of corporate irresponsibility. But those who wish to
make
these distinctions owe us an explanation as to how they reached
their
conclusions.
The political bias of much of the thinking about business and
society
among members of the SIM division is also apparent in the
treatment
accorded to recent conservative writers. Over the last five years,
the
most exciting and innovative writing on the central issues
surrounding the
study of business and society—questions such as the moral and
intellectual
status of capitalism, private property, and marketplace
exchange—have
come from the right. One may or may not find the arguments of
Wealth
and Poverty by George Gilder or The Spirit of Capitalism by
Michael
Novack persuasive, but the issues they address are surely
critical to any
contemporary discussion of the social and political role of the
corporation.
Yet I would venture to suggest that those teaching in our field
are far
more familiar with the work of someone like Charles
Lindbloom, whose

book. Politics and Markets, is highly critical of market-based
polities.
Whether or not they agree with Lindblooms' conclusion,
virtually everyone
in our field knows his argument and can critically evaluate it. I
doubt if
much the same could be said of the writings of people like
Gilder and
Novack. Ironically, our field, which has prided itself on being
the cutting
edge of the ever-changing social and political environment of
business, has
yet to take this conservative intellectual renaissance seriously.
I think that the politics of SIM are only in part due to the
personal
political views of the members of our division. They also refiect
the origin
of the field in the liberal social and political climate of the
1960s and 1970s.
The contemporary resurgence of interest in corporate
responsibility and
business ethics both emerged during a period when the
corporation found
itself under considerable pressure to re-assess its relationship to
the society
of which it was a part. The political and intellectual pendulum
has shifted
dramatically over the last five years. While I am not suggesting
that we
substitute a right of center orthodoxy for a left of center one,

our field
would benefit considerably if the views of those who
contributed to it
reflected a greater political diversity than they do at present.
Most impor-
tantly, as scholars, we have a social responsibility to be more
self-conscious
about the ideological assumptions that inform our research and
teaching.
Community Based Civic Leadership Programs: A
Descriptive Investigation
Tarek Azzam
Ronald E. Riggio
Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College
This paper focuses on the development and
operational practice of civic leadership
programs within the entire state of California.
The intention of this paper is to provide a
clearer understanding of how civic leadership
programs are shaped and structured. This paper
also offers a glimpse into the status of civic
leadership programs within California, and will
cover a variety of topics such as the types of
programs, curricular practices of programs,
major issues facing programs, occupational
make up of participants, and program funding.

Implications for future civic leadership
development are discussed.
Civic Leadership programs are formal
leadership development programs sponsored by
local community agencies with the aim of
training future and current leaders in the skills
necessary to serve their communities. These
programs attempt to foster an understanding of
the events, people, and organizational entities
that shape a community, while providing skills
and knowledge to be more effective leaders. An
important aim of these programs is to inspire
citizens to step forward and assume leadership
roles within the community. The concept of
civic leadership has been defined as:
The ’art and science’ of leading in the
public arena where one engages in the affairs of
society through public advocacy, debate,
education, and the fostering of dialogue and
group reflection. Civic leadership promotes
critical thinking in the public arena and an
examination of new alternatives and paradigms.
(Reed, 1996: 100).
The steady rise in the number of civic
leadership programs points to the perceived
importance of having increased numbers of
trained civic leaders within the community.
Some evidence indicates that communities with
strong civic engagement and strong local

leadership tend to have lower crime rates, better
schools, and more effective government
institutions (Putnam 1995; Rossing, 1998).
Typically, these cities have a strong sense of
community and personal ownership. Fostering
these feelings of civic respect and ownership has
been a challenge to many local cities and
governments, and the growth of civic leadership
programs may be one important step in
enhancing a sense of community.
Most civic leadership programs have had a
relatively recent emergence in the United States.
The earliest known program is Leadership Inc.
in Philadelphia that began in 1959 (Moore,
1988). Different sources give different reasons
and historical factors that contribute to the
creation of civic leadership programs. Many
stories attribute the formation of civic leadership
programs to the race riots that were ravaging the
country in the 1960’s (Community Leadership
Association, 2001). These programs started as a
way to bring the community together by trying
to create a mutual understanding of the issues
and problems facing the community.
Other stories attribute the formation of
leadership programs to a severe lack of leaders
within the community. A dramatic example of
such a case occurred with a tragic plane crash
that was carrying most of Atlanta’s young
leaders (Fredricks, 1998). This event created a
leadership vacuum within the community and
spurred members of the community to form
Leadership Atlanta to help fill vacant leadership

roles. Although this case is extremely rare,
many communities report that they are finding it
at WALDEN UNIVERSITY on October 11,
2016jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/
56
harder to locate capable leaders to assume
responsibility and help guide the community,
and to replace retiring community leaders. R. D.
Putnam, (2000) has suggested that the reduction
of civic participation can be linked to increased
pressure on time and money. Putnam also
suggested that current technological trends (such
as computers and e-mails) have, in some ways,
reduced human and community interaction.
The value of civic leadership programs is
hard to gauge due to the unique nature of
individual programs. Each program contends
with different issues, different populations,
different budgets, different approaches to
training leaders, and many other significant
differences. Although the differences between
programs may be large, some preliminary
research on the effectiveness of civic leadership
programs found evidence of positive long-term
impact. Daugherty and Williams (1997)
conducted a longitudinal study of graduates of
civic leadership programs and observed that
alumni were still active in the community three

years after completing their program.
Interestingly, they also found that the impact of
these programs went beyond the graduates. For
example, non-graduates were found to use the
methodology and curriculum of graduates of the
leadership programs. There seemed to be a
transfer of knowledge from graduates to other
people when they interacted in the community.
This led to overall improvement in the execution
and formation of community projects.
Today, the number of community
leadership programs is on the rise. Currently
more than 700 community programs are
operating in nearly all regions of the United
States (Community Leadership Association
2001; Fredricks, 1998). Many of these programs
were formed in or were closely affiliated with
the local chambers of commerce. A substantial
number of these programs were started by
individuals who have either participated in other
civic leadership programs or who have had some
informal contact with other leadership programs.
There is a national organization for civic
leadership programs called the Community
Leadership Association (CLA). This
organization has over 400 members and holds an
annual conference for civic leadership program
directors, and other interested parties. CLA also
provides informational resources for emerging
and current programs by publishing a civic
leadership program guide for individuals or
programs that are interested in how to create,
operate, and maintain a civic . leadership

program. In California, the major association is
the California Association of Leadership
Programs (CALP). This association is well
known among most civic leadership programs
within California. These associations coupled
with contact between other leadership programs
in proximity yield a close-knitted network of
programs that try to share their efforts and
experiences.
Leadership Development in Civic
Leadership Programs
At their core, civic leadership programs
have much in common with other leadership
development programs. Over 85 percent of all
leadership training programs use formal
classroom instruction (Day, 2000). While many
civic leadership programs use classroom
instruction, most also offer direct involvement of
participants in the community, as well as
requiring participants to work on actual
community problems or issues. In this way civic
leadership programs have much in common with
&dquo;action learning&dquo; approach to leadership
development (Conger & Toegel, 2004; Dotlich
& Noel, 1998). In addition, these types of civic
leadership programs appear to see leadership as
a complex interaction between the leader, the
organization, and the larger social environment -
- the city community (Fiedler, 1996).
Leadership development could be seen as a
process that requires both social and contextual
interactions coupled with formal training (Day,

2000). The use of social systems coupled with
individual training can help to build
commitments and establish a relational network
among members of an organization or
community (Wenger 1998). Through this
process, individuals will have the opportunity to
learn through social interaction in relevant
contexts. They will learn from their work and
not be removed from their work to learn. This
can ultimately lead to better retention and
application of what is learned (Wilson, 1993;
Dotlich & Noel 1998).
Individuals should be encouraged to
understand and practice leadership development
57
in their work. To achieve that an environment
needs to be created where individuals are able to
help and support each other, create social
networks, and work toward relevant objectives.
Each individual is considered a leader working
together in a social setting and building
relationships and commitments with other
members of the community (Day, 2000).
Almost all civic leadership programs

provide participants with the opportunity to
interact with the community with many also
including formal leadership training. This
difference from other leadership programs can
provide a distinct advantage for leadership
development. Many civic leadership programs
encourage participants to engage with the
community and use what they have learned to
work on or discuss solutions to problems facing
the community. This engagement process can
facilitate the learning process by providing a
relevant context, and can help establish social
networks between the participants and the
community.
Most civic leadership programs
(approximately 76 percent) tend to structure
their curricula using both formal classroom
training (Instructional Approach) and exposure
to community organizations, and prominent
community members (Orientation Approach) to
facilitate the learning process. An important
question is how effective each of these methods
are in fostering leaders, and how they work in
combination. A brief description of each
approach is provided.
The Instructional Approach is focused on
teaching participants leadership skills through
courses and structured lessons. This is quite
similar to typical managerial leadership
programs, or leadership training programs
conducted in organizations. Many of these
programs hire leadership consultants (they are
usually either academics or independent
consultants) to train and instruct community

participants in leadership skills. For example,
common topics covered would be leadership
styles, developing personal as well as team
communication skills, and effective leadership
strategies. Many of these programs include
team-building exercises such as weekend
retreats and the completion of a team building
&dquo;ropes course.&dquo; The philosophy of these
programs is that leadership is a skill that can be
learned in a controlled setting, and then be
applied to the actual civic community.
The Orientation Approach is focused on
orienting participants to the functions of the
community and introducing them to different
leaders within the community. The program
curriculum is normally divided into different
topics. These topics can cover areas in the
community such as history, culture, education,
law, government and economy. For example, on
&dquo;government day&dquo; participants could spend a
session meeting with the mayor, touring the
local city hall, and meeting with various
decision makers. For the &dquo;law&dquo; topic day,
participants may meet with the head of the
police, go on a police &dquo;ride along,&dquo; and visit the
local jails. For the &dquo;education&dquo; topic day they
may meet the superintendent of schools and visit
different schools. The philosophy of these
orientation programs is that interaction with
community leaders can implicitly teach
participants leadership skills and provide
participants with a better understanding of the
community.

This paper provides information regarding
the status of civic leadership programs with an
initial focus on programs within California. It
provides an understanding of resources available
to these programs (both human and financial),
challenges facing programs, and community
interest and participation in civic leadership
programs.
Methods
Participants
Seventy-two civic leadership program
directors/administrators were interviewed about
their particular programs. All participants were
located in California. Participants and programs
were identified using multiple search methods
such as internet web searches, phone directory
searches, and contact with the local chambers of
commerce. Augmenting the search were
programs that were identified using the
membership roster of the California Association
of Leadership Program (CALP) and the national
Community Leadership Association (CLA).
These sources provided further information
about the presence of many civic leadership
programs within California. Seventy-two (72) of
83 program administrators agreed to be surveyed

58
for an 85 percent response rate. The survey was
administered using a semi-structured telephone
interview. Each interview lasted approximately
45 minutes. A few program administrators
responded to the questions through electronic
mail.
Procedures
The survey instrument was administered to
the leading administrators for each program
using semi-structured interviews. If the program
director was not available, other knowledgeable
sources from within the programs were
interviewed (such as program assistants,
advisory board members or events coordinators).
The interview questions addressed the following
topics:- year of establishment, tuition charged to
attend the program, the different funding
sources, number of students in current class,
occupational backgrounds of participants past
and present, curricular focus (Instructional vs.
Orientation), number of meetings per year, time
spent during each meeting, number of alumni,
type of alumni follow-up, number of full/part
time staff working for the program,
communication with other civic leadership
programs, and major issues and concerns facing
the program. Internet websites and brochures
produced by the programs were also used to

gather further information about each program.
Results
Interview data
Number of Years in Existence-
Many California civic leadership programs
are relatively new. The spread of civic
leadership programs in California started in
1980 with Leadership Stockton as the vanguard
program. Mean age of programs within
California is approximately 10.7 years
(SD=5.99). The oldest was Leadership Stockton
at 22 years and the most recent were programs
beginning in 2002, including Leadership
Connection (Apple Valley) and Carlsbad
Chamber University (Carlsbad).
Tuition & Funding Sources-
The most striking aspect of tuition was the
great amount of variance among programs
(M=$907, SD=$686). Some programs such as
the Santa Ana Leadership Initiative and
Leadership Coalinga offered their programs free
of charge. These programs depended heavily on
community sponsorships (e.g. Leadership
Coalinga is mostly funded by Fresno County
and local business), grants from local or national
foundations (e.g., Santa Ana Leadership
Initiative receives a grant from the Kellogg
foundation), fundraising events, and volunteer
services.
The most expensive programs had tuitions

ranging from $2,000-$4,500. Most of these
programs offered scholarships to help their
participants with tuition. These programs were
typically located in large metropolitan cities in
California. Due to their locations, these
programs had access to a relatively large
population base. They also depended on grants
and sponsorships (these include small business
and large corporate sponsorships) to provide
further funding.
As noted, civic leadership programs find
funding from a variety of sources. Presented are
the top six funding sources mentioned during the
interviews. Community sponsorship was the top
funding source for civic leadership programs
with 53 percent of the program administrators
interviewed saying that they receive in-kind
donations from local business, corporations, and
volunteer help from the community. Active
fundraising was also a major source of revenue
with 31 percent of programs engaging in events
such as dinner parties, auctions to raise money,
and various other fundraising events. Some
programs (16 percent) receive grants from
foundations such as the Kellogg and Harden
Foundations. The Chambers of Commerce are
also an important source of funding with 15
percent of programs receiving some monetary
compensation from their local chambers. Table 1
illustrates the distribution of sources of founding. I

59
Table 1
Types and frequency of funding sources used by civic
leadership programs
Only 8 percent of civic leadership programs
receive some funding from their alumni dues, if
they happen to have an alumni association or
some organization or club to keep the alumni
involved. Some programs are able to cover all
of their funding needs from tuition alone.2
2
Many programs use multiple funding
sources, only 16 percent of programs rely solely
on tuition as their only funding source, while
approximately 55 percent of programs use one
additional funding source (besides tuition) to run
their programs, 23 percent use two additional
funding sources, 6 percent use three or more
additional funding sources. The level of funding
available is heavily dependent on the location of
programs. Programs such as Leadership
Sunnyvale have access to major corporations
such as Yahoo, Netscape, and AMD who have
provided financial support. Other programs may
not have the same corporate opportunities but
they tend to have high levels of community
commitment to supplement their needs. These

programs tend to utilize small local businesses
and fundraising events to help sustain the
ongoing program.
Class Size and Occupational Makeup of
Participants
The class size of civic leadership programs
can vary depending on the size and resources
available to the particular programs. The mean
for participants per class was 24 (SD=8.96).
This number varied from 9 participants to up to
54 participants per class. However, this number
fluctuated from year to year for most programs.
Many of the program directors said that
enrollment numbers are dependent on factors
such as advertising, community involvement,
and the economic condition of the area. Table 2
displays a frequency distribution of program
enrollment.
60
Table 2
Frequency distribution of class size across civic leadership
programs
The survey also shed some light on the

occupational background of participants. We
were interested in finding out how involved
different occupational sectors were in
community leadership programs. Figure 1 is a
pie chart that illustrates the occupational
breakdown of civic leadership participants.
Programs reported that approximately 28 percent
of participants came from the govemment/public
sector. This category encompassed individuals
who work for or are affiliated with
government/public institutions such as public
schools, fire and police departments, city halls,
and public hospital officials. The private sector
accounted for 48 percent of participants,
consisting primarily of large and small business
owners and individuals coming from
corporations. Participants from the non-profit
sector accounted for 22 percent of enrollment,
including participants from organizations such
as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and many
small local charity and service organizations.
The remaining 2 percent of participants came
from individuals who were either retired or local
community activists.
61

Figure 1
Occupational background of civic leadership participants by
sector
The occupational background of
participants did vary somewhat from area to
area. This again was related to the local
demographics of the city or town. Many
program directors interviewed said that they try
to strike a balance during the application
process. They wish to attain an even mix of
backgrounds and experiences to increase the
chance of learning from each other’s knowledge.
Many program directors are faced with problems
of acquiring a sufficient applicant pool to create
this kind of balance. Overall, effort is made to
ensure some representation from as many areas
as possible.
Curricular Focus and Homework
One of the objectives of this paper was to
find out how civic leadership programs approach
leadership development and training. Directors
were presented with a brief description of the
instructional and the orientation approaches and
were asked if they had a combination of both
approaches or if they did one or the other
exclusively, or whether they had some other sort
of structure.
Figure 2 presents a pie chart that illustrates
the breakdown of the various approaches to
leadership development amongst surveyed
programs. As can be seen, the majority of

programs (three-fourths) offer a combination of
both orientation and instruction as part of their
curriculum. Each of these programs, however,
had a different degree of emphasis on each
approach. Some programs included an
instructional classroom session at the end of
every meeting. Others dedicated a full day to
instruction while leaving the remainder of the
meetings for orientation.
62
Figure 2
Percentage of programs that follow the orientation approach,
instructional approach, or combine both
The degree or level of emphasis of each
approach in the combination programs varied
greatly. Directors were asked to estimate the
percentage of time dedicated to each approach.
Results indicated that the amount of time spent
on the instructional approach ranged from 10
percent to 50 percent. Overall, the orientation
approach was incorporated into almost all of the
civic leadership programs surveyed.
Only two programs were spending 100
percent of their time on the instructional
approach. These were two relatively new

programs Carlsbad Chamber University (just
completed its first year in 2002) and Leadership
Carpinteria (started in March 2002). These
programs offered classes in leadership related
topics to interested participants. Some topics
included in these programs are: leadership
styles, communication skills, and conflict
resolution. This is a relatively new trend within
California’s civic leadership programs and more
attention will given to this trend as it develops.
Number of Meetings
Civic leadership programs tended to run
from 9 to 12 months, typically meeting once a
month. The mean number of meetings per year
for each program was 10 (SD=2.9). Some
programs (approximately 12 percent) also
include a 2-day weekend retreat as part of their
offerings. Each meeting usually lasts about 7
hours. This number varied depending on the
topics covered and the resources available.
Many of the programs have topic days that focus
on specific areas of the community. Topics
covered can include: education, economy,
government, law, history and culture. Most
programs begin in the morning with an
introduction to the topic and the events of the
day. Typically, the mornings are spent touring
relevant locations and interacting with leading
members of the topic area (i.e. education,
police, and government). For example, during
Leadership Modesto’s health care day
participants would meet in the mornings with the
chief executive officer (CEO) from the
Memorial Hospital Association, learn the history

of health care, and discuss ethical issues in the
health care field.
63
Depending on the program’s curricular
focus the remainder of the day may be spent on
orientation (continuing the tours and meetings
with topic leaders) or instruction (classroom
instruction regarding a leadership-related topic).
Other programs, such as Leadership Salinas,
offer their sessions during a 20-week period with
meetings held once a week. Some other
programs run as long as two years. For example,
Leadership Clovis offers a two-year program
where the first year is an introduction to the
community, offering various orientation
opportunities to participants. In the second year
participants choose a community issue or
problem, then plan, and implement a
community-focused project to attempt to
alleviate the problem.
Number of Alumni and Alumni Follow-up
The number of alumni for each program
was almost completely dependent on the number
of years since the establishment of the program.
The mean number of alumni was about 256

alumni. Typically, the programs with the largest
number of alumni also tended to be located in
large metropolitan cities. (Lead San Diego and
Leadership San Francisco have more then 800
graduates from their programs).
Regardless of the number of alumni, many
programs are faced with the challenge of
keeping their alumni connected and informed
about the events in the community. Almost 73
percent of civic leadership programs have some
form of alumni follow-up using different
methods. During the interviews we found that
28 percent of programs use monthly or quarterly
newsletters to keep alumni informed, 45 percent
of programs also use various social events such
as dinners or luncheons or even annual
Christmas parties to stay connected with their
alumni. Almost 38 percent of the programs
surveyed have an alumni association that has
monthly meetings, tries to work on long-term
community projects, helps raise money for the
leadership programs (through dues or
fundraising) and/or helps to decide on the events
and curriculum of future leadership classes.
Almost 6 percent of civic leadership programs
have a yearly class reunion. Seventeen percent
of programs also invite past alumni to join the
steering committee to direct the future course of
the leadership program. Eleven percent of
programs invite alumni to continue their
leadership learning by taking refresher courses
on leadership. Four percent of programs have an

annual alumni retreat, and 9 percent provide
volunteer opportunities through the leadership
program as a way to keep them involved in both
the community and the leadership program.3 3
Table 3 provides a breakdown of alumni follow-
up methods.
64
Table 3
Types and frequency of approaches to alumni follow-up
The involvement level of alumni was a
major concern facing many leadership programs.
Many programs attempt to keep the alumni
involved by having them participate in future
and current classes and events either as
instructors or as consultants to the incoming
classes. In many programs, there was at least
one alumnus on the programs’ boards of
directors or advisory boards.
Staff and Networking
One of the major concerns for most
leadership programs is the shortage of paid staff
to help run and organize the program. The
typical number of either full time or part time

Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx

Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx

Similar to Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx (20)

More from annettsparrow

More from annettsparrow (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Critical management studiesand mainstream” organization.docx