This document provides an analysis of critical reflexivity through three levels: reflex action, reflection in action, and reflection on action. It discusses how the author has applied these concepts in their management certificate program group work. It also presents a model developed by the author to bridge reflexive actions and reflections in order to become a more reflective practitioner. The document concludes by noting the author's fear that they will not apply the knowledge and skills learned, but also discusses finding enjoyment in writing this reflective essay.

1. Word count: 2497
SKIP?
SKIP?
SCiP!
Critical Reflexivity; smoke and mirrors or philosophy?
Justin Moseley; 201162717.
Professor T. Mullen and Miss C. Reid

2. CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Adaptation .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Reflex action........................................................................................................................................ 2
Reflection in action ............................................................................................................................. 3
Reflection on action ............................................................................................................................ 3
Application .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Reflex Action ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Reflection in action ............................................................................................................................. 4
Reflection on action ............................................................................................................................ 4
Anticipation ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Reflex Action ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Reflection in action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Reflection on action ............................................................................................................................ 5
Learning outcomes - Bridging the gap; Reflexive methodologies .......................................................... 6
Reflex action........................................................................................................................................ 6
Emotion ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Preconceived rationality ................................................................................................................. 7
Reflection on Action............................................................................................................................ 7
Journals ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 9
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1; SITUATIONAL COMMUNICATION (MOSELEY, 2012) 6
FIGURE 2; PHILOSOPHY OF REFLEXIVE REFLECTION (MOSELEY, 2012) 7
1

3. Critical Reflexivity; smoke and mirrors or philosophy?
Introduction
My life has been primarily spent within institutions. I attended boarding school and then spent
twenty years working in the Merchant Navy. Three years ago I came ashore to work on a large
offshore construction project. During this latter tenure I met two MBA’s, both of whom were
instrumental in my attendance of this course. Furthermore, they gave me pause for thought in two
varying different ways.
I discovered John had an MBA. Through our discussions I began to form an idea of what it was and
what it meant to achieve this qualification. However, one aspect I did not “get” during our
conversation was that he stated how incredibly frustrating it was working on the project. This was
due to his cognizance of how things should be done, as opposed to how things were done.
I now have an altered view of the project from time and spatial perspectives. I also have a
perception of strategic tools and best practices, which prior to attending Strathclyde I did not even
know existed. Through this insight I understand John’s frustration. Furthermore, I now see how
issues could have been ameliorated or avoided if the project personnel were more open minded and
not involved in poor management practices which, in retrospect, were pervasive.
My challenge is that I am not a naturally reflective person. Moreover, due to the nature of my action
orientated employment I was the quintessential “energetic problem solver” (Van Der Heijden et al.,
2002, p.230). My challenge is how, or can, I transit through the managerial spectrum in order to
become a reflective practitioner (Schön, 2007)?
Adaptation
Reflex action
On the initial morning of SCiP I was a little nervous about whom my team would be. My concern was
due to my perception of some individuals within the cohort and the feeling that that they would not
match my standards. However, my reflex thinking was counterproductive; sometimes as a manager
you may be placed within an unknown group and have to ensure high performance regardless of
composition. Ultimately the team was formed from two self-selected groups, and a part time
student. My reaction to this was satisfaction; I had not worked with the other full timers, though I
was aware of their high performing reputation. I was however, concerned about the unknown
qualities of the part time member. The irony of this misperception is not lost on me, as Andrew
2

4. performed very well. A salutary lesson is to be consistently open minded and to embrace the
unknown.
Initially in the syndicate room, I noticed that the two self-select teams reflexively sat together at
opposite ends of the table. Using Bolman and Deals (2008) frames I was conscious of potential
conflict arising if we did not integrate. I altered my seating and sat with the other group thus
reducing the potential of factionalisation.
Reflection in action
Through the course of the next few days it became apparent that the group created a richness of
discussion and were adroit at avoiding groupthink (Whyte, 1952). However, the counterpoint of this
richness was that we were affected with “paralysis by analysis.” On one occasion Andrew, stepped in
and “broke the fame” (Bolman and Deal, 2008, p.13) suggesting that we split into sub sets and we
worked more successfully this way. This ability to reflect whilst in action suggested by Schön (2007)
gives the practitioner an aptitude to manage ambiguous and unique situations. This was an excellent
learning process; sometimes I become entrenched in a feedback loop of non-optimal decision
making, where I am unable or not open to seeing better solutions.
Reflection on action
My tenure in the Merchant Navy training developed my leadership ability. This is not what would be
considered a democracy due to the explicit hierarchy; it lies within the “structural” leadership frame
(Bolman and Deal, 2008). My challenge is that I am no longer at sea and requirements ashore differ.
Due to my training, background and strength of character there is a reflexive propensity for me to
dominate groups. Mckenna and Beech (2008) suggest it would be beneficial to utilise
“tranformational leadership,” whereby I lead by example and empower others. However, due to my
force of character, leading by example can be detrimental as I can seem overbearing. Moreover,
what I consider to be empowering people may be perceived as giving orders. I have developed
strategies to ensure all group members have an opportunity to give their input. For example, one
method I applied was ensuring the group gave their opinion first. I found if I gave my perspective
initially, I felt people just agreed with me (or otherwise I am right, A LOT).
On joining a new group for SCiP, I decided to take a step back and see how the group developed.
This gave me a new perspective; I began to comprehend different types of leadership, the explicit
where you lead from the front, or the leader who stands aloof from the action, but is more adroit at
seeing holistically. Using Hersey’s (1984) situational leadership model, the SCiP group was generally
within the “leadership through delegation” aspect. We were all self-starters driving towards the
same goal. However, after the inadequate trial presentation, the model had to be changed to
“leadership through directing.” I pointed out that while we had excellent ideas, if we did not
3

5. capitalise on them we would not achieve our goals. Specialised tasks were duly delegated to the
group (Weber, 1947) which remotivated and refocused us and resulted in a much improved
presentation.
Application
Reflex Action
I have noticed during SCiP and previous modules that there is a reflex action of bounded limitations
which some of the cohort place around themselves. I have lost count of the amount of times I have
been asked or overheard “are we allowed to do this?” The difficulty arises when this fear of failure
creeps into the group and stifles the innovative use of tools resulting in “satisficing” (Simon, 1957);
whereby outcomes and behaviours are diluted (Cropper et al., 2009) resulting in mediocrity.
Reflection in action
Our SCiP group had an older demographic, we had confidence in ourselves and each other to forge
ahead and not follow instructions explicitly. For example, during the option wind tunnelling, rather
than follow the process unequivocally we “self-wind tunnelled” using procedural rationality (Cropper
et al., 2009). To achieve this we discussed whether the generated options were feasible and fitted
the client’s requirement, thus refining the options in a less structured manner, but with excellent
results.
On one occasion however, the group became lost as we were “free styling.” Due to not following the
instructions we had missed a critical aspect of the tool and therefore had to reiterate the process.
Reflection on action
Weick, (1998) suggests that a balance is required to ensure that the bounds of rationality do not
stifle innovation. From the aforementioned examples it can be seen that dependent upon group
composition, the use of tools may vary; there is no “right” way (Weick, 1995). Creativity should be
nurtured wherever possible (Drucker, 1954) and mistakes which occur should not be dwelt upon. If a
team member is lambasted for errors, they are unlikely to engage and propose ideas again.
Whilst there are benefits from being creative, cognizance should be given to the inherent pitfalls of
not explicitly following procedures, as demonstrated by our free styling efforts. Utilisation of
reflection within double loop learning (Argyris, 1991) means that whilst mistakes may be made, the
next time the cycle is completed there should be no reoccurrence of that particular mistake and
creativity is able to flow unimpeded.
4

6. Anticipation
Reflex Action
Prior to the client interview, the group reflexively decided to don business attire, style the room in a
particular way and offer coffee and biscuits. This decision felt like the right thing to do, as it gave a
statement of intent; that we were serious and committed. It was refreshing when the client arrived
in a hoody and was relaxed. This however, shows that our perception of the situation may not have
matched the clients.
Reflection in action
Andrew, (the warm blanket) was the spokesman for the team. His style of communication was
something unique, if in my opinion, a little too acquiescent (which I did tell him). His ability to talk
gently in an amenable manner was very different to the forthright and possibly abrasive
communication I use, this challenged my perception of what I consider normal.
Reflection on action
On my last project there were huge issues between us (the principle contractors) and the client. I
have wondered whether cultural differences were at fault as the organisations were American and
Scottish respectively. In retrospect, I think it may have been something more fundamental; the
inability to communicate in a reasonable manner throughout the organisation. I remember the
Project Director commenting that this type of project commenced well, but once the contract was
signed, the client and contractor were at loggerheads. If this was the communiqué that the Director
was sending, it is unsurprising that at the contracts termination there is still a three hundred million
pound legal claim between the organisations (Blackwell, 2012).
One of my favourite paradigms is “communication is key.” Seeing how different methods of
interaction were utilised to advocate varied perspectives in this module struck me (Wittgenstein,
1980). Referring to situational leadership theory (Hersey, 1984), the model could also be utilised for
communication. Whereby the practitioner changes their voice, pitch and language dependent upon
who their audience is. In the Navy, instructions were issued in a clear, concise and unambiguous
manner. Whilst this method has its practicalities in certain forums, I have seen people wince at my
tone or directness. Observing Andrew allowed me to understand how I could ameliorate my
communications to suit the audience. I have utilised the quintessential MBA two by two below to
demonstrate this.
5

7. Figure 1; Situational Communication (Moseley, 2012)
Learning outcomes - Bridging the gap; Reflexive methodologies
Throughout this year, we have been told that we should be more reflective, have a sense of being
and that we should embrace new ways of practicing. However, no one elucidates on how to achieve
this. Cunliffe (2004) suggests that reflexivity is a philosophy, Gray (2007, p.496) states reflexivity is
“more than learning,” while Argyris (1991) highlights the challenge “smart people” find in being
critically reflexive. How then can I, an action orientated practititioner, moderate reflex, engender
reflection, thus becoming a practitioner of reflective philosophy?
Following a review of methodologies, I have composed a subjective model of reflective philosophy.
This considers the aspects of reflex and reflection previously discussed, with additional internal and
external trigger points.
Reflex action
Emotion
Goleman (2004) suggests that humans are driven by emotional reflex due to the evolution of the
human brain; layers of intelligence and rationality overlay primal strata. Due to this composition the
primal can overpower the rational (Goleman, 2004). Luft and Ingham (1950) suggest that
appreciation of feedback ensures the pratitioner’s cognition of how their actions are percieved
externally.
Knowing oneself, internally and externally, enables the practitioner to be cogent of emotional
manifestation and rationalise it, thereby reducing the negative, whilst enhancing positive
responses.
6

8. Preconceived rationality
Schön, (2007) discusses tacit knowledge and Weick, (1993) suggests contextual reality. Both terms
suggest a preconception of rationality, whereby the practitioner has situational knowledge and
reacts reflexively. This preconception may mask contextual reality, the practitioners reaction
becomes routine, reality is not percieved and over learning occurs (Schön, 2007). Weick, (1993)
suggests that intersubjectivity allows for synthesis of opinions and minimising subjective errors.
Being open to intersubjectivity will not only strengthen groups I am part of, but also the decision
making process – thereby engendering a rationalised synthesis of reality.
Reflection on Action
Journals
Cunliffe (2004) and Gray, (2007) advocate the use of journals as a tool for reflection on action. From
a personal perspective I forsee two challenges arising from this. The first being I am overly self
critical, this aspect of my character can be destructive. To alleviate this, I should use the “cognition
of emotion” facet of my model, allowing objective self evaluation. Secondly, thought should be given
to writing in a critically reflexive manner, (Cunliffe, 2004, p. 415). This leads to evaluating oneself in a
subjectively critical style, which, due to defensive reasoning (Argyris, 1991) could be challenging to
the holistic nature of the reflexive philosophy. However, since I have precognizance of these
potential downfalls, I should now be capable of avoiding these negative processural aspects.
Furthermore, journal use should enable me to differentiate the reality of my actions against my own
subjectivity, thus promoting self awareness and a reconceptualisation of reality.
Figure 2; Philosophy of Reflexivity (Moseley, 2012)
7

9. Conclusion
The final MBA vignette;
During my previous role the second person I met with an MBA was the Chief Executive of a port. From
him I gained understanding of the time and energy commitment required to complete an MBA. On
one occasion I asked him what aspects he used from the MBA, he paused, looked stricken, turned to
me and said quietly “nothing.”
This is my biggest fear; I spend this year absorbing strategies and skills, then do not use the tools,
knowledge or best practices, due to either my own non-reflective personality, or perhaps exigencies
of work. This meeting has been at the forefront of my mind throughout this year and its negativity
and potential occurrence still concerns me.
It is perhaps ironic then, that over the last two weeks whilst having no modules or assignments to
complete (save this one) I have enjoyed writing this reflection. I found myself walking around
Brighton contemplating this essay and as I looked at particular things I decomposed them into MBA
terms; the queue at airport security became a normal distribution curve, advertisements became
market strategies, my thoughts on my actions during the day were reflective and critical rather than
a stick to beat myself with. They acknowledged my failings, but saw positives and how I
could/should/would improve.
Finally, utilisation of the trigger points and acceptance of external inputs within the philosophy
model will, I hope, further open my personality and allow for more collaborative working. Embracing
the rational will, in turn, make me a better manager and person.
Perhaps there is a new trick in the old sea dog?
8

10. Bibliography
nd
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011) making Strategy, 2 edition, London: SAGE.
Argyris, C. (1991) 'Teachingsmart people how to think', Havard Business Review, vol. 69, no. 3.
Blackwell, B. (2012) Greater Gabbard dispute rolls on as project nears finish, 17 March, [Online], Available:
http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article313762.ece [1 June 2012].
th
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2008) Reframing Organisations, 4 edition, San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Cropper, S., Eden, C., Gunn, L. and K, v.d.H. (2009) 'Principles of Rationality', in Managing, Glasgow: University
of Strathclyde.
Cuncliffe, A. (2004) 'On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner', Journal of Management Education, vol. 28,
no. 4, August, pp. 407-426.
Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Managment, Harper and Row.
st
Goleman, D. (2004) Emotional Intelligence, 1 edition, London: Bloomsbury.
Gray, D. (2007) 'Facilitating Management Learning: Developing Critical Reflection Through Reflective Tools',
Management Learning, vol. 38, no. 5, November, pp. 495-517.
Hersey, P. (1984) The Situational Leader, New York: Warner.
Jun, J. (1994) Philosophy of administration, Seoul: Daeyoung Moonhwa International.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959) 'The Science of Muddling Through', Public Administration Review, pp. 79-88.
Luft, J. and Ingham, H. (1950) Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development, Los
Angeles: UCLA.
nd
Mckenna, E. and Beech, N. (2008) Human Resource Management: A Conscise Analysis, 2 edition, Harlow:
Pearson Education.
st
Schon, D. (2007) The Reflective Practioner, 1 edition, London: Ashgate.
nd
Simon, H. (1957) Administrative Decision Making, 2 edition, Macmillan.
st
Van Der Heijden, K., Bradfield, R., Burt, G., Cairns, G. and Wright, G. (2002) The Sixth Sense, 1 edition,
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Econmic Oganization, New York: Free Press.
Weick, K. (1993) 'The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster', Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, December, pp. 628-652.
Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage.
Weick, K. (1998) 'Improvisation as a mindest for organisational analysis', Organizational Science, vol. 9, no. 5,
pp. 543-555.
Whyte, W.H. (1952) Groupthink, Fortune Magazine.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980) Remarks on the philosophy of psychology, Oxford: Blackwell.
9