Content area
Full Text
The Role of Reflection in Managerial Learning: Theory, Research and Practice KENT W. SIEBERT and MARILYN W. DAUDELIN. Westport, CT & London: Quorum, 1999. 227 pp. $65. ISBN 1567202594
I was attracted to this book, because I'd become tired of the various assertions made about the role and value of reflection, without any real grounding in practice. I wanted to find what actually happens out there in the real world, and how I can promote reflection and learning in it. The Role of Reflection in Managerial Leaning. Theory Research and Practice claims to provide some answers and, in a rather shambolic fashion, does it tolerably well. There are some really good ideas and some frameworks that are genuinely useful and often insightful.
There is quite a large 'but', which I'll cover shortly.
The authors review clearly, and as best I can judge, comprehensively past writing on cognition, learning and reflection. They argue that the major influencers of reflection depend on the environment managers work in rather than anything inherent in the managers' make-up. Some environments promote reflection, and others discourage it. The question is what are the important environments and how can they be manipulated?
In defining what they mean by 'reflection', the authors feel compelled to invent their own version of Schon's concept of reflection-in-action, and reflection-onaction. They describe two kinds of reflective activity-'active reflection'-an activity that contributes to learning during a developmental experience, and 'proactive reflection'-an activity that contributes to learning after a developmental experience.
They argue that 'It will become apparent from what follows that active reflection bears much in common with reflection-in-action as Schon conceptualised it, but that it also involves significant dimensions not reported by Schon: hence the use of a different name for the reflection that managers naturally engage in during challenging experiences'. Those 'significant differences' are frankly debatable. The authors also acknowledge that for all intents and purposes 'proactive' reflection is identical with Schon's 'reflection-on-action'. So why bother with the distinctions? Call me cynical, but I suspect a need to be seen naming something. And I still can't work out the logic of proactive reflection being something that occurs after the event.
The major selling point of the book is that it is research-based. And here comes the...