Introducing Management Education

The following short introductory pages to a more critical-theoretical rather than empirical-positivist book—“Management Education”— are the result of several previous books on management ethics and Managerialism.1 They are also a product of teaching master students in management and master of business administration (MBA) as well as human resource management to postgraduate business managers.2 What is outlined here is based on fruitful discussions about workplace-based training courses held by companies and management. In addition, this book is also informed by more formalised business policies and structured in-house training programmes on “employee training and development”, also known as “human resources development” (HRD).3 Most of these structured, regimented, codified, and “formal” rather than “informal” (e.g. on-the-job) training sessions are performed under the ideological guidance of Managerialism.4 Functionally and in terms of the organisation of management as mirrored by business schools, management training is commonly assigned to human resource management. Consequently, the following will reflect on management training as shaped through the “domination versus emancipation” contradiction. It is also related to actual processes of management training from where

© The Author(s) 2017 T. Klikauer, Management Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40778-4_1

genuinely emancipatory management education, set against what became known as an externally induced “fear of freedom”, is developed.5

Not uncommonly, training course participants from the world of management have called attention to the fact that much of management training remains rather one-dimensional and is often unilaterally organised by business managers dedicated to enhancing the goals of business corporations, namely shareholder-value (corporations) and profit-maximisation (general business).6 The dominance of producing management training one-dimensionally directed towards the sole purpose of business tends to focus on managerial and functional issues while discouraging scholarship, research, as well as critical education. As a consequence, the educational content of management training has mostly functional elements with the support of an adjoining ideology that supports and legitimises management.7

The functional and technical knowledge as well as management- legitimising ideologies in management training sessions have a propensity to take over education. This supports a rather rigid adherence to preset “learning outcomes”—framed as “Key Learning Objectives” (KLO), skilfully linked to a general acceptance of managerial training modules. There are differences in knowledge (traditional management learning), experience (progressive management learning), and degrees of human freedom (emancipatory management education).8 Perhaps to stabilise domination—that has become prevalent in management and quite often also in management training—something that might be seen as “critical emancipation” is made to appear unwarranted if not ignored altogether. To many participants in management training courses, almost any diversion from the preset managerial script—the modules—and, perhaps even more so, any move towards human-centred education dedicated towards critical emancipation appears to be unnecessary, subversive, and at least potentially leading into a pathway to what has been called “Organizational Misbehaviour”.9 To those who have been made to fear freedom, organisational disorder represents chaos with perhaps anarchy being the ultimate incarnation of the devil.10 But on rare occasions, some participants of such management training courses, during moments of self-reflection, still confess: Why not break out and move beyond the preset modular confinements of management training?

In one example of such a discussion, a group of management students were discussing whether a rejection of business capitalism might lead to injustice and perhaps to “destructive fanaticism” with the fear of a “total collapse of their business world”. In this debate, there were disagreeing voices, conveying discoveries that challenged the domination of business. These human discoveries did not lead to fanatical world views but instead to a realisation of some of the pathologies of today’s business capitalism.11

The expressions of doubt regarding the socio-pathological effects of business capitalism may imply a premise which the doubters themselves cannot always make explicit.12 Perhaps it remains crucial to conceptualise that those suffering inside the domineering structures of managerial regimes represent what philosopher Enrique Dussel has identified as “the community of victims”.13 In fact, recognising the existence of structures of domination might, very early on, lead to critical consciousness rather than to “destructive fanaticism”. By making it possible for people to enter into the process of becoming responsible subjects with a critical consciousness, they become enrolled in a search for critical selfaffirmation and thereby avoid extremism. Rather than leading to domination, such an awakening of a critical consciousness might even guide their way to expressions of sociopolitical discontent as well as result in dissatisfaction with pre-established management training courses that are one-dimensionally directed towards KLOs, precisely because these discontents are real components of an already-domineering situation that seeks to construct people as passive “organisation men”.14

Perhaps the key element of Fromm’s “Fear of Freedom” remains that those who live in such fear are not necessarily aware of what is happening. More often than not such individuals actually seek a self-deceptive refuge in an attempt to achieve a rather faked security amidst the general insecurities (fear of demotion, job loss, outsourcing, redundancies, etc.) that accompany business capitalism. The crypto-pathological and hallucinogenic illusion of “security” inside neo-liberal regimes has been made preferable when compared to the risks of emancipation. Such a “wager” has a long tradition. It might go back to the religious conservatism enshrined in the feudal church philosopher Pascal who warned that it is better to believe in God because not believing is covered with unknowns.15 Hence, it is better to believe in neo-liberal capitalism because not believing in it is covered with unknowns. Perhaps the elements have changed but the asphyxiating power of such a “wager” remains the very same, then, as today. Meanwhile, Enlightenment philosopher Hegel argues:16

It is solely by risking life that freedom is obtained ... the individual who has

not staked his life may, no doubt, be recognised as a person; but he has not

attained the truth of this recognition as an independent self-consciousness.

People rarely admit their fear of freedom openly. Instead, they tend to prefer camouflaging domination and unfreedom—sometimes unconsciously—by presenting themselves as defenders of freedom. Often these management students give their reservations and hesitations an air of profound sobriety when pretending to be guardians of freedom. But they confuse freedom with the preservation of domination and with selective choices of solely cosmetically different consumer goods. And they confuse real-life choices with the preset path dependency of “birth ^ schooling ^ working/consuming ^ death”. If critical consciousness threatens to challenge the current status quo of business capitalism, this seems to constitute a threat to freedom itself.

But studies alone hardly ever produce critical reflections on management training, education, domination, and Managerialism.1 7 Instead, critical reflections remain rooted in concrete situations that describe reactions of students who at the same time are workers forced to sell their labour on an asymmetrical labour market unless they seek to be exposed to the already-deregulated and -punishing remnants of what was once known as the welfare state. Despite Herr von Hayek’s political-neo-liberal catechism that has been translated into political reality since decades, many students were once members of an—albeit shrinking—affluent middle class, even though having to sell their ability on the labour market in fact renders them working class. Most of this can be observed directly rather than indirectly during the course of teaching in a business school inside what used to be called “higher education”. Today, this has been downgraded to mere “degree factories” in the true Fordist meaning of the word.18 Many of these decade-long classroom observations and firsthand experiences offered an opportunity to reflect on most of the points put forward in this book. Given the implications drawn from these real experiences, much of the book will probably arouse negative reactions in a number of readers—but so did the writings of, for example:

• Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf

Rocker, Simone de Beauviour; Murray Bookchin; Noam Chomsky;

Elfriede Jelinek; Slavoj Zizek, Paul Krugman, and many others,

when first put forward. Some might regard the position of this book on the problem of human emancipation as an educational project as purely idealistic or may even consider discussions of critical thinking, critical pedagogy,19 domination, vocational training, management training, domination free dialogues, mutual and equal recognition, hopes, communicative action, ideal speech, moral philosophy, and sympathy for the “communities of victims”, Managerialism, neo-liberalism, and so on as no more than inconsequential mumbo jumbo. Others will not—or perhaps may not wish to—accept the book’s overall accusations, exaggerations, and polemics on the current state of domination in management training.

Accordingly, this admittedly somewhat thought-provoking book is at least partly for educators inside Watson’s “Megamachine”20 of company- based as well as university management education who not just try to understand the managerial megamachine but also seek to engage in educational actions “Against the Megamachine”. It is quite clear that many management and educational writers as well as those who further Managerialism might disagree with much of the book. But one might hope that those on both sides of the fence will continue reading it to the end. Those readers who dogmatically pre-assume a closed and perhaps even somewhat “irrational” disposition will tend to reject the presented dialogue “before” opening the final pages of this book. These are the ones who judge wine by the label rather than by its taste.

Managerial sectarianism, especially when nourished by neo-liberal economic fanaticism, continues to be thought limiting. But countering such asphyxiating restrictions, emancipation—when nourished by Enlightenment, moral philosophy, and critical thinking in the understanding of critical theory’s philosophical historical predecessors Kant (self-determination, “the courage to use your own understanding” and

Mundigkeit), Hegel (moral life and recognition), and Marx (economy, capital, class, and profits), as well as its first-generational critical theorists Horkheimer (traditional and critical theory), Adorno (there is no right life in the wrong one), Benjamin (hope), Marcuse (one-dimensionality), and their successors Habermas (communicative action) and Honneth (mutual and equal recognition), and especially when linked to critical pedagogy (Freire, McLaren, Giroux, etc.)—offers more creative ways not just to analyse contemporary management training but also to reach beyond it in attempts to establish critical emancipatory management education.21 While this may appear rather complicated, it can be shown as a process model:

The process model of this book (Fig. 1.1) indicates the main thesis of the project to create emancipatory management education. It starts with the philosophical foundations of the project found in Aristotle, to some extent in Rousseau’s “Emile”, in Kant and Hegel as well as in Dewey.22 Some of these have more or less directly influenced critical theory as signified in the writings of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin, Habermas, and Honneth. This tradition is enriched by critical pedagogy (Freire, McLaren, Grioux, etc.) building the core theoretical framework from which standard management training is analysed and eventually overcome in an attempt to create a practical version of emancipatory management education. Perhaps the Frankfurt School’s critical theory is best signified by one of its finest writings, namely Marcuse’s seminal masterpiece “One Dimensional Man”.23 On this initial foundation, the key to this book remains the centre box (Fig. 1.1) where Honneth’s concept of recognition builds the stepping stone to Habermas’ communicative action, which underwrites and informs critical pedagogy. The merger of these two traditions (critical theory and critical pedagogy) builds the

A process model to establish emancipatory management education framework used to highlight the pathologies of current management training

Fig. 1.1 A process model to establish emancipatory management education framework used to highlight the pathologies of current management training. But the philosophical positives of Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Dewey face the negatives of Managerialism and current management training when linked to critical theory and critical pedagogy. Out of these contradictions, something that might be called “emancipatory management education” emerges as a thesis ^ anti-thesis ^ synthesis project.

Simple rejectionism of challenging ideas by favouring a onedimensional business interest tends to mark the strength of some present- day ideologies. Thereby, these ideologies have a tendency to eliminate “different voices”.24 This book’s idea is not to fall into this admittedly very well laid-out trap. Set against such limiting of thought, emancipation remains crucial as well as critical and thereby liberates from thought- limiting structures of domination. This involves a commitment to the position one has chosen. It also demands an ever greater engagement in the efforts to transform the objective reality of management training towards humanisation.25 Conversely, the one-dimensional and sectarian business interest as often presented in management training—precisely because it deals with ideological irrationalities—tends to turn reality into a false “reality” that is often presented as “the given” and unchangeable or as TINA—there is no alternative. Wherever the one-dimensional business interest enters, it appears to constitute an obstacle to the emancipation of humankind.26 Managerialism’s version thereof does, unfortunately, not always call forth its counterparts:

“resistance to all the things imposed on us”,

as Adorno’s moral-philosophical principle of the “Ethics of Resistance” implies.27 Not uncommonly, however, those opposing domination run the potential danger of joining the reactionaries by falling into the ideological traps set up by Managerialism. But while this is a real possibility, it should not lead those who seek emancipation from domination to become disillusioned and mutate into submissive cattle of the global business elite.28 Once engaged in the process of emancipation, those opposing domination can no longer remain passive in the face of global violence—structural or otherwise—as conducted on a daily basis by business capitalism, reaching from pharmaceutical “body hunters” to the tobacco corporation’s 100 million killed people during the twentieth century, to child labour, sweatshops, and to global environmental destruction.29

On the other hand, those who oppose domination can never be subjectivists either, and this relates to the double meaning of the term “subject”. They can no longer be simple subjects to managerial regimes in the process that demands subjection. Put simply, they can no longer be “loyal subjects” of Managerialism. But—and this is the other meaning of the term “subject”—they can indeed be subjects in the Kantian-Adorno understanding of Mundigkeit as autonomous human beings capable of self-determination.30 For these subjects, the subjective aspect exists in relation to the objective, with the objective business reality remaining the concrete reality which is, in turn, also the object of critical analysis. Subjectivity and objectivity remain joined inside a Hegelian dialectical unity producing knowledge31 in solidarity with action directed towards emancipation as a synthesis.32

On the management side of the educational equation, a onedimensional business interest and its ideological entourage remain blinded by the prevailing irrationalities of Managerialism, ideologically framed as management. Business capitalism and its twin ideologies of Managerialism and neo-liberalism might not be so much perceived as a “dynamic reality” but can be more correctly seen as a “dynamic ideology”. Thinking dialectically can un-camouflage this. It can combine reality and ideology. Meanwhile, promoters of neo-liberal ideologies refrain from such a move, presenting the world as a one-dimensional entity.

Herr von Hayek’s neo-liberal model seeks to revert dialectical thinking and end all progressive historical tendencies towards emancipation. Since emancipation can never be totally achieved, it seeks to slow down these historical processes while seeking to asphyxiate time as well as human beings. This is done in an attempt to arrest people inside an eternal, albeit market-driven, “work^consume” oscillation. Set against this is the fact that progressive-emancipatory conceptions of history remain on track. This allows for the interpretation of the reality of neo-liberalism linked to its camouflaging ideologies. In education, this occurs whenever history is seen as a dialectical relationship of forces directed towards emancipation and towards asphyxiating people in a de-historised—taken out of history—capitalist eternity under the ideological banner that capitalism exists without history; it has always been there, and will never end. In reality meanwhile, the dialectic-dynamic relationship of these forces does not create an automatism capable of justifying capitalism. In addition, the acting subject can never be eliminated from such historical processes.

The ideology of Managerialism differs from its neo-liberal counterpart in that the former attempts to asphyxiate managerial regimes and management training so that the future of human society will reproduce a domesticated present over and over again while the ideology of neoliberalism tends to consider the future as pre-established, as a kind of inevitable destiny along a “liberal^to^neo-liberal” capitalism trajectory. Today’s Managerialism remains also linked to the past when many of the initial imperatives of early liberal capitalism are presented as given— albeit reframed as neo-liberal capitalism.

The “liberal versus neoliberal” perspective remains deeply reactionary when starting from the respective standpoint of capitalism that instils a false view of history. As a consequence, both have developed forms of actions which negate human freedom. The fact that one side imagines a “well-behaved” present of “law-and-order” while the other predetermines our future purely through market capitalism has never meant that both have become simple spectators. Instead, liberal and neo-liberal capitalism as well as Managerialism are rather active ideologies seeking to shape not just the past but also the present and the future. Managerialism expects that present business capitalism will continue eternally with, of course, endless growth in consumerism, waiting for the already-known future of consumer capitalism to continue. But contrary to Managerialism and neo-liberalism, any attempt to encapsulate oneself in a rather “vicious circle of perceived certainties”, from which nobody can escape, marks the clear and present danger of such ideologies. It also shows that the former is perhaps more dangerous than the latter since—while both invent their own truths—Managerialism, unlike neo-liberalism, does not rely on politics, nor does it seek to influence and shape politics and it is also not a political project. As such the real danger of Managerialism may lie in its pretence that management has technical and organisational instruments that can be used to run society as a whole.

All this, however, has never been the truth for those people who struggle to build a positive future, yet they might face the risks involved in this very construction. Nor is it the truth for people who fight side by side and learn how to build a humane future together. Many of them are aware that this future has never been something given nor is it a future that is to be received. Instead, the future is to be created. Overall, however, the perspective of Managerialism tends to treat history in an elitist ownership fashion. This might result in leaving the project of Managerialism without the people which it seeks to incorporate while mutating into a perpetual structure of eternal business capitalism.

While Managerialism is enclosing itself in its own crypto-truth about business capitalism, it does not much more than fulfil its own self-assigned and pretended “natural” role. Managerialism revolves around its own truth presented as a hegemonic ideology. This provides a contradiction- free picture of business capitalism, which, of course, comes with a few minor misadventures.33 Managerialism remains an ideology, and when linked to neo-liberalism, it becomes part of a more general and overarching hegemony. Managerialism represents a legitimising world view. Initially, it was a belief system at the level of society that—by the end of the twentieth century—had mutated to the global-level legitimising corporate globalisation. Below the overarching global hegemony of neoliberalism, simple ideologies such as “work hard”, individualism, competition, and so on are applied.

I n the context of management training, ideologies can be seen as being able to create “knowledge in the service of power”. It is educational knowledge and the transmission of knowledge—not for the sake of knowing but knowledge that serves a specific purpose. This specific purpose is, in this case, of management and business capitalism. But ideologies do more than that. They also carry at least four other functions:

  • 1. Knowledge in the service of management. This occurs when knowledge is created (management research) and transmitted in management training, for example serving business organisations and ultimately capitalism. As a consequence, knowledge in support of managerial regimes (the practices of management) and Managerialism (the ideology of management) is admitted to the canon of management studies and the curricula of management training while critical emancipatory knowledge is marginalised and eliminated.34
  • 2. Ideologies camouflage contradictions. Contradictions are inherent to management. For example, workers’ interest in high wages is set against management’s drive towards lower wages, ideologically framed as cost-cutting, outsourcing, or offshoring. Simultaneously, the system of capitalism depends on high wages to sustain consumerism so that “we can buy things we do not need with money we do not have to impress people we do not even like”. As a consequence, management studies, Managerialism, and management training present management as a harmonious enterprise.
  • 3. Ideologies support domination. Managerial regimes, perhaps ever since their invention as factory administration, have been and still are defined by two groups: managers and non-managerial staff or workers, also framed as human resources, employees, human capital, underlings, or subordinates. Since the “manager versus worker” relationship is not horizontal but vertical and hierarchical, the key defining factor of this relationship remains domination. Ideology assists domination, for example, by camouflaging it when workers are euphemistically called “associates” as in the case of Wal-Mart.35
  • 4. Ideologies prevent emancipation. Management knowledge, management training, and rafts of other instruments are used to systematically and deliberately prevent people from changing oppressive and domineering settings. This occurs, for example, when managerial power is enforced against the will of employees and when people are literally beaten into submission as it was quite common practice during industrialisation. Today, this has been relocated into distant sweatshops and child-labour facilities under the motto: “out of sight—out of mind”. This also covers the domination enshrined in institutions under what became known as “structural violence”.36 And it covers the corporate mass media’s relentless fight, for example, against trade unions.

In short, whenever forms of domination are to be sustained, ideology is needed to assist those in power. This remains the raison d’etre for managerial ideologies. Management (defined as “getting things done by using people”), managerial regimes (the top-down management of people), and management training (knowledge and ideology transfer) thrive on domination, perhaps ever since the term “command-and-control” entered the language of management and eventually Managerialism. As a consequence, whenever Managerialism feels threatened through

  • • the creation of knowledge that is not in support of management and business,
  • • knowledge that highlights contradictions, and
  • • knowledge that does not support domination but emancipation and humanisation,

the harmonious picture of management that Managerialism so carefully cultivated is questioned. With that, Managerialism considers almost anything that is not “its” truth a potential danger. Simultaneously, Managerialism tends to show an absence of self-reflection and self-doubt which perhaps is one of the clearer indications of the existence of ideology.

Set against Managerialism’s task to asphyxiate society and maintain domination and the status quo, progressive critical forces remain committed to human emancipation. These forces tend not to become prisoners of the ideological circles of self-certainty and “sense certainty” as the philosopher Hegel called them—and which are Managerialism’s viewpoints about business capitalism within which it seeks to imprison reality and society. Contrary to that, the more emancipatory education becomes, the more intensively it enters into reality so that critical knowledge can inform transformations towards humanisation. Critical education has never been afraid to confront or experience the unveiling world when the “veil of ignorance”, as American philosopher Rawls37 once said, is removed, thus allowing people to see through the ideological fog created by Managerialism. It is also not afraid to meet the people and enter into critical and emancipatory dialogues with them. Critical emancipatory management education does not consider itself to be the “proprietor” of history and humanisation and to present itself as the great, heroic, and sole liberator of the “community of victims”.38 Instead, critical emancipatory management education sees itself as being committed to fighting at the latters’ side.

The basic parameters of the concept of critical emancipatory management education have been very roughly sketched out in these short introductory notes. They are further illuminated in the following pages. It might be satisfying if, among the readers of this book, there were a few sufficiently critical to amend possible mistakes and potential misunderstandings that almost inevitably occur in a book-length discussion on “Management Education”. Some readers may also be encouraged to point out aspects that have not received the credence they deserve.39 It is equally possible that some may question some aspects of what is suggested here. As with many other subjects and issues, Managerialism remains a contentious subject of which many, in various ways, had and will continue to have concrete daily experiences. To others, Managerialism and management training may just be not much more than an option to reflect on what became known as the following:

mushroom management

keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

However, the fact that many have rather directly experienced Managerialism through perhaps much more hideous instruments than “mushroom management” (e.g. key performance indicators, mass retrenchments, downsizing, rightsizing, and suizising) qualifies them to engage in critical reflection on the four key themes of this book: Managerialism, management training, domination, and emancipation. Furthermore, many will also have experienced Managerialism in educational institutions. Quite often, this comes along as educational activities that pretend to be “with” people whilst being based on the forces of Managerialism that have succumbed to the latter’s ideology. Many educators have accumulated a wealth of knowledge on training and education, which by itself can pose challenges to Managerialism. To them, this book might affirm many of the intuitive suspicions they might already have about Managerialism and management training.

One might hope that what is outlined in the following pages might have a lasting impact. Critical emancipatory management education always places a high currency on trust in people, and there is still a conviction in people and in the ability to create a world in which it will be easier to be human rather than being a human resource trained and conditioned to function as a little cog in the eternal and often rather mindless wheel of business capitalism. All this is illuminated in the following text of this book.

This introduction has provided a very general overview of some overall problems of management training when viewed inside the “field of tension” [Spannungsfeld] between domination and emancipation. Perhaps core to this is that in management training the human is not just framed as a “human resource” (management) and “educational customer” (training institutions) but all too often people are also made to take a backseat. They are designed to become functionaries, additives, or auxiliaries of a gigantic managerial megamachine—a ghost, invented without a control and switch-off button. As a consequence, the automatic machine of management and capitalism moves relentlessly forward, camouflaged by “invisible hand” ideologies such as market and consumerist progressions.

Meanwhile the technical practicalities and functionalities of managerial regimes and their adjacent legitimising ideologies (Managerialism) provide overall guidelines on management training programmes, thereby influencing teaching agendas, training facilities such as business schools, curricular planning, textbooks, syllabus, and so forth. Set against this—as outlined in the second chapter—are attempts to humanise education and with it management training, perhaps based on a still-existing human drive to resist domination.40 But this human drive is countered by antiemancipatory forces set against humanisation and towards domination that also work against the humanisation of education, as Chap. 3 shows.

All of this can be experienced in a particularly strong way in the main training facilities of management, namely business schools dedicated to producing “Excellent Sheep”.4 1 But it can also be found in non-university-based management training programmes, as Chap. 4 highlights. The aim to work against emancipation often enforces a reliance on certain forms of training that is functional and predesigned with specific curricular teaching methods while it also reduces education to training with the memorising of so-called key management writers and core management concepts. To spice this up, colourful devices such as short videos, online models, e-learning modules, flip charts, the infamous but highly destructive “power-point presentation”, and “blended learning” methods are applied.42 While turning education into infotainment, these devices have a tendency to break education into easily digestible “20-second-advertising” circles used in marketing.43 As a spin-off, they can prevent emancipatory education by “slicing-and-dicing” and fractioning education. These training methods often rely on a narrow band of allowable communication devices or simply on the transmission of management knowledge and its accompanying ideologies in a simple “transmitter^receiver” model. This results in distorted and, at the very least, highly pre-structured forms of communication. Set against this— as outlined in Chaps. 5 and 6—is the idea of “communicative action”, allowing participants in education to engage in more fruitful and less alienating forms of communication4 4 that are dedicated to education rather than to training regimes that more often than not represent domination through a predesigned adherence to management knowledge.

One of the key elements of communicative action remains “ideal speech”.45 How this relates to management training is part of Chap. 7. Chapter 8 transports these two developments that have been discussed in Chaps. 6 and 7 to the Husserl-Habermasian notion of the “lifeworld”, that is, the realm of society that is not (yet) totally governed by the ideological imperatives of Managerialism.46 But during the process of establishing communicative action and ideal speech inside management training programmes and the lifeworld, emancipatory education will encounter the colonising interest and force of Managerialism.47 Managerialism remains the missionary ideology that seeks to convert almost every eventuality of human life into market relations. To achieve that, this ideology seeks to colonise virtually every sphere of the lifeworld, from kindergarten to hospitals and to education.

This book is not just a critique of standard management training regimes carrying connotations of domination; it also offers guidance on the emancipatory practice of education. Hence, Chap. 10 outlines not just how emancipatory education can resist these colonising tendencies but also how to move towards emancipation, that is, by relying on real-life experiences of students linked to a “student-educator” relationship that is based not on domination and prefabricated curricula programmes but on mutual and equal recognition between both. The somewhat Hegelian concept of “mutual and equal recognition”, as developed by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor and German philosopher Axel Honneth, is able to carry forward the project of emancipatory education, societal emancipation, as well as the humanisation of managerial regimes and the lifeworld.48 The final chapter of the book (Chap. 11) highlights the key elements of what might be termed an “emancipatory humanistic version of education”, linking it to critical pedagogy as an alternative to standard management training.49 It outlines the basic parameters of such a project, capable of moving standard management training towards emancipatory education. Starting from a few general illustrations on humanising education, the book proceeds to the more specific details of emancipatory management education before entertaining its conclusions.

Notes

  • 1. Klikauer, T. 2013. Managerialism—Critique of an Ideology. Basingstoke: Palgrave; Locke, R. R., & Spender, J. C. 2011. Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and their Schools Threw Our Lives Out of Balance. London: Zed Books. The term “training” is used to indicate a more structured, direct, and skill-based form of learning while “education” carries connotations to a wider education that can be seen as Bildung (German; e.g. Sorensen, A. 2015. From Critique of Ideology to Politics: Habermas on Bildung. Ethics and Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 252—270) directed towards what Kant once called Mtindigkeit (cf. Adorno), resulting in selfdetermination, autonomy, and critical reflective consciousness. In short, one might be able to train a dog but there has hardly ever been an educated dog.
  • 2. Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers, Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall; Bolton, S. C., & Houlian, M. (eds.) 2008. Searching for the Human in Human Resource Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • 3. Fenwick, T. J. 2004. Toward a Critical HRD in Theory and Practice. Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 193—209.
  • 4. A functional definition of ideology relates to its task and for that ideologies have four key tasks: (a) ideology creates knowledge in the service of power; (b) ideology cements the status quo; (c) ideology camouflages contradictions; and finally (d) ideology prevents emancipation; cf. Gramsci, A. 1929—1935. Prison NotebooksVols. 1—3 (edited with introduction by Joseph A. Buttigieg; trans. Joseph A. Buttigieg and Antonio Callari). New York: Columbia University Press; Althusser, L. 1984. Essays on Ideology. London: Verso; Therborn, G. 1988. The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London: Verso; Rehmann, J. 2013. Theories of Ideology: The Powers of Alienation and Subjection. Leiden: Brill.
  • 5. Fromm, E. 1942. TheFearofFreedom. London: Routledge.
  • 6. While the very reason for companies and business to exist is “to make profits” and to extract surplus value for work, in the case of shareholding corporations the drive to profits has been legally enforced, becoming an all-defining raison d’etre for corporations (Stout, L. 2014. The Corporation and the Law. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 158, no. 4, p. 364).
  • 7. In this context, the term “scholarship” refers to a body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. It systemically advances the teaching, research, and practice of a given scholarly or academic field of study through rigorous inquiry. Perhaps the first problematic term of management studies is “trustworthy” as corporations and management are not too often seen as being “trustworthy”. Secondly, and unlike many other fields, management studies appears to be more dedicated to its own ideology than scholarship and “rigorous inquiry” as it hardly ever produces knowledge for the sake of knowledge but in support of management, corporations, and managerial capitalism. Hence, critical thinking is almost completely eliminated from the field except when used as a system-stabilising element as in the case of critical management studies. While there certainly is “new” knowledge produced in the field of management and business studies as a sheer endless raft of journals and books testifies, this book is not about management research (Paulsen, M. B. (ed.) 2015. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. London: Springer; Leathwood, C., & Read, B. 2013. Research Policy and Academic Performativity: Compliance, Contestation and Complicity. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1162—1174). At their worst, academic output measuring euphemistically named “metrics” can contribute to what

Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, calls a “new barbarity” in our universities (Wisldon, J. 2015. The Metric Tide. London: London School of Economics: lse.ac.uk, 9 July 2015, p. iii).

  • 8. Beckett, K. S. 2013. Paulo Freire and the Concept of Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 45, no. 1, p. 58.
  • 9. Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. 1999. OrganizationalMisbehaviour. London:

Sage.

  • 10. youtube.com/watch?v=__vv6eRj2-k; youtube.com/watch?v=JM0_0pfm2_c
  • 11. Kuhner, T. K. 2014. Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution. Stanford: Stanford University Press; Wallerstein, I. M. 2014. The World is Out ofJoint: World-Historical Interpretations ofContinuing Polarizations. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
  • 12. Benson, P., & Kirsch, S. 2010. Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation. Current Anthropology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 459—486.
  • 13. Dussel, E. D., & Vallega, A. A. 2012. Ethics ofLiberation in theAge of Globalization and Exclusion. Durham: Duke University Press; Douzinas, C. 2013. Philosophy and Resistance in the Crisis: Greece and the Future of Europe. Hoboken: Wiley.
  • 14. Whyte, W. H. 1961. The Organization Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • 15. Pascal, B. 1660. Pensees—The Provincial Letters (section 6, note 343). Garden City: Doubleday (1961), Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (1990), London: Penguin Books (1995); Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 16. Hegel, G. W. F. 1807. The Phenomenology of Mind. Mineola: Dover Publications.
  • 17. Clegg, S. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 566—585.
  • 18. In Fordist business schools, these students are mass processed with ten- week training sessions and one-year degrees rigidly following the operations layout of such schools. They are standardised the moment they arrive, certified through bar codes and access codes, formatted into slots (subjects) with formatted degrees, formatted textbooks, formatted examinations, a formatted syllabus, and so on (Tight, M. 2014. Collegiality and Managerialism: A False Dichotomy? Evidence from the Higher Education Literature. Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 294—306).
  • 19. Throughout this book, the terms “critical pedagogy” and “emancipatory education” are used interchangeably with the latter emphasising slightly more the pedagogical elements of education (e.g. Mayo, P. 2015. Hegemony and Education under Neoliberalism: Insights from Gramsci. London: Routledge).
  • 20. Mumford, L. 1967. The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development. London: Seeker & Warburg; Watson, D. 1997. Against the Megamachine: Essays on Empire & Its Enemies. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.
  • 21. Ludovisi, S. G. 2015. Critical Theory and the Challenge ofPraxis: Beyond Reification. Farnham: Ashgate; Mezirow, J. 1981. A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education. Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3-24.
  • 22. Rousseau, J. J. 1762. Emile or On Education (introduction, translation, & notes by Allan Bloom, 1979). New York: Basic Books; Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
  • 23. Kellner, D. 1991. Introduction to the Second Edition, in Marcuse, H. 1966 One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Societies. Boston: Beacon Press; Hassan, R. 2015. The Function of Time in Marcuse’s One-Dimensional World, and Its Relevance in the Networked Society. New Proposals, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 101-115; Horkheimer, M. 1930. Ein Neuer Ideologiebegriff [a new concept of ideology]. Archiv fur Geschichte des Sozialismus undder Arbeiter-Bewegung, vol. 15, pp. 33-46; Horkheimer, M. 1937. Traditional and Critical Theory, in Horkheimer, M. Critical Theory—Selected Essays, trans. O’Connell, M. J. et al., 1972, New York: Herder; Horkheimer, M. 1947. The Eclipse of Reason . New York: Oxford University Press.
  • 24. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Ollman, B. 1971. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Klikauer, T. 2013. Marx & Alienation— Essays on Hegelian Themes. Labour & Industry, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 182-186.
  • 25. Brand, R. 2013. “We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition”—But Before We Change the World, We Need to Change the Way We Think. New Statesman, 24 October 2013.
  • 26. Dalrymple, W. 2015. The East India Company: The Original Corporate Raiders. Wednesday, 4 March 2015, www.theguardian.com
  • 27. Adorno, T. W 1944. MinimaMoralia—ReflectionsfromtheDamagedLife, trans. Redmond, D. 2005: www.efn.org/~dredmond/MinimaMoralia (trans. Jephcott, E. F. N. 1974. London: New Left Books); Freyenhagen, F.
  • 2013. Adornos Practical Philosophy: Living Less Wrongly. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 28. Mills, C. W. 1956. ThePowerElite. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; Petras, J. F., & Veltmeyer, H. 2002. Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century (2nd reprint). Halifax: Fernwood Pub.; Zed Books & Palgrave.
  • 29. Shah, S. 2006. The Body Hunters: TestingNew Drugs on the World’s Poorest Patients. New York: New Press.
  • 30. Adorno, T. W., & Becker, H. 1999. Education for Maturity and Responsibility. History of the Human Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 21—34.
  • 31. Pick, D., Teo, S., & Yeung, M. 2012. Friend or Foe? New Managerialism and Technical, Administrative and Clerical Support Staff in Australian Universities. Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 3—23.
  • 32. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy ofthe Oppressed (trans. Myra Bergman Ramos). New York: Continuum; Giroux, H. 2010. Lessons from Paulo Freire. Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. B15—B16.
  • 33. Reich, R. 2016. The Majestic Inequality of the Law (www.the-american- interest.com, 19 January 2016, 5 pages).
  • 34. One might even get the impression that there is a strong “power-knowledge” stratification in management studies that allows ideologically faithful knowledge into the most powerful centre of management studies (e.g. so- called reputable journals). Simultaneously, critical and challenging research and knowledge is marginalised to the outer rim and to the often rather insignificant spectrum of journals in the field of management.
  • 3 5. https://us.walmartone.com/en/walmart/global/home/
  • 36. Farmer, P. 1996. On Suffering and Structural Violence: AViewfrom Below. Daedalus, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 261—283; DeMaio, F. 2015. Paul Farmer: Structural Violence and the Embodiment of Inequality, in Collyer, F. (ed.) Handbook of Social Theory for Health and Medicine. Basignstoke: Palgrave.
  • 37. Rawls, J. 1972. A Theory ofJustice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Rawls, J. 1980. Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 515—572.
  • 38. Stirner, M. 1842. TheFalsePrinciplesofOurEducation. www.theanar- chistlibrary.org; Tolstoy, L. 1852. The Path to Education (unesco.org/ publications/ThinkersPdf); Goldman, E. 1906. The Child and Its Enemies. Mother Earth, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 7—14; Adorno, T. W. 1971. Erziehung zur Mundigkeit [Education to Maturity], Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Publishing; Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life.

New York: Basic Books; Giroux, H. A. 2011. On Critical Pedagogy. New York: Continuum; Eduen. 2013. Education; Ballantine, J. H., & Spade, J. Z. (eds.) 2014. Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage/Pine Forge Press.

  • 39. Godwin, W. 1791. TheEnquirerReflectionsonEducation.London:G.G., & J. Robinson; Lynd, R. S. 1939. Knowledge for What?Princeton: Princeton University Press; Illich, I. 1971. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row; Wills, P. 1977. Learning to Labor—How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • 40. Boesenberg, E. 2015. Survival in the New Corporatized Academy: Resisting the Privatization of Higher Education. Workplace, no. 25/2015; Collyer, F. M. 2015. Practices of Conformity and Resistance in the Marketisation of the Academy: Bourdieu, Professionalism and Academic Capitalism. Critical Studies in Education, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 315—331.
  • 41. Deresiewicz, W. 2015. ExcellentSheep: TheMiseducation oftheAmerican Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life. New York: Simon and Schuster; Anteby, M. 2013. Manufacturing Morals: The Values of Silence in Business School Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • 42. Khan, B. H., & Ally, M. (eds.) 2015. International Handbook of E-Learning (vol. 1+2). London: Routledge.
  • 43. Klikauer, T. 2016. Reflections on Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. Triple CCommunication, Capitalism & Critique, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 260—264.
  • 44. Habermas, J. 1997. The Theory ofCommunicativeAction: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society (volume I & II, reprint). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • 45. Fultner, B. 2014. Jurgen Habermas: Key Concepts, London: Routledge; Jaggar, A. M. 2015. Ideal and Nonideal Reasoning in Educational Theory. Educational Theory, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 111—126.
  • 46. Seamon, D. 2015. A Geography of the Lifeworld. London: Routledge; Welton, W. R. 1995. In Defence of the Lifeworld: Critical Perspectives on Adult Learning. Albany: Suny Press.
  • 47. Despite Habermas’ sharp separation between the lifeworld and the economic world (i.e. management), management training is precisely the point where both meet and overlap with a clear-cut separation between both.
  • 48. Taylor, C. 1994. The Politics of Recognition, in Taylor, C. (ed.) Multiculturalism—Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton:

Princeton University Press; Honneth, A. 1995. The Struggle for RecognitionThe Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

49. Perhaps one of the better ways to understand what this book sets out to achieve is found in Morrow & Torres’ “Freire-Habermas” comparison and when this is enriched by Honneth’s “recognition theory” (Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. 2002. Reading Freire and Habermas: Critical Pedagogy and Transformative Social Change. New York: Teachers College Press; Jakobsen, J., & Lysaker, O. 2015. Recognition & Freedom: Axel Honneth’s Political Thought. Leiden: Brill).

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >