Context, complexity and connectedness: dimensions of globalization revealed
In: Corporate governance: international journal of business in society, Band 9, Heft 4, S. 435-447
ISSN: 1758-6054
PurposeThis paper sets out to reveal the extent to which the experience of senior managers as organizational change leaders in a time of contemporary crisis may be discerned to reflect strands of earlier globalization theories; to consider any implications for leadership and management learning.Design/methodology/approachThe authors proceed from the colloquium model for knowledge exchange outlined in the editorial introduction to this special issue. In the spirit of reflexive management research the authors bring an epistemological subjectivism – the context of indicative globalization literature ("research") – to bear upon and interpret ontological realism as revealed by the experiences of senior managers through a contemporary survey of global firms ("practice"). This methodology enlists an ontology informed by critical theory; it proceeds through process denaturalization to potentially transformational knowledge development.FindingsThe authors interpret globalization literature to reveal one strand as historically predictive of the insecurity and complexity we have recently experienced in the global economies. An informal and experimental survey along with a range of interviews with senior managers in global firms is undertaken in the wake of a market meltdown (September 2008). Interpreting the experience of these managers in the light of selected globalization literature, we find economic reasoning is more implicit in managers' experiences of globalization, while sociological experience or feeling is more explicit in the same discourses. This epistemological distinction – vocalized as a performance gap – has profound implications for leadership and management education and learning.Research limitations/implicationsThe empirical survey was exploratory in nature and not designed to test any particular hypothesis. The theoretical framework and interpretive account were reflexive afterthoughts – an informal, initial take on some results from a survey. Such methodological bricolage is envisaged in reflexive management research and not limited by compliance with normal standards of academic rigor. Beyond the similarities in conceptualization as between selected readings and selected practice, the authors suggest that management learning and education will need to be organized more structurally and systemically if we are to reproduce a more sustainable organizational future.Practical implicationsSenior managers are clearly aware of the problems resulting from systemic failure – they may need to consider a systemic and not a linear solution. This has consequences for management learning and the business school.Originality/valueThis is the first empirical in‐crisis survey interpreted through lenses of economic and sociological dimensions of globalization.
