Management Learning

Copyright 2000 Sage Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
Vol. 31(2): 219237

John Mingers
Warwick University, UK

What is it to be Critical?
Teaching a Critical Approach to Management Undergraduates
Abstract Developing our students abilities to be critical is important but what does it mean
to be critical? Is it just the cognitive skills of critical thinking or should it involve more radical re-examination of management knowledge and practice from a Foucauldian or
Habermasian perspective? This article addresses the issue of what it is to be critical by reflecting on the development of an innovative core course for final year management students concerned with critical management issues. The first section outlines the specific educational
context and the structure of the course as a whole. Then the article explains the underlying
theoretical framework that was developed which identified four aspects of being criticalscepticism towards rhetoric, tradition, authority, and objectivity. The teaching material associated with this part of the course is discussed next. This looks at two real situations, one the
debacle of the Taurus stock exchange system, and the other an ongoing legal case concerning
racial discrimination that is being documented on the web. The article concludes with a more
theoretical discussion of the relation between this particular course and critical management
more generally.
It is not practicing criticism either to validate the status quo or to join up with a priestly
caste of acolytes and dogmatic metaphysicians . . . [t]he realities of power and authority
as well as the resistances offered by men, women, and social movements to institutions,
authorities, and orthodoxiesare the realities that . . . should be taken account of by criticism and the critical consciousness. (Said, 1983: 5)

The field of management as an academic subject is very broad, covering many disciplines, taking place in many different organizational settings, and ranging from pure
research into management practices to what is simply training for management. The
corresponding academic literature is full of theoretical debate, empirical studies,
and practical guidance for effective management. It lacks, however, much by way of
considered reflection about the practice of management education itself. By that I
mean the theoretical and practical bases of our pedagogical activity. This article
makes a contribution by addressing the question of what we might mean by a critical approach to management education. It does this by reflecting on a specific and
13505076[200006]31:2; 219237; 013147

220

Management Learning 31(2)

practical examplethe development of an interdisciplinary, core course for final

year undergraduates on a range of management degrees at Warwick Business School
(WBS).
At the undergraduate level, WBS1 has three major BSc programmes
Management Sciences, Accounting and Finance, and International Businessas well
as numerous joint degrees with other departments. Traditionally the major programmes had emphasized disciplinary-based core courses in the first two years while
in the third (and final) year students choose a range of electives. This meant that in
the final year there was no common core course for all students on a programme,
nor was there much inter-disciplinary teaching throughout the three years. A major
review identified these issues and proposed the development of a compulsory core
course across all three programmes (nearly 200 students).
The specification of the new course was ambitious in that it should involve all the
disciplines in an integrated manner, be academically rigorous and at the same time
be participative and based on student-centred learning, and should develop the students practical skills in presentations, report-writing and group work. A group of
academics from across the School produced an initial proposal specifying a framework for how the course would operate, and the core idea that it should be about
developing in the students a critical approach to management. A title was agreed
Critical Issues in Managementbut just what the term critical connoted to the different people involved is very much the subject of this article. Once accepted by the
university, the rather bare proposal was passed on to the staff who would actually
flesh out and teach the course in its first year, some of whom had also worked on the
initial proposal.
The article begins with a general discussion of the nature of critical management
education and the difficulties and contradictions inherent in developing such
courses within the current academic environment. The next section describes the
development of an underlying framework, four aspects of critique, to support the
course. This was necessary because there are many possible interpretations of
the term criticalcritical thinking, critical issues, critical theory, critical systems,
critical management studieseach of which stems from a particular milieu and
carries its own disciplinary and political connotations. The framework, drawing on a
range of sources including Habermas and Foucault, identifies four different aspects
of being criticalscepticism towards rhetoric, tradition, authority, and objectivity.
Then the course itself is described in more detail, including an illustration of the
framework applied to a case study. Finally, the success of the course is evaluated after
its first year of operation.

Critical Management Education

In order to contextualize the course, it is useful to outline what might be meant by
critical management education in general. Perhaps the most fundamental questions
concern the relationship between management education and other arenas of management such as management practice, management research, the experience of
living in/with organizations, and the critical and emancipatory potential. Grey and
French (1996) argue that management, in a wide sense, has become of central
importance to the world and its societies, and it therefore must become the subject

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

221

of critical evaluation. Management education and research are crucial for the development and reproduction of management practices and so must also come under
scrutiny. The prevailing view within business schools and management departments
is the utilitarian one that management education is primarily concerned with
enhancing managerial effectiveness. Grey and French contrast this managerialist
view with a critical view that we should decouple management education from management activity in order that the claims and practices of management can be called
into question. One should be able to study management as a practice without it
being training for management, in the same way that one can study politics without
being trained to be a politician. In this view, higher education should withdraw from
management training all together. A variant of this might be that both should exist
within academe but develop in separate ways, with particular institutions clearly specializing in one or the other (Thomas, 1997). An alternative view, discussed below, is
that a new perspective on management education should be developed, based on a
more critical evaluation of its role and importance within society as a whole.
Moving down to the level of individual courses, Grey and French (1996) suggest
that most of them embody a positivist stance, assuming that there is a given and
unquestionable body of valid knowledge that must be presented and then mastered
by the student. The teaching approach is largely didactic and, although this is now
changing towards more student-centred methods that stress practicality, role-playing,
participation and so on, this is still within a context that does not problematize
knowledge itself. In contrast, Grey et al. suggest that a critical approach should start
with the students own lived experiencesnot to make the transmission of knowledge
more effective, but to provide a basis for a critical reflection on experience as a
means of subverting such knowledge (Grey, Knights and Willmott, 1996: 100). The
point here is to raise very fundamental questions about the status and validity of management theory and the extent to which it privileges only one, primarily functionalist, view of knowledge.
Grey et al. recognize the problems of this approach, both practical and theoretical. Practically, there is the inevitable tension of teaching a critical course within a
context of degree programmes that are largely positivist in the above sense. This is
exacerbated by the current political and economic climate (in the UK anyway) of
reduced funding, students incurring more and more debt, greater emphasis on relevance (to industry), practicality and skills, and increasing measurement of university performance by crude indicators. Theoretically, there is the almost inherent
contradiction that we are encouraging students to question the validity of knowledge
and authority and yet by that very choice imposing our visions upon them.
Willmott (1997) has made a strong case for a particular form of critical management called critical action learning. This combines the practical stance of
action learning (Revans, 1982) with the more sociological viewpoint of critical
theory. Action learning moves from the traditional perspective that education is
the de-contextualized transmission of abstract and universal knowledge and expertise, to the view that learning should be a process of self-development, in which
knowledge is acquired through its relevance to the real-life engagements and
struggles of the learner. Critical action learning allies to this the recognition that
individual experiences and learning always occur within institutional and social
contexts, and that these both engender and constrain through relations of power
and signification.

222

Management Learning 31(2)

Where does our Critical Issues in Management (CIM) course stand with respect to
these distinctions? First, it is clear that it actually embodies within it the central
dichotomy between utilitarian and critical management education. Is it primarily
concerned with problematizing management knowledge or with improving the
effectiveness of our students in their management careers? The answer is that it tries,
perhaps unsuccessfully, to do both. This is partly because of its institutional context.
Warwick Business School, like most university management departments, is both a
business school concerned with effective management and a centre for research into
management. Individual members of faculty may be more committed to one aspect
than the other, but often have to embrace bothfor instance, teaching on an MA in
Critical Management and an MBAsimply because of the demands of the job. CIM
is the construction of a wide circle of staff and so inevitably incorporates a range of
disciplinary and political views. Indeed, it could be argued that to some extent there
is a deliberate vagueness in its specification so as to allow all those involved to feel
comfortable. It has been put across to students mainly in effectiveness termsthat
critical questioning will lead to better management decisionsbut it is hoped that as
they progress through the course they will themselves question this rationale more.
To what extent does this tension and ambiguity undermine the claim that the
course is an example of critical pedagogy? There are several possible responses. The
most obvious is perhaps that smuggling in critical ideas is the best that can be managed in the current circumstances. Any attempt at raising the students critical awareness is better than none. A more deliberative response is to see it as a Trojan horse
strategy, disguising a subversive critical intent within a course apparently concerned
with management effectiveness. A third, and in some ways attractive, approach is to
argue against the supposed contradiction between the utilitarian and critical models.
Does the course have to be either one or the other?
The assumption is that either one adopts the presuppositions of management as
conventionally defined (and thus supports the status quo), or one must be antagonistic toward all management as an activity. Should we not instead move beyond a critique of management toward developing a critical practice of managinga
qualitatively different form of management: one that is more democratically
accountable to those whose lives are affected in so many ways by management
decisions (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996: 40). This might involve focusing attention
away from management as a class-based hierarchy towards managing as an activity that
we all do, in our personal and occupational lives, and that is done to us. Seen in this
light, the course could be a first step toward synthesizing the often competing
demands of morality (our duties and responsibilities towards others), ethics (our concern with our own worth and self-identity), and pragmatics (the need to be effective
in our activities) (Habermas, 1992, 1993b; Mingers, 1997).
The second issue is the extent to which CIM could claim to be critical in problematizing the status of knowledge. Chia and Morgan, in a rather abstract and theoretical work, argued that education should develop the philosopher-manager, the
critical thinking manager who persists in the vigilant deconstruction or de-signing
of hitherto self-evident social and management concepts and categories (Chia and
Morgan, 1996: 41). Here, I would argue that the course certainly aims at this within
the inevitable practical constraints outlined above. It is clearly addressed within the
four aspects of being critical (discussed in more detail below) in terms of the critiques
of authority and objectivity. The critique of authority denies the hegemony of a

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

223

single legitimate viewpoint or interest, promoting instead the acceptance of a

plurality of positions. The critique of objectivity denies the assumption of pure,
value-free knowledge and introduces the Foucauldian notion of power/knowledge.
Both of these theoretical ideas are developed practically in various case studies.
Whether it is wholly successful in actually generating a high degree of reflexivity and
scepticism in the students will be discussed in a later section. And, if it does, it is not
clear how both students and staff will react to the self-referential contradiction of
using our authority to require them to be sceptical of authority.
The third issue concerns questions of contradictions in the teaching approach.
For example, we are essentially forcing the students to participate in seminars by
using assessment rather than allowing their participation to be given freely. We have
to accept that this is less than ideal, a justification being that it supports the wider
benefit of having a non-lecture, student-based course. We hope the material will be
interesting enough for the students to want to participate, but this may well be an
area for future developments. Our experience so far, as might be expected, suggests
that those students in a seminar who are giving presentations do engage very successfully with the material but those who are not tend to opt out. In a way we are placing the students in a very contradictory positionexpecting them to become critical
but at the same time to adhere to our rules.
A related issue is the extent to which we, the (older) lecturers, can understand the
experiences and reality of present-day students. We choose and present material that
appeals to us, assuming it will work equally well for them. However, Spaul (1997)
reports that students are much more motivated by examples close to their own
experience (rather than business cases), and are more interested in computer,
video, and graphical material than traditional texts, for example making a video
rather than writing an essay for assessment. A similar point is made by Thompson
and McGivern (1996) who use a wide range of narrative literature to stimulate reflection and interest in the students. A more generalized version of this problem is the
extent to which our version of being critical is itself biased, representing a particular
rationalistic, universalistic and gendered view. This is an important debate concerning the nature of rationality itself that cannot be pursued in detail here except to
note that such criticisms have already been registered within Habermasian critical
theory itself (Benhabib, 1992; Habermas, 1994; Young, 1990), sparked in part by
clashes with the Foucauldian perspective.

What is a Critical Approach? A Framework for Critical Learning

This section moves to the more specific design of the course itself, and in particular
the development of an underlying framework encompassing different aspects of
being critical. The group of people developing the course were generally senior academics but of a fairly disparate natureprofessors of Finance, Strategic Marketing,
Industrial Relations, and Local Government; lecturers and senior lecturers from
Accounting, Operational Research, Information Systems; and a senior researcher in
Corporate Governance. As might be expected, such a group embodied a very wide
range of intellectual and ideological positions, and discussions were wide-ranging
but seldom acrimonious. The practical details of the course (described below) were
agreed relatively quickly. What was not so clear, however, was the core intellectual

224

Management Learning 31(2)

foundation of the coursewhat was meant by a critical approach? Here a variety of

views were held. Certainly, as the title implied, there was the idea of critical, as in crucial or vital, issues facing management and organizations in the future. There was
also a commitment to critical thinking as in the ability to evaluate the validity and
strength of arguments and proposals. But beyond this there was the idea of adopting
a critical stance towards the accepted, managerialist, assumptions underpinning
most management education and thereby problematizing the status of management
knowledge. It was also felt important to raise issues such as the nature and effects of
power in organizations; the relationship of organizations to local communities and
to the environment; issues of race, culture and gender; and ethics and responsibility.
It was this questionwhat is the nature of a critical approach?that became the subject of the first session of the course, and of this article.
There are many strands of thought in both the social and philosophical literature
that can be labelled critical. These include:
1. what is termed critical thinking (Chaffee, 1997; Hughes, 1996; McPeck, 1981;
Paul, 1990; Ruggiero, 1988; Weast, 1996), that is, developing the discipline of
being sceptical or questioning about statements, propositions or information;
2. critical social theory as in the Frankfurt School and more particularly the work of
Habermas (1978, 1984, 1993a; Harnden, 1996) that is critical of the prevailing
structures, values, and rationalities in society;
3. two strands of thought within the management literature that draw especially on
Habermascritical management studies (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, 1996;
French and Grey, 1996), and critical systems thinking (Flood and Jackson, 1991;
Flood and Romm, 1996; Jackson, 1991a, 1991b; Mingers, 1984, 1992, 1997;
Mingers and Gill, 1997); and
4. the work of Foucault, especially on power and its relationship to knowledge
(Foucault, 1980, 1982).
These all related to or exemplified the different aspects of being critical that were
expressed within the group.
The problem from a pedagogic point of view was how to present these different,
and quite sophisticated, notions in a way that would be meaningful to our particular
students in the context of this course. The main constraints were, first, that many of
the students, especially those from the Accounting and Finance course, would have
no background in social science or organizational behaviour at all. Second, being
undergraduates almost none would have experience of real-world organizational
work and many would have been taught a very rationalistic and abstract view of
decision-making. Third, there were to be no lectures and so any material assigned to
the students would have to be intelligible in its own right. And fourth, that this was
to be the first session of the course and so could assume no prior material. The main
conclusions were that a fairly simplistic framework would need to be developed to
relate these different aspects together; that the reading material would need to be
both straightforward and interesting; that some practical activity to allow the students to apply the material would be necessary; and that the students would have to
become aware of the messy nature of real-world decision-making to motivate their
participation in the course.
The rest of this section explains the response to these concerns.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

225

Four Aspects of Being Critical

In everyday language, being critical means finding fault and being negative about
something. It can often be quite destructive rather than constructive, and is often
done with a particular antagonistic motive or attitude. In developing a critical
approach in the course, we were concerned that it should not be purely destructive;
that it should be rigorous and structured; and that it should generate insights that
are valuable in taking practical action. What all of the different aspects of being critical mentioned above seemed to share was not taking things for granted, not just
accepting how the situation seemed or was portrayed but questioning or evaluating
such claims before deciding or acting. This may seem quite simple or straightforward
but, if done seriously, rigorously, and radically it can lead to far-reaching and unsettling conclusions.
Four different dimensions of questioning or scepticism were identified. The
rationale for these was based, by analogy, on Habermas (1979, 1984) theory of communicative action, and (1992, 1993a) discourse ethics, and in particular his theory of
the validity claims of speech acts. Habermas argues that any communicative utterance aimed at generating understanding and agreement implicitly raises four validity
claimsthat it is comprehensible, that it is factually correct or in principle possible
(truth), that it is acceptable normatively (rightness), and that it is meant sincerely
(truthfulness). In our situation we are concerned with a wider range than simply
speech actsfor example, plans, proposals, actions, and designs; and they may well
not be communicative (i.e. oriented towards understanding) but may well be strategic (oriented towards getting ones way). In an analogous manner, we can say that
proposals for action involve implicit assumptions or validity claims that should be
questioned. First, the logical soundness of the argument and its manner of
expression (rhetoric); second, the taken-for-granted assumptions about factual matters and acceptable social practices and values (tradition); third, assumptions made
about legitimacy and whose views should be privileged (authority); and fourth,
assumptions concerning the validity of knowledge and information (objectivity).
These four aspects of a critical approach are further developed below, and are illustrated by one of the course case studies in a later section.
(i) Critical thinkingthe critique of rhetoric The first sense that is considered is that
known as critical thinking.2 At the simplest level this concerns being able to evaluate
whether peoples arguments and propositions are sound in a logical sense (Hughes,
1996). Do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises themselves
justifiable? Is language being used in a fair way, or is it deliberately emotive or misleading? This might appear to be a simple technical skill concerned with the logical
analysis of language, but in real situations it can become extremely difficult to fully
understand what is meant or claimed by some assertion, or to discover whether particular claims are or are not valid.
Critical thinking can be defined more widely (McPeck, 1981) to involve a scepticism or suspension of belief towards particular statements, information, or norms.
To think critically is not purely abstract but is always about some particular problem
or domain. It therefore requires knowledge and skills specific to the problem or disciplinary domain although Paul (1990) argues that critical thinking is a general skill
rather than being domain specific. It should also be reflective scepticismbeing

226

Management Learning 31(2)

aware of its purpose (why am I adopting this particular attitude?) and being capable
of offering alternatives. This aspect of being critical could be called the critique of rhetoric as it is particularly concerned with the use of language.3
(ii) Being sceptical of conventional wisdomthe critique of tradition The other senses of
the term critical that we will consider are really developments of this sceptical attitude, taking less for granted and questioning deeper and more fundamental assumptions that we usually make. One of the most common assumptions we meet in
organizations (and society more generally) is that of tradition or customthe takenfor-granted way we do things around here. Organizations and parts of organizations
develop particular cultures and particular practices. These may have originated for
good reasons, or simply by chance, but they tend to become accepted and, indeed,
unseen. However, they may well not be the most appropriate way of doing things,
either because the situation has changed, or because in fact they never were, or
because they deny or contradict moral values such as sexism, racism or environmentalism.
It is often not so much the long-standing practices or traditions of an organization,
but assumptions that relate to a particular project or plan. These can be seen as
boundary judgements (Ulrich, 1991), often set by technical experts or powerful
groups, that limit (perhaps implicitly) what may be debated or challenged.
Questioning such practices or judgements can often provoke strong reaction and
the weight of tradition and authority may well be used to support them. Trying to
change them can be extremely difficult as it will inevitably change the status quo and
upset established patterns of power and authority. This can be called the critique of
tradition.
(iii) Being sceptical of one dominant viewthe critique of authority Another, deeper,
assumption is that there should be just one right or dominant view as opposed to a
plurality of different but valid perspectives. For students this is particularly difficult
to accept since much of their education so far will have been aimed at teaching the
correct answer, on the assumption that there is one. They will not have been
encouraged to question the validity of their teachers. However, by this stage in their
final year, they should be appreciating that there are genuine disagreements and
unresolved issues even within academic disciplines. The situation in the organizational world, which does not split itself into well-defined disciplines and problems,
can be highly complex with many different stakeholders involved. These interest
groups will all have different experiences of the situation, different relationships to
it, and stand to benefit or lose in different ways. Recognizing that there is a multiplicity of perspectives, questioning the dominant view or privileged position, and
trying to see the world through anothers eyes (Checkland and Scholes, 1990;
Churchman, 1968) could be called the critique of authority.
(iv) Being sceptical of information and knowledgethe critique of objectivity The final
level to be considered is questioning the validity of the knowledge and information
that is available, and recognizing that it is never value-free and objective. At the simplest level students have to see that even seemingly objective facts such as quantitative data do not simply occur but are the result of particular processes involving a
whole variety of people, operations, and decisions/choices. Which factors are

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

227

recorded and which are not? How are they recorded or measuredthere are usually
several possibilities? Can important factors be measured at all or do we have to use
some surrogate? Do the non-quantifiable judgmental factors get given their due
weight (Mingers, 1989)? Even when some data have been produced, they only
become usable as information when someone interprets them from their point of view
and for their particular purposes. A simple table of data embodies many assumptions
and has as many interpretations as there are readers.
At a broader level it can be argued that information and knowledge always reflect
or are shaped by the structures of power and interest within a situation (Foucault,
1980, 1988). Which problems are raised and which are not? Which decisions get
taken and which are always put off ? To what extent are particular interest groups
able to promote or suppress certain information, or shape the agendas of discussions and meetings? This aspect of critical thinking can be called the critique of
objectivity as it calls into question the whole idea of there being objective, value-free
knowledge.
This framework was fleshed out for students with readings. A set of very basic ones
were handed out (see Table 1) and references were given to the literature for the students to follow up if interested. It was also pointed out to students that being overly
critical in a real situation could be dangerousit needed a health warning:
1. Criticism can very easily be negative and destructive. Constantly pointing out the
problems with particular proposals, especially if this is done in an unpleasant way,
can have a wholly unhelpful effect both for the problem and for yourself.
Criticism should always try to be constructive and you should aim to put forward
your own positive proposals that can, in their turn, be criticized by others.
2. People generally find it hard to receive criticismit is threatening and demoralizing. This is especially true when younger and possibly newer people criticize
Table 1

Four aspects of being critical, and associated reading

Topic

Calls into question

Introduction

Readings included
Alvesson and Willmott
(1996, ch. 1)

Critique of rhetoric
(critical thinking)

The language used, the form Hughes (1996, chs 1, 13, 14)
of argument, the validity of
the premises and assumptions

Critique of tradition

The taken-for-granted,
traditional ways of doing
things

Goldratt and Cox (1993:

1247)

Critique of authority

One dominant or privileged

position. Accepts a plurality
of viewpoints

Churchman (1968, ch. 14)

Critique of objectivity

The idea of objective,

value-free, disinterested
knowledge. Recognizes that
information and knowledge
are partial and power-based

Mingers (1989)
Foucault (1982)

228

Management Learning 31(2)

those who are more established. It can lead to unpleasantness and unpopularity.
Be sensitive and try to criticize the proposals and ideas rather than the individuals.
3. Finally, if you seriously challenge the existing power structures do not be surprised if they fight back. Think carefully of your own position.

An Overview of the Course and its Materials

The main pedagogic aims of the course, apart from the critical content discussed
above, were that it should be inter-disciplinary, should be based on participative, student-centred learning, and should develop practical skills such as presentations and
different forms of writing. The framework of the course was clear in principle but
was very complex in its logistical details. There were to be no lectures at all on the
course (apart from an introduction) but only fortnightly, two-hour seminars (10 in
all across two terms) at which the students would give individual and group presentations on a case study, and participate in discussions led by the tutor. There would
be roughly 20 students to a seminar group and these would be split into five subgroups, two of which would present each week. Each student would also review a
book from a list of books that the staff felt were important for management students
to be aware of. The review would be presented orally and in writing. The assessment
for each student would consist of four written-up case studies, the book review, and
a mark allocated by the tutor for classroom performance and participation throughout the year.
Different staff members would contribute their own case studies that would then
be taught by all members of the group. The cases were not to be too tied in to a particular disciplinary background but should explore the different facets of the course
and allow an inter-disciplinary approach (see Table 2 for a list of the 10 sessions).
The final session was to be different in that the case study was the CIM course itself.
The students were required to present a critical evaluation of the course with argued
recommendations for practical improvements in both the short and long term. The
results of this review are discussed later in the article.
Table 2

Outline of the sessions and case studies

Session

Topic/case study

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Introduction to critical thinking: Decision Steel

Critical thinking: The Taurus Debacle
Soft systems: Middleton Mutual
Sexual harassment: The Harassing Client
The power of numbers: Waterford Glass
Irrationality at work: Managing to Survive
Corporate citizenship: Closing a PlantBP at Baglan Bay
Social reporting: The Triple Bottom Line
Sources of corporate success: The Honda Effect
Ethical responsibilities: Whistleblowing in the Civil Service
Critical review of the CIM course

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

229

Case Study for the Critical Approach Session

This section considers the choice of case study for the first, What is a Critical
Approach? session, and illustrates the four critiques framework outlined above. It
was felt that, initially, the students needed a practical activity and exposure to realistic decision behaviour. For the latter, the best idea seemed to be a video of a real situation, and the well-known Decision Steel was used. This was one of a series of three
made in the late 1970s. It is excellent for the purpose and although it is rather old
there does not appear to be anything similar made more recently. The students were
shown a short version of the video and asked to identify examples of the four aspects
of the critical approach.
Several possibilities were considered for the case study that the students would
make presentations on. Two were recent examples of major information systems failures that had received much publicity, at least in the UKthe London Ambulance
Dispatch System, LASCAD, (Beynon-Davies, 1995)4 and the London Stock Exchange
settlement system, Taurus, (Drummond, 1996a, 1996b). A third was a description of
the involvement of large-scale OR models in the public enquiry about the Sizewell B
nuclear power station (Ormerod, 1997). The fourth was more unconventional. It was
an ongoing (in 1997) case in which a well-known information systems lecturer in the
US (Ojelanki Ngwenyana) was suing his university for racial discrimination after not
receiving tenure. He had established a web site5 and was making available all the
information about the case, including both legal submissions and documentation
from within the university.
In the event, the Taurus case was considered the most relevant and comprehensive. This was a massive project, initiated by the London Stock Exchange, to computerize the whole of its trading and settlements, something that had previously
been done entirely manually. Not only was it to be the first computer system, but it
also involved a complete redesign of the way that stock trading was carried out, with
major implications for a whole range of public and private institutions. In the event,
Taurus was an enormous, costly, public disaster that caused much anguish both personal and corporate. Unfortunately, it is only one of several, equally high-profile, IT
projects that have been major failures in recent years. The most serious probably was
the London Ambulance Dispatch project that broke down when it was first put into
service, possibly causing several deaths. Others include the Wessex Regional Health
IS, the Confirm travel industry reservation system, and the Mandata public service
information system. One of the common features of all these experiences is a dislocation between the technical rationality driving the development and design, and
the social and political realities of the surrounding context. In some examples the
technologists have pushed forward with unrealistic promises of what can be delivered; in others (e.g. Taurus) the political drivers have forced unrealistic demands on
the technology. But perhaps in all of them a greater degree of critical questioning
and scrutiny at an early stage may have mitigated the extent of the calamity.
One reason why the case history was chosen is the availability of information.
Drummond made an extensive study of Taurus, including many interviews with participants. This is fully written up in a book (Drummond, 1996a) that describes the
project from different parties perspectives and contains a listing of the extensive
press coverage that was given throughout the project. But for students a short version
is available in a paper (Drummond, 1996b). They were encouraged to look up some

230

Management Learning 31(2)

of the newspaper articles as well. The students were asked to use the case to illustrate
the different types of critical thinking that could be applied to this situation.
Illustrations of what they came up with are given below.
Critique of tradition or conventional wisdom In many ways this is a theme that runs
throughout the case. By tradition I do not necessarily mean long-standing historical arrangements but simply the accepted, taken- for-granted assumptions and ways
of doing things that arise in any organizational group or project. Here, the main
assumption is that the project as a whole cannot be questioned. Nobody ever says
why are we doing this, or is the whole thing really feasible?. Even when Peter
Rawlins (the Chief Executive) does begin to question he is over-ruled. The prevailing orthodoxy becomes embodied in the institutions and procedures and becomes a
given context or boundary within which everything else proceeds. Each new problem
is treated incrementally, as something to be dealt with, often by quite different
groups, and no one really puts together the political aspirations with the technical
realities.
Critique of authority: there are many interests and stakeholders This case is a classic
example of a situation involving many different parties with divergent and sometimes
conflicting viewpoints and interests. The students should identify as many of these as
they can, try to articulate what the project looks like from that particular perspective
(both from what is said in the case and from common-sense), and highlight the possible conflicts and alliances between these varied stakeholders.
The Stock Exchange whose project it is and who have put up lots of money. They face
a loss of power post-Big Bang and see the project as necessary for their survival, and
as enabling them to control the settlements business. In this they are in conflict
with their members, the brokers.
Retail stock brokers who have traditionally carried out this function. They feel threatened by the loss of the traditional system and are having to spend a lot of money
to come into the new one.
Listed companies, pension funds etc. will be the major institutional customers of the
system but they are not convinced that it will work properly and feel left out of the
decision-making process. They try to sabotage the project.
Individual personal investors are completely ignored by the initial design but it is
important to the government that they be safeguarded.
The government/DTI are very interested in the long-term future of London as a
finance centre, and the reputation of the UK, but do not want a system that causes
a problem for the small shareholder, i.e. the voters.
The Bank of England shares the governments desire that London be seen as the
financial capital of the world and is part of a pressure group of international
banks. It also has ultimate responsibility for regulating the stock market.
The technical team are having to work under enormous pressure to come up with a
solution to what may, in fact, be technically infeasible. They are being battered by
varied and constantly changing requirements, and an over-ambitious timetable.
They are having to deal with the constraints of a ready-made package that may not
be suitable. They are highly dedicated and committed (often working 80 hours per
week) to the project.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

231

Peter Rawlins, Chief Executive, should theoretically be in a position to overview the

whole mess but in practice has even more pressing problems initially, overseeing a
major re-structuring of the Stock Exchange as a whole.
Several other interested groups and individuals including Watson, the project
director; the Taurus monitoring group; the producers of the Vista software; and
various consultancies such as Coopers and Lybrand who had their reputations to
maintain.
Critique of objectivity and power The case history (in the article) is written at quite a
high level of generality without much detail but even so there are several instances
in the case of concern about the validity of information and of the explicit and
implicit exercise of power. The case supports quite well the Foucauldian view of
power as ever present and in action, shaping and modulating the unfolding events
without it being knowingly exercised by some controlling subject. It also lends itself
to analysis in terms of actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Law, 1986, 1992). Some
clear examples of power are:
The decision not to go for a central register because the Stock Exchange could not
impose its will on the industry.
The adoption of a very complex design to try to meet the many conflicting
interests.
The influence of the international banks in preventing the project as a whole
being questioned.
The fear of upsetting the apple cart by questioning the project so that such issues
were never even raised.
The resistance to the project by stock brokers and clearing banks that led them to
enlist the help of the government in imposing constraints on the project.
The development of the project in the first place as a way of securing the loss of
influence of the Stock Exchange.
One can also see some evidence of the unreliability of available information. There
was much, supposedly objective, quantitative information that seemed to show that
everything was all right, yet the gut feelings of several people were that there were
major problems. Whether the information was deliberately distorted or just did not
capture the important qualitative aspects of the situation is not clear, but what is
clear is that the gut feelings were right and the figures wrong.

Evaluation and Review of the CIM Course

This section provides an evaluation of the course after its first complete year. There
are two sources for the reviewan informal discussion in the seminar groups after a
few weeks of the course, and an analysis of the students written evaluation produced
after the final session of the course.
Informal Reactions
Considerable concern over the rather diffuse nature of the course in comparison
with other more traditional ones. This was expressed as we want lectures so we

232

Management Learning 31(2)

know what we have to do! Clearly it is very much a part of the philosophy of the
course to try to develop in students an ability to take responsibility for their own
learning, and to be able to tolerate the ambiguity of a course without tight boundaries and a formal exam.
Understandable concern about being assessed on presentations and classroom
performance. Training in presentation skills has been provided, and students recognize its value, but inevitably presenting orally is partly personality based, and
puts overseas students at a potential disadvantage. The question of assessing classroom discussion is more problematic and there was considerable debate about this
in the development team. It is difficult to do equitably, is highly subjective, favours
those who say a lot even if it is of little value, and disadvantages those who come
from cultures that do not encourage participation. Nevertheless, contribution and
participation are so central to this course that it was felt that it must be assessed.
Surprisingly perhaps, the idea of doing book reviews worried a number of students. Even after being given guidance many were uncertain of how to do one and
doubted its relevance. Yet after the event almost all students found the book they
reviewed valuable as did other members of the seminar group.
With regard to the specific material on a critical approach, the theoretical framework was found to be relatively clear, and it was generally applied successfully to
the Taurus case. Some students found the case rather complex for the start of the
course but at least that may make them aware of real-life complexity.
Analysis of Students Critical Reviews
In all, 30 students submitted this assessment and as they had a choice of four out of
10 it was relatively unpopular. Also, as the report counted toward the overall mark,
the sample may be biased towards those who felt positively about the course. The
overall reaction among those who submitted was extremely positive towards the
objectives and style of the course. Only three (10 percent) could be said to have had
a negative reaction. Examples of some comments are:
It did a good job. . . . The course was the highlight at interviews. . . . It went a long way to
achieving its objectives. (#9532168)
It has undoubtedly been very successful and has comfortably achieved all of its outlined
objectives. (#9539325)
I can honestly say that CIM has been one of the most interesting and beneficial courses I
have taken at Warwick. (#9434460)

Virtually everyone agreed with the objectives of the course (to be discussed further
below), and felt that the course had generally been successful in achieving them. The
main thrust of the responses was to point out many difficulties in the delivery of the
course (recognizing that it was the first year) and to make practical suggestions for
changes. Some problems (and solutions) were agreed on by most people, while
others generated opposing views.
The most frequently mentioned concerns are shown in Table 3. The most
common was that the 20 percent assessment weighting for classroom participation
was too little. Given the emphasis that we put on presentations and participation, and
the time the students spent on it, the general suggestion was that it should count for

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

Table 3

233

Most frequently mentioned concerns

Concern/suggestion

Number

20% for participation too little

Lecturers to give better feedback on presentations
Have groups present different perspectives on the case
Enforce strict time limits on presentations
Some books too technical/textbookish
Enforce more participation in the discussion
Change group membership during the year
Too wide size variations in books
Give summaries of books at start
Have outside lecturers (e.g. from companies)
Provide more input on the critical approach and ethics

26
18
15
14
12
11
10
10
9
8
8

40 percent. There is in fact a structural problem with this suggestion as the university regulations limit the amount of non-written and group-based assessment.
I will briefly describe the other concerns that were mentioned:
The feedback given by tutors on presentations was felt to be poor and inconsistent.
Some suggestions were: use standard forms (these were available but not used);
have meetings after the session; get student feedback (perhaps anonymously on
forms); video some. There was general agreement that seminars were more interesting when different perspectives were presented by the two groups, or different
questions were addressed. Role-playing was advocated by a number of students.
Having different cases each week was also mentioned. Time limits for presentations should be strictly enforced both to give time for discussion and as a necessary skill. It was felt that it was necessary to enforce more participation by
non-presenting students. Some suggestions were: going round the table; requiring
non-presenting groups to respond to the talks; getting students to chair the discussion; having smaller discussion groups that then came together.
There were various problems with the range of books for review. Particularly, that
some were too technical or textbookish, and there was too great a range of sizes
making it unfair. Summaries of the books should be provided and the students
asked to concentrate on reviewing rather than summarizing.
The group work was seen as very important but it was felt that groups should not
be self-selected, but rather constructed so as to encompass a range of backgrounds
and abilities. It was also felt that the membership should be changed after a term.
There was a demand for more lecture input, for example people from companies
to discuss real-life problematic situations; inputs on specific areas such as ethics or
law or soft systems methodology; and more on what was meant by a critical
approach at the beginning, especially in terms of how to tackle a case study.
While all the above are sensible suggestions reflecting the students experience of
the course, of greater concern for the overall aims of the course was that virtually all
the students failed to be genuinely critical. They simply accepted the course objectives as given and then reviewed the delivery of the course. This raises some important points.
There were in fact two quite different interpretations of the objectives made by students, and indeed different sources for them. One interpretation claimed the main

234

Management Learning 31(2)

purpose of the course was to improve the employability of students by giving them
practical skills. Reference was made to an article about the course published in a
Business School newsletter that certainly gave this emphasis. The majority of students, however, saw it as a combination of critical thinking and practical skills, and
referenced the five objectives given in the first course hand-out. This demonstrates
both the differences of viewpoint among the staff on the course, and the extent to
which the course itself embodies the somewhat contradictory aims of developing
practical (and marketable) skills, and developing potentially subversive critical abilities. It also demonstrates the way that students can inevitably (and from their viewpoint legitimately) subvert the intentions of the educators and in a rather ironic way
realize the underlying aims of the course.
More seriously, the unthinking acceptance of the course objectives is a sign that,
at a deeper level, the course was not wholly successful. There were many fundamental issues that could have been raisedabout the nature of the course; the underlying rationale; the views of different stakeholders (students, different members of
staff, employers etc.); possible conflicts between the various objectives; the potentially contradictory nature of the course itself (authority ordering them to question
authority etc.) and so on. That none of the students chose to do this or, perhaps
worse, either did not feel they were allowed to, or even did not conceive of doing it,
is testimony to the difficulty of fostering a genuinely critical attitude. Whether this is
primarily a failure of the delivery of this particular course, or whether it is a sign of
more deep-seated social or psychological constraints will be better answered after
several more years of development.

Conclusions
The CIM course has been a learning experience as much for the academics involved
as for the students. Given its innovatory nature, and its complexity, I feel that the first
year has been a qualified success. There are many lessons we have learnt, about both
the practicalities of its delivery and its underlying rationale, so that we will be able to
make it more effective in future years. Whether we will be able to develop the degree
of critical and reflective practice in the students that we hope for through this single
course is a matter for the future.

Notes
I would like to acknowledge the other members of staff involved in designing this course:
John Benington, Paul Edwards, Anthony Lawton, Brendan McSweeney, Chris Marsden,
Yasmin Merali, Tony Steele, Robin Wensley.
1. WBS has around 112 full lecturing staff organized into five disciplinary groupings
accounting and finance, operational research and systems, marketing and strategic management, industrial relations and organizational behaviour, and production and service
management.
2. There are several institutions concerned explicitly with promoting critical thinking. The
Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa, California maintains resources and produces videos; and a web site has an annotated bibliography:

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

235

http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html.
It is an important area within education, especially schools, and in psychology.
3. The term critique is taken to mean a particular critical appraisal or evaluation of
some problem or situation; rhetoric is used in its general sense of the effective use of
language.
4. There is an interesting analysis of this case through the framework of Cleggs (1989) circuits of power model in Introna (1997).
5. The web address is: http://www.okn.com/

References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds) (1992) Critical Management Studies. London: Sage
Publications.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction.
London: Sage Publications.
Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary
Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beynon-Davies, P. (1995) Information Systems Failure: The Case of the London
Ambulance Services Computer Aided Despatch Project, European Journal of Information
Systems 4: 17184.
Callon, M. (1986) Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Beliefa New
Sociology of Knowledge, pp. 196233. London: Routledge.
Chaffee, J. (1997) Thinking Critically. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.
Chia, R. and Morgan, S. (1996) Educating the Philosopher-Manager: De-signing the Times,
Management Learning 27(1): 3764.
Churchman, C. W. (1968) The Systems Approach. New York: Dell Publishing.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.
Drummond, H. (1996a) Escalation in Decision-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drummond, H. (1996b) The Politics of Risk: Trials and Tribulations of the Taurus Project,
Journal of Information Technology 11: 34757.
Flood, R. and Jackson, M. (1991) Creative Problem Solving. London: Wiley.
Flood, R. and Romm, N. (eds) (1996) Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice.
New York: Plenum Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977.
Brighton: Harvester Press.
Foucault, M. (1982) Afterword: The Subject and Power, in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds)
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, pp. 20826. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Foucault, M. (1988) Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault, in L. Martin, H.
Gutman and P. Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault, pp.
915. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
French, R. and Grey, C. (eds) (1996) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage
Publications.
Goldratt, E. and Cox, J. (1993) The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Aldershot: Gower.
Grey, C. and French, R. (1996) Rethinking Management Education: An Introduction, in R.
French and C. Grey (eds) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage Publications.
Grey, C., Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1996) Is a Critical Pedagogy of Management
Possible?, in R. French and C. Grey (eds) Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage
Publications.

236

Management Learning 31(2)

Habermas, J. (1978) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1992) Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Programme of Philosophical Justification,
in J. Habermas (ed.) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, pp. 43115. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1993a) Justification and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1993b) On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employments of
Practical Reason, in J. Habermas (ed.) Justification and Application, pp. 117. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1994) What Theories Can Accomplishand What they Cant, in M. Haller
(ed.) The Past as Future: Jurgen Habermas Interviewed by Michael Haller, pp. 99120.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harnden, J. (1996) Enlightenment, Empowerment and Emancipation: The Case for Critical
Pedagogy in Nurse Education, Nurse Education Today 16: 327.
Hughes, W. (1996) Critical Thinking. Ontario: Broadview Press.
Introna, L. (1997) Management, Information and Power. London: Macmillan.
Jackson, M. (1991a) The Origins and Nature of Critical Systems Thinking, Systems Practice
4(2): 13149.
Jackson, M. (1991b) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. New York: Plenum
Press.
Law, J. (1986) Power, Action and Beliefa New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Law, J. (1992) Notes on the Theory of Actor-networks: Ordering, Strategy, and
Heterogeneity, Systems Practice 5(4): 37993.
McPeck, J. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Mingers, J. (1984) Subjectivism and Soft Systems Methodologya Critique, Journal of Systems
Analysis 11: 85103.
Mingers, J. (1989) Problems of Measurement, in M. Jackson, P. Keys and S. Cropper (eds)
Operational Research and the Social Sciences, pp. 4717. New York: Plenum Press.
Mingers, J. (1992) Recent Developments in Critical Management Science, Journal of the
Operational Research Society 43(1): 110.
Mingers, J. (1997) Towards Critical Pluralism, in J. Mingers and A. Gill (eds)
Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, pp.
40740. Chichester: Wiley.
Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds) (1997) Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining
Management Science Methodologies. Chichester: Wiley.
Ormerod, R. (1997) OR Models Assist the Sizewell B Public Enquiry: The NCBs Use of
Linear Programming, OR Insight 10(3): 28.
Paul, R. (1990) Critical Thinking. Santa Rosa: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Revans, R. (ed.) (1982) The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt.
Ruggiero, V. (1988) Teaching Thinking Across the Curriculum. New York: Harper & Row.
Said, E. (1983) The World, the Text, and the Critic. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Spaul, M. (1997) Exploring Our Common Future, in F. Stowell, R. Ison, R. Armson, J.
Holloway and S. McRobb (eds) Systems for Sustainability: People, Organizations, and
Environments, pp. 36772. New York: Plenum.
Thomas, A. (1997) The Coming Crisis of Western Management Education, Systems Practice
10(6): 681701.
Thompson, J. and McGivern, J. (1996) Parody, Process and Practice: Perspectives for
Management Education, Management Learning 27(1): 2135.
Ulrich, W. (1991) Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design, in R. Flood and M. Jackson
(eds) Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, pp. 10315. Chichester: Wiley.

Mingers: What is it to be Critical?

237

Weast, D. (1996) Alternative Teaching Strategies: The Case for Critical Thinking, Teaching
Sociology 24: 18994.
Willmott, H. (1997) Critical Management Learning, in J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds)
Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice, pp. 16176. London: Sage
Publications.
Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Contact Address
John Mingers is at Warwick Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
[email: j.mingers@warwick.ac.uk]