Reflective Practice as a Fuel for Organizational Learning

Abstract

Learning theories and their interpretations in management research recognize the role of reflection as a central element in the learning process. There also exists a broad consensus that organizational learning (OL) happens at three intertwined levels of the individual, the group and the organization. This tri-level analysis has been most influentially presented by Crossan, Lane and White (1999), as a premise for their 4I framework of OL. Though the 4I framework builds strongly on existing literature on OL, it does not address the role of reflection as a factor operating between the inputs and outcomes in 4I sub-processes. Though a large body of research exists regarding the notion of reflection and its importance in terms of OL, this has not been discussed in the specific context of the 4I framework. This article contributes to the development of the 4I model by discussing how reflective practice—on three levels and within 4I sub-processes—fuels the OL process. The argumentation is based on an extensive literature review in three dimensions of learning, illustrated with an empirical inquiry into three business organizations and their reflective practice. In addition, the aim is to increase the understanding of reflection as not only an individual or group process, but as an organized practice, enabled by the tools of management control.

Full text

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3, 76–95; doi:10.3390/admsci3030076
administrative
sciences
ISSN 2076-3387
www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Article
Reflective Practice as a Fuel for Organizational Learning
Sanna Hilden 1,* and Kati Tikkamäki 2
1 Cost Management Center, Tampere University of Technology, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
2 School of Information Sciences/CIRCMI, University of Tampere, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland;
E-Mail: kati.tikkamaki@uta.fi; Tel.: +358-40-190-1309
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: sanna.hilden@tut.fi;
Tel.: +358-40-728-3304.
Received: 11 May 2013; in revised form: 2 July 2013 / Accepted: 11 July 2013/
Published: 16 July 2013
Abstract: Learning theories and their interpretations in management research recognize
the role of reflection as a central element in the learning process. There also exists a broad
consensus that organizational learning (OL) happens at three intertwined levels of the
individual, the group and the organization. This tri-level analysis has been most
influentially presented by Crossan, Lane and White (1999), as a premise for their 4I
framework of OL. Though the 4I framework builds strongly on existing literature on OL, it
does not address the role of reflection as a factor operating between the inputs and
outcomes in 4I sub-processes. Though a large body of research exists regarding the notion
of reflection and its importance in terms of OL, this has not been discussed in the specific
context of the 4I framework. This article contributes to the development of the 4I model by
discussing how reflective practice—on three levels and within 4I sub-processes—fuels the
OL process. The argumentation is based on an extensive literature review in three
dimensions of learning, illustrated with an empirical inquiry into three business
organizations and their reflective practice. In addition, the aim is to increase the
understanding of reflection as not only an individual or group process, but as an organized
practice, enabled by the tools of management control.
Keywords: organizational learning; reflective practice; 4I framework; management control
OPEN ACCESS

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 77
1. Introduction
Despite the extensive attention placed on organizational learning (OL), there is still a need to
investigate further the actual practice and activity that leads to learning. We propose that to cope with
this pressure of learning and renewal, reflective practice is needed. In addition, we aim to increase the
understanding of reflection as not only an individual or group process, but as an organized practice,
enabled by the tools of management control [1].
There is a broad consensus among learning theorists that reflection is at the core of adult learning
and professional growth, transformation and empowerment [2–6]. Numerous definitions for reflection
exist, but often, they are related to individuals’ cognitive processes, such as becoming conscious of,
analyzing, evaluating, questioning and criticizing experiences, assumptions, beliefs or emotions [7,8].
In Mezirow’s definition [6] of critical reflection, also, cultural influences to norms and behaviors are
included in the reflective process. From a more educational perspective, reflection examined within the
work context also needs to be realized in processes of interaction, sharing opinions, asking for
feedback, challenging groupthink and experimentation. This, in turn, can and needs to be supported by
suitable organizational structures and practices. As Reynolds and Vince [9] argue, more emphasis
needs to be placed on creating collective and organizationally focused processes of reflection. The
three essential levels of analysis—individual, collective and organizational—are broadly accepted in
learning theory and in the management literature [10,11]. However, relatively little is known about the
organizations’ managerial means to actively develop reflection in practice. As called for by
Raelin [12]: ―We need managers who can inspire reflection to the extent of generating new ways of
coping with change‖.
This is the point where OL theories could utilize the extensive effort that has been made in
management-control research. Management-control systems (MCS) represent institutionalized learning,
and the structural reality in which learning and reflection are enabled and facilitated. The purpose of
MCSs is to encourage the desired behavior within the organization [13]. To be successful, the control
system should find a balance between competing forces, such as between freedom and constraint,
empowerment and accountability and between experimentation and efficiency [14,15]. Research in
management control is also reaching strongly towards a better understanding of control as an enabler
for learning [16,17]; yet, the existing conceptualizations of learning mechanisms remain narrow and
have not captured the richness related to reflective interpretative processes, communities of practice,
dialogue and memory [18]. In addition, empirical inquiries on reflection in business contexts are nearly
absent. A more in-depth examination is clearly warranted on the organizational-learning phenomenon,
including the role of reflection.
In this study, we investigate the organizational-learning process as presented by Crossan, Lane and
White [10], analyzing the role of reflection in each of the four sub-processes. Synthesizing the existing
research, we provide a definition of reflection and a conceptualization of reflective practice, consisting
of four factors in line with the 4I OL process [10]. The four factors represent the different requirements
that an organization needs to ensure are present to enable reflection at work. Thus, assuming that
reflection can indeed be actively inspired, the question remains as to how to do it. Additionally,
informed by the critique of the value of reflection (e.g., [19]), our paper sets out to explore this
question of ―how‖ by looking at reflection and reflective practice in relation to management-control

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 78
elements [1]. This allows a pragmatic analysis of how people reflect in practice, in which kinds of
circumstances the reflection takes place and how reflection is enabled by management control. In other
words, reflection is not studied as a hidden mental process, but instead, as a visible practice directed at
past, present or future objects. Finally, reflective practice is illustrated by the empirical data collected
by a ―survey of reflective practice‖. We argue that reflective practice should reside in, and that it
becomes, visible through MCSs, not as a separate exercise. Management control represents the values,
rules and routines, brings the individual and collective reflective capability and everyday work
practices to the surface that fuel learning in distinct 4I sub-processes. This paper contributes to
organizational-learning theory by examining reflection as a practice made tangible through
management control. In addition, it opens avenues to management-control research and to managers in
its attempt to understand the role of reflection in generating learning and renewal.
2. Reflection As a Fuel for Organizational Learning
2.1. Organizational Learning Requires Reflection
―Our core challenge is to become more reflective on the reasoning that guides our actions and
gradually improve our theories-in-use‖ (Senge in [20]).
As a term, OL was originally introduced in the 1970s by Argyris and Schön [21]. For them, OL as
an activity involves solving problems by examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors
and questioning the assumptions that underlie the existing ways of working, experimenting and
creating (double-loop learning). In the highest form of OL, deutero-learning [22], more and more
fundamental questions are asked and reflected on based on previous learning contexts. In addition to
governing values, this level of learning focuses on questioning embedded traditions and systems. This
type of learning can be also called generative or transformational learning.
The theories of OL have brought up the importance of the concept of reflection [2,4–7,21–29].
More specifically, reflection, transformational reflection and reflective practice have been seen as
playing an important role as the driving force of OL [6,11] and as a crucial promoter and core of
double-loop learning [30]. Reflection is characterized as an element of the deconstruction of self-
evidence and transformative learning [31]. The benefits of reflection have been seen, for example, in
that it sharpens professionals’ perceptions of their usual methods and approaches to challenging
situations, allows for the identification of the gaps between theory and practice and it is thought to
contribute positively to job satisfaction [32].
Reflective practice is central in personal mastering, mental modelling, sharing visions, team
learning and systems thinking—the critical disciplines of OL for Senge [27]. Creating a suitable work
environment and time for reflection may be the key to helping practitioners to develop a personal
vision and focus their energies in a positive way towards achieving this vision (personal mastery). The
mental models should be tested through reflection and inquiry to determine how our views shape our
actions and decisions. Shared core values and a common sense of purpose should also be subjected to
reflection to expand thinking and define new practices. In team learning, dialogue encourages
reflection and inquiry. Systemic thinking integrates all the disciplines into a community, in which it is
safe and acceptable to engage in reflective conversations and inquiry [28].

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 79
2.2. The Hidden Role of Reflection in the 4I Framework
Here, reflection is examined as an enabler and facilitator of OL processes (see Appendix 1). OL
processes are examined in the light of Crossan et al.’s [10] frequently cited 4I framework, where the
associated processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing define learning within
organizations. OL is seen as a dynamic process involving exploration (feed-forward) and exploitation
(feed-back) [10,33].
OL deals with rather profound questions related to one’s subjective experience and interpretation,
identity and mental-model construction (intuiting and interpreting). The grounding premise for
reflection to occur on the individual level can be called reflective capability [34], including individuals’
ability and willingness to question routinized ways of thinking and acting, either when having already
acted or while in the midst of acting [25]. Hodgkinson and Healey [35] call for research on the
cognitive and emotional capacities of individuals and groups to sense, seize and transform. This, in
turn, requires developing metacognition, emotion management and self-regulation, which is possible
only by becoming aware of oneself through reflection [31]. Second, this reality is shaped in the social
reality, where the organizational members interact and collectively produce shared understanding
(interpreting and integrating) and reflect collectively [11,12], carrying out reflective dialogue [12,34,36].
This challenges individual and collective sense-making [37]. Third, this all takes place in a specific
organizational setting, with a unique MCS (integrating and institutionalizing) [10,34], challenging the
organization of reflection [28]. Organizations can be viewed as communities of learning, where the
processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing are taking place in the processes
of participating, constructing and sharing knowing, socially supporting and reflecting [38,39].
2.2.1. Reflection for Intuiting and Interpreting
The phase of intuiting is described as a uniquely individual process, consisting of the preconscious
recognition of a pattern and/or of the possibilities inherent in a personal stream of experience [10].
Crossan et al. refer to experience as a source of learning, and they underline the role of the
subconscious in the translation process; that is, how the experience transforms into new knowledge and
action. The most influential model for understanding experiential learning is the Learning Cycle
introduced by Kolb [5]. In principle, the intuiting phase, as described by Crossan et al., can be
understood based on Kolb’s theoretical basis. It is broadly accepted that experience does not
automatically lead to learning, unless we reflect on it in terms of our existing understanding and
assumptions. Thus, reflection is needed for changing routine thinking and behavior. Kolb’s model has
been criticized for being overly individual and past focused, apolitical and for neglecting the
experience of others as a source of learning [40].
Crossan et al. [10] discuss expert intuition, raising the question about how past experience
constitutes mental models that allow efficient exploitation of acquired knowledge. In terms of learning,
this expertise is hidden from the conscious memory. Consequently, expert intuition also tends to
provide routine-like answers in situations where the old thinking ought to be questioned. It is very
difficult for this knowledge to come to the surface, to be examined and explained. The ability to bring
one’s individual assumptions to the fore is considered as a key to perceiving new opportunities and

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 80
creating new thinking (entrepreneurial intuition). Through interpreting, these novel insights are
crystallized [33] and explained to one’s self and to others [18]. Interpreting requires capability and,
also, motivation and direction. It is noted that metaphors have been recognized as a powerful reflective
tool in surfacing the individual’s interpretations and insights and in communicating them to others
(moving towards the interpreting phase). Though metaphors clearly represent one tool for investigating
the subconscious, the more generic requirement relates to also making the hidden knowing visible and
susceptible to modification. As Vince [40] posits, learning is also a meta-level process that requires us
to be ―suspicious of our own suppositions‖.
From an individualistic angle, reflection can be seen as a cognitive process of introspection.
Reflection can be seen as an active and purposeful process of exploration and inquiry, where one
becomes aware of the assumptions that govern one’s actions, thinking and feeling [2,7,41]. Reflection
is a bridge between experience and learning [2]. When examining intuiting and interpreting, this
means, for example, generating new insights, seeing things in a new light by breaking out of traditional
mind-sets, taking experimental actions and developing one’s competencies, scanning the external
environment and being aware of the critical issues that affect one’s thinking and behavior [33,42].
In the 4I framework, the intuiting phase and its theoretical argumentation stresses individual
experience and insight as a source of exploitative and explorative learning. One could see that insight
relates to concepts, such as awareness [40] and mindfulness [43], in organizations and managerial
work. Awareness captures the idea of focusing on the here and now instead of reflecting on the past.
This involves working with the unconscious processes and the resulting emotions, thus directing
conscious attention to living in the moment. In fact, this represents reflecting on reflections, taking a
critical stance towards the self to determine whether the past ways of acting remain appropriate.
Though some authors tend to define reflection as something mostly focusing on the past, it is a concept
that is also apt for using to investigate the self and events in the moment [43]. The ability to reflect on-
action and in-action together form the individual capacity to investigate experience (one’s own or
others’) within the personal, social and political realms [26].
2.2.2. Reflection for Interpreting and Integrating
How can I know what I think till I see what I say? [44]
In a situation in which an individual notices that the old patterns of thinking do not apply, he or she
needs to test his or her emerging thinking and develop it further, collectively. This is the phase in
which the experience is re-interpreted by the individual and group. The new meaning or thinking is
made explicit through language, conversation and dialogue [10,28]. In these types of interpreting and
integrating phases, the individual and others attempt to clarify the emerged idea, articulate and reflect
on it to form a plausible story (in sense-making) or a shared understanding (in OL). According to the
4I model, the interpreting phase involves developing the cognitive maps, naming the experience and
giving meaning to it. Interpreting is seen as a social activity that creates shared meaning and
understanding, enabling the integration of meanings [10]. This can also be called collective
sense-making [40]. Integrating is a coordinated action through mutual adjustment [18]. Language plays
a crucial role in constructing and sharing the cognitive maps and in mutually adjusting. Stories and
storytelling capture the complexity of actual practice and enable a richer understanding of meanings

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 81
and actions, constructing the collective mind/memory simultaneously [10]. In practice, interpreting and
integrating takes place, for example, during informal and formal modes of action and in situations in
daily work, such as problem-solving situations, and during formal and informal meetings and
conversations with colleagues.
Dialogue is, and needs to be emphasized as, an enabler of collaborative learning and reflection.
Dialogue is a process of discovering and interrogating to achieve understanding or agreement through
listening, respecting, voicing and suspending [45]. Crossan et al. [10] present dialogue as a practice
enabling interpretation and integration. Open dialogue as a form of collaborative reflection and inquiry
aims at exposing the meaning constructions based on which the other thinks and acts, thus creating
shared understanding [46]. It also aims at the collective questioning of assumptions [28], development
of common language and a shared world view. Vince [40] suggests that dialogue is actually already
necessary in the intuiting phase, since only through dialogue can an individual form an understanding
of the social reality that ultimately also shapes the individual experience. The integration process is
initially ad hoc and informal, but if it is meant to be institutionalized, integration should be embedded
into the systems and structures of the organization [18].
2.2.3. Reflection for Integrating and Institutionalization
The process of institutionalization refers to prior learning (on the individual and collective levels)
becoming embedded in an organization’s structures, systems and procedures. The patterns of interaction
and communication are formalized as the organization’s intellectual property. This field of ―structures‖
and their inherent dynamics is studied in sociology and management-accounting theory [13,47–52],
where the focus is on understanding the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of unlearning and
change. It is recognized that structures, referred to as MCSs, play a powerful role in influencing
perceptions, changing language and infusing dialogue [16].
In understanding the structuring of organizations, one of the questions in this theoretical field is
how knowledge is acquired and validated before it becomes routinized (institutionalized). This is
explained through experiential learning theories that operate in the conceptual (cognitive) and the
operational (behavioral) realms, moving from experience, through reflection, to testing in action and
reflecting on the new experience [53]. Another critical question relates to unlearning and how the
MCSs (structures) participate in collective questioning, thus reproducing the existing rules, roles and
routines. A third still relatively little studied question relates to individual interpretations of the
so-called socially shared reality. It has been recognized that management control (i.e., the
institutionalized practices) hold different meanings to different organizational members [47,54]. Even
the level of institution is seen and shaped through un-conscious lenses, which greatly affect our
judgment of what the rules and routines really are about. As Gherardi and Nicolini [55] remind us,
unlearning and change are conditions that are built in and on practices. Only through critical reflection
can actors investigate and re-assess the existing ways of thinking, feeling and existing in institutions [56].
We can see that the institutionalizing process, structuration and re-structuration, require
self-reflective abilities, as well as collective questioning and experimenting with new emerging ideas [57].
The reflective interventions might include supporting reflective actions, for example, reflective note
taking and debriefing episodes after meetings on the individual and team levels. On the collective

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 82
level, there are one-off learning communities for small groups to share and test their ideas and
knowledge, role-analysis groups or training sessions. Organizations might encourage the exchange of
good practices and of giving feedback to each other. It is believed that feeding the culture of learning
enables reflective work behavior to become a way of living in the organization [12]. However, the
ideal is to integrate the reflective practices in the present strategy and work practices; that is, into
MCSs as a whole. We argue that the learning theorists have not been able to dig deep enough into
organizations’ management-system realities; thus, ideas for incorporating reflection into corporate
practice unfortunately remain largely unrealized.
3. Reflective Practice Enabling Organizational Learning
Synthesizing the literature presented earlier, we define reflection as:
a complex, active and purposeful mental process of becoming aware of old meanings, exploring
alternative interpretations, engaging in dialogue and shifting modes of thinking, feeling and acting.
It is triggered by meaningful experience and leads often to unexpected outcomes.
Figure 1. Reflective practice enabling 4I learning processes (based on Crossan et al. [10]).
Reflective practice, in turn, is the actual ways in which reflection is manifested through individual
and collective action within the organizational realm. Reflective practice allows the members of the
organization to slow down to critically evaluate their own thinking, but also, to investigate the shared,
collective assumptions and expectations, as well as the institutionalized rules and routines. The
reflective-practice framework (Figure 1), consisting of reflective capacity, reflective dialogue,
reflective experiment and reflective management control, is based on the review and synthesis of OL
theories (e.g., [10,22]), theories of reflection and reflective practice/practitioners [7,8,12,28,43], the
process model for sense-making [28] and the tools of management control, as defined by Malmi and
Brown [1].

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 83
Reflective practice is seen to support intuiting, interpreting, integrating (individual and collective
sense-making) and institutionalizing in organizations. Reflective practice raises awareness of the actors
and calls actors from passivity to action [58]. When integrating learning and reflecting into everyday
work practices and structures, it calls for reorganizing the work. The aim is not always to develop new
―tricks‖, but to create best practices out of present practices. In practice, this means challenging rigid
mental models, cultural self-evaluation, making visible the possible inertia caused by shared assumptions
about ―how we do things around here‖ and deconstructing organizational barriers, the unrealized
tensions between the managerial vision and forms of control.
The grounding premises for reflective practice to occur relate to individual reflective capability,
which enables the usage of intuition and interpretation. Jordan [25] describes the reflective practitioner
by (1) their ability and (2) willingness to question routinized ways of thinking and acting, either having
already acted or in the midst of acting. This requires meta-cognitive capabilities, self-awareness and
the ability to regulate cognitive and affective processes (e.g., [31,35]). Yanow and Willmott [59]
describe the attitude suitable for reflective practice as passionate humility, which allows one to be
surprised and to view a situation from diverse perspectives. Learning capabilities are crucial, including
the capability to reflect in and on action [8]. The challenge is to learn to be surprised [25]. The
prerequisite for being surprised is in having the ability and courage to ask relevant and critical
questions—not always knowing the right answers. For Wesley and Buysse [60], reflection can take
place in four different forms: (a) the technical examination of one’s immediate skills and competences
in specific settings, (b) a descriptive analysis of one’s performance in a professional role, (c) dialogic
exploration of alternative ways to solve problems in a professional situation and d) critical thinking
about the effects on others of one’s actions, when considering social, political and cultural forces
(in [61]). From the point of view of interpreting, integrating and sense-making, the individual’s
skills/capacity and willingness to enter into dialogue are crucial. It is also important to notice how an
organization’s management controls and structures facilitate the development of reflective capacity
and, also, how the organization benefits from it.
Reflective dialogue aims at exposing the meaning constructions based on which the other thinks and
acts, thus creating shared understanding. Here, dialogue is seen as a tool for collective reflection.
Reflection is a process involving internal and external dialogues. When carrying out an internal
dialogue, one examines one’s own articulations and listens to one’s own voice, aiming at
understanding one’s values, assumptions and blind spots [36]. When promoting reflection through
external dialogue, individuals together try to find something new and surprising—to be touched
upon—in open interaction. In our practice-oriented study, it is thought that in order to be social, the
dialogue requires a phase of verbalizing for verifying what is being collectively understood. Though
dialogue can be described as an inter-subjective meaning construction that generically necessitates
words, as an organizational practice, there needs to be a phase where the experience is explicated.
Referring to reflective capacity, Raelin [12] has defined five reflective skills promoting dialogue:
being, speaking, disclosing, testing and probing. The first reflective skill, being, means to open up to
the experience and to the interpersonal environments around oneself. Speaking refers to articulating
the collective voice at a given time, for example, by suggesting group norms and/or bringing out
uncertainties or unfounded assumptions. When disclosing, the participants share their doubts or voice
their passion. Participants unveil their feelings or tell stories to reveal their deep experiences. In

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 84
testing, members try to promote the process of collective inquiry to uncover possible new ways.
Through probing, members of the group attempt to point out inconsistencies in members’ reasoning
patterns and uncover the assumptions behind the actions. In the organizational context, one can use
various reflective tools to facilitate reflective dialogue: storytelling, reflective and reflexive
conversations, reflective metaphors, reflective journals and critical incident analysis, repertory grids
and concept mapping [62]. At its best, through dialogical reflection, we focus on bigger issues that
impact on work and profession and broaden the scope for understanding the complexities of practice [46].
Based on our literature review, we suggest that reflection should be institutionalized in the MCS
that we call reflective management control. In practical terms, this means that organization’s values,
measuring and rewarding systems encourage a reflective working style. In addition, strategic and
operational planning, as well as processes and practices allow for taking time and space for reflection
and following the results of it. In other words, at its best, management control enables intuiting,
interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing. Reflective management control defines the strategy,
structures, routines and procedures for individuals and groups to practice reflection in their everyday
work. It also means that the MCS should be flexible, so that new learning and interpretation are
allowed to change the control in use [16]. So far, research on OL has focused greatly on reflection-on-
action through separate exercises and neglected the routines that take place within ordinary, on-going
operations [4]; that is, how organizational structures, routines and control systems utilize the potential
of reflective dialogue. It is crucial to examine how intuition becomes institutionalized and, inversely,
how institutionalization impacts the development of intuition [18].
The coexistence of thinking and acting underlie reflective experimenting. In addition to the cognitive
and analytical level of reflection, reflective practices take the form of embodied reflection, which
widens the experience from the ―cognitive forms of reflection on concrete experience‖ into the
embodied level and re-embodies the experiential knowledge and learning [25,43]. The aim of the
experiment is to apply and explore the ideas and principles in practice and, thus, acquire new
experiences on which to reflect. This means inquiring about new ideas and work practices with a
―reflective mentality‖. The on-going reflective experimenting intertwines the processes of intuiting,
interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing. The relationship between reflective thinking and acting
becomes apparent in the ideas of reflection ex post, in the midst of and before action. Reflection taking
place before an action is called anticipative reflection [12], reflection during an action is called
reflection-in-action and reflection taking place after an action is reflection-on-action [26]. It has been
claimed that reflection ―in-the-moment‖ is under-theorized and lacks attention compared to reflection
―after-the-moment‖ [25,63]. Indeed, the ability to ―think on your feet‖ is crucial in reflective practice.
As we know, these factors of reflective practice overlap in practice in a complex way, and we need
a deeper understanding about how these factors are interrelated. We suggest that reflective practice
should be organized and facilitated in a way that the individual, collective and OL processes are
intertwined. The next chapter describes a preliminary, empirical attempt to operationalize the
reflectiveness and the developed concept of reflective practice within the realm of management control.

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 85
4. Exploring Reflective Practice in Practice
Based on our literature review, we can see that more research is needed to understand reflective
practice and its four factors as an integral part of everyday work. We have presented how an MCS
represents the formal arrangement of work in practice; thus, it is well justified to investigate how well
the formal arrangement, rules and routines support reflective practice at the required three levels.
The four factors of reflective practice were investigated in three business organizations with the
help of a questionnaire, complemented with case-specific research and development interventions. The
questionnaire represents a preliminary step towards operationalizing the idea of reflective practice and
its realization as reflected against elements of management control. The goal is not to search statistical
evidence for the theoretically grounded four factors of reflective practice, but rather, to deepen the
understanding of how to further the understanding of reflective processes and their requirements in
organizations; furthermore, to challenge the respondents to reflect on the role of reflection in their
work and organizational practices by answering the questionnaire. However, these are preliminary
findings that guide our future research regarding reflective capability, reflective dialogue,
experimenting and management control.
The selected three organizations all represent different fields of operation. Case 1 is a non-profit
health-care organization with 160 employees. Case 2 is an affiliate of a large, global pharmaceutical
company with 150 employees. Case 3 is a local outlet of a consumer retail chain. The case outlet is
part of a large parent company operating in construction, decoration and gardening. The case outlet has
approximately 50 employees.
A questionnaire (The questionnaire framework and propositions have been developed as part of the
REFINNO research project which investigates the potential of reflection in terms of business
performance; thus, as a construct, it has been developed jointly by Hilden S., Rämö J., Tikkamäki, K.,
Pekkola, S., Ukko, J., Saunila, M. and Vauranoja S.) was constructed based on Table 1, where the
columns are formed according to 4I processes on three levels: individual, group and organization [10].
The rows capture the tools of management control as defined by Malmi and Brown [1]: cultural,
planning, cybernetic, reward and compensation and administrative controls. The table was filled with
propositions capturing the idea of how a certain control tool supports a reflection on a selected level.
For example, regarding values and reflective practice on the individual level, the proposition was ―I
think it is valuable to take time to think critically and creatively about my work‖. In addition, on a
group level, values and reflective practice were proposed: ―In our organization, it is considered
valuable to regularly take time for critical and creative discussions and thinking‖. Similarly, on an
organization level, ―Critical and creative thinking individually or collectively is valued in our
organization‖. The reflection propositions were tied to normal daily work and were formulated in
colloquial language. The scale of responses was: 1 = I strongly agree, 2 = I agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = I
disagree and 5 = I strongly disagree.
The reliability analysis supports the selection of propositions at the three levels of the individual,
group and organization. The Cronbach’s alphas that describe the survey’s internal consistency for the
three levels were 0.680 (reflective practice on an individual level), 0.725 (reflective practice on a
group level) and 0.741 (reflective practice on an organizational level). Since the recommended

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 86
limit for reliability is > 0.60, the three sets of propositions can be argued as measuring the same
selected thing.
Table 1. The questionnaire for reflective practice reflected against management control.
Reflective practice
Reflective practice on
individual level (within
intuiting and
interpreting processes)
Reflective practice on
group level (within
interpreting and
integrating processes)
Reflective practice on
organizational level
(within integrating and
institutionalizing
processes)
Cultural controls:
values, beliefs, social
norms, mission
statements, workspace
design, dress codes,
clans, rituals
I think it is valuable to
take time to think
critically and creatively
about my work.
In our organization, it is
considered valuable to
regularly take time for
critical and creative
discussions and thinking.
Critical and creative
thinking individually or
collectively is valued in
our organization.
Planning controls:
strategic and action
plans
In order to achieve my
work objectives, I
regularly have to think
critically and creatively
about my work.
In order to achieve our
work objectives, we
regularly need to think
critically and creatively
about our work and
working methods.
The strategic goals of our
organization encourage
sharing thoughts and
creative thinking.
Cybernetic controls:
budgets, financial
measures, non-
financial measures
I use financial and
non-financial
performance metrics in
my work when I search
for explanations and/or
new ideas.
We use financial and
non-financial
performance metrics
when searching for
explanations or new ideas
together with
others (e.g., in
teams/working groups).
The performance metrics
(financial and/or
non-financial) are
developed based on new
ideas and improvements
we have made, e.g., to
work processes.
Reward and
compensation controls:
reward systems,
incentives
I regularly take time to
think critically and
creatively about my work
because my organization
rewards me for it.
We regularly take time to
discuss critically and
creatively with others
about our work, because
we are rewarded for it.
The current reward
practices of my company
rewards us for developing
new ideas and improving
work practices.
Administrative
controls:
organizational design,
governance structures,
procedures, policies,
work organizing,
accountability
I regularly review and
evaluate my work and the
ways I work.
We regularly review and
evaluate with others our
work and the ways
we work.
The ideas and
improvement suggestions
we have developed
individually or
collectively change the
processes and the ways
we work in
my company.
Looking at the preliminary results, we can see that the three organizations produce fairly similar
results regarding their reflectiveness (Figures 2–4). It is worth noticing that the general perception of
reflectiveness at work is rather positive in all domains. In all organizations, the reward and

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 87
compensation produces most challenges in management control supporting a reflective way of
working on the individual level (Figure 2). However, the same perception is not that clear when
respondents have evaluated reflective working in groups (Figure 3) and as organizational
(institutionalized) work arrangements (Figure 4).
Figure 2. Amount of challenge for reflection—individual level.
Figure 3. Amount of challenge for reflection—group level.
Figure 4. Amount of challenge for reflection—organization level.
On the group level, the respondents are perceive to be slightly less supported by the control system,
though the average remains on the positive side (below 3 = neutral). Further, on this level, the three
case organizations give rather similar averages regarding the reflective practices in relation to
management-control elements.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 88
If we look, for example, at the proposition, ―We regularly review and evaluate with others our work
and the ways we work‖, one can notice the deviation between answers (Table 2).
Table 2. Regular work evaluation together with others.
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
I strongly agree
12
5
6
I agree
34
26
46
Neutral
27
26
22
I disagree
23
31
19
I strongly disagree
3
12
7
The same tendency is visible in all three organizations. This might imply that collective reflection
varies inside the organization or that respondents interpret the proposition differently. However, on
average, 32% of all respondents feel that collective reflection about work and the ways of working is
not a regular practice.
A generic finding related to reflective capability enabled by control tools was that individual skills
and willingness are high, but organizations’ structures seem to lag behind. Especially, the measuring
and rewarding aspect was not considered as the weakest link for critical and creative thinking. As an
example of the propositions regarding reflectiveness as part of individuals’ everyday work, it was
stated that, ―I regularly review and evaluate my work and the ways I work‖. The negative neutral and
negative responses are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Reflective practice is not part of everyday work.
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
I strongly disagree/I disagree/neutral
12%
15%
20%
Though the great majority feels that self-reflection is part of their work, the number of employees
who do not evaluate their work regularly is relatively high—considering that all respondents can be
categorized as knowledge-workers.
Considering the reflective dialogue, the propositions tried to capture how well the organizational
practices and routines support collective discussions, sense-making and groupthink. For example, it
was proposed that, ―We use financial and non-financial performance metrics when searching for
explanations or new ideas together with others (e.g., in teams or working groups)‖ (Table 4). This was
aimed at capturing the cybernetic controls and their interactive use.
Table 4. Performance metrics do not support reflective practice.
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
I disagree
/strongly disagree
17%
24%
13%
Neutral
27%
40%
33%
Reflective experiment, the intertwining factor of the process of reflective practice, in this paper
means applying and exploring the ideas and principles in practice and, thus, acquiring new experiences

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 89
to be reflected on. While some of the questions in the survey capture the idea of experimenting, filling
in the questionnaire was complemented by reflective sessions, where organizations’ members reflected
collectively on the results and constructed a shared understanding about the results in their own
case-specific context. Thus, the process of answering the survey itself is a reflective process, where its
role is to trigger the respondents’ intuition and interpretation. Discussing the results in informal and
formal discussion forums enables reflective dialogue related to the organizations’ reflectiveness. In
addition, the utilization of the results gives a chance for management to evaluate and develop current
control tools from the point of view of reflective practice, according to the results.
However, one of the illustrative propositions for reflective experimenting and, at the same time, for
reflective management control is the variable: ―The ideas and improvement suggestions we have
developed individually or collectively change the processes and ways we work in my company‖ (Table 5).
This describes how well the feed-forward process functions and how the ideas based on intuition and
dialogue reach= the phase of institutionalization.
Table 5. Reflective practice changes institutions.
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
I agree/strongly agree
52%
30%
67%
One might notice that, regarding this question, the organizations differ from one another. This type
of result clearly highlights the need for taking the step from the survey towards reflecting on the results
and considering what the interpretations and reasons are behind these perceptions. As a single
observation, these results raise many questions on a more detailed level regarding the reflective
learning process and the dynamics of management-control change. Why is it that in organizations
where reflection seems to be active, the acquired ideas and learning are not perceived to better
transform institutionalized practices?
As a limitation to the results, it can be noted that the propositions in their current form leave a lot of
room for interpretation. Especially, one might argue that the distinction between group and
organizational levels is a matter of how the respondents understand the propositions. This is clearly a
point regarding the questionnaire validity that will be improved in further trials. Another weakness in
the propositions could relate to fairly strong emphasis on new ideas as an outcome of reflection.
Though the reflective process often leads to a ―new‖ idea or ―new‖ understanding, it does not have to
mean doing things differently. Reflection may just as well crystallize how well the old ways actually
work, and there is no point in developing new ones. This is something that needs further attention in
verbalizing the reflective practice.
The arranged interventions remain as a subject for further research, as the results are currently being
collected and analyzed. Thus, these results are not reported in this paper. While our research on
reflective practice continues, we feel that the questionnaire and its operationalization for investigating
reflective practice tied with management control already represent a valuable contribution to
OL theory.
In the case interventions, constructed based on the results of the questionnaire, we have constructed
―spaces‖ for intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing and have observed whether and
how the interventions reach the level of open and influential reflective practice. In addition, we try to

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 90
identify and develop reflective tools to share our grounds for thinking, thus producing more creative
and multi-faceted ideas. In our research, we will facilitate intuiting and interpreting during interventions
by arranging individuals and groups, so that they can reframe their knowledge base and train their
reflection abilities [12]. In addition, we observe the organizational members and how their reflection
manifests and develops in change-related sense-making interventions. We will also seek to understand
how the other levels, namely, the collective and organizational levels, interact with the individual level
of reflectiveness. We also organize spaces for reflective dialogue and observe whether and how the
dialogue reaches the level of open and influential interaction. In addition, we try to identify and
develop tools to share our grounds for thinking, thus producing more creative and multi-faceted ideas.
Interventions and their follow-ups provide an understanding of the significance of this process phase,
where experiences and knowledge become a professional activity: knowing. We also investigate how
reflective practice may support the learning that continues when the new meanings are taken into
real-life situations. We expect this to further clarify the question on reflection and action and how the
sense-making process might be recursive during this testing phase. The interventions are closely tied to
selected forms of control, so that we can analyze the role of management control in promoting
reflective practice and, thus, sense-making and organizational renewal.
5. Conclusions
We have proposed that to establish reflective practices and to actively use reflection as a means to
enable and facilitate OL, four domains of prerequisites are needed. Reflective capacity creates the
preliminary grounding for individual ability and willingness to take the path of constructive
questioning. Reflective dialogue fosters the collective process of discovering and interrogating to
achieve common understanding or agreement. Reflective experiment captures the action-orientation
needed for learning to integrate in the organizational reality through active exploring and probing.
Finally, to create an environment that enables and encourages sense-making, there needs to be reflective
management control. This means that the structures, practices and rules have built-in flexibility. These
prerequisites explicitly connect two potential theoretical domains, OL and management control, to
form a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers and mechanisms that are seen as valuable for
fostering reflection, sense-making and renewal in organizations.
As shown by our study, there is a particular need to explicitly connect the processes at different
organizational levels to holistically understand the reflection process. Based on the studied literature
and early case evidence, our initial position regarding the role of these levels is that in any reflective
practice, the three individual, group and organizational levels are simultaneously present and must be
acknowledged according to their particular character. We admit the conceptual challenge in separating
experimenting into its own ―box‖, while we clearly state that it (action) is actually present in all of the
process phases. This is something that needs to be further developed conceptually, but at this point, we
wish to make a clear distinction between what happens as a conscious or sub-conscious mental process
and what are the specific organizational requirements for experimenting. This stems from our practical
observation that there is a significant gap between ―good intentions‖ and action. This is why we want
to bring out the experimenting as a distinct phase that might need a different kind of encouragement
than the other phases. The most hermetic boundary exists between the management-control literature

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 91
and research on individual and collective learning. Learning-oriented studies focus on the human
factors of reflection and are imprecise regarding the power and impact mechanisms of the surrounding
control system. In a similar vein, management studies search to understand the role of control in
learning; yet, they tend to overlook the established theoretical notions in the individual and collective
psychology of learning. Our argument is that an empirical investigation of reflective learning with an
analysis of all three dimensions, alongside combining cognition and action, is both valuable
and needed.
In our continuing research work with the case companies, we expect to build a more analytical
understanding of the intuitive hypothesis that ―to renew means first becoming aware‖. During our
literature review, we found that the reflective way of working incorporates not only the dimensions of
the organization (individual, group and organizational), but also the hidden human processes of
metacognition and emotions—forming the basis of our thinking and acting in change. Carrying out
reflective practice in daily work primarily calls for the meaningful use of this meta-competence in ―a
flow of work process‖. Reflection should not be a separated work task, but a way of planning, carrying
out and evaluating the work tasks, which we call a ―reflective mentality‖. Reflective practice should
also be a shared value in organizational strategy and legitimized practice. We hope to receive more
theoretical and empirically enriched evidence for how this ―reflective mentality‖ becomes visible and
manageable in reflective practice.
In addition, we expect to see the practical contribution of piloting various reflective practices as
creating channels through which companies may receive valuable feed-forward and strategizing
information. The planned practices create the time and space for reflective practice and legitimize it by
using time to make sense of the change, for employees to become heard and for them to have the
possibility of being able to participate. In practice, this means that based on the questionnaire results,
management is challenged in terms of reflective sparring and coaching regarding the five elements of
control. This includes the evaluation of current control tools, their meaningfulness in current business
situations and how they could be used more reflectively; that is, producing surprises, learning and
innovative decisions. Thus, reflective practices demonstrate significant potential in supporting
organizational renewal emerging from the ranks and being managed from the top down.
Indeed, we want to raise the question of risks related to engaging in a process, the outcome of
which is, by definition, unknown. Reflection provides new interpretations, new ideas—and perhaps
breaks some old patterns. Reflective practice is planned to challenge the existing norms and the
existing social, cultural and political status quo. This can lead to mental and emotional anxiety [64]
and the need for reorganizing identity. Thus, it will be an intriguing challenge for us to seek answers to
questions, such as: in what situations and with what kind of rules does reflection remain constructive
and productive?
It remains to be seen how, in real-life settings, reflective practice will make visible the existing
power structures in organizations. The idea of posing challenging questions and engaging in open
dialogue requires a fair amount of courage and trust. By asking the ―wrong question‖, one might end
up in the middle of a political conflict inside the organization. What makes the difference between
constructive questioning and a holdout? What exactly is the potential of reflective practice, and how
can it be established as a safe platform in practical organizations for mulling over and gradually taking
on board the changes it triggers?

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 92
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the REFINNO research team, Petri Suomala, Sanna Pekkola, Johanna
Rämö, Minna Saunila, Juhani Ukko and Sanna Vauranoja, for the insightful and constructive academic
discussions and joint efforts in case interventions. They have enabled the multi-disciplinary
development of the interpretation of reflective practice. Colleagues in the REFINNO research team
have also provided feedback regarding earlier drafts of the manuscript, which is acknowledged here.
Moreover, funding by the Finnish Agency for Technology has enabled the research projects underlying
this publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Malmi, T.; Brown, D.A. Management control systems as a package: Opportunities, challenges
and research directions. Manag. Account. Res. 2008, 19, 287–300.
2. Boud, D.; Keogh, R.; Walker, D. What is Reflection is Learning? In Reflection: Turning
Experience into Learning; Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D., Eds.; Kogan Page: London, UK,
1985; pp. 7–17.
3. Dewey, J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry; Henry Holt and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1938.
4. Kegan, R. What ―form‖ Transforms? A Constructive-developmental Approach to Transformative
Learning. In Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists … In Their Own Words;
lleris, K., Ed.; Routledge: Oxon, MD, USA, 2009; pp. 35–52.
5. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development;
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984.
6. Mezirow, J. An Overview on Transformative Learning. In Contemporary Theories of Learning:
Learning Theorists … In Their Own Words; Ileris, K., Ed.; Routledge: Oxon, MD, USA, 2009;
pp. 35–52.
7. Mezirow, J. A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Educ. 1981, 32, 3–24.
8. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Basic Books: New
York, NY, USA, 1984.
9. Reynolds, M.; Vince, R. Organizing Reflection; Ashgate Pub Limited: Hampshire, England, UK,
2004.
10. Crossan, M.; Lane, H.; White, R. An organisational learning framework: From intuition to
institution. Acad. Manag. 1999, 24, 522–537.
11. Hoyrup, S. Reflection as a core process in organizational learning. J. Workplace Learn. 2004, 16,
442–454.
12. Raelin, J.A. Public reflection as the basis of learning. Manag. Learn. 2001, 32, 11–30.
13. Chenhall, R.H. Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings
from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account. Organ. Soc. 2003, 28,
127–168.
14. Simons, R.A. Levers of Control; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1995.

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 93
15. Tessier, S.; Otley, D. A conceptual development of Simons’ levers of control framework.
Account. Organ. Soc. 2012, 23, 171–185.
16. Hopwood, A.G. Accounting and organizational change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1990, 3,
7–17.
17. Simons, R.A. Seven Strategic Questions: A Simple Approach for Better Execution; Harvard
Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2010.
18. Crossan, M.M.; Berdrow, I. Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strat. Manag. J. 2003,
24, 1087–1105.
19. Ecclestone, K. The reflective practitioner: Mantra or a model for emancipation? Stud. Educ.
Adults 1996, 28, 146–161.
20. Ayas, K.; Zeniuk, N. Project-based learning: Building communities of reflective practitioners.
Manag. Learn. 2001, 32, 61–76.
21. Argyris, C.; Schön, D.A. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective;
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1978.
22. Argyris, C.; Schön, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice;
Addison-Wessley: Reading, MA, USA, 1996.
23. Elkjaer, B. The learning organization: And undelivered promise. Manag. Learn. 2001, 32, 437–452.
24. Eriksen, M. Leading adaptive organizational change: Self-reflexivity and self-transformation.
J. Organ. Change Manag. 2008, 21, 622–640.
25. Jordan, S. Learning to be surprised: How to foster reflective practice in a high-reliability context.
Manag. Learn. 2010, 41, 391–413.
26. Schön, D.A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987.
27. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization;
Doubleday/Currency: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
28. Vince, R. Organizing reflection. Manag. Learn. 2002, 33, 63–78.
29. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Obstfeld, D. Organizing and the process of sense-making. Organ.
Sci. 2005, 16, 409–421.
30. Greenwood, J. The role of reflection in single and double loop learning. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998, 27,
1048–1053.
31. Mezirow, J. Learning to Think like an Adult. Core Concepts of Transformation Theory. In
Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress; Mezirow, J., Eds.;
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 3–33.
32. Page, S.; Meerabeau, L. Achieving change through reflective practice: Closing the loop. Nurse
Educ. Today 2000, 20, 365–372.
33. Bontis, N.; Crossan, M.M.; Hulland, J. Managing an organizational learning system by aligning
stocks and flows. J. Manag. Stud. 2002, 39, 437–469.
34. Hilden, S.; Tikkamäki, K.; Suomala, P. Reflection for Renewal. In Proceedings of the OCD—
Organizational Change and Development Conference, Bern, Switzerland, 13–14 September 2012.
35. Hodgkinson, G.P.; Healey, M.P. Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion
and reflection in strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32, 1500–1516.
36. Tsang, N.M. Reflection as dialogue. Br. J. Soc. Work 2007, 37, 681–694.
37. Weick, K.; Quinn, R.E. Organizational change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1999, 50,
361–386.

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 94
38. Tikkamäki, K. Työn ja organisaation muutoksissa oppiminen—Etnografinen löytöretki työssä
oppimiseen. (Learning in Changing Work and Organisational Contexts—Ethnographical
Discovery on Workplace Learning.). Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Education, University of
Tampere, Tampere, Finland, 2006.
39. Tikkamäki, K. Communities of Learning at Work—Making the Invisible Visible. Paper Presented
in the Conference on Researching Work and Learning, Stirling, Scotland, 19-21 June 2013.
40. Vince, R. Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. J. Manag. Educ. 1998, 22, 304–319.
41. Jordi, R. Reframing the concept of reflection: Consciousness, experiential learning, and reflective
learning practices. Adult Educ. Q. 2011, 61, 181–197.
42. Cope, J. Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection. Discontinuous events as triggers for
―higher-level‖ learning. Manag. Learn. 2003, 34, 429–450.
43. Jordan, S.; Messner, M.; Becker, A. Reflection and mindfulness in organizations: Rationales and
possibilities for integration. Manag. Learn. 2009, 40, 465.
44. Weick, K. The Social Psychology of Organizing; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
45. Isaacs, W.I. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
46. Clouder, L. Reflective practice: Realizing its potential. Physiotherapy 2000, 86, 517–522.
47. Ahrens, T.A.; Chapman, C.S. The structuration of legitimate performance measures and
management: Day-to-day contests of accountability in a U.K. restaurant chain. Manag. Account.
Res. 2002, 13, 151–171.
48. Ahrens, T.A.; Chapman, C.S. Management accounting as practice. Account. Organ. Soc. 2007,
32, 1–27.
49. Berger, P.; Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge; Open Road Media: Soho, NY, USA, 1966.
50. Barley, S.R.; Tolbert, P.S. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action
and institution. Organ. Stud. 1997, 18, 93–117.
51. Burchell, S.; Clubb, C.; Hopwood, A.; Hughes, J.; Nahapiet, J. The roles of accounting in
organizations and society. Account. Organ. Soc. 1980, 5, 5–27.
52. Burns, J.; Scapens, R.W. Conceptualizing management accounting change: An institutional
framework. Manag. Account. Res. 2000, 11, 3–25.
53. Busco, C.; Riccaboni, A. Performance Measurement Systems and Organizational Culture:
Interpreting Processes of Unlearning and Change. In Business Performance Measurement and
Management; Taticchi, P., Ed.; Springler-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg, Geramny, 2010; pp. 357–376.
54. Mouritsen, J.; Hansen, A.; Hansen, C.O. Short and long translations: Management accounting
calculations and innovation management. Account. Organ. Soc. 2009, 34, 738–754.
55. Gherardi, S.; Nicolini, D. The Sociological Foundations of Organizational Learning. In Handbook
of Organizational Learning and Knowledge; Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J., Nonaka, I., Eds.;
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 35–60.
56. Nicolini, D.; Hartley, J.; Stansfield, A.; Hurcombe, J. Through the eyes of others: Using
developmental peer reviews to promote reflection and change in organizations. J. Organ. Change
Manag. 2011, 24, 211–228.
57. Kuntz, J.R.C.; Gomes, J.F.S. Transformational change in organizations: A self-regulation
approach. J. Organ. Change Manag. 2012, 25, 143–162.
58. Wellington, B. The promise of reflective practice. Educ. Leader. 1991, 48, 4–5.
59. Yanow, D.; Willmott, H. Considering passionate humility. Adm. Theory Prax. 1999, 21, 440–454.

Adm. Sci. 2013, 3 95
60. Wesley, P.W.; Buysse, V. Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to promote
reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2001, 21, 114.
61. Hatton, N.; Smith, D. Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.
Teach. Teach. Educ. 1995, 11, 33–49.
62. Gray, D.E. Facilitating management learning. Developing critical reflection through reflective
tools. Manag. Learn. 2007, 38, 495–517.
63. Yanow, D.; Tsoukas, H. What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological account. J. Manag.
Stud. 2009, 46, 1339–1364.
64. Reynolds, M. Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Manag. Learn. 1998, 29,
183–200.
Appendix
Appendix 1. The multilevel dimensions and premises of organizational reflection (Hilden,
Tikkamäki & Suomala 2012).
Reflective practitioner
Collective reflective practice
Organizational reflective practice
Schön (1983)
Kolb (1984)
Eraut (1994)
Brookfield (1995)
Hoyrup (2004)
Critical reflection:
Mezirow (1990)
Reynolds (1998)
Dewey (1938)
Boud (1985)
Brookfield (1995)
Reynolds (1998)
Evans (1999)
Raelin (2002)
Hoyrup (2004)
Jordan (2010)
Elkjaer (2001)
Raelin (2001)
Vince (2002)
Hoyrup (2004)
Nicolini et al. (2004)
Boud et al. (2006)
Yanow & Tsoukas (2007)
Jordan (2010)
Individual reflection premises
Collective reflection premises
Organizational reflection premises
To be skilled to ―think on your feet‖
(Weick 2002)
Individuals’ meta-cognitive
capabilities; self-awareness,
regulating cognitive and affective
processes (e.g., Hodgkinson &
Healey 2011)
Passionate expertise tempered by
humility and doubt, willingness to
reflect (Yanow & Wilmott 1999)
To be sensitive and creative
thinking, motivated, committed,
passionate yet humble, able to
maintain volition (e.g. Yanow &
Wilmott 1999, Jordan 2010)
Managers’ skills of facilitating
reflective processes (Grey 2007)
Public scrutiny regarding organizational roles, practices, routines, and power
relations (Reynolds 1998; Raelin 2001; Vince 2001, 2002)
―Educational setting‖ consisting of informal processes within organization based
on situational learning theory (Jordan 2010) (compare ―communities of practice‖
by Wenger 1999 and ―communities of learning‖ by Tikkamäki 2006)
Organizational culture allowing public dialogue and critical reflection l.
communication patterns and the use of artifacts (Elkjaer 2001; Nicolini et al.
2004)
Routinized, shared ways of thinking
and acting, established power
relations (Jordan 2010)
An account of work practices that
explores dimensions of acquiring
competence and ability to judge
competence (Yanow & Tsoukas 2009)
Sufficient interactive style of MCS used
to promote individual and collective
self-awareness (Brown & Starkey 2000)
Systems that balance use of expert and
entrepreneurial intuition (Hodgkinson &
Healey 2011)
Flexibility as an in-built feature of MCS
to minimize control systems’ internal
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).