Our intention in this article is to add to the different ways of looking at and working with change in organizations. We suggest a set of working propositions that move away from problem-solving or planning-based approaches to change, towards a method which focuses primarily on organizational members' emotions and relations, and on forces of uncertainty and defensiveness. We attempt both to highlight the dynamic nature of change, and to point towards some key issues, often avoided, for engaging with aspects of change. We then describe a participative research process we have employed to access and act on organizational members' emotional responses to change. In this instance, drawings were used with managers in six public service organizations as the catalyst to enable managers to bring out often paradoxical emotions, and to work with these as part of the process of the management of change. While our research is set in the context of enormous changes in U.K. public services, we feel that our methodology is applicable to any organizational setting which is characterized by uncertainty and defensiveness.

We argue for the importance of including analyses of emotional and unconscious processes in the study of institutional work. We develop a framework that integrates emotions and their connection to domination, and we offer a typology of interactions between the emotional and cognitive antecedents of institutional maintenance, disruption, and creation. We conclude by discussing the implications of paying closer attention to emotions for future institutional research, including questions regarding reproduction versus change, intentionality, and rationality.

The author discusses Kolb's learning cycle and the propositions that give rise to it. The author considers the importance of the cycle within mainstream management education and development and then takes a more critical view, looking both behind and beyond the learning cycle at issues that can be developed out of its current conceptualization. The author argues that a more comprehensive picture of experiential learning in management education might be based on developments around emotional and political aspects of Kolb's model. These developments are intended to acknowledge additional, often omitted, aspects of learning from experience within management education and development. The author offers three particular areas for the development of skill and knowledge in the practice of management education.

This article explores the difference between learning in an organization and organizational learning. I construct a conceptual framework for understanding organizational learning at an organizational level of analysis. This framework is based on the proposition that organizational learning is visible in the organizational dynamics created from the interaction between politics (power relations) and emotion within an organization. Using a combination of psychodynamic theory and reflections on the politics of organizing I develop the idea that organizations are learning when the 'establishment' that is being created through the very process of organizing can be identified and critically reflected upon. I use a case example of a change initiative within Hyder PLC, a multinational company, to identify organizational dynamics that limit organizational learning. In the final part of the article, I discuss the conclusions that emerged from the case example and the implications of these conclusions for the theory and practice of organizational learning.

We propose that management education, and therefore managers, could benefit from a bringing together of two distinct traditions within management learning: the recent interest in applying critical perspectives to management theory and practice, and the longer standing tradition of action-based learning. The characteristics of such an approach would be that it would emphasize learning that is questioning of structures and organizational practices, would be situated in the workplace, and would encourage a focus on collective learning and reflection. In developing these propositions we draw on examples from our organizational experience as well as on current debates within management education. In dealing with the implications for management educators, we acknowledge that our proposed merger would not be without criticism from proponents of both traditions. INSETS: Action-Based Learning and the Review of Bidding…;An Attempt to Engage With Power Relations…;Critical Action Learning and Leading Performance.