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

In many respects life in the 21st century is radically different from the lives their parents and grandparents experienced. For instance, technology has allowed them to maintain continuous connection with their jobs and work, courtesy of the instantaneous communication offered by their "crackberries" and other devices. People might expect such dual-income families to experience role overload and other stressors equally as they attempt to balance the multitasking demands of work and home life. But a more important issue may have to do with how people cope in a dual-income context. As more men and women within the same household work full time, role overload and stress will continue to create challenges and may affect work quality and performance.

Many of the scandals, indiscretions and collapses, over the last few years, at formerly venerated organizations were the results of toxic relationships, dubious economic models, opaque workplace paradigms, as well as questionable collective and individual actions and behaviours of people who, ordinarily, would not be considered 'typically criminal'. The individuals involved have typically been people with good education, caring parents, were community contributors and, by all accounts, appeared to be upstanding members of society. Their involvement, therefore, in corrupt acts and relationships thus brings a numbers of issues under question--an important one of which is their ethical maturity, and the forming of that ethical development through important societal institutions such as: religion, education and the family. We set out to understand what some of the stumbling blocks were that prevent individuals from courageously acting on their sometimes vast bases of theoretical/common knowledge with respect to ethics and morals, but which has not yet become common practice. Additionally, we also sought to understand what the various enablers were for individuals who were able to live and act ethically, to further enhance such ethical and moral living and working. Our research sample was 646 middle managers who were all enrolled on the MBA programs of the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and Erasmus University (Netherlands). The research respondents self-reported on both the stumbling blocks and enablers, through writing up their personal experiences for our research. They also reported on what some of the practical actions were that they employed to live and work ethically

The purpose of this paper is to present findings of a recent survey conducted on small to mid-sized nonprofit organizations about the types of leadership development initiatives they offer employees. This paper used survey and interview methods to collect data from nonprofit executive directors who participated. Most survey participants do not have the financial and other organizational capacities to offer leadership development initiatives to employees. In-service workshops are the most frequent type of initiative and unfortunately often this learning initiative has a low impact given its limited short-term exposure to participants. Other leadership development initiatives may be more beneficial to employees in terms of their long-term impact. The briefing provides recommendations for small to mid-sized nonprofit executive directors about ways to fund leadership development initiatives. This briefing offers nonprofit executive directors with suggestions about not investing in leadership development initiatives.