This article aims to provide insight into MBA lecturers’ curriculum interests in relation to the topic of leadership. Central to this inquiry is the exploration of MBA lecturers’ beliefs and expectations of leadership learning. An attempt is made to categorize the purpose of leadership study in five English and French MBAs by investigating lecturers’ assumptions about what counts as a leadership success in the corporate world. Guided by the work of Habermas on human knowledge interests, the main value of this inquiry is to provide research-based evidence of the prevailing interests in the teaching of leadership in MBA curricula. The analysis reveals that, although driven by different pedagogical motives, the majority of MBA lecturers are not committed to providing participants with a full understanding of leadership that might serve people and society beyond mere business ends.

This article examines the meaning of organizational learning (OL) from a MacIntyrian perspective. Key MacIntyrian terms such as practice, institution and relational dependence are explained and related to OL. It is argued that much of the literature concerned with OL, including that concerned with Communities of Practice, misses the moral and relational dimensions of organizations. An alternative MacIntyrian perspective considers the enduring nature of practices which transcends both individual and organizational interests. The notion of relational dependence extends practical involvement to consideration of what is in the collective interest even where people fundamentally disagree. Such dependence involves generosity towards others and the recognition that conflict is inevitable and desirable. The article concludes with an outline of what OL might be and some indicators of success.

The status of management and managers has fluctuated over the years, arguably reaching its high point in the mid-20th century but since declining. This article explores how managers respond to this decline in status. It presents and discusses the findings of a study of managers (who are also Executive MBA students) who unanimously avoided describing themselves as ‘managers’. The article argues that this response reflects both the overuse of the designation ‘manager’ as well as derogatory connotations of the term. This derogation is rooted in the nature of managerial work and its associations with bureaucracy and inflexibility. But while features of bureaucracy such as hierarchy remain, then these managers find justification for their status in alternative self-descriptions such as ‘professional’, ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘project leader’. The article concludes by considering some of the implications for management education and learning.