In den Blättern für deutsche und internationale Politik schreibt Britta Ohm über das neue akademische Prekariat, neoliberale Mantras und Entsolidarisierung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb. Lesenswert!
Der zusammen mit Gabriele Fassauer (TU Dresden) für das von Stefan Liebig, Wenzel Matiaske und Sophie Rosenbohm herausgegebene Handbuch Empirische Organisationsforschung verfasste Beitrag „Diskursanalyse in der Organisationsforschung“ ist nun als Online First verfügbar:
Der Beitrag bietet einen grundlegenden Überblick über diskursanalytische Orientierungen und Perspektiven in der Organisationsforschung. Entlang der Achsen Sprachgebrauch – Ordnung des Diskurses und Deskription – Kritik werden zunächst grundlegende gegenstandsbezogene und normative Orientierungen der Diskursforschung benannt. Anschließend erfolgt eine Darstellung von Rhetorik, Gesprächsanalyse, Narrationsanalyse und kritischer Diskursanalyse als vier weitverbreiteten Perspektiven diskursanalytischer Forschung. Ein Überblick über methodische Schritte und methodische Besonderheiten diskursanalytischer Forschung beschließt den Beitrag.
This is a reminder for our call for a special issue in Management Revue on Post-Growth Organizations (mrev-cfp-post-growth-organizations_PDF). Deadline for abstracts is September 30, 2016. Full papers must be submitted by 31 March 2017.
*Special Issue* Post-Growth Organization
Matthias Rätzer, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany
Ronald Hartz, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany
Ingo Winkler, University of Southern Denmark
For a couple of years now growth-driven societies have been in a permanent state of crisis. Since 2007 the global financial crisis and its aftermath are challenging our ideas of growth, well-being, consumption and work within global capitalism. Consequently, critical scholars in management and organization studies have begun to advocate alternative forms of organization and to problematize the collective imagination that ‘there is no alternative to growth’ (Parker et al. 2014; Atzeni 2012).
One important analytical dimension within the search for alternatives relates to the limits of growth in its economic, ecological and social dimension. For example, Meadows et al. (2004) explicate that a finite (world) system cannot handle an everlasting orientation toward growth without running into a collapse. Hirsch (1976) argues that social rise in a stratified society smolders, leading to social imbalances in the long term. Several authors discuss economic restrictions under the name of de-growth (Georgescu-Roegen 1977; Latouche 2009; Martínez Alier et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010; Kallis 2013). Schneider et al. (2010) point towards unfulfilled expectations in the context of creating win-win-situations and question the possibility of sustainable growth through technological and efficiency improvements. Relative to the social context, others discuss the label steady-state-economy, which challenges the relationship between growth and labor, solvency and consolidated public finances (Daly 1972, 1973; Lawn 2011; Blauwhof 2012).
However, there exist only few contributions discussing organizational alternatives to an orientation toward growth (Cheney et al. 2014). Some authors address growth neutral enterprises (Bakker et al. 1999; White/White 2012). Others note that neither governments nor private sector executives have any incentives supporting the development of a post-growth environment (e.g. Latouche, 2006; Ayres, 2008; Martínez Alier 2009). Therefore, the specific aim of this special issue is to substantiate the debate on post-growth, steady-state and de-growth from an organizational perspective. How can organizations respond to the limits of economic growth? How can organizations, from a post-growth perspective, promote their social worth as opposed to their monetary worth? How can organizations implement the elements of a post-growth economy, such as cutting-down and slowing down, a balance between sufficiency and dependency on consumption, institutional innovations for the society, the environment and regional economy (Paech, 2016)?
In addressing post-growth organizations (PGOs), we assume alternative organizations, featuring individual autonomy and respect, an orientation towards solidarity and cooperation, and responsibility to the future (Parker et al., 2014) to constitute a fertile ground for PGOs. Furthermore, we could imagine PGOs to develop from associations, growth neutral enterprises, co-operations, solidarity organizations, grass-root movements or even ‘traditional’ enterprises. Eventually, we do not restrict our focus on PGOs to the economic domain, but also take social and ecologic concerns, such as social entrepreneurs, into account. We call for contributions discussing different perspectives on PGOs, investigating their characteristics and limits. Furthermore, we embrace contributions investigating the range and coverage of PGOs as an organizational possibility in a future, post-growth society.
The contributions to this special issue should address one or more of the following questions:
– What characterizes the organization and the management of ‘post-growth organizations’ (PGOs)?
– Which role do the principles of autonomy, solidarity and responsibility play in PGOs? What kind of problems, contradictions and conjoint amplification are observable regarding these principles?
– Do PGOs enable us to cure some of the organizational ills created by a narrow focus on economic growth?
– What are the limits and prospects of PGOs in the transformation of capitalism?
– What organizational practices, tools and instruments are important in PGOs (e.g. accounting practices, compensation practices, decision making, regulations of working time, work-life balance, forms of participation etc.)?
– Is it possible to turn traditional organizations into PGOs?
– Which strategies (e.g. overcoming of externally defined difficulties, internal processes of storytelling, micro politics, adjustment of power) can be identified in the constitution and management of PGOs and which practices in PGOs are working well and which are not?
This is not an exhaustive list.
*Deadline* Potential contributors to the *Special Issue of Management Revue* are encouraged to submit an abstract of 1-2 pages before *30 September 2016* electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘Post-Growth Organization’ as article section.
Contributors will receive feedback and an invitation to submit a full paper by the end of October 2016. Full papers must be submitted by *31 March 2017*. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due *31 August 2017*.
*Looking forward to hearing from you!*
Atzeni, Maurizio (Ed.) (2012): Alternative Work Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ayres, Robert U. (2008): Sustainability Economics: Where do we stand?. In: Ecological Economics, 67 (2), 281-310.
Blauwhof, Frederik B. (2012): Overcoming accumulation: Is a capitalist steady-state economy possible?. In: Ecological Economics, 84, 254-261.
Cheney, George/ Santa Cruz, Iñaki/ Peredo, Ana Maria/ Nazareno, Elías (2014): Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. In: Organization, 21 (5), 591-603.
Daly, Herman E. (1972): In Defense of a Steady-State Economy. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 54(5), 945-954.
Daly, Herman E. (1973):Toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman. Daly, Herman E. (1991): Steady-State Economics. 2. Edition. Washington [u.a.]: Island.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1977): The steady state and ecological salvation: a thermo-dynamic analysis. Bioscience, 27(4), 26670.
Kallis, Giorgos (2011): In defense of degrowth. In: Ecological Economics, 70, 873-880. Lawn, Philip (2011): Is Steady-State Capitalism Viable? A Review oftheIssuesand an Answer in the Affirmative. In: Costanza, Robert/ Limburg, Karin/ Kubiszewski, Ida (Ed.): Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, 125.
Martínez Alier, Joan (2009): Socially Sustainable Economic De-growth. In: Development and Change, 40 (6), 1099-1119.
Martínez Alier, Joan/ Pascaul, Unai/ Vivien, Franck-Dominique/ Zaccai, Edwin (2010): Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticism and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. In: Ecological Economics, 69, 1741-1747.
Parker, Martin/ Cheney, George/ Fournier, Valérie/ Land, Chris (Ed.) (2014): The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization. London [u.a.]: Routledge.
Schneider, François/ Kallis, Giorgos/ Martínez Alier, Joan (2010): Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this specialissue. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 511-518.
White, Doug/White, Polly (2012): Why Some Entrepreneurs Choose Not to Grow Their Businesses. In: Business Review USA, 9th March, http://www.businessreviewusa.com/finance/4048/Why-Some-Entrepreneurs-Choos e-Not-to-Grow-Their-Businesses.
Das der instruktive Beitrag von Daniel Hornuff einen Nerv trifft und die ‚Volkssport‘ Diagnose bestätigt, zeigen dann auch die zahlreichen Kommentare:
Special Issue of the Journal Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management
Maria Ceci Misoczky, Guilherme Dornelas Camara and Steffen Böhm
Thematic Focus of the Special Issue
The study of social movements in the field of Organization Studies (OS) has been largely influenced by theories constructed to analyze business organizations and their interactions with formal and informal social movement organizations. The predominant approach has been to construct a theoretical model and then applying it to a largely passive object (social movements). As a consequence, OS has remained relatively blind to the processes of organizing and the knowledge produced in the organizational practices from below.
These organizational practices from below tend to be hidden from the view of hegemonic (structuralist and managerialist) organization knowledge: popular struggles, anti-corporative movements, occupy events, self-organized cooperatives, community groups, indigenous people, peasant movements, to name but a few. What also tends to be marginalized or even ignored are the organizational practices of social movements based in the South, East and other peripheral places.
There is a need to fill this gap and, in accordance with Dunayevskaya (1982), to make the movement from practice to theory. For her, the practice from below is itself a form of theory. In the same way, Rauber (2004) defends the need of articulating two dimensions of critical reflexive thought: the knowledge that is theoretically elaborated and the knowledge that emerges from below and remains, most of the time, restrained to the practices and spaces of struggle. This critical, reflexive thought and the movement from practice to theory is a qualitative one, being embedded within the realities of the social and environmental struggles of social movements and popular organizations.
Studying social movements and popular struggles from below requires qualitative methods that are, first of all, respectful of the ethical and political liberating purposes. The possibility of producing knowledge through research processes that articulate theory and praxis, that take the concrete reality as the starting point, that move from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract, that share the aim of creating a theoretical content that is relevant and meaningful because it is attached to activists’ everyday life and provides a co-constructed meaning of organizing processes (Malo, 2004).
Such research perspective has a long tradition and has been experimented with and renewed for decades. This is the case, for example, of participatory research, a confluence of critical theory and social pedagogy (mainly popular education and the critical pedagogy of Paulo Freire, 1970), intending to articulate research and practical interventions with the knowledge, the experience and the needs of local communities. Another key element is the blurring of the separation between researchers and researched, in the sense that this is a process of co-research in which the participants are all partners sharing ethical and political values (Kincheloe, McLaren and Steinberg, 2011). Another example is critical ethnography and the recognition that researchers are subjects in dialogue with the Other, and that in this encounter – following the inspiration of Mikhail Bakhtin (1982) – there is dialogue towards substantial and viable meanings that make a difference in the world.
Another important approach has been workers’ inquiry. In 1880, La Revue Socialiste asked an ageing Karl Marx to draft a questionnaire to be circulated among the French working class. Called “A Workers’ Inquiry,” it was a list of exactly 101 detailed questions, inquiring about everything from meal times to wages to lodging. The most important modern-day application of workers’ inquiry was dissident Italian Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s. Originating in the Quaderni Rossi journal, the idea was taken up by elements in Potere Operaio, Autonomia and Lotta Continua. The key aspect is the conception of the militant workers’ self-inquiry as a means for investigating situations of transformation and the relationship between conflict and antagonism within it (Panzieri, 1994). The workers’ inquiry is a kind of co-research – a form of research that tears down the division between the subject-researcher and object-researched (Malo, 2004). More recently, such approaches have been extended to militant research – the place where academia and activism meet in the search for new ways of acting that lead to new ways of thinking (Bookchin et al., 2013), connected with spaces where horizontal practices of organization are experienced.
The above mentioned approaches to qualitative research share a perspective on knowledge production in which the fixed roles of academic and activist are blurred. Following the proposition of Enrique Dussel (1974) for a methodology of liberation, we can name this approach as ‘analectics’, an attitude that requires the openness to think, to listen, to see, to feel, to taste the world from the perspective of the Other; it is conditioned by humbleness and solidarity. Analectics allows one to recognize the existence of a politics of Totality and the Other. The ‘politics of the Other is an anti-politics, it is a politics of subversion and contestation’, since it challenges established hierarchies and legal truths. It proclaims the injustice and illegitimacy of the actual system in the name of a new legitimacy (Mendieta, 2001, p. 21). Alcoff (2011, p. 67) defines analectics as ‘an epistemology for the new revolution’: a decolonized epistemology that puts ‘at the center not simply the objective conditions of global impoverishment and oppression, but the systematic disauthorization of the interpretive perspective of the oppressed in the global South’. The idea of analectics is driven ‘to get to a larger, more comprehensive, and more adequate understanding of all that is true concerning the experience of those whose experiences are most often ignored’ (Alcoff, 2011, p. 71).
With this Special Issue we are calling for contributions that analyze and understand the political organization of grassroots struggles and resistances against hegemonic power regimes. In our view, it is vitally important for OS to see and engage with the organizational practices of the marginalized communities of below, as otherwise our field simply contributes to the reproduction of existing power regimes, rather than seeing and analyzing those practices of hope that challenge dominant frames of organizational analysis.
We particularly invite – but do by no means restrict submissions to – manuscripts on one or several of the following topics, always in connection with the methodological aspects discussed above:
- The analysis of social movements and popular struggles, exploring the theoretical issues that are embedded in their practices;
- The organizational significance of ephemeral movements and/or events;
- Theoretical dialogues with the knowledge produced by activists in their organizational processes;
- Analysis of alternative (that is, non-hegemonic) organizations and their resistances/struggles;
- Critical discussion and reflection on what constitutes ‘alternatives’ and what organizational practices from below can be seen as contributing to the reproduction of existing regimes of power;
- The dialectics of organization in its multiple contradictions such as spontaneity/organization, autonomy/demands to the state, horizontality/hierarchies, leadership/leading by obeying, critical strategic reasoning/refusal of strategic reasoning;
- Organizational practices as experiments of prefigurative politics;
- Meanings and limits of self-organization practices;
- The organizational dimension in occupying events;
- Theoretical dialogues with the knowledge produced by activists in their organizational processes;
- Research practices for studying social movements and popular struggles and their limits;
- Examinations of and reflections on the relationship between researcher and researched;
- Theoretical debates on research methodologies to study social movements from below.
Deadline for submission of manuscripts is 1 November 2016.
Manuscripts should be a maximum of 10,000 words in length (including tables, figures and references) and should conform to the normal submission guidelines for Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management,
Alcoff, L. (2011), “An epistemology of the new revolution”, Transmodernity, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 67-78.
Dunayevskaya, R. (1982), Marxism and Freedom: From 1976 until Today, Humanities Press, Amherst, NJ.
Dussel, E. (1974), Método para una filosofía de la liberación, Ediciones Sígueme, Salamanca.
Rauber, I. (2004), “La transformación social en el siglo XXI: camino de reformas o de revolución”, Pasado y Presente, No. 21, pp. 1–26.
Bakhtin, M. (1982), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Bookchin, N. et al. (2013), “Militant research handbook”, available at: http://www.visualculturenow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/MRH_Web.pdf (accessed 1 June 2016) .
Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the oppressed, Herder and Herder, New York, NY.
Kincheloe, J. L.; McLaren, P. and Steinberg, S. R. (2011) “Critical pedagogy and qualitative research: moving to the bricolage”, in: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. (ed.) Handbook of qualitative research, 3ª ed., Sage, London, pp. 163-178.
Malo, M. (Ed.) (2004), Nociones Comunes: experiencias y ensayos entre investigación y militancia, Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid.
Marx, K. (1880), “A Workers’ inquiry”, first published in La Revue socialiste, April 20, 1880, uploaded in 1997, available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/04/20.htm (accessed 1 June 2016).
Mendieta, E. (2001), “Política en la era de la globalización: crítica de razón política de E. Dussel”, in Dussel, E. Hacia una Filosofía Política Critica, Desclée de Brouwer, Bilbao, pp. 15-39.
Panzieri, R. (1994), Spontaneita‘ e organizzazione: gli anni dei „Quaderni Rossi“ 1959-1964, BFS Edizioni, Pisa.
„Die Schwierigkeit jedes Versuches, die Grundlagen der Ökonomie ungezwungen neu zu fassen, rührt daher, dass die ökonomische Orthodoxie heute zweifellos zu den gesellschaftlich mächtigsten Diskursen über die soziale Welt gehört, und dies namentlich deswegen, weil die mathematische Formalisierung ihr den ostentativen Anschein von Strenge und Normalität verleiht.“ (Bourdieu 1998, S. 168, Fn.5)
Zu ergänzen wäre diese Erklärung um die Performativität dieser Orthodoxie, welche die mathematische Formulierung in die sozialen Praktiken einspeist.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998): Das ökonomische Feld. In: Der Einzige und sein Eigenheim (Schriften zu Politik & Kultur, 3). Hamburg: VSA-Verlag , S. 162–204.
Diskurs und Ökonomie – Ältere Beiträge:
*Speaking truth to power? Theorizing whistleblowing*
*Organizers: *Kate Kenny and Meghan Van Portfliet
*Date: 14 December 2016 *
*Location: Queen’s University Belfast *
This workshop explores the relation between whistleblowing and forms of organizational power, and with critique. With the shocking revelations of Snowden and Wikileaks, and news of Manning’s mistreatment in custody, whistleblowing is a ‘hot topic’ in news debates. Even so, public perceptions of whistleblowers are rife with ambivalence; for some they represent ‘traitorous violators’ of a code of fidelity to their organization, suspicious figures who reject their obligations of loyalty to the employer, and dangerous tellers of secrets. Others view whistleblowers as heroes: martyrs to the cause of transparency and openness and the veritable ‘saints’ of today’s secular culture (Grant, 2002). Where is organization theory in this? Specifically, how can we conceptualize the variable ways in which whistleblowing intersects with, challenges, and/ or reinforces structures of power and domination in today’s organizations? Organizational research into this area tends to be somewhat a-political, evaluating whistleblowing in terms of whether predefined rules defining employee disclosures have been followed. Studies in the field range from predicting the likelihood of whistleblowing occurring in a given organizational setting (Bjørkelo et al., 2010; Miceli, 2004), and creating typologies of motivations for why people speak up, to studying whistleblowing as an ongoing process rather than a one-off event and examining the kinds of retaliations and personal impacts that organizational whistleblowers suffer (Alford, 2001; Glazer and Glazer, 1989). Such approaches are valuable indeed for enhancing our understanding of whistleblowing as an experience, but where the focus is explicitly upon micro-level issues such as retaliation, motivation and personal impacts, there is a tendency to ignore the wider political and cultural context in which they occur. Some scholars have explored the relation between whistleblowing and power, seeing the former as a type of organizational resistance (Martin, 1999; Vinten, 1994; Rothschild and Miethe, 1999), as caught up in societal discourses of domination (Perry, 1998), or as an instance of Foucault’s parrhesia (2001), in which the whistleblower risks all in the process of speaking ‘truth to power’ (Contu, 2014; Andrade, 2105; Weiskopf and Willmott, 2013; Weiskopf and Tobias-Miersch, 2016; Wildavsky, 1979). These examples notwithstanding, issues of power and domination are somewhat absent from extant literature in the field and as a result our theories of whistleblowing and its relation to organizational power are somewhat anaemic. These omissions are important; academic research can shape public and policy debates and thus has a tangible impact on people’s lives (see for example ACCA, 2016). The ways in which whistleblowing is conceptualized within such research is therefore important to examine in depth, to critique, and to develop further where possible. This is particularly relevant in light of changes in the context of whistleblowing in the past five years, in the US, Europe and beyond. Many NGOs now campaign for and with whistleblowers. Regulators solicit whistleblowers to approach them, while legal professionals seek them out for business. We see a new form of journalism that brands itself as the facilitator of whistleblowing, in the form of Wikileaks (cf Panama papers and LuxLeaks). These shifts might represent sources of support for whistleblowers, but might also lead to their enmeshment in dynamics of power and domination even beyond the context of the organization in which they have blown the whistle (i.e. media pressure, party politics, and so on, see for example how NHS whistleblowers have been incorporated into campaigns protesting the privatisation of the NHS).
Against this background, the *ephemera* collective will host a workshop on *14th December 2016 *at Queen’s University Belfast*.* The focus is upon the possibilities and limitations of theorizing whistleblowing in relation to power along with the ethical and political consequences of this. The event will be free to all participants by registration.
*Confirmed speakers and preliminary program *
10.45-11.45 Richard Weiskopf and Paul Zimmermann ‘The construction and regulation of truth-telling in the discourse of anti-corruption: the example of Transparency International
11.45-12.00 Tea and Coffee
12.00-13.00 S. Hilary Anne Ivory, ‘Teasing the Minotaur from the labyrinth: Mytho-poetic analysis of the social experience of a handful of medical whistleblowers’
13-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.30 Wim Vandekerckhove and Marianna Fotaki, ‘Whistleblowing as truth-telling?: Parrhesia in organization theory
15.30-15.45 Tea and Coffee
15.45-16.30 Discussion and close Evening Dinner and Drinks
*Venue: *Old Staff Common Room, Lanyon Building, Queen’s University Belfast. See here for a map: http://ewh.ieee.org/r8/ukri/cis/Newsletters/QUB_Map%20-%20showing%20venue%20for%20DL.pdf
*Organization and contact *
This ephemera workshop is hosted by the Queen’s University Belfast Management School. To participate please let Kate (k.kenny [at] qub.ac.uk) know that you would like to join. The venue is located at Queen’s University Belfast.
ACCA (2016) *Effective speak-up arrangements for whistleblowers: A multi-case study on the role of responsiveness, trust, and culture. *London, ACCA.
Alford, F. (2001) *Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power*. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Andrade, J.A. (2015) ‘Reconceptualizing whistleblowing in a complex world’, *Journal of Business Ethics*,* 128*: 321-335.
Bjørkelo, B., S. Einarsen and S.B. Matthiesen (2010) ‘Predictive proactive behavior at work: Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behavior’, *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology*, 83: 371-394.
Contu, A. (2014) ‘Rationality and Relationality in the Process of Whistleblowing: Recasting Whistleblowing Through Readings of Antigone’, *Journal of Management Inquiry*, 23(4): 393-406.
Foucault, M. (2001) *Fearless speech*. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Foucault, M. (2005) *The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981-1982,* (ed.) F. Gros, (trans.) G. Burchell. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glazer, M.P. and Glazer, P.M.(1989) *The whistleblowers: Exposing corruption in government and industry*. New York: Basic Books.
Grant, C. (2002) ‘Whistleblowers: Saints of secular culture’, *Journal of Business Ethics*, 39: 391-399.
Martin, B. (1999) ‘Whistleblowing and nonviolence: Activist paradigm’, *Philosophy and Social Action* 25: 5-18.
Miceli, M.P. (2004) ‘Whistle-blowing research and the insider: Lessons learned and yet to be learned’, *Journal of Management Inquiry*, 13(4): 364-366.
Perry, N. (1998) ‘Indecent Exposure: Theorizing whistleblowing’, *Organization* Studies, 19(2): 235-257.
Rothschild, J. and T.D. Miethe (1999) ‘Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation the battle to control information about organization corruption’, *Work and Occupations*, 26(1): 107-128.
Vinten, G. (1994) *Whistleblowing, Subversion or corporate citizenship*. London: Sage.
Weiskopf, R. and Y. Tobias-Miersch (2016) ‘Whistleblowing, parrhesia and the contestation of truth in the workplace’, *Organization Studies, *doi 10.1177/0170840616655497.
Wildavsky, A.B. (1979) *Speaking truth to power: The act and craft of policy analysis*. Boston: Little, Brown.
Willmott, H. and R. Weiskopf (2013) ‘Ethics as critical practice: The Pentagon papers, deciding responsibly, truth-telling, and the unsettling of organizational morality’, *Organization Studies*, 34(4): 469-493.
Formen der Klassifizierung und Hierarchisierung von Individuen und Gruppen gehören zu den grundlegenden diskursiven Mechanismen, welche zugleich den Zusammenhang von Macht-Wissen und Subjektivierung deutlich machen.
Instruktiv wäre in dieser Hinsicht eine Sammlung von abwertenden (und korrespondierend aufwertenden) Metaphoriken der Klassifikation von Beschäftigten hinsichtlich ihrer Leistung und die damit verschränkten unternehmerischen Praktiken. Nur zwei Beispiele:
Im Buch „Strategic management of human resources: A portfolio approach” von George Odiorne findet sich eine Klassifikation von Mitarbeitern, welche unverkennbar an die im strategischen Management geläufige Portfolio- oder BCG-Matrix angelehnt ist (das Beispiel ist entnommen aus Diaz-Bone/Krell 2015, S. 30):
Die Beschäftigtengruppe „Totholz“ wird hier in Beziehung gesetzt zu den „Arbeitspferden“, „Problembeschäftigten“ und natürlich den „Stars“. Das mit „totem Holz“ nicht mehr viel anzufangen ist, muss nicht eigens hervorgehoben werden.
Von „Zitronen“ sprach Jack Welsh, ehemals Chef bei General Electric, im Hinblick auf das von ihm popularisierte ‚forced ranking‘, einer ‚erzwungenen‘ Klassifikation von Beschäftigten in drei Gruppen: 20% Stars, 70% Mittelbau und 10% Zitronen. Zitronen lassen einem des öfteren das Gesicht verziehen, insofern blieb für die jeweils unteren 10% nur die Kündigung. Diese „Zitronen“ wurden analog als „low performer“, zu Deutsch „Minderleister“ bezeichnet und fanden auch unter diesem Begriff prominenten Eingang in das Feld des Human Resource Management.
Bedeutsam im Sinne des Zusammenhangs von Wissen-Macht-Subjektivierung ist die Kopplung der differenzierenden Metaphorik an Vorstellungen von Normalverteilungen bzw. Gaußschen Glockenkurven. Beim ‚forced ranking‘ wird einfach zwingend eine Normalverteilung erzeugt, da es immer jemand geben muss, der weniger leistet als andere. Wir treten hier ein in den Bereich der flexibel-normalistischen Strategien der Erzeugung von Normalität (vgl. hierzu die Arbeiten von Jürgen Link), welche nicht einfach ‚von oben‘ eine Norm vorgibt, sondern die Normalverteilung aus der forcierten Bewertung der Beschäftigten konstruiert. Das dann wieder rigide in normal und anormal unterschieden, mag zum inzwischen eher zweifelhaften Ruf des ‚forced ranking‘ beigetragen haben. Trotzdem wäre kritisch zu fragen, in welchen Gestalten wir – etwa im akademischen Bereich – inzwischen dieser Art Ranking begegnen und inwiefern wir unser Handeln an ihnen orientieren.
Diaz-Bone, Rainer; Krell, Gertraude (Hg.) (2015): Diskurs und Ökonomie. Diskursanalytische Perspektiven auf Märkte und Organisationen. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Diskurs und Ökonomie – Ältere Beiträge:
Selber Schuld! Das IW erklärt den Gender Pay Gap
The topic of the workshop will be “Collaboration and materiality: New places, communities and practices of the collaborative economy”.
The event will take place the 16th June at Singapore Management University (for the 3rd meeting of our Standing Group) and the 17th and 18th June at ESSEC campus (for the 7th Organizations, Artifacts & Practices workshop).
Deadline for submission is the 27th January 2017.
Call for Papers: call-for-papers-oap-2017
Die Tagung findet am 27. und 28. Oktober 2016 in Chemnitz statt. Schwerpunktthema: Legitimität in den industriellen Beziehungen Der Band „Effektivität und Legitimität der Tarifauto…