Schlagwort-Archiv: Macht

CfP – CMS 2019 Sub-theme 2: Between subjugation and emancipation: Recognizing the power of recognition

We are pleased to announce that our Call for Papers for the CMS Conference 2019 is now online. Deadline for Abstracts is the 31st January 2019:

http://business-school.open.ac.uk/events/11th-international-critical-management-studies-conference

The 11th International Critical Management Conference 27th – 29th June 2019, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK

SUB-THEME 2: Between subjugation and emancipation: Recognizing the power of recognition

Convenors:

Gabriele Fassauer (Dresden University of Technology, Germany)

Ronald Hartz (University of Leicester, UK)

Gazi Islam (Grenoble Ecole de Management, France)

 

Recognition is an important factor shaping individual and collective well-being, dignity and flourishing, both within organizations and in society more generally (Honneth 1996; Fraser and Honneth 2003; Sayer 2007a, 2007b). For many researchers on management and organizations, recognition is an implicit “affirmation of the social-affective bond between members” (Islam, 2012: 38). Recognition is constitutive for people’s identity-building, their sense of dignity and corresponding self-respect (Grover, 2013; Hancock, 2016; Holtgrewe, 2001; Islam, 2013; Sayer, 2007a). Considered as fundamentally interdependent, people are viewed as “needy beings” that are capable of suffering and flourishing depending on other´s recognition (Sayer, 2007b: 23). Recognition is understood as the intersubjective acknowledgement of value of a person´s behaviours, actions and identities, which supports “a feeling that one is living a worthwhile life and a confidence in one’s ability to do what one considers worthwhile” (Sayer, 2005: 954). Recognition is thus inevitably aligned with a moral dimension of society, economy and organizations as it refers to basic notions of how people should treat each other (Honneth 1996; Sayer, 2005). One of the most elaborated ways to anchor the idea of recognition in social theory was provided by Axel Honneth (1996), an intellectual successor of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. For Honneth, the struggle for recognition, as both a cognitive source for subjectivity and an affective basis of self-esteem, is part of the human condition and one of the drivers of social progress and betterment (Honneth 1996; Fraser and Honneth 2003).

However, recognition is also discussed in the French tradition of structuralism and poststructuralism, which conceptualizes recognition as basis of the development of self-consciousness and identity-building inescapable linked to forms of subjugation and power (e.g. Althusser, 2014 [1970]; Foucault, 1982; Butler, 1997). From this perspective, people’s desire for recognition is intermingled with power and control mechanisms that serve the perpetuation of societal as well as organizational power structures and domination. Organizations are one of the important economic and social formations “[w]here social categories guarantee a recognizable and enduring social existence” (Butler 1997: 20). But, as Butler continues, “the embrace of such categories, even as they work in the service of subjection, is often preferred to no social existence at all” (ibid.). Giving voice to the complexities arising from these two traditions of thinking about recognition, our stream aims to develop a more fully-fledged notion of recognition at the workplace. We welcome conceptual and empirical papers that deal with questions of recognition at the societal, organizational or individual workplace level and which pay tribute both to the emancipatory and subjugating character of recognition. Related topics can be various and could address, but are not restricted to the following questions:

  • What are the potentials of different contexts of work and forms of organizing in terms of people´s emancipation and subjugation through recognition? What roles, for example, do people´s age, gender, sexual orientation or cultural background play in recognition dynamics?
  • How is recognition played out at the workplace? What are the desires, practises, and conflicts of recognition? Which consequences can be observed for people´s well-being and suffering?
  • How do issues of recognition relate to current debates around identity-based politics in organizations and society? How can a recognition lens help develop a critical theory to understand diverse forms of domination and resistance?
  • What are the complementarities and/or contradictions between struggles for recognition and struggles for redistribution? How can recognition theorizing help understand tensions between economic and symbolic forms of politics at work?
  • Which differences exist between alternative organizations and conventional forms of organized work in terms of recognition?
  • How do new technologies and emerging forms of organizing work change established orders of recognition?
  • What are the historical paths of struggles for recognition in organizations? How are they related to societal shifts and developments?
  • What are the potentials as well as limits of consolidating different theoretical angles of recognition, especially regarding the ‘camps’ of critical theory and poststructuralism?

Submission of abstracts:

Please send abstracts or any questions to Gabriele Fassauer (gabriele.fassauer@tu-dresden.de).

Abstracts should be a maximum 1000 words, A4 paper, single spaced, 12-point font.  Deadline 31st January 2019.

Notification of paper acceptance: 1st March 2019.

Full papers will be expected by 1st June 2019.

 

Your abstract should include:

– Title

– The focus and objectives of the paper

– How the paper will contribute to the theme

 

References

Althusser, L. 2014. On the reproduction of capitalism. Ideology and ideological state

apparatuses. London, New York: Verso.

Butler, J. 1997. The psychic life of power. Theories in subjection. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Foucault, M. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4), 777-795.

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. 2003. Redistribution or recognition? Verso, London, NY.

Grover St. L. 2013. Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations 67 (1), 27-51.

Hancock, P. 2016. Recognition and the moral taint of sexuality. Threat, masculinity and Santa Claus. Human Relations 69 (2), 461-481.

Holtgrewe, U. 2001. Recognition, intersubjectivity and service work: Labour conflicts in call centres. Industrielle Beziehungen 8 (1), 37-55.

Honneth, A. 1996. The struggle for recognition. Polity Press, Cambridge (MA).

Islam, G. (2012) Recognition, reification and practices of forgetting: Ethical implications of

human resource management. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (1), 37-48.

Sayer, A. 2005. Class, moral worth and recognition. Sociology 39 (5), 947-963.

Sayer, A. 2007a. Dignity at work: Broadening the agenda. Organization 14 (4), 565-581.

Sayer, A. 2007b. Moral economy and employment. In S. C. Bolton and M. Houlihan (eds.), Searching for the human in human resource management, (pp. 21-40). Palgrave, London.

Teaching alternative forms of work and organization – Audebrand/Camus/Michaux (2017): A Mosquito in the Classroom

To learn and to teach something about alternative forms of work and organization is one of the urgent tasks of critical management and organization studies. However, one of the most striking problems in teaching alternatives is the lack of imagination, that is the idea that these are real and possible alternatives. As Gibson-Graham (2006: XV) write about their own experiences: „In the face of a new discourse of the diverse economy, participants in our projects can easily recognize the activities and enterprises it names, but they cannot readily identify with the alternative subject positions it avails. Most of them get up in the morning wanting a job – and if not wanting one, feeling they need one – rather than an alternative economy”.

One idea to cope with this problem seems to reframe it or to tackle it in a roundabout way. Luc Audebrand and colleagues introduce cooperatives into the classroom via the topic and reflection of paradoxes in organizations. They argue that “despite the absence of the cooperative business model in mainstream management textbooks and curricula, this model can offer a high pedagogical value for management education in that it can foster paradoxical thinking” (Audebrand et al. 2017: 216).

Said this, we can think about several other topics which makes it possible to introduce alternatives. Just think about power, participation, democracy or sustainability and maybe then alternatives are just around the corner or at least are worth to talk about it in the classroom.

References

Audebrand, Luc K., Annie Camus, und Valérie Michaud. 2017. A Mosquito in the Classroom: Using the Cooperative Business Model to Foster Paradoxical Thinking in Management Education. Journal of Management Education 41 (2): 216–248. doi: 10.1177/1052562916682552. [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1052562916682552]

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. The end of capitalism (as we knew it). A feminist critique of political economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

New Publication: Pynnönen/Takala – The Discursive Dance: The Employee Co-operation Negotiations as an Arena for Management-by-fear

An interesting study about downsizing, it’s discursive construction through companies and media and the enforcement of a ‚management-by-fear‘:

Pynnönen, Anu; Takala, Tuomo (2018): The Discursive Dance: The Employee Co-operation Negotiations as an Arena for Management-by-fear. In: Journal of Business Ethics 147 (1), S. 165–184.

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2991-8

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2991-8?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to qualitatively describe and critically explain the discursive construction of employee co-operation negotiations in Finland as an arena for management-by-fear. The article consists of a theoretical review, covering the legislative basis of co-
operation negotiations and recent research on management-by-fear. The empirical study consists of media texts and company media releases in Finland in 2012–2013. The
main conclusions are that there are distinctive features in the co-operation negotiations that enable and enforce the possibility of management-by-fear, and thus destructive
leadership. The process, supported by law and very much against the original aim, enhances authoritative leadership, objectification of employees, distortion of information and
misleading, and the negative consequences thereof. The process is an employer-invited discursive dance where the employee has to follow through the set steps and in the set
rhythm, with the media orchestrating the tune and managing the fear. The study adds a valuable element to the research areas of downsizing, bad management, and the
discursive construction of these phenomena.

CfP SI Organization Studies: Organizational control and surveillance of new work practices

Abstract from the Call:

Organization Studies, the official journal of the European Group for Organizational
Studies  (EGOS),  invites  submissions  for  a  Special  Issue  that  seeks  to  advance
research  on  organizational  control  and  surveillance  of  and  through  new  work
practices.

[…]

The emergence of new work practices and workplaces, as shown by the joint search
for  more  mobility,  openness  (e.g.  with  open  innovation),  horizontality  (e.g.  with coworking  practices  and  collaborative  entrepreneurship),  digital  and  collaborative
practices (including more and more external stakeholders, e.g. customers and citizens,
in the co-production of services), has raised new questions of organizational control,
and  surveillance.  In  a  global  context  marked  by  the  invisible  revolution  of
surveillance  capitalism  (Zuboff,  2015)  and  the  resurgence  of  risk  (Beck,  1992),
security fears and terror, which have re-legitimized the need for close surveillance and
control, new work practices and workplaces have transformed the ‘premises of human
involvement in organizations’ (Kallinikos, 2003, p. 595), as well as the mechanisms
and  conditions  of  control  and  surveillance.  In  particular,  work  transformations
(project-based  work,  teleworking,  distributed  work  arrangements,  collaborative
entrepreneurship and the emergence of third and collaborative practices and spaces,
e.g.  coworking  spaces,  maker  spaces,  innovation  labs)  are  revealing  how  work
increasingly  gets  performed  outside  the  typical  physical,  spatial  and  temporal
boundaries of the organization or within the context of third spaces and liminal spaces
(Oldenburg,  1989;  Garrett  et  al.,  2017;  Sewell  and  Taskin,  2015;  Spinuzzi,  2012;
Waber et al., 2014; Johns and Gratton, 2013).

[…]

Guest Editors :  
François-Xavier de Vaujany (Université Paris-Dauphine, France)
Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (CNRS, LEM UMR 9221, IESEG School of
Management, France)
Iain Munro (Newcastle University Business School, United Kingdom)
Yesh Nama (RMIT University, Australia)
Robin Holt (Copenhagen Business School)

Deadline for paper submissions: June, 29th 2018

Call for Papers: Call for papers_Proposal Special Issue_Organization Studies_Control_New Work Practices

 

 

CfP „Organisation und Verantwortung“ – Tagung und Pre-Conference der Kommission Organisationspädagogik

Nicht nur für alle an CSR, CMS und kritischer Organisationsforschung Interessierten: Hier der interessante Call der Tagung der Kommission Organisationspädagogik am 1./2. März 2018 an der Universität Linz:

CfP Organisation und Verantwortung 2018

Und hier der Call für die vorausgehende Nachwuchstagung:

Forum Pädagogische Organisationsforschung 2018_Call for Abtsracts

„Kein Gott, kein Herr! – Eine kleine Geschichte der Anarchie“ – Dokumentarfilm Arte

Bereits gestern lief der zweiteilige Dokumentarfilm zur Geschichte der anarchistischen Bewegung auf Arte. Über Proudhon und Kropotkin entfaltet sich diese instruktive Geschichte der Anarchie in ihrer Beziehung zur Arbeiterschaft, zur Entwicklung der Gewerkschaften und Kooperativen, zur Idee des Streiks, zu den aufkommenden Massenmedien bis hin zum Kampf im spanischen Bürgerkrieg und den vielfältigen und brutalen Repressionen, welchen der Anarchismus aber auch die Arbeiterschaft über die geschilderten Jahrzehnte ausgesetzt waren. Beide Teile sind noch für wenige Tage in der Mediathek nachzusehen:

http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/047435-001-A/kein-gott-kein-herr-eine-kleine-geschichte-der-anarchie-1-2

 

 

„Organizational Behaviour – Verhalten in Organisationen“ – neu in der 2. Auflage erschienen | Employment Relations

Das von Albert Martin herausgebene Buch „Organizational Behaviour“ ist in der zweiten Auflage im Kohlhammer-Verlag erschienen. (Martin, A. (Hrsg.). (2017). Organizational Behaviour R…

Quelle: „Organizational Behaviour – Verhalten in Organisationen“ – neu in der 2. Auflage erschienen | Employment Relations

„Dead Man Working“ – Spielfilm zum Banken- und Finanzsektor in der ARD

Heute um 20.15 Uhr läuft in der ARD der Spielfilm „Dead Man Working“, gewissermaßen ein fiktionaler Bericht aus dem Innenraum des Bankensektors. Regie führte Marc Bauder, Regisseur des Dokumentarfilms „Der Banker – Masters of the Universe“. Das verspricht also interessant zu werden. Hier der Trailer zum Film:

DEAD MAN WORKING – Trailer from bauderfilm on Vimeo.

Arbeitsverhältnisse: ‚Gig Economy‘ und ‚Algorithmic Management‘ bei Uber, Deliveroo und Co.

Hier ein Hinweis auf gleich zwei instruktive Beiträge über die expandierenden ’selbständigen‘ Arbeitsverhältnisse bei Lieferdiensten etc. Unter dem Titel „Self-employment used to be the dream. Now it’s a nightmare“ diskutiert Peter Fleming die Prekarität von Beschäftigten bei Uber, Deliveroo und Co. unter dem Vorzeichen der ausgerufenen ‚entrepreneurial society‘:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/19/self-employment-dream-governments-gig-economy?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_3156#link_time=1476868506

In der Financial Times findet sich zudem ein weiterer instruktiver Artikel, welcher auch die Kontrolle der Beschäftigten durch Algorithmen (‚algorithmic management‘) thematisiert, Bezüge zum Taylorismus herstellt und auch die Frage adressiert, wie in diesem Bereich Widerstand möglich ist – indem man bei den Kolleg_innen Pizza bestellt und bei Lieferung zum Mitmachen beim Protest auffordert:

https://www.ft.com/content/88fdc58e-754f-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35

Nebenbei: Der Euphemismus ‚Gig Economy‘ wäre sicher einen eigenen Beitrag wert.

 

ephemera workshop on ‚theorizing whistleblowing‘

*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 *

10.30-10.45 Welcome

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.

*references:*

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.