Die ästhetische Dimension von Kritik weiter aufgreifend, hier ein weiterer Verweis auf das Projekt „Bilder der Arbeit“ von Klaus Türk. Der Organisationsforscher Türk hat es unternommen, in historischer Perspektive der Darstellung von Arbeit in der Kunstgeschichte nachzuverfolgen und diese auch auf eine ‚politische Ökonomie der Organisation‘ zu beziehen. Entstanden sind Ausstellungen, Ausstellungskataloge und Publikationen, darunter das im Jahr 2000 erschienene, gleichnamige Buch „Bilder der Arbeit“. Das gesamte Projekt ist hier dokumentiert:
Aus dem Call:
„Resistance has had a rather curious and paradoxical history. From the resistance to Nazi occupation and colonial domination, to the recent Arab Spring and Indignados of Spain, resistance is often celebrated in the public imaginary. However, while it has been a central and enduring theme in political and social theory, traditionally resistance has had a marginal reputation in conventional organization studies. Viewed as a problem, a challenge, and something to be avoided or eradicated, resistance is often equated with troublemaking. In other words, the dominant view in organization studies holds that resistance is adversarial, problematic and harmful for organizations, communities, and societies alike. However, recent, alternate voices have argued that the study of resistance, resisting and resisters has the potential to bring new perspectives to the intersection of economic, social, and political aspects and processes in and around organizations and organizing.“
Deadline für Abstracts: 16. Dezember 2013
Weitere Informationen gibt es hier: http://www.os-workshop.com/
Die Critical Management Studies Division in der Academy of Management ruft zu Einreichungen für die AoM-Konferenz in Philadelphia auf:
2014 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, August 1-5
Critical Management Studies (CMS) Division Call for Submissions: Scholarly Program
Program Co-chairs: Emma Bell, Keele University, UK email@example.com; Scott Taylor,
University of Birmingham, UK firstname.lastname@example.org
The CMS Division invites submissions for the scholarly program at the 2014 Academy of
Management meeting in Philadelphia. CMS serves as a forum for the presentation of
analysis that is critical of established mainstream management practice and the taken-for-
granted social or economic orders surrounding organization and business. Our premise is
that structural features of contemporary society encourage organizations and their members towards domination and exploitation. Approaches to understanding these dynamics draw on a wide range of perspectives including postcolonial theory, feminist analysis, ethical theory, Marxist and post-Marxist frameworks, ethnography and labor process theory. Popular topics in recent years include but are not limited to: social change and social movements, alternative economic and organizational forms, globalisation and power elites, and critical histories of management thought.
We particularly encourage papers and symposia that relate to the theme of this year’s
conference, The Power of Words (http://aom.org/annualmeeting/theme/). This focuses
attention on the role of language in the politics of inclusion and exclusion and the violence
that can be done through words. Possible questions include:
– How does language contribute to constructing and maintaining global or local
inequalities of race, gender, class, religion, identity? How does language define
relations between ‘the West and the rest’?
– How are words and linguistic discourses used to support the profit imperative,
and how can alternative discourses be created?
– How can words be used to challenge managerial action, organizational
domination and exploitation? What is the role of digital communication technologies,
including social media, in enabling activism and critique?
– How does the dominance of the English language affect scholarship and
teaching? How does English language hegemony restrict our ability to give voice
and listen to others, and explore diverse forms of critique?
Division Awards will be given for:
• Best Paper
• Best Doctoral Student Paper
• Best International Business Paper
• Best ‘Dark Side’ Case Study
• Best Doctoral Dissertation
• Best Developmental Reviewer
Please refer to our website http://group.aomonline.org/cms/ for more detail on these awards and the remit of the Division. All award winners are celebrated at the CMS business meeting.
The submission website, http://aom.org/annualmeeting/submission/, is scheduled to open on November 5, 2013. It includes guidance on how and when to submit, as well as the format paper and symposia submissions must take. The deadline to submit is January 14, 2014 at 5 PM US Eastern Time. To discuss potential submissions, especially symposia, please email us at email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org no later than December 16 2013. Please also sign up to review others’ submissions when you submit.
Eine interessante Ankündigung aus dem WSI-Newsletter:
„The volume provides key theories and concepts of employers‘ anti-unionism, followed by country studies. In Germany, militant anti-unionism is less widespread than e.g. in the US, yet employers seek to weaken union power at the workplace and to avoid collective bargaining. WSI-researchers Martin Behrens and Heiner Dribbusch present German case study outcomes and results of a survey among local union officers on employers‘ opposition to works councils and anti-bargaining strategies. Findings indicate that these forms of anti-unioning are more widespread in small enterprises, single-owner or family-run businesses and in new firms or industries lacking traditional workplace relations.“
Ein interessanter Call des Journals ‚Critical Perspectives on International Business‘ …
Voices at/from the Margins: Articulating the ‘Consequences’ of International Business
Deadline for Submissions 1 February 2014
Scope and Mandate of Special Issue:
The corpus of international business (IB) research has largely adopted a positivist orientation, and has habitually returned to quantitative methods to empirically approach germane research questions (Doz 2011). This poses myriad implications for both social responsibility and knowledge construction in the field. In terms of social responsibility, IB has failed to substantively account for the well-being of the broader people and communities that its operations impact (Roberts and Dorrenbacher 2012). With regards to knowledge construction, the epistemological grounding of IB has been, at least to some degree, rendered static and taken-for-granted; consequently, assumptions underlying core IB assertions, such as the relationship between internationalization and performance, have not been subject to appropriate scrutiny (Abdi 2010). A few critically-inclined scholars have recently sought to redress this predicament. For example, in writing their introduction for a special issue on qualitative methods at the Journal of International Business Studies, Birkinshaw, Brannen, and Tung (2011) adamantly call for more grounded methodological approaches to study IB phenomena (also see Mir, Banerjee and Mir, 2008). In their introductory essay of a special issue published in this journal, Banerjee and Prasad (2008) illuminate how postcolonial thought, in particular, offers theoretical resources to subvert systems of neo-colonial hegemony; an idea that has yet to permeate mainstream IB scholarship. In a related philosophical vein, using the case of international management, a group of leading scholars in organization studies reflexively asks: “To what extent is it possible to produce universally valid knowledge about organizations and managerial practice?” (Jack et al. 2013, p. 148). This question begins to critique the structures of unitary knowledge that defines much of IB research. Extending these critical perspectives, and thereby repudiating the positivist tradition in the field, the aim of this special issue is to establish a forum in which to articulate the consequences of IB by illuminating the voices at and from society’s social, economic, and political margins. In this endeavor, we seek well-crafted empirical and conceptual papers that account for the pejorative outcomes of IB, which specifically considers its implications on the lived realities of the most marginalized constituents of society, or what Gayatri Spivak (1988) labels—borrowing from Antonio Gramsci—the ‘subaltern’ (also see Prasad, 2009). We hold a broad understanding as to who legitimately qualifies under this label. We contend that it may include indigenous communities, exploited workers in both the formal and the informal economy, citizens living under (neo-)colonial systems such as occupation, or otherwise those individuals forsaken in the rise of late capitalism, which is characterized by the dominance of IB in the form of the multinational corporation. Possible topics appropriate for the special issue include, but are certainly not restricted to:
· Critiquing the underlying ontological and epistemological foundations of mainstream IB research, which discursively poses pejorative outcomes to constituents situated at society’s margins;
· Problematizing core concepts that undergird the extant IB literature, which either overtly or covertly prioritizes economic objectives (i.e., shareholder profit maximization) over the social good (i.e., external stakeholders);
· Elucidating how IB relationships simultaneously subjugates various groups in the ‘home’ country and the ‘host’ country;
· Illuminating how IB reifies social problems of marginalization, exploitation, and cultural and economic hegemony of historically disenfranchised communities;
· Considering the ethical dilemmas associated with multinational corporations operating in the developing world;
· Bringing attention to those aspects of IB that have been ignored or otherwise silenced in the mainstream writing in the field;
· Highlighting the need for greater reflexivity from scholars who produce IB research in an effort to better account for the subjectivity of those at the margins;
· Identifing novel and innovative methods that could be employed to better study and ‘hear’ the voices of the subaltern. In this line of inquiry, we would particularly welcome rigorous analysis of how interpretive methods can fruitfully inform the study of IB.
· Using appropriate social theories—including psychoanalytic, postcolonial, postmodernist, poststructuralist, feminist, queer, Foucauldian, or neo-Marxist thought—to conceptualize the relationship between IB and the relegated Other.
Abdi, M. (2010), “Internationalization and performance: Degree, duration and scale of operation”, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (CD: 1543-8643). Montreal, QC.
Banerjee, S.B. and Prasad, A. (2008), “Introduction to the special issue on ‘Critical reflections on management and organization: A postcolonial perspective’”, critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 4, pp. 90-98.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M.Y., Tung, R.L. (2011), “From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 573-581.
Doz, Y. (2011), “Qualitative research in international business”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 582-590.
Jack, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M.Y. Pritchard, C., Singh, K., Whetten, D. (2013), “Refining, reinforcing and reimagining universal and indigenous theory development in international management”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22, pp. 148-164.
Mir, R., Banerjee, S.B. and Mir, A. (2008), “Hegemony and its discontents: A critical analysis of organizational knowledge transfer”, critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 4, pp. 203-227.
Prasad, A. (2009), Contesting hegemony through genealogy: Foucault and cross-cultural management research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol., 9, pp. 359-369.
Roberts, J. and Dorrenbacher, C. (2012), “The futures of critical perspectives on international business”, critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 8, pp. 4-13.
Spivak, G.C. (1988), “Can the subaltern speak?”, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds) Marxisim and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271-313.
Submission Process Submissions should be made via e-mail on or before the deadline to both of the guest editors:
Each submission will be initially reviewed by the guest editors to determine its suitability for the special issue. Those manuscripts that pass the original screening will be sent out for double-blind peer review following the journal’s standard process. All authors should ensure that their submissions conforms to the journal’s guidelines, which can be found at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=cpoib Accepted papers will be submitted through the ScholarOne Manuscripts system at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cpoib For further details or to discuss possible ideas, prospective authors are encouraged to contact the guest editors.
Target Dates: Submission deadline: 1 February 2014 First round decisions announced: 1 June 2014 Authors submit revised manuscripts: 1 August 2014 Final decisions reached: 1 November 2014 Approximate date of publication: Mid 2015
About the Editors:
Ajnesh Prasad is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) at the University of New South Wales’ Australian School of Business (incorporating the AGSM) in Sydney. His works have appeared in Human Relations, Organization, Journal of Business Research, Management Learning, Journal of Business Ethics, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Advances in Consumer Research, and the International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. He previously co-edited a special issue on critical management studies at the Journal of Business Ethics. He earned his PhD from York University’s Schulich School of Business. Prior to arriving at ASB, he was a Graduate Research Fellow at Yale University.
Gabrielle Durepos is an Assistant Professor at the Gerald Schwartz School of Business, St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Her co-authored book: ANTi-History: Theorizing the Past, History, and Historiography in Management and Organization Studies, uses actor-network theory to address the call for an historic turn in management and organization studies. She is a co-editor of both the SAGE Encyclopedia of Case Study Research and the SAGE Major Work on Case Study Methods in Business Research. Her recent publications appear in Management & Organizational History, Journal of Management History, Critical Perspectives on International Business, and Organization. She previously co-edited a special issue on theorizing the past at the journal Management & Organizational History. She is currently engaged in an organizational history of a provincial museum complex in Nova Scotia, Canada.
Studierende der Unversität Warwick protestieren seit dem 14.Juni gegen Vermarktlichung und Privatisierung im universitären Sektor:
Konkreter Anlass war die Erhöhung der Vergütung des Vizekanzlers Hier das Statement der Studierenden:
In the academic year of 2011/12 the Vice-Chancellor of Warwick University, Nigel Thrift, was awarded a pay increase of £42,000. He now receives a pay packet of £316,000 – earning over twenty-two times more than the lowest paid worker at this university (£14,202).
This is not unusual. Vice-Chancellors of the country’s most selective universities have received similar pay increases. These come at a time of continuing economic crisis, rising youth unemployment and falling intake of students from less-privileged backgrounds. This is symptomatic of widening social inequality and a mass transfer of wealth from poor to rich, public to private.
Widening inequality within higher education is driven by the marketization and privatization of universities. Institutions that were once for the public good are now being turned over to private, profit-driven interests. This is deliberately advanced by government policy on higher education. Our university system was once acknowledged as one of the best in the world. This is now being dismantled.
Unlike their Vice-Chancellors, university staff members have experienced a real wage pay cut. Made in the name of ‘growth’ and ‘efficiency’, these cuts go hand in hand with longer hours, less money and insecure contracts for postgraduate and junior staff members. This puts enormous pressure on staff and visibly reduces teaching standards, forcing us to ask: efficient at what?
At the same time, students are forced to take on the burden of financing higher education. While fees climb to £9,000 a year, bursaries are either cancelled or transferred to ‘fee waivers’; meanwhile, in universities like Warwick, maintenance costs are driven up by the construction of ever-more expensive accommodation. The vast post-university debt (£43,500) now facing less privileged students whose families cannot afford to pay up-front makes university education seem both risky and undesirable for many. This process is changing the perception of higher education from a public good to a private investment, from a communal right to an individual privilege, accessible only by the few, as demonstrated by falling applications from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The widening gap in pay between senior managers and frontline staff, and the debt forced on students, means that the university now reproduces social inequalities rather than contesting them. This undermines the university’s democratic function as a space in which free thought, debate and critical inquiry is fostered in order to give people the tools to challenge social hierarchies and play an active role in the public sphere.
Our opposition to the rising salary of the Vice-Chancellor speaks to a deeper opposition to the continuing marketization and privatization of higher education. The problems at Warwick University are problems for the entire university system under market logic. The management of this university is failing to make the case for the protection and promotion of the public university, so we must do it. The government’s radical restructuring of higher education has crept up on us, and we must act now if we are to resist – before it’s too late.
We contest these reforms to our university, however the voice of the student body has been reduced to customer feedback and merely tokenistic representation in the governance of this university. There is currently no space for dialogue over the future of our own university. We are occupying this council chamber in order to open that space, to start that dialogue and to make our voices heard. If we are to halt this government’s assault on the university we must make ourselves heard TOGETHER and begin to work towards an alternative. Join us.
Vor einigen Tagen hier der Verweis auf den Einsturz eines Industriekomplexes in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Proteste von Textilarbeitern folgten, der Fabrikbesitzer wurde medienwirksam festgenommen. Die EU zeigt sich ’sehr besorgt‘ über die Arbeitsbedingungen in Bangladesh. Es müsse ’sofort gehandelt‘ werden, als größter Handelspartner biete man seine Unterstützung für die Einhaltung internationaler Standards an. Was von der bisher größten Industriekatastrophe in Bangladesh bleibt sind nach bisherigem Stand 413 Tote und 2400 Verletzte. Für diesen Stand sei verwiesen auf:
Ein Interview mit Christa Luginbühl von der Clean Clothes Campaign, ebenfalls im Tagesanzeiger erschienen, ist in diesem Zusammenhang ebenfalls sehr lesenswert:
Bei dem Einsturz eines Industriegebäudes in Dhaka sind mehrere Dutzend Menschen ums Leben gekommen. Im achtstöckigen Komplex befanden sich mehrere Textilfabriken – Bangladesh ist inzwischen der zweitgrößte Textilproduzent weltweit. Laut dem Bericht auf ZEIT-Online arbeiteten 5000 Menschen in dem Gebäude. Am Tag vor dem Einsturz wurden Risse sichtbar und es entstand eine Massenpanik. Das Gebäude wurde zunächst evakuiert, dann wurde die Arbeit jedoch wieder aufgenommen. Hier geht es zum Artikel:
Auf einen ähnlichen ‚Fall‘ musste ich vor einiger Zeit hinweisen:
Und auch dieser noch ältere Eintrag gehört in diesen Kontext:
In der Online-Ausgabe der taz findet sich ein interessanter Artikel über die Vorschläge von Schatzkanzler Osborne, die Ausgabe steuerbefreiter Aktien im Tausch gegen einen Verzicht auf Arbeitnehmerrechte (etwa in den Bereichen Kündigung oder Mutterschutz) zu fördern. Nicht verwunderlich wäre, wenn derartige Pläne unter dem Motto „Werde Miteigentümer“ propagiert würden. Was aber, wenn diese Pläne bei den Beschäftigten auf Zustimmung stoßen?