For more information follow the link:
The first part of the Special Issue (including the Editorial) can be found here:
For more information follow the link:
The first part of the Special Issue (including the Editorial) can be found here:
„[T]he notion of post-growth organizations tries to capture both the fissures of the
growth narrative in the existing capitalism as well as the utopian energies of alterna-
tive forms of work and organization actively promoting a turn away from the
growth path.“ (from the Editorial)
The first part of our Special Issue on „Post-Growth Organizations“ is now out in management revue. The content of the special issue as well as the editorial of Matthias Rätzer (Chemnitz University of Technology), Ingo Winkler (University of Southern Denmark) and myself can be found here:
Articles in this issue:
The final three articles of the SI will be published in issue 4/2018.
For anyone interested in the relation of popular culture and the world of work and organization as well as some aspects of its research, this video with Mark Learmonth is a good starting point:
Another interesting case study about about market pressure, scaling up of coops and the conflict between democratic management and commercial success.
Pansera, Mario/Rizzi, Francesco (2018): Furbish or perish: Italian social cooperatives at a crossroads. In: Organization (OnlineFirst).
Although the public debate tends to privilege investor-owned organisations, alternative forms of organisation are mushrooming at the borders of the capitalist economy. In this work, we contribute to the debate on alternative economies by analysing a specific form of worker-owned organisations which originated in Italy in the 1970s and was recognised by Italian legislation in the 1990s: the social cooperative. By drawing on data gathered over 3 years of participant observation, this article explores the tensions and contradictions generated by the rapid growth of an Italian social cooperative focused on waste recovery and its preparation for reuse. We show how social cooperatives might be able to reconcile their commercial success with their founding principles of equality and democratic management. This article contributes to the debate on the ‘regeneration thesis’ by providing new insights into the factors and drivers that force social cooperatives to scale up and to engage in competition with mainstream competitors, the internal conflicts and solutions that emerge in this process and the external alliances that social cooperatives can leverage to prosper and flourish.
Between ‘staying alternative’ and ‘going mainstream’ …
Audebrand, L. (2017). Expanding the scope of paradox scholarship on social enterprise: the case for (re)introducing worker cooperatives. M@n@gement, vol. 20,(4), 368-393. doi:10.3917/mana.204.0368.
Abstract. Over the past decade, scholars have argued for using a paradox
perspective as a provocative and insightful lens for understanding social
enterprises. This article addresses two gaps in this burgeoning literature.
First, it expands the focus on social enterprises to include worker
cooperatives, which are often overlooked but are highly relevant to this
area of study. Worker cooperatives are unique among social enterprises
due to their foundational principles: worker-ownership, worker-control and
worker-beneﬁt. Due to their dual nature as both a democratic association
and an economic enterprise, the relationship between the cooperative’s
social mission and its business venture is mutually constitutive and
inescapable. Second, this article calls for paradox scholarship on social
enterprise to include the study of paradoxical tensions other than the
conspicuous tension between ﬁnancial and social performance. This article
suggests broadening this focus to include the tensions between
communality and individuality, hierarchy and democracy, and between
‘staying alternative’ and ‘going mainstream’. Overall, this article seeks to
construct a stronger theoretical basis on which to build future paradox
research on alternatives to the dominant economic paradigm.
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.
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.
The „Society of the Spectacle“ reloaded. Free access to the e-book:
Spectacle 2.0 recasts Debord’s theory of spectacle within the frame of 21st century digital capitalism. It offers a reassessment of Debord’s original notion of Spectacle from the late 1960s, of its posterior revisitation in the 1990s, and it presents a reinterpretation of the concept within the scenario of contemporary informational capitalism and more specifically of digital and media labour. It is argued that the Spectacle 2.0 form operates as the interactive network that links through one singular (but contradictory) language and various imaginaries, uniting diverse productive contexts such as logistics, finance, new media and urbanism. Spectacle 2.0 thus colonizes most spheres of social life by processes of commodification, exploitation and reification. Diverse contributors consider the topic within the book’s two main sections: Part I conceptualizes and historicizes the Spectacle in the context of informational capitalism; contributions in Part II offer empirical cases that historicise the Spectacle in relation to the present (and recent past) showing how a Spectacle 2.0 approach can illuminate and deconstruct specific aspects of contemporary social reality. All contributions included in this book rework the category of the Spectacle to present a stimulating compendium of theoretical critical literature in the fields of media and labour studies. In the era of the gig-economy, highly mediated content and President Trump, Debord’s concept is arguably more relevant than ever.
Call for Papers
Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics
The Ethics of the Commons
Submission Deadline: 15 December 2018
Introduction to the Special Issue
The concept of ‘the commons’ has a long history (Sison & Fontrodona, 2012) and during the last three decades has generated increasing excitement in the scholarly literature. A major factor in the surge of interest has been the work inspired by Elinor Ostrom, Nobel memorial prize in economics sciences laureate for 2009, especially when linked to the economic and social crises that have fostered interest in different ways of organizing economic life. Recovering and implementing the concept of the commons has been hailed by scholars and practitioners as a way of creating new collective wealth (Akrivou & Sison, 2016; Bollier & Helfrich, 2014; Tedmanson et al., 2015), and for addressing what are seen as the societal ills created by neoliberalism (Caffentzis, 2010). This is a call for submissions to a special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics aimed at providing an overarching perspective on the ethical dimensions and drivers of the phenomenon labelled ‘the commons’. In its broadest sense, ‘the commons’ is understood to refer simply to resources of many kinds, e.g., open access and public goods, where no individual person has the right to exclude others from enjoying their benefits. Ostrom focuses on the common property regime – a tighter concept of the commons wherein some group succeeds in making a ‘common pool resource’ a shared benefit by establishing the right of exclusion from it and managing it in a way that avoids the infamous ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Ostrom, 1990, 1999; Ostrom & Hess, 2008). This special issue particularly welcomes more bounded conceptualization of the commons. The (re)emergence of a “commons paradigm” (Bollier, 2011) refers explicitly to how civil society organizations enable people to collaborate and share. This paradigm presents a way that is simultaneously novel yet draws also on the deep history of analyzing social practices implemented through cooperation, collective action and solidarity. Collective forms of resource ownership and management are often directed toward the common good in keeping with the ethics of living in a community whose purpose is both individual and collective flourishing (Argandoña, 1998; Haugh, 2007; Melé, 2009, 2012; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Sison et al., 2012). In this regard, commons organizations create, transform and legitimize nonprofit and community norms and rules (Bushouse et al., 2016; Marquis & Battilana, 2009; Périlleux & Nyssens, 2017). Some forms of commons require multiple forms of collective action for their management (Ostrom, 1990). These participatory methods generate ethical challenges due to the complexity of their management and collective governance. Others have drawn attention to the way that new commons are being created in many resources and environments (Fournier, 2013; Meyer & Hudon, 2017, and how commons are being ‘enclosed’ and removed from wider access (Bollier, 2003). The idea of ‘commoning’ has become a central concept in determining how commons are created and recognized as a social phenomenon (Euler, 2015; Fournier, 2013; Linebaugh, 2008).
This call seeks papers that examine the ethical landscape of the commons in any and all of these dimensions. Possible Themes and Topics We seek papers that shed light on the ethical foundations and implications of the commons. We welcome original papers from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives and invite papers that provide insights into, but not limited to, the following topics:
Topic 1: Conceptualization, Ethics and Rights related to the commons – How does ethics shape the definition and conceptualization of commons? – How do different ethical theories provide descriptive and normative insights into commons? – Property rights, including common property rights, are after all rights. How do the ethical implications of different property regimes compare and influence entrepreneurship and organizing? – For organizations and communities, how do ethical drivers enable collective action in social, environmental and other commons?
Topic 2: Governance of Commons – What are the motivations and mechanisms for cooperation and participation in commons governance and management? – What are the ethical challenges to and limits of collective action and decision-making in commons organizations? – How has the conception, practice and institutionalization of commons evolved over time, and what are the ethical factors that contribute to its evolution and persistence? – How do values and culture regenerate collective practices?
Topic 3: Social and Community Entrepreneurship and Impacts – What insights can a study of the commons offer to social and community entrepreneurship research? – How is social value created through commons organizations? – What are the ethical implications of new commons and new ways of commoning for entrepreneurship? – What are the ethical impacts of commons in housing? Food? Environmental activism? Other commons?
Topic 4: The Commons in a Market Society – Are there differences in the way that private property and common property regimes influence markets? If so, what are the ethical implications? – Do prevailing conceptions of entrepreneurship impinge on the role of the commons as a means of producing and distributing goods, e.g., by new forms of enclosure in items such as traditional knowledge, patents, and the human genome? – Do commons represent an ethical challenge to capitalist-market/neoliberal political systems? Submission Process and Deadlines Authors are encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website for instructions on submitting a paper.
The CfP for download as a PDF file: CfP_JBE_The Ethics of the Commons
Bereits heute lief dieser „Hintergrund“ im Deutschlandfunk. Aus der Ankündigung:
„Vor zehn Jahren hat die Finanzkrise die reale Wirtschaft erschüttert. Doch welche Spuren hat sie an den Universitäten, in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft hinterlassen? Haben sich die Inhalte für die derzeit rund 24.000 Studierenden der Volkswirtschaftslehre verändert?“
Im Beitrag des Deutschlandfunk geht es prominent um die „Plurale Ökonomik“. Insofern sind die Dinge vielleicht nicht ganz so träge, wie der Titel suggeriert. Dass die Wirtschaftswissenschaften mit der VWL ein wenig kurzgeschlossen werden, ist aus meiner Sicht nach allerdings ein Problem der ganzen Debatte. Kritische Management- oder Organisationsforschung bleiben hier außen vor (was allerdings auch an der kritischen Management- und Organisationsforschung selbst liegen mag …).
Hier der Link zum Beitrag:
Eine kleine Eigenwerbung: Mein Artikel „Von anderen Organisationen – Ein Essay über Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung“ ist nun in der Managementforschung 27(1) erschienen.
Link zum Beitrag: https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-017-0018-3
Eine Vorabversion findet sich auf Academia und Researchgate:
Der Essay geht von der Beobachtung aus, dass trotz der Allgegenwart von Kritik die kritische
Praxis sich auf einem notorisch schwankenden Grund befindet sowie angesichts propagierter
gesellschaftlicher Alternativlosigkeiten und eines herrschenden zynischen Bewusstseins als
ein eher naives und trübsinniges Geschäft erscheint. Mit Blick auf die Organisationsforschung
werden deshalb mit der immanenten Kritik, der an Foucault anschließenden Genealogie sowie
der welterschließenden Kritik drei Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung diskutiert,
welche der kritischen Praxis schärfere Konturen verleihen. Mit der welterschließenden Kritik,
welche sich der Sichtbarmachung von Heterotopien, von anderen und alternativen Formen des
Organisierens widmet, wird eine kritische Praxis vorgeschlagen, welche den Gegensatz von
Affirmation und permanenter Kritik unterläuft und so zu einer Revitalisierung von Kritik
Critical Management Studies · Foucault · Genealogie · Heterotopie · Immanente Kritik ·
Kritische Organisationsforschung · Welterschließung
The essay starts with the observation that, despite the omnipresence of criticism, critical
practice is on a notoriously fluctuating ground. Even more the propagated lack of social
alternatives and a dominant cynical consciousness turns critique to a rather naive and dull business. Regarding organizational research, the perspectives of immanent criticism,
Foucault’s genealogy, and critique as world-disclosure are discussed to give the critical
practice sharper outlines. With world-disclosure devoted to the visualization of heterotopies,
that is of alternative forms of organization, a critical practice is suggested which undermines
the opposition between affirmation and permanent criticism, and thus contributes to a
revitalization of critique.
Critical Management Studies · Critical organization studies · Foucault · Genealogy ·
Heterotopia · Immanent critique · World-disclosure