Pub Date : 2023-07-30DOI: 10.1177/10564926231191081
F. Lambrechts, Ruveyda Kelleci, Wim Voordeckers, Jolien Huybrechts
This study focuses on family owner–nonfamily CEO relational practices and what these relational practices constrain and potentiate in family firm CEO succession. Our main contribution is developing a constructionist relational practice perspective and approach as an alternative to the entitative view that dominates the family business literature. We illustrate the relational practice perspective through our dialogically structured inquiries with family owners and nonfamily CEOs. We co-develop practical wisdom on how family owner–nonfamily CEO relational practices can construct stuckness in organizing or, conversely, open up new possibilities to go on depending on (i) the way the family owner and nonfamily CEO “handle” equivocality and tension they continuously (re)produce through their relational practices and (ii) the way they enact “relational balancing” to equilibrate their relation in the making in terms of value/self-worth maintenance by involving other actors, such as board members, management team members, or a coach.
{"title":"Family Owner–Nonfamily CEO Relational Practices Shaping CEO Succession: Handling Equivocality and Relational Balancing","authors":"F. Lambrechts, Ruveyda Kelleci, Wim Voordeckers, Jolien Huybrechts","doi":"10.1177/10564926231191081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231191081","url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on family owner–nonfamily CEO relational practices and what these relational practices constrain and potentiate in family firm CEO succession. Our main contribution is developing a constructionist relational practice perspective and approach as an alternative to the entitative view that dominates the family business literature. We illustrate the relational practice perspective through our dialogically structured inquiries with family owners and nonfamily CEOs. We co-develop practical wisdom on how family owner–nonfamily CEO relational practices can construct stuckness in organizing or, conversely, open up new possibilities to go on depending on (i) the way the family owner and nonfamily CEO “handle” equivocality and tension they continuously (re)produce through their relational practices and (ii) the way they enact “relational balancing” to equilibrate their relation in the making in terms of value/self-worth maintenance by involving other actors, such as board members, management team members, or a coach.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45075333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-10DOI: 10.1177/10564926231187292
Will M. Bennis, Marko Orel
The past 15 years has seen the rise of businesses that seek to sell community as a service. Relational Models Theory provides a compelling theoretical framework that suggests the prospect of selling or buying community may be prone to evoking cognitive, affective, and behavioral aversion among both sides in the exchange. This paper considers the coworking industry—a paradigmatic example of a business that promises to sell community—through the lens of Relational Models Theory. We use our personal experience as coworking space owners and community managers to explore challenges and conflicts that we, other community managers, and our members have encountered that may be inherent to trying to buy and sell community. Finally, we suggest tentative solutions to those challenges.
{"title":"Taboo Trade-Offs in the Community Business: The Case of Coworking","authors":"Will M. Bennis, Marko Orel","doi":"10.1177/10564926231187292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231187292","url":null,"abstract":"The past 15 years has seen the rise of businesses that seek to sell community as a service. Relational Models Theory provides a compelling theoretical framework that suggests the prospect of selling or buying community may be prone to evoking cognitive, affective, and behavioral aversion among both sides in the exchange. This paper considers the coworking industry—a paradigmatic example of a business that promises to sell community—through the lens of Relational Models Theory. We use our personal experience as coworking space owners and community managers to explore challenges and conflicts that we, other community managers, and our members have encountered that may be inherent to trying to buy and sell community. Finally, we suggest tentative solutions to those challenges.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45420789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-26DOI: 10.1177/10564926231182566
Martyn Griffin, P. Hamilton, Oonagh Harness, Nicki Credland, R. McMurray
The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on healthcare professionals around the globe, particularly those working in intensive care units. It was reported that instances of moral injury – a betrayal of what is ethically right by those in positions of power – were widespread in these organizational settings. In this paper, we explore these emerging findings to ask: What are the experiences and implications of moral injury in critical care nursing during the pandemic? Drawing on 103 interviews with 54 critical care nurses, we offer insights into the experience of moral injury in a workplace experiencing crisis, focusing on (i) unsafe staffing levels, (ii) inadequate equipment, and (iii) inability to provide patients with a dignified death. We provide accounts of the implications of moral injury ranging from debilitating anxiety to post-traumatic stress disorder and sectioning, as well as widespread feelings of anger and guilt leading to an intention to leave the profession.
{"title":"‘Running Towards the Bullets’: Moral Injury in Critical Care Nursing in the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Martyn Griffin, P. Hamilton, Oonagh Harness, Nicki Credland, R. McMurray","doi":"10.1177/10564926231182566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231182566","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on healthcare professionals around the globe, particularly those working in intensive care units. It was reported that instances of moral injury – a betrayal of what is ethically right by those in positions of power – were widespread in these organizational settings. In this paper, we explore these emerging findings to ask: What are the experiences and implications of moral injury in critical care nursing during the pandemic? Drawing on 103 interviews with 54 critical care nurses, we offer insights into the experience of moral injury in a workplace experiencing crisis, focusing on (i) unsafe staffing levels, (ii) inadequate equipment, and (iii) inability to provide patients with a dignified death. We provide accounts of the implications of moral injury ranging from debilitating anxiety to post-traumatic stress disorder and sectioning, as well as widespread feelings of anger and guilt leading to an intention to leave the profession.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41595263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-20DOI: 10.1177/10564926231181555
Tim Weiss, Robert N. Eberhart, M. Lounsbury, Andrew J. Nelson, V. Rindova, John W. Meyer, Patricia Bromley, Rachel Atkins, Trish Ruebottom, Jennifer E. Jennings, Dev Jennings, Madeline Toubiana, Angelique Slade Shantz, Niki Khorasani, Daniel Wadhwani, Hannah-Rose Tucker, D. Kirsch, Brent D. Goldfarb, H. Aldrich, Daniel P. Aldrich
A rapidly growing research stream examines the social effects of entrepreneurship on society. This research assesses the rise of entrepreneurship as a dominant theme in society and studies how entrepreneurship contributes to the production and acceptance of socio-economic inequality regimes, social problems, class and power struggles, and systemic inequities. In this article, scholars present new perspectives on an organizational sociology-inspired research agenda of entrepreneurial capitalism and detail the potential remedies to bound the unfettered expansion of a narrow conception of entrepreneurship. Taken together, the essays put forward four central provocations: 1) reform the study and pedagogy of entrepreneurship by bringing in the humanities; 2) examine entrepreneurship as a cultural phenomenon shaping society; 3) go beyond the dominant biases in entrepreneurship research and pedagogy; and 4) explore alternative models to entrepreneurial capitalism. More scholarly work scrutinizing the entrepreneurship–society nexus is urgently needed, and these essays provide generative arguments toward further developing this research agenda.
{"title":"The Social Effects of Entrepreneurship on Society and Some Potential Remedies: Four Provocations","authors":"Tim Weiss, Robert N. Eberhart, M. Lounsbury, Andrew J. Nelson, V. Rindova, John W. Meyer, Patricia Bromley, Rachel Atkins, Trish Ruebottom, Jennifer E. Jennings, Dev Jennings, Madeline Toubiana, Angelique Slade Shantz, Niki Khorasani, Daniel Wadhwani, Hannah-Rose Tucker, D. Kirsch, Brent D. Goldfarb, H. Aldrich, Daniel P. Aldrich","doi":"10.1177/10564926231181555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231181555","url":null,"abstract":"A rapidly growing research stream examines the social effects of entrepreneurship on society. This research assesses the rise of entrepreneurship as a dominant theme in society and studies how entrepreneurship contributes to the production and acceptance of socio-economic inequality regimes, social problems, class and power struggles, and systemic inequities. In this article, scholars present new perspectives on an organizational sociology-inspired research agenda of entrepreneurial capitalism and detail the potential remedies to bound the unfettered expansion of a narrow conception of entrepreneurship. Taken together, the essays put forward four central provocations: 1) reform the study and pedagogy of entrepreneurship by bringing in the humanities; 2) examine entrepreneurship as a cultural phenomenon shaping society; 3) go beyond the dominant biases in entrepreneurship research and pedagogy; and 4) explore alternative models to entrepreneurial capitalism. More scholarly work scrutinizing the entrepreneurship–society nexus is urgently needed, and these essays provide generative arguments toward further developing this research agenda.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"251 - 277"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45664977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1177/10564926231179324
Ludovica Leone
In the following essay, Ludovica Leone gives us lots of reasons why we should no longer assume that people work at an organizational “office” – even in a post-pandemic era. A lot of scholarly attention has been devoted recently to the physical design of offices, but perhaps that’s a case of scholars arriving at the train station after the train already has departed. Recent developments (technological, biological, social, etc.) have quickly altered things. Changes from many different directions (including the recent introduction of Artificial Intelligence) are happening NOW. Can people and organizations keep up? Or was Toffler right in 1970 (if off by a few years) when he asserted that change is happening so quickly that it taxes our ability to adjust? If you are one of those people who assume that the past is still the best predictor of the future, maybe it’s time for you to experience an attitude adjustment. Want a little slap in the face? Then read Ludovica’s short-but-powerful essay; she considers a lot of stuff in a fashion that deserves your attention. Denny Gioia
{"title":"Is There Still a Place for Space in Organization Studies?","authors":"Ludovica Leone","doi":"10.1177/10564926231179324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231179324","url":null,"abstract":"In the following essay, Ludovica Leone gives us lots of reasons why we should no longer assume that people work at an organizational “office” – even in a post-pandemic era. A lot of scholarly attention has been devoted recently to the physical design of offices, but perhaps that’s a case of scholars arriving at the train station after the train already has departed. Recent developments (technological, biological, social, etc.) have quickly altered things. Changes from many different directions (including the recent introduction of Artificial Intelligence) are happening NOW. Can people and organizations keep up? Or was Toffler right in 1970 (if off by a few years) when he asserted that change is happening so quickly that it taxes our ability to adjust? If you are one of those people who assume that the past is still the best predictor of the future, maybe it’s time for you to experience an attitude adjustment. Want a little slap in the face? Then read Ludovica’s short-but-powerful essay; she considers a lot of stuff in a fashion that deserves your attention. Denny Gioia","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"338 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41894252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1177/10564926231180416
D. Bergeron
Bereavement, the reaction to the loss of someone significant through death, is a challenging life event. Despite its prevalence, it is an understudied aspect of organizational life. The goal of this article is to encourage research on bereavement in the workplace. After providing a brief overview and definitions of key terms, I highlight themes of what we know about bereavement from work in the organizational sciences. I then suggest several generative directions for future work. Such research may alleviate some of the bereavement burden for employees by better addressing their needs and by developing more humane organizational policies and practices.
{"title":"Monday Mourning: A Call for the Study of Bereavement in the Workplace","authors":"D. Bergeron","doi":"10.1177/10564926231180416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231180416","url":null,"abstract":"Bereavement, the reaction to the loss of someone significant through death, is a challenging life event. Despite its prevalence, it is an understudied aspect of organizational life. The goal of this article is to encourage research on bereavement in the workplace. After providing a brief overview and definitions of key terms, I highlight themes of what we know about bereavement from work in the organizational sciences. I then suggest several generative directions for future work. Such research may alleviate some of the bereavement burden for employees by better addressing their needs and by developing more humane organizational policies and practices.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"331 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46725007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10564926231174805
Miikka J. Lehtonen, Samuel Putkonen
Prior literature has highlighted the multimodal nature of organizations and organizing. However, management and organization studies continue to be guided by institutionalized conventions that prioritize words over other modes. This overreliance on words has resulted in “weak” multimodality that treats modes sequentially and often favors one mode over others. In this essay, we use play as a theoretical lens to explore how researchers can use the graphic novel to blend modes to extend “strong” multimodality. By focusing on the liminality of words and images in graphic novels, we make two critical contributions to multimodal research. First, we identify three graphic novels’ affordances researchers can use in MOS to attend to embodied and affective experiences (eroticize), contextualize when one mode is insufficient (narrativize), and demonstrate new ways of inquiry (theorize). Second, we elucidate how these affordances emerge from the researcher's playful engagement with modes to explore how they might work together.
{"title":"Towards “Strong” Multimodality: How Graphic Novels Can Help Us Rethink Modes","authors":"Miikka J. Lehtonen, Samuel Putkonen","doi":"10.1177/10564926231174805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231174805","url":null,"abstract":"Prior literature has highlighted the multimodal nature of organizations and organizing. However, management and organization studies continue to be guided by institutionalized conventions that prioritize words over other modes. This overreliance on words has resulted in “weak” multimodality that treats modes sequentially and often favors one mode over others. In this essay, we use play as a theoretical lens to explore how researchers can use the graphic novel to blend modes to extend “strong” multimodality. By focusing on the liminality of words and images in graphic novels, we make two critical contributions to multimodal research. First, we identify three graphic novels’ affordances researchers can use in MOS to attend to embodied and affective experiences (eroticize), contextualize when one mode is insufficient (narrativize), and demonstrate new ways of inquiry (theorize). Second, we elucidate how these affordances emerge from the researcher's playful engagement with modes to explore how they might work together.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"278 - 294"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49582389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10564926231178208
S. Manning
What drives the entrepreneurial imagination of unknown client markets? Based on a multi-case study of tech entrepreneurs operating out of Boston, this study examines this under-researched question. Findings suggest that tech entrepreneurs imagine unknown client markets in increasingly sophisticated ways, starting from envisioning primary users of the product, to considering multiple parallel client populations, to imagining interdependent client groups using the product in complementary ways. This evolution in thinking seems to be driven by product utility gaps - perceived gaps between the range of product uses and client constellations in which the product can create value. Importantly, at an early stage of the entrepreneurial process, these product utility gaps do not result from market feedback, but from ongoing reciprocal imagination of client markets and underutilized product value. Findings inform research on entrepreneurial imagination and opportunity idea formation, and the strategizing of business ecosystem relationships.
{"title":"Closing the Product Utility Gap: How Tech Entrepreneurs Imagine Unknown Client Markets","authors":"S. Manning","doi":"10.1177/10564926231178208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231178208","url":null,"abstract":"What drives the entrepreneurial imagination of unknown client markets? Based on a multi-case study of tech entrepreneurs operating out of Boston, this study examines this under-researched question. Findings suggest that tech entrepreneurs imagine unknown client markets in increasingly sophisticated ways, starting from envisioning primary users of the product, to considering multiple parallel client populations, to imagining interdependent client groups using the product in complementary ways. This evolution in thinking seems to be driven by product utility gaps - perceived gaps between the range of product uses and client constellations in which the product can create value. Importantly, at an early stage of the entrepreneurial process, these product utility gaps do not result from market feedback, but from ongoing reciprocal imagination of client markets and underutilized product value. Findings inform research on entrepreneurial imagination and opportunity idea formation, and the strategizing of business ecosystem relationships.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44414982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-23DOI: 10.1177/10564926231178238
Samir L. Vaz, Gabriela X. Maia, R. Nelson, Éder Henriqson
It is generally accepted that consensus about the features of the “high reliability” identity allow organizations performing hazardous activities to act in an error-free manner. This work challenges this assumption, providing evidence of multiple identities in a High Reliability Organization. We conducted an inductive case study in a large oil and gas producer, whose top executives emphasized safety as a central and distinctive feature of the company. Our analysis was based on extensive data: presentations, interviews, observation, and conversations. The results permit us to describe two organizational identities of safety on offshore oil platforms: “controlling” and “caring.” We found that managers and workers interpreted safety both as imposing “strict sanctions” and possessing “meaningful value.” They expressed the organizational identity through varying forms of antinomies: authoritative versus respectful interactions and resisting versus adapting actions. These dynamics of identity help us better understand the organizational process of “becoming” highly reliable.
{"title":"Multiple Identities in High Reliability Organizations: A Case Study","authors":"Samir L. Vaz, Gabriela X. Maia, R. Nelson, Éder Henriqson","doi":"10.1177/10564926231178238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231178238","url":null,"abstract":"It is generally accepted that consensus about the features of the “high reliability” identity allow organizations performing hazardous activities to act in an error-free manner. This work challenges this assumption, providing evidence of multiple identities in a High Reliability Organization. We conducted an inductive case study in a large oil and gas producer, whose top executives emphasized safety as a central and distinctive feature of the company. Our analysis was based on extensive data: presentations, interviews, observation, and conversations. The results permit us to describe two organizational identities of safety on offshore oil platforms: “controlling” and “caring.” We found that managers and workers interpreted safety both as imposing “strict sanctions” and possessing “meaningful value.” They expressed the organizational identity through varying forms of antinomies: authoritative versus respectful interactions and resisting versus adapting actions. These dynamics of identity help us better understand the organizational process of “becoming” highly reliable.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46110550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-20DOI: 10.1177/10564926231169160
B. Gray
In this essay, I elaborate on my 2022 OMT Distinguished Scholar address to reflect on the field of organizational theory and, in particular, about our role as scholars in the years ahead. Over the last eight years, we have heard an increasing clamor for organizational scholars to focus our research efforts on addressing the “grand challenges” that confront our world. With that work, as well as some dealing with disruptions, divisions, and displacements that give rise to these challenges (Creed et al., 2022) as a backdrop, I have reached the conclusion that as scholars we are caught on the horns of a powerful dilemma. How do we individually (and collectively) seek validity for our work and the theoretical insights we generate and thus ensure our own security while at the same time, leave a lasting legacy to society and to the earth through our work? Or stated in another way, can we actually use our theories to have an impact on the societal problems about which we theorize? Like all of us, I have sought validity for my understanding of the world, and for myself in the process, in order to meet the requirements for tenure and promotion. Publishing, it seems, can be likened to accumulating notches in your belt for having climbed as many of the 282 daunting Scottish mountains called Munro’s as one can. Years ago, I met a man who was on his third round of scaling those indomitable peaks. Now I’m told he’s on his tenth round! Many of us have scaled our own intellectual Munros in the quest for theory generation, the ultimate goal extolled by many of our best journals (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006; Palmer, 2006), even counseling new scholars on how to be successful at theorizing (Rindova, 2008). We put notches on our belts after each conquest by carving out a unique and novel contribution and joining a clan of like-minded mountaineers to secure our identities. I, too, have sought to scale the metaphoric Munros in search of theory although often losing my footing along the way. For example, after revising a paper to conform to the target of a special issue, the rejection letter I received read, “Your paper is now neither fish nor fowl.” OUCH! The editor seemed to be saying, “This paper does not fit the theoretical frame we want to advance in this special issue.” So, what can you do with that except toss the paper in the trash or search for a more hospitable home for it elsewhere. Since that experience, I have learned to stand my ground and ask a few questions before admitting defeat. But the larger question I’m raising is this: Is publishing better and better theory the only legacy we can and want to leave to society and to the earth? After reflecting on my 44-year career as an academic, I am left with a distinct dissatisfaction. I fear that the world is drifting into narcissism while we academics try to refine our theories about it. Especially, but not exclusively, for those of us who have cleared the requisite tenure bar, I urge us to ask ourselves, “How
在这篇文章中，我详细阐述了我2022年OMT杰出学者演讲，以反思组织理论领域，特别是我们作为学者在未来几年的角色。在过去的八年里，我们听到越来越多的呼声，要求组织学者将我们的研究重点放在应对我们世界面临的“重大挑战”上。有了这项工作，以及一些处理导致这些挑战的混乱、分裂和流离失所的工作（Creed et al.，2022）作为背景，我得出的结论是，作为学者，我们正处于一个强大的困境之中。我们如何单独（和集体）为我们的工作和我们产生的理论见解寻求有效性，从而确保我们自己的安全，同时通过我们的工作为社会和地球留下持久的遗产？或者换一种说法，我们真的能用我们的理论对我们理论化的社会问题产生影响吗？和我们所有人一样，我也在这个过程中寻求对世界和我自己的理解的有效性，以满足任期和晋升的要求。出版业似乎可以被比作在你的腰带上积累缺口，因为你已经尽可能多地攀登了282座令人生畏的苏格兰山脉，这些山脉被称为芒罗山脉。几年前，我遇到了一个人，他正在第三轮攀登那些不屈不挠的山峰。现在我听说他已经打到第十轮了！我们中的许多人都在追求理论生成，这是我们许多最好的期刊所推崇的最终目标（例如，Bartunek et al.，2006；Palmer，2006），甚至就如何成功地进行理论化向新学者提供咨询（Rindova，2008）。每次征服后，我们都会做出独特而新颖的贡献，并加入志同道合的登山者家族，以确保我们的身份。I、 我也曾试图用隐喻的Munros来寻找理论，尽管在这一过程中我经常失去立足点。例如，在修改了一篇论文以符合特刊的目标后，我收到的拒绝信上写着：“你的论文现在不伦不类了。”哎哟！编辑似乎在说，“这篇论文不符合我们希望在本期特刊中推进的理论框架。”那么，除了把论文扔进垃圾桶或在其他地方为它寻找一个更好客的家，你还能做什么呢。自从那次经历以来，我学会了坚持自己的立场，在承认失败之前问几个问题。但我提出的更大的问题是：出版越来越好的理论是我们能也想留给社会和地球的唯一遗产吗？回想我44年的学术生涯，我有一种明显的不满。我担心，当我们学术界试图完善我们的自恋理论时，这个世界正在滑向自恋。特别是，但不限于，对于我们这些已经通过了必要任期限制的人来说，我敦促我们问问自己，“我们的研究如何真正实现可能改善现实世界社会和经济问题的变革，而不仅仅是帮助企业增加收入或增加简历？”作为组织学者，我相信我们在很大程度上回避了这个重要问题，在这方面，我们有着共同的罪恶感，由我们评估和奖励自己表现的规范所培养。Cornelissen、Hōllerer和Seidl（2021，第12页）在区分解放理论与解释性和解释性理论时指出，解放研究源于“对理想和价值观的关注”，这些理想和价值观念植根于我们当前的信仰中，并试图“通过识别解放和改革的潜力和可能性来产生真正的、实际的差异”。这些作者还指出，解放或批判性研究很重要，因为它们揭示了实现我们理想目标的“统治结构和人类约束”。因此，解放研究显然在拓宽组织理论领域方面发挥了重要作用。然而，在我看来，这还不够。尽管批判性学者谴责当前的事态，但他们很少走出象牙塔，实地了解他们的动态
{"title":"A Call for Activist Scholarship in Organizational Theorizing","authors":"B. Gray","doi":"10.1177/10564926231169160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231169160","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I elaborate on my 2022 OMT Distinguished Scholar address to reflect on the field of organizational theory and, in particular, about our role as scholars in the years ahead. Over the last eight years, we have heard an increasing clamor for organizational scholars to focus our research efforts on addressing the “grand challenges” that confront our world. With that work, as well as some dealing with disruptions, divisions, and displacements that give rise to these challenges (Creed et al., 2022) as a backdrop, I have reached the conclusion that as scholars we are caught on the horns of a powerful dilemma. How do we individually (and collectively) seek validity for our work and the theoretical insights we generate and thus ensure our own security while at the same time, leave a lasting legacy to society and to the earth through our work? Or stated in another way, can we actually use our theories to have an impact on the societal problems about which we theorize? Like all of us, I have sought validity for my understanding of the world, and for myself in the process, in order to meet the requirements for tenure and promotion. Publishing, it seems, can be likened to accumulating notches in your belt for having climbed as many of the 282 daunting Scottish mountains called Munro’s as one can. Years ago, I met a man who was on his third round of scaling those indomitable peaks. Now I’m told he’s on his tenth round! Many of us have scaled our own intellectual Munros in the quest for theory generation, the ultimate goal extolled by many of our best journals (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006; Palmer, 2006), even counseling new scholars on how to be successful at theorizing (Rindova, 2008). We put notches on our belts after each conquest by carving out a unique and novel contribution and joining a clan of like-minded mountaineers to secure our identities. I, too, have sought to scale the metaphoric Munros in search of theory although often losing my footing along the way. For example, after revising a paper to conform to the target of a special issue, the rejection letter I received read, “Your paper is now neither fish nor fowl.” OUCH! The editor seemed to be saying, “This paper does not fit the theoretical frame we want to advance in this special issue.” So, what can you do with that except toss the paper in the trash or search for a more hospitable home for it elsewhere. Since that experience, I have learned to stand my ground and ask a few questions before admitting defeat. But the larger question I’m raising is this: Is publishing better and better theory the only legacy we can and want to leave to society and to the earth? After reflecting on my 44-year career as an academic, I am left with a distinct dissatisfaction. I fear that the world is drifting into narcissism while we academics try to refine our theories about it. Especially, but not exclusively, for those of us who have cleared the requisite tenure bar, I urge us to ask ourselves, “How","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"179 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44115680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：