AEI: Internal
Organization & Power - Literature
Week 1
Bartunek, Ireland & Rynes, 2006 - What Makes Management Research
Interesting, and why does it matter?
These authors argue for the importance of interesting articles. They cite Murray Davis, who
claims that the interestingness of articles is important, because interesting research has more
influences on others. Interesting work produces a higher degree of learning. They are more
likely to induce positive affect and are also more likely to be read, understood and
remembered. Lastly, producing more interesting research may be essential for attracting,
motivating and retaining talented and enthusiastic students. The authors also argue that while
articles should be interesting, they should also include core elements of high-quality research.
In the paper “That’s Interesting!” by Murray Davis (1971), it is argued that what makes
scholarly work interesting is that it denies some (but not all!) of the assumptions held by its
audience. If it denies all of their assumptions, it is seen as absurd, while if it only confirms
assumptions, it is seen as obvious. In order to be interesting, scholarship must stand out in
some way. In order to know the audience's assumptions, the author must know the audience.
This suggests a link between the article and its audience.
According to the authors, no one single factor makes research interesting. There are multiple
factors that can play a role. The findings of the authors support Davis’s arguments:
management research that challenges current assumptions are also particularly likely to be
viewed as interesting. Other factors that make a paper interesting are quality, good writing,
new theories/findings, practical implications and impact. The authors do also note that different
parts of the world have diverse criteria for scholarly interest. Scholars from Brazil found the
impact and the quality of the papers to be most important for interest.
Haimowitz’s view is that some studies can be quite interesting to scholars, but not to other
people. This is because they answer questions that are relevant for people who are in the field
and have the necessary background knowledge. Other people don’t necessarily have this
knowledge. The media's perspective on interest is thus different: timeliness is here seen as
very important, as reporters are trying to deal with issues that are in the forefront of the public's
attention today. Reporters also want findings in the form of numbers, as this is easy to publish.
Names are also of interests, and two topics: sex and stocks.
, AEI: Internal
Cornelissen, Höllerer & Seidl, 2021 - What theory is and can be: forms of
theorizing in organizational scholarship.
Theory is a key criterion for evaluating the quality and contribution of research. In their paper,
the authors focus on a wide range of forms that theorizing might take. They try to demonstrate
that different forms are suitable for different goals, and that one form of theorizing might have
less value for one goal, but more for another. They argue for Pluralism, where different types
of theorizing have a place and not where one has been chosen above all others. This allows
for diversity. By joining different forms of theorizing together, the results will be more than the
sum of its parts: forms of critique will provoke thoughts and spur new forms of theorizing, and
explanatory and interpretive forms of theorizing will together create a more enriching and
nuanced picture of our phenomena of interest.
A lack of an explicit discussion about theory and theorizing is problematic as it may lead to
implicit views and institutions about theory rather than informed views and more consistent
perspectives. This may cause such implicit associations to take hold and certain views to
become dominant while marginalizing others. This is a problem as some theory styles are
better suited for certain situations, but might fall to the background.
Theory as a term used in everyday language means knowledge that is speculative or untested,
or personally held. Theory as used in the academic realm refers to the scholarly work that
researchers do in pursuit of making informed knowledge claims. The strength of these claims
rests on the scholarly work they have done. The knowledge claim is also generally understood
as clearly marking an interest that differentiates it from the interests of others. Academics are
interested in the general structure or characters of events in the social world, whereas
practitioners and journalists are interested in specific cases. Theory is also an umbrella term
for different styles of this work.
Conceptualization is seen as a core part of theorizing, because it is foundational to and a
major part of all forms of theorizing. A whole range of other activities depends on it. It is the
act of researchers naming and framing the topic that they are interested in, or studying, in
terms of specific theoretical concepts, as the resource. It involves an act of categorization
through which a researcher decides what the topic is a case of. This provides a set of concepts
as well as a set of relationships between these concepts as part of a larger theoretical
discourse. Researchers effectively decide to cover the topic from a vantage point and draw on
the resources to give this shape and to build up a theoretical conceptualization.
Different types of interests cause different types of theorizing. The authors distinguish three
types of interest:
- Explanation: where researchers engage in forms of theorizing to reveal the
fundamental forces and structures of organizational life that lie beneath the surface
phenomena, as topics that we observe, experience and narrate.
- Interpretation: when the researcher is concerned with theoretically rearranging
processes of signification and representation, the layers of social meaning that shape
experiences and actions and experiences within organizational life in order to interpret
what is happening.
, AEI: Internal
- Emancipation: researchers use theoretical resources in critical ways to expose the
politics and political constraints that are implicit in organizational life and to highlight
the limits to our current ways of thinking about topics.
, AEI: Internal
Mumby & Plotnikof, 2019 - Organizing power and resistance
In this chapter, the authors explain that power and resistance are a phenomenon that naturally
occur in capitalism. Capitalism constantly tries to produce profit. The profit falls when the
market saturates, which causes organizations to look into ways to intensify labor. This, in turn,
causes resistance. Processes of power and resistance are thus the medium and outcome of
everyday organizing.
Capitalism is in a constant state of flux, where they constantly try to minimize the production
value and maximize profits. Profit is created by constantly underpaying the production
process. Workers are the key to this surplus value, because they can never produce enough,
which results in control and conflict. Conflict is determinative of capitalism's development. The
way in which power is extended over workers can happen in different manners.
Foucault (1994): Disciplinary power that applies to immediate everyday life categorizes the
individuals, and thus gives them an identity. This power makes individuals subjects, as they
need others to recognize them. There are two meanings of the word ‘subject’: subject to
someone else by control and dependence, and subject to his own identity by a conscience or
self-knowledge.
Coercion: These power processes are used to control employee behavior directly. It is used
to force the employees to work faster and better. Coercive control processes are both a
medium and outcome of workers resistance. Rules and other manners of coercion are used
to control workers. The workers aim to resist this control.
Consent (normative control): Here, the goal is not to control employee behavior, but rather to
manage how they feel and think. The real object of control is the employee’s self. Employees
see little distinction between their own system of beliefs and values, and those of the
organization. In this sense,the exercising of this power can be both top-down and bottom-up.
Employees also engage in forms of self-discipline when they view themselves as failing to live
up to the culture. Power is exercised not by directly shaping organizational behavior, but by
the ideological process of communicatively constructing systems of meaning that the
organization members internalize and enact "spontaneously". As such, workers are driven by
internal commitment to corporate goals. Resistance to this type of power is two-fold: first, there
are different levels of degrees in which an employee adheres to the formal culture, and second,
different people might take on different meanings of the organizational culture or "realities".
This means that the discourse of management is used against itself. Workers often push back
against managerial efforts to shape such realities.
Governmentality: This is the form of power that most effectively characterizes how organizing
operates in the twenty-first century neoliberal capitalism. From a neoliberal perspective,
society functions most effectively when individuals are free to engage in self-regulation and
self-promotion unencumbered by the state. This also means that security disappears. The
market extends to everyday life. In order to function in this market, employees are constructed
as human capital. Precarity (onzekerheid) becomes the norm, which means that individuals
have to participate in self-governance in order to obtain and preserve their value for this
market.
Organization & Power - Literature
Week 1
Bartunek, Ireland & Rynes, 2006 - What Makes Management Research
Interesting, and why does it matter?
These authors argue for the importance of interesting articles. They cite Murray Davis, who
claims that the interestingness of articles is important, because interesting research has more
influences on others. Interesting work produces a higher degree of learning. They are more
likely to induce positive affect and are also more likely to be read, understood and
remembered. Lastly, producing more interesting research may be essential for attracting,
motivating and retaining talented and enthusiastic students. The authors also argue that while
articles should be interesting, they should also include core elements of high-quality research.
In the paper “That’s Interesting!” by Murray Davis (1971), it is argued that what makes
scholarly work interesting is that it denies some (but not all!) of the assumptions held by its
audience. If it denies all of their assumptions, it is seen as absurd, while if it only confirms
assumptions, it is seen as obvious. In order to be interesting, scholarship must stand out in
some way. In order to know the audience's assumptions, the author must know the audience.
This suggests a link between the article and its audience.
According to the authors, no one single factor makes research interesting. There are multiple
factors that can play a role. The findings of the authors support Davis’s arguments:
management research that challenges current assumptions are also particularly likely to be
viewed as interesting. Other factors that make a paper interesting are quality, good writing,
new theories/findings, practical implications and impact. The authors do also note that different
parts of the world have diverse criteria for scholarly interest. Scholars from Brazil found the
impact and the quality of the papers to be most important for interest.
Haimowitz’s view is that some studies can be quite interesting to scholars, but not to other
people. This is because they answer questions that are relevant for people who are in the field
and have the necessary background knowledge. Other people don’t necessarily have this
knowledge. The media's perspective on interest is thus different: timeliness is here seen as
very important, as reporters are trying to deal with issues that are in the forefront of the public's
attention today. Reporters also want findings in the form of numbers, as this is easy to publish.
Names are also of interests, and two topics: sex and stocks.
, AEI: Internal
Cornelissen, Höllerer & Seidl, 2021 - What theory is and can be: forms of
theorizing in organizational scholarship.
Theory is a key criterion for evaluating the quality and contribution of research. In their paper,
the authors focus on a wide range of forms that theorizing might take. They try to demonstrate
that different forms are suitable for different goals, and that one form of theorizing might have
less value for one goal, but more for another. They argue for Pluralism, where different types
of theorizing have a place and not where one has been chosen above all others. This allows
for diversity. By joining different forms of theorizing together, the results will be more than the
sum of its parts: forms of critique will provoke thoughts and spur new forms of theorizing, and
explanatory and interpretive forms of theorizing will together create a more enriching and
nuanced picture of our phenomena of interest.
A lack of an explicit discussion about theory and theorizing is problematic as it may lead to
implicit views and institutions about theory rather than informed views and more consistent
perspectives. This may cause such implicit associations to take hold and certain views to
become dominant while marginalizing others. This is a problem as some theory styles are
better suited for certain situations, but might fall to the background.
Theory as a term used in everyday language means knowledge that is speculative or untested,
or personally held. Theory as used in the academic realm refers to the scholarly work that
researchers do in pursuit of making informed knowledge claims. The strength of these claims
rests on the scholarly work they have done. The knowledge claim is also generally understood
as clearly marking an interest that differentiates it from the interests of others. Academics are
interested in the general structure or characters of events in the social world, whereas
practitioners and journalists are interested in specific cases. Theory is also an umbrella term
for different styles of this work.
Conceptualization is seen as a core part of theorizing, because it is foundational to and a
major part of all forms of theorizing. A whole range of other activities depends on it. It is the
act of researchers naming and framing the topic that they are interested in, or studying, in
terms of specific theoretical concepts, as the resource. It involves an act of categorization
through which a researcher decides what the topic is a case of. This provides a set of concepts
as well as a set of relationships between these concepts as part of a larger theoretical
discourse. Researchers effectively decide to cover the topic from a vantage point and draw on
the resources to give this shape and to build up a theoretical conceptualization.
Different types of interests cause different types of theorizing. The authors distinguish three
types of interest:
- Explanation: where researchers engage in forms of theorizing to reveal the
fundamental forces and structures of organizational life that lie beneath the surface
phenomena, as topics that we observe, experience and narrate.
- Interpretation: when the researcher is concerned with theoretically rearranging
processes of signification and representation, the layers of social meaning that shape
experiences and actions and experiences within organizational life in order to interpret
what is happening.
, AEI: Internal
- Emancipation: researchers use theoretical resources in critical ways to expose the
politics and political constraints that are implicit in organizational life and to highlight
the limits to our current ways of thinking about topics.
, AEI: Internal
Mumby & Plotnikof, 2019 - Organizing power and resistance
In this chapter, the authors explain that power and resistance are a phenomenon that naturally
occur in capitalism. Capitalism constantly tries to produce profit. The profit falls when the
market saturates, which causes organizations to look into ways to intensify labor. This, in turn,
causes resistance. Processes of power and resistance are thus the medium and outcome of
everyday organizing.
Capitalism is in a constant state of flux, where they constantly try to minimize the production
value and maximize profits. Profit is created by constantly underpaying the production
process. Workers are the key to this surplus value, because they can never produce enough,
which results in control and conflict. Conflict is determinative of capitalism's development. The
way in which power is extended over workers can happen in different manners.
Foucault (1994): Disciplinary power that applies to immediate everyday life categorizes the
individuals, and thus gives them an identity. This power makes individuals subjects, as they
need others to recognize them. There are two meanings of the word ‘subject’: subject to
someone else by control and dependence, and subject to his own identity by a conscience or
self-knowledge.
Coercion: These power processes are used to control employee behavior directly. It is used
to force the employees to work faster and better. Coercive control processes are both a
medium and outcome of workers resistance. Rules and other manners of coercion are used
to control workers. The workers aim to resist this control.
Consent (normative control): Here, the goal is not to control employee behavior, but rather to
manage how they feel and think. The real object of control is the employee’s self. Employees
see little distinction between their own system of beliefs and values, and those of the
organization. In this sense,the exercising of this power can be both top-down and bottom-up.
Employees also engage in forms of self-discipline when they view themselves as failing to live
up to the culture. Power is exercised not by directly shaping organizational behavior, but by
the ideological process of communicatively constructing systems of meaning that the
organization members internalize and enact "spontaneously". As such, workers are driven by
internal commitment to corporate goals. Resistance to this type of power is two-fold: first, there
are different levels of degrees in which an employee adheres to the formal culture, and second,
different people might take on different meanings of the organizational culture or "realities".
This means that the discourse of management is used against itself. Workers often push back
against managerial efforts to shape such realities.
Governmentality: This is the form of power that most effectively characterizes how organizing
operates in the twenty-first century neoliberal capitalism. From a neoliberal perspective,
society functions most effectively when individuals are free to engage in self-regulation and
self-promotion unencumbered by the state. This also means that security disappears. The
market extends to everyday life. In order to function in this market, employees are constructed
as human capital. Precarity (onzekerheid) becomes the norm, which means that individuals
have to participate in self-governance in order to obtain and preserve their value for this
market.
