Stephan Schaefer

Towards a progressive understanding of performativity in critical management studies

A central debate in critical management studies (CMS) revolves around the concern that critical research has rather little influence on what managers do in practice. We argue that this is partly because CMS research often focuses on criticizing antagonistically, rather than engaging with managers. In light of this, we seek to re-interpret the anti-performative stance of CMS by focusing on how researchers understand, conceptualize and make use of the performative effects of language. Drawing on the works of JL Austin and Judith Butler, we put forward the concept of progressive performativity, which requires critical researchers to stimulate the performative effects of language in order to induce incremental, rather than radical, changes in managerial behaviour. The research framework we propose comprises two interrelated processes: (i) the strategy of micro-engagement, which allows critical researchers to identify and ‘ally’ with internal activists among managers, and to support their role as internal agents of change; and (ii) ‘reflexive conscientization’ − that is, a dialogic process between researchers and researched that aims to gradually raise the critical consciousness of actors in order to provide spaces in which new practices can be ‘talked into existence’ through the performative effects of language.

On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure

In this article, we respond to Cabantous, Gond, Harding and Learmonth’s (2016) critique of recent conceptual contributions that employ the concept of performativity for prompting progressive changes in organizations. All in all, we seem to share the general unease concerning the marginal impact of Critical Management Studies on re-defining organizational realities. At the same time, we largely disagree on how critical scholars could support effective, progressive changes. In this rejoinder, we respond to but also absorb Cabantous et al.’s critique of progressive performativity and sketch three ways of how to advance discussions of Critical Management Studies’ role in organizational scholarship.

Wilful Managerial Ignorance, Symbolic Work and Decoupling : A Socio-Phenomenological Study of ‘Managing Creativity’

Ignorance has only received scant attention in organization and management studies. This paper focuses on ignorance in an organizational context by presenting and analysing the lived experience of three managers who attempted to manage creativity. The analysis of the empirical material with the help of a detailed agency framework illustrates how the managers’ clearly articulated visions contradicted their practices and how they also stuck to their visions even when they were confronted with or had the possibility to collect information that would challenge those visions. I suggest, based on these observations, that the managers deliberately and actively avoided using or collecting relevant information that could potentially lead to transformative practices, which engendered what I call ‘wilful managerial ignorance’. I further suggest that ‘symbolic work’, which refers to the active and continuous separation of verbal activity (symbol) and concrete practices (objective referent), is a determining factor in wilful managerial ignorance. Since wilful managerial ignorance and symbolic work prevent the productive and transformative integration of different institutional contexts it is possible to link it to the concept of ‘decoupling’. As a result, I propose that wilful managerial ignorance and symbolic work are micro-determinants which facilitate the decoupling of organizationally relevant institutional contexts.

Epistemic Attitudes and Source Critique in Qualitative Research

In this essay, we explore and discuss current practices of source critique. In our empirical analysis of a sample of interview-based studies, we find that few studies show a careful and reflective stance toward their sources. In the majority of cases, we discern a tendency to either ignore basic issues of the trustworthiness of interview material or produce technical descriptions which seem to have no real effect on the actual assessment of the study’s sources. We suggest five epistemic attitudes which describe how scholars engage—or rather not engage—in source critique. To improve source critique, we suggest tactics of intra- and extrasource critique which seriously consider interactional dynamics behind and quality of interview content other than “truth” reporting, aiming to corroborate interview statements by carefully cross-checking interview material with observations and multiple sources.

Revisiting Corporate Sustainability: Towards a Critically-Performative Research Agenda

Corporations have acknowledged the importance of being perceived as socially responsible. Their actions however frequently show a misalignment between image and actions, which calls for critical research on the substance of corporate sustainability. Scholars of the Critical Management Studies movement have engaged in disclosing the ‘dark side’ of corporate behavior. Yet, we argue this stream of research has focused on deconstructing, and remained at distance to reflexivity and reconstruction. We conceptualize a research framework of critically performative and reflexive practices of deconstruction, reconstruction and self-reflection to advance critical research on CS, addressing shortcomings of current CS research - being overly functionalistic and instrumental - and a CMS agenda, which is often disconnected from economic constraints.