Organization Studies

Call for Papers

Special Issue on Power and performativity as interweaving dynamics of organizing

Guest Editors for the Special Issue

Barbara Simpson, University of Strathclyde

Nancy Harding, University of Bath

Peter Fleming, City University of London

Viviane Sergi, UQAM

Anthony Hussenot, Université Côte d’Azur

 Deadline for Submissions: 31 March 2019

Power and performativity are recurrent but distinct themes in contemporary organization studies. Each has been theorized in multiple ways, but what still remains largely unexamined is the interplay between them in the ongoing flow of organizing. It is the dynamic and co-productive potential of this confluence that provides the focus for this Special Issue. In particular we propose that by re-visioning both power and performativity through a processual lens, new possibilities for understanding their entwinements will emerge.

 Power has traditionally been understood as a property or a possession that may be seized and wielded, either overtly or in hidden ways, in order to exert ‘power over’ others (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006). In this context it is often conceived in dualistic terms as some ‘thing’ that is available to the few for controlling the many. By contrast, process approaches endeavour to transcend this dualistic formulation, focussing instead on how power produces movement and change in our worlds. For instance, Foucault (1979) saw power as fundamentally relational and generative, and Follett (1924) argued for a ‘power with’ perspective that continuously emerges out of the actions of people working together.

A similar scenario can be drawn for performativity (Gond, Cabantous, Harding, & Learmonth, 2016), which may refer to managerial efforts to produce outcomes (Fournier & Grey, 2000), or to tactics to help managers change the status quo (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). From a more processual perspective though, performativity offers a theory of how language constitutes experienced ‘realities’ (Austin, 1962), how organizations are made in communication (Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996), and how that which appears given and unchangeable is constituted moment by moment (Butler, 1997) through intra-acting material agencies (Barad, 2003).

In this Special Issue, we want to draw attention to the possibilities that arise if both power and performativity are conceived as dynamic processes that, through their continuous swirling together and apart offer novel opportunities to engage differently with organizing. Recent developments in philosophical and theoretical thinking about organizing have clarified the distinction between ontologically oriented assumptions of emergence, continuity and becoming, and more epistemologically oriented accounts of how organizational outcomes are produced (Helin, Hernes, Hjorth, & Holt, 2014; Langley & Tsoukas, 2017). However, the uptake of process as an ontological mode of inquiry has been hampered by the paucity of conceptual and methodological devices to support empirical studies. We need new tools that allow us to unravel the alternative logics of process-as-it-happens, to engage with the evolving nature of the categories we use to define (and redefine) the phenomena of working and living, and to re-configure the boundaries of more processual understandings of organizing. Developing such tools will not only contribute new ways of studying power and performativity together, but also new ways of carrying out research into organizing more generally. As an added bonus, it may further serve to address the immediate concerns of organizational practitioners, who are so often let down by the inadequacies of conventional theory when it comes to examining their own lived experiences of work.

This Special Issue seeks to advance process studies of organizing by re-imagining power and performativity as mutually constituting dynamics. Broadly we are interested in questions such as how might we better understand the performativity of power and the power of performativity, and how, in their interweaving, do power and performativity constitute the emergent becoming of organizing. We especially welcome empirical contributions that, in offering partial, localized or ephemeral accounts of power and performativity, open up new ways of engaging with these dynamic processes by entering into the emergent flow of organizing. Our specific aim is to focus more on the ‘doing of’ rather than the ‘thinking about’ process research.

Potential topics for submissions include, but are by no means limited to:

• Research methods that engage with the processual logics of power and performativity
• Ways of writing from/as/about material aspects of power and performativity
• The engagement of power with performativity in the communicative constitution of organizing
• Reflexivity, surprise and playfulness in the experience of power and performativity
• The role of body and language in the performative accomplishment of power
• Temporality in the entwinement of power and performativity in organizing
• The power of performance in new collaborative practices such as freelancing and co-working
• The performance of power in new organizational forms such as those introduced through the gig economy and democracy-based organization
• The power of non-human agencies in the performative accomplishment of organizing
• The performative power of contemporary research methods

Submissions

Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies, create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type” please choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the reviewing process will be double-blind reviewed following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You will be able to submit your paper for this Special Issue between the 15^th and 31^st of March 2019.

Administrative support and general queries

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: OSofficer@gmail.com

For further information please contact any of the Guest Editors for this Special Issue:

Barbara Simpson: barbara.simpson@strath.ac.uk

Nancy Harding: H.N.Harding@bath.ac.uk

Peter Fleming: Peter.Fleming.1@city.ac.uk

Viviane Sergi: sergi.viviane@uqam.ca

Anthony Hussenot: anthony.hussenot @unice.fr

 References:

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367-390.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. London: SAGE.

Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York: Longmans, Green.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York Vintage.

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). ‘At the critical moment’: Conditions and prospects for Critical Management Studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32.

Gond, J.-P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What Do We Mean by Performativity in Organizational and Management Theory? The Uses and Abuses of Performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 440-463.

Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Taylor, J., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39.

Organization Studies

Special Issue on: Organizing for Social and Institutional Change in Response to Disruption, Division, and Displacement

Guest Editors

 W.E. Douglas Creed | University of Rhode Island, USA & University of Melbourne, Australia

Barbara Gray | Pennsylvania State University, USA

Charlotte M. Karam | American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Markus A. Höllerer | WU Vienna, Austria & UNSW Sydney, Australia

Trish Reay | University of Alberta, Canada

Contact: douglascreed@uri.edu

Deadline for paper submissions: October 31^st 2018

The world today is experiencing jarring manifestations of disruption, division, and displacement, making for a troika of societal and institutional upheaval. In its 2018 Report on Global Risks, the World Economic Forum identified risks stemming from disruptions in five distinct categories: economical, technological, environmental, geopolitical, and social.  In terms of economic risks, inequality in wealth distribution is increasing across the globe (Anand & Segal, 2015); Oxfam reports that the richest 1% has accumulated more wealth than the rest of the world’s population combined (BBC News, 2016). Technological risks threaten privacy and security of individuals, organizations, and nations. Extreme weather conditions and the failure to mitigate climate change are among the most pressing environmental risks.  Finally, a rise in religious and national identity conflicts has created geopolitical and social risks resulting in a substantial increase in global migration and a variety of tensions and fault lines. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is an estimated 65.3 million forcibly displaced persons in the world, with 21.3 million numbering as refugees. Forces such as populism, nationalism, coupled with increasing economic inequity, sectarianism, and extreme political polarization look to be undermining the ‘habits of the heart’ that are fundamental to democracy (Putnam, 2000). Some even argue that the very heart of democracy is in need of healing and we must work for a politics commensurate with human dignity (Palmer, 2011). Separately and together, patterns of disruption, division, and displacement will likely rock global society for the foreseeable future – and call for robust organizational and/or institutional responses.

For this Organization Studies Special Issue, we encourage organizational scholars to address these and related grand challenges through the development of research that attempts to further investigate and better understand such disruption, division, and displacement as well as their consequences from varied perspectives and levels of analysis. We see that organizational scholars have much to contribute in these domains and we believe that this Special Issue can be a space for reflection, investigation, and sowing the seeds for future robust action. Although we see strong potential for research from an institutional perspective, we equally welcome submissions grounded in many other research traditions. Our key goal in the Special Issue is to bring together scholarship that sheds new light on organizing for social and institutional change that addresses these forms of upheaval.

We see significant potential for researchers to build on the growing interest in understanding both how organizational and institutional paradoxes (Tracey & Creed, 2017) are implicated in such grand challenges and how organizations of various sorts can respond. Complex or ‘wicked’ problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) are likely to require complex solutions involving many different stakeholders (Gray & Purdy, 2018). A variety of tensions may be involved, such as: democracy versus authoritarianism; civil discourse versus demagoguery and intolerance; global versus local; nationalism versus internationalism/globalism; the North versus the ‘Global South’; wealth versus poverty; urban versus rural; and multiculturalism versus ethnocentrism and/or xenophobia. Research focused on the organizational and institutional implications of such tensions and how to address them could reveal valuable insights.

In framing this call for papers, we see particular value in Ferraro et al.’s (2015) pragmatist perspective that outlines ways of responding to grand challenges based on the concept of robust action.  They draw attention to three strategies which we, as scholars, can also apply in building our knowledge base: creating new participatory architectures that enable prolonged, productive engagement among diverse stakeholders; promoting and sustaining cooperation and coordination through activities that sustain multiple voices, diverse interpretations, and interrelated goals; and experimenting in ways that promote small wins, evolutionary learning, and increased engagement.

We suggest that exploring the organizational and institutional implications of disruption, division, and displacement may require a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of entrenched oppression and latent power dynamics (Gray & Kish-Gephardt, 2013; Karam & Jamali, 2015; Marti & Mair, 2009; Mair et al., 2016; Creed et al., 2010). We encourage scholars to investigate cases addressing where and how individuals, groups, or organizations have mobilized in attempts to overcome such deep-rooted problems. Further, we see that addressing the multifarious divisions that run through these problems requires engaging in emotionally fraught encounters and change processes that involve mechanisms spanning the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis (Hochschild, 2016; Creed & Scully, 2000; Creed et al., 2014; Lok et al., forthcoming). More attention to these processes and their effects is important and encouraged.

With this call for papers, we hope to foster academic attention to this broad topical area.  Consistent with the mandate of Organization Studies, we aim to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing, and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding in relation to the challenges identified here.

Below we offer our initial thoughts on possible questions and opportunities. However, we stress that this list is not meant to narrow our collective vision. In the spirit of robust academic engagement that is participatory and multi-vocal, and that builds on and contributes to engaged organizational scholarship, we encourage innovative, thoughtful, and provocative submissions from scholars at all stages of their academic careers.

Opportunities for Theorizing and Praxis

• What mechanisms explain social and institutional change processes in the context of displacement, disruption, and division?
• What are tools and mechanisms for organizing around these challenges?
• What are the implications of displacement and disruption for institutional stability and embeddedness, as well as for the persistence of, or change in distinct inequality regimes?
• How can we buttress civil society and civility in the face of such challenges?
• Can conflict be beneficial in promoting voice and resistance to power in this current era of displacement, disruption, and division – and if so, how?
• What are the multilayered and multi-leveled processes for dealing with resistance and conflict in the face of grand challenges and wicked problems?
• How can institutions, organizations, and individuals, including scholars, respond more effectively to refugee issues, disenfranchisement, and economic dislocation?

Levels of Analysis

• What are the bottom-up and top-down processes behind mobilizing for change at and across different levels of organizing, and how are they shaping organizational, institutional, and societal responses to these types of upheaval?
• How can the examination of organizing around displacement, disruption, and division assist in better understanding the microfoundations of institutional change?
• What practices, unfolding at the micro and meso levels, foster civility and contribute to the healing of polarizing societal rifts?

• In what ways can civil society innovations be facilitated in the face of multiple and multifaceted global threats?

Global and Local Forms of Organizing

• How do geographical and place-based dynamics affect action and possibilities for change?
• What are examples of novel forms of organizations and organizing around these wicked problems and what can be learned from them?
• What are the key forces, patterns, and players involved in building local collaborations against a backdrop of global disruption and global agendas?
• In what ways can local collaborative partnerships be scaled up and replicated?
• What is the role of local organizations (e.g., SMEs, cooperatives, non-profits, public sector organizations, and civil society) in responding to disruption and displacement? What are innovative local patterns of organizing for responding to and mitigating the difficulties of disruptive global shifts (Höllerer et al., 2017)?

Institutional and Collective Identity Building Efforts

•  What are the possibilities for cross-sectoral collaboration in the face of power differences?
• What are the possible roles for conflict management and peacemaking?
• How do we cultivate civility, engagement, and listening in the face of the polarization, hostility, and social demonization that arise as a consequence of displacement, disruption, and division? How do we reach across the ‘empathy wall’ (Hochschild, 2016), and what are the practical next steps?
• What are the identity dynamics (e.g., gender, race, class, religious) involved and what are the implications for various forms of tensions and responses, ranging from exclusionary backlash to inclusion? What can be learned through applying an identity lens to (re)analyzing disruption and displacement?

• What are the difficulties in working across differences in privilege and power and how can they be addressed?
• How are ‘deep stories’ and identities implicated in how persons and local populations respond to disruption, displacement, and division?

Submissions

To be considered for publication in the Special Issue, papers must be submitted via the OS website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies by October 31, 2018. There you can also find guidelines for submission and information on the review procedures.

 References

Anand, S. & P. Segal. 2015. The Global Distribution of Income. In: A. B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution. Volume 2A, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 937-979.

BBC News. 2016. Oxfam Says Wealth of Richest 1% Equal to Other 99%. January 2018.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475

Creed, W.E.D., R. DeJordy, & J. Lok. 2010. Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal 53(6), 1336-1364.

Creed, .E.D., B.A. Hudson, G. Okhuysen, & K. Smith-Crowe. 2014. Swimming in a Sea of Shame: Emotion in Institutional Maintenance and Disruption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3) 275-301.

Creed, W.E.D. & M. Scully. 2000. Songs of Ourselves: Employees’ Deployment of Social Identity in Work Place Encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry 9(4), 391-412.

Ferraro, F., D. Etzion & J. Gehman. 2015. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies 36(3), 363–390.

Gray, B. & J. Kish-Gephart. 2013. Encountering Social Class Differences at Work: How “Class Work” Perpetuates Inequality. Academy of Management Review 38(5), 670-699.

Gray, B. & J.M. Purdy. 2018. Collaborating for Our Future: Confronting Complex Problems through Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A.R. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.

Höllerer, M.A, P. Walgenbach, & G.S. Drori. 2017. The Consequences of Globalization for Institutions and Organizations. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (ds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karam, C.M. & D. Jamali. 2015. A Cross-Cultural and Feminist Perspective on CSR in Developing Countries: Uncovering Latent Power Dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2737-7

Lok, J., W.E.D. Creed, R. DeJordy, & M. Voronov. 2017. Living Institutions: Bringing Emotions into Organizational Institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mair, J., M. Wolf & C. Seelos. 2016. Scaffolding: A Process of Transforming Patterns of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies. Academy of Management Journal 59(6), 2012-2044.

Marti, I. & P. Fernández. 2013. The Institutional Work of Oppression and Resistance: Learning from the Holocaust. Organization Studies 34(8), 1195-1223.

Palmer, P. J. 2011. Healing the Heart of Democracy; The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rittel, H.W. & M.M. Webber. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

Tracy, P. & W.E.D Creed. 2017. Beyond Managerial Dilemmas: The Study of Paradoxes in Organizational Theory. In: W.K. Smith, M.W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

World Economic Forum, Global Risks Report 2018. Geneva: Switzerland. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf

Organization Studies

 Call for Papers

 Special Issue on: Connectivity in and around Organizations

 Guest Editors 

Darl G. Kolb, Graduate School of Management, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Marleen Huysman, KIN Research Group, VU University, The Netherlands

Kristine Dery, Center for Systems Information Research, MIT, Australia & USA

Anca Metiu, Senior Editor, Organization Studies, ESSEC Business School, France

Deadline for paper submissions: September 30^th 2018

The journal is seeking papers for a Special Issue that reflects and considers the impact of ubiquitous and near-constant connectivity in and around organizations.

In 2008, Organization Studies published an article entitled, ‘Exploring the Metaphor of Connectivity: Attributes, Dimensions and Duality’  (Kolb, 2008). A lot has happened in the world of connectivity in the past 10 years. Following the BlackBerry (‘CrackBerry’) era, the release of the iPhone in 2007 accelerated the ‘smartphone’ era. To be sure, the topics of mobile communication practice (Dery, Kolb, & MacCormick, 2014; MacCormick, Dery, & Kolb, 2012; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013; Sergeva, Huysman, van den Hooff, & Soekijad, 2017) virtual work and collaboration (Fayard & Metiu, 2014; Kolb, Collins, & Lind, 2008), work-life balance (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Mazmanian, 2013), perceptions of proximity (Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010; Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008), cognitive and socio-emotional effects of hyper-connectivity (Carr, 2010; Turkle, 2011) have received considerable attention in the years since the past decade. However, with some notable exceptions (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Flyverbom, Leonardi, Stohl, & Stohl, 2016; Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008), theoretical developments have been relatively sparse in this relatively new, yet important field of inquiry.

We believe the time is right for a dedicated collection of scholarly work that advances our theoretical and practical understanding of the unprecedented connective context within and around organizations. Our intent is to produce a provocative and memorable Special Issue of Organization Studies. We therefore invite refreshing scholarly discourse on what constitutes connectivity (what it is and/or what it means), including its antecedents, its social materiality and the conceptual relationships that underpin and/or define connectivity, thereby offering advances in theory. Meanwhile, we expect critical evaluations of some of the ‘consequences’ and implications for practice. We are also seeking empirical studies that illuminate the subject and provide evidence and evocation for theory-building or theory-challenging.

Objectives of the Special Issue:

• To advance our understanding of how connectivity affects organizational life
• To stimulate dialogue and debate on connectivity as a dimension of contemporary life
• To offer fresh, empirically-based insights into the practice of connecting with others through technology

We invite papers that will address, but are not limited to the following themes:

• new perspectives on mobile human-computer interaction,
• advancements and/or challenges to socio-technical and sociomaterial theoretical lenses,
• the integration of work and non-work dimensions of life,
• the stresses and strains associated with work-life integration, and
• isolation and alienation that accompany and contradict increased connectedness.

We are particularly interested in papers that provoke new ways of thinking about questions such as, but not limited to:

• How do face-to-face organisational processes and practices compete for attention with ubiquitous personal connective technologies?
• Who decides when and how much organizational members connect or disconnect?
• What are the implications of near-constant connectivity on health and wellness?
• The paradox of autonomy: How do independent individuals still work collaboratively?
• How are work practices co-evolving with connective technologies?
• How are organizational structures co-evolving with connective technologies?

Papers may be conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical in nature, with a preference for empirical-based theoretical work.  While qualitative research may be most appropriate for supporting new theoretical directions and critical perspectives, quantitative research is also welcome, as long as it addresses new questions and contributes to the conceptual conversation in straightforward (accessible) language.

The scope of papers is intentionally broad, but papers should have a bearing on ‘organizational’ phenomena, as per the overall purpose and general guidelines of Organization Studies.

Submissions

Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track, by visiting http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies. Create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type,” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You may submit papers for this Special Issue through SAGE Track between September, 15^th and 30^th 2018.

For administrative support and general queries, please contact:

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: osofficer@gmail.com.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work Engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press: Taylor and Francis Group.

Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. London: Atlantic.

Dery, K., Kolb, D. G., & MacCormick, J. (2014). Working with flow: The evolving practice of smartphone technologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(5), 558-570.

Fayard, A.-L., & Metiu, A. (2014). The role of writing in distributed collaboration. Organization Science, 25(5), 1391-1413.

Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P. M., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age. Interntional Journal of Communication, 10, 98-109.

Kolb, D. G. (2008). Exploring the metaphor of connectivity: Attributes, dimensions and duality. Organization Studies, 29(1), 127-144.

Kolb, D. G., Collins, P. D., & Lind, E. A. (2008). Requisite connectivity: Finding flow in a not-so-flat world. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 181-189.

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.

Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 38(1), 85-105.

MacCormick, J., Dery, K., & Kolb, D. G. (2012). Engaged or just connected?: Smartphones and employee engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 194-201.

Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1225-1250.

Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.

Sergeva, A., Huysman, M., van den Hooff, B., & Soekijad, M. (2017). Through the eyes of others: How onlookers shape the use of mobile technology at work. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1153-1178.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Percieved proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979-1002.

Call for Papers

Special Issue on Organizational control and surveillance of new work practices

NEW Deadline for paper submissions: August 31^st 2018

Guest Editors :

François-Xavier de Vaujany (Université Paris-Dauphine, France)

Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (CNRS, LEM UMR 9221, IESEG School of Management, France)

Iain Munro (Newcastle University Business School, United Kingdom)

Yesh Nama (RMIT University, Australia)

Robin Holt (Copenhagen Business School)

Introduction

Agnès, a young new startupper at the ‘Coworking Space’ in Berlin, explains^[1]:

 Convivial, flat, free, fun, effective, adaptable, remarkable, transparent….this is how this coworking space described itself. In reality, I’ve never had the impression to be in an environment freed of hierarchy. We were all installed in a large, open space, separated from each other of only some meters… … except our CHO (Chief Happiness Officer), who had his own office, and could suddenly burst in. There was no overtime, only flexible hours. Actually overtime was considered the norm. We were all together in the same space, looking at each other’s’ comings and goings. When a coworker left at 6 pm, we all ironically (and legitimately) asked him if he was having a break! Fortunately beers and pizzas were distributed after 7 pm to motivate us to stay… we all seemed to enjoy this kind of stomach control. The rule for those who arrived late in the morning – 9 was the norm – was to bring pastries … However over time, I had the feeling that being late was met with disapproval. After all, maybe it was a sign that people were less motivated by, less confident in, or less passionate about their projects? One day, I felt ill at ease with this climate, it stifled me… I isolated myself in the restrooms, took my smartphone, and called my boyfriend to get some kind of support…

The emergence of new work practices and workplaces, as shown by the joint search for more mobility, openness (e.g. with open innovation), horizontality (e.g. with coworking practices and collaborative entrepreneurship), digital and collaborative practices (including more and more external stakeholders, e.g. customers and citizens, in the co-production of services), has raised new questions of organizational control, and surveillance. In a global context marked by the invisible revolution of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2015) and the resurgence of risk (Beck, 1992), security fears and terror, which have re-legitimized the need for close surveillance and control, new work practices and workplaces have transformed the ‘premises of human involvement in organizations’ (Kallinikos, 2003, p. 595), as well as the mechanisms and conditions of control and surveillance. In particular, work transformations (project-based work, teleworking, distributed work arrangements, collaborative entrepreneurship and the emergence of third and collaborative practices and spaces, e.g. coworking spaces, maker spaces, innovation labs) are revealing how work increasingly gets performed outside the typical physical, spatial and temporal boundaries of the organization or within the context of third spaces and liminal spaces (Oldenburg, 1989; Garrett et al., 2017; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012; Waber et al., 2014; Johns and Gratton, 2013).

These work transformations and new ‘sites’ (Schatzki, 2005) of work alter the structure of ‘presence’ and ‘visibility’ of employees and consequently affect the nature of the control of work practices (from supervision to more reporting, from technocratic to more social, peer- and self- control): both horizontal relationships (with co-workers) and vertical relationships (with supervisors) are transformed. These new work practices imply a ‘dispersal’ and ‘distantiation’ (Beyes and Stayaert, 2012; Sewell and Taskin, 2015) in the time and space of control (Bauman and Lyon, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991), and raise singular and often paradoxical challenges. On the one hand it entails collaborative forms of management control that extends beyond direct visual sight (Dambrin, 2004; Halford, 2005; Sewell, 2012), and on the other, forms of self-disciplining and transformation in which autonomy becomes almost a synonym for governance. Under the impress of both trends, surveillance has become increasingly mobile, flexible, pervasive and unbounded (Bauman and Lyon, 2013), and in turn encourages them.

It is important, however, not to limit understanding of control and surveillance to the digital and immaterial. Indeed, it seems they are more than ever constituted by, embedded in and infused in the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of new work practices and workplaces. Organizational control and surveillance should be conceived of not only as digital, virtual, fluid, flexible and discursive, but also as ever more deeply grounded in the concrete, material, spatial, embodied underpinnings (e.g. work practices, spatial practices, places, bodies, technologies in use, information tactics) of everyday life (Munro and Jordan, 2013; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011). New work practices and recent work transformations enhance the complexity of situations to control and highlight the ambiguity of spaces, instruments, objects, artefacts, management systems (Miller, 2008, 2009; Dale, 2005; Dale and Burrell, 2008; Lorino, 2013; de Vaujany and Vaast, 2014; Munro, 2016). The evolution of organizational control and surveillance through new work practices also points to the versatility of the uses of technologies in control and surveillance efforts (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008); some research for example emphasize a resurgence of ancient, bureaucratic forms of administration in new work settings, as managers seek to compensate for the distance, absence, and lack of visibility of their subordinates (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Halford, 2005). These new practices, coupled to evolving IT uses, constitute a new kind of organising of employees, placing them on an almost permanent front stage (Goffman, 1959). Such evolutions thus call for a deeper investigation of the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of control and surveillance through new work practices and work settings.

Furthermore, the continuous evolution of work practices and emergence of new work practices (e.g. remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…) characterized by a potential shift—from static, central oversight to untethered, dispersed (auto)organization, embedded in material technologies—raises important tensions in terms of power relations, morality and ethics, with potentially paradoxical consequences. Novel types of control and surveillance find increasing legitimacy among those being subjugated, who may cooperate willingly, in a relation that raises new tensions between technology and human flourishing (Bauman and Lyon, 2013). Developments of consumer surveillance, biometrics, workplace surveillance, and ubiquitous computing constitute the embodied individual not only as a target of continuous oversight, but also as a subject of (self) exposure, through a process of data representation, interpretation and sharing, so that games of visibility (exhibitionism), observation (voyeurism) and secrecy (hiding one’s work) now abound in the workplace (Brivot and Gendron, 2011).

Thus, the tensions between the material, the virtual, the social, the embodied individual, and their implications, have never been so crucial to theories of control and surveillance. Emerging practices and organizational forms fuel tensions between our notions of freedom and security, physical and virtual or digital spatiality, the material with the social, the visible with the invisible, the continuous with the discontinuous, the reified with the virtual, the mind with the body, political (domination and oversight) with cultural or ideological control (persuasion and consent), and manipulation and collaboration.

With this special issue, we seek to rethink control and surveillance by developing a more materialized, spatialized, embodied and temporalized view in relation to new work practices that can supplement and so counterbalance a vision these being purely virtual and digitally enabled. By such we refer to theoretical analyses and contributions that emphasize the entanglement of social and material dimensions of control and work practices and the importance of ontological questions (i.e. what should be the main – ‘real’- focus of analysis: objects, activities, processes, perceptions, practices…?); issues of space, time, corporeity, embodiment, visuality and materiality involved in control devices and new work practices (Dale, 2005), as well as their relationships with organizations and organizing (Robichaud and Cooren, 2013); and broader ontological debates (Leonardi et al., 2012; Carlile et al, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991; Orlikowski, 2007; Scott and Orlikowski, 2012), across different ‘epistemic communities’ (Holt and den Hond, 2013; Boxenbaum et al., 2015; de Vaujany and Mitev, 2015).

Potential approaches and questions to be addressed in the special issue

To summarize, this special issue seeks to advance the study of organizations and organizing by exploring the materiality, meaning, nature and forms of control and surveillance of and through new work practices in contemporary society. We hope to involve a diverse range of scholars and scholarly traditions in debate. We welcome submissions that address control and surveillance from different ontological vantage points, in different contexts, using different methodologies.

Authors intending to submit papers to this special issue are encouraged to focus on some of the broad issues in the following far from exhaustive list:

• Philosophical, historical and sociological roots of societal and organizational control and surveillance of work practices;
• The unexpected presence and emergence of control and surveillance in the context of new work practices (e.g. sharing economy, remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…);
• Semiosis and digital infrastructure of control and surveillance processes in organizations and organizing;
• The role of corporations and the ‘security–industrial complex’ in the deployment of new techniques;
• Materiality, ontologies, politics of control and surveillance, and new agencies for such;
• Concern for materiality, spatiality, liminality and temporality in control, discipline and surveillance;
• Critical perspectives on new work practices and the emergence of control;
• The rise of terrorism (often in the city) and challenges for control and surveillance in the public and private spaces;
• Accomplishments and failures of control and surveillance;
• The role of risk-management culture and risk-management tools in the emergence of surveillance capitalism and its material, corporeal, spatial and temporal forms;
• Relations between control and surveillance in new work practices and governance;
• The disciplinary nature of control and surveillance in new work practices;
• New work and collaborative practices (e.g. coworkers, digital nomads, makers, hackers);
• Managerial and leadership techniques of control and surveillance.

Submissions

Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track, by visiting http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies. Create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type,” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You may submit papers for this Special Issue through SAGE Track until August 31^st 2018.

For further information about this CFP, please contact:

oscontrolwork@gmail.com

For administrative support and general queries, please contact:

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: osofficer@gmail.com.

Indicative references

Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: a conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beyes, T., Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space.  Organization, 19(1): 45-61

Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R., & Svejenova, S. (2015). The Material and Visual Turn in Organization Theory: Objectifying and (Re)acting to Novel Ideas. Call for Papers, Special Issue of Organization Studies, http://oss.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1547.extract.

Brivot, M. and Gendron, Y. (2011). Beyond panopticism: on the ramifications of surveillance in a contemporary professional setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36(3), 135–155.

Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies. OUP Oxford.

Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). The spaces of organisation and the organisation of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2015). The post-Macy paradox, information management and organizing: Good intentions and a road to hell? Culture & Organization, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1103242.

de Vaujany, FX. & Vaast, E. (2014). If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy, Organization Science, 25(3),713-731.

Garrett, L.E., Spreitzer, G.M., Bacevice, P.A., (2017). Co-constructing a Sense of Community at Work: The Emergence of Community in Coworking Spaces. Organization Studies 0170840616685354. doi:10.1177/0170840616685354.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books, New York.

Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 19–33.

Holt, R. & Den Hond, F. (2013), Sapere Aude. Organization Studies, 34(11), 1587-1600.

Johns, T. & Gratton L. (2013), The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 66-73.

Kallinikos, J. (2003). Work, human agency and organizational forms: an anatomy of fragmentation. Organization Studies, 24 (4), 595-618.

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte A., (2011). Organizations as discursive constructions: A Foucauldian approach, Organization Studies, 32 (9), 1247-1271.

Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds) (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Lorino, P. (2013). Management Systems As Organizational ‘Architextures’. In: Materiality and Space. Organization, Artefacts and Practices. Basingstoke (UK) et New York (Basingstoke (UK) et New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 62-95.

Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge: Polity.

Miller, D. (2009). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.

Munro, I. (2016) Organizational resistance as a vector of deterritorialization: The case of WikiLeaks and secrecy havens. Organization, 23(4): 567–587

Munro I, Jordan S. (2013). ‘Living Space’ at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66(11), 1497-1525.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day. New York: Paragon House.

Orlikowski, W. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory implication of information technology, Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 1(1): 9:42.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.

Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 433–474.

Robichaud, D., & Cooren, F. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency and discourse. Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization studies, 26(3), 465-484.

Scott, S.V. & Orlikowski, W.J., 2012. Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37 (1), 26-40.

Sewell, G. (2012). Employees, organizations and surveillance. In K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), The handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 303–312). London: Routledge.

Sewell, G. & Taskin, L., (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36 (11), 1507-1529.

Spinuzzi, C. (2012) ‘Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26 (4), 399-441.

Waber B., Magnolfi J. and Lindsay G. (2014). Workspaces That Move People, Harvard Business Review, pp.69-77.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.

[1] Inspired and adapted from the story of Ramadier M. (2017) Bienvenue dans le nouveau monde, comment j’ai survécu à la coolitude des startups, Premier Parallèle.