APROS 14 Calls for papers

1

STREAM 1

Rethinking Business Schools and their Role in Economic and Social Development The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENERS

Anabella Davila Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico E-mail: [email protected] Maribel Blasco Copenhagen Business School E-mail: [email protected]

Laura Zapata-Cantu Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Jacobo Ramirez Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Recent advances in management education research have highlighted the need to rethink the purpose of business schools and their role in economic and social development (Gomez-Samper, 2009; Khurana, 2007). With business schools in many locations immersed in conflicting societal demands and with their reputations damaged by economic scandals, we observe nowadays that business schools are playing a different role than their initial one of certifying management as a profession. Diverse stakeholders are demanding that business schools work together with various economic and social actors, not only to improve the business environment but also to support social development through generating management science knowledge. For example, in some countries governmental and private agencies are granting economic funds to business schools for creating business incubators, accelerators or technological parks as part of their facilities (e.g. Mexico and Spain). In other countries, business schools receive economic funds from private donors or state agencies to develop an entrepreneurial, international or sustainable focus in their curricula (e.g. México, Colombia, India, Brazil or Russia). We also find business schools with governing boards that promote a strong orientation to humanities, fine arts or political sciences in all

1 The conference will be held on the AUT University’s Central City Campus.

mailto:[email protected]



2

dimensions of their mission, educational strategies and academic programs (e.g. Denmark). In addition to those demands is the constant pressure that business schools experience for obtaining international accreditation and for competing in international rankings (Adler and Harzing, 2009). We hypothesize that business schools’ changing role could be a backlash response to the ‘Americanization’ of management education. That is, business schools are being more reactive to their particular contextual needs than just replicating ‘American’ management models. The historical analysis of business schools in Europe and Latin America shows the great influence of American management sciences and academy on higher education institutions (Gomez-Samper, 2009; Starkey and Tiratsoo, 2007; Usdiken, 2004). However, when we study business schools as organizations we identify a different trend. Business schools around the world are highly motivated to become both economic and social institutions of consequence. Therefore, the research question changes from focusing on teaching and research, to research and development concepts and strategies. Our aim is to question and modify the negative tone that has characterized the critical analysis of business schools towards a more optimistic view for understanding the impact of management education on economic and social development. In particular, we are concerned to develop a body of knowledge that surrounds the development of business schools in emerging economies when comparing them with those of Europe or other regions. Take, for example, the case of Latin American business schools. We already know the great influence of societal actors such as the Ford Foundation in developing business schools in the region. We are also aware of the great opportunities that the United States of America offers to professionalize academic professors via scholarships and research funds. However, we know little of the influence of European business schools in Latin America. We acknowledge that European accreditation agencies (e.g. EQUIS2), academic associations (e.g. LAEMOS3), and diverse institutions of higher education are entering the region offering to partner with local business schools. How is this trend manifested in other societies? We invite papers that focus on the changing roles of business schools and their future roles. We suggest the following potential research themes (but are open to others):

The role of business schools in economic and social development; Business schools as organizations; The institutionalization of business schools in diverse societies; Comparative or cross-cultural studies of business schools as organizations; Historical analysis of business schools in emerging economies; Management models derived from business schools in emerging economies; The Europeanization of business schools in emerging economies; and The Americanization of business schools in emerging economies.

Keywords: Business schools; management education; economic and social development.

2 EQUIS - European Quality Improvement System. EQUIS is an international business school

accreditation system. 3 Latin American and European Meeting on Organization Studies

3

Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.

References

Adler, N., and Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72-95. Gomez-Samper, H. (2009). Business Schools in Latin America: Global Players at Last? (pp. 170-179). In A. Davila, and M.M. Elvira, (Eds.). Best Human Resource Management Practices in Latin America. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Khurana, R. (2007). From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Starkey, K., and Tiratsoo, N. (2007). The Business School and the Bottom Line. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Usdiken, B. (2004). Americanization of European management education in historical and

comparative perspective: A symposium. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 87-89. Biographical notes Dr. Anabella Davila (Ph. D. The Pennsylvania State University, USA) is the Research and Ph. D. Program Director and Professor of Organizational Theory at EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico). She has published several edited books, two special issues and research papers in refereed journals on Latin American management. She holds the Research Chair in Culture, Human Resources and Society. Her main research interests include culture and management practices in Latin American organizations, social networks, and structure and power in organizations. Her work examines the cultural and social logic that govern Latin American business organizations. Since 1999 she has been a member of the Mexico's National Researchers System, Tier II. Dr. Maribel Blasco (Ph. D. Roskilde University, Denmark) is Associate Professor of Spanish American Studies at the Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Her main research interests include Latin American development with a focus on education, learning and youth, poverty, family relations, business, and intercultural communication. Dr. Laura Zapata-Cantu (Doctor of Business Administration, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain) is professor of Management at Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico). Dr. Zapata-Cantu holds the research Chair in European Studies. Among her research interests are knowledge management in small and medium enterprises, intellectual capital and organizational learning. Since 2006, she has been a member of Mexico’s National Researchers System, Tier I. Dr. Jacobo Ramirez (Doctor of Business Administration, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England in collaboration with Grenoble School of Management, France) is professor of Human Resource Management at the Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico). Currently, Dr. Ramirez is Assistant Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark, where he is attached to the graduate program on cross-cultural management. His current research focuses on cross-cultural studies of the formulation and impact of human resource strategy in workplaces. He is a member of Mexico’s National Researchers System, Tier I.


STREAM 2

Innovation and Entrepreneurship Processes The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENERS

Martie-Louise Verreynne, University of Queensland Business School Email: [email protected] Marcus Ho, Auckland University of Technology Email:[email protected] Retha de Villiers Scheepers, University of the Sunshine Coast Email: [email protected] The importance of entrepreneurship, innovation and small firm growth to economies is undisputed. Entrepreneurship and innovation is embedded in local environments, requires local legitimacy, resource mobilization and agency to surmount significant barriers to market, whether in localized or across international markets (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Singh, Tucker, & House, 1986). Organizational scholars have established that new firms and new industries may draw many of their resources from their local environments and community resources, fromskilled employees, services, and finance as well as a customers and suppliers (Ginsberg, Larsen, & Lomi, 2001; Shane, 2003) and are influenced by their institutional and economic environments (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Baum & Oliver, 1996). This balance of both global and local dynamics including the strategic deployment of institutional structures to enable entrepreneurship has become a central thesis for broader debates in organizational studies, including issues such as local adaptation in innovation, institutional change and evolution in entrepreneurship, rates of regional growth of new firms, and business and society interactions as well as the nature of globalization for entrepreneurship and innovation. At this APROS conference, we aim to discuss the processes that entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial firms employ to discover and create opportunities, and to successfully bring new innovations to the market. The stream starts from the premise that economic regeneration must be rooted at the local level, that strategies must be regional in design and delivery, and that the influence of both local and international dynamics have profound effects. This stream has three objectives: (1) to increase awareness among researchers on the necessity to add the much needed but often neglected time and

1 The conference will be held on AUT University’s Central City Campus.




geographic dimensions for entrepreneurship and innovation research; (2) to invite and review how Asia Pacific research has contributed to our global understanding of entrepreneurship and innovation processes; and (3) to critically engage traditional or classical management or organizational theory, particularly in light of the 'localized' approaches in the Asia-Pacific. Entrepreneurship and innovation process research has provided significant insights for organizational studies (for example, Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Shane & Venkatraman, 2000; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990) and we hope to continue this tradition by examining entrepreneurship and innovation research in a variety of settings ranging from large corporate firms to small and medium enterprises, public sector and nonprofit firms. Papers that investigate how firms and individuals deal with challenges and crises, such as the recent global financial crisis, are particularly welcome. We are also interested in a variety of research approaches such as conceptual papers, large scale quantitative studies through to case, ethnographical and other qualitative studies. Innovation in research methods is encouraged (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001; Low & MacMillan, 1989; Van Maanen, Sorensen, & Mitchell, 2007) To facilitate our objectives, we invite submissions on a wide range of entrepreneurship and innovation research in the Asia-Pacific traditions of organizational theorizing. While submissions from a wide range of perspectives and topics are welcome, we specifically invite papers on the following:

Entrepreneurial processes; Innovation process and practice; Opportunity seeking behaviour and market creation; Networking and collaboration for innovation; Business model innovation; Social and sustainable entrepreneurship; Public sector entrepreneurship; Ethnic and female entrepreneurship; Business formation and development; Commercialisation processes; Case studies in development with a focus on the entrepreneurial process; New measurement and analytical methods for the study of entrepreneurship; The impact of the recent financial crisis on entrepreneurial activity; Theories on serial and habitual entrepreneurs; International entrepreneurship; Corporate entrepreneurship; and Entrepreneurship education

Key words: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Opportunity recognition and development Process research Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.


References: Aldrich, H. E. & Fiol, C. M. 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context on industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 645-670. Baum, J. A. C. & Oliver, C. 1996. Toward an institutional ecology of organizational founding. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1378-1427. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152. Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J. 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 81-100. Ginsberg, A., Larsen, E. R., & Lomi, A. 2001. Entrepreneurship in Context: Strategic Interaction and the emergence of regional economies. In C. B. Schoonhoven & E. Romanelli (Eds.), The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lounsbury, M. & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entreprenuership: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisitions of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 545. Low, M. B. & MacMillan, I. C. 1989. Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 14: 139-161. Shane, S. & Venkatraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(217-226). Shane, S. 2003. A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 171-193. Stevenson, H. & Jarillo, J. C. 1990. A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 17-27. Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1145-1154.

Biographical notes: Martie-Louise Verreynne is a Senior Lecturer in Strategy at the University of Queensland Business School in Brisbane, Australia. She holds a PhD in Strategic Management from Massey University. Martie-Louise has presented numerous papers at national and international conferences, and has written several book chapters and articles in leading journals. She has also received various awards and grants, including three best paper awards in the strategy and public sector areas from ANZAM. Her current work is in the areas of small firm growth, strategy, entrepreneurship and innovation. Marcus Ho is a Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. His discipline-based research interests lie at the intersection of the entrepreneurship and human resources management with a special interest in entrepreneurial cognition and high technology. Marcus has published in a variety of journal outlets such as Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management. Retha de Villiers Scheepers is a Lecturer in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of the Sunshine Coast, in Sippy Downs, Australia. Her PhD from Stellenbosch University focused on the antecedents to corporate entrepreneurship in established enterprises when engaging in ICT innovations. Retha’s research interests concentrates on corporate entrepreneurship and innovation processes, business growth and entrepreneurial intentions. She has written several book chapters, papers and journal articles.

1

STREAM 3

Liminal Organizing: Daring to Imagine and the Power of Ideas The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENERS

Arne Carlsen Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Email: [email protected] Stewart Clegg University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Email: [email protected] Elena P. Antonacopoulou, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK ([email protected]) Kjersti Bjørkeng University of Technology, Sydney Email: [email protected] Tyrone S. Pitsis University of Technology, Sydney Email: [email protected]

Imagination is the supreme human capacity enabling us to transcend limitations and convert ‘absence into presence, actuality into potentiality, what-is into something-other-than-it-is’ (Kearney 1998: 4). Imagination entails the opening up of possibilities (Schutz, 1976). In this stream we want to unpack the practices of daring to imagine as a social act of generating and re-shaping ideas. We propose this process as a mark of daring both to imagine and to embrace the possibilities that ideas reflect if only we could recognise their power. We focus on the radical role of imagination in the dialectic between new ideas and hegemonic practices within and across organizational borders. We seek to expose the connections between daring, imagining and the power of ideas to make a difference. Daring to imagine and embracing the power of ideas, we argue, provides access to key processes for understanding how people in organizations, including researchers doing research (Weick 1989; Carlsen and Dutton 2011), engage in passionate pursuits of







2

innovation and social change. Imagination is central to all efforts to conceive and bring about something new, all opening up of new spaces of possibilities (Merleau-Ponty 1962/2002; Alexander 1996; Kearney 1998; Locke, Golden-Biddle and Feldman 2008). Furthermore, while imagination is always situated in some local goal-oriented activities and their material objects (Murphy 2004; Garfinkel 1967), it also extends beyond the local to larger purposes and social wholes (Alexander 1991, Joas 1996). Metaphorically, in ‘every grain of sand’ (Dylan 1981) may be discerned the events shaping social realities. In Turner’s (1967) terms, imagination, idea generation and use could be characterized as liminal practices. We invite analysis and critique of the multiple ways liminal ideas work locally (Coldevin et al 2010) as they are simultaneously located within larger social struggles (Crapanzano 2004), given the interconnectedness of the global economy of ideas. In particular we are interested in papers exploring ideas around:

Daring to imagine: What are the power-political and social implications of daring to imagine new possibilities in practices in order to bring about change at the personal, local and global levels? How does a lens of imagination allow us to reconsider risk taking, sanctioned and unsanctioned organizational behaviours, experiences and responses to dominant and subversive narratives, the defence and destruction of habits, traditions and practices?

Imaginative organizing: How are new modes of organizing and working imagined and generated? Where do ideas become possibilities and possibilities become practices? How might we explain and interrogate the ways different forms and designs of organizing release and are released by imagination and ideas?

Powerful imagination: How does imagination release us or give us possibilities for idea enactment and power to do things differently in creatively positive and unimagined ways, in mobilizing ideas and setting imagination free (Clegg 2006)? How do power structures inhibit, smother or stop ideas from exploring their potential? Where does the power of ideas lie? What are the possibilities and means of exploiting such a power, and what might its consequences be?

Liminal spaces: Where is imagination embodied and how is that embodiment transformed, between states of being and becoming and the possibilities of what can be? What are the insecurities and ambiguities, and experiences of existence in the liminal space? How do prototypes get created, mediated, and disseminated? How are ideas seen as dangerous or as glimpses into what people, organizations and societies could become?

Imagining wholes: How are organizational activities imagined in terms of everyday struggles, power mobilizations, which enable social practice that dares to believe it will make a difference? What brings about expanding moral imagination (Obama 2009) in social assemblies? How does the process of becoming what one can be reveal the connections between ideas and practices and their impact in a connected and generative way?



3

References Alexander, T. M. 1990. The pragmatic imagination. Trans. Charles S. Peirce Society 26(3): 325–348. Alexander, T. M. 1996. Community and Creativity. In R. W. Burch and H. J. Saatkamp, Jr., (eds.) Frontiers in American Philosophy, Vol 2. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 328-337. Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2010. Beyond co-production: Practice-relevant scholarship as a foundation for delivering impact through powerful ideas, Public Money and Management Carlsen, A. and Dutton, J. (Eds.) forthcoming 2011. Research Alive. Exploring Generative Moments in Doing Qualitative Research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Clegg, S. R. 2006. The bounds of rationality: Power/history/imagination. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17: 847-863. Crapanzano, V. 2004. Imaginative Horizons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dylan, B. 1981. Every Grain of Sand. Shot of Love. New York: CBS Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies of Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Joas, H. 1996. The Creativity of Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Kearney, Richard. 1998. Poetics of Imagining. New York: Fordham University Press. Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. & Feldman, M. (2008.) Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science 19(6): 907 – 918. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962/2002. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge. Murphy, I. 2004. Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture and Activity 11(4): 267–278. Obama, 2009. Nobel Price Acceptance Speech. Transcript last accessed 2010-01-12 at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/obama.transcript/index.html

Schutz, A. 1976, “Fragments on the Phenomenology of Music” in In Search of Musical Method, ed. F.J. Smith, London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 23–71.

Turner, V. W. 1967 ‘Chapter IV: Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in rites de passage' in his Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell UP pp 93-111

Biographical notes Arne Carlsen ([email protected]) is Senior Scientist at SINTEF Technology and Society where he has initiated and managed a series of multidisciplinary research projects with leading organizations. He has edited Living Knowledge (with Roger Klev and Georg Von Krogh, Palgrave, 2004), Research Alive (with Jane Dutton, CBS Press, 2011), and has published in journals, books, handbooks and encyclopaedias. Currently he is also doing a Post Doc at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department for Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture. Stewart Clegg ([email protected]) is Research Professor and Director of the Centre for Management and Organization Studies Research at the University of Technology, Sydney and he is also a Visiting Professor at Copenhagen Business School, EM-Lyon and Universidade Nova. A prolific publisher in leading academic journals in social science, management and organization theory, he is also the author and editor of many books, including the following Sage volumes: Handbook of Power (with Mark Haugaard 2009), Handbook of Macro-Organization Behaviour (with Cary Cooper 2009), and Handbook of Organization Studies (with Cynthia Hardy, Walter Nord and Tom Lawrence, 2006). Elena P. Antonacopoulou ([email protected]) is Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of Liverpool Management School where she is Director of GNOSIS - a research initiative advancing impactful collaborative research in management and organization studies. She is published in a range of international journals on themes such as: Organizational and Management Learning, Social Practice, Complexity and Dynamic Capabilities and has been instrumental in applying the ideas of her scholarship in her leadership roles (at Board, Council, Executive and Committee level) in International Professional bodies in her field including EGOS, AoM, EURAM, BAM, SAMS




4

Kjersti Bjørkeng ([email protected]) Kjersti Bjørkeng is a Senior Researcher at SINTEF Technology and Society and a core member of the Centre of Management Studies and Research at the University of Technology, Sydney. She has published in journals, books and handbooks on organizational studies and has also initiated and managed a series of multidisciplinary research projects with leading organizations in Norway. Tyrone S. Pitsis ([email protected]) is co-director at the Centre for Management & Organization Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. He is a phenomenological psychologist studying the co-creation of managerial and organizational innovation through collaboration. He does all the usual academic things such as publishing, teaching and researching. His latest publication is the Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation. Edward-Elgar: NJ. He has an honours degree in psychology from University of New South Wales, a PhD in Management from University of Technology, Sydney and will soon begin studies for PhD in the Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Sydney, where he will investigates positive future thinking, self-regulation and the psychology of liminality.



STREAM 4

Art and design in management The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENERS Damian Ruth Massey University, Wellington, Aotearoa-New Zealand Email: [email protected] Ralph Bathurst Massey University, Auckland, Aotearoa-New Zealand Email: [email protected]

Discussion on the use of art in management has grown exponentially in the last few years. It seems that every field of art has a contribution to make (Taylor & Ladkin, 2009). Although there are several recognisable communities around which the field is forming (see Taylor & Hansen, 2005 for a summary), there are still many areas in their infancy and yet to be explored. Questions remain about the relationships between art and management (Barry, 1994) and of the ways in which aesthetics informs organizing and leadership within large and small enterprises (see Guillet de Monthoux, Gustafsson, & Sjöstrand, 2007). More precise questions might be:

Is the writing exploring an art and using management as illustration? Is it extending management theory or practice using an art? Is the use of art surrogating for therapy in management? Is the use of art opening up more critical spaces for management theory?

Along with conceptual and practitioner-based papers, we also invite contributions that explore the artful classroom in ways that show how the arts are used as tools which encourage student engagement (Bathurst, Sayers, & Monin, 2008; Ryman, Porter, & Galbraith, 2009) or papers that asks if the use art by educators is a ‘soft option’ in teaching. This, then, is an open-ended call for papers. The stream convenors aim to create a stream that reflects a broad range of possibilities. Papers that focus on one particular art form are welcome. The following are possible sub-themes; however contributors should not feel constrained in form or content:

Poetry and management; Drama and management; Sculpture and management; Painting/drawing and management; Music and management; Art in general and management;


Art as source of management and organizational theory; Art in management education; and Art in management practice.

Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] (Damian Ruth) by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.

References Barry, D. (1994). Making the invisible visible: Using analogically-based methods to surface unconscious organizational processes. Organization Development Journal, 12(4), 37–48. Bathurst, R. J., Sayers, J., & Monin, N. (2008). Finding beauty in the banal: An exploration of service work in the artful classroom. Journal of Management and Organization, 14(5), 521–534. Guillet de Monthoux, P., Gustafsson, C., & Sjöstrand, S.-E. (Eds.). (2007). Aesthetic leadership: Managing fields of flow in art and business. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Ryman, J. A., Porter, T. W., & Galbraith, C. S. (2009). Disciplined imagination: Art and metaphor in the business school classroom. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 10(8–10), 1–26. Taylor, S. S., & Hansen, H. (2005). Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1211–1231. Taylor, S. S., & Ladkin, D. (2009). Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 55–69. Biographical Notes: Damian Ruth lectures in strategy and organisational change at Massey University, Wellington. He has been a management and educational consultant and editor for many years and has published more than 50 conference papers, articles, chapters and reports in the arts and humanities, social sciences, education and management. Current research is on strategic and change, reflective professional educational practice, and arts-based management education with particular reference to design. Ralph Bathurst lectures at the Albany Campus of Massey University in leadership and management. His research interests include organisational aesthetics, the art of leadership, ethics and sustainability. Ralph’s background as an orchestral musician and music educator also informs his work in arts management, with a specific focus on the symphony orchestra.


STREAM 5

(re)Organizing Cosmopolitanisms

The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1 Stream conveners:

STREAM CONVENERS

Paul White Swansea University, Wales, UK Email: [email protected] Alison Pullen Swansea University, Wales, UK Email: [email protected] Carl Rhodes Swansea University, Wales, UK Email: [email protected]

‘Cosmopolitanism is not just – or perhaps not at all – an idea. Cosmopolitanism is

infinite ways of being. To understand that we are already cosmopolitan, however much

and often this mode of being has been threatened by the work of purification means to

understand these ways in their full breadth through a disciplinary cosmopolitanism.’

(Pollock, et al., 2002, p. 12)

‘The prospects for cosmopolitanism depend upon the maintenance of a certain degree of

‘world openness’, a capacity to embrace the culture of the other’s culture

unconditionally...’

(Featherstone, 2002, p.13)

‘A reciprocity and a seriality of the roles of hosts and guests moves us toward an

appreciation of that social state where neither party is clearly or absolutely ‘at home’ in

a place, or where one is at home in and through ‘being away’.

(Rapport, 2006, p. 182)

‘It was not the lack of progress but, on the contrary, development (technoscientific,

artistic, economic, political) which created the possibility of total war, totalitarianisms, 1 The conference will be held on the AUT University’s Central City Campus.




the growing gap between the wealth of the North and the impoverished South,

unemployment and the “new poor” and the crisis in education (in the transmission of

knowledge), and the isolation of the artistic avant-gardes (and for a while now their

repudiation).’

(Lyotard, 1992, p. 97-98)

Cosmopolitanism is figured in multiple ways across disciplines as an ethical challenge to

processes and practices of totalitarianism, globalisation, localisation, citizenship, diaspora,

boundaries and figurations of the ‘other’. Working especially against the cross-national one-

sided blandness of globalisation, cosmopolitanism troubles the divide between commonality

and distinction on a world wide scale. This cosmopolitanism offers the possibility of re-

invigorating the place of the individual within social worlds (and inter-national forms of

governance) to protect the rights or uphold the welfare of the individual, beyond the confines of

individual nation states. This issue speaks directly to the APROS conference theme in terms of

the relation between the assumed global neutrality of management technologies and their

instantiation in the multiplicity of localities.

From Diogenes Laertius the ancient ‘citizen of the world’ and Immanuel Kant’s advocacy of the

rights of ‘citizens of the earth’, the cosmopolitan is associated with a re-‘orientation’ of politics,

identity and ideas of nation toward a more universal and global perspective. More

contemporary discussions add to the universality of the ‘cosmos’ dimensions revolving around

hospitality, refuge, asylum, generosity, trust, displacement, the supranational and regard for the

‘other’. The move is for a cosmopolitanism that respects the differences that make up its

universality.

In this stream we envisage cosmopolitanism as a trope of the theorisations and formalisations

of modernity whereby the tensions and aspirations of the local against the global, self and other,

like and unlike are challenged and made visible through a global regard for the other.

Cosmopolitanism bodies forth an ethical demand that has been subject to differing levels of

amplification through ‘human’ history. It invokes notions of regard, welfare, identity,

attachment, hospitality, loyalty, trust, or indeed the place of the outsider, the alien and the

stranger – all matters which, explicitly or implicitly resound with the possibility of a

cosmopolitics and organization. We note too that recent literature and debate within the social

sciences have intensified the argument for the cosmopolitan and in turn have (re)produced an

array of cosmopolitanisms which all lay the case for an ethical demand against forms of

violence, neglect and intolerance that mark the globalised world. The challenge posed by this

stream is to examine carefully the place of cosmopolitics, the cosmopolis, the cosmopolite and

processes of, and demand for, cosmopoliticisation as they are rendered visible through

organisation, and a global regard for the other.

As relevant to organisation studies, ‘role orientation’ has been central to understandings of

cosmopolitanism in terms of the categories of ‘cosmopolitans-locals’ derived from the work of

Alvin Gouldner (developed from Robert Merton) in the 1950s. This cosmopolitan is conceived in

relation to its other and holds contemporary resonance for organisations and organisation

theory in terms of the reference groups that people in organizations identify with, dis-identify

with or render as strangers. Crucially, such a distinction of ‘role orientation’ in management

theory has been reduced to a differentiation of loyalty to the firm, to the nation state, to

professions and within a broader frame of corporate responsibility, but this need not be so and

questions arise concerning locality, to whom and under what conditions remain unanswered.

Arguably, the condition of cosmopolitanism or the possibility for cosmopolitanism has almost

been lost within organization theory as its multiple and contestable meanings get violently

reduced to the signification of a variable that remains as a supplement within and across

organisations; the local versus the cosmopolitan. Critically, the challenge of cosmopolitanism to

organisation theory remains largely unexplored, especially on a political and ethical level.

In this stream we wish to examine current debates surrounding cosmopolitanism and bring

them to bear on the realities of organisations. We encourage contributions which engage

theoretically and empirically with (pro and contra) the challenges of cosmopolitanism to

organisation, organisational challenges to the cosmopolitan, the dangers of cosmopolitanism

and an outline of forms of cosmopolitanism as rendered visible through organisation. In this

sense, we warmly welcome papers that consider issues raised by cosmopolitanism, including

but not limited to the following topics as they relate to work, organisations and management:

Cosmopolitanism and affect

Cosmopolitanism and post-

colonialism

Cosmopolitanism, subjectivities and

the other

The cosmopolite as employee

Cosmopolitanism and indigenous

peoples

The stranger as cosmopolitan

Embodying cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism and disability

Cosmopolitanism as ontology

The challenges of cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitan economy

Diasporic labour

Immigration and the cosmopolitan

Cosmopolitanism and cultural

economy

Bureaucracy and cosmopolitanism

Social venture capital and

cosmopolitics

Corporate social responsibility and

accountability

Language and cosmopolitanism

Mobilities and cosmopolitan

identities

Technologies of cosmopolitics

Cosmopolitical discourse

Cosmopolitan innovation

Cosmopolitanism and differénce

including gender and sexuality

Methodological cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism and academia

Neoliberals and cosmopolitanism

Abjection and violence

Cosmopolis

Cosmopolitan spaces and places

Science fiction and alternate modes

of organising

Aliens and foreigners

Cosmopolitanism as object and

subject

This track will form the basis for a planned edited collection that explores cosmopolitanism and

organisation.



References

Featherstone, M. (2002). Cosmopolis: An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society. 19(1-2); 1-16.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1992 [1986]). The Postmodern Explained to Children: Correspondence 1982-1985. London: Turnaround.

Pollock, S., Bhabha, H.K., Breckenridge, C.A., Chakrabarty, D. (2002). Cosmopolitanisms. In: Breckenridge, C. A., Pollock, S., Bhabha, H.K., Chakrabarty, D. (eds.). Cosmopolitanism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rapport, N. (2006). Diaspora, Cosmopolis, Global Refuge: Three Voices of the Supranational City. In: Coleman, S., Collins, P. (eds.). Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology. Oxford: Berg.

Paul White is a Lecturer in Culture and Organization at the School of Business and Economics in Swansea University, Wales (UK). He has conducted ethnographic research that focussed on alterity and effacement in health care settings, bodies of liminality, the impacts of specific forms of incentivisation (market devices) on primary care practitioners and the appropriation of ethics in the legitimation of pre-figured outcomes. Paul has an academic background in sociology and a clinical background in nursing; he likes to think that he is post-structural in his theoretical leanings, which are currently focussed on organisation as a specific space of arrangement. Such arrangements (he believes) are drawn from certain (frequently tacit) assumptions that are reproduced in distinct organisational practices. In turn, such practices have a direct impact on the individuals within such an arrangement, profiting some and marginalising others, yet the marginal are rendered marginal as they threaten the integrity of the arrangement. To unconceal some of the negative effects of particular modes of thought that are assumed to be ‘good and right’ yet have deleterious effects on specific individuals and groups is part of his broader ‘ethical’ project; although he could also be accused of setting himself impossible goals. Alison Pullen works at Swansea University, Wales, UK where she is currently Head of the People, Organizations and Work research group and Deputy Head of the School of Business and Economics. Alison has written extensively across the broad areas of self-identity, gender, and work and organizational practices covering themes such as managerial work, organizational change, gendered organizational practices, corporeality, identity and ethics, feminist philosophy and gender inequality. She is Associate Editor of Gender, Work and Organization. Alison’s interest in cosmopolitanism and organization relates to corporeal spaces and identities, marginalisation, abjection and difference. Carl Rhodes is Professor of Organization Studies at Swansea University, UK. His research focuses on critically interrogating the narration and representation of organizational experience in practice and popular culture, with a particular concern with the possibilities for organizational ethics and responsibility. Carl’s most recent books are Bits of Organization (Liber, 2009 co-edited with Alison Pullen) and Critical Representations of Work and Organization in Popular Culture (Routledge, 2008 co-authored with Robert Westwood). He is interested in cosmopolitanism to the extent that it harbours the possibility of an ethically affirmative means through which to think through and enact ways of working, organizing and being in a globalized world.

1

STREAM 6

From the Outside – In: Re-Historicising and Decolonising Management and Organisation Studies The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENERS

Bob Westwood University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Email: [email protected] Gavin Jack La Trobe University, Australia Email: [email protected] Until quite recently we might have been forgiven for imagining that management and organisation studies (MOS), and even professional management practice itself, were the inventions of North Atlantic elites. Indeed, Jamieson (1980) had argued that ‘management’, as an academic/professional discourse, was an American invention. That may well be true in a simplistic and very confined sense, but within orthodox and mainstream MOS there has further been a persistent tendency to ignore or even efface its own provenance. More specifically it has remained silent, with a few exceptions, about aspects of the historical, ideological and politico-economic conditions of the emergence of that discourse and related practices. What we mean by that statement is that there has been scant acknowledgement of, and limited attention to, the complex and deep imbrication of MOS and the conditions of its emergence in the colonial, neo-colonial and imperial projects of the past four centuries or so. There has been a kind of pretence that academic discourse emerged under conditions of scientific objectivity and scholarly distance and disengagement and that professional practice emerged under conditions of impersonal and rational-economic responses to purely business/management exigencies. The conditions of emergence are characterised as ones of neutrality and innocence – decontextualised and de-historicised. This occurrence ignores the fact that both North Atlantic industrial and post-industrial capitalism, and the organisations and enterprises that sustain it, as well as the academic activities and discourse that were a (frequently justificatory) meta-commentary upon them, were enacted within the structures and practices of colonialism and imperialism. Concretely, many of the principles and practices of management and organisation upon which contemporary approaches are founded were developed in the context of the mundane operations of colonial control and administration. This context includes inter alia the complex organisational and trade structures developed in relation to companies such as the British East India Company, the management and organisation of plantations around the world,




2

the management of slavery, and the whole paraphernalia associated with the industrial-military complex associated with colonial occupation and administration. Further, much adjacent academic discourse was emergent as ‘science’, and academic investigations were often put at the service of the colonial project and the neo-colonial global industrialisation processes.

North Atlantic intellectual hegemony in these areas has persisted, enabled by a range of structures, practices and conditions. These include, among other things: i. The continued presumption of the superiority and efficacy of the West’s knowledge

systems, theories and methodologies, as well as the concomitant devaluation and exclusion of others;

ii. The assumption and promulgation of universalism in relation to its knowledge and knowledge systems; and

iii. The perpetuation of an elaborate institutional frame wherein the North Atlantic continues to control much of the knowledge production and distribution mechanisms associated with MOS such as the university system, the globalised production and dissemination of MOS education products, models and pedagogy, control of the major professional academies, and most importantly control of the salient journals and other components of the publishing machine.

This intellectual and cultural hegemony and the associated structures and conditions that sustain it have produced and continue to reproduce unequal and asymmetrical relationships between the North Atlantic and much of the rest of the world, particularly the Less Developed and Developing World. As in other domains, structures and relationships of dependency have been built up that people and institutions from the periphery find it hard to break (Alatas, 2000; 2003). They are continually confronted by the North Atlantic hegemony and its institutional frame and the flows of knowledge and resources tend to map the colonial, postcolonial and imperial power flows (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2003). This statement is not pitched to suggest an inescapable unidirectionality or totalising effect, but rather, the existence ofan uneven and distorted set of relationships. Recent work, some of it informed by postcolonial theory, has begun to address these imbalances and to problematise the hegemonic effects of the North Atlantic dominance in MOS. It is work that seeks to decolonise, recontextualise and re-historicise MOS and management and organisation practice. Furthermore, formally silent or silenced indigenous voices have begun to be heard that do articulate alternatives, including ones founded in different knowledge systems and practices and drawing on alternative ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. These developments articulate with and are given momentum by shifts in the wider geo-political and economic order with an apparent decline in North Atlantic economic dominance and the strengthening and emergence of economies from elsewhere, particularly China and India. Along with those shifts go the greater visibility and viability of alternative modes of capitalism, business, organisation and management. This call for papers seeks to add momentum to these recent trajectories by creating a forum for critical scholars to reflect further on these transitional processes and to contribute to a further provincialisation of the knowledge pretensions of the North Atlantics MOS regimes. It encourages papers that do so either through a further radical decolonisation, re-historicising and re-contextualising of those regimes or the advocacy of alternatives that are based on different and indigenous knowledge regimes and practices. Given the difficulties attendant upon any politics of knowledge, we also welcome papers that address the issue from that perspective and provide insights and guidance on strategies that are facilitative of these emerging trajectories and which will practically rectify some of the asymmetries and dependencies that we currently see still prevailing. Hence we invite papers that might be guided by, but are at liberty to deviate from, questions such as these:

3

What would a re-historicised MOS look like? What examples of historical revisions of MOS make a difference to its reconfiguration? In what ways can MOS be shown to have participated in and/or been informed by

colonial, neo-colonial or imperialistic impulses? How might we provincialise and decolonise MOS? In what ways does the institutional frame of MOS produce and reproduce asymmetries

and distortions in the construction and dissemination of MOS knowledge? What strategies might best facilitate improved visibility and impact of MOS voices from

the periphery and semi-periphery? Can the structures of intellectual and academic dependency be broken down, and if so

how? What aspects of indigenous management and organisation practice represent a serious

challenge to the orthodoxies of the North Atlantic centre? How can or is indigenous MOS theorised differently? Are there alternative ontologies and epistemologies that inform, or could inform, MOS

research practice? What research methods are available, or could be developed, that avoid appropriations,

essentialisms and totalising effects? Despite North Atlantic hegemony and universalistic pretensions, the flow of knowledge

and influence has not been uni-directional. What examples of counter-flows or hybridisations are there?

Do transnational flows, relationships and structures cut across and undercut the entrenched, state anchored power asymmetries?

If we take the local, the non-universal and the particularities of context seriously, what does that do to our research and theorising practice?

Submission: Abstracts (max. 1000 words, A4 paper, single spaced, 12 point font) should be submitted to [email protected] by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.

References Alatas, S.H. (2000): "Intellectual imperialism: Definition, traits and problems." Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 28 (1), 23-45. Alatas, S.F. (2003): "Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences." Current Sociology, 51, 599-633. Frenkel, M. & Y. Shenhav (2003): "From Americanization to Colonization: The diffusion of productivity models revisited." Organization Studies, 24, 1537-1561. Jamieson, I. (1980) Capitalism and Culture: A Comparative Analysis of British and American Manufacturing Organisations. Farnborough: Gower. Biographical Notes Bob Westwood is Professor of Organization Studies, School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. He has worked at leading business schools in the Asia Pacific region for the past 25 years and has published widely in critical aspects of international management and organization studies. His latest books include: Rhodes & Westwood, "Critical Representations of Work and Organizations in Popular Culture", Routledge, 2008; Westwood & Rhodes (eds.), "Humour, Work and Organization", Routledge, 2007; Jack & Westwood, “International and Cross-Cultural Management Studies: A Postcolonial Reading", Palgrave, 2009. He is on the Editorial Board of Organization Studies, Culture and Organization and four other journals. Gavin Jack is Professor of Management in the Graduate School of Management, La Trobe


4

University, Australia. He has researched and published on critical and postcolonial approaches to organization studies and was co-editor of a special issue of the Academy of Management Review entitled 'International Management: Critique and New Directions'. He is also co-author with Bob of the book noted above: “International and Cross-Cultural Management Studies: A Postcolonial Reading" He is an Associate Editor with the journal Organization and in 2010-11 (joint) Professional Development Workshop chair of the Critical Management Studies Division of the Academy of Management.

1

STREAM 7

TOPOGRAPHY AND

ORGANISATION The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1 Stream conveners:

STREAM CONVENORS Janet Sayers Massey University, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected] Bronwyn Boon Otago University, Dunedin, Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected] Wendelin Kupers Massey University, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected]

“Each moment I felt increasing upon me that dreadful doubt as to my own identity—as to the continuity of my past and present existence—which is the first sign of that distraction which comes on those who have lost themselves in the bush. I had fought against this feeling hitherto, and had conquered it; but the intense silence and gloom of this rocky wilderness were too much for me, and I felt that my power of collecting myself was beginning to be impaired” Samuel Butler, 1872, Erewhon

The word ‘topography’ is from the Greek ‘topo-‘(place) and ‘graphia’, ‘graphia’ (writing). It is the study of the Earth’s surface, shape, features and is especially important to cartography and map-making. In its widest sense, topography is concerned with local details such as landscapes, local histories and local cultures. Topography in organisational studies has to do with the study of role of place in organizing. For example if we take the comment just above from early New Zealand novelist Samuel Butler we might suggest that physical features such as the ‘bush’ in Bulter’s case can have a profound effect on re-organizing our identities and relations to others. With respect to the APROS conference our attentions is particularly turned to the many places of the region that border and populate the Pacific Ocean: Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Island nations, South America, and Asia. The region is topographically very diverse made up of volcanoes, mountainous ranges, fiords, oceans, islands, rivers, bush, deserts, and other features that contribute to the development of organisational characteristics and the people that create and work in them.





2

In Organisational Studies there is a growing interest in rethinking organisational practice from place-based perspectives. Some research has for example explored how local forms of organizing are translated differently in different territories, and how such processes ‘trouble’ theories of organisation. In recent times such work has become to draw on post-colonial theories and perspectives (Westwood & Jack, 2009)

The aim of this stream is to bring together researchers interested in studying organisations (and organizing more generally) as they relate to place and exploring new ways to critically think about place in and of organisations. For example papers might relate organisational issues to land and culture or more particularly explore relations between organisations and place in cities, towns, rural life and among animal populations. Alternatively papers might explore the organization of place in, for example, architecture and mythology. Papers might address cartographies, mapping practices and the ‘views’ (including ideas about the ‘landscape’) that emanate from particular centres of knowledge (the so-called ‘centres’ of Europe and America).

To achieve this, papers might draw resources from a range of traditions, disciplines and fields including social and cultural geography [see for example ‘becoming places’ (Pred, 1984), relation-scapes (Manning 2009) and ‘task-scapes’ (Ingold, 1993, 2000)]. Papers might alternatively draw inspiration from philosophies of the body and embodiment related to place-scapes (Casey, 1993), especially Merleau-Ponty’s (1962, 1995, 2003) phenomenology and ontology (Küpers 2010). Other insightful perspectives are also to be found in cultural and media studies as such work relates to organisational and management practice. For example, documentary films such as ‘The Last Resort’ (2006), which critically analyzed the sale of the Blue Bay Motor Camp at Mahia Peninsula (on New Zealand’s East Coast) has had a significant impact on changing public opinion and government policy about coastal land management practices and coastal development in New Zealand. Films with organisational themes such as Australia’s ‘Kenny’ are highly analysable by management writers interested in post-colonial issues, as are Peter Jackson’s movies which sometimes provide illuminating insights into ‘post-settler’ psychology (Sayers, 2011, forthcoming). Likewise literature analysis also provides insights that may be of use to organisational studies (e.g. in the work of Coetzee, 1997; Watts, 2010).

Other possible topics could include:

Difference and the relationality of spaces and places.

Localising leader-ship and followership in organisations.

The optics of walking e.g. management by walking around, proximity and distance leadership.

Experience and place (Malpas, 1999), especially the relationship between the senses and place: sight, sound (place-acoustics), smell, touch, and taste in emplaced organisations and their studies.

Poetry, literature, film aesthetics, place and organisational themes.

The aesthetics of natural environments and organisational studies; organisational aesthetics (Gagliardi, 1996).

Local creative industries.

Rural and small town organisations as they relate to local conditions, cultures and topographical features.

Landscape and identity.

The topography of the Asia-Pacific region and business development issues.

Farming, agriculture, animal production or tourism and national business cultures.

3

Islands, rivers and other water-based issues in organisational studies.

The post-colonial sublime.

Post-settler identity and business.

Local landscape art practice and breaking the frame of the imperial gaze.

Resistances to newer colonial forces.

Indigenous business issues and ‘backyard’ businesses.

Local psychology, entrepreneurship, leadership and other management issues.

The geography of different practices, e.g. nursing (McIntosh, 2008).

The outdoors, wild places, getting lost and organisational studies.

Lifestyle businesses and the natural environment.

Natural disasters and business.

Sustainability and the environment.

Place and Technology, Embodiment in CyperspacePlaces and Tele-Presence.

Dis-Placement and Relocation at work-places.

In general we welcome papers interested in exploring and celebrating place related themes as they connect to organisational and management studies2.

Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] (Janet Sayers) by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.

REFERENCES

Butler, S. (1872). Erewhon Project Gutenburg Book

Casey, E. (1993). Getting back into place. Toward a renewed understanding of the place-world, Bloomington:

University of Indiana Press.

Coetzee, J. M. (1997). The lives of animals, The Tanner lectures on human values. Princeton University, USA.

Gagliardi, P. (1996). Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook

of organization studies (pp. 565 — 580). London: Sage.

Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152—174.

Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays of livelihood, dwelling and skills. London:

Routledge.

Küpers, W. (2010). ‘Inter-Place’— Phenomenology of Embodied Space and Place as Basis for a Relational

Understanding of Leader- and Follow-ship in Organisations’. Environment, Space, Place, 2(1)

Malpas, J. (1999). Place and experience: A philosophical topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2 The convenors are discussing an edited book based on this theme and suitable papers are sought that could

contribute to this book. Further information will be forthcoming.


4

Manning, E. (2009). Relationscapes: movement, art, philosophy, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

McIntosh, P. (2008). ‘Poetics and space: Developing a reflective landscape through imagery and human

geography’ Reflective Practice 9(1), 69—78.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1995). The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). Nature. Course notes from the College de France (R. Vallier, Trans.) Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University Press

Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming

places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74(2), 279—297.

Sayers, J. (2011, forthcoming). ‘Reading Peter Jackson’s 'Braindead': Splatter and the post-settler

consciousness In Vampires and zombies’, Transnational Transformations. Ohio: Ohio University Press

Watts, E. (2010). Settler postcolonialism as a reading strategy’. American Literary History, 22(2), 459—470.

Westwood, R., & Jack, G. (2009). Manifesto for a post-colonial international business and management

studies: A provocation. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 3(3), 246—265.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES:

Janet Sayers is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management (Albany) at Massey University. Janet’s doctorate in sociology from the University of Auckland examined service work from the perspective of customers. She has recently written papers on William Blake’s dystopian illuminated poem ‘London’, the post-settler imagination in Peter Jackson’s splatter movie ‘Braindead’ and is currently writing a paper on home-based businesses in the city using place-based perspectives, and on Auckland’s amnesia about its geological (volcanic) and social/cultural history. Bronwyn Boon is a Lecturer within the Department of Management at the University of Otago. While her research and teaching interest in the phenomena of work organisations is varied, it tends to gravitate around the themes of knowledge, power, and identity - of the subject and of place. More recently, she has extended her research focus into the third sector. Wendelin Küpers’ phenomenological and inter-/transdisciplinary research on organisational life-worlds and

management focuses on bodily, affective and aesthetic dimensions using Merleau-Ponty’s ontology of

embodiment related to. He has developed the concept of “inter-place” (2010) for understanding embodied

space and the place of leader- and followership in organisations. Here the ‘spacing’ and implacement of

organisations, leadership and followership must be interpreted as local-historical and local-cultural

processes. I am particularly interested in ‘potential spaces’ and a place-responsiveness for more sustainable

ways of organising and managing.

STREAM 8

LOCAL ORGANIZING AND SUSTAINABILITY: WHAT’S POSSIBLE? The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENORS

Sara Walton University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected] Kate Kearins Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected] Sustainability, or the ‘S’ word, is in danger of being overused to the point of meaning everything and nothing. But as a concept, it seriously does matter when one’s local environment or experience of the global commons is degraded or impinged upon, now or for future generations. Climate change, as a sustainability-related issue, simultaneously brings to the fore the embedded notion of the ‘local’ within ‘global’ systems. Food consumption also generally invokes local and increasingly global chains of production. Whose waste belongs where is another sustainability-related issue with both local and global impacts. The issues involved, are far from unproblematic. Looking after one’s own patch, reducing national emissions profiles, buying and eating local - in short ‘localism’ or ‘localisation’ - frequently gets positioned as the favourable option in sustainability debates (Singer & Mason, 2006) but it is doubtful that our best efforts at minimising impacts are always achieved or should be directed at the local level. In addition, the notion of what constitutes local is not always clearly defined - leading to a questioning of what does constitute ‘local ‘and how can we better organise for sustainability? There are many ways to conceptualise local in relation to sustainability and this call for papers encourages wide-ranging thinking in the area. For example, local can be represented as resistance to global. In this way, it is seen to actively resist the ‘global’. This tradition of localisation as an act of resistance represents the local as an alternative to what is occurring at the time (North, 2010; Winter, 2003). Furthermore, in the context of peak oil and climate change it is suggested that there is a process of reverse globalisation occurring that represents an opportunity to build more “ecologically sustainable, more local and more convivial economies” (North, 2010: 586). Air and food miles are concepts that managers, particularly of those organisations located at some distance from their markets are necessarily grappling with. Finally, it seems, sustainability is gaining some traction as a systems level concept – but will it go out of fashion or be put in the too hard basket as a result?




Precisely what is meant by ‘local’ is contested, and as such ‘local’ can be considered a ‘relative term’ (Woodin & Lucas, 2004). This stream is concerned with what is local and the relationship between local and sustainability. Sustainability as a multi-level concept (Starik & Rands, 1995) has to engage both at the global and local levels and this relationship frequently causes considerable friction. While at the local level, the global influences what might be construed as sustainability, it should be remembered too that the local level influences global sustainability. This stream calls for papers that explore the notion of local in relation to organising for sustainability. Sustainability provides a useful context to study the relationship between local and global and indeed the study of these relationships adds value to understandings of sustainability. Key questions could include, but are not limited to:

- How does where you are from influence the way in which you conceptualise sustainability?

- What constitutes local? - Is local necessarily best understood by opposing the notion of global or can we

recognise the two as an intertwined dichotomy? Is the term glocalisation (Wodak, 2005, Larner, 2001) of any particular use in advancing our theorising?

- What value is there in bioregionalism? - How does location affect responses to climate change, to the food and air miles debate

and to consumption and waste? - How does location affect organising for sustainability? - How can an organisation, like a business, simultaneously ‘think global and act local’? - What should a conference like this one set out to achieve in order to justify its existence?

Key words: location, local, sustainability, climate change, food consumption/production, waste Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011.

References Larner W, 2001, "Governing globalisation: the New Zealand call centre attraction initiative" Environment and Planning A 33(2) 297-312

North, P. (2010). Eco-localisation as a progressive response to peak oil and climate change - A sympathetic review. Geoforum, 41(2010), 585-594. Singer, P. & J.,Mason.(2006).The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, Melbourne; Random House Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908-935. Sturgeon, T. J. (2001). How do we define value chains and production networks? IDS Bulletin, 32(3), 9-18. Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 23-32. Wodak, R., (2005) Editorial: Global and local patterns in political discourses — ‘Glocalisation.’ Journal of Language & Politics; 4(3), 367-370.


Biographies

Sara Walton is a senior lecturer in the area of business, sustainability and the natural environment. Her research includes analysing triple bottom line (TBL) company reports and constructions of sustainability, examining ecopreneurial businesses in New Zealand, business responses to climate change and natural resource based conflicts.

Kate Kearins is a professor with interests in business, sustainability and stakeholder engagement. Increasingly she is considering possibilities for alternative ways of organising that support nature, and diminish the production of harm. Her work focuses on local expressions and broader theoretical explanations, published across a range of journals.

STREAM 9

OPEN STREAM The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

STREAM CONVENORS

Deborah Jones Victoria University of Wellington Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected] Todd Bridgman Victoria University of Wellington Aotearoa New Zealand Email: [email protected]

The Open Stream welcomes papers that address a current research theme, issue or problem in the organization studies field but do not align easily with the focus of the other eight streams. For example, papers might address the organizational dynamics of power, control, resistance, identity, diversity, gender, minorities, indigeneity, ethics, emotions, or networks. Papers might alternatively address specific contemporary issues such as poverty, recession, financial crisis, new technologies, governance, branding, supply chain processes, risk and security, as these relate to organizing and organizations. Or papers might engage with traditional or classical management or organizational theory, or a domain of organizational practice, e.g., consulting, accounting, information systems, marketing, operations management, industrial relations, innovation and entrepreneurship. Submission: Abstracts should be about 1000 words in length (including references), set in A4 page layout, single spaced and in 12 point font. They should be sent by email to [email protected] by May 1, 2011. Full papers for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings are due by October 30, 2011. Biographical Notes: Deborah Jones is an associate professor at Victoria Management School. She has published on gender, ethnicity and equality in organisational studies, and on cultural labour and creative industries . She is a coordinator of OIL (Organisation, Identity and Locality), the Critical Management Studies group in New Zealand. Todd Bridgman is a senior lecturer in organisational behaviour in the Victoria Management School and a former journalist. He completed his PhD at the University of Cambridge and and has recently edited The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies (Oxford University Press, 2009) with Mats Alvesson and Hugh Willmott.





Stream 10 Friction at the Interface: Rethinking Organizational Boundaries

The 14th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference Nov 29-Dec 1 2011 School of Management, Massey University Auckland, New Zealand1

Stream conveners

Peter Fleming Queen Mary, University of London, Email: [email protected] Christina Garsten Score, Stockholm University, Email: [email protected] Axel Haunschild University of Trier, Email: [email protected]

In the wake of globalizing forces (social, financial, political), organizational boundaries are being

transcended, re-drawn, as well as erected. The rise of project-based forms of organizing, new

career patterns, flexible forms of employment and hybrid organizational forms (e.g. alliances,

networks) have lead to changing organizational boundaries. It is common understanding that

organizational boundaries have become ‘fluid’ and more complex (Leng/Dahles 2005) or

‘blurred’ (Marchington et al. 2005). Some authors have even declared the ‘boundaryless organi-

zation’ (Kerr/Ulrich 1993; Nelson 1997).

From a theoretical perspective the notion of ‘blurred’ or ‘blurring’ organizational boundaries

(and certainly that of ‘boundaryless’ organizations) itself appears to be somewhat blurred. A

look at Marchington et al.’s intriguing and seminal edited book on the topic, for example, reveals

that most contributors prefer to talk about ‘boundary-spanning’ or ‘crossing organizational

boundaries’ rather than blurredness, which confirms rather than questions the existence of

(howsoever defined) organizational boundaries. Nonetheless the identification of organizational

boundaries has become more difficult – for managers, workers, as well as scholars of organiza-

tion studies, but also for legal practitioners and regulating authorities. This is evinced, for exam-

ple, in the fragmented political authority which has given rise to transboundary accountability

standards in the area of CSR.





2

But, one could also argue that organizational boundaries have never been as clear as we tend to

believe. Bureaucratic organizations are characterized by membership rules and law codifies the

social invention of corporate actors with rights, responsibilities and accountability. However, the

lifeworlds of organizational members have always had an impact on organizational practices

(Sandberg/Dall’Alba 2009; Warhurst et al. 2008), and the life ‘inside’ organizations is not clearly

separable from that outside organizations; see, for example, communities of industrial workers,

emotional labour, management policies that put demand on workers to be authentic (Fleming

2009) or organizational demands to align private lives with organizational requirements

(Land/Taylor 2010). There is much to suggest that it is at the very interface of organizations, in

the friction zone of differential influences, that much negotiation as to the boundaries of the or-

ganization(s) is taking place.

With this stream we aim at bringing together organizational studies scholars who are interested

in theoretically and empirically exploring further what constitutes organizational boundaries,

how they are negotiated and enacted. Beyond contributions to these broader questions the fol-

lowing topics are of interest for the stream, but the list is not exhaustive:

How do general accounts of societal developments, such as ‘liquid modernity’ (Bauman),

‘risk society’ (Beck) or ‘reflexive modernity’ (Beck/Giddens/Lash), relate to our concep-

tualizations of organizational boundaries? How helpful are metaphors such as ‘liquidity’

or ‘fluidity’ for such conceptualizations?

Are there other, so far neglected, social theories or philosophies that can help enhancing

our understanding of organizational boundaries?

What are the important dimensions of organizational boundaries and how can they be

studied empirically?

How are organizational boundaries related to societal inclusion and exclusion, i.e. who

can define boundaries? And for whom are boundaries transgressable and for whom not?

How is identity construction connected to organizational boundaries and what impact do

changing organizational boundaries have on individuals’ identities today?

What role do organizational responsibilities and accountability play for conceptualiza-

tions of organizational boundaries? Does the growing importance of third actors, NGOs,

intermediaries etc. change our understanding of organizational boundaries?

How exactly do new forms of work organization and employment change the social con-

struction of organizational boundaries?

How are workers’ and managers’ lifeworlds and organizational practices connected?

How are the boundaries between work and life enacted and negotiated – by organiza-

tions and by individuals? Do individuals develop strategies of resistance against too

clear-cut or too loose boundaries between work and the rest of their lives?

We are looking forward to receiving your contribution!

Key words: organizational boundaries, accountability, networks, work-life boundaries



3

KEY READINGS

Becker, K.H./Haunschild, A. (2003) ‘The Impact of Boundaryless Careers on Organizational Deci-

sion-Making: An Analysis From the Perspective of Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (5):713-727.

Boström, M./Garsten, C. (eds.) (2008) Organizing Transnational Accountability. London: E.Elgar. Fleming P (2009) Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of Informal Control.

Oxford: OUP. Garsten, C. (2008) Workplace Vagabonds: Career and Community in Changing Worlds of Work.

Basingstoke: Palgrave. Land, C./Taylor, S. (2010) ‘Surf ’s Up: Work, Life, Balance and Brand in a New Age Capitalist Or-

ganization’ Sociology, 44(3):395-413. Leng, L.W./Dahles, H. (2005) ‘Conclusions: Organizational Boundaries Reconsidered’ Asia Pacific

Business Review, 11(4):593-598. Marchington, M.P./Grimshaw, D./Rubery, J./Willmott, H. (2005) (eds) Fragmenting Work: Blur-

ring Organisational Boundaries and Disordering Hierarchies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paulsen, N./Hernes, T. (eds.) Managing Boundaries in Organizations. Multiple Perspectives. Bas-ingstoke: Palgrave.

Sandberg, J./Dall’Alba, G. (2009) ‘Returning to Practice Anew: A Life-World Perspective’ Organi-zation Studies’, 30:1349-1368.

Seidl, D./Becker, K.H. (2006) ‘Organizations as Distinction Generating and Processing Systems: Niklas Luhmann’s Contribution to Organization Studies’ Organization, 13(1):9-35.

Warhurst, C./Eikhof, D.R./Haunschild, A. (eds.) (2008) Work less, live more? Critical Analysis of the work-life boundary. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Peter Fleming is Professor of Work, Organization and Society at Queen Mary, University of Lon-don. His research focuses on critical approaches to work, organization and society. The emphasis is on power, conflict and resistance in emerging organizational forms, as well as theoretical un-packing the significance of such concepts. Over the last few years he has conducted research around power and resistance in call centres that have culture management programmes. His other interest includes business ethics and the social dynamics of corporate corruption. Recent books are Contesting the Corporation: Struggle, Power and Resistance in Organizations (with A. Spicer; CUP, 2007) and Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of Informal Con-trol (OUP, 2009). Christina Garsten is Professor and Chair at the Department of Social Anthropology (Stockholm University) and Research Director at Score (Stockholm University and Stockholm School of Eco-nomics). Her research interests are in the anthropology of organizations and markets, employ-ability, careers and community in changing worlds of work, processes of globalization, and emerging forms of regulation and accountability in the labour market and in transnational trade. She has published a number of articles on high-tech organizational culture, flexibilization of em-ployment, and corporate social responsibility. Recent co-edited books are Ethical Dilemmas in Management (Routledge, 2008), Workplace Vagabonds (Palgrave, 2008), Organizing Transna-tional Accountability (E.Elgar, 2008), and Transparency in a New Global Order (E.Elgar, 2008). Axel Haunschild is Professor of Work, Employment and Organization at the University of Trier, Germany, and Visiting Professor at the School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London. His research interests include changing forms of work and organization, creative indus-tries, the institutional embeddedness of work and employment, CSR from an industrial relations perspective, organizations and lifestyles, and organizational boundaries. He has recently co-edited Work Less, Live More? Critical analysis of the Work-Life Boundary (Palgrave, 2008).

APROS 14 Calls for papers

Documents

Transcript of APROS 14 Calls for papers