Critical Management Studies Capítulo 1 Theoxfordhandbookof

8/9/2019 Critical Management Studies Captulo 1 Theoxfordhandbookof

1/26

..............................................................................................................

I N T R O D U C T I O N1..............................................................................................................

Cmanagement studies (CMS) has emerged as a movement that questionsthe authority and relevance of mainstream thinking and practice. Its focus is man-

agement not as a group or as a function but as a pervasive institution that isentrenched within capitalist economic formations. Its concern is with the studyof, and sometimesagainst, management rather than with the development of tech-niques or legitimationsformanagement. Critical of established social practices andinstitutional arrangements, CMS challenges prevailing relations of dominationpatriarchal, neo-imperialist as well as capitalistand anticipates the developmentof alternatives to them (Parker, Fournier, and Reedy).

This book provides an overview and distillation of CMS as an evolving body ofknowledge. It is intended for readers who may be disillusioned with mainstreamunderstandings of management or who are curious about analyses of manage-ment that are less anodyne and self-serving. The chapters have direct relevance for

teachers, students, and researchers of management but we hope that their contentswill be instructive for anyone who regards management as a key modern institutionwhich merits critical examination.

TheHandbookprovides an overview of work from a variety of perspectives andacross a range of topics, subdisciplines, and themes. For those interested to learnmore about the field, the collection offers a comparatively accessible point of entryinto a range of areas so that non-specialists can better discern and assess what is


2/26

, &

distinctive about CMS. For teachers, it provides a series of resources for giving

students a taste of non-mainstream approaches and discussions of particular topics.Accordingly, the chapters might be used when delivering undergraduate or post-graduate courses or modules in critical management studies. For more reflectivepractitioners, in which we include researchers and teachers in their organizationalwork, the Handbook contains ideas and perspectives that can broaden the repertoireof theoretically informed ways of making sense of experiences, and thereby takethought and practice in new directions.

It is worth stressing that the development of CMS is not confined to the broadfield of management and/or organization but extends into management spe-cialismsnotably, accounting (Ezzamel and Robson, Chapter), but also market-ing (Saren and Svensson, Chapter), information systems (Howcroft, Chapter),

human resource management (HRM) (Keenoy, Chapter ), and so on. It is alsoconcerned with studies, not studywhich suggests that there is room for consider-able diversity and fluidity. Nor is CMS restricted to any particular variant of criticalanalysis. Even if the theoretical center of gravity shiftsfor example, from Marxistor Frankfurt conceptions of criticality to more poststructuralist approaches andthen shifts again, as can be expectedthe signifier cmS is su fficiently capaciousto accommodate such changes. The critical in CMS may be directed at currentmanifestations of management, or it may be directed at its study, its twin targetsthat are intimately linked. If critique(s) of the (mainstream) study of managementis successful, then a new, critical form of management knowledge developsonewhich incorporates critique(s) of management. Indeed, for CMS to be critical

that is, for CMS to mean something different to management studiesit mustnecessarily seek to challenge and replace a dominant orthodoxy or, more modestly,to supplement and gradually reorient the diverse currents that comprise the ortho-doxy within the already fragmented adhocracy (Whitley ) of managementstudies.

The book is organized in four parts. Part I presents leading theoretical appro-aches: critical theory (Scherer, Chapter), critical realism (Reed, Chapter ), post-structuralism (Jones, Chapter) and labor process theory (Thompson; ODoherty,Chapter ). These perspectives are by no means exhaustive of approaches thatinform critical studies of management but they are amongst the most widelyadopted and influential. Throughout this introductory chapter we draw on these

perspectives in constructing a narrative of the origins and dynamics CMSs devel-opment. Part II considers key topics and issues that, to date, have been subjectedto critical management study. In addition to reviewing areas that have attractedconsiderable critical attention, contributions to Part II illustrate the applicationof a range of perspectives; they also illuminate the diverse ways in which thestudy of key topics has been advanced and offer directions for future enquiry.For example, in Chapter , Spicer and Morgan examine critical approaches toorganizational change which highlight struggles around identity (see also Thomas,


3/26

Chapter ), organizational and societal dynamics and inter-organizational fields.

While commending the valuable insights generated by critical analyses, questionsremain for the authors about how and where CMS should situate itself in relationto organizational changean issue that invites interpretation in terms of the strat-agems of purity and pragmatism explored later in this introduction. In Chapter ,Rowlinson, Jacques, and Booth argue for a reorientation, or an historic turn,toward management and organizational history. Or, to give another example, inWray-Bliss (Chapter ) suggests that CMS writing on ethics is held back by areluctance to explore ethics at the level of individual subjects. Wray-Bliss makesthe case that increased engagement with those involved in questionable practicescould bring together the violence of critique with responsibilities for respectingthe humanity of subjects. Some topics, including change, especially in relation

to culture (Brewis and Jack, Chapter ), have received comparatively close andsustained attention from critical scholars. In contrast, others remain largely hiddenfrom view. In Chapter , Newton notes with surprise the lack of interest withincritical and mainstream management studies in the natural environment, relativeto the interest shown by media, governments, and non-governmental organizations(NGOs). Responding to this silence, Newton makes a case for why greater attentionis warranted as he sets out a critical research agenda around issues of environmentaldegradation and global social inequality, the geopolitics of energy, activism, andregulation at governmental and intergovernmental levels. While the topics andissues covered in Part II provide a good indication of the nature of topics and issuesaddressed to date by CMS, they are far from comprehensive as limitations of space

have necessitated selectivity.Part III addresses the development of critical studies within specialist disciplines,

such as marketing and accounting. Its contributions underscore how CMS is notconfined to generalist studies of management but, rather, is inclusive of its numer-ous subdivisions. In their chapter on the discipline of strategy, Phillips and Dar(Chapter) review some counterpoints to the linear, rational and profit-drivennarrative of mainstream analysis in which the manager assumes a heroic role.They highlight how CMS work illuminates power dynamics around the research,pedagogy and practice of strategy. In his chapter on HRM (Chapter ), Keenoyanalyzes human resource management as a discursive cultural artifact, showing thatwhile the term is deployed unproblematically in mainstream textbooks, it acts as an

empty signifier that has been constructed and mobilized in a way that assumesthe necessity, and serves the neoliberal objectives, of managerialism in a globaleconomy. As with Part II, the chapters which make up Part III necessarily attendto a selection of the major specialisms and make no claim to be comprehensivein their coverage. Finally, in Part IV, we conclude with a range of commentarieson aspects of CMS that have implications for its future prospects. Here someof the contributors point at shortcomings within CMS and encourage a strongerfocus on important issues, like finance (Hopwood, Chapter ) and organizational


4/26

, &

hierarchies (Child, Chapter ). Both Hopwood and Frenkel (Chapter ) draw

attention to the shortcomings of restricting CMS to too narrow a set of concernsand a related reluctance to explore and address scholarship and issues relevant toCMS. Contu (Chapter ) and Burrell (Chapter) offer critical reflections uponthe problems and prospects of CMS with regard to the nature and impact of criticalmanagement education (CME) and its institutional location and orientation.

In questioning the legitimacy and efficacy of established patterns of thinking andaction, the chapters offer an alternative to the mainstream in which knowledge ofmanagement becomes knowledgeformanagement and alternative voices are absentor marginalized. The appearance of aHandbookdedicated to CMS is indicative ofits rapid growth, an expansion that has prompted some commentators to suggestthat CMS is the new mainstream. The increase in the scope and influence of CMS

during the past decade or so should not, however, be overestimated. Even if it hasa capacity to punch above its weight in terms of profile and influence in researchand management education (see discussion of Critical Management Education inChapter ), CMS remains a marginal element within management theory andpractice. When viewed from within the bubble of CMS, its standing and signif-icance can become greatly exaggerated. A quick perusal of books and textbookspublished in the field in the past five years, or a scan of articles appearing in themost prominent journals, provides a rapid deflationary correction. Nonetheless, asa movement, CMS has become somewhat institutionalized within the much largerbubble of management knowledge. And thisHandbookof course makes a furthercontribution to its institutionalization. While contributors to the Handbook are

engaged in taking stock of CMS, they are simultaneously involved in shaping itsdevelopment and extension.

In the remaining sections of this Introduction, we first outline the developmentof CMS before reflecting upon its distinctiveness and the significance of its locationwithin business schools. We then consider some of the directions in which CMSmight develop. In each section, we make passing reference to the Handbook chaptersbut our objective is not to summarize their contents. Instead, our references tothe chapters are intended to indicate where ideas and debates are expanded inthe course of sketching a context in which to read and appreciate their diversecontributions.

O ..........................................................................................................................................

Critiques of management in the context of the emergence of capitalist politicaleconomy are by no means new. All the founding fathers of sociologyWeber andDurkheim as well as Marxhad critical things to say about the modern, capitalist


5/26

corporation, pointing to its needless dehumanization, anomie, and exploitation.

The rise of CMS as a contemporary phenomenon has been linked by some com-mentators with the publication of the edited collection of the same name (Alvessonand Willmott ). However, as Burrell (Chapter ) notes, the appearance ofthat book is perhaps more plausibly viewed as a moment in an ongoing processof problematization rather than as a particularly significant event, even if its sub-sequent acronymic identification has had a significant marketing impact. Thewider problematization of management to which CMS contributes and aspires toaccelerate is ongoing; and the identity and purpose of CMS continues to evolvethrough a process of contestation and institutionalization in which contributionsto thisHandbookare necessarily implicated.

Contemporary critical management studies draw and build upon earlier con-

tributions in which management is addressed as an historical and cultural phe-nomenon (e.g., Bendix; Child; Anthony; Clegg and Dunkerly).In general, these works have derived their inspiration from Weber, from moralphilosophy, or from Marxs analysis of the labor process, and they make limitedreference to Critical Theory. The thinking of members of the Frankfurt School ofCritical Theory has, however, been of particular importance in the formation ofCMS, along with elements of labor process theory and some early flirtations withFoucauldian and poststructuralist analyses. Burrell and Morgans () conceptu-alization of a radical humanism paradigm, in which the Frankfurt School formeda key position, was important here in framing and marketing a broad intellectualalternative to both mainstream and an interpretivist strand of management and

organization studies (Duberley and Johnson, Chapter ). From these (diverse)beginings, CMS has grown into a pluralistic, multidisciplinary movement incor-porating a range of perspectives. A number of the more influential of these arepresented in Part I but space has not permitted the inclusion of those associatedwith feminism, Deleuze and Guattari, autonomist Marxism, Lacanian thinking,Gramscian analysis, postcolonialism, and numerous others. CMS has been chal-lenged and enriched by all of these strands of critical thinking. In different waysand not without a degree of confusion and accusations of scholasticismtheyhave inspired new directions and renewed impetus for studies that anticipate thepossibility of less oppressive and divisive forms of management practice.

Critical theory (Scherer, Chapter ) proceeds from an assumption of the possi-

bilitiesof greater autonomy that, in the tradition of Enlightenment, anticipates thedevelopment of social relations in which their participants are masters of their owndestiny. These possibilities are understood to be unnecessarily narrowed, distorted,and impeded by the technocratic impulse of received managerial wisdom. By pro-viding an intellectual counterforce to the ego administration of modern, advancedindustrial society, critical theory apprehends how personalities, beliefs, tastes, andpreferences are developed to fit into the demands of mass production and massconsumption, thereby expressing standardized, yet increasingly customized, forms


6/26

, &

of individuality where human beings tend to become reduced to components in a

well-oiled machine (Steffy and Grimes; Alvesson). Critical theorys widecompass continues to offer a valuable resource for critical reflection on a large num-ber of central issues in management studies: notions of rationality and progress,technocracy and social engineering, autonomy and control, communicative action,power and ideology as well as fundamental issues of epistemology.

The tradition of labor process theory (Thompson, Chapter ; ODoherty, Chap-ter), which stems from Marxs analysis of capitalist work organization in Capital,has provided another central strand of theoretical inspiration for critique, not leastbecause its specific focus is the workplace (Braverman ). It has challengedassumptions about the neutrality of management knowledge (e.g., Taylorism) andit has drawn attention to and systematically explored the design and control of

work, and the struggles of wage labor, which includes many salaried employees,to improve the terms and conditions of their employment (Knights and Will-mott). Labor process theorists have critically investigated and questioned theseemingly progressive quality of organizational change and job redesign, and moregenerally have addressed the systematically disadvantaged, yet resistant, position oflabor in an era of monopoly capital.

During the s, other streams of critical thinking, many of them collectedunder the umbrella headings of postmodernism and poststructuralism (Jones,Chapter) have emerged and developed within the field of management to com-plement and challenge earlier traditions of critical analysis. Notably, the thinking ofMichel Foucault has been important in providing an alternative, critical voice

in both style and substanceto the visions of critical theory and labor processanalysis. His ideas have, for example, questioned the humanist concept of auton-omy ascribed to subjects and questioned the assumption that knowledge can becleansed of power (Foucault,). The centrality of these ideas for organiza-tion and management studies is explored by Knights (Chapter ) in his overviewof theories of power. Foucault-inspired attention to the theory of the subjecthas been paralleled in feminist theory which has sought to correct the neglect ofgender relations in management and organization studies. Feminist voices beenincreasingly heard, but are often muted or restricted to issues of access to existingprofessional/managerial career tracks (Marshall ). Broader and deeper issuesare increasingly being addressed (see, for example, Cals and Smircich; Alves-

son and Billing ) but gender has yet to be fully integrated into critical studies ofmanagement (Ashcraft, Chapter). Likewise, ethnic groups outside white Anglo-Saxon Protestants merit much closer and sustained consideration in the context ofdominant notions and practices of management and leadership ideals which fre-quently bear subtle imprints of a dominant culture and/or post-colonial tradition(P. Prasad; A. Prasad). In Chapter, Banerjee, Carter, and Clegg draw onemerging literatures such as postcolonialism and sustainable development to chal-lenge universalist assumptions which underpin the managerialism of globalization.


7/26

Given the diverse critical traditions of analysis that are now being deployed to

interrogate management theory and practice, a current challenge is to appreciatecommonalities and continuities in different strands of critical thinking, and not tobecome excessively preoccupied with differences or detained by schisms. Debateover the distinctive strengths and limitations of different critical forms of analysiscan be beneficial. It is also consistent with nurturing a critical impulse that placesin question apparently self-evident authority. But there is also a danger of goal-displacement when debates dominate or drown out critical analysis of aspects ofmanagement practice, whether this is within a single organization or more glob-ally within the operation of transnational corporations, international NGOs, andfinancial markets. That said, rejection of all rival approaches in favor of a single,avowedly enlightened conception of CMS is, in our view, likely to be counter-

productive in terms of any aspiration to challenge and change the theory andpractice of management. Our inclination, therefore, is to lean in the direction ofa view of CMS that is accommodating rather than restrictive whilst, at the sametime, being mindful of the danger of being so open-minded and liberal that itincludes everything and so ends up being a vacuous category. Mindful of this issuewe now reflect upon contributions to an ongoing debate on the question of what isdistinctive about CMS.

C C MS..........................................................................................................................................

So, what, makes CMS distinctive? CMS proceeds from the assumption that dom-inant theories and practices of management and organization systematically favorsome (elite) groups and/or interests at the expense of those who are disadvantagedby them; and that this systemic inequality or interest-partiality is ultimately damag-ing for the emancipatory prospects of all groups. Accordingly, CMS is particularlyattentive to aspects of organization and management that are widely regarded asnegative. It rejects the mainstream view that organizations are adequately repre-sented as (imperfectly) rational instruments for achieving shared goals and/or as

media for satisfying peoples needs through producing goods and services. In mostresearch papers and especially in textbooks, organizations are presented as a self-evident force for good. Deviation from the norm of fulfilling positive social func-tions is interpreted as the exceptional bad apple rather than the institutionalizedrule or a manifestation of systemic malfunction. CMS regards uncritically one-sided, positive representations of management and organization as expressive ofthe ideology of elites that becomes, through the channels of media and education,widely dispersed. Even if subscription to this ideology is instrumental and grudging


8/26

, &

it is nonetheless highly consequential for the reproduction and legitimation of the

status quo (iek).Against this pervasive ideology, CMS contends that contemporary organizations

and forms of organizing have many negative implications for and impacts uponnature as well as societynotably, their destructive effects on natural environmentsin addition to their divisive and disciplining consequences for communities andemployees. At the same time, it is acknowledged that organizations contribute tomaterial survival and affluence, job satisfaction and positive social relations, a senseof meaning and personal development. What CMS addresses is the needless frus-tration of this potential that occurs when, instead of enabling human flourishing,organizations incubate and normalize stress and bad health, naturalize subordi-nation and exploitation, demand conformism, inhibit free communication, erode

morality, create and reinforce ethic and gender inequalities, and so on. Instead ofbeing progressive forces for emancipatory change, mainstream theory, as well asthe everyday practice of organization and management, become reactionary meansof conserving forms of exploitation and oppression institutionalized in the statusquo. There is, in this sense, goodreason to introduce, develop, and apply criticalperspectives on management and organizations.

That there is a dark side of business and organizations should not come as asurprise to anybody, whether they are bored or stressed employees, ripped offconsumers or lender-of-last-resort citizens. Despite this, the development of anexpanding stream of critical work based in management schools is not somethingmany would have predicted a couple of decades ago. Given the diversity and fluidity

of CMS as a movement, vigorous discussion and debate about what it is, and whatit is not, is to be welcomed. Today, the field of CMS is difficult to demarcate. Whatis to be counted as critical is contested in at least two ways. First, the very sense ofCMS has been challenged on the grounds that few self-respecting academics (eventhose whose intellectual credibility might be doubted by their very employment in abusiness school) would instantly tarnish their work as uncritical. Critical scrutinyof knowledge claims is a trademark of Academia. From this perspective, CMS isa meaningless category. Denying its difference by insisting that the mainstreamis already critical is one simple strategy for protecting the mainstream fromCMS critique. The second form of contestation occurs within CMS where differentfactions claim to occupy the intellectual high ground of critique. Even if this claim

is not explicitly made, an allegiance to one or other of the theoretical approachespresented in Part I tacitly indicates a preference for the conception of critiquefavored by that approach. Included in that preference is a view as to whether oneconception of critique should trump the others, or a more inclusive view shouldprevail.

It is probably fair to say that CMS is currently pluralistic. Our own assessmentis that it has, to date, benefited from the absence of any dominant or totalizing


9/26

approach. Nonetheless the absence of a strong, disciplining center provokes those

who would prefer to monopolize the field to struggle against others who are contentto take refuge in a movement that can provide some shelter and support for theirparticular variants of CMS. As within any movement, the danger of the monopo-lizing strategy is that it can sacrifice diversity and dynamism for purity and clarity.Conversely, the hazard of a diversifying strategy is that it may dilute the meaningof CMS to the point that it becomes indistinguishable from the mainstream thatit ostensibly rejects. Initiatives such as thisHandbookare vulnerable to becominglittle more than vehicles for the promotion of a favorite view. Whilst we havereserved some space for this in contributions to Part IV, we have endeavored torestrict it, or at least to make acknowledgement of a distinctive standpoint, in thecontributions to Parts IIII, as we do in this Introduction. That is to say, we have

sought to avoid sponsorship of fruitless quarreling of what or who is really criticalin a CMS-correct way, and who and what is to cast aside. More positively, criticalself-reflection stimulated by debate over the merits of different approaches withinCMS can facilitate clarification of their respective possibilities and contributions.Chapter is of particular relevance in this regard as it is intended to acknowledgeand illuminate the schism that has developed in labor process theory (LPT). Insteadof inviting one author to present and balance the different standpoints, we asked aprominent figure from each side of the divide to present their understanding ofwhat problems LPT is intended to address, how successful it has been, and whatrelationship it has to (other forms of) CMS.

De-naturalization, Anti-performativity, and Reflexivity

One influential attempt to identify distinguishing characteristics of CMS haspointed to de-naturalization, non-performative (which others have character-ized as anti-performativity) and reflexivity as its core elements (Fournier andGrey; see also Grey and Willmott). De-naturalizationrefers to what iscrucial to any oppositional politics. Whatever the existing order may be, it becomestaken for granted or naturalized and often is legitimized by reference to natureand necessity: it is the way of the world: of coursemen dominate women, whitesdominate blacks, capital dominates labor, and so on. Whether based on evolution

or social function, the answer is the same: Thats how things are; There is noalternative. In management, naturalization is affirmed in the proposition thatsomeone has to be in charge, that of course they know more, or else they wouldnot be in charge, so of course they deserve more money as their labor is scarceand they have the burden of responsibility to shoulder. As Child (Chapter )notes, hierarchy is an example of what is frequently taken to be natural. Mar-kets are also widely seen as self-evidently efficiency-producing givens which only


10/26

, &

ignorant people would seek to prevent governing economic life, and perhaps life in

general. Greed and competitiveness are also widely assumed to be natural and soon. CMS challenges these kinds of assertions, identifying them as manifestations ofa particular, capitalist, and possessive individualist ideology, and thereby endeavorsto de-naturalize them by recalling their context-dependence.

Anti-performativity, or, non performative stance, as Fournier and Grey (:) characterize CMS, is perhaps a special case of de-naturalization as it denies thatsocial relations should (naturally) be thought of as exclusively instrumentalthatis, in terms of maximizing output from a given input. This element of CMS isimportant because most knowledge of management presupposes the overridingimportance of performativity. It is taken to be the acid test of whether knowl-edge has any value. Knowledge of management is assessed to have value only if

it is shown how it can, at least in principle, be applied to enhance the means ofachieving existing (naturalized) ends. What, then, of anti-performativity? Theterm emphatically does not imply an antagonistic attitude towards anykind ofperforming. Rather, performative is used in a somewhat technical sense toidentify social relations in which the dominance of a meansends calculus actsto exclude critical reflection on the question of ends. The natural and legitimatenature of the dominant social order is taken for granted and problems are seenas minor or moderate imperfections to be resolved or, when not, are seen tobe unavoidable. Broader and deeper ethical and political issues and questionssuch as the distribution of life chances within corporations or the absence of anymeaningful democracy in working lifeare either ignored or, at best, marginally

accommodated through, for example, programmes of employee involvement andconsultation. Efforts are limited to ameliorating shortcomings and dysfunctionswithin the established system such that prevailing priorities and orders of privilegeare preserved. In short, a second core feature of CMS, according to Grey andFournier (), is its challenge to forms of theory and practice that confine ethicaland political questions and issues to the reproduction or restabilization of thestatus quo.

Reflexivity, the final element of CMS identified by Fournier and Grey ()refers to a capacity to recognize all accounts of organization and management asmediated by the particular tradition of their authors. By embracing reflexivity,CMS contributes to a methodological and epistemological challenge to the objec-

tivism and scientism which is seen to pervade mainstream research. It radicallydoubts the possibility of neutrality and universality, arguing that such notions areinvoked as part of an ideology of research which disregards its (partisan) theory-dependency and disavows its implicit naturalization of the status quo. Under theguise of the production of facts, such research is inattentive to (i.e., unreflexiveabout) the values which guide not only the scoping and representation of whatis researched but also how research is conducted. Where reflexivity is weak orabsent, little encouragement is given to knowledge userswho include students,


11/26

managers, and policy-makersto interrogate the assumptions and routines upon

which conventional knowledge production is founded. Nor is there much supportfor questioning the commonsense thinking (e.g., about what counts as scientific)and disciplinary paraphernalia (e.g., tenure, control of journals, etc.) that safeguardtheir authority. CMS, in contrast, sees such questioning as mandatory; and, inprinciple, it accepts that critique is appropriately directed at its own claims byacknowledging and appreciating how CMS conjectures about reality are themselvesconditioned by tradition and context.

R CMS?..........................................................................................................................................

Fournier and Greys () characterization of the three core elements of CMShas been influential but also controversial. Much contemporary social theoryand methodology, as Thompson () points out, is based on ideas of de-naturalization and reflexivity. These elements are by no means unique to CMS. Itis probably fair to say, however, that these receive a particular inflection within thecontext of CMS. In substantial part, that is because, as we observed earlier, CMS hasemerged out of engagements with critical theory and other neo-Marxist traditionsthat open these elements to more radical interpretations. De-naturalization in

the context of CMS is associated with an impulse that, going beyond recognitionof the constructed quality of social worlds, invites and support their radical trans-formation. Likewise, reflexivity incorporates critical self-reflection as integral toprocesses of emancipatory change. Understood in this way, Thompsons criticismthat these elements are shared with varieties of constructionist analysis would seemto assume a rather literalist, de-contextualized reading of their meaning andimport.

That said, Thompsons () critique of Fournier and Grey () provides auseful reminder that exponents of some major strands of CMSnotably, versionsof labor process theory, left-Weberianism, and critical realismwould probablynot identify de-naturalization and reflexivity as the most significant aspects of

what, for them, constitutes good critical (management) research. They might alsohesitate to endorse anti-performativity, perhaps on the grounds that it deniesor forecloses CMS having a practical impact. Such hesitation would, we believe,betray a questionable representation of Fournier and Greys position. For, as notedabove, Fournier and Grey are careful to stress that performativity has a veryspecific, technical meaning: the principle of performativity serves to subordinateknowledge and truth to the production of efficiency (: ). What they termCMSs non-performative stance, rather than the anti-performativity attributed


12/26

, &

to them, is not antithetical or hostile to knowledge having a practical impact. What

the so-called anti-performativity signals is a determination to avoid a narrowingor reduction of practical impact to the production of efficiency as this, Fournierand Grey contend, has calamitous consequences. In particular, such a narrowing ofmanagement knowledge makes it more likely that management . . . is not interro-gated except insofar as this will contribute to its improved effectiveness (ibid.).

Critical work, Fournier and Grey insist, is not equivalent to, or reducible to,analysis that is performative in that narrow sense. This is probably not very con-troversial. However, the characterization of CMS as non-performative or anti-performative has invited an interpretation of CMS as being anti-performativityin the sense that it has no interest in performancesomething that, arguably, isnot intended. CMS is against performativity only in the sense of being hostile to

knowledge that has it as an exclusive focus. That said, the conception of CMSas anti-performative has clearly been confusing and, in this sense, unhelpful,though whether Fournier and Grey could have been expected to anticipate thatis an open question. What would seem to be a misunderstanding of their posi-tion has led to calls for pro-performative ideas and ambitions. For those whocelebrate the virtue of negative dialectics, defending and retaining what we haveinterpreted as a misunderstanding would, presumably, be a preferred option (seeBhm ). Our inclination is to accommodate this possibility within CMS butto distinguish analytically between, on the one hand, technical peformativitythatis narrowly instrumental and preoccupied with reproducing the status quo and,on the other, critical performativity(see also Spicer et al. , discussed below)

that is emancipatory in its orientation and intended effects. Such critical performa-tivity, we suggest, is fully consistent with Fourner and Greys understanding thatCMS has some intention to achieve . . . a better world or end exploitation, etc.(ibid.).

In a recent effort to clarify and reconstitute the relationship between CMS andperformativity, Spicer et al. () have argued that Fournier and Greys for-mulation of anti-performativity is unfortunate if it discourages the making ofimportant distinctions between good and bad performativities, with the formerincluding the development of knowledge in support of progressive objectives likeenvironmental protection or gender equality. We have already noted this danger.A casual reader of Fournier and Grey () might jump to this conclusion. A

misconceived conception of anti-performativity may be counter-productive forengaging with those whose work situation does not permit its celebration. Yet, inthe absence of performativity, the schools, hospitals, hotels, industries, airlinecompanies, and other institutions upon which exponents of CMSlike peoplegenerallyrely, and are probably eager to see being well managed, would in alllikelihood operate much less effectively. To counter this outcome, we believe thatthere is some merit in developing the concept ofcritical performativity(Spiceret al.) in countering the distorted and erroneous view, gleefully seized upon


13/26


14/26

, &

moment if it is not to become one-sidedly negativeand thus marginalized in

any setting outside the esoteric domain of academic journal and monographpublication.

R B P ..........................................................................................................................................

We now briefly consider a couple of other recent reflections on CMS that frame itsdistinctive features in somewhat different ways than Fournier and Greyalthough

they also focus, more directly and concretely, on the key objects or targets ofde-naturalization. Alvesson () has argued that the concerns of CMS may bebroadly described as follows:

(a) the critical questioning of ideologies, institutions, interests, and identities(theIs) that are assessed to be (i) dominant, (ii) harmful, and (iii) under-challenged;

(b) through negations, deconstructions, re-voicing or de-familiarizations;(c) with the aim of inspiring social reform in the presumed interest of the

majority and/or those non-privileged, as well as emancipation and/or resis-tance from ideologies, institutions, and identities that tend to fix people intounreflectively arrived at and reproduced ideas, intentions, and practices;

(d) with some degree of appreciation of the constraints of the work and life sit-uations of people (including managers) in the contemporary organizationalworld, e.g., that a legitimate purpose for organizations is the production ofservices and goods (see also Fleming and Mandarini, Chapter).

This formulation seems sufficiently broad to accommodate the different strandsof CMS (see Part I) whilst demarcating the field from varieties of constructionistand interpretivist analysis. It invites exponents of CMS to orient their activities tothe critical illumination of under-challenged institutions, ideologies, interests, andidentities that are assessed to be dominant and harmful. In this respect, CMS isdelineated from interpretive studies that illuminate and appreciate identities, etc.but do not focus on those that are dominant or target and critique their domina-

tion (willmott). By incorporating negations as well as deconstructions, thisconception of CMS endeavors to appreciate and accommodate the contribution ofboth its structuralist and poststructuralist variants (see Jones, Chapter). The ideaof re-voicing, for example, points to how a managerial view of certain practicesor groups of employees may be challenged by developing alternative narratives thatnot only subvert this view but also account for the dominant narrative in terms ofan elite groups privileged access to key means of communication. As a movement,CMS is involved in striving to expand alternative means of communication in


15/26


16/26

, &

technology industries and, in particular, points (: ff.) to the damaging

consequences of imposing a regime of intellectual property rights on indigenousknowledge. To address these concerns, Banerjee urges that greater attention begiven to the range of social movements and organized collective effortswhichcould include CMS as well as groups participating in the World Social Forum,for examplecommitted to addressing the most pressing contemporary problemsof corporate social responsibility with respect to poverty, democracy, and climatechange.

Murphy (a ,b) has also sought to better understand and challenge therole and logic of global managerialism in supporting and legitimizing grosslyunequal patterns of resource distribution presided over by global institutions. Hiswork provides an empirically rich and disturbing analysis of the role of the World

Bank in processes of global economic homogenization. More specifically, Murphyshows how, as a dominant player within a complex of formal and informal transna-tional organizational networks (e.g., Davos, Bilderburg), the World Bank exportsconcertive control strategies into the international development domain. Throughdetailed, participant-observation case studies of the financing of the Karmet steelmill in Kazakstan and World Bank education initiatives in Niger and India, Murphyillustrates how global elites colonize their clientele through an appealing invocationof ostensibly de-politicized programmatic rhetoric of partnership, participa-tion, and inclusivity.

Given the aspirations of the CMS Domain Statement referred to above, thesesigns that the critical study of management is being expanded from its cur-

rent focus upon management-in-organizations to a broader attentiveness to themanagement-of-key-institutions and vital resourcessuch as banks, oil compa-nies, global institutions, regulatory bodies and so onare to be welcomed. Anotherexample of how exponents of CMS can deploy their expertise to raise big ques-tions about key issues of management, such as the corporate governance of majorinstitutions, is provided by the series of Guardian blogs posted by Prem Sikka(http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/premsikka). Although it is rather invidious tosingle out a particular academic, Sikka has been an exemplary exponent of CMS,especially in using publicly available information to challenge self-serving wisdomspromulgated by corporate executives, accounting elites, politicians, and regulators.In addition to hisGuardianblogs, Sikka has tirelessly briefed the media and policy-

makers as well as written numerous newspaper articles and policy papers, oftenwith politicians as co-authors (see http://www.aabaglobal.org/). For example, arecent blog comments on the role of auditors in endorsing the stability of majorcorporations where he refers to Lehman Brothers. Published prior to the companysspectacular demise in the financial meltdown, Sikka notes that their accounts listedderivatives contracts with a face value of $bn and fair value of $.bn. Signingoffthese accounts, Ernst and Young, Lehmans auditors, gave the company a cleanbill of health for the year up to November and were paid very handsomely


17/26

($,,) for this box-ticking service. Yet, it was Lehman Brothers massive

exposure to these same, inherently risky and volatile, derivatives contracts, that ledto the companys collapse into administration in September, an event whichconsiderably amplified the instability and panic characteristic of a rapidly escalatingglobal financial crisis.

In such ways, mobilization of critical thinking in CMS research reaches outbeyond the self-referential sphere of scholarship to provide resources for informedprotests and progressive challenges to the operation of corporations as instru-ments of domination and exploitation (CMS IG Domain Statement). By extollingand disseminating research in which corporations and managerialism are situatedin a wider context (see Barley ), there is an enhanced prospect of makingconnections between CMS research, pressing public issues and resonant forms of

activism. It is by forging such links that CMS can better connect the practicalshortcomings in management and individual managers to the demands of a sociallydivisive and ecologically destructive system within which managers work (CMSDomain Statement).

B S : T I

L

C MS..........................................................................................................................................

Before becoming too carried away by the prospect of business school academicsbecoming storm troopers in the fight against global injustice, it is relevant torecall their/our institutional location. This can undoubtedly act as a conservativeinfluence and constraint upon the capacity of CMS to have a practical impact.Business schools are hardly renowned for the incubation of radical ideas andagendas. To the contrary, they are better known for turning out MBAs who runcorporations like Enron and Lehman Brothers who extolled their entrepreneurialapproach to business (Fortune). In Chapter , Banerjee et al. consider theMBA in the context of globalization, exploring how this global business qualifica-

tion rationalizes and homogenizes the canon of management knowledge. Nonethe-less, and perhaps inexplicably and temporarily, business schools enjoy a certaincachet. Potentially, this provides business school academics with access to mediaand policy-making arenas that is more difficult for scholars based in social sci-ence departments. Moreover, so long as corporations, government departments,and increasingly third sector employers continue to recruit from business schools,management academics have the opportunity to shape and influence what and howthey learn.


18/26

, &

That said, it is an uphill struggle. In most management departments or business

schools, the content of curricula and research is predominantly conservative orright wing in orientation. Business schools are implicitly or explicitly supportiveof the institutions and values of corporate capitalism, especially where the teachingof MBAs and executive programs takes priority. Whether this will change in acontext where key capitalist institutions, the banks, have failed spectacularly andlarge parts of the financial sector, including banks, have been nationalized, remainsto be seen. The neoliberal dream of capitalism has produced the nightmare scenarioof a liquidity lock down. As the debt mountain of risks and hedges associatedwith collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDSs) hasballooned and then punctured in the financial meltdown (Klimecki andWillmott), questions will, or should, be increasingly asked about the value(s)

and sustainability of capitalism, and not just about how the insolvency of financialinstitutions can best be socialized to restore stability.

To the extent that such questions are raised, and the insights of Marx as wellas Keynes and Polanyi are rediscovered and reappraised, there will be a resonancewith the critical performativity of CMS. In boom times, critiques of business andmanagement are assumed to be irrelevant or casually dismissed as the bleating of atiny, disaffected minority. But when the capitalist credo of neoliberalism becomesso shockingly and comprehensively discredited, critiques, including CMS ideasand texts, can touch a nerve. That CMS ideas have been developed within sucha pro-capitalist an institution as the business school could not have been predicted,was certainly not intended, and is nicely illustrative of a key critical concept

contradiction.To make sense of how the critical study of management emerged within business

schools, we must take some account of the history of business education in thecontext of higher education (Contu, Chapter ). A key condition of possibilityfor the development of CMS is the positioning of most (but not all) businessschools as departments within universities. As such, they are required to complywith the values and norms of the wider institution by exhibiting at least a degree ofacademic respectability. Gaining and retaining their place within institutions ofhigher education requires that they subscribe, at least minimally and ostensibly, tothe liberal virtues of diversity, and to contribute to the development of knowledgethrough processes of peer review. When located in universities where a reputation

for independence is prized and guarded, business school deans cannot simply hireconsultants or gurus as professors, even though this might be the preference ofsome corporate patrons and students. Instead, tenured staffare required to exhibita modicum of academic respectabilityas demonstrated through publication inesteemed journals and supportive references from established academics in presti-gious institutions.

The outcome is that the hiring of most full-time staffwithin business schoolstends to place academic qualifications and reputation above political allegiance or a


19/26

track record in business and administration. Reputable universities as well as savvy

students have a strong interest in their business schools conforming to the normsof academia even when they are mostly valued as cash cows that cross-subsidizeother departments. On the other hand, because the funding of business schools(which in many countries includes fees from students who expect a return on theirinvestment by improving their chances within the labor market) relies directly orindirectly upon corporate patronage and demand, the content of curricula tends tobe rather conservative or, at best, partly lite-critical, even when taught by exponentsof CMS. It is perhaps only in a situation where CMS staffcomprise a majority offaculty, or form a well-organized, energetic, and influential minority, that a moreextensively radical curriculum can be supported. In turn, it is only when radicalcontent and teaching methods are widely introduced, rather than tolerated at the

margin, that it becomes possible to test and debunk the (conservative) view thatcritical education will always be resisted by students.

In short, the nesting of business schools within universities, primarily for reasonsof status on the part of students and necessity on the part of universities, hasprovided the conditions of possibility for opening up a space for the emergenceof CMS. Other supportive circumstances have facilitated its growth. These circum-stances include a creeping disillusionment with the (positivist) model of sciencethat was assumed to provide the appropriate foundation for business education.Despite vigorous attempts (e.g., Pfeffer ), it has so far proved impossible toestablish and police a single, agreed set of criteria or a paradigm for determiningwhat is scientific. This difficulty has been compounded by wider debates in the

social sciences about the ethics of aspiring to develop value-free, objective knowl-edge, to which proponents of CMS have very actively contributed (e.g., Willmott; Alvesson and Skldberg ; Johnson and Duberley, Chapter ). Over thepast two decades, there has been a gradual but steady process of fragmentationand disintegration as diverse theories, perspectives, and schools have emerged todisrupt the pious hope of a single, unified social science. This disarray has tendedto distract and divide those who, armed with a totalizing formula, might otherwisehave mounted stronger and more sustained opposition to CMS.

In this context, allegiance to the CMS banner can be seen as a deft, or atleast expedient, move that confers a degree of protection and legitimation onmarginal orientations, especially for academics based in departments lacking a

critical mass of critically oriented faculty. Such allegiance does not necessarilyoccur self-consciously but that does not undermine the point. In a context wherecritical work has become more widely published in respected journals, wherecritical scholars are win prestigious research council grants, and where they arebeing promoted to senior positions, more open allegiance to CMS is becoming aless risky, more attractive option for those disillusioned with, or who had neverbeen entranced by, the mainstream. As CMS has grown in profile and influence,it has also been occupied as a career platform by management researchers with


20/26

, &

esoteric interests in management (broadly defined). CMS as a label, identity,

and affiliation has helped to legitimize work focusing on diverse phenomenacartoons, fictional literature, philosophy, etc.some of which are conventionallyseen as having very limited reference to management, however broadly defined.A purist conception of CMS would tend to seek the expulsion of such misfitsfrom CMS on the grounds that their work is idiosyncratic rather than critical, andthat its effect is to dilute rather than enrich CMS. A more pragmatic and liberalresponse would be to say that, balanced against any adulteration associated withtheir inclusion, it is relevant to acknowledge the political value of their contributionto the size and related influence of CMS as a movement and, in addition, torecognise the possibility that such marginalized misfits may reinvigorate CMS withfresh and challenging insights. This brings us to a consideration of the prospects

for CMS.

F C P ..........................................................................................................................................

The institutional strength of CMS continues to grow, yet there are many continuing,emergent, and dislocating challenges. We have noted how the wider world is chang-ing in ways that may make CMS more relevant and engaging. After /, Enron,

and the so-called credit crunch or debt binge there is an emerging awareness ofthe relativity and contingent viability of dominant, Western values and forms ofknowledge. Associated with this, there is greater skepticism about many types ofauthority as well as evidence of retreat to apparent givens and certainties (e.g., fun-damentalism, evidence-based policy-making, etc.). There is growing interest inissuesbusiness ethics, diversity, environmentalism, neo-imperialismthat havedirect relevance for the everyday conduct of management, yet have been largelyexcluded from, or trivialized by, orthodox research and also from textbook accountsof business.

Fifty years after the appearance of a post-affluent society (Galbraith ),where a very high material standard of living is enjoyed by a majority of people

in the advanced or overdeveloped economies, there is a renewed questioning ofthe senseand even sanenessof a continuing emphasis on increased efficiencyand productivity, economic growth and increased consumption, rather than amore enlightened focus upon attaining more equitable and ecologically sustainableresource distribution. Policy and practice on key questions of food, energy, and cli-mate are in disarray. As we write, the neoliberal experiment has resulted in chaotic,ignominious failure and is set to further damage the life chances of ordinary peoplearound the globe public assets are being sequestered to bail out the squalor of


21/26

private greed fueled by a neoliberal cocktail of economic naivety and political-cum-

regulatory irresponsibility. And we have yet to feel the full impact of failures tohonor (unregulated and virtually untraceable) credit default swaps (CDS)whatWarren Buffett has termed the financial weapons of mass destruction. For thosewho sense that management involves issues that extend beyond the standard fareof orthodox textbooks and leading journals, CMS commends an approach that ispolitically as well as epistemologically differentiated from the mainstream.

In this changing and fragmented landscape of ecological degradation, extremesof affluence and poverty, and global capitalism in meltdown possibilities open upfor CMS accompanied by immense challenges. Much CMS writing is criticizedfor being pretentious and obscure, rendering it inaccessible to a wider audiencewho, in principle, its exponents seek to reach, educate, and influence. In terms

of theoretical and political orientation, CMS might appear to provide an idealhome for academics keen to take on activist roles. In practice, however, andwith few exceptions, critical management scholars have tended to shy away fromthe public arena or, at best, have had limited impact when acting within it. Anaccusation might be made that the quest for academic credibility has become a(performative) end in itself; and that few critical scholars have been prepared toplace their heads above the parapet. The focus and effects of CMS has, to date,been confined mainly to the realm of Academiain terms of shifting teachingcurricula, engaging in more critically-oriented research, establishing and runningcritical journals, organizing conferences, shaping the development of learned soci-eties (e.g., Academy of Management), etc. Considerable and perhaps unexpected

progress has been made in institutionalizing CMS in the curricula and researchagendas of a number of business schools. On the other hand, it is perhaps salutaryto acknowledge how few CMS academics have, for example, made any substantialcontribution to public discussion of policies and practices, including scandals,relating to businessmost recently, of course, the conditions and consequences ofthe financial crisis of that has filled the news headlines as we have prepared thisIntroduction.

The contents of this Handbookindicate what has been achieved over the pastfifteentwenty years in the development of a scholarly body of critically orientedscholarship on management. During this period, CMS has come to occupy andinstitutionalize a niche for teaching and research within business schools. Despite

these achievements, however, its presence remains marginal and precarious. Thedissemination of CMS ideas is currently comparatively thin and patchy, as is theirapplication in the development of a less didactic pedagogy (Contu, Chapter ).Business schools in which CMS has a significant representation are largely restrictedto the UK. In addition to the task of strengthening and expanding its modestpresence in North America, parts of Europe and Australia/New Zealand, CMS facesthe daunting challenge of influencing the development of schools outside of theFirst World, especially in emergent and developing economies.


22/26

, &

The emergence and development of CMS has occurred with a specific context

and set of circumstances conducive to its growth, as sketched earlier. As a marginaland fragile movement, there is no guarantee that it will prosper. A change ofcircumstances, such as the expulsion of business schools from universities, couldforeshadow its demise. Institutionalizing CMS, not just in books but inside busi-ness schools, within journals and in learned societies can provide some degree ofprotection against this vulnerability. Accordingly, much energy has been expendedin building up, reproducing and reinforcing its (self-disciplining) networks, struct-ures, and norms. Given the obstacles and challenges faced by exponents of CMS,it is, perhaps, a little too easy to subscribe to a one-sidedly hyper-critical viewof CMS proponents harboring apparently impure (e.g., careerist) motives andpursuing cynical practices (e.g., empire-building). That advocates of CMS have

mixed motives and equivocal aspirations is surely to be expected. CMS institution-building activities are a necessary basis for extending and deepening its influenceand impact but this does not imply their sufficiency. Understood in this way, CMS isnot so much a specialist area of management studies as it is a developing movementoriented to the emancipatory transformation of those aspects of management, asa dominant modern institution, that needlessly supports and sustains avoidablesuffering and oppression.

N

. In preparing this Introduction, we have drawn upon and adapted a number of ourearlier commentaries on CMS that include Alvesson and Willmott (); Alvesson andWillmott (); Grey and Willmott (); Alvesson (); Willmott ().

. While we refer to the mainsteam, we recognize that this Other is much less coherent,discrete, and static than the term implies. To elaborate the aquatic metaphor, the main-steam comprises a large number of currents and tributaries whose influence ebbs andflows. The mainstream may also inundate, or selectively draw in, approaches that, whensuitably diluted, can refresh or change its course.

. In reflecting critically upon our own experience in assembling theHandbook, it appearsthat this marginalization may extend to established exponents of CMS. Was it purelycoincidental that a very high proportion of both US and female academics who wereinitially approached to prepare a contribution either declined or did not deliver? Thelatter might perhaps in part be explained by misgivings, if not hostility, to the exclusively

male editorial team but can the former?. The collection drew upon papers presented at a small conference held in which

brought together scholars from Europe and North America to connect critical work thatwas emerging on both sides of the Atlantic.

. The growth, diversification and ongoing institutionalization of CMS is perhaps mostevident in the spawning of conferences, notably, the biannual Critical ManagementStudies Conference that has attracted participants from over twenty-five countries; thedevelopment of a major journal (Organization) that is explicitly critical in orientation,and the recent establishment of CMS as a full division of the Academy of Management.


23/26

There have also been numerous CMS workshops and smaller conferences held around

the world (e.g., Japan, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand), the emergence of other journalswith a strongly critical flavor (e.g.,ephemera,Electronic Journal of Radical OrganizationTheory, Tamara), special issues of more mainstream journals (e.g. Academy of Man-agement Review, Administrative Science Quarterly) as well as regular contributions toestablished journals (e.g., Journal of Management Studies, Human Relations, Manage-ment Learning).

. It was Max Horkheimer, Director of the Frankfurt-based Institute of Social Research inwhich critical theory was incubated, who identified white-collar employees, amongstwhom may be included many managers and supervisors, as a social group thatdemanded urgent critical examination (Horkheimer ). In setting out his vision ofcritical theory, Horkheimer contrasted it with a view of scientific study that assumes aseemingly objective, instrumental relationship to its objects, a theme that remains of

central importance for CMS analysis.. Fournier and Grey () refer to the non-performative or anti-performative stance

taken by CMS, and do not use the term anti-performativity.. We noted earlier how the development of CMS has been guided by a number of dom-

inant perspectives. In a later section we attend to the business school as the immediateinstitutional context in which CMS has developed.

. To illustrate their position, Fournier and Grey () give the example of how gen-der is taken up in non-critical, performative analysis and contrast it with a criticalapproach: In non-critical work, the issue might be one of harnessing diversity in thepursuit of effectiveness . . . gender inequalities are translated into problems of wastedresources. . . [In contrast], critical perspectives may concentrate on the making of genderdifferences and the ways in which organizational practices, including equal opportu-nity practices, are implicated in the reproduction of gendered power relations (ibid.:). Given that this example of critical analysis presents an alternative to mainstream,performative accounts of gender, it is rather ironic that Thompson () also takesFournier and Grey to task for ignoring the politics of the workplace and diagnoses thisomission as a consequence of their alleged obsession with epistemological and ontolog-ical quandaries. Concerns about knowledge claims and the nature of reality, Thompsoncontends, lead to the blunting, rather than a sharpening, of critique as they orchestrate aslide into relativism which makes it irrational to advance meaningful truth claims. And,allegedly, it is this slide that makes it impossible to distinguish between the rhetoricalclaims of the powerful and the underlying realities associated with these systems ofpower. To defend this assessment, Thompson appeals to critical realism. This moveinvolves a further irony as the position of critical realism has been forged through anextensive and highly sophisticated engagement with dominant strands of the philosophy

of (social) science (e.g., Sayer; Fleetwood), an engagement which suggests thatwrestling with ontological and epistemological quandaries is neither optional nor mar-ginal. Moreover, it is questionable whether this engagement need displace a focus uponthe politics of the workplace and beyond. The challenge is to be reflexively sensitive tothe ontological and epistemological limitations of each particular approach to advancingmeaningful truth claims whilst undertaking critical work with an emancipatory intentthat reaches, and has relevance for, a broad audience that incorporates managers as wellas students but it not confined to these constituencies. The advocacy of critical realismis valuable in reminding us that if CMS is to be socially influential, it must focus on


24/26

, &

effective political engagement. However, it can be too quick to dismiss other traditions

that share a concern to be politically relevant without privileging elements of criticalrealism that have been assessed to be problematicalnotably its positive, naturalizedontology and, relatedly, its bracketing of reflexivity about its own construction as adiscourse (see Glynos and Howarth ).

. Our use of the term business school is intended to include similar institutions, such asschools and departments of management, and departments of business administration.

. According to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, CDSs have an esti-mated notional value of around $trillion(as of September), which compares tothe Gross World Product in of approximately $. trillion (World Bank estimate).

. This scenario is now rather unlikely as, perversely perhaps, universities have, in diningwith the business school devil, become increasingly dependent financially upon theexpansion of business school education.

. These include its virtual elementswww.criticalmanagement.org and the list [email protected] whose archive can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A=ind&L=critical-management

R

A, M. (). Critical Organization Studies, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon(eds.),Northern Lights. Malm: Liber,.

(). The Future of Critical Management Studies, in D. Barry and H. Hansen(eds.), The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization.London: Sage,.

and B, D. (). Understanding Gender and Organiztions, nd edn. London:Sage.

and S, K. ().Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research,nd edn.London: Sage.

and W, H. ().Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.().Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.(). Introduction, inStudying Management Critically. London: Sage,.

A, P. ().The Ideology of Work. London: Tavistock.B, S. B. (). Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.B, S. (). Corporations, Democracy and the Public Good, Distinguished Scholar

Lecture, Organization and Management Theory Division, Academy of Management

Meeting, Atlanta Georgia, August.B, R. ().Work and Authority in Industry. New York: Wiley.B, S. (). Reading Critical Theory, in C. Jones and R. ten Bos (eds.), Philosophy

and Organization. London: Routledge,.B, H. ().Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.B, G. (). Normal Science, Paradigms, Metaphors, Discourses and Genealogies

of Analysis, in S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies.London: Sage,.


25/26


26/26

, &

S, K. , F, J. , and H, H . (). Toolkit for Develop-

ing Sustainable Practices, http://www.searchsa.com.au/kala/Toolkit.htm (accessed December).

S, A. ().Method is Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Routledge.S, A., A, M., and K, D. () Critical Performativity: The Unfin-

ished Business of Critical Management Studies,Human Relations, in press.S (). Turning the Trolls to Stone: Strategy for the Global Justice Move-

ment, http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/trollstostone.html (accessedDecember).

S, B. D., and G, A. J. (). Personnel/Organizational Psychology: A Critiqueof the Discipline, in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds.), Critical Management Studies.London: Sage,.

T, P. (). Brands, Boundaries and Bandwagons: A Critical Reflection on

Critical Management Studies, in S. Fleetwood and S. Ackroyd (eds.), Critical Realismin Action and Organization Studies. London: Routledge,.

W, R. (). The Fragmented State of Management Studies, Reasons, and Conse-quences,Journal of Management Studies,:.

W, H . (). Rethinking Management and Managerial Work: Capitalism, Controland Subjectivity,Human Relations/:.

(). Critical Management and Global Justice,Organization,/:.(). Identities in Organizations: From Interpretive to Critical Analysis. Working

paper, available from the author., S. ().The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.

Critical Management Studies Capítulo 1 Theoxfordhandbookof

Documents

Transcript of Critical Management Studies Capítulo 1 Theoxfordhandbookof