Advanced

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

Schaefer, Stephan LU and Christopher, Wickert (2016) In Human Relations 69(2). p.215-215
Abstract
In this article, we respond to Cabantous, Gond, Harding and Learmonth’s (2016) critique of recent conceptual contributions that employ the concept of performativity for prompting progressive changes in organizations. All in all, we seem to share the general unease concerning the marginal impact of Critical Management Studies on re-defining organizational realities. At the same time, we largely disagree on how critical scholars could support effective, progressive changes. In this rejoinder, we respond to but also absorb Cabantous et al.’s critique of progressive performativity and sketch three ways of how
to advance discussions of Critical Management Studies’ role in organizational scholarship.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
critical management studies, CMS, critical performativity theory, engaged critical research, progressive performativity, relevance of critical research
in
Human Relations
volume
69
issue
2
pages
224 pages
publisher
SAGE Publications
external identifiers
  • Scopus:84957808027
ISSN
0018-7267
DOI
10.1177/0018726715608931
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
a257f6dc-c2c1-4d59-8b3c-fc60d438bcf4
date added to LUP
2016-06-09 10:17:50
date last changed
2016-10-13 05:09:57
@misc{a257f6dc-c2c1-4d59-8b3c-fc60d438bcf4,
  abstract     = {In this article, we respond to Cabantous, Gond, Harding and Learmonth’s (2016) critique of recent conceptual contributions that employ the concept of performativity for prompting progressive changes in organizations. All in all, we seem to share the general unease concerning the marginal impact of Critical Management Studies on re-defining organizational realities. At the same time, we largely disagree on how critical scholars could support effective, progressive changes. In this rejoinder, we respond to but also absorb Cabantous et al.’s critique of progressive performativity and sketch three ways of how<br/>to advance discussions of Critical Management Studies’ role in organizational scholarship.},
  author       = {Schaefer, Stephan and Christopher, Wickert},
  issn         = {0018-7267},
  keyword      = {critical management studies,CMS,critical performativity theory,engaged critical research,progressive performativity,relevance of critical research},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {215--215},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0xbf602e0)},
  series       = {Human Relations},
  title        = {On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0018726715608931 },
  volume       = {69},
  year         = {2016},
}