On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure
(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:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/a257f6dc-c2c1-4d59-8b3c-fc60d438bcf4
- author
- Schaefer, Stephan LU and Christopher, Wickert
- organization
- publishing date
- 2016
- 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
- wos:000370368400002
- 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
- 2022-04-08 21:28:06
@article{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}}, keywords = {{critical management studies; CMS; critical performativity theory; engaged critical research; progressive performativity; relevance of critical research}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{215--215}}, publisher = {{SAGE Publications}}, 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}}, doi = {{10.1177/0018726715608931}}, volume = {{69}}, year = {{2016}}, }