Organization Theory

We build a comprehensive and coherent understanding of organizational purity as an organization’s steadfast adherence to a single institutional logic. This logic becomes the core tenet of its identity, an end in itself rather than a means toward survival. Instead of responding to institutional pressures, pure organizations may self-categorize vis-à-vis a potentially threatening ‘other’ through their own identity work. They mark and pursue their distinction from others, structure themselves to preserve their purity, and favor strategies that express the logic they embody. In so doing they may fail more often than organizations that are more responsive to institutional pressures. When pure organizations enter new institutional fields they can act as change agents, but where their logic dominates, they may block change. Different audiences, in turn, affect the success and survival of pure organizations by conferring authenticity, legitimacy or contempt, depending on their alignment with the pure organization’s logic. Further examining purity will enable organizational theorists to better account for non-rational action and extend work on institutional logics.

This paper contributes a narrative dimension for the temporality of organizational sensemaking. Reconciling sensemaking with a broader understanding of time not only provides a more in-depth treatment of time in sensemaking. It also helps overcome existing dichotomies in temporal theorizing to advance a more dynamic temporal theorizing in organizational research. To extend a temporal understanding of sensemaking, we discuss Ricoeur’s theory of narrative and time in light of his prefigurative, configurative, and refigurative modes of time. We then suggest ways that this framework illuminates how three corresponding temporal modes of sensemaking connect through time, drawing on Weick’s analysis of the Mann Gulch disaster to illustrate the framework. Finally, we discuss how the recursive features of our framework enable understanding of the situated dynamics by which actors move through time, thus contributing a way to deal with the “stationarity problem” of temporal theorizing.

In their 2012 book The Institutional Logics Perspective, Patricia Thornton, William Ocasio and Michael Lounsbury proposed the addition of community as a logic to more traditional candidates such as religion and family. This article argues that an examination of the wider sociological and historical literature indicates that community is indeed an important category of analysis, but as the context shaping action rather than as a logic. The literature that Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury draw on tends to conflate community as a form of informal social structure with community as geographically bounded space. Using Friedland’s characterization of logics as a combination of substance and practices, I argue that community lacks the coherence necessary to function as a logic. While community remains an important part of our conceptual armoury, I argue that as well as being aware of the connotations of the term it may be more productive to consider it as the context in which logics are received, contested and blended. Attention is thus directed to the ways in which a range of organizational forms might foster or negate shared feelings of groupness.

What happens to old competences in organizations when new competences are acquired? In this paper, we propose a competence attrition theory to explain the effects of acquiring new competences on previously acquired ones. While the presumed positive role of available competences for the acquisition of new competences has been the subject of extensive research, the potentially negative effect of the acquisition of external competences on the availability and use of existing competences has not been sufficiently theorized. We aim to do so by extending existing learning and absorptive capacity theories with insights from linguistics on competence attrition. Specifically, informed by parallel patterns in language acquisition and attrition, we develop a set of focused propositions on competence acquisition and attrition in organizations. We end the paper by discussing the implications of our theorizing for existing theory and research.

This review paper extends our understanding of organizational deception. We focus specifically on the telling of lies – defined as a false statement with the intent to deceive – as the most common form of deception. We draw new insights from the limited number of existing studies of organizational deception in order to develop a taxonomy of lies and provide an integrative framing for the analysis of lying in organizational contexts. We engage relational sociology to develop this theoretical framing around three key dimensions: organizational context, social relations and actors’ behaviours. From a detailed examination of eleven prior studies, we interrelate these dimensions to identify distinct patterns of lying that are triggered or enabled by social relations or organizational contexts, or both. Based on this theoretical synthesis of prior work, we then demonstrate the utility of the framework in fostering comparative analysis by examining four recent studies of strategic deception in depth. We conclude the paper by discussing the implications of our framework and suggesting an agenda for further research.

As generative AI systems move beyond Turing’s benchmark for whether a machine exhibits human-like intelligence, what implications does this technological milestone have for organization theory? We engage with this question by considering how the increasing creativity and social competence exhibited by generative AI impacts processes of social construction and cultural evolution that have, up to this point, been the exclusive domain of humans. More specifically, we consider what it means to have intelligent machines capable of category work, which we define here as both the culturally savvy use of categories and purposeful participation in the processes of construction that underpin systems of categories more generally. We go on to explore some of the implications for individuals, organizations and societies of the appearance of this new class of artificial participants in the processes that constitute category systems.

Avant-garde entrepreneurship studies have contributed to organization theory through a strong process ontology on the creation of new potentialities for organizing; however, this has also further diminished scholarly attention to organizations as objects. It follows that the core entities of organization theory—real organizations—matter very little for theorizing organizational emergence. Based on Graham Harman’s object-oriented ontology (OOO), we develop the argument that objects, not unlike processes, can be entrepreneurial. Laying the ground for an object-oriented organization theory (OOOT), we posit that increased attention to viewing entrepreneurship as a quality invites organization theory into the weird reality of organizations as emergent autonomy-seeking objects. This becomes possible by way of a non-literal knowledge sustained by the commitment of another object that is neither reduceable to its components (including process itself) nor actions (including all forms of the relational determination of organizations). We close by discussing the uniqueness of OOOT through the example of Sun Ra and the Arkestra.

There is an emerging consensus both within the social scientific research community and more widely in the public domain that expert authority is “in trouble.” However, there is much greater disagreement over the scope and scale of this trouble and what it might mean for the nature, status, and significance of expert authority in the 21st century. This paper identifies and assesses three different narratives concerning the crisis in expert authority. These constitute the delegitimation narrative, the demystification narrative, and the decomposition narrative. They can be seen as responses to the breakdown in the implicit social contract between experts, publics, and states under the extreme and continuous pressures exerted on expert authority by disjunctive change. We evaluate these various interpretations of the crisis in expert authority, particularly in terms of what they suggest about the future potency and stability of the concept of expert authority. In this process of evaluation, we also highlight the emergence of reflexive expert authority and its implications for organizational governance as potential outcomes of this ongoing crisis in the legitimacy and status of expert workers. Consequently, the paper provides a general analytical framework for understanding the emergent narratives around expert authority in democracies and highlights how all three narratives point to serious problems in sustaining this authority in the face of destabilizing change. Furthermore, in developing the notion of reflexive expert authority, we contend that theorization of expert authority needs to privilege the deeper dynamics of trust and control at the core of its analytical focus within organization theory.

New forms of organizing (NFOs) such as crowds and communities are increasingly relevant as novel collaboration partners for organizations. Although the motivations and goals that prompt organizations to collaborate (the why) have not changed over time, the way they collaborate (the how) seems to have changed significantly. Surprisingly, research to theorize these new forms of collaboration is still sparse. This conceptual paper investigates the extent to which a widely established theoretical framework—the relational view—can capture this new and mostly undertheorized setting of firm–NFO collaborations. More precisely, we ask whether and how the relational view also applies to this new context of interaction between firms and NFOs. Adopting the relational view’s four determinants as a framework, we systematically analyse and disentangle firms’ collaborations with NFOs. We ground this investigation in two analytical dimensions, the degree of NFO self-organizing and the degree of firm-relatedness. They enable us to exemplify the variety of new forms of collaboration and, most important, to delineate clear differences between firm–NFO collaboration and traditional interorganizational collaboration. We stress the boundaries of the relational view, suggest expanding its scope to capture the variety of firm–NFO collaborations, and propose ways of doing so.

We investigate the nature and impact of recent ‘reflexive theorizing’ in the field of Organization Studies by examining articles that critically reflect on research, practice and the profession more generally with a view to defining, refining or changing future trajectories for the field. We identify a range of discursive practices used in these articles to establish authority, describe the field and make claims about the nature of theorizing. We then present three ‘ideal types’ that represent particular constellations of these discursive practices. We interrogate each of these ideal types in order to demonstrate how particular combinations of discursive practices can limit the potential of reflexive theorizing by shutting down conversations. Finally, we make a number of suggestions for weaving together discursive practices in ways that help to ensure that reflexive theorizing generates new forms of knowledge through conversations which are open to a wider range of voices, and where respect and generosity are evident.

We explore how management and organization scholars theorize when undertaking research on extreme contexts, which are organizational settings where potential adverse events arise from risks, emergencies and disruptions. We propose that different ‘modes of engagement’ arise as researchers connect different aspects of the self to the extreme context; namely, personal self, professional self, moral self and vulnerable self. Each self-context connection plays out in different modes of engagement in the conduct of empirical research and enables different theorizing practices. We present these self-context connections as four ideal-typical modes of engagement. Adventuresome inquiry connects a personal self to the extreme context and theorizes by phenomenon-driven problematization. Instrumental scholarship expresses a professional self in the extreme context and theorizes by theory elaboration. Ideological improvement galvanizes a moral self in the extreme context and theorizes by change-driven abstraction. Reflexive labor exposes a vulnerable self and theorizes by dialectical interrogation. Our comprehensive framework of theorizing as mode of engagement contributes to extreme context research by elucidating how theorizing in and through such contexts is accomplished by researchers with multiple selves and by offering some guidance on how the four modes can be used dynamically to ensure generative theorizing. We also contribute to the broader literature on theorizing in management and organization studies by highlighting the need to consider the interplay between the researcher and the academic contributions they produce and by proposing a reflexive and dynamic framework of theorizing as modes of engagement.

This essay explores possibilities for expanding how critical organization scholars theorize and examine processes of struggle in the capital–labor relationship. Arguing for a more expansive conception of the typical sphere of struggle, I explore the intersections of branding, communicative capitalism, and the entrepreneurial self as a way to theorize struggle in the “social factory.” I suggest that the focus of critical scholars on the “indeterminacy of labor” at the point of production as the key to struggle in the capital–labor relationship should be expanded to encompass an exploration of the “politics of indeterminacy” within the broader cycle of value in motion in the capital accumulation process. A politics of indeterminacy attempts to capture the struggles (around meaning, value, affect, identity, etc.) that unfold throughout the sites and stages of the capital accumulation process. Moreover, conceiving of the capital accumulation process as a dialectical movement of the “unity in contradiction” between value and anti-value provides critical scholars with additional conceptual resources to explore struggle in the organizing process.

Despite the ubiquity of digital technologies, data-driven approaches and algorithms, organization theory so far only engages with these developments in limited ways. A deeper engagement with the organizational ramifications of a digital, datafied world is urgently needed and must start from mappings of the phenomenon and the development of better theoretical vocabularies that can guide future research. Complementing the essays by Zuboff and Power in this exchange, my essay suggests a research agenda based on how digital technologies, data and algorithms impact and shape our lives in and around organizations by making us visible in novel ways. I unpack the technological and operational underpinnings of this phenomenon in two steps. The first is a broad conceptualization of the overall shape of what I term ‘digital architectures’. The second is a more granular theorization of how data-driven, algorithmic approaches make the ‘management of visibilities’ a central concern for humans, organizations and societies, as well as some reflections on possible responses to these developments. Taken together, these discussions highlight how digital ubiquity calls for novel theoretical perspectives and research avenues for organization theory to explore.

As agents of strategic institutional change, institutional entrepreneurs (IEs) draw resources from their structural environment to alter the structural context in which they are embedded. In this article, we explore which resources IEs mobilize in different structural settings. We distinguish between (positional or free) field resources and personal resources, all of which may be material, cultural, social, symbolic or political in kind. Our review of leading case studies of institutional entrepreneurship shows that centrally positioned IEs draw primarily on organizational positional resources. By contrast, peripherally positioned IEs rely mainly on the skilful mobilization of free resources as well as on the personal resources of individuals. Also the field’s degree of institutionalization has an impact on IEs’ resources: in emerging fields where field positions and field boundaries are not yet defined, resources must be imported from mature fields. Furthermore, although resource-poor peripheral IEs may set off institution-building processes in emerging fields, they are usually superseded by central organizational actors during later stages of institution-building.

We develop a spiritual perspective on the entrepreneurial imagination, addressing imagined futures in this “conversations and controversies” section on entrepreneurial futures. Specifically, we blend heterodox ideas from various yoga traditions, experiential sources of religion, and the work of poet-mystic William Blake. These diverse sources echo related ideas in a coherent way—uniquely embracing both transcendence and immanence, both mind and body. We structure our argument around the latter binary, making connections to spirituality and entrepreneurial imagination in each domain. We begin with the mind, acknowledging imagination as a mental act. Specifically, we explore the conscious, unconscious, and spiritual mind. We then turn to the body, recognizing imagination’s bodily basis. In particular, we investigate the corporeal, sensory, and spiritual body. Before offering some concluding thoughts, we discuss implications for entrepreneurial imagination with a focus on walking meditation (and contemplative practices of walking more generally) as one potentially fruitful way to engage mind-body-spirit and the forward-looking entrepreneurial imagination.

This essay is a conversation between Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism, Mikkel Flyverbom’s conceptualization of the hyper-visibility afforded by digital architectures, and my own ‘analog’ theory of accounting dynamics in the ‘audit society’. Drawing upon trends in accounting practice and research I develop a number of inflection points which define theoretical tensions between the concepts of audit society and surveillance capitalism. These tensions suggest that theoretical innovation is required in the face of: the accelerating constitution of organizations by platforms and their processes – ‘platformization’; the constitution of human agents as data-driven subjects of these data architectures – ‘cyborgization’; and the reconstruction of the social sciences by a pervasive data positivism in which accounting becomes ‘accountics’. The exploration of these three inflection points reveals the deep operational logic of surveillance capitalism as an ‘economy of traces’ and traceability. Zuboff’s challenge of a political dystopia governed by technology giants and Flyverbom’s image of a society ‘overlit’ by digital architectures necessitate a re-specification of the audit society dynamics that I have previously theorized. The re-specification that I propose in this essay is a form of a critical ‘traceology’ which takes as its focus the ongoing production of all manner of traces and how they make up organizations, people and forms of knowledge.

As a theoretical framework in organization studies, institutional logics is immensely popular. It has been used in a large amount of highly contributory and enlightening empirical studies, and developed far beyond its original formulation in a classical paper by Friedland and Alford (1991). In our paper, we identify three key theoretical problems that have emerged in the development and use of institutional logics theory in the past three decades: the lack of uniformity and coherence in the definitions and empirical identifications of logics; the tendency of institutional logics theorists to attempt to build grand theory to connect micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis; and the difficulties to explain how institutional logics are reproduced and how institutional logics interrelate and evolve over time. To address these issues, we highlight the similarities between institutional logics theory and classical functionalist differentiation theory, drawing its legacy from Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton, and propose its use as a resource in further theoretical development. The aim of the paper is not to reject institutional logics theory, or merely to point out its weaknesses, but to demonstrate how a revival of some classics in sociological theory can be used to sharpen institutional logics as an analytical tool and thus assist in efforts to further improve the usefulness of institutional logics as a theoretical framework in organization studies.

Uberization has emerged as a platform-based form of organizing that is reshaping work and labour markets and that is fundamentally challenging existing thinking on organizing. We suggest that organizational theorists have been reluctant to address the constitutive relation between technology and organizing. By emphasizing co-constitution, we argue against viewing technology as an entity that is separate, exogenous, or causal. Instead, we offer that technology can be fruitfully viewed as endogenous to and constitutively entwined with organizational actions and structures. To illustrate this co-constitution, we present a brief analysis of Uberization from a regime of organizing perspective that emphasizes how organizing practices, valuation schemes, authority arrangements and technological arrangements are entwined with each other. We conclude with an invitation to organizational theorists to more specifically engage with technology as they theorize new forms of organizing.

Organization Theory is an academic journal dedicated to the development and dissemination of novel theory in the domain of organizational scholarship. At the same time, an increasing chorus of organizational scholars have advocated for “impact”—broadly defined as producing societal benefit beyond the realm of academia. In this editorial, we question the implicit dichotomy between theory, on the one hand, and impact, on the other, and critically explore the notion of impactful theory. Rather than seeing theory as inherently opposed to impact, we celebrate and elucidate theory as a meaningful way to achieve impact. Specifically, we unpack the apparent oxymoron of impactful theory, and articulate seven distinct pathways whereby theory can be impactful. We close by outlining several critical questions, both for individual scholars and our collective community, as well as future research directions.

This paper contributes to debates about craft authenticity by turning attention to the craft imaginary. We suggest that the significance of craft stems from its role in constructing an alternative social imaginary that challenges dominant, modernist imaginaries of industrial production and consumption. Our focus is on the role of imaginaries in determining how societies, communities, organizations and individuals embody temporal relations to the past that extend into the present and future. We show how the craft imaginary comprises histories, traditions, places and bodies and use this to develop a distinction between the imaginary of craft-in-the-past and future-oriented craft imaginaries. Through this, we seek to highlight the organizational possibilities of craft as a source of innovation, inclusivity and disruption.