Human Relations

In this critical essay, I contend that accelerating demands for novel theories in management studies imply that new methodologies and data are sometimes accepted prematurely as supply of these novel theories. This point is illustrated with reference to how neuroscience can inform management research. I propose two demand forces that foster the increased focus on neuroscience in management studies, these being (i) the direction of public research funding, and (ii) publication bias as a boost for journal impact factor. Looking at the supply side, I note that (i) the statistical power of studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (or fMRI, the ‘gold’ standard) is unacceptably low, (ii) the use of imprecise ‘motherhood’ statements, and (iii) the dismissal of ethical concerns in the formulation of management theories and practice informed by neuroscience. I then briefly outline the bad consequences of this for management theory and practice, emphasize why it is important to prevent these consequences, and offer some methodological suggestions for future research.

Theories of institutional change have paid limited attention to the ways in which relations between institutional fields might facilitate or hinder institutional change. I introduce inter-field resource dependence as an important condition explaining institutional change between fields. Building on resource dependence theory, I conceptualize two dimensions of inter-field resource dependence: mutual dependence and power imbalance. I argue that these two dimensions have opposite effects on the likelihood of institutional change between fields. Mutual dependence between two fields increases the chances of institutional change by inducing actors in both the fields to work at creating new shared institutions in order to regulate their mutual dependence. Power imbalance between two fields decreases the chances of institutional change by inducing actors in the dominant field to work at maintaining existing institutions in order to preserve their power. Thus, different types of inter-field resource dependence motivate actors to undertake different forms of institutional work, which in turn shape the likelihood of institutional change between fields. Developing this core argument, I theorize that whether the institutional change occurring between two fields is radical or incremental is a function of the type of resource dependence linking the two fields; for example, when power imbalance is high, institutional change is unlikely but when it occurs it tends to be radical.

We identify limits of ‘reflexive governance’ by examining the UK Code of Corporate Governance that is celebrated for its ‘reflexivity’. By placing the historical genesis of the Code within its politico-economic context, it is shown how its scope and penetration is impeded by a shallow, ‘single loop’ of reflexivity. Legitimized by agency theory, the Code is infused by a ‘cultural grammar’ that perpetuates relations of shareholder primacy as it restricts accountability to narrow forms of information disclosure directed exclusively at shareholders. Engagement of a deeper, ‘double loop’ reflexivity allows account to be taken of the historical conditions and theoretical conceptions that shape practices and outcomes of corporate governance. Only then is it possible to disclose, challenge and reform narrow conceptions, boundaries and workings of ‘reflexive governance’.

Soft (e.g. interpersonal and social) skills are receiving ever more attention with employers frequently reporting that employees lack these skills. The ‘blame game’ for these skills deficits is frequently directed at the individual, family or government. Scant attention has been paid to the possibility that people may possess soft skills but decide to withdraw them because of disaffection with their employer. Taking a critical perspective and drawing on three case study establishments, this article finds that some managers blamed soft skills gaps on skills withdrawal. The employee data did not, however, reveal greater employee disaffection in the establishment worst affected by soft skills gaps. Investigation of withdrawal instead revealed more about employees who had left the organizations and the propensity for employers to blame employees for soft skills gaps. The study also affirmed that organizations may be to blame for their soft skills gaps if they do not contextually integrate selection, induction and training practices with their skills needs.

This article addresses the question: why does disorder tend to simultaneously accompany efforts to create order when organizing? Adopting a communication-centered perspective, we specifically examine the role of texts in the mutual constitution of order and disorder. Drawing on empirical material from three qualitative case studies on project organizing, we show that attempts of ordering through language use and texts (i.e. by closing and fixing meaning) tend to induce disordering (i.e. by opening the possibility of multiple meanings), at the same time. As we contend, these (dis)ordering dynamics play a key role in the communicative constitution of organization, keeping them in motion by calling forth continuous processes of meaning (re-)negotiation.

Existing literature assumes employees sharing high-quality relationships with supervisors hold advantageous positions over their peers under the leader–member exchange model. We propose environmental conditions limit the generalizability of this logic. Our framework is based on the idea that certain environments threaten the cycle of resource exchange and reciprocity, a foundational assumption in existing leader–member exchange models. To demonstrate this effect, we integrate social exchange and self-regulation theories to define four generalized environmental conditions we label appetitive alignment, appetitive misalignment, aversive misalignment and aversive alignment. We discuss accompanying propositions including both theoretical and practical implications of a contextualized leader-member exchange model to help future researchers anticipate when the benefits associated with high-quality leader–member relations and the pitfalls of low-quality relationships are attenuated by the environment.

Higher education has been subject to substantial reforms as new forms of performance management are implemented in universities across the world. Extant research suggests that in many cases performance management systems have disrupted academic life. We complement this literature with an extensive mixed methods study of how the performance management system is understood by academics across universities and departments in Finland at a time when new management principles and practices are being forcefully introduced. While our survey results enabled us to map the generally critical and negative view that Finnish scholars have of performance management, the qualitative inquiry allowed us to disentangle how and why our respondents resent the ways and means of measuring their work, the assumptions that underlie the measurement, and the university ideal on which the performance management system is rooted. Most significantly, we highlight how the proliferation of performance management can be seen as a catalyst for changing the very ethos of what it is to be an academic and to do academic work.

This article examines the normative expectations freelance jazz musicians have about the material conditions of live performance work, taking London and Paris as case studies. It shows how price norms constitute an important reference point for individual workers in navigating the labour market. However, only rarely do they take ‘stronger’ form as a collective demand. Two further arguments are made: first, that the strength of norms varies very widely across labour markets, being much stronger on jobs where other qualitative attractions (such as the scope for creative autonomy) are weak. Second, in the Paris case, an ostensibly solidaristic social insurance mechanism (the Intermittence du Spectacle system) had the seemingly paradoxical effect of further weakening social norms around working conditions. Workers’ individual efforts to meet the system’s eligibility criteria often disrupted the emergence of collective expectations around pricing, and in some cases the existence of formal regulation itself was stigmatized as stifling creativity.

This study explores how researchers engage with research subjects. Specifically, it examines the struggle to account for the lived experience of subjects under study while producing knowledge about and for them. Drawing on psychoanalytic, specifically Lacanian, theorizing, the study suggests that such struggles are even more complex when real subjects are absent and impossible to account for. It advances the idea that by articulating the research subject through four different discourses, researchers may take different positions toward this absence. In the first, researchers produce research subjects and put them to work. In the second, subjects are subsumed through systematic knowledge production. In the third, the subject serves the production of knowledge as a function of the split subject’s enjoyment. In the fourth discourse the researcher becomes the object of desire so as to empower subjects in their becoming. It is suggested that each discourse allows researchers to take a different stance toward their research subjects. While discourses one and two are quite commonly adopted, discourses three and four may be alternatives for reflection that facilitate the creative expression of subjectivity, ethical choice and transformational, frame-breaking textual practices. Implications of this perspective for organizational research are discussed.

We suggest that organizational and professional identification are two sources of motivation that can be channeled in similar or different directions based on perceived organizational and professional regulatory focus. Specifically, we hypothesize and find that both types of identification-based motivation are channeled toward diagnosis behaviors when professionals think their coworkers and colleagues value a promotion focus, and they are channeled toward treatment behaviors when professionals think their coworkers and colleagues value a prevention focus. Our results advance research on social identification by helping to explain how and when organizational and professional identification influence work performance, and also advance the organizational literature on professions by introducing diagnosis and treatment as two theory-derived types of in-role performance for professional employees.

Studies suggest that the experience of liminality – of being in an ambiguous, ‘betwixt and between’ position – has creative potential for organizations. We contribute to theory on the link between liminality and creative agency through a study of the coordinators of ‘knowledge-sharing communities’; one of the latest examples of a ‘neo-bureaucratic’ practice that seeks to elicit innovative responses from employees while intensifying control by the organization. Through a role-centred perspective, our study found that both the structural and interpretive aspects of coordinators’ role enactments promoted a degree of creative agency. ‘Front-stage’ and ‘back-stage’ activities were developed to meet the divergent expectations posed by senior management and community members, and the ambiguity of their roles prompted an array of different role interpretations. Our findings contribute to theory by showing how the link between liminality and creative agency is not confined to roles and spaces (consultancy work, professional expertise) that are positioned across organizational boundaries, or free from norms and expectations, but may also apply to roles that are ambiguously situated within organizational contexts and that are subject to divergent expectations. This shows how neo-bureaucratic forms may be both reproduced and renewed through the creative responses of individual managers.

The collective mobilization of migrant workers is an important issue for analysis. Three key barriers to the mobilization of migrant workers have been identified – employment conditions, which tend to prevent migrant workers coming together; the framings held by migrant workers, which marginalize an understanding of their position as that of exploited workers; and the issue of the sustainability of any mobilization. The article examines migrant domestic workers as a case in which collective mobilization appears highly unlikely. The article uses the social movement approach as a meta-theoretical framing to explore the collective mobilization of migrant domestic workers in London. As such, it analyses how the ‘unorganizable’ organize. We show that mobilization changed the framing of migrant domestic workers from ‘labourers of love’ to workers with rights. It was able to do this because it addressed the three barriers to mobilization: by creating a space for the development of communities of coping among migrant workers; by using politicized learning; and by using participative democracy and collective leadership development, tied to links with formal organizations. The article argues for the importance of social scientists examining the creative processes by which migrant workers move towards collective mobilization, and for the utility of a social movement approach in this process.

Organizational changes are costly ventures that too often fail to deliver the expected outcomes. Psychological empowerment and affective commitment to change are proposed as especially important in turbulent contexts characterized by multiple and ongoing changes requiring employees’ continuing contributions. In such a context, employees’ beliefs that the changes are necessary, legitimate and will be supported, are presumed to increase psychological empowerment and affective commitment to change. In a three-wave longitudinal panel study of 819 employees, we examined autoregressive and cross-lagged relations among latent constructs reflecting change-related beliefs (necessity, legitimacy, support) and psychological reactions (psychological empowerment, affective commitment to change). Our findings suggest that psychological empowerment and affective commitment to change represent largely orthogonal reactions, that psychological empowerment is influenced more by beliefs regarding support, whereas affective commitment to change is shaped more by beliefs concerning necessity and legitimacy.