The Managementalist

A blog about management, organization and life in the academia

CFP: EGOS 2015 Sub-theme 50: Organizing subjects: reflexivity, responsibility and transformation at work


Pasi Ahonen, School of Management, Swansea University

Mrinalini Greedharry, Department of English, Laurentian University

Peter Case, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England

Call for Papers

Reflexivity has become ‘a major methodological preoccupation’ for scholars in the field of organization studies in recent years (Rhodes, 2009: 653; see also Weick, 1999; Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Cunliffe, 2003). We would like to explore connections between reflexivity, ethics and work that considers subjects to be constituted by the knowledges that are available to them in their time and place (Foucault, 1983, 2005; Nandy, 1995, 2004; Hacking, 2004). In these terms, subjects can only understand themselves and make themselves understandable in terms of the categories and discourses that are dans le vrai of the world they inhabit.

Postcolonial critiques of modernity (Said 1978; Spivak 1999; Chakrabarty 2007; Jack & Westwood, 2009; Jack et al., 2011) make a compelling argument that the conditions of genuine transformation in organizational life depend on the production of new relations between the subjects and objects of knowledge. Reflexive practices are crucial in producing new subject-object relations, but what reflexivity means for subjects and objects of emergent knowledge is not well understood. Accordingly, we are interested in exploring how reflexive practices make interventions in the subject-object-knowledge dynamic in a variety of settings.

For example, organizational diversity research operates on subjects who are thought to exist (e.g., those protected under categories of anti-discrimination laws), but it could provide a space for imagining other subjects who do not yet exist (such as postcolonial subjects) (Ahonen & Greedharry, 2013). Reflection in the former case is dependent on existing knowledge about diversity and the categories that such knowledge naturalizes (Ahonen et al., 2013). In the latter case the possibilities for reflexivity are limited not by existing knowledge and its naturalized categories, but by the legibility and credibility of knowledges that are still emerging.

Similarly, international development work and projects produce certain kinds of subjects (e.g., developers and developees) which engender complex, hybrid and often problematic forms of reflexivity and subject positioning (Dar & Cooke, 2008). Such positioning opens up possibilities of reflexive dissent and contestation (Fforde, 2009, 2013). The current and widespread fascination with organizational spirituality offers another case in point. What is happening when organizational subjects turn to workplace spiritualities of various forms (Case & Gosling, 2010; Case, Höpfl & Letiche, 2012; Case, Simpson & French, 2012; Giacaolone & Jurkiewicz, 2004; Heelas, 2008) or non-modern knowledge (Case & Gosling, 2007) in search of other kinds of reflexive practices?

As Rhodes (2009: 667) argues, ‘the cultivation of poiesis’, the fostering of questioning, of possibilities and of openness in the production of organizational knowledge, may well be the means with which to combat the finitude of established knowledges and the subjects they make possible, but we also need to examine, or imagine, the subjects-in-progress that the emerging knowledges make possible. What kinds of reflexive practices are sought and recovered, and what kinds of ‘working’ subjects are they meant to produce?

For this sub-theme we invite papers addressing, but not limited to, such themes as:

• Difference and the possibility of (new) organizational subjects
• Disreputable knowledges and organizing subjects
• Postcolonial transformations
• Diversity discourses, reflexivity and subject formation
• Workplace spiritualities and reflexivity
• Histories of subjects at and in work
• Reflexivity and organizational transformation
• Ethics and practices of making (up) organizational subjects

We encourage creative interpretations of this call for papers. Proposals for individual papers and panels and as well as innovative forms of presentation will all be considered.

Please visit for more information on EGOS 2015 Colloquium and for proposal and submission guidelines

Ahonen, P. & Greedharry, M. (2013). What’s the difference? Postcolonial interventions in diversity and its management. Paper presented at the 15th Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organisation Studies Conference, Tokyo, 15-17 February 2013.

Ahonen, P., Tienari, J., Meriläinen, S., & Pullen, A. (2014). Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: A Foucauldian reading of diversity management. Human Relations 67(3), 263-286.

Alvesson, M. & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for
qualitative research. London: Sage.

Case, P. & Gosling, J. (2007). Wisdom of the moment: Premodern perspectives on organizational action. Social Epistemology, 21(2): 87-111.

Case, P. & Gosling, J. (2010) The spiritual organization: Critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality discourse. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 7(4): 257-282.

Case, P., Höpfl, H. & Letiche, H. (Eds)(2012). Belief and organization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Case, P., Simpson, P. & French, R. (2012). From theoria to theory: Leadership without contemplation. Organization, 19(3): 345-361.

Chakrabarty, D. (2007). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cunliffe, A. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations 56(8), 983–1003.

Dar, S. & Cooke, B. (2008). The new development management: Critiquing the dual modernization. London: Zed Books.

Fforde, A. (2009). Coping with facts: A skeptic’s guide to the problem of development. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

Fforde, A. (2013). Understanding development economics: Its challenge to development studies. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208-228). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (2005). The Hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981—1982. Basingstoke: Picador

Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2004). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Hacking, I. (2004). Historical ontology. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Heelas, P. (2008). Spiritualities of life: New age romanticism and consumptive capitalism. Blackwell: Oxford.

Jack, G., & Westwood, R. (2009). International and cross-cultural management studies: A postcolonial reading. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jack, G., Westwood, R., Srinivas, N., & Sardar, Z. (2011). Deepening, broadening and re-asserting a postcolonial interrogative space in organization studies. Organization, 18(3), 275-302.

Nandy, A. (1995). The savage Freud: And other essays on possible and retrievable selves. Delhi: Oxford University Press India.

Nandy, A. (2004). Alternative sciences: Creativity and authenticity in two Indian scientists. Delhi: Oxford University Press India.

Rhodes, C. (2009). After reflexivity: Ethics, freedom and the writing of organization studies. Organization Studies, 30(6), 653-672.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.

Spivak, G. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weick, K. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 1990s. Academy of Management Review
24(4), 797–806.


Pasi Ahonen is Lecturer in Organization Studies at Swansea University School of Management, UK. His research interests include history, memory and organizations and diversity and its management.

Peter Case is Professor of Organization Studies at Bristol Business School, UK, and Professor of Management and Organization Studies at James Cook University, Australia. His research interests include organizational ethics, international development discourse and reflexive methodology.

Mrinalini Greedharry is Assistant Professor in the Department of English, Laurentian University, Canada. Her research interests include postcolonial theory and the history of literary pedagogy.

Streamlining the website

I have made some small changes to the Managementalist website. To keep things simple, the links to my publications and conference papers now take you to my pages. I have also added a section on the teaching I do.

My blog postings will remain infrequent and irregular for the time being. The situation should change by the summer.

EGOS 2013, Sub-theme 41: Embodying Leadership with Ethics in Mind

To upload your short paper, please log in to the Member Area at

Alison Pullen, Swansea University, UK
Pasi Ahonen, Swansea University, UK
Suzanne Gagnon, McGill University, Canada

Call for Papers

Given the need to operationalize effective leadership in fast changing organizational times and often within states of economic, political and social crisis, the practical as well as epistemic challenges that leaders face require serious academic scrutiny. In this stream we perform such analysis by contesting the continued theorization and research of leadership as disembodied, and instead paying critical attention to the corporeal nature of leadership itself. In this way we offer this stream as a place to think about the ways in which leadership is an affective and embodied practice.

Whether it is transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, or situational leadership, the common assumption is that good leadership emanates from the mind or personality. If the body is considered, it is done so superficially, for example by associating leadership effectiveness with physical characteristics and/or assuming that the leader is able-bodied and ostensibly Western. To date there have been only a small number of studies that recognize the embodied nature of leadership or question leaders’ disembodied character (e.g. Ropo & Parviainen, 2001; Ropo & Sauer, 2008; Sinclair, 2005). The bodily and affective labour of leadership and its relationship with ethical practice have also been largely overlooked (with notable exceptions such as Calás & Smircich, 1991). Moreover leadership’s engagement with corporeal ethics, an ethics of the body, has been noted as a promising but as yet unexplored territory which is worthy of academic engagement (Pullen & Rhodes, 2010).

‘Embodying Leadership’ calls attention to the affective and embodied dimensions of leadership. This recognizes that leadership requires large elements of empathy, insight into others’ normative and moral frameworks, considerable persuasive skills and, most especially, embodied interactions and responses between flesh-and-blood people. Some have characterized these qualities as feminine leadership (e.g. Peters, 1990). It has been argued that such characteristics are gendered such that men more closely conform to disembodied leadership and women to affective/embodied leadership (cf. Adler, 1997). Others argue that such attempts to typecast the sexes is itself gendered and that this reproduces rather than challenges taken for granted gender and sexual binary divisions, dichotomies and inequalities (Calás & Smircich, 1993; Knights & Kerfoot, 2004).

While gender, and its embodied manifestation, has received some attention in leadership studies ‘race’ and ethnicity has been neglected. The relationship between race and leadership has however been attended to in other fields, and there is an important stream of work by leadership scholars in critical management and organization (see Edmonson Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Parker, 2004; Chin, 2009; Mumby, 2011). Much of the existing work approaches the themes from the particular perspective of American social dynamics and racial and ethnic constructs (see Omi & Winant, 1994). Importantly, studies of embodiment and leadership appear to date to have neglected race and racialization, and ethnicity and ethnicization, notwithstanding important exceptions (e.g. hooks, 2004) even these too are embodied matters.

Bringing these threads of embodiment, gender and race together the stream will forge new directions in the study of leadership that no longer just keep leadership ‘in mind’.


Adler, N.J. (1997): ‘Global Leadership: Women Leaders.’ Management International Review, 37, 171–196.
Calás, M.B. & L.M. Smircich (1991): ‘Voicing seduction to silence leadership.’ Organization Studies, 12, 567–602.
Calás, M.B. & L.M. Smircich (1993): Dangerous liaisons: the “feminine-in-management” meets “globalization”.’Business Horizons, March/April, 71–81.
Chin, J.L. (2009): ‘Gender, race and leadership.’ In: R.H. Klein, C.A. Rice & V.L. Schermer (eds.): Leadership in a Changing World: Dynamic Perspectives on Groups and their Leaders. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 73–92.
Edmonson Bell, E.J.L. & S.M. Nkomo (2001): Our Separate Ways: Black and White Women and the Struggle for Professional Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
hooks, b. (2004): We Real Cool. Black Men and Masculinity. New York: Routledge.
Knights, D. & D. Kerfoot (2004): ‘Between representations and subjectivity: gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation.’ Gender, Work and Organization, 11 (4), 430–454.
Mumby, D.K. (2011): Reframing Difference in Organizational Communication Studies: Research, Pedagogy, Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Omi, M. & H. Winant (1994): Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Parker, P.S. (2004): Race, Gender, and Leadership: Re-envisioning Organizational Leadership from the Perspectives of African-American Women Executives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peters, T. (1990): ‘The Best New Managers Will Listen, Motivate, Support – Isn’t That Just Like a Woman?’Working Woman, September 1990, 216–217.
Pullen, A. & C. Rhodes (2010): ‘Gender, Ethics and The Face.’ In: P. Lewis & R. Simpson (eds.): Concealing and Revealing Gender. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 233–248.
Ropo, A. & J. Parvianen (2001): ‘Leadership and bodily knowledge in expert organizations: epistemological rethinking.’ Scandanavian Journal of Management, 17 (1), 1–18.
Ropo, A. & E. Sauer (2008): ‘Dances of leadership: Bridging theory and practice through an aesthetic approach.’Journal of Management and Organization, 14 (5), 560–572.
Sinclair, A. (2005): ‘Body and Management Pedagogy.’ Gender, Work and Organization, 12 (1), 89–104.

Alison Pullen is Professor of Organization Studies, Swansea University, UK. Alison has published extensively in the broad areas of identity, gender, ethics and the body. She is currently engaged in numerous writing projects around embodiment, ethics and leadership including “The Materiality of Leadership” and “The Ethico-Political Organization”.
Pasi Ahonen is Lecturer in Organization Studies at Swansea University, UK. His current work focuses on organizations and the media, politics of history in organizational change and analytics of power in the practice and theory of organizations. Within the field of leadership studies, Pasi’s current focus is on the relationship between leadership and modalities of power. He is currently editing a collection on theory and methodology of critical leadership studies.
Suzanne Gagnon is Assistant Professor in the Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Canada. Suzanne studies discursive and material constructions of identity, diversity and inequality and their effects, including for leadership and situated leadership actors. Amongst other projects, she is a co-lead for a five-year Community University Research Alliance (CURA) examining leadership diversity in large organizations, supported by Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Call for Papers

Re-covering Difference in Organization Studies: the Effects of Diversity and its Management (Stream G). Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies Conference, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, 15-17 February 2013.

University Fees ‘Reform’ in England and Relations of Power

Evidence about how prospective students are responding to the rather shambolic university fee reform in England is trickling in. The debate over the evidence has, of course, already started. So say it is early days, others say it is showing the beginnings of a trend. What is clear, however, is that the UCAS data shows that applications are down significantly (15.1 per cent according to the THE and 13% according to the BBC). This early data is ‘historically unreliable’ (THE), but I think there will be more people surprised if this does not indicate a trend than if it does.

The universities minister Willets, of course, holds the party line. The UniversitiesUK takes a rather more cautious view, tying the success or the failure of this grand social experiment to the still-to-be-determined reaction by prospective students. Professor Eric Thomas, the President of UUK, argues that if people find out how the fees work, there should be reason not to apply to university to do a degree.

Taken as they are, the figures do seem to support Professor Thomas’ view. The facts are he following (caveat emptor! this is for information purposes only):

  • the student pays nothing upfront or during their studies
  • payments start after graduation (or after dropping out, presumably) and only when annual income passes the £21,000 limit
  • of the annual gross salary in excess of £21,000, the graduate (or drop-out) pays 9 per cent as student loan repayment
  • the payments continue until the loan is repaid back or for 30 years, whichever is sooner
  • whatever balance remains at the end of the 30-year period will not have to be paid

On the face of it, this does not seem like such a bad deal. There are no upfront payments, and whatever the payments will be in the future, they will be predictable.

For example, if the graduate earns £30,000, the amount in excess of the £21,000 limit is £9,000. 9% of this £9,000 is £810. So the graduate will (only?) need to pay this amount, is monthly instalments of £67.50. Assuming that this £30,000 is a career average for the 30-year repayment period, the graduate would never have to pay the whole amount, paying back the capital of the students loan (if we assume it is £36,000) would take more than 44 years. And then there are is the interest, and interest on interest and the interest on interest on interest (I am sure you see the pattern here).

If the graduate is supremely gifted, lucky, well-connected or wins the Apprentice (or some combination of these factors) and earns £100,000 per annum, the amount in excess of the limit is £79,000, which translates into payments of £7,110 per year or £592.50 per month. At this rate, the loan is paid back very quickly, in some 5 years. Even the interest will not have much time to add onto the capital that much.

So, all in all, the system looks quite fair, in the Tory kind of way. If you earn a lot, you get rid of your debt. If you do not earn that much, you do not have to pay it all back.

What remains unclear, and what no one, still, seems to be discussing, is the effect of the debt burden on the graduate’s ‘fiscal health’. Should they wish to buy a house to live in, how will the debt be treated? Since the cost is individualized, it would make sense, from the lenders’ perspective, to count the debt amount against the individual in question. The £36,000 debt, probably considered to be a ‘good debt’ in some sense, will reduce the mortgage the individual is able to get. Which in turn reduces the amount of money they can pay to the seller of the house. It seems that future graduates will less space, house prices have to come down, or people will be tenants in rental accommodation all their life. The latter two options would be rather anti-Thatcherite effects for a Tory policy.

Perhaps most importantly, though, this shift will bring in, or accelerate, the rise of the new kind of power relationship Maurizio Lazzarato has identified, building on Foucault’s work on modalities of power. This power relationship is that of debtor and creditor. We have already seen how this modality of power has challenged the sovereignty, the power of the state. Under the pressure from creditors, Greece has lost much of its sovereignty, and Italy has brought in a government comprised of technocrats, people who are experts not in democracy but in economics. In UK, or at least in England, the debtor-creditor power relationship will be (further) individualized through the university fee ‘reform’. In England, the idea seems to be to offload the sovereign debt problem to the individual. The dynamic will be different, but the principal power relationship is the same. The power relationship will bring in new realities, as the new intensifications of power tend to do. We know little of those new realities, but we a headed toward them.

Collaborating in the Cloud

Many academics, especially those whose work is largely comprised of writing, are reluctant to adopt new ways of writing. Among all the adopters of new technologies, I think we can safely say that academics are among the slowest ones. If it works, and a word processor often does, there is not need to go all innovative. If it ain’t broke you certainly don’t waste any time fixing it. Time is a precious commodity.

A couple of weeks ago we finished putting together an ESRC Research Seminars bid. In the past such endeavours have been riddled with last minute panic and endless sifting through various Word documents arriving via email, consolidating additions to the text and trying to keep a record of all the comments. All eating up time. And nerves.

Not this time. While there were still some last minute jitters (largely thanks to the idiosyncracies in ESRC’s Je-S electronic proposal submission system), the experience of coordinating the bid was wholly different. Despite the innovativeness involved, we opted to do it all in the Cloud. To be successful, it had to be simple. This meant no passwords and no registrations. We had some 20 people to keep informed and on board, so having to have people register and then having them to remember their passwords was not something that was going to be workable.

The best option was to use what the ubiquitous Internet company Google has to offer, the Google Docs. The budget was put together on the Google Spreadheet and the proposal itself was worked on, unsurprisingly, as a Google Document. These two documents were shared via a dedicated links; anyone with the link could access the documents and edit them.

With 20 people directly involved, all this might have resulted in all kinds of anarchy, but it did not. The documents could be worked on simultaneously or in sequence, ‘delivery time’ became largely a non-conccept, and everybody always had the latest version of whatever was being worked on. The only problems we encountered were problems were compatibility issues between Microsoft (and to a lesser degree, Apple) and Google. Those who had access to the Google Chrome browser had the best user experience.

The group that was brought together to work on this bid was an unestablished one. There were no preceding links of organisational structures that could have helped in the collaboration. It all had to be put together with a minimum of fuss and preparation. As the work progresses, and we may soon be able to call ourselves a ‘network’, the tools will likely change. Thanks to the hindrances that there are (intentionally?—one wonders) due to the compatibility issues, it is likely that the the future collaboration and communication will shift over to the Microsoft world. Such is the power of legacy systems. The next challenge is to get people to register—and to keep hold of their passwords.

Collaborating in the Cloud, however, may just become part of ‘it’, the one that does not require fixing.

Post Navigation