Diverging and Converging:<i>Integrative Insights on a Paradox Meta-perspective</i>

Fairhurst, Gail T.; Smith, Wendy K.; Banghart, Scott; Lewis, Marianne W.; Putnam, Linda L.; Raisch, Sebastian; Schad, Jonathan

doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1162423

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As regards future applications of the framework, recent research has highlighted the potential value of the EW framework for advancing central questions in organizational and management theory related to categorization processes (Durand & Khaire, 2016;Durand & Paolella, 2013;Glynn & Navis, 2013), organizational paradoxes (Fairhurst et al, 2016;Smith & Lewis, 2011), materiality in organizations (Hussenot & Missonier, 2010;Leonardi & Barley, 2008;Nicolini, Mengis, & Swan, 2012), strategy practice (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009;Vaara & Whittington, 2012), social movement theory (Benford & Snow, 2000;Tilly, 2004) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) related issues more generally, including critical CSR (Fleming & Jones, 2013).…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Cloutier¹,

Gond²,

Léca³

2017

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link and evaluation in organizations by reconsidering the notion of worth, and finally 4) push the boundaries of the framework itself by questioning and fine tuning some of its core assumptions. Taken as a whole, this volume not only carves a path for a deeper embedding of the EW approach into contemporary thinking about organizations, it also invites readers to refine and expand it by confronting it with a wider range of diverse empirical contexts of interest to organizational scholars.Keywords: economies of worth; justification; critique; evaluation; French Pragmatist Sociology.3 Despite early acknowledgement of the relevance of the EW framework for studying organizations (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007;Livian & Herreros, 1994), and a recognition that it provides "a highly original perspective stressing the importance of processes of critique and justification for the production of organizational order and change" (Jagd, 2011, p. 344 (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011;Ramirez, 2013;Taupin, 2012). JUSTIFICATION, EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE IN THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUMEWhile demonstrating the "generative" potential of the EW framework by combining it with other theories is both interesting and useful, there are many missed opportunities in failing to embrace the EW framework as a theory that is worthy for its own sake, one that can be particularly helpful, for example, for uncovering some of the normative contradictions that underlie institutional life by investigating how individual actors engage with a plurality of moral orders.Some of this potential can be seen in studies that have mobilized the EW framework to address topics such as intra-organizational dynamics of justification (Jagd, 2011), the strategic management of pluralistic organizations (Daigle & Rouleau, 2010;Denis et al., 2007) decision-making in public management contexts (Dodier & Camus, 1998 It is in light of the above observations and the opportunities they gave rise to that we settled on the following four objectives for the volume: (1) clarify how individuals manage the contradictions and compromises inherent in organizational pluralism by considering the daily moral life of actors inhabiting institutions; (2) look at organizations critically by unpacking the rhetorical foundations of critiques, and pragmatically examining the roles of rhetoric and justification in the critical operations that organizational actors engage in; (3) reconsider the notion of worth beyond its purely economic sense and consider the multiple facets that constitute and produce value in organizational life and (4) push the boundaries of the EW framework itself and by so doing, help further embed notions such as justification, critique and valuation in our contemporary analysis and understanding of organizations.Collectively, the set of contributions proposed in this volume address these four key objec...

show abstract

Section: Concluding Thoughts: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Cloutier¹,

Gond²,

Léca³

2017

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Agile transition process, in most of these cases, is pushed by top managers using a convincing hierarchy strategy dedicated to informing the people within the organizations about the expected benefits of Agile for them (Annosi and Brunetta, 2017). However, one must be aware that the transition from plan-driven software development to the Agile way of working is a major change, and that the inherent, latent tensions can be made salient through IJMPB 14,7 processes of change (Fairhurst et al, 2016;Smith and Lewis, 2011). The first author wrote an extended memo on the tensions that were found.…”

Section: Stability and Change In Agile Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the transition from plan-driven software development to the Agile way of working is a major change, inherently latent tensions can be made salient through processes of change (Fairhurst et al, 2016;Smith and Lewis, 2011). It is only when tensions are made visible that individuals become able to put them into words, and the opportunity to deal with them presents itself.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, tensions exist in most everyday business practices (Papachroni et al, 2015). Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) argue that all systems contain persistent tensions between exploiting and exploring, even though the members of an organization may only experience these tensions when being exposed to, for example, change or stress (Fairhurst et al, 2016). Exploitation draws on mechanistic structures, tight coupling, routinization, bureaucracy and stabilization (Lyytinen and Rose, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Balancing between stability and change in Agile teams

Lindskog

Netz

2021

IJMPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aims to create a better understanding of how practitioners implement and work Agile while balancing the tensions arising between stability and change.Design/methodology/approachA grounded theory approach was used to explore what happens in practice when software development teams implement and work Agile. The empirical data consists of twenty semi-structured interviews with practitioners working in fourteen different organizations and in six different Agile roles.FindingsAs a result, a substantive theory was presented of continuously balancing between stability and change in Agile teams. In addition, the study also proposes three guidelines that can help organizations about to change their way of working to Agile.Research limitations/implicationsThe inherent limitation of a grounded theory study is that a substantial theory can only explain the specific contexts explored in that study. Thus, this study's contribution is a substantial theory that needs to be further developed and improved.Practical implicationsThe proposed guidelines can help organizations about to change their way of working to Agile. They can also assist organizations in switching from “doing Agile” to “being Agile”, thus becoming more successful.Originality/valueThe new perspective that this study contributes is the fact that our discovered categories show that several inherent processes are ongoing at the same time in order to balance the need to have both stability and change.

show abstract