Search results

In this article a critique of stakeholder theory is presented. The analysis highlights several concerns regarding the scientific rigor of this body of knowledge revealing the assumptions and inconsistencies that underpin its main propositions. The discussion shows in particular some of the internal contradictions between, on the one hand, the ideology of social good, and on the other hand, the ideology of control which we argue is not fully accounted for in the way stakeholder theory was popularized in recent years. Our critique opens up more possibilities for engaging with stakeholder theory acknowledging the underlying values that are at stake, thus, revealing the political and value‐laden nature of the concept of stake‐holder. What we seek to draw particular attention to is the way stake‐holder analysis reveals the challenges when not only subjectivities but identities are at stake. This latter point we hope will encourage greater reflexivity among theorists and researchers in this field, recognizing that their personal biases and partialities influence their scholarship, and the way they shape the ideologies stakeholder theory is presented by.

Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes.

The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive (action scripts), performative (actions themselves) elements, and artefacts (material productions).

The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing (i.e. the implementation of action scripts) is concerned. The study of practising (i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts) shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity.

Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of “not embedded” behaviors.

As its academic definition refers to, induction can be seen as a process designed to prepare newcomers in a company to integrate at least the way of working and collaborating in their new environment. Thus, induction as a process is somewhat a vector for institutionalization. The purpose of this paper is to consider induction as a practice embedded in specific contexts of action. In so doing, it proposes that induction can also be turned into an institution for itself, and this lead to a kind of organizational immobility.

The paper introduces the case of a consulting company. Supposing that induction is firstly a practice, that is to say an aggregate of ostensive (explicit pattern of action), performative (what is actually done) elements and artefacts (tools and material productions), the dynamics of interactions between these elements are examined.

Organizational dynamics and change are often considered as synonymous. The paper asserts that, on the contrary, constant dynamics in practices may contribute to organizational immobility. This process can be depicted as “control through the institutionalizing of practice (in the meaning of ways of doing).”

The paper delivers an interpretation of such counterintuitive results, showing the role of modes of action in the way dynamics in practice can engender motion or stability. This research is based on a single case study in a specific range of activities. Additional analyses in other businesses should help deepen the understanding of such dynamics.

Introducing the institutional dimension of practices, this paper offers the opportunity to broaden perspectives on control and responsibility. Change is not only a matter of process design or of culture, which are organizational variables. It should be dealt with in the institutional field.

It sounds original that an organization like a consulting company, supposed to be as highly adaptable as it suggests to be, finally shows to be embedded in such traditional patterns of action.

The purpose of this paper was to decipher the contradictions and the ambiguities of crowdfunding as a term and as a practice to reveal the deeper significance of its underlying Zeitgeist.

Three steps were followed. In the first one, the authors underline the ambiguities of crowd as a concept in its traditional meaning as well as in the realities, it may depict when referring to connected people. Thereafter, the many practices of crowdfunding with the apparent univocity of this term were confronted.

These analyses led the authors to consider crowdfunding as ideology: an incantatory use of crowd can conceal an effective profit-making process, as well as a new way to unblock a stalling social elevator.

As per the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first one to try to conceptualize the social roots of crowdfunding and to analyze its deeper significance, as complementary to an already developed “how-to-do-it” literature. It is worth confronting this piece of reflexivity with the emerging literature on the assessment of specific crowdfunding operations.

The aim of this paper is to give an account of how the author aims to engage with his new appointment as co-editor-in-chief of the Society and Business Review (SBR) and to reflect on why an academic journal like the SBR is relevant – if not absolutely necessary.

By drawing on a synthesis of past publications in the journal, academic roots and editorial trends of the SBR are presented.

Three promising areas of research in the “business & society” field are identified for the future: monitoring the expansion of managerialism, analysing the role and impact of management education in society and conceptualising the politicisation of corporations.

Although these trends are promising and subjectively identified, the journal will obviously not restrict its scope to these three topics alone and will continue to welcome all submissions that fall into its mission statement.

This paper provides insights into how the editors evaluate not only articles but also special issue proposals and book reviews that are submitted to the SBR.

The concept of contract contributes extensively to an essentialist conception of the organization (the contract would then be its essence), a descriptive method (describing the organization as a contract or set of contracts), and a normative standpoint. More recently, it has been epitomized by the “psychological contract”. The concept of contract is about will, agreement, obligation, promise, commitment, staying true to one's commitments, cooperation, sanction and bond. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these manifestations prior to comparing the notion of social contract with psychological contract based on two criteria: an anthropology of the individual and an anthropology of the contract.

After delineating the notion of contract (and its correlates agency, gift, exchange and association) and reviewing the “epithet‐based” contracts, the two dimensions of the contract (social and psychological) will be addressed and compared based on two anthropologies, one of the individual and one of the contract.

This comparison underscores the relevance of contractualism today and the richness of comparing across different eras and perimeters. If these two aspects have anything in common, it is whatever links the contract with sociality.

This comparing process must underscore two limitations, namely anachronism (the two texts were written two centuries apart), and underpinning, a political underpinning in the social contract and an organizational underpinning in the psychological contract. It thus looks as though the organization was made of the same substance as the nation, which – like the notion of governance – may lead to some kind of confusion between contract and constitution, contracting power and constituent powers.

The paper discusses a key notion in political philosophy and organization science.

The paper presents a comparison between two key conceptions of the notion of contract.