Search results

The premise of the paper is that Foucault's concept of governmentality has important but unacknowledged implications for understanding strategy. Highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the governmentality approach, the paper seeks to suggest how governmentality can be used to conceptualise strategy. More generally, the paper seeks to contribute to the body of research on governmentality articulated by authors such as Peter Miller, Ted O'Leary and Nikolas Rose.

The paper reprises the argument that accounting is constitutive of social relations. It proceeds to discuss Peter Miller, Ted O'Leary and Nikolas Rose's seminal contributions to the conceptual development of governmentality. In outlining their work, the paper highlights the significance accorded to the emergence of standard costing and scientific management and its subsequent role in developing both the strategies and structures of managerial capitalism. The paper examines how this, in turn, was pivotal to the emergence of strategy as an important means through which organisations began to understand and conceive of themselves. The paper rehearses the standard criticisms made of governmentality within the accounting literature, before arguing that the concept emerges intact from the critique levelled against it. Proceeding to summarise Foucault's radical conception of power, the paper notes the elusiveness of Foucault's relationship with strategy. Elaborating on the nature of governmentality, the paper employs the concept to re‐examine the managerial revolution. The objective is to explore its implications for understanding strategy.

The paper builds on the innovative work published in accounting on governmentality to construct an account of the emergence of the managerial revolution. This yields important insights on strategy. In particular, the paper challenges Chandler, arguing that the birth of strategy is best seen as a post‐hoc rationalisation produced by the emergence of systematic management and standard costing. The paper explores how governmentality might be developed to study strategy. The overarching message of the paper is that there is a need to rethink strategy as a language and social practice. Strategy, therefore, must be understood as much as a cultural and political project than as an economic one.

The paper highlights how strategy can be regarded as a cultural and political phenomenon. This opens up the possibility of accounts of strategy that are firmly grounded within studies of organisations, politics and society. Dispensing with neo‐economic notions of strategy, the paper advocates writing Foucault into strategic management.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a qualitative study of software engineers' perception of dress code, career, organizations, and of managers.

The software engineers interviewed work in three European and two US companies. The research is based on ethnographic data, gathered in two longitudinal studies during the period 2001‐2006. The methods used in the study include open‐ended unstructured interviews, participant observation, collection of stories, and shadowing.

It was found that the majority of software engineers denounce formal dress‐codes. The notion of career was defined by them mostly in terms of occupational development. They perceived their own managers as very incompetent. Their view on corporations was also univocally negative. The findings confirm that software engineers form a very distinctive occupation, defining itself in opposition to the organization. However, their distinctiveness may be perceived not only as a manifestation of independence but also contrarily, as simply fulfilling the organizational role they are assigned by management.

The study contributes to the organizational literature by responding to the call for more research on high‐tech workplace practices, and on non‐managerial occupational roles.

Most people participate in various groups and communities simultaneously. Many authors have pointed to the importance of multi‐membership for knowledge sharing across communities and teams. The most important expected benefit is that knowledge that has been acquired in one community of practice (CoP) can be applied into another CoP or group. This paper seeks to discuss the consequences of multi‐membership for knowledge sharing in a CoP.

The concept of multiple inclusion is used to explain why and how multi‐membership can hold up knowledge sharing between groups.

This case study shows that knowledge transfer between CoPs and teams can be problematic when norm sets between these two groups conflict.

This paper concludes that CoPs can sustain when the “practice” remains at a safe distance from the “real” project work in teams that are guided by managerial objectives.

The paper aims to examine the notion of the boundaryless career, arguing that the notion is problematic, and that simultaneous co‐existence of different types of careers makes both “new” and “old” types of careers possible.

The approach is twofold: a theoretical argument, and a qualitative ethnographic study, involving observations and interviews.

The theoretical argument questions the underlying premise and promise of the notion of the boundaryless career, namely that modern careers amount to a higher level of personal freedom. This empirical study will serve to illustrate the co‐constitutive nature of different career stories.

The research is qualitative and thereby limited in the following way: it serves to give a deep understanding of the phenomena at hand, but is not easily generalizable. However, the methodology can inspire scholars to explore the findings observed in this paper.

The idealization of the boundaryless career is problematic, as it poses problems to those concerned with the career. A more flexible ideal of careers would be preferable to researchers and organisational actors alike.

The paper gives a practical and empirical input to a debate that has been largely conceptual or generalized.