In this article, we respond to Cabantous, Gond, Harding and Learmonth’s (2016) critique of recent conceptual contributions that employ the concept of performativity for prompting progressive changes in organizations. All in all, we seem to share the general unease concerning the marginal impact of Critical Management Studies on re-defining organizational realities. At the same time, we largely disagree on how critical scholars could support effective, progressive changes. In this rejoinder, we respond to but also absorb Cabantous et al.’s critique of progressive performativity and sketch three ways of how to advance discussions of Critical Management Studies’ role in organizational scholarship.
AdlerPForbesLWillmottH (2007) Critical management studies. Academy of Management Annals1(1): 119–179.
2.
AlvessonMAshcraftKL (2009) Critical methodology in management and organization research. In: BrymanBBuchananD (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: SAGE, 61–77.
3.
AlvessonMSpicerA (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations65(3): 367–390.
4.
AlvessonMWillmottH (1992) On the idea of emancipation in organization and management studies. Academy of Management Review17(3): 432–464.
5.
AustinJL (1963) How to Do Things with Words. London: Penguin.
6.
CabantousLGondJ-PHardingNLearmonthM (2016) Critical Essay: Reconsidering critical performativity. Human Relations69(2): 197–213.
7.
ChristensenLTMorsingMThyssenO (2013) CSR as aspirational talk. Organization20(3): 372–393.
8.
CleggSKornbergerMCarterCRhodesC (2006) For management?Management Learning37(1): 7–27.
9.
DelbridgeR (2014) Promising futures: CMS, post-disciplinarity and the new public social science. Journal of Management Studies51(1): 95–117.
10.
FerraroFPfefferJSuttonRI (2005) Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review30(1): 8–24.
11.
FlemingP (2009) Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of Informal Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
FournierVGreyC (2000) At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations53(1): 7–32.
13.
HeideggerM (1927) Being and Time: A Translation of Sein und Zeit (StambaughJ. trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
HothoSPollardD (2007) Management as negotiation at the interface: Moving beyond the critical-practice impasse. Organization14(4): 583–603.
15.
KingDLearmonthM (2014) Can critical management studies ever be ‘practical’? A case study in engaged scholarship. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 3June2014. DOI: 10.1177/0018726714528254.
16.
LatourB (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30(2): 225–248.
17.
LoxleyJ (2007) Performativity. London: Routledge.
18.
McKinlayA (2010) Performativity: From J.L. Austin to Judith Butler. In: ArmstrongPLightfootG (eds) The Leading Journal in the Field: Destabilizing Authority in the Social Sciences of Management. London: MayFlyBooks, 119–142.
19.
MillsCW (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
SpicerAAlvessonMKärremanD (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations62(4): 537–560.
21.
WickertCDe BakkerFGA (2015) Managerial struggles during practice implementation: The case of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
22.
WickertCSchaeferSM (2015) Towards a progressive understanding of performativity in critical management studies. Human Relations68(1): 107–130.
