We examine the dynamics of identity formation in organizations, with a particular focus on the development of antipathies and deadlocks, by engaging a well-regarded study of identity in organizations. By revisiting this study through the lens of a social theory of hegemony (STH), we show how this theory can bring fresh insights to studies of identity, resistance, and deadlock in organizations. We argue that the “othering” and scapegoating involved in organizational deadlocks can be driven by fantasmatic identifications that dim the prospects for discerning and exploring areas of common cause. A condition of possibility of breaking such deadlocks is, conversely, a traversing of the fantasies that cement the impasse.
AdlerP.JermierJ. (2005). Developing a field with more soul: Standpoint theory and public policy research for management scholars. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 941-944.
2.
AlvessonM.AshcraftK. L.ThomasR. (2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15, 5-28.
3.
AlvessonM.HardyC.HarleyB. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480-501.
4.
AlvessonM.WillmottH. (2012). Making sense of management: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
5.
ArnaudG. (2002). The organization and the symbolic: Organizational dynamics viewed from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 55, 691-715.
6.
AshforthB. E.HarrisonS. H.CorleyK. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.
7.
BatyP. (2000, October17). Quality boss mars new labor vision. Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 1.
8.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. London, England: Penguin Books.
9.
BernsteinJ. W. (2007). Love, desire, jouissance: Two out of three ain’t bad. Psychoanalytical dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, 16, 711-724.
10.
BlaikieN. (2000). Designing social research. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
11.
BoucherG. (2008). The charmed circle of ideology: A critique of Laclau and Mouffe, Butler and Žižek. Melbourne, Australia: RePress.
12.
BrownA. D.HumphreysM. (2006). Organizational identity and place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 231-257.
13.
BurgessR. G. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London, England: Allen and Unwin.
14.
CastoriadisC. (1991). The construction of the world in psychosis. In CurtisD. A. (Ed. & Trans.), The world in fragments, 196-212. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
CleggS. (1989). Frameworks of power. London, England: SAGE.
16.
ContuA. (2002). A political answer to the question of struggle. Ephemera: Critical dialogues on organization, 2(2), 160-174.
17.
ContuA. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 364-379.
18.
CooleD. (2000). Negativity and politics: Dionysus and dialectics from Kant to poststructuralism. London, England: Routledge.
19.
CornellisenJ. P.HaslamS. A.BalmerJ. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity, and corporate identity: Toward an integrated understanding of processes, patternings, and products. Journal of Management Studies, 18, S1-S16.
20.
CritchleyS.MarchartO. (2004). Introduction. In CritchleyS.MarchartO. (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 1-14). London, England: Routledge.
21.
DriverM. (2009). Struggling with a lack: A Lacanian perspective on organizational identity. Organization Studies, 30, 55-72.
22.
DriverM. (2013). The lack of power and the power of lack in leadership as a discursively constructed identity. Organization Studies, 34, 407-422.
23.
EckmanS. (2013). Is the high-involvement worker precarious or opportunistic? Hierarchical ambiguities in late capitalism. Organization. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1350508412473672
24.
EveredR.LouisM. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside.”Academy of Management Review, 6, 385-396.
25.
FaircloughN. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.
26.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
27.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157-179.
28.
FligsteinN.McAdamD. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
FlisfederM. (2008). Reading emancipation backwards: Laclau, Žižek and the critique of ideology in emancipatory politics. International Journal of Žižek Studies, 2(1), 1-21. Retrieved form http://www.zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/54/154
30.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
31.
GioiaD. A.ThomasJ. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370-403.
32.
GlynosJ.StavrakakisY. (2004). Encounters of the real kind: Sussing out the limits of Laclau’s embrace of Lacan. In CritchleyS.MarchartO. (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 201-216). London, England: Routledge.
33.
HallettT. D.VentrescaM. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35, 213-236.
34.
HensmansM. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24, 355-381.
35.
HoedemaekersC. (2007). Performance, pinned down: A Lacanian analysis of subjectivity at work. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus University Press.
36.
HoedemaekersC. (2009). Traversing the empty promise: Management, subjectivity, and the other’s desire. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 181-201.
37.
HoedemaekersC. (2010). “Not even semblance”: Exploring the interruption of identification with Lacan. Organization, 17, 379-393.
38.
Holmer-NadesanM. (1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organization Studies, 17, 49-81.
39.
HumphreysM.BrownA. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421-447.
40.
JonesC. (2006, July). Why organizational discourse analysis doesn’t need Ernesto Laclau. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Organizational Discourse, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
41.
KarremanD.AlvessonM. (2001). Making newsmakers: Conversational identity at work. Organization Studies, 22, 59-89.
42.
KnightsD.WillmottH. (1989). Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23, 535-558.
43.
Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
KondoD. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
KosmalaK.HerrbachO. (2006). The ambivalence of professional identity: On cynicism and jouissance in audit firms. Human Relations, 59, 1393-1428.
46.
LacanJ. (1977). Seminar XI: The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Norton.
47.
LacanJ. (1996). Ecrits. New York, NY: Norton.
48.
LaclauE. (1983). The impossibility of society. The Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 7(1-2), 21-27.
49.
LaclauE. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, England: Verso.
50.
LaclauE. (1999). Hegemony and the future of democracy: Ernesto Laclau’s political philosophy. In WorshamL.OlsonG. A. (Eds.), Race, rhetoric, and the postcolonial (pp. 129-164). Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
LaclauE. (2000a). Constructing univesality. In ButlerJ.LaclauE.ŽižekS. (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 281-307). London, England: Verso.
52.
LaclauE. (2000b). Identity and hegemony: The role of universality in the constitution of political logics. In ButlerJ.LaclauE.ŽižekS. (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 44-89). London, England: Verso.
53.
LaclauE. (2000c). Structure, history and the political. In ButlerJ.LaclauE.ŽižekS. (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 182-212). London, England: Verso.
54.
LaclauE. (2004). Glimpsing the future. In CritchleyS.MarchartO. (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 279-328). London, England: Routledge.
55.
LaclauE. (2006). Why constructing a people is the main task of radical politics. Critical Inquiry, 32, 646-680.
56.
LaclauE.MouffeC. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democratic politics. London, England: Verso.
57.
LaclauE.MouffeC. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). London, England: Verso.
58.
Levi-StraussC. (1966). A savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
60.
McAdamsD. P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295-321.
61.
MüllerM. (2013). Lack and jouissance in hegemonic discourse of identification with the state. Organization, 20, 279-298.
62.
MumbyD. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organization communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343-375.
63.
NewmanS. (2003). New reflections on the theory of power: A Lacanian perspective. Contemporary Political Theory, 3, 148-167.
64.
PrattM. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.
65.
PurserR. E. (2011). A Buddhist-Lacanian perspective on Lack. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39, 289-304.
RobertsJ. (2005). The power of the “imaginary” in disciplinary processes. Organization, 12, 619-642.
68.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London, England: SAGE.
69.
SaleclR. (1998). (Per)Versions of Love and Hate. New York, England: Verso.
70.
SpicerA.BohmS. (2007). Moving management: Theorizing struggles against the hegemony of management. Organization Studies, 28, 1667-1698.
71.
SpicerA.CederstromC. (2006, July). Addressing the crisis in organizational discourse analysis: The contribution of Ernesto Laclau. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Organizational Discourse, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
72.
SpicerA.KarremanD.AlvessonM. (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62, 537-560.
73.
StavrakakisY. (1999). Lacan & the political. London, England: Routledge.
74.
StavrakakisY. (2008). Subjectivity and the organized other: Between symbolic authority and fantasmatic enjoyment. Organization Studies, 29, 1037-1060.
75.
WatsonT. J. (2008). Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization, 15, 121-143.
76.
WicksA. C.FreemanR. E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9, 123-140.
77.
WyattJ. (2005). Jouissance and desire in Michael Haneke’s the piano teacher. American Imago, 62, 453-483.
78.
ŽižekS. (1990). Beyond discourse analysis (Appendix). In LaclauE. (Ed.), New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, England: Verso.
79.
ŽižekS. (1993). Tarrying with the negative: Kant, Hegel and the critique of ideology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
80.
ŽižekS. (1997). The abyss of freedom. In ŽižekS.SchellingF. W. J. (Eds.), The abyss of freedom/ages of the world (pp. 3-86). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
81.
ŽižekS. (2000). Holding the place. In ButlerJ.LaclauE.ŽižekS. (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 308-329). London, England: Verso.
82.
ŽižekS. (2006a). Against the populist temptation. Critical Inquiry, 32, 551-574.
83.
ŽižekS. (2006b). Schlagend, aber nicht Treffend!Critical Inquiry, 33, 185-211.
84.
ZupančičA. (2000). Ethics of the real. London, England: Verso.
