Moving away from a tradition of craft production to an increasingly bureaucratic, mass-produced mode, the field of organization studies is becoming more formulaic. The subfield of “organizational aesthetics” is an example of a potential antidote, a nomadic foray into more exotic research contexts. However, the exploration of aesthetic phenomena for organizational purposes has largely conformed to an entrenched utilitarian paradigm that pursues managerial relevance and prioritizes “function” over “form.” This essay highlights the blocking capacity of the utilitarian paradigm, questioning its assumptions and promoting a non-utilitarian perspective on aesthetics, inspired by the writings and poetry of Jim March. Drawing on art history, I direct attention to the aspects of aesthetic phenomena that militate against organization and commercial exploitation, and stimulate appreciation of beauty, sensory experiences and more elegant, less formulaic writing.
AadlandE.SgourevV. (2025). Capitalizing on stigma: Valuation arbitrage in Norwegian black metal. Academy of Management Discoveries, 11(4), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2023.0270
2.
AlvessonM.GabrielY. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0327
3.
AlvessonM.SzkudlarekB. (2021). Honorable surrender: On the erosion of resistance in a university setting. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620939189
4.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
5.
Ancelin-BourguignonA.DorsettC.AzambujaR. (2020). Lost in translation? Transferring creativity insights from arts into management. Organization, 27(5), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419855716
6.
AndersonN.PotočnikK.ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
7.
BaldessarelliG.StiglianiI.ElsbachK. D. (2022). The aesthetic dimension of organizing: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0198
8.
BarberC. (2024). Eccentric renaissance: El Greco, Michael Damaskenos, Georgios Klontzas. Oxford University Press.
9.
BarnardC. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
10.
BarryD.MeisiekS. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1505–1530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610380802
11.
BeckerH. (1982). Art worlds. University of California Press.
12.
BernsG. (2008). Iconoclast: A neuroscientist reveals how to think differently. Harvard University Press.
DelacourH.LecaB. (2017). The paradox of controversial innovation: Insights from the rise of impressionism. Organization Studies, 38(5), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616663237
19.
DeleuzeG. (1991). Bergsonism. Zone Books.
20.
DeleuzeG. (2014). Difference and repetition. Bloomsbury Publishing.
21.
DunhamL.FreemanR. (2000). There is business like show business: Leadership lessons from the theater. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00018-8
22.
FineG. A. (1992). The culture of production: Aesthetic choices and constraints in culinary work. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1268–1294. https://doi.org/10.1086/229902
23.
FlemingP. (2020). Dark academia: Despair in the neoliberal business school. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1305–1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12521
24.
FlemingP. (2021). Dark academia: How universities die. Pluto Press.
25.
FournierV.GreyC. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700531002
26.
GagliardiP. (2006). Exploring the aesthetic Side of organizational life. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 701–724). Sage Publications.
27.
GemanD.GemanS. (2016). Science in the age of selfies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(34), 9384–9387. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609793113
28.
GeorgeJ. M. (2007). 9 Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477. https://doi.org/10.5465/078559814
GrossK. (2006). Shylock is Shakespeare. University of Chicago Press.
31.
GuillenM. F. (1997). Scientific management’s lost aesthetic: Architecture, organization, and the Taylorized beauty of the mechanical. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 682–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393654
32.
Guillet de MonthouxP. (2004). The art firm. Aesthetic management and metaphysical marketing. Stanford Business Books.
33.
HanB.-C. (2018). Saving beauty. Polity Press.
34.
HardyG. H. (2012(1940)). A mathematician's apology. Cambridge University Press.
35.
HilberryJ. (2012). Outlaw girl: The challenge of designing poetry exercises for an organizational context. Organizational Aesthetics, 1(1), 68–80.
36.
HolmD. V.BeyesT. (2022). How art becomes organization: Reimagining aesthetics, sites and politics of entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 43(2), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840621998571
KandinskyW. (1946). On the spiritual in art. Guggenheim Foundation.
39.
KantI. (2007 [1790]). Critique of judgement. Oxford University Press.
40.
KarakilicE.PainterM. (2022). The (un)surprising nature of creativity: A Deleuzian perspective on the temporality of the creative process. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 22(2), 83–110.
MarchalC. (2025). Le Cube. Révélations sur les Dérives de l’Enseignement Supérieur Privé. Flammarion.
46.
MarinettoM. (2018). Fast food research in the era of unplanned obsolescence. Journal of Management Studies, 55(6), 1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12338
47.
NewellS. E.StoneD. L. (2001). Punishing excellence/rewarding mediocrity: The impact of the dominant culture on the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Organization, 8(2), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508401082022
48.
O’ConnorJ. (2024). Culture is not an industry: Reclaiming art and culture for the common good. Manchester University Press.
49.
PerriniF.SalviA.TetiE. (2008). Investing in art movements: The case of surrealist paintings. International Journal of Arts Management, 10(2), 27–39.
SawyerR. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
53.
SgourevS. V. (2021). Materiality as a basis for valuation entrepreneurship: Re-modeling impressionism. Organization Science, 32(5), 1235–1125. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1419
SgourevS. V.AadlandE.FormilanG. (2023). Relations in aesthetic space: How color enables market positioning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(1), 146–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221137289
56.
ShakespeareW. (1599). The passionate pilgrim. William Jagger.
57.
ShklovskyV. (2017). Viktor Shklovsky: A reader (A. Berlina, ed.). Bloomsbury.
58.
SørensenB. M. (2010). St Paul’s conversion: The aesthetic organization of labour. Organization Studies, 31(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609357383
59.
StaffordB. M. (1996). Artful science: Enlightenment entertainment and the eclipse of visual education. MIT Press.
60.
StarkeyK.TempestS. (2025). The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 24(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2024.0033
61.
StratiA. (2010). Aesthetic understanding of work and organizational life: Approaches and research developments. Sociology Compass, 4(10), 880–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00323.x
62.
SutherlandI. (2013). Arts-based methods in leadership development: Affording aesthetic workspaces, reflexivity and memories with momentum. Management Learning, 44(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612465063
63.
TardeG. (1897). L’opposition Universelle: Essai d’une Théorie des Contraires. Félix Alcan.
64.
TaylorS. S.HansenH. (2005). Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1211–1231. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351147965-2
65.
VeryzerR. W. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 224–228.
