The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory

New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory

Tammar B. Zilber, John M. Amis, Johanna Mair

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781787691858
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Sociologia

As organizational scholars, we are accustomed to using theoretical lenses to understand organizational practices and outcomes. That is, we conceptualize what people do, feel and think in their everyday organizational interactions through the use of theoretical language and models to uncover individual and/or social antecedents and outcomes. We tend to ignore, however, how our own day-to-day work as scholars - doing research - is subjected to the same pressures, affected by similar factors, and should be accounted for through similar modes of analyses. We treat our studies and theories as solid anchor points and as objective truths rather than as constructions embedded within individual, organizational, field and societal contexts.
This volume is a must read for all researchers interested in understanding our own craft. Building on established traditions in the sociology of knowledge, we direct a reflective and critical gaze towards the structures, practices and meaning systems that ground and shape how we produce and consume managerial knowledge and organization theory. The volume includes both empirically-based papers and reflective essays that explore theoretical concepts and analytical reasoning to explain, critique and advance the ways in which we write about, produce, and consume theory.

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM OF DE-CONTEXTUALIZATION IN ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Gregory Jackson, Markus Helfen, Rami Kaplan, Anja Kirsch and Nora Lohmeyer^*

ABSTRACT

This chapter addresses the concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from de-contextualization. The authors argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Whereas reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract ahistorical terms. Such de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to fully understand the role of organizations in society and thereby address societal grand challenges. These claims are exemplified through critical reviews of four fields in OM research – gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics – and counterpoints that may help to overcome de-contextualized research are presented.

Keywords: De-contextualization; organization and management research; comparative research; actor-centered institutionalism; micro–macro linkages; theory building

1. INTRODUCTION

This essay is consciously polemical, but expresses a concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from systematic de-contextualization. Recent writing has urged greater attention to context (Johns, 2016) and the rise of neo-institutional theories of organization have contributed much to understanding the role of societal factors. Yet much theorizing in OM research still relies too strongly on assumed universals, and treats empirically observed reality as expressions and variations of these underlying universals. In many subfields, context remains something simply to be controlled for, statistically or experimentally. Similarly, in qualitative research, the context of the case study is still too often used as a vehicle to illustrate analytical universals or general frameworks, rather than the object of theorizing in its own right.

We will argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, and develop explanations based on assumptions about the characteristics of individuals. Meanwhile, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract universal terms, using analytical categories that fall outside historical space and time. Both forms tend to ignore or downplay the linkages between the micro-level of actors and macro-level dimensions (time, space, and numbers).

We claim that de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. OM researchers frequently imply that empirically “mixed results” may reflect the importance of various moderator and mediator variables that capture contingencies arising from the social context. However, such contextual variables only rarely become the focus of efforts to build new theories that address the more macro boundary conditions of organizational theory. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to understand and address the role of organizations in society. By neglecting the wider (macro) historical, social and political context of management and organization, most existing theories are strangely detached from societal grand challenges that organizations are implicated in (see Davis, 2015) – be these climate change and global warming (Schüssler, Rüling, & Wittneben, 2014), political developments such as neo-liberalism (Crouch, 2011), neo-feudalism (Neckel, 2013) and non-democratic forms of capitalism; or the ever greater social inequality and labor exploitation in a financialized and globalized economy (e.g. Flaherty, 2015; Morgan, 2016; Piketty, 2014).

We will explore these claims through critical reviews of four fields in OMT research: gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics. We conclude by suggesting four counterpoints that may help halt progress on the slippery slope of de-contextualized OM research: phenomenon driven, actor-centered, comparative and historical research.

2. CAUGHT BETWEEN REDUCTIONISM AND GRAND THEORY: THE DEATH OF THE MESO-LEVEL?

In his seminal article, Johns (2006, p. 386) defined context as “situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables.” Among other things, he refers to organizational and group politics, institutional forces, government regulation, temporally shifting occupational norms and management fads and fashions or social class dynamics as often neglected context factors (Johns, 2006; 2017). Johns’ key argument was not that context is never studied, but that its influence is underappreciated. Oftentimes, mixed results reflect a lack of external validity of different studies, which fail to take into account their own temporal, spatial and other boundary conditions. For example, the relationships between two variables may differ in strength or even direction across two or more macro-social units, such as institutions or industries. Likewise, meta-studies rarely systematically compare the results of different studies in terms of higher level units (for an exception, see Post & Byron, 2015). In sum, researchers view building theory about those macro-level contexts as beyond the scope of their studies.

We understand Johns’ (2017) call for more context as suggesting that OM research remains “too micro” in nature. In sociology, the micro-level is generally defined in terms of individuals and their face-to-face interactions (Collins, 1989). Micro theories are associated with potentially the most common form of de-contextualization, namely reductionism. Micro theories often assume a universal human subject (e.g. the “organization man” [sic.], Whyte, 2013 or the “ideal worker,” Acker, 1990). Here individuals have innate characteristics that are biological, psychological, or neuro-sociological in nature. Empirical studies then examine behavioral regularities and their conformity with assumed characteristics of those individuals. Theory building is therefore focused on discovering human universals, largely based on individual characteristics. Some micro theories are “chauvinist” in that they insist that only the micro-level is real (Turner, 1991) and therefore that the characteristics of macro-level phenomena can essentially be reduced to the constituent properties of more micro-level units.¹

The problem of reductionist de-contextualization is not merely a matter of ontology, but also embedded in practices of empirical research in subtle but widespread ways. One factor promoting de-contextualization is the availability of certain types of quantitative data. Most quantitative data measure characteristics of persons or organizations, and make it possible to examine correlations among such characteristics. However, we have far less data on social relations, such as the connectedness among observed units or the temporal dynamics of actual social processes. For example, getting data on social processes is expensive in terms of time spent in observation, and may be increasingly difficult due to limited access to large corporations, which are often secretive.

Our larger point is that data gathering and analysis of organizations is often devoid of detailed attention to contextual variables. An excellent example in quantitative research is the notion of “industry sector,” usually measured in relation to standard industry classifications that have little theoretical grounding. These categories are then used as statistical controls to proxy “context,” but in a diffuse sense related to market competition, technology, regulation, and so on. However, such classification schemes contain little or no real information about such context or the position of the organization within this context. Indeed, recent studies show that the choice of how many and which industry classification schemes one selects may have a large influence on the results of such studies (e.g. Scott & Hrazdil, 2013; Weiner, 2005). As such, controlling for context using standard data has very real limitations.

Macro theories seem nicely poised to remedy problems of de-contextualization. Framed in this way, Johns and others imply that the solution for bringing context “back in” is to include more macro-level factors that act as a context for the micro. In sociology, the macro-level is defined by its focus on longer time scales, greater spatial scope, and larger numbers of individuals (Collins, 1988, p. 387). For example, OM theories often seek to explain the actions of individuals with reference to more “macro” features of the organization, such as human resource management strategies or corporate culture. Similarly, we could also shift our perspective one level “upward” to view organization-level phenomena (e.g. strategies, decisions, governance, etc.) as the micro-level and examine the influence of the more macro-level organizational environment (Pfeffer, 1991), such as industry sector or institutional fields.

Nonetheless, we argue here that many macro-level theories in OM are paradoxically both “too macro” and “not macro enough.” The most prominent macro approach in organization theory is arguably the neo-institutional perspective from sociology that draws attention to field-level determinants of organizational isomorphism. While this theoretical lens provides a strong set of testable ideas linking macro context to micro outcomes, it has been critiqued as seeing micro-level actors in a rather passive way of enacting particular institutions logics (see Willmott, 2015) and in this sense being “too macro.” At the same time, we see the recent development of institutional theory within the OM scientific community largely as a meta-theoretical framework or set of sensitizing concepts. Much of the neo-institutional literature seeks to contribute to an analytical understanding of institutions in general, but meanwhile devotes relatively little attention to building theory based on comparison of empirically delimited and historically specific institutional fields or domains. Even where time plays a role, the concept of time in OM remains more abstract than historical (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). By focusing on the study of institutions in general, this approach runs the danger of becoming a theory of nothing at all – in the sense of being a meta-analytical framework rather than a theory about any specific type of institution or phenomenon.

Consequently, we claim that a second distinct form of de-contextualization exists within macro-theories, which we term “grand theorizing.” We borrow the term “grand theory” from Mills (1959) and his critique of Talcott Parsons’ structural-functional theory for being highly abstract in nature, where the arrangement of concepts took priority over the empirical reality of the social world. Mills’ alternative was to insist on a more historically grounded, context specific approach to macro-level theory. Going beyond Johns (2017), de-contextualization in this sense of grand theory relates to a distinct use of highly abstract concepts that are “too macro” in relation to more action-theoretical ontologies and “not macro enough” in relation to history and broader social and political dynamics of society.

So far we have argued that OM research suffers from two distinct forms of de-contextualization. First, micro-level research focuses on individuals and their face-to-face interactions, but often suffers from problems of reductionism. Second, macro-level theories are concerned with longer time scales, greater spatial scope, and larger numbers of individuals (Collins, 1988), but often suffer from abstract grand theorizing.² Following from this, we add a third claim: namely, a key i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction: Dismantling the Master’s House Using the Master’s Tools: on the Sociology of Organizational Knowledge
• Chapter 1: The Problem of De-Contextualization in Organization and Management Research
• Chapter 2: Pragmatism in Organizations: Ambivalence and Limits
• Chapter 3: Reframing Rigor as Reasoning: Challenging Technocratic Conceptions of Rigor in Management Research
• Chapter 4: Knowledge Production and Consumption in the Digital Era: The Emergence of Altmetrics and Open Access Publishing in Management studies
• Chapter 5: Peer Review and the Production of Scholarly Knowledge: Automated Textual Analysis of Manuscripts Revised for Publication in Administrative Science Quarterly
• Chapter 6: The (Re?)Emergence of New Ideas in the Field of Organizational Studies
• Chapter 7: A Discourse Perspective on Creating Organizational Knowledge: The Case of Strategizing
• Chapter 8: When Fieldwork Hurts: On the Lived Experience of Conducting Research in Unsettling Contexts
• Chapter 9: Visual Artifacts as Tools for Analysis and Theorizing
• Chapter 10: Presenting Findings from Qualitative Research: One Size Does Not Fit All!
• Chapter 11: For Social Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory
• Chapter 12: ‘Through the Looking Glass’: On Phantasmal Tales, Distortions and Reflexivity in Organizational Scholarship
• Chapter 13: When Research and Personal Lifeworlds Collide
• Index