PROS 2016 - 8th International Process Symposium

Website http://osofficer.wix.com/pros | Edit Freely

Category Dualities;Dialectics;Paradoxes;Organizational Life

Deadline: January 31, 2016 | Date: June 16, 2016-June 18, 2016

Venue/Country: Corfu, Greece

Updated: 2016-04-21 16:23:51 (GMT+9)

Call For Papers - CFP

Eighth International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

www.process-symposium.com

Theme:

Dualities, dialectics and paradoxes in organizational life

General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

16-18 June 2016

Pre-Symposium Workshops: 15 June 2016

Corfu Holiday Palace, Corfu, Greece

http://corfuholidaypalace.gr/

Conveners:

Moshe Farjoun, York University, Canada (MFarjounschulich.yorku.ca)

Wendy Smith, University of Delaware, USA (smithwudel.edu)

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada (ann.langleyhec.ca)

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK (process.symposiumgmail.com)

Keynote Speakers:

John D. Dunne, Professor of Contemplative Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of Foundations of Dharmakirti’s Philosophy

Marianne Lewis, Professor of Management, University of Cincinnati, USA

Charles Nuckolls, Professor of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, USA, author of The Cultural Dialectics of Knowledge and Desire

Linda Putnam, Professor of Organizational Communication, University of California-Santa Barbara, USA

Rationale: What is Process Organization Studies?

Process Organization Studies (PROS) is a way of studying organizations that is grounded on process metaphysics – the worldview that sees processes, rather than substances, as the basic forms of the universe. A process view:

• Rests on a relational ontology, a performative epistemology, and a dynamic praxeology.

• Focuses on becoming, change, and flux, and pays particular attention to forms of agency

• Prioritizes process over outcome, activity over product, change over persistence, novelty over stasis, open-endedness over determination.

• Invites us to acknowledge, rather than reduce, the complexity of the world and, in that sense, it is animated by what philosopher Stephen Toulmin called an “ecological style” of thinking.

Purpose, Venue, and Organization

The aim of the Symposium is to consolidate, integrate, and further develop ongoing efforts to advance a sophisticated process perspective in organization and management studies.

PROS is an annual event organized in conjunction with the annual series Perspectives on Process Organization Studies, published by Oxford University Press, and it takes place in a Greek island, in June every year. Topics in the last three years have included: “The emergence of novelty in organizations”, “Organization routines: How they are created, maintained and changed”, and “Skilful performance: Enacting expertise, competence, and capabilities in organizations” (details of all Symposia so far can be seen at www.process-symposium.com).

Around 100 papers are usually accepted, following a review of submitted abstracts by the conveners. PROS is renowned for offering participants the opportunity to interact in depth, exchange constructive comments, and share insights in a stimulating, relaxing, and scenic environment.

The Eighth Symposium will take place on 16-18 June 2016, at Corfu Holiday Palace, Corfu, Greece (http://corfuholidaypalace.gr/). It will be preceded by Pre-Symposium Workshops on 15 June 2016. The Symposium venue, modern, comfortable, and situated in a beautiful location by the sea, will provide an ideal setting for participants to relax and engage in creative dialogues.

The Symposium is organized in two tracks – a General Track and a Thematic Track. Each track is described below.

1. The General Track includes papers that explore a variety of organizational phenomena from a process perspective.

More specifically, although not necessarily consolidated under a process metaphysical label, several strands in organization and management studies have adopted a more or less process-oriented perspective over the years. Karl Weick’s persistent emphasis on organizing and the important role of sensemaking in it is, perhaps, the best known process approach in the field. Early management and organizational research by Henry Mintzberg, Andrew Pettigrew and Andrew Van de Ven was also conducted from an explicitly process perspective. More recently, scholars such as Martha Feldman, Wanda Orlikowski, Robert Chia, Tor Hernes, and several others, have shown a sophisticated awareness of the importance of process-related issues in their research. Current studies that take an explicitly performative (or enactivist/relational/practice-based) view of organizations have similarly adopted, in varying degrees, a process vocabulary and have further refined a process sensibility. Indeed, the growing use of the gerund (-ing) indicates the desire to move towards dynamic ways of understanding organizational phenomena, especially in a fast-moving, inter-connected, globalized world.

Since a process worldview is not a doctrine but an orientation, it can be developed in several different directions, exploring a variety of topics in organizational research. For example, traditional topics such as organizational design, routines, leadership, trust, coordination, change, innovation, learning and knowledge, accountability, communication, authority, materiality and technology, etc., which have often been studied as “substances”, from a process perspective can be approached as performative accomplishments – as situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time. A process view treats organizational phenomena not as faits accomplis but as (re)created through interacting embodied agents embedded in sociomaterial practices, whose actions are mediated by institutional, linguistic and material artifacts.

Papers exploring any organizational research topic with a process orientation are invited for submission to the General Track.

2. The Thematic Track includes papers addressing the particular theme of the Symposium every year.

For 2016 the theme is:

Dualities, dialectics and paradoxes in organizational life

A description of this theme and its importance follows.

Contemporary organizations are characterized by numerous tensions and contradictions – present and future, social missions and business demands, centralization and decentralization, stability and change, plans and actions, emotion and reason, thinking and action (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Farjoun, 2010; Smith & Lewis, 2011), to mention a few. Recent studies offer multiple lenses to understand the nature and implications of contradictions in organizations. We focus here on three lenses in particular: dialectics, paradox and dualities (Farjoun, 2016).

Inspired by scholars such as Hegel, Marx and Engels, dialectics research explores processes of conceptual or social (and sometimes even natural) conflict, interconnection and change, in which the generation, interpenetration and clash of oppositions, leads, sometimes, to their transcendence in a fuller or more adequate mode of thought or form of life (or being) (Bhaskar, 1993) or, in other conceptions, simply to their evolution, reproduction or continual transformation (Benson, 1977; Langley & Sloan, 2012). In recent years, dialectics has been applied to the study of a wide range of topics including institutional change (Farjoun, 2002; Seo & Creed, 2002), strategic alliances (Das & Teng, 2000; De Rond & Bouchiki, 2004), the development of disciplines (Abbott, 2001), decision making (Denis, Dompierre, Langley, & Rouleau, 2011), identity dynamics (Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep, Smith, & Kataria, 2014), hiring procedures (Murdoch & Geys, 2014), creativity (Harvey, 2014) and globally distributed work teams (Cramton & Hinds, 2014).

Drawing from both Eastern and Western philosophy, paradox scholars emphasize tensions as contradictory, yet interdependent, elements that are inherent in organizational systems and impervious to resolution (Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Approaches to manage persistent tensions involve accepting, engaging and embracing competing demands (Jarzabkowski, Le, & Van de Ven, 2013; Jay, 2013; Luscher & Lewis, 2008). Scholars have explored areas such as cognition (Bartunek, 1988; Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011), practices (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Smets, Jarzabkowski, Burke, & Spee, 2014; Smith, 2014), and communication and rhetoric (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007; Putnam, 1986) to address these competing demands.

The duality lens on organizational contradictions highlights the coexistence of opposing and complementary elements, processes or effects (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014; Farjoun, 2010; Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). The duality view suggests that the two largely opposing elements may interpenetrate one another such that one includes elements of the other (Dewey, 1922; Farjoun, 2010; Giddens, 1984; Levinthal & Rerup, 2006).

Though varied in their emphasis, these complementary approaches all stress the interconnectedness and shifting nature of organizational contradictions, the role they play in organizational processes, change and innovation (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), and the challenges and opportunities they present for organizational actors (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001).

The year’s Thematic Track seeks to ignite new insights into the nature of organizational contradictions and their relation to process themes such as endogenous change, temporality and emergence. We invite scholars to contribute theoretical insights and empirical findings that can advance organization studies and organizing practices in and through these strands of research. We particularly invite submissions that go beyond the ‘low hanging fruits’, that can rejuvenate and explore new directions, and make non-obvious connections between these literatures and other streams of organization studies. Themes and topics may include but need not be limited to:

• Stability and change – How do contradictions fuel and are fueled by organizational processes? How do contradictions inform organizational change and/or enhance organizational stability?

• Restoring mystery. What are less recognized contradictions and paradoxes of organizational life and creative ways for addressing them?

• Contradictions and consistencies. How, if at all, can organizational models that stress harmony, fit and complementarities be reconciled with views highlighting inconsistencies, contradictions and conflict? Particularly, how do organizational contradictions and routines interrelate?

• Systems of contradictions. How do contradictions work as systems or networks? When are they likely to cancel out as opposed to amplify each other? How do vicious and virtuous circles emerge and function? How are they maintained and change?

• Duality and dualism. What is the relationship between dualities and dualism? When is it likely that a duality may lead to dualistic thinking? How can dualities be embraced while preserving unity? How, in particular, can non-dualistic conceptions of strategy, culture, routines, decision making, change, and so on be advanced? How is mindfulness preserved in a non-dualistic manner, while acknowledging possible dualities? (Dunne, 2011).

• How are paradoxes addressed, with what effects? How is the ambivalence created by paradoxes handled? (Nuckolls, 1996). How do formal organizations and institutions manage the contradictions, the paradoxes and the dualities that are created in the flow of organizational life?

• Finally, how do paradox, dialectics and dualities qua lenses for studying organizations converge or diverge? What are their distinct implications for organizing and thinking processes? What do we gain from using these lenses as opposed to other views on change and innovation such as evolutionary theory?

References

Abbott, A. 2001. Chaos of disciplines: University of Chicago Press.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-Exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696-717.

Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of Dysfunction: Managing the Dynamics of an Organizational Duality in a Natural Food Cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly.

Bartunek, J. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R. Quinn, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 137-162. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative science quarterly: 1-21.

Bhaskar, R. A. 1993. Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.

Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. 1988. Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. Quinn, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 1-18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. 2014. An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organization Science, 25(4): 1056-1081.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. 2000. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1): 31-61.

De Rond, M., & Bouchiki, H. 2004. On the dialectics of strategic alliances. . Organization Science, 15(1): 56-69.

Denis, J.-L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. 2011. Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1): 225-244.

Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. 2001. The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 809-837.

Dewey, J. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology: Carlton house.

Dunne, J.2011. Towards an understanding of non-dual mindfulness, Contemporary Buddhism, 12: 71-88

Farjoun, M. 2002. The Dialectics of Institutional Development in Emergent and Turbulent Fields: The History of Pricing Conventions in the On-Line Database Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 848-874.

Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202-225.

Farjoun, M. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics and paradox. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.),The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies (forthcoming)

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Harvey, S. 2014. When Accuracy Isn’t Everything: The Value of Demographic Differences to Information Elaboration in Teams. Group & Organization Management.

Jarzabkowski, P., Le, J., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Responding to Competing Strategic Demands: How Organizing, Belonging and Performing Paradoxes Co-Evolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3): 245-280.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. 2007. A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11): 1639-1665.

Jay, J. 2013. Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 137-159.

Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M., Smith, B., & Kataria, N. 2014. Elasticity and The Dialectic Tensions of Organizational Identity: How Can We Hold Together While We're Pulling Apart? Academy of Management Journal.

Langley, A., & Sloan, P. 2012. Organizational change and dialectic processes. The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change: 261.

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. 2006. Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4): 502-513.

Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760-776.

Luscher, L., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221-240.

Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2): 229-240.

Murdoch, Z., & Geys, B. 2014. Institutional Dynamics in International Organizations: Lessons from the Recruitment Procedures of the European External Action Service. Organization Studies, 35(12): 1793-1811.

Nuckolls, C. W. 1996. The Cultural Dialectics of Knowledge and Desire, University of Wisconsin Press

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562-578.

Putnam, L. 1986. Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization Communications: Emerging Perspectives: 151-167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Quinn, R., & Cameron, K. 1988. Paradox and Transformation: A Framework for Viewing Organization and Management. In R. Quinn, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 289-308. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Seo, M.-G., Putnam, L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. Dualities and Tensions of Planned Organizational Change. In S. Poole, & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change: 73-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seo, M., & Creed, W. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247.

Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. 2014. Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal(amj.2012.0638).

Smith, W. 2014. Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1592-1623.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381-403.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567-582.

Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510-540.

Pre-Symposium Workshops (15/6/2016)

The aim of the Pre-Symposium Workshops is to provide a stimulating and interactive context for researchers (especially junior and early-career scholars) to further develop their ideas and projects. Workshops are designed to enable participants to: (a) refine their understanding of process philosophy; (b) share with others some of the challenges they have encountered in conducting, theorizing, teaching or practicing process research; and (c) elicit/offer suggestions about how researching, theorizing, practicing and teaching process may be further advanced.

The morning Workshop will be on “The language of process: Introduction to process philosophy for organizational scholars” and will be run by Tor Hernes and Haridimos Tsoukas. The afternoon Workshops will consist of roundtables in which participants will briefly present a position paper, which will have been shared by all participants well in advance, followed by extensive feedback and discussion.

More specifically, the afternoon Workshops will be on:

(a) Researching and Theorizing Process. This Workshop will be run by Ann Langley. Its purpose is to discuss the methodological challenges involved in collecting and analyzing process data, and explore how process theorizing may be developed. We particularly invite submissions from researchers who have papers at an early stage of writing and would like helpful feedback as to how their papers may be further developed and published.

(b) Teaching and Practicing Process. The Workshop will be run by Haridimos Tsoukas. Its purpose is to explore the implications of process organizational research for teaching and practice. What difference does a process orientation make to how managers, policy makers, and consultants act? How do we infuse our teaching with a process orientation? We particularly invite submissions that address the issues and challenges involved in the practising and teaching of process.

Workshops will be limited to 50 persons.

Submissions

General process-oriented, theme-focused, and Workshop-oriented papers are invited. Interested participants must submit an extended abstract of about 1000 words for their proposed contribution by January 31st, 2016 through the following link:

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

The submission should contain authors’ names, institutional affiliations, email and postal addresses, and indicate the Track/Workshop for which the submission is made.

Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by March 7th, 2016. Full papers will be submitted by June 5th, 2016.

Limited financial assistance is possible for researchers unable to fund their participation in the Symposium.