New Book Chapter: “The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy”

In any case, I would have been happy to contribute to the brand new “Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy”, co-edited by David Seidl, (Universität Zürich), Richard Whittington (University of Oxford) and Georg von Krogh (ETH Zürich). Given that the chapter’s co-author is my sister Laura (Radboud University Nijmegen), I am even more proud about our contribution on “The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy: Programmatic and Constitutive Approaches to Openness”.  A short excerpt from the Introduction:

Two facets are all but universally present in current works on Open Strategy. First, while being aware of and addressing challenges and dilemmas associated with openness in strategy making (Hautz et al., 2017), increasing openness is mostly perceived as normatively good, as an ideal that should be achieved. […] Second, openness is mostly considered to be the opposite of closure, or at least the other endpoint of a continuum from closedness to various degrees of openness in terms of greater transparency or inclusion (Whittington et al., 2011).

Taken together, an affirmative perspective on openness as opposed to closure is central to a currently dominant programmatic approach, which is mainly concerned with putting openness into practice and unleashing its respective potential. However, as we will argue in this chapter, addressing many of the tensions or dilemmas observed in empirical endeavours to implement greater ‘openness’ could potentially benefit from another perspective, which understands openness (and closure) as a paradox (Putnam et al., 2016) where openness and closure appear contradictory but yet simultaneously depend on each other. Key for such a constitutive approach towards openness is that this paradox cannot be dissolved entirely but only addressed in a specific way, namely by legitimate forms of closure.

A pre-print version of the article is open access available at the Open Strategy Network, which features pre-prints of all chapters in the Handbook.

SCOS Talk on “Secret organizers: The ‘spectrogenic’ process of profiling and the effects of ‘ghostly demarcations’”

Right after the EGOS Colloquium in Edinburgh I had the opportunity to give a talk at the “Ghosts Conference York”, which is part of the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism (SCOS).  The following provides a short summary of my talk on “Secret organizers: The ‘spectrogenic’ process of profiling and the effects of ‘ghostly demarcations’”.

Profiles’ are important technologies of organizing that are used in a multiplicity of contexts: customer-profiling, profiling for employment screening, credit-scoring, criminal investigations, immigration policy, health-care management, forensic biometrics, etc. Profiles organize perception and seeing and they are important media in (algorithmic) decision-making. They are ‘used to make decisions, sometimes even without human intervention’ (Hildebrandt, 2008: 18). All profiles are abstractions. In the process of profiling images of the person are created for the purpose of diagnosis or prediction. In the process of profiling ‘complex personhood’ (Gordon, 1997) is reduced to a finite number of traits, indicators, etc. Created models or figures may be fictions but these fictions are operationally effective, as they shape and intervene in the world. In the paper profiles are theorized as ‘ghosts’ that are produced in a ‘spectrogenic process’ (Derrida, 1994). The spectrogenic process describes the process of abstraction, in which (a) thoughts, ideas, data etc. are ‘torn loose’ from the ‘living body’ and integrated in a more abstract or ‘artifactual body’ and (b) the return of the abstraction (ghost) to the world of real life events in the process of ‘application’ where it ‘haunts’ those with whom profiles are associated. Continue reading “SCOS Talk on “Secret organizers: The ‘spectrogenic’ process of profiling and the effects of ‘ghostly demarcations’””

Looking back on the 35th EGOS Colloquium »Enlightening the Future« in Edinburgh

The annual Colloquium of the European Group of Organization Studies (EGOS) is a great opportunity to engage with a great variety of research communities. In 2019 University of Innsbruck’s department of organization and learning was represented with a record number of participants. Please find an overview of our contributions to this year’s EGOS Colloquium below.

Continue reading “Looking back on the 35th EGOS Colloquium »Enlightening the Future« in Edinburgh”

New Article: »Dynamics of the Sharing Economy between Commons and Commodification«

The essay “Dynamics of the Sharing Economy between Commons and Commodification” is based upon a conference paper presented at the conference “A Great Transformation? Global Perspectives on Contemporary Capitalisms” in 2017. It has now  been published in the most recent issue of Momentum Quarterly:

Revisiting scholarly debates around the weal and woe of the so-called “sharing economy,” this essay proposes a distinction between commons-based and market-based forms of the sharing economy. Applying a Polanyian lens to these two types of sharing economy not only reveals countervailing developments between commons and commodification depending on the type of platform governance; in addition, such a perspective also directs attention to externalities regularly associated with the expansion of market logics in previously nonmarket territories.

Check out the open access full text.

Konferenz zur “Zukunft der Prognostik” in Erlangen

Am Internationalen Kolleg für Geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung der Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg findet von 23.-24. Juli eine Konferenz zum Thema “Die Zukunft der Prognostik: Was wir heute und morgen vorhersagen können”. Hier der Link zum Programmplakat als PDF. Weitere Informationen und Registriertungsmöglichkeit unter ikgf.uni-erlangen.de/zukunft-der-prognostik.

Diskussion zu Wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Lehre an HWR Berlin: “Fit für die Zukunft?”

Am 3. Juni 2019, 19:30-21:00 darf ich gemeinsam mit Larissa Bleckwehl (HR Business Partner) an der Berliner Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht zum Thema “Fit für die Zukunft? Was braucht die wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Lehre?” diskutieren (PDF der Ankündigung). Thema wird dabei unter anderem die Frage nach Pluralismus hinsichtlich Theorien und Methoden sein. Aus der Ankündigung der Veranstaltung:

Finanzkrise, Klimawandel und digitale Revolution: Die Welt befindet sich im Umbruch, doch in den Seminarräumen gilt business as usual? Die wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Lehre wird von verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren kritisiert – nicht nur in Deutschland. Sie sei realitätsfremd und einseitig. Braucht es deshalb mehr Pluralismus in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften, also eine Vielfalt der Disziplinen, der Perspektiven und Methoden?  Welche Kompetenzen soll das wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Studium heute vermitteln, damit die Studierenden gut vorbereitet sind für das Leben nach der Hochschule? Ist die HWR gut für die zukünftigen Herausforderungen aufgestellt und was ist noch zu verbessern?