A Call for Activist Scholarship in Organizational Theorizing

Abstract

In this essay, I elaborate on my 2022 OMT Distinguished Scholar address to reflect on the field of organizational theory and, in particular, about our role as scholars in the years ahead. Over the last eight years, we have heard an increasing clamor for organizational scholars to focus our research efforts on addressing the “grand challenges” that confront our world. With that work, as well as some dealing with disruptions, divisions, and displacements that give rise to these challenges (Creed et al., 2022) as a backdrop, I have reached the conclusion that as scholars we are caught on the horns of a powerful dilemma. How do we individually (and collectively) seek validity for our work and the theoretical insights we generate and thus ensure our own security while at the same time, leave a lasting legacy to society and to the earth through our work? Or stated in another way, can we actually use our theories to have an impact on the societal problems about which we theorize? Like all of us, I have sought validity for my understanding of the world, and for myself in the process, in order to meet the requirements for tenure and promotion. Publishing, it seems, can be likened to accumulating notches in your belt for having climbed as many of the 282 daunting Scottish mountains called Munro’s as one can. Years ago, I met a man who was on his third round of scaling those indomitable peaks. Now I’m told he’s on his tenth round! Many of us have scaled our own intellectual Munros in the quest for theory generation, the ultimate goal extolled by many of our best journals (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006; Palmer, 2006), even counseling new scholars on how to be successful at theorizing (Rindova, 2008). We put notches on our belts after each conquest by carving out a unique and novel contribution and joining a clan of like-minded mountaineers to secure our identities. I, too, have sought to scale the metaphoric Munros in search of theory although often losing my footing along the way. For example, after revising a paper to conform to the target of a special issue, the rejection letter I received read, “Your paper is now neither fish nor fowl.” OUCH! The editor seemed to be saying, “This paper does not fit the theoretical frame we want to advance in this special issue.” So, what can you do with that except toss the paper in the trash or search for a more hospitable home for it elsewhere. Since that experience, I have learned to stand my ground and ask a few questions before admitting defeat. But the larger question I’m raising is this: Is publishing better and better theory the only legacy we can and want to leave to society and to the earth? After reflecting on my 44-year career as an academic, I am left with a distinct dissatisfaction. I fear that the world is drifting into narcissism while we academics try to refine our theories about it. Especially, but not exclusively, for those of us who have cleared the requisite tenure bar, I urge us to ask ourselves, “How can our research actually effectuate changes that might ameliorate real-world social and economic problems and not only help corporations add to their earnings or to pad our vitas?” As organizational scholars, I believe we have largely sidestepped this important question, and we share a complicit guilt in this regard, fostered by our norms of evaluating and rewarding our own performance. In distinguishing emancipatory from explanatory and interpretive theorizing, Cornelissen, Hōllerer and Seidl (2021, p. 12) noted that emancipatory research emerges out of “concern for ideals and values” that are inscribed into our current beliefs’ and tries to “make a real, practical difference through identifying the potentialities and possibilities for emancipation and reform.” These authors also note that emancipatory, or critical, studies are important because they reveal “structures of domination and human constraints” in achieving our aspirational goals. Consequently, emancipatory research has clearly played an important role in broadening the domain of organizational theorizing. However, in my view, it doesn’t go far enough. Although critical scholars condemn current states of affairs, they only rarely step out of the ivory tower to engage in situ with the dynamics they