The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a progressive understanding of performativity in critical management studies
Open accessAbstract
A central debate in critical management studies (CMS) revolves around the concern that critical research has rather little influence on what managers do in practice. We argue that this is partly because CMS research often focuses on criticizing antagonistically, rather than engaging with managers. In light of this, we seek to re-interpret the anti-performative stance of CMS by focusing on how researchers understand, conceptualize and make use of the performative effects of language. Drawing on the works of JL Austin and Judith Butler, we put forward the concept of progressive performativity, which requires critical researchers to stimulate the performative effects of language in order to induce incremental, rather than radical, changes in managerial behaviour. The research framework we propose comprises two interrelated processes: (i) the strategy of micro-engagement, which allows critical researchers to identify and ‘ally’ with internal activists among managers, and to support their role as internal agents of change; and (ii) ‘reflexive conscientization’ − that is, a dialogic process between researchers and researched that aims to gradually raise the critical consciousness of actors in order to provide spaces in which new practices can be ‘talked into existence’ through the performative effects of language.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177 · Cited by 2,228
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508413478310 · Cited by 591
Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.460 · Cited by 335 · cited 3×
“For example, in a study of Fortune 500 companies, Briscoe and Safford (2008) showed how internal activists influenced the spread of contentious practices, which gradually became accepted by those who initially opposed them within the same organization and among other organizations.”
BackgroundHaack, P., Schoeneborn, D., & Wickert, C. (2012) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840612443630 · Cited by 303
Self-citation
Cited by
Gond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12074 · Cited by 405
Organizational Transparency: Conceptualizations, Conditions, and Consequences
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650316659851 · Cited by 361
Penttilä, V. (2020) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650319825825 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Wickert, C., & Schaefer, S. M.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-02-24
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-130
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2134399536
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 47.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a progressive understanding of performativity in critical management studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018726713519279
- The paper
- Wickert, C., & Schaefer, S. M. (2015). Towards a progressive understanding of performativity in critical management studies. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713519279
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.