The organizational restructuring performative act under shareholder value management ideology

Abstract

Purpose -This paper's objective is to present the dynamics involving an organizational restructuring process conducted in a Brazilian subsidiary of a centenary American industrial corporation which claimed to be seeking, by means of this process, to increase the value of the company's shares, but, which results reveal the distance between the promises and outcomes of this process, unveiling the symbolic-performative nature of such a process.Methodology -The chosen research method was the case study. The data collection involved the participant observation of a company manager (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015); the conduction of non-structured interviews to the company's managers, directors and CFO (2013)(2014)(2015); documental research to the company's internal and public sources (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015); and bibliographical research to scientific papers, business press, market analysts and specialized media (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015).Results -The narratives of success found in the company's reports portray the restructuring myth as a continuous strategy, through which the company reinforces its efforts in delivering good results to shareholders. And, despite the outcomes of the case study not supporting these narratives, its performative nature legitimize the company's commitment to the SHV management ideology towards stakeholders of the capital market, even in face of the adoption of antishareholders' postures, such as anti-takeovers measures, the merging of the CEO and Chairman positions, its CEO perks, etc.Contributions -Paradoxically, although the researched company operates under the cold logic of finances, and under pressure to create shareholder value, it revealed to be subject to the dynamics in which the search for symbolic legitimacy plays a decisive role in maintaining its position within the hierarchy of the socially constructed field of the Management in face of other stakeholders present in the field, reinvigorating the precepts of Bourdieu's Field Theory and the NeoInstitutional Theory.

The Rise of Academic Capitalism in Brazil’s Higher Education

“…Through these interstitial organizations, business ideology achieves the dissemination of values associated with competition, individualism, meritocracy, and the risk culture (Saltorato et al, 2014; Saltorato and Benatti, 2017), which are then reproduced by students in their speech, dress, and behavior in the management of student organizations such as the financial market leagues, Empresa Júnior, consulting clubs, and academic centers. Inspired by the most aggressive management models on the market, students legitimize/replicate self-imposed mechanisms of evaluation, control, performance measurement, and punishment/reward and structure selective processes, career paths, and hierarchies that rank everyone, promoting the most successful (and highlighting the losers).…”

Resisting Via Hybrid Spaces: The Cascade Effect of a Workplace Struggle Against Neoliberal Hegemony

“…Key tenets of a neo-Gramscian perspective have been mobilized at the macro level to account for the rise of a “global neoliberal hegemony” (Gill, 1997) and the related financialization of Anglo-American and European economies (Bieling, 2013). At the level of the firm, this trend has been traced by following the diffusion of a shareholder value ideology (Ezzamel, Willmott, & Worthington, 2008; Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2009) that entails massive workplace restructuring via cost cutting, downsizing, externalization, and the weakening of collective forms of workers’ organization (Cushen, 2013; Forsberg & Stockenstrand, 2014; Hirsch & De Soucey, 2006; Salento, Masino, & Berdicchia, 2013; Saltorato & Benatti, 2017). The shift was significant enough to question whether the new order of domination was still based on hegemonic consent or rather relied on “managerial despotism” (Burawoy, 1985), that is, the arbitrary application of coercion.…”

An interwoven financialization narrative as a driver of the 2008 Crash

“…Prior to the 2008 Crash, powerful actors (e.g. institutional investors, institutional entrepreneurs, business schools, consultancy firms) legitimized a field ideology (Useem, 1996) – its habitus (Bourdieu, 1989) – influencing managers’ shareholder-focused discourse (Lawrence, 1999; Maguire et al , 2004; Saltorato and Benatti, 2017). The market for corporate control, where the largest companies held the most power, similarly promoted shareholder interests (Jensen and Ruback, 1983; Davis, 2009).…”