An economies-of-worth perspective on strategy as practice: justification, valuation and critique in the practice of strategy

Gond, Jean‐Pascal; Léca, Bernard; Cloutier, Charlotte

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139681032.012

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that also consider why certain rhetorical arguments fail to take root are also of interest. A better understanding of the ways in which different types of arguments shape ideas and beliefs should help advance our knowledge of how deeply seated beliefs are potentially uprooted, knowledge that would be particularly useful for elaborating discourses that are aimed at promoting change (Gond, Leca, & Cloutier, 2015). These insights would also help extend our knowledge of the factors beyond access to resources that contribute to the success of social movements (McCarthy & Zald, 1977).…”

Section: Looking At Organizations Critically: Rhetoric Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EW framework can also be potentially useful for taking into consideration the normative dimensions underlying many types of organizational paradoxes -especially those related to organizational performance -and explain how and why paradoxes arise in the first place (Gond, Demers, & Michaud, 2017). It can also be useful for addressing recurrent calls that the practice perspective in strategy gain sharper critical teeth (Blom & Alvesson, 2015;Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2008;Clegg & Kornberger, 2015) and broader societal significance (Knights & Morgan, 1991;Whittington, 1996), by reintegrating activities of critique and justification within its conceptualization of strategy practice, activities which are arguably central to the doing of strategy in organizations (Gond et al, 2015). The EW framework also provides a means for advancing our understanding of materiality in organizations.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Cloutier¹,

Gond²,

Léca³

2017

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link and evaluation in organizations by reconsidering the notion of worth, and finally 4) push the boundaries of the framework itself by questioning and fine tuning some of its core assumptions. Taken as a whole, this volume not only carves a path for a deeper embedding of the EW approach into contemporary thinking about organizations, it also invites readers to refine and expand it by confronting it with a wider range of diverse empirical contexts of interest to organizational scholars.Keywords: economies of worth; justification; critique; evaluation; French Pragmatist Sociology.3 Despite early acknowledgement of the relevance of the EW framework for studying organizations (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007;Livian & Herreros, 1994), and a recognition that it provides "a highly original perspective stressing the importance of processes of critique and justification for the production of organizational order and change" (Jagd, 2011, p. 344 (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011;Ramirez, 2013;Taupin, 2012). JUSTIFICATION, EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE IN THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUMEWhile demonstrating the "generative" potential of the EW framework by combining it with other theories is both interesting and useful, there are many missed opportunities in failing to embrace the EW framework as a theory that is worthy for its own sake, one that can be particularly helpful, for example, for uncovering some of the normative contradictions that underlie institutional life by investigating how individual actors engage with a plurality of moral orders.Some of this potential can be seen in studies that have mobilized the EW framework to address topics such as intra-organizational dynamics of justification (Jagd, 2011), the strategic management of pluralistic organizations (Daigle & Rouleau, 2010;Denis et al., 2007) decision-making in public management contexts (Dodier & Camus, 1998 It is in light of the above observations and the opportunities they gave rise to that we settled on the following four objectives for the volume: (1) clarify how individuals manage the contradictions and compromises inherent in organizational pluralism by considering the daily moral life of actors inhabiting institutions; (2) look at organizations critically by unpacking the rhetorical foundations of critiques, and pragmatically examining the roles of rhetoric and justification in the critical operations that organizational actors engage in; (3) reconsider the notion of worth beyond its purely economic sense and consider the multiple facets that constitute and produce value in organizational life and (4) push the boundaries of the EW framework itself and by so doing, help further embed notions such as justification, critique and valuation in our contemporary analysis and understanding of organizations.Collectively, the set of contributions proposed in this volume address these four key objec...

show abstract

Section: Looking At Organizations Critically: Rhetoric Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concluding Thoughts: Where To From Here?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Cloutier¹,

Gond²,

Léca³

2017

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To explore the variety of ways through which firms demonstrate their moral legitimacy (Palazzo and Scherer, ), various researchers have proposed that studies draw on French Pragmatist Sociology (e.g., Cloutier and Langley, ; Gond et al, ; Patriotta et al, ; Ramirez, ), especially the work of Boltanski and Thévenot (). Past studies applying French Pragmatist Sociology have revealed, for instance, how an energy company attempted to maintain its moral legitimacy after a nuclear scandal by strategically referring to normative principles over time in order to reassure stakeholders with different expectations (Patriotta et al, ), how an institutional change in the UK audit profession led to perceived injustice and illegitimacy (Ramirez, ), and how organisational actors within Fairtrade International drew on different normative principles to justify or challenge organisational practices of minimum price setting (Reinecke, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Background: Maintaining Moral Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining Moral Legitimacy through Worlds and Words: An Explanation of Firms' Investment in Sustainability Certification

Richards

Zellweger

Gond

2017

J Management Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prominent way for firms to manage their moral legitimacy is to invest in sustainability certifications. However, a significant subset of firms remain reluctant to invest in sustainability certifications even decades after the establishment of such certifications. Our paper seeks to elucidate this variance by exploring how firms in the coffee, tea, and chocolate industries legitimise themselves on moral grounds through external communication to stakeholders. Drawing on insights from French Pragmatist Sociology, we suggest that firms primarily rely on two distinct sets of legitimacy principles that reflect their identity orientation: the 'civic and green' world and the 'domestic' world. Specifically, our results show that reliance on the domestic world is negatively related to firms' investment in sustainability certifications. Our findings also suggest that the strength of the relationship between these distinct methods of moral legitimising and certification varies depending on whether firms are characterised by first-or multi-generation family control.

show abstract

“…As part of their theory of justification, Boltanski and Thévenot provide a 'grammar' for describing competing normative approaches to the common good, which they conceptualize as specific 'worlds' or 'orders of worth' rather than logics. The EW framework provides a vocabulary to capture the processes whereby, through their 'justification work' (Jagd, 2011;Taupin, 2012), individuals build on these 'worlds' to establish or challenge the forming of 'compromises' (Thévenot, 2001) in contexts of dispute or tension between worlds (Cloutier, Gond & Leca, 2017;Gond, Leca & Cloutier, 2015b). Within organizations, as in social life, these 'worlds' provide individuals with a 'repertoire of cultural-cognitive and normative resources' to address moral tensions (Cloutier & Langley, 2013, p. 371;Silber, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Microfoundations of Institutional Complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company

Demers

Gond

2019

Organization Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Demers, C. and Gond, J-P. ORCID: 0000-0002- 9331-6957 (2019). The moral microfoundations of institutional complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromisemaking at an oil sands company. Organization Studies, Paper forthcoming in Organization Studies. The moral microfoundations of institutional complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company AbstractResearch on institutional complexity has overlooked the fact that moral judgements are likely involved when individuals face a plurality of logics within organizations. To analyze the moral microfoundations of institutional complexity, we build on Boltanski and Thévenot's (2006 [1991]) economies of worth (EW) framework and explore how individuals produce moral judgement in response to the institutional complexity triggered by a major shift in the sustainability strategy within an oil sands company. Fifty-two interviews with employees, managers and executives reveal how actors rely on four types of justification that combine different moral principles and related objects with the aim of either forming (sheltering and solidifying work) or challenging (fragilizing and deconstructing work) a new compromise with regard to sustainability within the organization. Our results show how the EW framework can enrich institutional complexity theory by bringing morality back into the analysis as a core dimension of inhabited institutions while advancing the microanalysis of compromise-making around sustainability in organization studies.

show abstract

An economies-of-worth perspective on strategy as practice: justification, valuation and critique in the practice of strategy

Cited by 15 publications

References 68 publications

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

Maintaining Moral Legitimacy through Worlds and Words: An Explanation of Firms' Investment in Sustainability Certification

The Moral Microfoundations of Institutional Complexity: Sustainability implementation as compromise-making at an oil sands company

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About