“And Who Are You?”: A Performative Perspective on Authority in Organizations

Abstract

As work and organizational reality become increasingly "post-bureaucratic," the conventional and stable bases of a person's authority-their position, their expertise, or the acquiescence of a subordinate-are eroding. This evolution calls us to revise our understanding of authority, and to consider more deeply how it is achieved in contexts that are both fluid and fragmented. Building on a six-month autoethnography of a consulting assignment, we show that authority is a practical, relational, and situated performance. It exists in a tension between two mirroring processes, activation and passivation, through which relations are either leveraged or downplayed to shape the situation and steer collective action. Our study also reveals that the performance of authority involves not just people, but also a broader range of actants, including artifacts and abstract entities. In line with current research on performativity in organizations, our findings contribute to the relational program on authority and the revelation of its sociomaterial dimension. Thus, we provide an action-based understanding of authority that is better suited for the study of post-bureaucratic organizing.

Unpacking Business Model Innovation Through an Attention-Based View

“…First, the first author kept a sibylline research diary (Laszczuk & Garreau, 2018) over the period of observation that allowed to take notes systematically and to share it with the second author (e.g. Bourgoin, Bencherki, & Faraj, 2019;Bourgoin & Harvey, 2018). The data collection setup allowed for assistance and participation in 98 events of NOP development over 60 months and for the recording of a substantial part of it (45 events, representing 68 h of audio recordingssee Appendix 1).…”

How strategy comes to matter: Strategizing as the communicative materialization of matters of concern

“…Given our role in convening and facilitating the events we report on, we do not wish to erase or overlook our own involvement in the overall process. In line with scholars adopting an action-research approach (Robertson, 2000) and encouraged by recent studies assuming a similar posture (e.g., Bourgoin et al, 2019), we embrace our participation and approach it with a reflexive stance to account for our part in shaping the situations we describe (see Cunliffe, 2003;Macbeth, 2001). For instance, we appear in the video and audio data we analyzed, and pondered for a long time on how to account for our dual role (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007;Davis, 1973).…”

Envisioning PR research without taking organizations as collective actors for granted: A rejoinder and extension to Hou

“…Importantly, with such a move toward a constitutive understanding of communication for the existence and perpetuation of organizations as collective actors, we believe that PR scholarship has a unique chance to build further inroads into the larger field of organization and management studies-similar to the ways in which organizational communication scholarship has found increasing recognition in organization and management studies over the past years (e.g. Ashcraft et al, 2009;Bourgoin et al, 2020;Cooren et al, 2011, Koschmann et al, 2012Schoeneborn et al, 2019). At the same time, a constitutive view has also found increasing resonance in PR scholarship lately (e.g.…”