Playful membership: embracing an unknown future

Andersen, Niels Åkerstrøm; Pors, Justine Grønbæk

doi:10.1080/17449359.2014.891796

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, in the existing Luhmannian understanding, membership describes a decision on appointment or dismissal of ‘specific persons' (Andersen & Pors, 2014, p. 178) that serves as a premise for organizational decision‐making processes by granting and ascribing certain rights and duties to participate in these very decision processes (Luhmann, 2018, p. 45). This understanding of membership remains very popular among many scholars who employ modern systems theory, for example, in works on foreign aid (Kühl, 2015), social work (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015) or university rankings (Kette & Tacke, 2015; for more examples, see Andersen & Born, 2008; Drepper, 2005; Kühl, 2013; Martens, 2006; Nassehi, 2005).…”

Section: The Existing Definition Of Membershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This understanding of membership remains very popular among many scholars who employ modern systems theory, for example, in works on foreign aid (Kühl, 2015), social work (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015) or university rankings (Kette & Tacke, 2015; for more examples, see Andersen & Born, 2008; Drepper, 2005; Kühl, 2013; Martens, 2006; Nassehi, 2005). Building on this understanding, scholars could even show that some organizations push the conditions of membership to the extreme, for example, when organizations specify membership as ‘always preliminary, always open, and always ready to become something else' (Andersen & Pors, 2014, p. 179).…”

Section: The Existing Definition Of Membershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, most scholars—including Luhmann—see membership as a structural element or a fixed premise implying that certain individuals become members at one point and then remain members until their memberships are terminated. In this rather static view, membership is tightly coupled to certain identifiable persons who are the members (see, e.g., Ahrne, 1994; Aldrich, 2008; Andersen & Pors, 2014; Drori, Meyer, & Hwang, 2006; King et al, 2010; Luhmann, 2018). Some literature, on the other hand, has suggested that membership should be seen as a precarious process in which the degree of belonging to an organization is constantly renegotiated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Membership and contributorship in organizations: An update of modern systems theory

Grothe‐Hammer

2020

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues for an update of modern systems theory, in particular of the systems theory of organizations. Recent works have pointed out that existing understandings of membership fall short when it comes to accounting for the modern variety of organizational phenomena. This is also true for modern systems theory, which still relies on a rather conventional understanding of membership. Against this backdrop, I propose to draw on recent developments in related fields of communication‐centred organization research and to adopt the notion of ‘contributorship'. Following such works, contributorship can be defined as the decision on the distribution of rights to participate in the internal decision processes of an organization. By contrast, I propose to reformulate the notion of membership and define it as the decision that establishes whether a certain person belongs to the organization or not, that is, is a member of it or not. In addition, I propose to drop the existing systems‐theoretical assertion that membership is the core‐defining premise for the constitution of an organization. Instead, I argue that contributorship, not membership, is the basic premise needed by every organization to be constituted. Building on these insights, I will conclude the article by discussing the three possibilities of affiliating persons to an organization, that is, as mere members, mere contributors or both.

show abstract

Section: The Existing Definition Of Membershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Existing Definition Of Membershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Membership and contributorship in organizations: An update of modern systems theory

Grothe‐Hammer

2020

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Playful organisations (Grønbaek Pors & Andersen, 2015) and a playful organizational membership that are emerging out of this in(ter-)between render then intensive, but transient relationships (Andersen, 2013). They generate a surplus of actualized possibilities and potential identities and thus continuously cross boundaries between real and virtual as well as individual and social worlds (Andersen & Grønbaek Pors, 2014). With this focus shifts towards a processual inter-playing in-between, play emerges as an event out of the nexus of playing selves, others and things (Merleau-Ponty, 2012, p. 57) that helps exploring the paradox of serious play and relating it to practical wisdom.…”

Section: In-(ter-)between As Medium and Trans(re-)lational Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-play(ing) – embodied and relational possibilities of “serious play” at work

Küpers¹

2017

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of embodied dimensions and relational possibilities of (serious) play at work. It shows how a phenomenological and processual approach can help in developing an integral understanding of (serious) play and its paradox in relation to work and practical wisdom and professional artistry in organizations. Design/methodology/approach Based on the literature review and phenomenology, the role of embodied dimension, and the nexus of playful practitioners, practices and playgrounds are discussed. Systematically, then the concept of “inter-playing” is proposed as a specific embodied and processual practice. Subsequently, the in-between is shown to be a medium and transrelational nexus for (serious) play that allows a more comprehensive understanding and implications. Findings Based on the phenomenological and relational approach, the concept of (inter-)play allows an extended understanding of serious play and its paradox as a form of an inter-practice. The mediating in-(ter-)between is revealed as decisive for playful practices and playgrounds in organizations. Serious play is linked to practical wisdom and professional artistry in organizations. Research limitations/implications Specific theoretical and methodological implications for exploring and enacting play are offered. It is suggested to take research itself as a form of inter-practice and to enact a more integral epistemology and methodological pluralism, including body-related and art-based approaches and critical issues. Practical implications Some specific practical implications are provided that facilitate and enable embodied play and play-spaces in an ongoing, arts-based learning and development process in organizational and educational contexts. Social implications The corporeality of responsive inter-play is seen as connected to sociality and social interaction as self and others are considered as a nexus. In particular, poetic phrónêsis in professional playful practice is linked to social creativity that includes attention and recognition of others and otherness as well as social inclusivity. Originality/value By extending the existing discourse and using an embodied approach, the paper proposes a novel orientation for re-interpreting serious play. Equally, it offers the new processual concepts of inter-play and inter-practice that allow more explorations and connections to discourses and practices of phronesis and art(istry).

show abstract

“…Scholars have observed an increasing emergence of new forms of organization—like certain kinds of social movements, hacker collectives or terrorist networks—for which it is difficult to identify members distinctively (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; King, 2017; la Cour, 2014). Hence, membership has been described as becoming fluid or unclear (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015) and as radically changing nowadays (Andersen & Pors, 2014). In some instances, the relationship between organizations and their members seems to become increasingly intimate (Andersen, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization and membership: Introduction to the Special Issue

Grothe‐Hammer

Cour

2020

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Membership is one of the most important concepts in organization theory, and has been mostly taken for granted for decades. Recent works have shattered the existing paradigm of membership, and several scholars have come up with new ways to understand the relationship between organizations and the people ‘belonging' to them. This debate has been crucially inspired by Niklas Luhmann's modern systems theory – however, so far mostly without developing modern systems theory itself. With this Special Issue on “Organization and Membership,” we want to carry the discussion back to its muse. This Special Issue presents works that specifically advance the membership notion of modern systems theory – and, hence, offer new inspirational impulses for the whole field of organization studies. In this introduction, we briefly present Luhmann's works on membership and provide an overview of the research articles featured in this Special Issue.

show abstract

Playful membership: embracing an unknown future

Cited by 17 publications

References 46 publications

Membership and contributorship in organizations: An update of modern systems theory

Membership and contributorship in organizations: An update of modern systems theory

Inter-play(ing) – embodied and relational possibilities of “serious play” at work

Organization and membership: Introduction to the Special Issue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About