Rethinking Resistance as an Act of Improvisation: Lessons from the 1914 Christmas Truce

Abstract

We examine the historical phenomenon of truces, as these occurred during a period of intense warfare during World War I, around Christmas 1914. These were processes of resistance that could not have been planned (otherwise they would obviously have been thwarted by authority) and that occurred in a setting with continuously changing conditions. Our purpose in making this analysis is to identify the micro-foundations and behaviours of enacting resistance and forming a truce under conditions where planning and executing cannot be assumed to be orderly and linear. We discuss the battlefield context of intense competition and mutual suffering as an organizational setting in order to provide a more precise explanation of how rules and structures can be (at least) temporarily suspended in the workplace. We rethink the construct of resistance as an act of improvisation; we do so by developing a framework that explains how resistance can emerge and be quashed in workplace settings that might appear at first sight to be immune. Therefore, we combine two themes that have largely been separated in theory: resistance and improvisation. Doing so opens new ground in three ways. First, we contribute to literature about resistance by explaining how it was constructed as action suspending rules and structures in hostile contexts. Second, we show the political-motivational dimension of improvisation. Third, we extend the notion of truce as not an end in itself (a temporary settlement) but as an avenue to achieve a real objective (e.g. to change the course of history for the better).

Power, politics and improvisation: Learning during a prolonged crisis

“…One reason for the scarcity might be that studying improvisations and learning in situ proves difficult ( Vendelo, 2009 ), which has led many researchers to conduct retrospective studies concentrating on successful or unsuccessful improvisations, rather than the subsequent learning derived from these (e.g. Rerup, 2001 ; Weick, 1993 ; Wiedemann et al, 2021 ). Ethnographic studies, which provide rich in situ data of improvisations and learning, have predominantly focused on organizations where improvisations are critical and par for the course, such as emergency responders or innovation teams ( Batista et al, 2016 ; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011 ; Faraj and Xiao, 2006 ; Miner et al, 2001 ).…”

Resistance as a Way of Life: How a group of workers perpetuated insubordination to neoliberal management

“…Between political harmlessness and mere departure from the political game, research on resistance might have therefore turned its back on forms of opposition that wilfully play the game of politics, even at the price of radicalization (Courpasson, 2017). Consequently, situations where collective resistance is likely to alter organizational power relations are hardly recognized (Wiedemann et al, 2021), because that would suppose either to romanticize stories of bravery (Mumby et al, 2017) or endlessly invoke an illusion of autonomy (Contu, 2008; Thompson, 2016). Situations where collective resistance can directly challenge power relations and instal resistance as a permanent defiance to established powers are even harder to contemplate.…”

Rethinking Organizations and Society from Paradoxes

“…Van de Ven and Poole (1995) presented tensions as an engine of organizational change. But, previously, they had been topics of discussion: the tension between formal and informal organization (Selznick, 1948), the representational and corporeal dimensions of organizational life (Flores-Pereira, Davel, & Cavedon, 2008), the mutual presence of planning and improvisation , the tension between strategy and execution (Sull, 2007), the relationship between control and resistance (Wiedemann, Cunha, & Clegg, 2021) and stability and change (Farjoun, 2010). In other words, organizational tensions were never exactly a well-kept secret.…”