Weak Theology and Organization Studies

Abstract

This article demonstrates the pre-eminent position which the term oikonomia (household management) occupied in the first few centuries of Christian theology, opening up avenues which have been left virtually unexplored by modern management scientists. This first level of analysis reveals that the essence of management is inevitably associated with the concepts of non-power, burden and weakness. I then pursue this line of inquiry to look at the role occupied by the notion of ‘weakness’ in the postmodern theology developed by Gianni Vattimo and John Caputo, before extending the scope of this analysis to contemporary debates in the field of organization studies, revealing an entirely different vision of the figure of ‘manager’ from that championed in post-Taylorian ‘scientific’ management, with its emphasis on the behavioural and technical aspects of her/his role. The article concludes by looking at the theoretical and practical implications of ‘weak’ management.

Reconceptualising vulnerability and its value for managerial identity and learning

“…Such expectations, which construct not only available but we argue, 'acceptable' managerial social-identities, are culturally associated with masculinity (Hay, 2014;Kerfoot & Knights, 1998;Simpson, 2007) and contrast with vulnerability, which is 'culturally coded feminine' (Butler & Gambetti, 2013:np) and associated with weakness. However, according to Deslandes (2018) what we are told by the theologians who wrote about management…is that it is first characterized by a dose of negativity, weakness, struggle and the difficulties inherent in the task… Although managerial strength often appears to be omnipotent, flawless, effective, even irresistible, the reality is, in fact, less cut and dried. Managers are capable, but they are also fallible and vulnerable.…”

What Is (Business) Management? Laying the Ground for a Philosophy of Management

“…In Oeconomicus, published around 385 b.c., Xenophon introduces a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, a wealthy young man, and Ischomachus, a noble and successful manager, about oikonomia. Oikonomia, as Xenophon understood it, is not comparable with our contemporary understanding of economics and is primarily concerned with household management (Deslandes 2018). The domain of the household is not limited to the private sphere of the house in which we live, but extents to all property that enables the owner of the household to make a living.…”

“…This can be contrasted with Xenophon, who highlights the necessity of sector specific expert knowledge and skills of the manager, and the necessity of the involvement of business managers in the business operations via direct labour (fourth dimension of management that we can find in Xenophon's work). 3) While the role of risk and misfortune is normally acknowledged in modern conceptualizations of business management, the radical fallibility and vulnerability of management is often not systematically reflected upon in the literature (Deslandes 2018). It is often taken as something that can be managed and controlled, for instance by risk management practices.…”

“…Instead of being hemmed in by the structures of its self-evident conceptuality, the task of philosophy of management is to develop new theories of imagination for management science (cf. Tsoukas and Cummings 1997;Komporozos-Athanasiou and Fotaki 2015;Deslandes 2018).…”

Politics versus Economics Philosophical Reflections on the Nature of Corporate Governance

“…Economic theology, on the other, concentrates on Gods relation to the created world. Oikonomia, as the Greeks understood it, is far removed from our contemporary understanding of economics, but concerns household management (Deslandes 2018;Blok 2019). This administrative paradigm defines oikonomia originally.…”