Books by Sverre Spoelstra
Management Learning , 2023
Stupidity is generally thought of as a hindrance to learning: an epistemic vice that stands in th... more Stupidity is generally thought of as a hindrance to learning: an epistemic vice that stands in the way of knowledge and understanding. In this article, I challenge this idea by exploring some of the meanings of stupidity that place it in a positive relation to learning. In this light, the article discusses two notions of stupidity: stupidity as unfinished thought and stupefaction through study. I show how these forms of stupidity, rather than indicating a lack of learning, can be considered as a crucial part of the learning process. These types of desirable stupidity have come under increasing threat in academic cultures that are dominated by performance criteria. On the basis of this analysis, the article argues for the importance of academic practices that make room for these positive forms of stupidity and thereby facilitate what it means to be a student.
This book is a philosophical exploration of the relationship between leadership and organization.... more This book is a philosophical exploration of the relationship between leadership and organization. Each chapter in the book sheds light on this relationship by exploring leadership with respect to a particular theme: charisma, authority, religion, language, authenticity, image and followership. These themes are linked to popular notions of leadership, such as transformational leadership, authentic leadership and servant leadership.
Offering insight into the ways in which leadership is understood in contemporary culture, the main thesis of Leadership and Organization is that understandings of leadership today are still shaped by the figure of the charismatic leader, even though charismatic leadership itself has lost much of its appeal. The clearest expression of this paradigm is the leadership-management distinction, where the leader is someone who transcends the organization and the manager someone who resides within the organization. Drawing on a broad variety of sources in continental philosophy, the author explores the central philosophical question of how leadership can be understood in relation to organization.
Offering insight into the ways in which leadership is understood in contemporary culture, the main thesis of Leadership and Organization is that understandings of leadership today are still shaped by the figure of the charismatic leader, even though charismatic leadership itself has lost much of its appeal. The clearest expression of this paradigm is the leadership-management distinction, where the leader is someone who transcends the organization and the manager someone who resides within the organization. Drawing on a broad variety of sources in continental philosophy, the author explores the central philosophical question of how leadership can be understood in relation to organization.
This book is about the relation between philosophy and organization in so far as it concerns orga... more This book is about the relation between philosophy and organization in so far as it concerns organization studies. The book, then, revolves round the interplay between philosophy, organization and organization studies. The purpose is both to ask philosophically the question ‘What is organization?’ and to question the importance of this kind of philosophical questioning for the field of organization studies.
The central argument of the book is that philosophy performs two radically different roles in organization studies, each based upon a different conception of philosophy. The first role corresponds to the under-labourer conception of philosophy in which philosophy is of value because it performs functions for organization studies: philosophy offers different paradigms, methods or frameworks in which one can perform organizational research. The second, contrasting, conception of philosophy is philosophy as the creation of concepts. In this conception, which is presented through a reading of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, philosophy has a positive dimension which is lost when it is understood in terms of its usefulness for the social sciences. Philosophy of organization, in this sense, means asking the question ‘What is organization?’ philosophically, i.e. by creating concepts of organization.
It is this second conception of philosophy that is developed in the book; by asking what it is (part I) and by exploring philosophy of organization through readings of Spinoza, Robert Cooper and Michel Foucault (part II). Taken together, the two parts argue for a more important role of philosophy of organization in organization studies, as distinguished from a philosophy for organization studies.
The central argument of the book is that philosophy performs two radically different roles in organization studies, each based upon a different conception of philosophy. The first role corresponds to the under-labourer conception of philosophy in which philosophy is of value because it performs functions for organization studies: philosophy offers different paradigms, methods or frameworks in which one can perform organizational research. The second, contrasting, conception of philosophy is philosophy as the creation of concepts. In this conception, which is presented through a reading of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, philosophy has a positive dimension which is lost when it is understood in terms of its usefulness for the social sciences. Philosophy of organization, in this sense, means asking the question ‘What is organization?’ philosophically, i.e. by creating concepts of organization.
It is this second conception of philosophy that is developed in the book; by asking what it is (part I) and by exploring philosophy of organization through readings of Spinoza, Robert Cooper and Michel Foucault (part II). Taken together, the two parts argue for a more important role of philosophy of organization in organization studies, as distinguished from a philosophy for organization studies.
Articles by Sverre Spoelstra
Journal of Business Ethics, 2024
Today, it is becoming increasingly common for companies to harness the spirit of play in order to... more Today, it is becoming increasingly common for companies to harness the spirit of play in order to increase worker engagement and improve organizational performance. This paper examines the ethics of play in a business context, focusing specifically on the phenomenon of workplace gamification. While critics highlight ethical problems with gamification, they also advocate for more positive, transformative, and life-affirming modes of organizational play. Gamification is ethical, on this view, when it allows users to reach a state of authentic happiness or eudaimonia. The underlying assumption, here, is that the 'magic circle' of play-a sphere that exists entirely for its own sake-should be protected in order to secure meaningfulness at work. However, we argue that this faith in play is misguided because play, even at its most autotelic, is ethically ambivalent; it does not lead inexorably to virtuous work environments, but may in fact have an undesirable impact on those who are playing. Our study thus contributes to research on the 'dark side' of organizational play, a strand of scholarship that questions the idea that play always points toward the good life.
Journal of Business Ethics, 2024
Today, it is becoming increasingly common for companies to harness the spirit of play in order to... more Today, it is becoming increasingly common for companies to harness the spirit of play in order to increase worker engagement and improve organizational performance. This paper examines the ethics of play in a business context, focusing specifically on the phenomenon of workplace gamification. While critics highlight ethical problems with gamification, they also advocate for more positive, transformative, and life-affirming modes of organizational play. Gamification is ethical, on this view, when it allows users to reach a state of authentic happiness or eudaimonia. The underlying assumption, here, is that the 'magic circle' of play-a sphere that exists entirely for its own sake-should be protected in order to secure meaningfulness at work. However, we argue that this faith in play is misguided because play, even at its most autotelic, is ethically ambivalent; it does not lead inexorably to virtuous work environments, but may in fact have an undesirable impact on those who are playing. Our study thus contributes to research on the 'dark side' of organizational play, a strand of scholarship that questions the idea that play always points toward the good life.
Organization, 2023
There are plenty of books and articles on research methods, but few discuss the nature and purpos... more There are plenty of books and articles on research methods, but few discuss the nature and purpose of method sections in academic journals. Based on interviews with critical and interpretivist researchers, this short paper examines the nature and purpose of method sections in management and organization studies. We show how researchers make sense of, and struggle with, positivist expectations about the form and content of method sections. Ultimately, we call for greater openness about what method sections might look like and ask whether all academic articles need method sections.
Organization, 2023
This short paper explores the gamification of an online academic conference. At the conference, d... more This short paper explores the gamification of an online academic conference. At the conference, digital gamification was meant to stimulate increased levels of participation among attendees. Instead, it resulted in a series of unintended consequences. Precisely because it was all too easy to score points and ascend the virtual leaderboard by means of machine-like grinding, the "Conference Challenge" posed a moral dilemma for its players: each participant had to determine for themselves where the border lay between playing the game and gaming the system. We use this case to raise questions about the ethics of game-playing in an academic context. In particular, we suggest that the Conference Challenge is a distorted reflection of what's already happening in the broader "publication game" in the university.
ephemera, 2022
In business discourse, the leader is often portrayed as the one who changes the current order. Le... more In business discourse, the leader is often portrayed as the one who changes the current order. Leaders stand above the organization, and from that elevated position they can bring about the necessary change that offers a way out of whatever crisis afflicts the business. In this paper, I consider the paradoxical fact that leaders, in our popular understanding at least, do not use orders when creating order: leadership is generally thought to exclude the coercive force that we associate with the giving of orders or commands. I explore this distinction between leading and commanding through a reading of Elias Canetti's chapter on 'The command' in his book Crowds and power. My overall argument is that the violence of the command (its 'sting', in Canetti's terms) can also make itself felt in seemingly benign models of leadership that challenge various forms of authoritarianism. My suggestion is therefore to put the sting back into leadership research by giving up on the idea that it is possible to conceive of leadership as operating without any coercive force.
ephemera, 2021
Why is theorizing important? What does it do? This note reflects on the broad question of what we... more Why is theorizing important? What does it do? This note reflects on the broad question of what we do when we theorize, taking its starting point from the Greek notion of theoria. The argument is that theorizing as an uncertain journey, i.e. as a form of travelling along a path towards the unknown or unfamiliar, has unjustly fallen into disrepute. The notion of 'theory' is today primarily associated with methodology and the ideas of a fixed path or a stable position. But this is not the only type of theory that critical organization studies needs. In this paper I consider how the notions of 'strong' and 'weak' theory can help us understand the role of theorizing in organization. Theory's best practice involves making us see and think differently, and this, in a sense, is as practical as it gets.
Leadership, 2020
Over the last three years, the idea of a 'post-truth society' has become a common talking point. ... more Over the last three years, the idea of a 'post-truth society' has become a common talking point. Politicians from around the world, from Europe to South America to the United States, have been labelled as 'post-truth leaders', with Donald Trump being portrayed as the standard bearer for this new kind of political discourse. This article suggests that post-truth leadership is nothing new. Ever since Max Weber developed his notion of charismatic leadership in the early 20th century, Western societies have been infatuated with the idea that leaders ought not concern themselves too much with factual reality. In a sense, leadership has been post-truth all along.
Management Learning, 2020
It is increasingly common to describe academic research as a "publication game," a metaphor that ... more It is increasingly common to describe academic research as a "publication game," a metaphor that connotes instrumental strategies for publishing in highly rated journals. However, we suggest that the use of this metaphor is problematic. In particular, the metaphor allows scholars to make a convenient, but ultimately misleading, distinction between figurative game-playing on one hand (i.e. pursuing external career goals through instrumental publishing) and proper research on the other hand (i.e. producing intrinsically meaningful research). In other words, the "publication game" implies that while academic researchers may behave just like players, they are not really playing a game. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, we show that this metaphor prevents us, ironically, from fully grasping the lusory attitude, or play-mentality, that characterizes academic work among critical management researchers. Ultimately, we seek to stimulate reflection about how our choice of metaphor can have performative effects in the university and influence our behavior in unforeseen and potentially undesirable ways.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 2020
From its inception, leadership studies has embraced the positivist tradition of hypothesis testin... more From its inception, leadership studies has embraced the positivist tradition of hypothesis testing. In this tradition, psychometric instruments are meant to ward off belief from scientific practice by testing theories against empirical facts. While leadership scholars purport to conform to the standards of value-neutral science, this paper tells a different story. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 39 positivist leadership researchers, we argue that leadership studies is heavily invested with faith in two main ways: (a) faith in leadership concepts, even when their accompanying measures fall short of methodological standards and (b) faith in leadership studies as a science, even when it is tainted by commercial interests and professional rewards. Ultimately, we suggest that positivist epistemology is accepted in leadership studies as an article of faith. By exploring the interconnection between science and belief in the business school, we draw attention to the “secular religion” of scientism in leadership studies.
Leadership, 2019
This invited contribution is a reflection on my motivation for writing the book Leadership and Or... more This invited contribution is a reflection on my motivation for writing the book Leadership and Organization: A Philosophical Introduction (Spoelstra, 2018). The premise of the book is that popular leadership adjectives, e.g. ‘transformational’, ‘authentic’ and ‘servant’, are much more interesting
than the corresponding leadership constructs suggest. The book claims that these popular leadership concepts are shaped by the figure of the charismatic leader, even though the concept of charisma in leadership studies has lost much of its appeal. In this paper, I further suggest that
popular leadership concepts create a followership that deserves to be critically interrogated.
than the corresponding leadership constructs suggest. The book claims that these popular leadership concepts are shaped by the figure of the charismatic leader, even though the concept of charisma in leadership studies has lost much of its appeal. In this paper, I further suggest that
popular leadership concepts create a followership that deserves to be critically interrogated.
Organization, 2018
Critical scholars in the business school are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of ... more Critical scholars in the business school are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of their research beyond the confines of academia. This has been articulated most prominently around the concept of 'critical performativity'. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with critical leadership scholars, this article explores how academics engage with practitioners at the same time as they seek to maintain a critical ethos in relation to their external activities. While proponents of critical performativity tend to paint a frictionless picture of practitioner engagement - which can take the form of consulting, coaching, and leadership development - we show how critical scholars may end up compromising their academic values in corporate settings due to practitioner demands and other institutional pressures. Taken together, these pressures mean that critical scholars often need to negotiate a series of (sometimes insoluble) dilemmas in practitioner contexts. We argue that the concept of critical performativity is unable to contend meaningfully with these tensions because it replicates the myth of the 'heroic-transformational academic' who is single-handedly able to stimulate critical reflection among practitioners and provoke radical change in organizations. We conclude with a call for further reflection on the range of ethical dilemmas that can arise during academic-practitioner engagement.
ephemera, 2017
In this short paper I explore the rise of ‘special sections’ in academic journals (such as this ‘... more In this short paper I explore the rise of ‘special sections’ in academic journals (such as this ‘Note’ section in ephemera). Prior to the 1990s, management journals had two major sections: peer-reviewed articles and book reviews. There was very little published that did not fit into these categories: the occasional obituary, an erratum or retraction, a call for papers, some announcements, and very little else. All this started to change in the 1990s and 2000s with the emergence of special sections, i.e. a designated space within journals designed to host papers that fall outside the purview of a regular article (for an overview, see figure 1).1 This note reflects on the rise of these special sections: what explains their popularity, and what do they accomplish? I argue that behind their various forms is a collective shame about what journal publishing has become.
In 2014, leadership studies saw the retraction of a number of journal articles written by promine... more In 2014, leadership studies saw the retraction of a number of journal articles written by prominent researchers who are closely associated with popular concepts such as transformational leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership and spiritual leadership. In response, The Leadership Quarterly published a lengthy editorial that presented these retractions as a sign of health in a mature scientific field. For the editors of The Leadership Quarterly, there is no crisis in leadership studies. In this paper, we suggest that the editorial is a missed opportunity to reflect on positivist leadership studies. In our view, leadership ought to be in crisis because this would stimulate the community to question its guiding assumptions and reconsider its methods and objectives. We therefore hope to open up a critical discussion about the means and ends of mainstream leadership studies – not least of all its scientific pretensions.
In recent years, the awareness of academic misconduct has increased due to high-profile scandals ... more In recent years, the awareness of academic misconduct has increased due to high-profile scandals involving prominent researchers and a spike in journal retractions. But such examples of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) serve to obscure the less flagrant, more subtle cases of possible misconduct - what some have called 'questionable research practices' (QRPs). While FFP is seen as inherently negative, QRPs fall into an ethical 'grey zone' between permissible and impermissible. In this paper, we draw on semi-structured interviews with business school scholars to explore the occurrence of QRPs. Prevalent QRPs include playing with numbers, playing with models and playing with hypotheses. Scholars explain the existence of QRPs in three ways: the inadequate training of researchers, the pressures and incentives to publish in certain outlets, and the demands and expectations of journal editors and reviewers. We argue that a paradox is at work here: in order to live up to the positivist image of 'pure science' that appears in academic journals, researchers may find themselves - ironically - transgressing this very ideal. Ultimately, this challenges the individualistic account of academic misconduct by drawing attention to the role played by institutional actors such as academic journals in encouraging forms of QRPs.
In recent years, the discourse of 'relevance' has risen to prominence in the universitybased busi... more In recent years, the discourse of 'relevance' has risen to prominence in the universitybased business school. At the heart of this discourse is the suggestion that management researchers should align their research practices more closely with the needs of practitioners in external organizations. One important but under-researched strand of this debate focuses on the way in which 'relevance' is pursued by business scholars via forms of practitioner engagement such as management consulting, corporate presentations, executive education and personal coaching. Drawing on extensive semi-structured interviews, this paper explores the motivations, rewards and tensions experienced by leadership scholars in the process of engaging with practitioners. This study suggests that the pursuit of 'relevance' may come into conflict with norms of scholarly conduct, which in turn gives rise to a series of trade-offs and compromises. Ultimately, the authors argue that the prevailing discourse of relevance provides an alibi for scholars to orient themselves towards practitioners in ways that contravene their academic identity and research ethos (whether post-positivist, interpretivist or critical).
The regime of excellence – manifested in journal rankings and research assessments – is coming to... more The regime of excellence – manifested in journal rankings and research assessments – is coming to increasing prominence in the contemporary university. Critical scholars have responded to the encroaching ideology of excellence in various ways: while some seek to defend such measures of academic performance on the grounds that they provide accountability and transparency in place of elitism and privilege, others have criticized their impact on scholarship. The present paper contributes to the debate by exploring the relationship between the regime of excellence and critical management studies (CMS). Drawing on extensive interviews with CMS professors, we show how the regime of excellence is eroding the ethos of critical scholars. As a result, decisions about what to research and where to publish are increasingly being made according to the diktats of research assessments, journal rankings and managing editors of premier outlets. This suggests that CMS researchers may find themselves inadvertently aiding and abetting the rise of managerialism in the university sector, which raises troubling questions about the future of critical scholarship in the business school.