Social Reality, the Boundaries of Self-fulfilling Prophecy, and Economics

Organizational scholars have recently argued that economic theories and assumptions have adversely shaped management practice and human behavior, leading not only to the incorporation of trust-eroding market-mechanisms into organizations but also unnecessarily creating self-interested behavior. A number of highly influential papers have argued that the self-fulfilling nature of (even false) theories provides the underlying mechanism through which economics has adversely shaped not just social science but also management practice and individual behavior. We question these arguments, and argue that there are important boundary conditions to theories falsely fulfilling themselves, boundary conditions that have hitherto been unexplored in organizational research, and boundary conditions which question the underlying premises used by organizational scholars and social scientists to attack economics. We specifically build on highly relevant findings from social psychology, philosophy and organizational economics to show how (1) objective reality and (2) human nature provide two important boundary conditions for theories (falsely or otherwise) fulfilling themselves. We also defend organizational economics, specifically the use of high-powered incentives in organizations, and argue that self-interest (rightly understood) facilitates in creating beneficial individual and collective and societal outcomes

How do theories become self-fulfilling? Clarifying the process of Barnesian performativity

To explore when theories become self-fulfilling in our original paper (Marti & Gond, 2018), we first had to develop a process model of how theories become self-fulfilling. We argued that this process involves three steps: (1) new theories lead to experimentation, (2) experimentation produces anomalies, and (3) anomalies convince initially unconvinced actors to shift their practices. Our critics (i.e., D’Adderio, Glaser, & Pollock, 2019; Garud & Gehman, 2019; Shadnam, 2019) raise important issues about our process model, which is why we use this response to clarify our argument about the process of Barnesian performativity. In Section 1, we lay the groundwork for our response by explaining why Barnesian performativity is relevant to organization and management theory. In Section 2, we show that our model is in line with important insights from our critics: we show why self-fulfilling theories can be part of an “ongoing journey” (Garud & Gehman, 2019: 1), how anomalies can lead to new theories (D’Adderio et al., 2019), and why our model matters for folk theories (D’Adderio et al., 2019). In Section 3, we reflect on our process model from a philosophy of science perspective by discussing the role that “reality” plays in each step of our process model. We thereby address concerns that our process model is “positivist” (Shadnam, 2019: 1), “representational” (Garud & Gehman, 2019: 3), and “essentialist” (D’Adderio et al., 2019: 3)

Crossing the interdisciplinary divide : political science and biological science

This article argues that interdisciplinary collaboration can offer significant intellectual gains to political science in terms of methodological insights, questioning received assumptions and providing new perspectives on subject fields. Collaboration with natural scientists has been less common than collaboration with social scientists, but can be intellectually more rewarding. Interdisciplinary work with biological scientists can be especially valuable given the history of links between the two subjects and the similarity of some of the methodological challenges faced. The authors have been involved in two projects with biological scientists and this has led them critically to explore issues relating to the philosophy of science, in particular the similarities and differences between social and natural science, focusing on three issues: the problem of agency, the experimental research design and the individualistic fallacy. It is argued that interdisciplinary research can be fostered through shared understandings of what constitutes 'justified beliefs'. Political science can help natural scientists to understand a more sophisticated understanding of the policy process. Such research brings a number of practical challenges and the authors explain how they have sought to overcome them

When do Theories Become Self-fulfilling? Exploring The Boundary Conditions of Performativity

Management researchers increasingly realize that some theories do not merely describe, but also shape social reality; a phenomenon known as "performativity." However, when theories become performative or even self-fulfilling is still poorly understood. Taking this gap in the research as our starting point, we develop a process model to show that new theories will only become self-fulfilling (1) if they motivate experimentation, (2) if experimentation produces anomalies, and (3) if these anomalies lead to a practice shift. On that basis, we identify six boundary conditions that determine whether theories will shape social reality. To illustrate our argument, we explore the conditions under which theories that postulate a positive link between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance may become self-fulfilling

Knowledge politics and new converging technologies: a social epistemological perspective

The “new converging technologies” refers to the prospect of advancing the human condition by the integrated study and application of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences - or “NBIC”. In recent years, it has loomed large, albeit with somewhat different emphases, in national science policy agendas throughout the world. This article considers the political and intellectual sources - both historical and contemporary - of the converging technologies agenda. Underlying it is a fluid conception of humanity that is captured by the ethically challenging notion of “enhancing evolution”

Manifesto for a better management a rational and humanistic view

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a disastrous world economic crisis is creating a very difficult situation for many people. The causes of the crisis are many and complex. The reigning economism looks for mechanical causes (excessively low interest rates, "herd" behavior in the real estate and financial bubbles, etc.). Yet bad management by the people in charge of many of the institutions affected has been crucial. Paradoxically, management can be responsible both for great successes and for great failures. The same term, "management", can refer to very different concepts. The emphasis on immediate effectiveness in terms of financial results (which always turn out to be short-term) as the sole purpose betrays a pessimistic conception of human beings as creatures that react only to economic stimuli, thus neglecting other dimensions that are fundamental to good management, and leading us to the present crisis. In this paper we aim to establish the starting points for good management, explain why management is important for society, critically analyze the present economic crisis and the practices and concepts that led to it, and propose the foundations of a better conception of management for the future, rejecting the culture of shortsightedness. We therefore set forth: a) Which concepts of the company and of management are conducive to management practices that are good for society as a whole. b) Why management is important for the development of human societies in general. c) What is good and what is bad about the practices and theories that currently dominate the world of management. d) How to prevent bad theory and bad practice, including bad applications of good theory, from influencing the broader trends.humanistic management; economism; reorienting management; Crisis;