Safety vs. reputation: risk controversies in emerging policy networks regarding school safety in the Netherlands

This article deals with risk controversies in emerging policy networks regarding school safety in the Netherlands. It offers a grounded account of the interpretations of school risks and safety measures by the various stakeholders of the policy network, in particular, schools, local government and the police. Theoretically, policy networks are conceived as mediating between the structural conditions of the risk-society and the culture of fear on the one hand and the institution of safety standards on the organizational level of schools on the other hand. It is argued that in the low-risk context of schools, it is particularly important to take into account the soft, cultural side of safety next to the hard, material side of safety. This distinction also accounts for the ambiguities and controversies over school risks. A further conclusion is that in this network a lack of local leadership seems to hinder the development of firm safety measures. Overall, this article highlights the paradox between a concern for safety and a concern for a schools reputation. © 2012 Taylor & Francis

From risk management to (corporate) social responsibility

Commercial gambling activities, as they currently exist on the market, are a product of rationalized decision-making, not only by individual consumers, who have a choice in whether or not to take part in such a risky activity, but also by operators, ocials and politicians, who have choices in whether or not and under which conditions to oer gambling opportunities. Social actors in all of these categories are involved in gambling ventures against the backdrop of their implicit and explicit assessment of the dangers and risks of gambling - such as problem gambling and crime - and for that reason are involved in acts of both risk-taking (Power, 2007) and organizing (Meyer & Bromley, 2013). However, similar to recreational gamblers who should not simply be regarded as reckless risk-takers because they paradoxically seek to control their individual risk-taking (Lyng, 2005), we have to acknowledge that governments and gambling operators seek to control the adverse consequences together with the exploitation of gambling risks. For these reasons, gambling also has been portrayed as a “safe risk” (Gephart, 2001)

Future Directions:Henri Lefebvre and Spatial Organization

This final chapter does not attempt to draw conclusions from the previous chapters but rather seeks to transcend the volume by offering some reflections on the appropriation of Lefebvre’s work in organization studies and offering some suggestions for future research. Lefebvre writes “Man does not live by words alone; all ‘subjects’ are situated in a space in which they must either recognize themselves or lose themselves, a space which they may both enjoy and modify” (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]: 35). In this sentence, Lefebvre makes poignantly clear both why it is important to study space and how he understands the ambiguous relationship humans, social actors and scholars alike have with space. This understanding is particularly relevant for the field of organization studies, where over the past decade spatial relations, and to some extent also the work of Lefebvre, assumed a new relevance. First, humans do indeed not ‘live by words alone’, but looking at the state of organization studies in the beginning of the 21st century it almost seemed as if words were all that mattered (Carlile et al., 2013). Partly related to the popularity of social constructivist approaches, organization studies were dominated by theories and methods which prioritized the role of language, cognitions, narratives, motives, discourses and legitimations. Maybe the neglect of space had to do with the false and exclusive association of space with positivist and deterministic approaches. However, space can very well be understood and studied in a constructivist way, as Lefebvre makes clear in the second part of the abovementioned quote. People cannot do without space-in Lefebvre’s view, ‘subjects’ are part and parcel of spatial relations-but they have the capacity to change space, which is at the same time constraining and enabling their behaviour. As this volume illustrates in many ways, Lefebvre’s work is concerned with how people produce a ‘social space’ in and through their actions, and how space can be both a product of social relations and effective in producing social relations, including organizations. As such, we believe that Lefebvre’s work on space connects very well with mainstream developments in organization studies

Introduction:Henri Lefebvre and Organization Studies

One of the most important points to make right at the start of this book is the need to not stereotype Henri Lefebvre solely as a theorist of space, as Shields (2001) puts it. Thus we begin with a very brief overview of Lefebvre’s life and work, in an attempt to avoid the “mis-recognition” that has tended to characterize Lefebvre’s categorization by Anglo-American readers, as Aronowitz (2015: 73) argues, where he is ‘placed’ only in relation to a very partial view of his work and life

New ways of working (NWW): work space and cultural change in virtualizing organizations

This study offers a grounded theory of ‘new ways of working’ (NWW), an organizational design concept of Dutch origin with a global relevance. NWW concern business solutions for flexible workspaces enabled by digital network technologies. Theoretically, NWW are analysed with reference to Lefebvre’s theory on the ‘production of space’ and are defined along three dimensions: the spatiotemporal ‘flexibilization’ of work practices, the ‘virtualization’ of the technologically pre-defined organization, and the ‘interfacialization’ of meaning making in the lifeworld of workers. Empirically, NWW are explored in a case study of an insurance company which in 2007 radically implemented NWW. The case study consists of a longitudinal – before and after implementation – research based on ethnographic fieldwork, conducted in 2007 and 2010. The article contributes with a conceptual framework for the analysis and management of NWW, and highlights contradictions and ambiguities in the implementation and appropriation of this innovative organizational design