All for One, One for All! From Events to Organizational Dynamics in Fluid Organization
This article examines the emergence of organizational dynamics in the context of fluid organizational phenomena. To do so, three organizational dynamics are studied: (1) identity, (2) actorhood, and (3) interconnected instances of decision-making. To study how these three organizational dynamics take shape in the context of fluid organizational phenomena, I rely on the events-based approach and a case study of makers operating in a makerspace in the Paris region. The results show, on the one hand, that the collective of makers enacts a structure of past, present, and future events that participates in the definition of a common frame of reference and, on the other hand, that this common frame of reference plays a role in the emergence of organizational dynamics. On the basis of this result, my main contribution is to show the role of the eventalization – that is, the definition, configuration and narration by the actors of past, present, and future events – in the definition of organizational dynamics in fluid organizational phenomena. This article contributes on the one hand to the literature on fluid organizational phenomena, and on the other hand to the literature on makers working in makerspaces.
Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(1), 83–104. doi: 10.1177/1350508410376256
Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N. & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34, 93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.003
Antonioli, M., Bureau, M. & Rouxel, S. (2015). Tiers-lieux, communautés à l’œuvre: Bricolage et nouvelle ‘écologie du faire’. Chimères, 87(3), 129–137. doi: 10.3917/chime.087.0129
Armbrüster, T. & Gebert, D. (2002). Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper’s open society and its enemies. Organization Studies, 23(2), 169–188. doi: 10.1177/0170840602232001
Bartel, C. & Dutton, J. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing organizational identities. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 115–130). Psychology Press.
Bergson, H. (2013). Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience. Presses Universitaires de France.
Bergson, H. (2010). Matière et mémoire. Presses Universitaires de France.
Bergson, H. (2009). L’évolution créative. Presses Universitaires de France.
Berkowitz, H. & Bor, S. (2018). Why meta-organizations matter: A response to Lawton et al. and Spillman. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2), 204–211. doi: 10.1177/1056492617712895
Blagoev, B., Costas, J. & Kärreman, D. (2019). ‘We are all herd animals’: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization, First Published, 31st January 2019. doi: 10.1177/1350508418821008
Bosqué, C. (2015). Des fabLabs dans les marges: détournements et appropriations. Journal des Anthropologues, 142–143(3–4), 49–76. doi: 10.4000/jda.6207
Butcher, T. (2018). Learning everyday entrepreneurial practices through coworking. Management Learning, 49(3), 327–345. doi: 10.1177/1350507618757088.
Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 16(4), 579–604. doi: 10.1177/017084069501600406
Chia, R. (1999). A ‘rhizomic’ model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 209–227. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00128
Chia, R. (2002). Essai: Time, duration and simultaneity: Rethinking process and change in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 23(6), 863–868. doi: 10.1177/0170840602236007
Clark, P. & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The treatment of history in organization studies: Towards an ‘historic turn?’ Business History, 46(3), 331–352. doi: 10.1080/0007679042000219175
Clegg, S. & Baumeler, C. (2010). Essai: From iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733. doi: 10.1177/0170840610387240
Clegg, S. & Courpasson, D. (2004). Political hybrids: Tocquevillean views on project organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 525–547. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00443.x
Cobb, J. B. (2007). Person-in-community: Whiteheadian insights into community and institution. Organization Studies, 28(4), 567–588. doi: 10.1177/0170840607075268
Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P. & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. doi: 10.1177/0170840611410836
Cunliffe, A. L., Luhman, J. T. & Boje, D. M. (2004). Narrative temporality: Implications for organizational research. Organization Studies, 25(2), 261–286. doi: 10.1177/0170840604040038
Danner-Schröder, A. (2018). Focusing on and backgrounding events simultaneously: The past–present–future relationship of the great East Japan earthquake. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(1). doi: 10.1177/1056492618774848.
Dawson, P. & Sykes, C. (2018). Concepts of time and temporality in the storytelling and sensemaking literatures: A review and critique. International Journal of Management Review, 21(1), 97–114. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12178
Deroy, X. & Clegg, S. (2011). When events interact with business ethics. Organization, 18(5), 637–653. doi: 10.1177/1350508410393773
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L. & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370. doi: 10.1177/0170840617736930
Dobusch, L. & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005–1035. doi.org/10.1111/joms.12139
Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294
Fabbri, J. & Charue-Duboc, F. (2016). Les espaces de coworking: nouveaux intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte? Revue Française de Gestion, 42(254), 164–180. doi: 10.3166/rfg.2016.00007
Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A. & Wiebe, E. (2011). History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 101–120. doi: 10.1177/1744935910387027
Foucault, M. (2000). Questions of method. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 3 (pp. 223–238). The New-York Press.
Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M. & Bacevice, P. A. (2017). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organization Studies, 38(6), 821–842. doi: 10.1177/0170840616685354
Gephart, R. P., Topal, C. & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: temporalities and insitutional legitimation. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, & organizing (pp. 275–312). Oxford University Press.
Grey, C. & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 22(2), 229–250. doi: 10.1177/0170840601222003
Gulati, R., Puranam, P. & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586. doi: 10.1002/smj.1975
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58–77. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281426
Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M. (2017). Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 657–697. doi: 10.1177/0001839217692535
Haug, C. (2013). Organizing spaces: Meeting arenas as a social movement infrastructure between organization, network, and institution. Organization Studies, 34(5–6), 705–732. doi: 10.1177/0170840613479232
Heidegger, M. (1990). Etre et temps. NRF – Editions Gallimard.
Hernes, T. & Schultz, M. (2017). A temporal understanding of the connections between organizational culture and identity. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 356–371). Sage.
Hernes, T., Simpson, B. & Soderlund, J. (2013). Introduction: Managing and temporality. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2012.11.008
Humphreys, M. & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23(3), 421–447. doi: 10.1177/0170840602233005
Hussenot, A., Bouty, I. & Hernes, T. (2019). Suivre et retranscrire l’organisation à partir des approches processuelles. In L. Garreau & P. Romelaer (Eds.), Méthodes de recherche qualitatives innovantes (pp. 127–147). Economica.
Hussenot, A., Hernes, T. & Bouty, I. (2021). Studying organization from the perspective of the ontology of temporality: Introducing the events-based approach. In J. Reinecke, R. Suddaby, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Time, temporality, and history in process organization studies (pp. 50–68). Oxford University Press.
Hussenot, A. & Missonier, S. (2016). Encompassing stability and novelty in organization studies: An events-based approach. Organization Studies, 37(4), 523–546. doi: 10.1177/0170840615604497
Hussenot, A. & Sergi, V. (2018). Collaborating without (formal) organization: How do independent workers call into question the matter of organization? In C. Cézanne & L. Saglietto (Eds.), Human capital intensive firms (pp. 53–71). IGI Global Edition.
Husserl, E. (1964). Leçons pour une phénoménologie de la conscience intime du temps. PUF.
Jarzabowski, P., Lê, J. & Spee, P. (2017). Taking a strong process approach to analyzing qualitative process data. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 237–253). Sage.
Jensen, A., Thuesen, C. & Geraldi, J. (2016). The projectification of everything: Projects as a human condition. Project Management Journal, 47(3), 21–34. doi: 10.1177/875697281604700303
Kaplan, S. & Orlikowski, W. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0792
King, B. G., Felin, T. & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Finding the organization in organization theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organization Science, 21(1), 290–305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0443
Kociatkiewicz, J. & Kostera, M. (2018). After retrotopia? The future of organizing and the thought of Zygmunt Bauman. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34, 335–342. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2018.05.003
Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of process organization studies. Sage.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. & Isaac, H. (2016). The new office: How coworking changes the work concept. Journal of Business Strategy, 37(6), 3–9. doi: 10.1108/JBS-10-2015-0105
Maldini I. (2013). The fablab Amsterdam user: A survey on their profile and activity (study within « object user relationships in open design dynamics » project). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Waag Society.
Mitev, N., de Vaujany, F. X., Laniray, P., Bohas, A. & Fabbri, J. (2019). Co-working spaces, collaborative practices and entrepreneurship. In K. Riemer, S. Schellhammer & M. Meinert (Eds.), Collaboration in the digital age (pp. 14–44). Springer.
Nicotera, A. M. (2013). Organizations as entitative beings: Some ontological implications of communicative constitution. In F. Cooren & D. Robichaud (Eds.), What is an organization? Materiality, agency, and discourse (pp. 90–113). Routledge.
Oberg, A. & Walgenbach, P. (2008). Hierarchical structures of communication in a network organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(3), 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2008.03.011
O’Mahony, S. & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079–1106. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.27169153
Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(3), 261–271. doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2013.47
Rowlinson, M., Booth, C. & Clark, P. (2010). Social remembering and organizational memory. Organization Studies, 31(1), 69–87. doi: 10.1177/0170840609347056
Rumpala, Y. (2014). ‘Fab labs’, ‘makerspaces’: Entre innovation et émancipation? Revue Internationale de l’Economie Sociale (Recma), 334, 85–97. doi: 10.7202/1027278ar
Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R. & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496. doi: 10.1177/0170840618782284.
Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(10), 1251–1262. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0561
Schultz, M. & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0731
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. doi: 10.1177/1050651912444070
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. University of California Press.
Whetten, D. A. & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 44(1), 393–414. doi: 10.1177/0007650302238775
Whitehead, A. N. (1978 ). Process and reality. The Free Press.
Wilhoit, E. D. & Kisselburgh, L. G. (2015). Collective action without organization: The material constitution of bike commuters as collective. Organization Studies, 36(5), 573–592. doi: 10.1177/0170840614556916
1. I propose to retain only the expression ‘fluid organizational phenomenon’ in the remainder of this article in order to emphasize the evolving and constantly changing nature of the organizational phenomena I propose to study. On the other hand, the expression ‘open organization’ seems more ambiguous, as it sometimes refers to phenomena with predefined boundaries in which there may be a certain openness to the outside (business networks, ecosystems, etc.) and/or in the internal decision-making processes.
2. That is, workers who have a legal status of self-employment, resulting in the absence of superiors or subordinates. There is therefore no legal relationship of subordination between these workers and their coworkers.
3. I will use the notion of organizational dynamics to underline the permanent effort that must be made by the actors to produce and maintain them, especially in the context of fluid organizational phenomena. By contrast, the notion of organizational characteristics that is sometimes found in the literature on organization theory may refer to the hypothesis that the organization is endowed with intrinsic properties.
4. I refer here to the theoretical corpus based on the hypothesis that the organization is an economic or social entity with its own structure that forces the actors to conform to it. For a critical analysis of this conception of organization, see, for example, the work of Chia (1995, 2003).
5. The notion of eventalization was first suggested by Foucault (2000 p. 226). For the philosopher, the eventalization is a methodological approach consisting in ‘making visible a singularity at places where there is a temptation to invoke a historical constant, an immediate anthropological trait or an obviousness that imposes itself uniformly on all.’ Following the events-based approach, the notion of eventalization is here used as a way to focus on how actors re/define and narrate past, present, and future events that help them to define and legitimate who they are, their purpose, and what they do.
6. It is important to note that for Dobusch and Schoeneborn (2015, p. 1006), these three dynamics are interconnected: ‘Our notion of organizationality draws on the idea that social collectives are ‘organizational’ on the basis of three criteria: first, they are characterized by interconnected instances of decision-making (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011); second, these instances of decision-making are attributed to a collective entity or actor (King et al., 2010); third, collective identity is accomplished through speech acts that aim to delineate what the entity or actor is or does (‘identity claims’; see Bartel & Dutton, 2001).’ I will follow this approach, but in this article, I will carry out an analytical dissection that will allow us to study the formation of these various dynamics.
7. A distinction is made between the present and the lived moment because, in order to define a lived moment, actors can enact various present events that are taking place simultaneously, for example, in different places and with different people (Hussenot, 2019).
9. Figures collected on the city’s website: www.montreuil.fr (accessed in December 2016).
Copyright (c) 2021 Anthony Hussenot
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the AIMS.