Apologies for cross-posting.
 
 
Ableism in management, organizations and employment relations: Challenging dominant ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities
 
Convenors:
Koen Van Laer (Hasselt University, Belgium – lead convenor); Jannine Williams (University of Bradford, UK); Eline Jammaers (Hasselt University, Belgium); Deborah Foster (Cardiff Business School, UK); Stefan Hardonk (University of Iceland, Iceland)
 
In recent years, an ableism lens has been advanced in different scientific fields to expose and critique socially accepted images of ‘ideal’ bodies, minds and capabilities. Ableism refers to ‘a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produce a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human’ (Campbell, 2001: 44). Ableist discourses, processes and practices thereby normatively promote a specific understanding of what it means to be ‘able’ and, as such, which bodies, capabilities, and intelligences are deemed ‘normal’ and (economically) valuable. In doing so, they create a strong binary opposition between ‘able’ bodies, capabilities and intelligences, and ‘others’ who are constructed as ‘inferior’, ‘deviant’ or ‘abnormal’ (Campbell, 2001; 2014). The lens of ableism was originally developed within the field of critical disability studies (e.g. Campbell, 2001; 2009; Goodley, 2014; Shildrick, 2009). In this literature, it has served as a conceptual lens to not only expose the way ableist discourses, processes and practices disadvantage, oppress and exclude those perceived as disabled, but also focus on those assumed to be ‘able’ and on the processes and practices involved in reproducing and enforcing norms of ‘abledness’. In this way, it created new ways to de-naturalize dominant ideas of corporeal, intellectual and mental (dis)ability and expose
the way non-disability acts as an organizing normative principle (Campbell, 2009). However, the framework of ableism has also been used to explore issues of gender and race (e.g. Wolbring, 2012) and of what it fundamentally means to be ‘normal’ (e.g. Goodley, 2014). More recently, the concept of ableism has also been introduced into management and organization studies (MOS), where it has been used to explore the organizational experiences of disabled employees and expose and challenge ableist assumptions in contemporary workplaces (e.g. Foster & Wass, 2013: Jammaers, et al., 2015; Williams & Mavin, 2012).
 
Studies on ableism however, are not the only ones to highlight and challenge notions of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities in the workplace and labour market. Critical MOS in general have also focused on how organizational (identity regulatory) discourses, practices and material arrangements produce, promote and value particular kinds of employees, bodies and capabilities (e.g. Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Dale & Burrell, 2008). Different streams within critical MOS have, in turn, shown how these dominant ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities are infused with different social identities. For instance, critical gender studies in MOS have exposed the gendered nature of organizations. This literature has for example shown how organizational processes reflect ideas of ‘ideal’ ‘disembodied’ employees, which infused with particular understandings of masculinity. In other words, how accepted conceptions of ‘ideal’ employees, bodies and capabilities are gendered and (re)produce gender divisions and inequalities (e.g. Acker, 1990; 2006; Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998). Similarly, MOS working in the tradition of queer theory have exposed the heteronormative assumptions underlying formal and informal organizational processes, which are involved in (re)producing the homosexual/heterosexual binary and constructing a specific connection between sex, gender and sexuality as ‘normal’. This, in turn, causes employees and bodies which deviate from the heteronormative ideal to be marginalized, perceived to be unsuitable to perform particular jobs or required to adapt to
dominant (heteronormative) standards (e.g. Rumens & Broomfield, 2014; Rumens & Kerfoot, 2009). Similarly, postcolonial and other critical studies on race and ethnicity have aimed to expose how whiteness is infused in organizations. In doing so, they have shown how taken-for-granted organizational practices, discourses and norms on ‘ideal’ employees, bodies and capabilities are not ‘race-less’, but rather reflect a white subject who is implicitly assumed to have no race (e.g. Janssens & Zanoni, 2014; Nkomo & Al Ariss, 2014; Van Laer & Janssens, 2014). Finally, studies on age in MOS have exposed how ageing and dominant discourses of decline can cause older individuals to become marginalized and seen as inferior in relation to ‘young’ understandings of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities (e.g. Ainsworth & Hardy, 2008; Riach, 2007).
 
Building on these debates, this stream has two main goals. First, we hope to further discussions on ableism within critical studies on management, organizations and employment relations. Second, we hope to advance debates on ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities between different streams in CMS. Related to the first ambition, we are interested in exploring how the concept of ableism can allow us to further understand organizational processes, dynamics and experiences, especially in the context of disabled employees. However, we also welcome different perspectives on disability, including those critical of the concept of ableism. Related to the second ambition, we aim to stimulate debates between the different perspectives used in MOS to explore, expose and challenge ideas of corporeal, intellectual and mental ‘normalcy’. In other words, this streams aims to contribute to a dialogue which transcends the boundaries between different streams focusing on different social identities, and thereby stimulate a mutual exchange of ideas between scholars interested in exposing and challenging organizational norms related to ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities.
 
Potential research topics that could be addressed by submissions include (but are not limited to):
 
 Ableist assumptions and ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities in MOS (e.g. in studies on leadership, HRM, job design and accommodations, careers, work-life balance, sickness absence).

 The way organizational processes, practices, policies and cultures (re)produce or challenge ableism and ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities.

 The way organizational spaces, artefacts and materiality (re)produce or challenge ableism and ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities.

 The various manifestations of ableism and disability in organizations.

 Ableism and ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies and ‘ideal’ capabilities in critical gender studies, critical studies on race and ethnicity, critical studies on age, queer studies,…

 The interplay between identity regulation and identity work, power and resistance, or structure and agency, in the context of ableism and ideas of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities.

 The connection between ableism (or conceptions of ‘ideal’ employees, ‘ideal’ bodies, and ‘ideal’ capabilities) and neoliberalism (e.g. neoliberal concepts of meritocracy, entrepreneurship, independence and autonomy).

 The connection between neoliberalism and the emergence of the health, well-being, happiness and resilience at work industry.

 The connection between ableism and concepts and ideas such as transhumanism, morphological freedom and cyborgs in organizations.

 Ableism and embodiment, the lived experience of being in a body that is different from the ‘ideal’ body, and abject, monstrous or leaky bodies in organizations.
 
 
 Ableism, questions of disclosure and (in)visibility in organizations.

 The connection between ableism in organizations and broader societal discourses (e.g. disability pride, body positive movements) and/or institutional frameworks (e.g. legislation, welfare programs)

 The connection between ableism and ethics
 
References
Acker J (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2): 139-158.
Acker, J (2006). Inequality Regimes. Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4): 441-464.
Ainsworth, S. & Hardy, C. (2008). The Enterprising Self: An Unsuitable Job for an Older Worker. Organization, 15(3): 389-405.
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing the Appropriate Individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5): 619-644.
Benschop, Y. & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by Equality: The Gender Subtext of Organizations. Organization Studies, 19(5): 787-805.
Campbell, F.K. (2001). Inciting Legal Fictions: ‘Disability’s’ Date with Ontology and the Ableist Body of the Law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1): 42-62.
Campbell, F.K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Campbell, F.K. (2014). Ableism as transformative practice. In: C. Cocker and T. Hafford Letchfield (eds) Rethinking anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive theories for social work practice. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 78-92.
Dale, K. & Burrell, G. (2008). The spaces of organisation and the organisation of space: power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foster, D. & Wass, V. (2013). Disability in the labour market: An exploration of concepts of the ideal worker and organisational fit that disadvantage employees with impairments. Sociology, 47(4), 705-21.
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routledge.
Jammaers, E., Zanoni, P. & Hardonk, S. (2016). Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. Human Relations, 69(6): 1365-1386.
Janssens, M. & Zanoni, P. (2014). Alternative diversity management: Organizational practices fostering ethnic equality at work. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3): 317-331.
Nkomo, S.M. & Al Ariss, A. (2014). The historical origins of ethnic (white) privilege in US organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4): 389-404.
Riach, K. (2007). 'Othering' older worker identity in recruitment. Human Relations, 60(11): 1701-1726.
Rumens, N. & Broomfield, J. (2014). Gay men in the performing arts: Performing sexualities within ‘gay-friendly’ work contexts. Organization, 21(3): 365-382.
Rumens, N. & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re)constructing the self as professional. Human Relations, 62(5): 763-786.
Shildrick, M. (2009). Dangerous Discourse of Disability, Subjectivity and Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Laer, K. & Janssens, M. (2014). Between the devil and the deep blue sea: Exploring the hybrid identity narratives of ethnic minority professionals. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2): 186–196.
Williams, J. & Mavin, S. (2012). Disability as constructed difference: A literature review and research agenda for management and organization studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2): 159–79.
Wolbring, G. (2012). Expanding ableism: Taking down the ghettoization of impact of disability studies scholars. Societies, 2(3): 75-83.
 
 
For further details contact: Koen VAN LAER, [log in to unmask]; Eline JAMMAERS [log in to unmask]; Stefan C Hardonk [log in to unmask]; Debbie Foster [log in to unmask] or Jannine Williams [log in to unmask]