 |
 |
Thanks Rochelle, Vincent, Hans, Bill, Steven, David A, David W, Daved, Chris. You have already started the caucus with ideas and issues and energy in your emails. Nearly ten years ago I had organized an AoM caucus (I think 7 people attended!) to explore creation of an SIG for studying organizations and the natural environment. After three years of moaning and fighting we created the ONE Special Interest Group which is now the ONE Division. Over the last decade it has helped legitimize environmental/sustainability research within the Academy, provided leadership opportunities for young faculty and doctoral students, helped dozens of faculty develop research, teaching resources and attain tenure. I believe there is value in creating such institutional space. Equally interesting to me is the process and conversations involved in institutionalizing ideas. Keep the conversation coming. On another topic, may I urge all AACORNERs to contribute to the wiki project at http://aacorn.wikispaces.com/. And to make it easier for all participants should we unprotect/open the wiki, so people do not need to open an account to participate. paul Paul Shrivastava, Ph.D. Tel 610-737-7333 www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/shrivast Daved Barry wrote: > Thank you all for these great notes. I've really enjoyed reading them, and > they've certainly given me a lot to think about. > > On the one hand, I'd love to see something 'fringish're-emerge at AoM, but > having had to strongly plead our case to Ken Smith and other AoM board > members, and then to have all that simply squashed with a "You had your > start, now form a special interest group"...well, it was certainly a heavy > slap in the face. Also a wakeup call of sorts. Looking back on those café > events, I see now that we were doing a form of organizational art, using > organizational materials as our medium. The entire setup was very upending > for AoM: the large islands of sofas in the middle of the crowded venues, the > rather nice sound systems, the discussion-rather-than-presentation formats, > the plays, readings, and musical happenings, the bring-your-drinks-along and > wine, dine, and chat till the wee hours. It took everything that was and > remains AoM and did the opposite, all right in its living room. In this, it > was quite different than the more gallerist, display-based Academy Arts that > preceeded and/or accompanied it. It was active/activist art at a very large > scale. That it was so remarkably popular clearly threatened the basic notion > of how AoM is organized and runs, and I suppose it was inevitable that the > plug would be pulled. > > Having said this, I would like to see some kind of AAcornAA (aacorn at the > academy; aacorn anonymous?) and/or a SIG established. Some kind of regular > presence. Of course I agree with Steve, Steve, Hans, and David about the > ghetto prospects. But it's also possible that something else could happen > now. I believe that collectively we have learned a great deal about > arts-based approaches in the last ten years, and that what a SIG would/could > do now would be different than when Steve Taylor, Jean Bartunek, Chris > Poulson and others first got the AoM arts-ball rolling. Given our legacy, I > could imagine a SIG that routinely did a number of active art projects at > the organizational level of AoM. There's so much to play with, ranging from > the decisional structures to how keynotes are done, to presentational > setups, to the presidential address. What's interesting for me is how AoM, > BECAUSE of its beastliness, is actually a compelling playing ground for > organizational art. AoM continues to be the world's key spokesperson for all > things managerial and organizational; in this it plays a huge role in how > the entire world of work is conducted, and if one wants to challenge > mainstream thinking, AoM is a highly visible mainstream. The good news is > that whatever activist things that are done there can have very large > repercussions and influence. Few other places have this character. Even the > largest companies that are experimenting with organizational art don't have > the ideational reach or impact that AoM does. Also, AoM by its very nature > is open to new initiatives. The bad news is that it is indeed a huge entity, > and making any visible impact requires tons of thought and action. It > survives by swallowing and containing everything, including the > spiritualist, the critical, the feminist...even the Fringe, which caused > lots of indigestion. > > My point is that if you want to give artistic and aesthetic practices in > organizations the same legitimacy as positivist and scientific practices, > they need to have a regular and determined presence in the mainstream. > Ironically, when the Academy of Mgmt. first started, it was the scientists > who were making this same case--arguing that management needed science-based > study to at least complement all the craft-based approaches then in > existence. The arts-and-organization community is gradually getting to this > point now, and we have far far more resources than we did before. We have a > much stronger presence of successful organizational artists, arts-based > consultants, designerly designers, and better educated academics, all of > whom are better positioned to make some clever arts-based interventions. > There now is a growing awareness of what organizational art is and might be. > So although I'm not going to be at AoM this year, I really hope that those > of you who are going will have some fervant and passionate meetings (not to > mention great wining, dining, and wee hours conversations) and that you come > up with some ideas for creating a strong arts-based voice at AoM. D > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Weir > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:13 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Invitation to Caucus on Organization, Art and Aesthetic at AoM > Meetings Anaheim, CA > > Hi colleagues; > I concur with Steve's analysis. > Even in formal sessions there was enthusiasm for the poetic endeavour. > The interest for example in David Whyte's really quite formal session at > Seattle showed there was a real buzz around these themes and contrasted with > the dead hand of economic formalism and bland assumptions that characterised > many other sessions. > Why did the hierarchs want to stomp on that enthusiasm? > More pertinently do we still need the Academy? > Why push on a door that is locked quite deliberately from the inside? > There are other doors... > But good luck for the attempt. > Best > David > > ----- Start Original Message ----- > Sent: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:17:32 -0400 > From: Bill Ferris <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Invitation to Caucus on Organization, Art and Aesthetic at AoM > Meetings Anaheim, CA > > >> Steve, you are absolutely right that interest did not wane on this >> > important topic, and that the Academy actively suppressed it. I think you > are partially right on why, too, but there must have been more to it. The > powers on the Board avidly stamped on it and tried to pull out the roots. > As one who was involved in putting on plays and writing poems as well as > attending many Fringe Cafe events, I was disgusted. > > Best, > Bill > > William P. Ferris, Ph.D. > > Professor of Management > > School of Business > > Western New England College > > 1215 Wilbraham Road > > Springfield, MA 01119 > > Tel: 413-782-1629 > > Fax: 413-796-2068 > > > > Steve Linstead wrote: > > Dear Paul > > I'm sorry I can't be at the Academy this year. I think any initiative > that seeks to advance the cause of aesthetic understanding in the > Academy is to be welcomed. But a couple of points you might wish to > consider: > > 1) The Academy Arts caucus and the Fringe cafe did not slip away from > lack of interest. They were received with some hostility by some of > the academy representatives and eventually were actively killed off. > I know a lot of people were disillusioned and many were quite bitter. > > 2) Your point about "emerging interest" might well bring a wry smile > to the lips of those who have been developing this area over the past > 20 years - most if not all of whom I think are in AACORN. I think in > particular the continued existence of SCOS, whose members have played > a major part in developing the area since 1984 is a strong indicator > that there is broad sustainability in this interest, and the > continued success of the Art of Management and Organization > conference which Ian King, Ceri Watkins and myself started in Essex > in 2002 has provided a specific and international (this year's > conference is in North America) focus for organizational aesthetics > that clearly demonstrates its currency. Basically you will have > probably guessed that I think that the interest is not so much > emerging as suppressed where the Academy is concerned. > > 3) One reason for this antipathy might be that, although your email > stresses the positive and performative aspects of aesthetics, > aesthetic practice on the whole inevitably raises more critical > aspects of organizing and management - it helps to build > understanding, warts and all, rather than just making organizations > more creative and better managed. For Adorno, aesthetic practice HAD > to be critical or else it was kitsch - and responsible for > reproducing the commodified sensual passivity that allowed capitalism > to continue to dominate and exploit smoothly and effectively whilst > glossing its contradictions. Where religion was the opiate of the > masses for Marx, for Adorno it was jazz. Given the proximity of the > AoM conference centre to Disneyland, there may be some resonances > here. > > Anyway, best of luck and I look forward to seeing the outcome. > > Steve > > On Jul 10 2008, Paul Shrivastava wrote: > > AACORN & AoM friends > > Please join the Caucus on Organization, Art and Aesthetic on > August 11, 2008, Monday 8.30-10.20 AM Ventura Room, Hilton > Anaheim. > > For nearly a hundred years, Management scholars and teachers have > been chasing scientific paradigms in search of management truths. > In this single minded pursuit they have ignored "managing as an > art and the art of managing". "Art" is used here not as a > metaphor, but as representation of a substantive aesthetic. > Organizations are suffused with art and aesthetic. In recent > years this has become an important area of study. Many management > academics are seeking managing skills and insights from > performing, visual, media and other arts. There is much to be > gained by this kind of inquiry. Art is a key to human emotions. > Aesthetic study of organizations can open up the poorly > understood emotional aspects of organizations. > > There is no Division of the Academy of Management that focuses on > the art and aesthetics of managing and organizing. At the 2006 > AoM meetings there was an all academy symposium on this topic > which was well attended. And in a prior years there was a caucus > and the Fringe Caf, which brought together people with these > interests. So I believe there is emerging interest in this topic. > > The purpose of this caucus is to share artistic and aesthetic > organizational inquiry and teaching approaches, and to explore > interest among Academy members of establishing an Interest Group > representing this area. We invite scholars and teachers who study > or use artful methods, or any aspect of the arts in their > scholarship or teaching to join us. Come and sing your management > song, do the organizational dance, show us your stand-up act, > share your organizational paintings, photos, films, videos, give > a dramatic performance. > > The coffee table will be set up near Santa Barbara/Ventura room > which is around the corner from Balboa B/C. > > Looking forward to seeing you in Anaheim! > Paul > > > ----- End Original Message ----- > >