Suzan Langenberg

Is the ability to start and stay in dialogue a hard or a soft skill? Is it a courageous risk to stay in dialogue within an organization? Or is dialogue, interaction, the building block of organizing, and does its neglect lead to disorganizing? Organizations in their broadened context, riveted at state regulations, technology and environmental contingencies, are changing. Under the influence of far-reaching digitalization processes and redesign, management layers disappear in favor of personal responsibility. But are we, as human beings, ready to take up high-risk and ultimate responsibilities? After all, not everyone is a whizz kid with extraordinary qualities. Moreover, can we deal with an economy that is no longer in need of traditionally skilled employees? An economy running out of paid labor because of—among other things—the growing amount of light, fast and IT-steered production processes? Societal issues that cannot be solved from one single point of view, the so-called boundary objects, need a lot of debate and dialogue with many stakeholders involved before a clear direction can appear. What, then, does dialogue actually mean, how can we implement it and what can it create and bring about in an organization? Can it manage the gap between system-oriented control and coercive power on the one hand and a growing fragmentation of high-skilled expertise and creativity on the other? Organizing randomly provokes and neglects resistance at the same time, but how does this dynamic work? In this chapter, the above questions will be addressed and the concept of criticism as ‘counter-conduct’ linked to dialogue as the turntable of organizing will be introduced.

This book explores the concept of citizenship, and the role that organizations can or do play in its creation, stimulation and control. Offering multiple organizational perspectives and their relation to several types of output, this work presents a rich collection of philosophical thoughts and practices on the subject of citizenship within and without the organizational context. Particular attention is given to this human aspect, an element of unpredictability, a gut feeling, the unknown... something immeasurable that plays a part in human relations and how they organize themselves. Citizenship in Organizations casts new light on the impact of organizations to the notion of citizenship.

According to Karl Weick, a distinguished scholar in Organizational Behavior and Psychology, the organization cannot be imagined as an architectural design, static and prescriptive, but should be described as a Jazz improvisation, a flexible mental model. By conceiving both the organization and its environment as a social and mental construct, we are able to get a better view on the denotation of the individual factor. In his approach the dichotomy between theory and practice dissolves. The organization is studied as an activity. These dynamics continuously generate sense. Because of his radical choice for understanding the organization as dynamic and without ground, his thinking has parallels with post-modern thinking. In his description of the characteristics of organizations, he identifies as sixth element, ongoing. This concept is only conceivable in its disturbance, its interruption. Herein we sense affinity with the post modern deconstruction concept. With interruption, aspects like misunderstanding, failure, mistakes, conflict, contradiction and exclusion get a role in understanding the organization dynamic. In order to manage the resulting confusion, individuals, in social interaction, actively make sense of that experience retrospectively. In organizations, managers and employees alike, are essential in signaling interruptions and the contribution to the process of sensemaking. Managers are expected to take the initiative in facilitating the open space in which judgment is temporarily suspended. Managing becomes the managing of sense, sharing of meaning, of diversity and oppositions.

Are we really in need of (new) ethical institutions that regulate and control the ethical quality of corporate behavior? The various scandals (Enron, WorldOnline, Ahold) prove that ethical institutions, as well as deontological codes, public social commitments, social annual reports directly linked to financial overviews, are not enough to prevent fraud, corruption or bribery. Does the existence of those institutions partly provoke and legitimize the unbridled and immense power of organizational and CEO-(non-ethical) behavior and window-dressing? Do we need more separate ethical institutions? Is it possible to outsource the competence of an ethical corporate and personal moral responsibility to another, separate institution? Do people and corporations still feel the confrontation with moral dilemmas with the institutionalizing of a part of that responsibility to an anonymous body? And won't this ethical control lead to a further alienation of the micro level personal responsibility to the macro performance of the market and organizations? This article focuses on the counterpart of the institution: tomorrow's stakeholder. The stakeholder of tomorrow (the manager, the CEO, the consumer, the employee, the civil servant...) embodies the complexity of the multi-paradigmatic business ethics debate. Two aspects of tomorrow's stakeholders' presence will be discussed: their moral attitude and emancipative communication.