organizational creativity, play and entrepreneurship

Organizational Creativity, Play and EntrepreneurshipIntroduction and FramingHjorth, Daniel; Strati, Antonio; Dodd, Sarah Drakopoulou; Weik, Elke

Document VersionAccepted author manuscript

Published in:Organization Studies

DOI:10.1177/0170840617752748

Publication date:2018

LicenseUnspecified

Citation for published version (APA):Hjorth, D., Strati, A., Dodd, S. D., & Weik, E. (2018). Organizational Creativity, Play and Entrepreneurship:Introduction and Framing. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

Link to publication in CBS Research Portal

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us ([email protected]) providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 05. Oct. 2021

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/f008c11e-5fb8-4400-8156-0fd5a712c29f

Organizational Creativity, Play and Entrepreneurship: Introduction and Framing

Daniel Hjorth, Antonio Strati, Sarah Drakopoulou Dodd, and Elke Weik

Journal article (Accepted manuscript*)

Please cite this article as: Hjorth, D., Strati, A., Dodd, S. D., & Weik, E. (2018). Organizational Creativity, Play and Entrepreneurship:

Introduction and Framing. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

* This version of the article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may

lead to differences between this version and the publisher’s final version AKA Version of Record.

Uploaded to CBS Research Portal: February 2020

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748

https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/organizational-creativity-play-and-entrepreneurship-introduction-

LaterpublishedinORGANIZATIONSTUDIES(printedversioninearly2018)

1

SpecialIssueEditorial:OrganisationalCreativity,Playand

Entrepreneurship

By

DanielHjorth,CopenhagenBusinessSchool,Denmark,andNottinghamBusinessSchool,NottinghamTrentUniversity,theUK,

AntonioStrati,UniversityofTrento,Italy,

SarahDrakopoulouDodd,UniversityofStrathclyde,Scotland,and

ElkeWeik,UniversityofLeicester,theUK

Keywords:organisationalcreativity,play,entrepreneurship,process,affect,art,aesthetics,sense,performativity

Introduction

WithourcallforthisSpecialIssue,wewantedtosummonthethemesof

organisationalcreativity,playandentrepreneurshipsothatpeopleresponding

tothecallwouldbeinclinedtocrosstheminvariousformsandways.Thecall

givesheedtostreamsofresearchoncollectivecreativity(AustinandDevin,

2003;Catmull,2008;Hessel,2013)andprocessstudies(Tsoukas&Chia,2002;

Langley,Smallman,Tsoukas,&VandeVen,2013;Helin,Hernes,Hjorth,&Holt,

2014;Hernes,2014),onplay,aestheticsandperformativity(Åkerstrøm-

Andersen,2009;Beyes&Steyaert,2011;Gherardi&Strati,2012;Höpfl,2002;

Hjorth,2005;Sørensen&Spoelstra,2012),andontheorganisationalconditions

ofentrepreneurshipandentrepreneurshipasorganisation-creation(Hjorth,

2012;Gartner,2012).Importantly,wealsowantedtogivespacetoplayasan

ethicsintheSpinozian-Levinasiansense,i.e.,asagroundingconditionforusas

relational-organisationalbodiesandsubjectivities(Huizinga,1949;Winnicott,

1971;Rhodes,2009).Wewantedtoinvitepotentialcontributorstothinkthereis


2

avirtualfringeforthinkingopenedupbythosethreethemes.Whatiftheywere

thoughttogether,whatwoulditmeantohavethoughtmoveinthefreedomofa

juvenileconceptualspacedelimitedbyorganisationalcreativity,playand

entrepreneurship?Whatwouldonedowithsuchaspace–asknewquestions,

bringinnewempiricalmaterialforanalysis,and/orperforminit?

WiththegenerouscontributionsfromChrisSteyaert’sandAnnaScalfi’skeynote

speeches/performances,theOSWorkshopbecameaspaceforplay

performatively,and–webelieve–astimulusfornoveldiscussionsand

questions.HundredsofpeoplejoinedusattheOSSummerWorkshoponlovely

Creteandsomeofthosediscussionsmovedintothepaper-writingprocess,while

othercontributionsweresubmittedindependentlytothisSpecialIssue,andwe

arehappytobeabletopresentaselectionofthosearticlesthathavebeen

includedinthisSpecialIssue.Almostahundredsubmissionswereceivedforthis

SpecialIssue,whichnotonlymeantagreatresponse,ahugeamountofwork,but

alsothatmanydifficultchoiceshadtobetaken.Wehastentocommendthegreat

workthathasbeendonebycontributingauthorsandallthereviewersthathave

helpedtomakethisSpecialIssuespecial.Thepointwithorganisingaprocess

aroundaspecialissuethemeorsetofthemesisofcoursethatyouseekto

achieveaparticularconcentrationonalimitedproblemdomain.Thatexplains

alsowhywepaidgreatattentionattheinternationalqualityofthereviewing

process,bycontactingforeachpapercolleaguesfromuniversitieslocatedin

differentcountriesandthereforeusedtobeworkingindifferentlanguagesand

incontactwithdiverseinternationalcultures.

However,OrganizationStudiesisalsoajournalthathasdistinguisheditselfas

onewhereauthorsarewelcometocreativelyextendtherangeofproblemsthat

havehistoricallybeenassociatedwithaparticulardomain(Tsoukas,Garud,&

Hardy,2003;Courpasson,Arellano-Gault,Brown,&Lounsbury,2008).We

believethisisthecasealsowiththisSpecialIssue,whichiswhyweconfidently

cansaythatitachievedthisbasicaim–tobecomespecial.

Whereorganisationstudiesismoving

Inthecallweconnectedtendenciesinstreamsofthinkinginthebroader


3

‘businessliterature’thathavetalkedforawhileaboutOpenInnovation

(Chesbrough,2006)andCrowdsourcing(Chanal,2010),apartfromthemore

‘well-established’themesoncreativity(Amabile,1998)andentrepreneurship

(Stevenson&Gumpert,1985).Playhascontinuedtohaveaguest-visitor’sstatus

inmanagement-andorganisationstudies(asindeedinsocialsciencesmore

broadly;Huizinga,1949),butwhenitlatelymakesanappearanceitisoftenin

connectionwithartandaestheticsinorganizationallife(Linstead&Höpfl,2000;

Strati,2016;Strati&GuilletdeMonthoux,2002),andwithstudiesofinnovation

(Styhre,2008).However,wedidnotwanttorehearseinnovationasathemebut

rather,inthespiritofOSasjournal,inquireintotheorganisationalconditionsfor

inventionprocessesthatmayormaynotresultinwhatuserswouldconfirmas

innovation.Thereissomethingmorechallengingabouttheelusiveconceptsof

creativity(Sternberg&Krauss,2014;Moeran&Christensen,2014),play

(Masters,2008),andentrepreneurship(Jones&Spicer,2009).Bringingthem

togetherinthecall,weinvitedstudentsandscholarsoforganizationtowork

withatleasttwoofthemintheirpapers.Webelievetheresultsarerichstudies

fromwhichwecanlearnbothhowtheseconcepts,andthepracticesthatthey

describe,sharesomethingatthesametimeastheyaredistinctanddifferent.We

returntoshortintroductionstothepapersbelow.

Excludingthiscall,thereareonlyfour(4!)previouspaperspublishedin

OrganizationStudiesthathave‘play’intheirtitle.Creativityappearsinaround

20papertitles(againexcludingforcallsandbookreviews),whichisalsoabout

thenumberofpaperswithentrepreneurshipintheirtitle.Thiswillofcoursebe

onlyaveryroughindicationsincemanypapersonthesetopicswillnot

necessarilyincludethemintheirtitles.Whatremainsinteresting,asnotedabove,

isthatplayisthemostinfrequentone,whichofcoursesayssomethingabout

playasphenomenonandconcept.Huizinga(1949)shows,inhisinquiryintothe

linguisticrootsofplayinvariouslanguages,thatitisintimatelyrelatedtofree

movement,dance,andchildren,butalsowithriskandcompetition(andeven

battle,Huizinga,1949:41).

Inprocessthinking,playcanbedescribedasanaffirmationofchance(Deleuze,

2006),aspeculativemovementtowardsthefuture,andapragmaticaction-event


4

(playlivesinplaying,likelightninglivesintheflash)thatembracesbecoming(cf.

Manning&Massumi,2014)andinvitesthereadertoengageinamultiple

languageexperiencethatprovidesknowledgethatisrichandnotjust

representational(Gherardi&Strati,2017;Thrift,2007).AsSteyaertandScalfi

bothshowedintheirkeynoteperformances,playisalsoproducingandaproduct

ofopennessandaffect.Playcanthusbeunderstoodasafreemovement;

movementthatisnotregulatedbyconceptsforhowtomoveorideasspecifying

thegoalofmovement.Spacesforplay,e.g.awhitecanvas,oranemptydance

floor,doaffectusintheiroverspillingofpotentiality.Youanticipateplayingin

thosespaces,byseeingnotonlywhatitisbut,aboveall,whatitmightbecome.

Formanyofus,listeningtoChrisSteyaert’sandAnnaScalfi’sopen/invitational

andaffectivepresentationsattheWorkshopgeneratedtheseimagesofwhat

mightbecome.Wewereluredintoplaying,to‘jumpin’,tomovefreely–in

thinking,insensing,writing,inacting.Wewantedtosaythatorganisational

creativity,playandentrepreneurshipcouldpotentializeanew‘whitecanvas’,an

open‘dance-floor’forusalltoplayfullyenter.

Theorganisationalconditionsforcreativity,play,andentrepreneurship

Theliteratureontheorganisationalconditionsforcreativity,entrepreneurship

andplayhasmadeitevidentthatheterogeneityandopennessareimportant

(Austin&Devin,2003;Amabile&Pillemer,2012;FloridaandGoodnight,2005;

Gotsi,Andriopoulos,Lewis,&Ingram,2010;O’Donnell,2013).Forthoughtto

moveinnewways,newrelationshipswithconceptsortheformationofnew

relationshipstonewconceptsneedtohappen(Massumi,2002).Forthisto

happenmoreoften,heterogeneityandopennesshelp,simplybecausenewin-

betweenswillresultfromincreasedheterogeneity(Hjorth,2014).In-betweens

meanopportunitiescanbecreatedinopeningsandgaps.Youcandealwithgaps

byimposingatemplate,pickedfromhabitorpractices,andthiswaycementover

thecrack,oryoucanrelatetoitaffirmativelybybendingopenthecrackand

moveintotheopenandembraceplaying.Thetensionbetweenhabitandplaying

isnotuncommoninthelifeoforganisations.Itholdstheseedstotheproblems

ofpoliticsandwellaseconomy.Thereareadvantageswithusinganestablished

habitanditstemplates.Itdoesnotupsetthereigningorder,anditwilloften


5

meananefficientuseofexistingresources,butcomeatthe‘cost’oflosingsight

ofplay(Nietzsche,1974;Deleuze,2006).

However,theconditionsfororganisationsandorganisinghaveradicallychanged

duringthelastfewdecades.Afterthequalityrevolutionofthe1980s,whatused

tobealong-termstrategy–namelytofocusonefficiencyandcontrol,andsee

shortperiodsofcreativityin-between–suddenlybecametheshort-term

exception.Entrepreneurshipisthenewmanagement(properlydescribedas

enterpriseratherthanentrepreneurship;Hjorth&Holt,2016)andthebiggest

riskistonotcreatenewvalue.Shorterperiodsofstabilityin-betweenthe

changesarethenewnormal.Consequently,researchersinorganisationstudies

havestartedtofocusonprocessesasmuchasstructures,becomingsasmuchas

beings,andtheproblemofthenewasmuchasmaintenanceandmanagementof

whatis(Deleuze,1991;Chia,1996;Tsoukas&Chia,2002;Hernes,2014).

ForthepurposeofthisSpecialIssue,weplacedfocusontheimplicationsofthese

tendencies–theurgetomastercreativity(andinnovation),opennessand

heterogeneityasorganisationalconditionsforcollectivecreation–andsaidthis

meanswehavetolookagaintocreativity,playandentrepreneurship.More

importantly,wehavetothinkofthemtogether,wehavetoinquireintowhatthe

relationshipsbetweenplay,creativityandentrepreneurshiplooklike.Howare

theyrelated?Whataretheorganisationalconditionsfortheiremergence?What

doesitmeanforhowwepresentlyunderstandwhatorganisation,organising,

andtheorganisationalconditionsofcreationprocessesare?Ifyouexcusethe

somewhatdramaticuseofmetaphor,wewouldsaythatthiscorrespondstoa

dramaticclimatechangeinthestudyoforganisation.Itisasifwecomefroman

eraofthesolidstateandarerapidlymovingintoaliquidone.Themetaphor–

whichshouldnotbeunderstoodasadichotomybetweensolidandliquid-has

beenusedmanytimesbeforebyBauman(firsttime2000)todescribea

Heracleitanthemeofflowandprocessuality,disengagement,andelusiveness

(Bauman,2000:120).Wecannotnotknowwaterasalsoliquid,butifitwasonly

knowntousintheformwecallice,itwouldhavebeenratherdramatictoseeit

melt,tounderstandhowitcouldmeltandfigureouttheconsequences.The

historyofstudying,analysingandtheorisingorganisationshaspredominantly


6

knownorganisationsasthat,asstablestructure,assomethingthatremainedas

youleftit(cf.Chia,1996).Creativity,play,andentrepreneurshipwouldthenbe

outsideoforganisationsandorganising.Onlywhenprocessthinkingprovidesus

withalanguageandconceptsfordescribingaworldbecomingisorganisation-

creationseenasimmanenttoorganisation,andcreativity,play,and

entrepreneurshiparenowatthecore(Katz&Gartner,1988;Hjorth,2014).

Processuallyrelevant

Whenthe‘climateconditions’havechanged,makingcreativity,playand

entrepreneurshipintotheprimarydriversofatemperaturerise,ithasdramatic

consequencesforwhatweunderstandorganisationtobe.Itbecomes

increasinglyawkwardtoseeorganisationfromitssteadystateside,asorganum,

asaninstrumentdesignedforaninterest.Rather,itispreciselywhenitflows,in

thelight,liquid,movingstate,thatwehavetounderstandwhatdirectsits

becoming.Thereisalwaysadifferentialelementofforce,whichNietzschecalled

‘will’;andthesenseandvalueofsomethingisalwaysaquestionofforcesand

hierarchyofforces(Deleuze,2006:7-8).Structuresareofcoursenot

unimportantforthequestionofwhatdirectsthebecomingoforganisation.Butit

iswhenitoverspills,whenitbreaches,whenorganisationallifeisrollingthe

alreadymoreitholdsintoa‘nextness’(asMassumi,2002:271describes

process)thatstructuresarerevealedasossifiedsedimentsofpreviousacts,or

tracesofthereproductionofinstitutionalendurance(Weik,2015).When

processthinkingisnotonlyacceptedbutalsoabsorbed,weareinclinedtoask

questionsabouthoworganisationsarecreated,howtheemergingorganisation

isdirectedandachievesbeing,butalsohowexperimentsinneworganisational

formsareachieved(Beyes&Steyaert,2012;Hjorth,Holt,&Steyaert,2015).If

thevirtuallynewbecomesactuallynewthroughentrepreneurialactualization,

understoodasorganization-creation(Hjorth,2012),howcantheconceptsof

playandorganisationalcreativityhelpusanalyseandunderstandsuch

processes?ThosearecentralquestionsforthisSpecialIssueandwewillfindthat

thevariouspapers,intheirdiversityandmultiplicity,provideexciting

investigationsofvariouspartsofsuchquestionsinthewaytheyareanimating


7

organisationallifeandorganisationstudies.

MicheldeCerteausaidcreativityiseverywhere,tacticallymakinguseofcracks,

gaps,in-betweens,fissures,wherevertheyarefound,andswarmsandthrobs,

forminginto‘polymorphouscarnivals’that‘infiltrateseverywhere’(deCerteau,

1997:139-140).Foralongtimethishasbeentheproblemthatorganisationtries

tosolve–toputalidonthis,topreventitfrommoving,toimposecontrol,a

contra-rotulus,an‘againstwhatisrolling’.Whenmovement,speed,flexibility

andcreativitybecomenecessaryasan‘environmentalrequirement’,andthe

desiretoplay,tocreateorganisationwhereitislacking(entrepreneurship)can

nolongerbelegitimatelyresistedwithreferencetoahierarchyofthehigher

needforcontrol,thecarnivalesquebreaksthrough.Wecannotlistentoanother

‘strategy-speech’abouttheimportanceofcreativityandentrepreneurshipand

pretendthatitdidn’tmeanjustthat;creativityandentrepreneurship…in

practice.ThisSpecialIssuehashadthefortunetobeabletogatheranumbera

papersthatinvariouswaysstartwiththisrealityofrapidlyevolving,morphing,

transformingorganisationsandasks–howdoesithappen,howareplay,

creativity,andentrepreneurshippartofit?Thereisanargumenthereforthe

SpecialIssuemakingacontributiontoaheretoforeunderstudiedareain

organisationstudies,onethatiscentredonthebecomingorganisation,

organisingthealreadymore(potential),makingroomforthenextnessofwhat

alreadyis(actualised),organisation-creationprocessesthatplayfullyopenup

(increasetheconnectivecapacity)tothepossibilityofaffirmingspeculationson

thefuture.Organisationstudies,thisSpecialIssueremarks,mustlearnfromthe

tacticalpracticesofmakinguseofopeningsandlearnfromprocessthinking,

sayingthat“…thein-between,assuch,isnotamiddlingbeingbutratherthe

beingofthemiddle–thebeingofarelation.”(Massumi,2002:70)Therelationis

wheretheevent-dimensionofpotentialemergesoutoftheconstantmixof

forcesthatcanbeaffirmedornegated(Massumi,2002),controlledorprorolled

(pro-rotulus,forwhatisrolling,Hjorth,2012).

Artfullyin-between,Sense,Affect

Whetherdrivenbycompetitioninamarketorpressuretomoreefficiently


8

handlepublicbudgets,innovationismoregenerallypartofanysloganoftoday’s

organisations.Thismeansthataninterestintheorganisationalconditionsfor

creativity,play,andentrepreneurshiphasgrown(Amabile,1998;Amabile&

Khaire,2008;Florida&Goodnight,2005;Gotsi,Andriopoulos,&Lewis,2010;

Hjorth,2005).Itseemsdifficult,however,toorganiseforormanageriallyurge

forththecreative/playful/entrepreneurial.Liketellingsomeonetotakeinitiative,

youforeclosethepossibilitybyperformativecontradiction.Forsure,thetight

place,therigidregulation,thedeeplyingrainedpracticesareallsourcesof

creativity,playandentrepreneurship(Winnicott,1971;Hernes,2004).However,

andmoreatthecentreofeverydayorganisationallife,itistheblandness(Julien,

2007),thisgreyzoneoftheindeterminate,theopennessofthevaguethatisthe

darlingconditionforentrepreneurship(Katz&Gartner,1988;Gartner,Starr,&

Bird,1992;Hjorth,2003).Thein-between(theentre-)canbeunderstoodasthe

conditionforentre-preneurshiptoemerge.Itisliketheonlyinterestinglightis

theyellowlight:greenisjust‘go!’,redisjust‘stop!’,butyellowis‘what?’An

intervention,ananalysis,adecisionandanactarerequired.Andperhapsmore

thananythingelse–senseneedstoanticipatewhatsomethingcouldbecome.

Affect,thebody,oursensorialcapacity(tobeaffectedandtoaffect)isengaged.

Imagination,theplayfulmovementofthoughtinthepostinstrumentaland

preoperative(Massumi,2002:134)isthemostappropriatewaytorespondto

thisvagueness.Andimaginationis,likeBrianMassumiputs:“…themodeof

thoughtmostpreciselysuitedtothedifferentiatingvaguenessofthevirtual.”

(2002:134).ThisiswhythecallfortheSpecialIssueexpressedthatthereare

goodreasonstoassumewecanlearnsomethingfromartandaesthetics(cf.

DrakopoulouDodd,2014).

Thisisnotanewideainorganisationstudies(GuilletdeMonthoux,2004;

GagliardiandCzarniawska,2006;King&Vickery,2013;Strati,2008).More

specificallyhowever,AustinandDevin(2003)havepointedoutthattheway

creationisorganisedasacollectiveprocessinartfulmaking-suchasintheatre

ensemblerehearsal,orinstringquartetrehearsal(Hessel,2013)–doespointto

anewconversationbetweenorganisationstudiesandart.Thecapacitytokeep

theprocessopen,therelianceondistributedorcollectiveleadership,the


9

relinquishingofanyindividualsovereigntyoverthecreation(AustinandDevin,

2003),andthecourageandgenerositytogive(Austin,Hjorth&Hessel,2017),

thegratuitousnessofaction(Gagliardi,2005),therefore,aswellasthepassion-

mobilizingpractices(Lindri,2007),allseemresonantwiththeconditionsfor

organisationalcreativity,playandentrepreneurshiptohappen.Inmanyways,

AnnaScalfibroughtthisintoherkeynotespeech-performanceattheWorkshop

(onCrete).Sheshowedherartworkasbeinginterestedbothintheconditions

forplayinplacesalreadytightlyconfigured–byspatial,cultural,or

administrativereasons–forsomethingelse,andinplayingasaprocessually,

open,dynamiceventwithtransformativepowers.Howcouldamuseumplace

becomeaspaceforplayofagameyettobeinvented?Howcouldanoldcity

squarebecomere-createdasaspaceforpublicmeetingsandconversations,

usingahistoricalpractice–washing–astheorganisingcentre?Scalfirealised

thatwashinghadmovedintotheprivatehomefollowingtheinventionofthe

washingmachine,whichmeansthatplacingmodernwashingmachinesonthe

oldsquare(where,atthefountain,thereusedtobepublicwashing)would

destabiliseareigningorder,bringinvagueness,putonthe‘yellowlight’andthus,

inviteimaginationsof‘play’.Thisisbeautifulmorethananythingelse.Itisalso

deeplypoliticalandethical,andprofoundlyorganisationalinitscleverwayto

makeorganisation-creationincipient.Butbeautifullikeafabulathatcuddlesup

inalongenduringsmilearoundyourlips.

WhataSpecialIssuecanhopefor

Organisationstudiesisstillshortofempiricalstudiesthathaveanalysedthe

‘knowing-in-practice’(Gherardi&Strati,2012)thatcharacterizethedynamics

betweenentrepreneurship,playandcreativity.Evenmorerarearestudiesbased

ontheembodiedand/ormaterial,ontherelationalandaestheticnatureof

everydayorganizationallife(Strati,1999).Thevariousformsofembodimentof

organizationallife(SpecialIssue,ScandinavianJournalofManagement,29(4),

2013)resoundtheaestheticandintellectualrichnessofstudiesonmanaging

creativity(Paris,2007),aesthetics,artandentrepreneurship(Beyes,2009;

Meisiek&Barry,2014),orworkandplay(Sørensen&Spoelstra,2012).


10

ThisSpecialIssuewillnotonlyaddtothisliterature,butdosoinacreative,

playfulandentrepreneurialway.WhenthecallsaidtheaimsoftheSpecialIssue

wereto:(a)advancestudiesofcreativity,playandentrepreneurshipin

organizationsandincontextsofeverydaylife’sorganizedconditions;(b)

stimulateinnovativetheorizingoncreativity/play/entrepreneurshipinavariety

oforganizational,spatial,andculturalsettings;(c)facilitatediscussionand

connectionswithcreativity/play/entrepreneurshipstudiesfromdiverse

disciplines;and(d)developunderstandingsofperformativescholarshipand

possibilitiesformakingadifferencethroughcreative/playful/entrepreneurial

participation–weactuallythinkalotofthis,ifnotmost/all,wasachieved.

TotheextentthattheSpecialIssueisperformative,doeswhatitaddresses,it

willprorolorganisationstudies–ifeversolittle–inthedirectionofamore

comprehensive,capable-of-grasping-movement,joyful,creative,and

entrepreneurialorganisationstudiestheory/research.And,yes,ifyou

understandorganisationsassocialobjectsofknowledge(Chia,2000),andthus

languageasnotmerelyanepistemologicalmediumofrepresentation,butas

makingtheworld(alsoaworldwhereitisassignedare-presentationalfunction),

thisbecomesatautology;Youcannotnotintervenesomehowintheworldasyou

write.“Whatthisextendstoistheethicalnotionthatknowledgeberegardednot

asanobject,butasanactivitylocatedintime—apromiseofethicsinthedoing

ratherthanthedone.”(Rhodes,2009:660).Whenwetaketheriskofopeningup

writingperformatively,totheundecidable,the‘yellowlight’ofthein-between,

werealizethatthisfreedomhasitscorrespondingintensificationof

responsibility.Aresponsibilitytowriting/knowledgeandtheworlditaddsto.

WethushopethisSpecialIssuewilladdsomethingtoyourunderstandingof

organization(s)andyourwayofresearchingorganizations/theorganised,

organizing,andorganization-creationprocesses.

Shortnotesoncontributingpapers

Therearemanywaysinwhichwecouldhavearrangedtheorderofarticlesin

thisdoublespecialissue.Wehaveoptedforarathersimpleandstraight-forward


11

one:wehavefollowedtheordersuggestedinthecall–creativity,playand

entrepreneurship.Toopenitall,andtorespectthefullkeynotequalityofthe

piece,westartwithAnnaScalfi’sessay.Itprovidedanimportantkeynote

functionasittunedtheworkshoparoundthebeautifullydeliverednoteson

playfulness,creativityandentrepreneurship.Itmakesalotofsensetoalsoletit

tunethereadingofthisspecialissue.Itstartsfromsilence,i.e.,withouta

summarizingintroduction(beyondwhatisalreadysaidhere).

Severalofthecontributingarticlesdealwithmorethanoneofthespecialissue

themes.Thisisindeedwhatweurgedworkshopparticipantsandsubmitting

authorstodo.Thismakesitdifficulttoclusterthemintheorderofcreativity,

playandentrepreneurship.Wearehappytohavethisproblemsinceitmeanswe

havebeensuccessfulwithourcall.Sufficetonotethatthethirdpartofthis

specialissue,wherethefocusismainlyonentrepreneurship,includessome

piecesthatcouldalsohavebeenlocatedinthepartswheremainfocusison

creativityorplay.Onearticle(Pallesen,2018),followingimmediatelyupon

Scalfi’sopening,isagoodexampleofwhenallthreethemesareenactedinthe

writing.

ArtistandresearcherAnnaScalfiopensthisspecialissue(Scalfi,2018),following

uponthiseditorialintroductionandframing,byreflectingonherkeynote

addressattheWorkshopwhereitwasinitially‘performed’.Wewrite‘performed’

withininvertedcommasassheherself,whengivingthekeynoteaddress,

hesitatedtocallitaperformance,onlytoalmostimmediatelyrevisethatto

insteadstarttoplaywiththekeynoteformat‘thathasbeenassignedtome’as

shesaid.InScalfi’swork,artandresearcharebroughtintoagenerativedialogue.

Sheinvestigates,usingartastool,andherresearchmethodstraining(sociology,

PhDinManagement)tosystematicallystudyherownprocess.Herartquite

preciselyresonateswiththethemesoforganisationalcreativity,playand

entrepreneurship,whereforesheisindeedanevidentkeynoteforthisdouble

specialissueasshewasfortheWorkshop.Playing,asanartisticpractice,is

Scalfi’swaytomaketheimplicitgameineverydaylife,hiddenbytraditionhabit,

andconvention,overtandtherebytodrawthefield-rules-playersassemblage

thatmakeseverythingpossibleagain.Itislikesheloosensupthesoilof


12

everydaylife,stompedhardbythemanyfeetofeverydaypractices,andmakesit

fertilefortheunexpected.

Creativity,Play,andEntrepreneurship

EvaPallesensuggeststhatwehavelimitedourconceptualisationofdiscoveryto

whattheeyecanseeorspot.Thisiscertainlytrueforentrepreneurshipresearch,

butalsofororganisationalcreativitymorebroadly.Theearisindeedanopening

thatgenerouslystaysopen,withouttheeye’sprivilegetohavealidthatshuts.

Pallesensuggeststhatanear-body-sensitiveconceptualisationof

entrepreneurshipalsoopensupourunderstandingofentrepreneurshiptonew

practices,newdomainsofinquiry.ItremindsusoftheNietzscheanclaimthat

thoughtsthatguidetheworldcomeondove’sfeet–weneedtolistencarefully.

Pallesendoessoassheseeksentrepreneurshipinplaceswherewewould

perhapsnotthinkwewouldobserveitorstudyit–intheplayfuleventina

publicsectorpre-schoolorganisation.Withamusician’searPallesenworkswith

rhythm,crescendoandcomposingassheprovidesarelational-processualre-

conceptualisationofcreativelyplayfulentrepreneurshipinthepublicsector

(Pallesen,2018).

RollandMunrobringssomethinglikeagenreinventiontousviathiscreatively

composedanalysisanddiscussionofhoworganization–inthewakeofhaving

beenre-configuredaroundbudgets,targetsandmetrics,nowinthenameof

enterprise–canstillbeopenedtopassion,carnivalandplay.Aretherestill

spacesforplayinorganizationthatsurvivestheecologicalpressofmoney-

orientationassociatedwithentrepreneurship,Munroasks?Paradigmaticcases

ofinnovation,centralinthehistoryofshapingthepresent-dayenterprising

organization–Edison’ssupplyofelectricity,Sloan’suseofROItogrant

autonomy,andJIT’sturntowardstheflexiblefactory–areanalysedand

discussedbyengagingconceptsprovidedfromprocessphilosophicalthinkers.

Munroshowshowreversethinkinggivesuswaystochallengemanagerialpower

overorganisationalplacessoastoopenspacesforplayinspiteoftheecological

pressthatamoney-orientedcontrolmeans.Inarefreshinglysurprisingway,this

article(Munro,2018)showshowexpectingthesurpriseoftheunpredictable


13

unleashingofthevirtuallynewisitselfawell-grounded(intimeandspace)and

playfulwayofresistingtheinstitutionalizedecologicalpressofmoney.

Creativityand…

NeilThompson’s‘ImaginationandCreativityinOrganisations’(Thompson,

2018)emphasisestheimportanceofimaginationforcreativity,anddoessovery

imaginativelybylinkingorganisationalcreativitystudieswithworkinaesthetics

andthephilosophyofimagination.DrawingonEnglishRomanticliterature,

Thompsonshowsthatdespitetheircelebrationoftheindividualgenius,the

Romanticshadaclearunderstandingofthesharedandcollectiveunderliningof

imaginationandcreativity.Thepaperisboldinmakingthisconnection-a

connectionmuchneededandmuchoverdueifwewanttocapture

entrepreneuriallifeinitsflowsandvagaries.Literature,andreflections

producedbywriters,aretwomillenniaaheadintheirunderstandingofsociallife,

anditisoftennothingbutmethodologicalarrogancethatpreventsusfrom

benefittingfromtheirinsights.Thompson’spaperisanexampleofhowthe

twaincanmeetwithintheprescriptionsofacademic(journal)discourse.Itisthis

collaborationthatenableshimtotackletheubiquitous,yetnotoriouslydifficult

toexplicate,conceptofimagination.

Iscreativity,likebeauty,asmuchintheeyeofthebeholder,asinitsown

performance?Koch,Wenzel,Senf,andMaibier(2018)arguethatcreativityis

indeedasocialconstruction,aconsensualattribution.Thedualprocessof

performingcreativity,andofbeingrecognisedassodoing,isthusanongoing

negotiationbetweentheperformerandtheiraudiences(bothinternaland

external).Suchcreative“entre-relating”succeedswhenaudiencesperceivean

organisation,itsprocesses,playersandproducts,tofullyenactfourpractices

(Jackson&Messick,1965).Theymustbeseentosurprise,throughthegenesisof

theunusual,thenovel,theunexpected.Theappropriatenessoftheircreative

manifestationsshouldalsoengenderaudiencesatisfaction.Theymustcreate,too,

atransformationofcontextualestablishedwisdom,soastoprovokea

stimulationresponsefromaudiences.Fourthly,byelicitingrecognitionthatthe


14

essenceoftheircreativityhasbecomeacelebratedandmuchneededexemplar

tothewidercontext,playersneedtoevokeaudienceattributionsofsavouring.

Considerabletimeandmultiplemanifestationsofevolvingcreativitymaybe

requiredfororganisationalperformerstoadaptthemselvestothedemandsof

theiraudiencesinthesefourregards,andtherebybecomeseenascreative.In

theirrevelatorycasestudyofBerlin’sRutzhautecuisinerestaurant,andits

trajectorytowardssuchattributionsofcreativity,Kochetalplayfullyillustrate

theaestheticsattheheartofcreation.Theyremindusthatapartofwinning

recognitionandlegitimationasbeingcreativedemandsactingasifonehas

alreadydoneso.Thisisinitselfanactofentre-relating,ofplayfulcreativity.They

highlighttherelationalnatureofcreativity,andimportantlydemonstratethe

ongoing–eventortuousroute–thatnegotiatingsuchattributionsofbeing

creativecandemand.

Theundergroundhaslongprovidedaplay-space,aspeilraum,fortheavant-

garde,whetherinart,inmusic,orinorganisationalinnovation.Theclandestine

glamourofcreatingbelowtheradar(evenifoftenquasi-licensedwithawink

andanod)engendersthecamaraderieofsecrecy,demandstrust,andbuilds

strongbonds.Communitiesofoccultcreativityoperatewithinaself-selected

play-space,thatisbracketedofffromthenorms,rules,policiesandpoliticsofthe

widercontext.Thereisevidencethatalltheseinter-relationalandinterrelated

phenomenaoftheundergroundalsoacttostimulatehigherlevelsofcreativity.

Whatislessclear,yet,ishowthishappens.CourpassonandYounes(2018)take

onthetaskoflayingbarethesocialmechanismsbywhichsecrecyfacilitates

creativity,throughanalysisofadetailedcasestudyfromtheworldof

pharmaceuticals,whichbeganwhenseveralscientistsrefusedtoaccepta

managementdecisiontoabandonapromisingproject.CourpassonandYounes

discoveraparalleluniversewherethisbandofrenegadescometogethertowork

insecret,re-allocatingresources,buildingdeepteamcohesion,andestablishing

theirplayroomsinhiddenplaces,bothinsideandoutwiththeorganisation.

Simultaneously,however,inthe“realworld”ofthewiderorganisation,thereare

meetingstoattend,managerstopacify,crediblefictionstomaintain,andapath

tobelaidtotheeventualrevelationofthesecretlydevelopednewproduct.The


15

excitementofsuchexceptionalcircumstances,andthegrowingvulnerabilityof

sharingsecrets,accompaniesadisruptionofworkplacetimeandspacenorms.

Socialinteraction,physicalco-location,andemotionalattachmentstandatthe

thrillingheartofsuchundergroundprocesses.Eventhedecisiontopursuethis

covertinnovationemergedthroughseverallatenight,off-sitediscussions,ina

socialandprocessualfashion,ratherthanthroughindividualisedleadership.

Commitment,cohesion,creativityandcompetencywereallenhancedthrough

theseclandestineinteractions,whichneverthelessremainedfocusedon

achievingbenefitfortheveryorganisationfromwhichthebandofoutlawswas

hiding,initsparalleluniverse.

Playand…

Intheirarticle,“Playingtodissent:Theaestheticsandpoliticsofplayfuloffice

design”,AnnaAlexanderssonandViktorijaKalonaityte(2018)addresstheissue

oftheincreasingaestheticizationofworkinglifeinorganizationandexplorethe

senseofplayinrelationtowork.Theirfocusgoesontheplayfulofficedesign,

thatistheofficedécorwhereworkisintegratedwithplay,andthatcanpromote

aestheticsensibilitiesatwork,envisionorganizationalcreativity,makework

practicesimaginative,enhanceentrepreneurialattitudesandskills.Thisoffice

interiordesignshowstheimportanceofartinentrepreneurshipandrevealsthe

increasedattentionattheaestheticqualitythatthespacedimensionof

organizationallifereceivesbymanagers,architects,designmagazinesandblogs,

andcorporations.But,whicharethecharacteristicsofthisaestheticquality?

Whatisthevisual,imaginativeandcognitivesenseofplay-andofart

playfulness-initsrelationtoworkinglife?AlexanderssonandKalonaityte

conductedanempiricalstudybasedonanaccurateandmethodologically

complexanalysisofphotographsofplayfulofficedesignpostedonline.An

importantresult,amongseveralothers,oftheirresearchisthat,intheplayful

officedécor,playoperatesbyevokingnon-workingtopics,thatisthattheartistic

andtheaestheticqualitiesdonotconstituteanintrinsicsideofworkinglife.


16

“FeelingtheReeloftheReal:FramingthePlayofCriticallyAffective

OrganizationalResearchbetweenArtandtheEveryday”(Linstead,2018)isthe

articlethroughwhichStephenLinsteadraisestheissueofart-basedresearch

methodsinorganizationstudiesandproposesanewchallengetoorganizational

research.Thischallengehighlightstherelevanceofthecreationoftextsindoing

research,andfocusonthetopicsoftheplayful,oftheartistic,andofthe

performativeinordertostimulatenewawareness,sensitivityandlearningin

theirreadership.Linsteadproposesaframethatprovidesorganizationstudents

andscholarswithanumberoflandmarksthatcansetaplayfulin-between,one

thatrelateartistichumanitiesandorganizationstudies.Thisframeismeantto

facilitatetheproductionof‘criticallyaffectiveperformativetexts’thatare

inspiredandformedbyplayandmystery,anditisarticulatedinfour

intertwinedmomentswhichstressthemovementtowardsanon-

representationalandnon-orthodoxresearchinorganizationallife.These

momentsareconstitutedbytheaesthetic–aestheticsofdirectorrelived

experience,ofrepresentation,ofrelationality,ofaffectivity–,thepoetic–when

theplayfulhighlightsthetensionknowing/not-knowing–,theethical–the

inescapablesentimentofresponsibilityfortheother–,andthepolitical–thatis

whentheplayfulispowerplayandbringstogetherthemaking,thecreation,ina

word,thepoiēsis,andthehumanity.

Entrepreneurshipand…

SaraElias,ToddChiles,CarrieDuncan,andDeniseVultee(2018)writethearticle

“Theaestheticsofentrepreneurship:Howartsentrepreneursandtheir

customersco-createaestheticvalue”,wheretheyemphasizetheimportanceof

thecustomertothepointthatentrepreneurshipinartsettingscomprehendsthe

client’sengagementintheorganizationalcreationofavaluethat,ratherthan

beingmerelyeconomic,hasanaestheticquality.Theyconsidertheaesthetic

valuetobeintersubjective–thatisneithersubjective,norobjective–,and

conceptualizetheorganizationalcreationintermsofaprocesswhere

relationalityandmaterialityinterweave,wheretheexperiencesareembodied,


17

andwheretheartworkisstillin-progressandhasnotreachedthestatusoffinal

artifact.Thefindingsemergedfromtheirmicro-ethnographiesshowedthat

customersco-createwithentrepreneursbyengagingthemselvesinthespaces

thatarein-betweenalongtheprocessestoimaginetheworkofart,to

contemplateandreflectonit,andtopersuadeandbuildconsensusregardingits

evolvingstatus.Aestheticentrepreneurshipresultscharacterizedbyco-creations

groundedinimaginativesensingandempathicunderstanding,inembodied

conversationsandtacitunderstanding,andininterplaysthatgenerateand

supportsenseandsignificanceoftheaestheticvalue.Anovelunderstandingof

thecreationofaestheticvaluecanbegeneratebysituatingthecustomerwithin-

ratherthanexternalto–theprocessoforganizationalcreationand

entrepreneurship.

Theconceptofliminalitylendsitselftostudiesofsuchanin-between

phenomenaasentrepreneurship.Inthisarticle,LuciaGarcia-Lorenzo,Paul

Donnelly,LuciaSell-Trujillo,andMiguelImas(2018)putsittoanoveluseby

engagingitinthestudyofentrepreneuringasacreativeeverydaypracticeof

individuals(inIreland,Spain,andtheUK)livinginconditionswheretheyneed

toimagineandexperimentwithhowlifecouldbeliveddifferently.

UnderstandingnascententrepreneurshipprocessuallyGarcia-Lorenzoetal

showhowthestudyofeverydayentrepreneurshipinconditionsofcrisismakes

attentiontoliminalitynecessary.Creativelyinsistingonfindingnewwaysto

makealivingasliminalentrepreneurs,thisstudyshowshowrenewing

themselvesaswellasthecontextsandinstitutionalconditionsfortheir

entrepreneurialcreativitybecamenecessary.Theauthorsbringusafascinating

narrativeonthebasisofananalysisoffieldworkinpost-financialcrisisinthree

nationalcontexts,fromwhichwelearntounderstandtheprocessof

entrepreneuringinnew(andempiricallysubstantiated)waysthroughtheuseof

theconceptofliminality.

Entrepreneurshiphasonlytoooftenbeenlaudedasthe(market-driven)panacea

foralltheworld’swickedproblems(Sørensen,2008).Soteriologiesofenterprise

castigatethemarginalisedforfailingtoseizecontroloftheirowndestiny

throughstart-up,whilstenvisioningfutureswhereepicentrepreneursinnovate


18

creativesolutionstocomplexsocio-economicthreats.Johnsen,Olaison,and

Sørensen(2018)demonstratethatdominantarticulationsofenvironmental

sustainabilityhavetendedtobebedevilledby“aninherentheroism,adogmatic

optimismandaneoliberalideology”.Tocombatthis,Johnsenetalbuildupon

Spinozaetal’s(1997)theorisationofstyle,understoodhereasmodesofsocial

comportment,cognition,andcognition.Organisationstendtostabilizestyle,

makingitdurablethroughisomorphismofsocialpractice(andmeaning)

amongstproducersandconsumeralike.Playisthepracticethroughwhichsuch

disturbingincongruitiesbecomeperceived,asorganizationsputtheirstyleat

risk.Entrepreneurshipactstoquestion,challenge,anddisruptstyle,most

particularlywhereconstellationsofpracticehavebecomedissonant,faltering,

andrivenwithanomalies.Novelco-enactedpracticesandmeaningsofstylecan

onlybecomepersistentandenduringifthecollectiveassemblageadoptand

enactthem.Allarerequired,iftheneedforstylechangeistoberecognised(in

play),fordisruptionstoemergeandbe“tested”(throughentrepreneurship),and

thenforsuccessfuldisruptionstobecomeanenactednetworkofpractices

(throughcollectiveassemblage),madedurable(viaorganisation).Usingan

illustrativeexampleofsustainableentrepreneurship–Fairphone–theauthors

showthatSEisinitselfastyle,theanomaliesofwhichdemandplayfulexposure

andentrepreneurialdisruption:“sustainableentrepreneurshipconsistsof

disruptingcurrentunderstandingsofsustainability,therebycreatingnew

environmentallyfriendlyandsociallyconsciousstyles”(Johnsenetal,2018).

Movingon

Givenwhatwehopedtoachievewiththisdoublespecialissue,launchingitasa

SummerWorkshopin2015,ourfinalwordsherearealsoofthemore

performative–‘dearreader,taketheplunge!’Wethinkthisisanexciting

numberofstudiesthatwillmoveyou.Notallwillmoveallofyou,but

multiplicityandvariationarealsoimportantelementsineverymanifestationof

thecreative,playfulandentrepreneurial.Wehaveperhapscometoaplace

wherewenolongerseecreativity,playandentrepreneurshipasmarginalor

exceptionaltopicsinorganisationstudies.Thiswouldmeanwehavemade

organisationstudiesmore‘realistic’inthesensethatithasacquiredgreater


19

capacityto‘converse’everydayorganisationallife,inwhichthecreative,playful

andentrepreneurialrapidlyhavebecomethenewnormal.Havewealsocometo

aplacewherewritingorganisationstudieshasitselfbecomeamorecreative,

playfulandentrepreneurialact?Weventuretosuggestthatthereareevidences

ofthisinthisspecialissue.Ifso,wewouldsaywehavemovedorganisation

studies,ifeversoslightly,whichisperhapsmorethanwecouldhavehopedfor.

Seeforyourself,moveontoreading!

References

Alexandersson,A.,andKalonaityte,V.(2018)“PlayingtoDissent:TheAestheticsandPoliticsofPlayfulOfficeDesign,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 77-87.

Amabile,T.M.,andKhaire,M.(2008)“Creativityandtheroleoftheleader,”HarvardBusinessReview,86(10):101-109.

Amabile,T.M.,andPillemer,J.(2012)"PerspectivesonthesocialPsychologyofCreativity,”JournalofCreativeBehavior,46(1):3–15. Austin, R. D., & Devin, L. (2003). Artful making – What managers need to know about how artists work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Austin, R., Hjorth, D., and Hessel, S. (2017) “How aesthetics and economy become conversant in creative firms,” Organization Studies, online first version (2017): https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736940

Bauman,Z.(2000)LiquidModernity,Cambridge:Polity.

Beyes,T.(2009).Spacesofintensity-urbanentrepreneurshipasredistributionofthesensible.inD.Hjorth,&C.Steyaert(Eds.),ThePoliticsandAestheticsofEntrepreneurship:afourthmovementsinentrepreneurshipbook,Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing,pp.92-112. Beyes,T.,Steyaert,C.(2011).Theontologicalpoliticsofartisticinterventions:Implicationsforperformingactionresearch.ActionResearchJournal,9(1),100–11.

Beyes,T.,Steyaert,C.(2012).Spacingorganization:Non-representational

theorizingandthespatialturninorganizationalresearch.Organization,


20

19(1),45–61.

Birch,D.(1979)Thejobgenerationprocess.Cambridge,Mass.:MIT

CatmullE.(2008)HowPixarfosterscollectivecreativity.HarvardBusiness

Review(September):64-72.

Chanal,V.(2010)“Thedifficultiesinvolvedindevelopingbusinessmodelsopen

toinnovationcommunities:thecaseofacrowdsourcingplatform,”

M@n@gement,13(4):318-341.

Chesbrough,H.(2006)OpenBusinessModel:Howtothriveinthenewinnovation

landscape.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Chia,R.(1996a)Organizationalanalysisasdeconstructivepractice,Berlin:deGruyter.

Chia,R.(2000)“Discourseanalysisaorganizationalanalysis,”Organization,7(3):513-518.

Courpasson,D.,Arellano-Gault,D.,Brown,A.,andLounsbury,M.(2008)“Organizationstudiesonthelook-out?:Beingread,beinglistenedto,”OrganizationStudies,29(11):1383-1390.

Courpasson,D.,andYounes,D.(2018)“DoubleorQuits:UnderstandingtheLinks

betweenSecrecyandCreativityinaProjectDevelopmentProcess,”Organization

Studies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

deCerteau,M.(1997)Cultureintheplural,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota

Press.

Deleuze,G.(1991)Empiricismandsubjectivity,Transl.byConstantinBoundas,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Deleuze,G.(2006)Nietzsche&Philosophy,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Drakopoulou-Dodd,S.(2014)“Rootsradical–place,powerandpracticeinpunk

entrepreneurship,”EntrepreneurshipandRegionalDevelopment,26(1-2):165-

205.

Elias,S.R.S.T.A.,Chiles,T.H.,Duncan,C.M.,andVultee,D.M.(2018)“TheAestheticsofEntrepreneurship:HowArtsEntrepreneursandtheirCustomersCo-createAestheticValue,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.


21

Florida,R.andGoodnight,J.(2005)“Managingforcreativity,”HarvardBusinessReview,83(7):124-131.

Garcia-Lorenzo,L.,Donnelly,P.,Sell-Trujillo,L.,andImas,J.M.(2018)“LiminalEntrepreneuring:TheCreativePracticesofNascentNecessityEntrepreneurs,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Gartner,W.B.(2012)“Entrepreneurshipasorganisationcreation,”inHjorth,D.(Ed.)HandbookonOrganisationalEntrepreneurship,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.21-30.

Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., and Starr, J. A. (1992) “Acting As If: Differentiating Entrepreneurial From Organizational Behaviour”, Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, Spring: 13-31.

Gagliardi,P.(2005)TheRevengeofGratuitousnessonUtilitarianism.An

InvestigationintotheCausesandConsequencesofaCollectiveRepression,

JournalofManagementInquiry,14(4):309-315.

Gagliardi,P.andCzarniawska,B.(Eds.)(2006)ManagementEducationand

Humanities,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.

GherardiS,andStratiA.(2012)Learningandknowinginpractice-basedstudies.

Cheltenham,Gloss:EdwardElgar.

Gherardi,S.,Strati,A.,(2017)TalkingaboutCompetence:That“Something”

WhichExceedstheSpeakingSubject,inJörgenSandberg,LindaRouleau,Ann

Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2010). Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63, 781–805.

GuilletdeMonthoux,P.(2004)TheArtFirm,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Helin,J.,Hernes,T.Hjorth,D.andHolt,R.(Eds.)(2014)OxfordUniversityPresshandbookonProcessPhilosophyandOrganizationStudies,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hernes,T.(2014)AProcessTheoryofOrganization,Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Hjorth,D.(2003)Rewritingentrepreneurship–foranewperspectiveon

organisationalcreativity,Malmö/Copenhagen/Oslo:Liber/CBSPress/Abstrakt.


22

Hjorth,D.(2005)“OrganizationalEntrepreneurship:withdeCerteauonCreating

Heterotopias(orspacesforplay)”,JournalofManagementInquiry,14,No.4,386-

398.

Hjorth,D.(2012)“OrganisationalEntrepreneurship-AnArtoftheWeak?”,in

Hjorth,D(Ed.)HandbookonOrganisationalEntrepreneurship,Cheltenham:

EdwardElgar,pp.169-192.

Hjorth, D. (2014). Entrepreneuring as organisation-creation. In R. Sternberg & G. Kraus (Eds.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship

and creativity (pp. 97-121). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Huizinga,J.(1949)Homoludens,London;RoutledgeandKeganPaulLtd.

Höpfl,H(2002)”Playingthepart:Reflectionsonaspectsofmereperformanceinthecustomer-clientrelationship,”JournalofManagementStudies,39(2):255-267.

Jackson,P.W.andMessick,S(1965)“Theperson,theproduct,andtheresponse:

conceptualproblemsintheassessmentofcreativity,”JournalofPersonality,

33(3):309-329.

Johnsen,C.G.,Olaison,L.,Sørensen,B.(2018),Putyourstyleatstake:Anewuse

ofsustainableentrepreneurship,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Julien,F.(2007)InPraiseofBlandness,Cambridge:MITPress.

Katz,J.A.andGartner,W.B.(1988)“Propertiesofemergingorganizations,”

AcademyofMangementReview,13(3):429-442.

King,I.W.,Vickery,J.(Eds.)(2013)ExperiencingOrganisations:Newaesthetic

perspectives,Faringdon:LibriPublishing.

Koch,J.,Wenzel,M.,Senf,N.N.,andMaibier,C.(2018)“OrganizationalCreativity

asanAttributionalProcess:TheCaseofHauteCuisine,”OrganizationStudies,this

issue,pp.xx-xx.


23

Landri,P.(2007)ThePragmaticsofPassion:ASociologyofAttachmentto

Mathematics,Organization,14(3):407-429.

Langley,A.,Smallman,C.,Tsoukas,H.,&Ven,A.H.vande.(2013).Processstudies

ofchangeinorganizationandmanagement:unveilingtemporality,activity,and

flow.AcademyofManagementJournal,56(1),1-13.

Langley,A.,andTsoukas,H.(2017),SkillfulPerformance:EnactingCapabilities,

Knowledge,Competence,andExpertiseinOrganizations,inSandberg,J.,Rouleau,

L.,Langley,A.,andTsoukas,H.(Eds.),Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.103-

124.

Linstead,S.(2018)“FeelingtheReeloftheReal:FramingthePlayofCritically

AffectiveOrganizationalResearchbetweenArtandtheEveryday,”Organization

Studies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Linstead,S.,Höpfl,H.(Eds.)(2000)TheAestheticofOrganization,London:Sage.

Manning,E.andMassumi,B.(2014)ThoughtintheAct,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Massumi,B.(2002)ParablesfortheVirtual–movement,affect,sensation,

Durham.DukeUniversityPress.

Masters,P.A.(2008),PlayTheory,Playing,andCulture.SociologyCompass,2:

856–869.doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00118.x

Meisiek,S.,Barry,D.(2014)Thescienceofmakingmanagementanart,

ScandinavianJournalofManagement,30(1):134-141.

Moeran,B.andChristensen,B.T.(2014)“Exploringcreativity–evaluativepracticesininnovation,designandthearts,”Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Munro,R.(2018)“Creativity,OrganizationandEntrepreneurship:PowerandPlayintheEcologicalPressofMoney,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Nietzsche,F.(1974)ThusspokeZarathustra,London.Penguin.


24

O’Connor,E.S.(2011)CreatingNewKnowledgeinManagement–appropriating

thefield’slostfoundations,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

O’Donnell,Shannon.(2013).MakingEnsemblePossible:Howspecialgroups

organizeforcollaborativecreativityinconditionsofspatialvariabilityand

distance(Doctoraldissertation).DoctoralSchoolofOrganisationand

ManagementStudies,CopenhagenBusinessSchool,Denmark.

Pallesen,E.(2018)“Creativity,PlayandListening:AnAuditoryRe-

ConceptualizationofEntrepreneurialCreationintheContextofNewPublic

Management,”OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.xx-xx.

Paris,T.(2007),“Organization,processesandstructuresofcreation,”Focuseson

CulturalTopics,5,pp.2-16

Rhodes,C.(2009)‘AfterReflexivity:EthicsandtheWritingofOrganization

Studies’,OrganizationStudies,30(6):654-672.

Scalfi,A.(2018)[Notitle],OrganizationStudies,thisissue,pp.XX-XX

SpecialIssueonBody,SensesandKnowinginOrganization,ScandinavianJournal

ofManagement,29(4),2013.

Spinosa,C.,Flores,F.,andDreyfus,H.L.(1997)DisclosingNewWorlds–

Entrepreneurship,DemocraticAction,andtheCultivationofSolidarity,Cambridge

andLondon:MITPress.

Sternberg,R.andKrauss,G.(2014)HandbookofResearchonEntrepreneurshipandCreativity,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.

Stevenson, H.H., and D.E. Gumpert (1985), “The Heart of Entrepreneurship.” Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 85-94.

StratiA.(1999)OrganizationandAesthetics.London:Sage.

Strati,A.(2008)"Aestheticsinthestudyoforganizationallife"inBarry,D.and

Hansen,H.(Eds.)TheSAGEhandbookofnewapproachesinmanagementand

organization,London:Sage,p.229-238.


25

Strati,A.,(2016)Aestheticsanddesign:Anepistemologyoftheunseen,inRaza

Mir,HughWillmott&MichelleGreenwood(eds.),TheRoutledgeCompanionto

PhilosophyinOrganizationStudies,London:Routledge,pp.251-259.

StratiA.,GuilletdeMonthoux,P.(2002)Introduction:Organisingaesthetics,

HumanRelations,55(7):755-766.

Styhre,A.(2008)Science-basedinnovation–frommodestwitnessingtopipeline

thinking,NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Sørensen,B.M.(2008).‘Behold,Iammakingallthingsnew’:Theentrepreneur

assaviorintheageofcreativity.ScandinavianJournalofManagement,24(2),85-

93.

Sørensen,B.M.&Spoelstra,S.(2012).Playatwork:continuation,intervention

andusurpation.Organization,19(1),81-97.

Thompson,N.(2018)“ImaginationandCreativityinOrganizations,”

OrganizationStudies,thisissue,XX-XX

Thrift,N.(2007)Non-RepresentationalTheory:Space,Poltics,Affect.London:

Routledge.

Tsoukas,H.,Garud,R.,Hardy,C.(2003)“ContinuityandchangeforOrganizationStudies,”OrganizationStudies,24(7):1003-1014.

Tsoukas,H.andChia,R.(2002)“Onorganizationalbecoming:Rethinkingorganizationalchange,”OrganizationScience,13(5):567-582.

Winnicott,D.(1971)PlayingandReality,London:Routledge.

Weik,Elke(2012):Introducing‘TheCreativityofAction’IntoInstitutionalist

Theory.M@n@gement,15(5),563-581.

Weik,E.2015.AReturntotheEnduringFeaturesofInstitutions:AProcess

OntologyofReproductionandEndurance.PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences,

45(3):291-314.

Åkerstrøm-Andersen,N.(2009)PoweratPlay,NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

organizational creativity, play and entrepreneurship

Documents