Prochaine conférence SCOS : Wabi-sabi (侘寂): Imperfection, incompleteness and impermanence in organizational life

Wabi-sabi (侘寂): Imperfection, incompleteness and impermanence in organizational life

Call for Abstracts for SCOS/ACSCOS Conference
(Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism (SCOS) and Australasian Caucus of Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism (ACSCOS))

August 17-20 2018
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan

Don’t imitate me
It’s as boring
As the two halves of a melon
Matsuo Basho

Ring the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That’s how the light gets in.
Leonard Cohen

Wabi-sabi is an approach to life based on accepting the transience and imperfection of the world. As a Japanese aesthetic derived from Buddhism, wabi-sabi embraces the wisdom that comes from perceiving beauty in impermanence and incompleteness. What might such advocacy of the harmony to found in the flawed, faulty, and weathered have to do with formal organisations, obsessed as they seemingly are with continually striving for perfection? The very ideal of perfection, as an antithesis of wabi-sabi, is embedded in managerial efforts as diverse as striving for continuous improvement, setting ‘stretch’ targets, managing the performance of ideal employees, promoting organizational cultures of excellence, and even the romanticized perfect bodies of employees. Is it then the case that the managerial aesthetic of organizations is the antinomy of wabi-sabi?

The idea for this conference is to explore how the wabi-sabi aesthetic can offer a counterpoint to the forms of idealization that dominate so much of managerial and organisational thinking. This is an exploration of how ideas from an ancient Eastern tradition might fruitfully be brought to bear on organisational issues, challenges and problems, especially as they are dominated by Western intellectual habits and foibles. Wabi-sabi as a theme explores the imperfect idea of a dividing crack between ‘the East’ and ‘the West’ that we hope conference participants will illuminate with the sort of effervescent creativity and fluid thinking that have characterised SCOS and ACSCOS conferences in the past.

We invite submissions that consider any of the possibilities through which principles of transience and imperfection are present in, or can be made relevant to, organisational life. Central to this is how organisations have long been exemplars of containment that wilfully defy any recognition of the importance of transience, flux, and fluidity. The edifice of knowledge and its insistence on the reduction of difference and undecideability can, however, have disastrous political and social effects. Undoing the desire of such rock solid certainty might just prove to be essential for developing ethical openness to others. Is it then possible that wabi-sabi’s emphasis on transience and imperfection offers a path appreciating ethical relations and challenging oppressive organizational regimes that violate humanity?

The 2018 SCOS/ACSCOS Conference is a joint conference. For the first time the annual SCOS conference will be combined with the ACSCOS conference which was last held in Sydney in 2015. There is also another first, that SCOS has never before been held in an Asian/Pacific country. Pursuing these new dimensions to SCOS will ensure that it is a memorable experience. As part of this the local hosts at Meiji University have arranged numerous activities that we can participate in which will help all delegates directly experience wabi-sabi during the conference.

Contributions may find inspiration from the following list of potential themes:

• The desire for perfection in organisations, careers, and lives
• Mindfulness, organising, managing, leadership, and followership
• Western philosophy’s engagement with Eastern philosophy though, for example, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Irigaray, as well as Eastern philosophy’s engagement with Western philosophy, for example Nishida, Watsuji, and Yuasa, and its implications for organisations
• The idealization of Japanese management practice in Western management theory, in for example kanban (lean just-in-time process), jidoka (stop everything!), babyoke (automated mistake proofing), poka yoke (mistake proofing)
• Imperfection as a new organizational ideal
• Undecidability and the ethics of not-knowing
• Living imperfect lives at work
• Imperfection as lack, critiques of patriarchal organisation
• Western preoccupations with completeness and totality
• An organisational aesthetics of im/perfection and transience
• Eastern and Western ideals of beauty and cultural perfection
• Symbols of imperfection, imperfect bodies, the monstrous
• The politics and ethics of failure
• Impermanence and organising
• Global transitions and transience
• Simplicity and/or quietness in organizations
• Enlightenment (satori)
• Desolation and solitude or liberation from the material world
• Inspiration for wabi-sabi expressed in the arts (music, flower arrangement, gardens, poetry, food ceremonies)

The conference is hosted by Meiji University in Tokyo, Japan. The conference organizers are Masayasu Takahashi (Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan), Masato Yotsumoto (University of Nagasaki, Sasebo, Japan), Toshio Takagi (Showa Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan), Alison Pullen (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia), Carl Rhodes (University of Technology Sydney, Australia), and Janet Sayers (Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand).

Abstracts of no more than 500 words, in pdf format, should be submitted as e­mail attachments by December 1st 2017 to You may also direct any queries to this address. If you need a refereed conference paper in order to satisfy funding requirements for your travel please make this clear on your submission.

There are a limited number of bursaries available to assist students to participate in the conference. Please indicate on your abstract proposal if you are a student and if you wish to apply for a bursary.

Open stream
SCOS/ACSCOS 2018 will also have an open stream, allowing for the presentation of general papers that do not fit this year’s conference theme but are of interest to the SCOS/ACSCOS communities. Please identify “open stream” on your abstract, as appropriate.

We also welcome proposals for longer sessions run in a workshop format. Outlines of workshops should be the same length as a paper abstract and should give an indication of the resources needed, the number of participants, the time required, the approach to be taken and the session’s objectives. Please identify “workshop” on your abstract, as appropriate.

Contact :

Vitrine de la Revue Française de Gestion : « Recherche, médias et journalisme »

Soirée débat organisée à l’occasion de la publication du dossier spécial de la RFG : « Entre audit, impact et performativité des sciences de gestion: Retrouver du sens ». 

Les sciences de gestion constituent une discipline académique jeune mais aux forts enjeux sociétaux: la formation des futurs dirigeants et cadres, la diffusion dans tous les domaines de la logique et des pratiques gestionnaires, plus de 20% de la population de l’enseignement supérieur… Elles influencent le monde que nous construisons pour demain. Or, comme dans d’autres disciplines, de nouvelles pratiques (classements, audits, recherche d’impact, du financement de l’activité, listes élitistes…) menacent pensée, critiques et créativité, mettent en jeu l’indépendance et diffusent la concurrence là où prévalait plus de partage et de commun. Bref la logique gestionnaire a aussi envahi le monde de la recherche en gestion. Et alors que cette recherche restait largement en prise directe avec le monde concret et quotidien de la gestion, une tendance est vers l’abstraction autocentrée et la mathématisation sur le modèle des sciences économiques, que ni les managers, ni la société civile, ni les chercheurs des disciplines proches ne lisent et ne comprennent. La recherche participative (citoyenne) est encore rare alors que la recherche collaborative (co-conçue avec les entreprises) conduit au plus intéressant comme aux plus dangereuses liaisons.

C’est dans cet esprit que les auteurs du dossier spécial viendront présenter et discuter les articles qu’ils ont produits. On peut citer pêle-mêle : une typologie très parlante des réactions et attitudes des enseignants chercheurs en France et au Canada face aux classements, audits et nouvelles règles du jeu ; une présentation critique de l’exemple du Royaume-Uni (où les règles du jeu sont plus extrêmes et appliquées depuis plus longtemps), s’interrogeant sur des causes plus profondes et s’inquiétant des affects ainsi engendrés dans le monde universitaire, en particulier les business schools ; une interrogation sur ce qui est entendu en termes de ‘pertinence’, mot célébré dans le domaine de la recherche en sciences de gestion, mais qui n’est pas problématisé ; un pamphlet acerbe, décrivant les effets induits par les systèmes de classements et de rendu de comptes et tirant la conclusion que la seule issue est… de refuser collectivement d’y participer.

Comme toute vitrine de la RFG, cette manifestation sera l’occasion d’échanges avec des personnalités qui n’évoluent pas au sein du monde académique : Pascale Clark (BoxSons), Candice Marchal (BoxSons) et Adrien de Tricornot (Le Monde) font l’honneur et l’amité de participer à cet évènement et témoigneront de la façon dont la question du sens de la recherche, de l’impact voire de la quête de performance traverse aujourd’hui l’industrie du journalisme.

Entrée libre. Inscription obligatoire à :

Séminaire doctoral : Les places du chercheur

 Les places du chercheur

Séminaire doctoral organisé par le LITEM (TEM et Université d’Evry-Val-d’Essonne) avec le soutien de l’ESCP-Europe du 16 au 19 mai 2017 à ESCP-Europe – 81 avenue de la République – Paris.

Dans une recherche qualitative, la place que prend le chercheur soulève un ensemble d’enjeux épistémologiques, politiques, éthiques et rhétoriques. Notre place définit en effet notre mode de contact avec le terrain, mais aussi nos possibilités d’interprétation, nos types de contribution, notre légitimité, notre responsabilité. Réfléchir sur notre place c’est réfléchir sur notre démarche, examiner notre interprétation et élargir notre compréhension. Par ailleurs une position originale peut apporter une perspective et une réflexion inédites. Alors sommes-nous dedans ou dehors, observateur, participant, intervenant ou activiste ? Sommes-nous seulement une instance d’interprétation imaginée neutre, ou avons-nous un corps, des affects, une culture ? Notre genre, nos orientations, notre classe sociale, notre âge ont-ils de l’importance ? Quelle est notre expérience, notre éthique, nos motivations vis-à-vis du thème étudié ? Nous posons-nous comme juge, témoin, concepteur, chroniqueur, expérimentateur, inspecteur, lanceur d’alerte, dessinateur, cartographe ? Nous pensons-nous comme auteur, acteur, essayiste, bricoleur, introspecteur, auditeur ou audité, faisant reflet ou réflexion, multiplions-nous les positions de sujet, cherchons-nous la polyphonie ? Et quelles sont les implications de notre appartenance à un laboratoire, à une école, les influences de nos maîtres, de nos parcours, de nos ambitions ? Quels sont nos liens, nos sentiments, nos préjugés envers les membres et lieux d’enquête ? Quels risques nos enquêtes et nos écrits leur font-ils courir ? Comment le sens et le sensible sont-ils partagés ?

Le but de ce séminaire doctoral est de réfléchir à sa propre position, de voir ce qu’elle permet ou limite, de prolonger la réflexivité sur son approche et d’envisager éventuellement d’autres places possibles. Des intervenants issus d’horizons différents présenteront leur expérience, leurs convictions et leurs conseils, et répondront aux interrogations sur ce qu’implique une position choisie. Chacun sera amené préciser et évaluer sa (ses) place(s). Des moments seront également réservés pour des discussions libres ou à des doctorants souhaitant présenter leurs interrogations vis-à-vis du thème du séminaire. Le but est la réflexion collective et l’écoute mutuelle, non l’imposition d’une one best place.


  16 mai

Amphi 601

17 mai

Amphi 601

18 mai

Amphi 601

19 mai

Salle à préciser

09H30 Jean-Luc Moriceau (Télécom Ecole Management)

Introduction : Places et déplacements

Michel Villette (AgroParistech)

Chercheur exotérique et chercheur ésotérique (Postures risquées et inventivité dans l’étude des entreprises)

Jean-Philippe Denis (Univ Paris Sud)

Le chercheur parti

(When I’m gone)

Hugo Letiche

(Univ Leicester)

Le chercheur expérimenté

11H15 Yvon Pesqueux (CNAM)

Le chercheur avec ou sans son contexte – retour sur une expérience africaine

Discussion avec les participants Hervé Dumez

(Ecole Polytechnique)

Discussion avec les participants
14H Frédéric Lambert (Univ Paris 2)

La thèse et son métalangage

Hervé Laroche (ESCP-Europe) + Christelle Théron (IAE Toulouse)

Le chercheur intrus

Jean-Luc Moriceau (Télécom Ecole Management)

Le chercheur affecté

Sophie Agulhon (Univ Angers)

Le chercheur embarqué

15H45 Andreu Solé

(Groupe HEC)

Le chercheur sans domicile


Discussion avec les participants Discussion avec les participants Discussion avec les participants


Séminaire doctoral organisée par le LITEM : laboratoire commun Télécom Ecole de Management et Université d’Evry-Val-d’Essonne, avec le soutien du programme doctoral de l’ESCP-Europe. Participation gratuite mais inscription obligatoire.

Inscription auprès de Sylvie Prehu (, copie à Jean-Luc Moriceau (, si possible avant le 08 mai.

Accelerationism: a colloquium TEM (ETHOS) and AUP

Accelerationism (a rather fast conference in paris june 22-23 2017)

‘Accelerationism’ comes in very different forms. It has roots in the work of Deleuze and Guattari. But what does speeding-up produce: hypercapitalism and exploitation, social control and repression, chaos and complexification, creativity and experimentation, entropy and the decline of civilization? Is speeding up really a form of slowing down?

Take the ‘ferocious but short lived assault’ of Nick Land on complacency and the academic status quo: is he a hero or a shirk? Was he ever the ‘surhomme’ and did he then become dangerous?

Is Noys (2014) right to claim that (hyper)speed-up can never surpass capitalism, but only nourishes it? Have the stock market traders epitomized the acceleration of financial capitalism in all its unknowing and destructive potential (Lightfoot & Lilley)? Have Nietzsche and Hobbes joined forces in a social-political nightmare? Is ‘alt-right’ a perverse re-interpretation of militant Deleuzianism? Williams and Srnicek (2013) have written an accelerationist manifesto wherein they claim that rapid socio-technical change could lead to a liberatory post-work society. They oppose the appeals to (re-)territorialization, to the ‘commons’, and to the ‘local’ by championing a post-industrial future.

Indeed, what does accelerationism mean for ‘organizing’? One thing is clear; it is controversial. Organization studies has drawn its radical and critical voices from the likes of Bataille, Artaud, Blanchot, Deleuze, deLanda, Virilio; theoreticians of motility and vitality. Org. studies has all too often assumed that market capitalism and (post-)Marxist socialism are the only ‘kids on the block’. Does accelerationism point elsewhere, to permanent impermanence? What is really left of ‘organization’ and ‘organizing’ in the (post-)chaos world of acceleration?

The conveners are: Robert Earhart (AUP), Jean-Luc Moriceau (TEM: ETHOS), Hugo Letiche (U. of Leicester) and Stephen Overy (U. of Newcastle).  We invite contributions of +/- 20 minutes each to discuss: Deleuze, Nietzsche, Land, thermodynamics, cybernetics, horror fiction, cyberpunk, virtual/virtuality, traders, bitcom, neo-reactionary-ism, (post- and hyper-)capitalism, etcetera from an accelerationist perspective.

Venue: American University of Paris; the afternoon of Thursday 22nd June & all-day Friday the 23rd June 2017.  Proposals (one A-4) to be submitted before 01.05.2017 to:

Objects of Organisation: What does Speculative Realism mean for Management?

Stream at the 10th Critical Management Studies Conference, Liverpool, July 5th to 7th 2017.

Stream Convenors:
Professor Simon Lilley (University of Leicester, UK) – Lead Convenor,
Professor Jean-Luc Moriceau (Telecom Ecole de Management, France)
Dr Justine Grønbæk Pors (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark)

There has been increasing attention devoted to what has become known as ‘speculative realism’ in recent years, with a number of books and papers appearing across the philosophical, social sciences and humanities although, as of yet, there has been little direct incursion into the administrative and organisational sciences. We hope to begin to rectify this situation with this stream for we see much in speculative realism that offers potential to think anew many of the traditional objects of our inquiry such as products, services, assets (both physical and intangible), the derivative exotica of high finance (Lightfoot and Harvie, 2016) accounting and information systems, strategies, plans, formalised routines and the human resources that enact and embody them, to name but those that spring easiest to mind.
We are particularly interested in exploring the variety of ‘speculative realism’ associated with Graham Harman and his ‘object oriented ontology’. This form of thinking builds upon developments in science and technology studies, particularly the work of Bruno Latour, but it also differs in key ways, most specifically in terms of its thinking of the ‘objects’ that are to be found at the intersections of ‘actor networks’. ‘Objects’ are the building blocks of Harman’s speculative realism. Objects, in this view, are made of parts and can themselves be parts of other objects. . This is a ‘flat ontology’, shared in large part with DeLanda (2006) and building on DeLanda, Harman sees objects as having the following characteristics:
1. An object cannot be reduced to the parts that make it up; and thus it follows that,
2. The parts of an object are not the object itself.
3. An object can have effects upon other objects but, just as in relation to its parts, it cannot be reduced to those effects; and
4. All objects are independent of other objects.

In short for Harman, despite being made up of other objects, despite unleashing effects on other objects, an object has a realness that exceeds any of these under- or over-pinnings. The habits of thought that Harman would like his philosophy to break with tend to either undermine or overmine the reality of an object qua object when they respectively seek to reduce the object to its components or see it merely as a part, and nothing more than a part, of some greater whole.
For Harman all objects have a dual nature. On the one hand, objects recede into dedifferentiated world. On the other, they make something of themselves present to other objects and make new relations, new objects. There is a double move here though. A partial, translated object rather than a real object is what makes itself present to another object to enable a relation to be formed; as a new object in itself, and as the potential for further new objects. The new objects so made are of course the same in their objectness as their progenitors and can thus either appear to other objects in partial translated form, or retreat themselves into dedifferentiated world. This is not just a ‘what you see depends upon how you look argument’. For objects to be real and meet the criteria we
outlined above they have to be more than their relations to other objects, be those relations up, down or sideways.
Characteristics, including the agency, of objects have been typified and described by Harman as entailing multiple processes. New objects are combines of the ‘notes’ (Harman, 2005: 211) or ‘sensual qualities’ (Harman, 2011: 128) of their progenitors that are formed when one object ‘allures’ (Harman, 2005: 211) another into interaction. Interaction which, due to the intervention of the ‘sensual objects’ between the ‘real objects’ that are their cousins, is rendered by Harman as an aspect of the ‘vicarious causation’ (Harman, 2007) through which objects interact; real objects themselves being too much in retreat to interact directly and still persist as objects.
In essence then, Harman’s moves build upon the decentering of human agency at the core of key strands of actor network theory but go beyond that theory in the ways in which the object itself is thought. Whilst for Latour everything of the object is given by the relations of which it is thus formed, for Harman, there is something more to the object in and of itself.
Our proposal is timely for Harman’s latest work, Immaterialsm (2016), begins to approach organisations directly. Subtitled objects and social theory, the text explores the applicability of the authors developing ideas in relation to the traditional objects of the administrative and social sciences. Harman chooses to take the Dutch East India Company and its development in the early seventeenth century as his exemplary object and ‘argues that this company qualifies for objecthood neither through ‘what it is’ or ‘what it does’, but through its irreducibility to either of these forms’ ( On the four hundredth anniversary of the Governor General, Jan Pieterszoon Coen’s, imposition of enclosures on the native clove growers of the Dutch East Indies, we invite object oriented philosophical reflection on the business and managerial practices of today. Papers of interest to the stream could consider addressing the following themes (although we in no sense see this as an exclusive or exhaustive list of the possibilities):
 What are the implications for management of taking objects seriously (in the Harmanian sense)?
 How are the objects of (high) finance and more pedestrian concerns such as human shelter related?
 Where do ‘products’ and ‘services’ begin and end?
 How do administrative, accounting and information systems relate to the objects that they survey?
 What is revealed by approaching such systems as objects in themselves?
 What are the objects of strategy, policy, plans and operations? What is to be gained by approaching these domains as objects?
 W(h)ither ethics in an object oriented world whose ‘flat ontology’ significantly problematizes an easy attribution to agency?

DeLanda, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity, New York: Continuum.
Harman, G. (2005) Guerilla Metaphysics, Peru, Il: Open Court Books.
Harman, G. (2007) ‘On Vicarious Causation’ in Mackay, R. (ed.) Collapse II: Speculative Realism, Falmouth: Urbanomic: 187-221.
Harman, G. (2009) Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics, Prahran, Victoria.: Re. press.
Harman, G. (2011) The Quadruple Object, Winchester: Zero Books.
Harman, G. (2016) Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Latour, B., Harman, G., and Erdélyi, P. (2011) The Prince and the Wolf: Latour and Harman at the LSE, Winchester: Zero-Hunt.
Latour, B. (2004) The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, tr. C. Potter, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lightfoot, G. and Harvie, D. (2016) ‘Finance: finding a philosophical fit?’ In Raza Mir, Hugh Willmott and Michelle Greenwood (eds) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies, London: Routledge.

Simondon. Investigating the pre-organizational

Simondon. Investigating the pre-organizational

La pensée de Simondon influence de plus en plus la théorie des organisations, que ce soit pour son approche en termes d’individuation, son analyse du travail et de l’aliénation, sa théorie de l’information, sa pensée du changement, de l’innovation, son approche des affects et de l’esthétique,  son humanisme qui laisse une place égale aux animaux ou aux individus techniques, son appel au développement d’une culture technique.

Pour mieux faire connaître son apport, avec Hugo Letiche, nous avons édité un numéro spécial de la revue Culture and Organization, publié en janvier 2017.

Nous renvoyons au premier article : Letiche Hugo & Moriceau Jean-Luc, 2017, « Simondon. Investigating the pre-organizational », Culture and Organization, Vol. 23, n°1, pp.1-13; Doi: 10.1080/14759551.2016.1240358

Abstract : Gilbert Simondon (1924–1989) was a radical process thinker; forms of relatedness and not objects were his focus. This is all the more remarkable as he was not a vitalist prioritizing Gaia or autopoesis. He based his thought on analyses of technology/technics and communication/cybernetics, and in both cases rejected the perspective of the machine or message as in itself objectifiable. Life objects, machines and societies, according to Simondon, individuate; that is, they are self-evolving, self-generating and self-differentiating in what he calls processes of ‘transduction’. Simondon, in fact, is more a thinker of transindividuation than of individuation. His is a theory of how the pre-individual leads to the transindividual, without the individual ever really playing much of a role. The motor of change and activity is ‘transduction’ – or a force of form-taking that operates on the pre-individual level. Transduction is, thus, the life-force of Simondon’s becoming. It is the energy that propels action, change, event and occurrence. No one in particular is the subject of transduction; transduction is the pre-individual manifestation of an all-encompassing process of genesis. Simondon attends to the genesis of the person, society, information, collective, technology, organization, whatever. We will see that his descriptions of becoming are powerful and theoretically important, but that his ontology (or philosophy) needs to be debated. Transduction is very problematic; how or whether it is knowable (epistemology) remains unclear; and transduction would seem to escape the individual and/or collective will – becoming an all-important life-force outside political or ethical control. Sub-processes of transduction, such as in the development of machines or even social technologies, have been rigorously documented and examined. Simondon studies genesis or how things come to be as they are. Currently, there is renewed interest in his thought, we think because he challenges unreflective functionalism – things are not just as they are: they evolve and become, oppose and break down, signify and deny, reveal and hide. Simondon provides a window on a world of complexification and change; he is a thinker of instability and dynamics; a thinker who matches our contemporary circumstances. This introduction will discuss possible contributions of Simondon to organizational studies, where his process perspective challenges many usual approaches. The emphasis on the pre-individual triggers reflection of what could be called the ‘pre-organizational’ and poses a whole series of theoretical and practical questions.

Deleuze et le management

Journées d’études transdisciplinaires organisées par l’équipe ETHOS de TEM et la SPSG, en association avec le Centre à Paris de l’Université de Chicago.

Les 16 et 17 mars 2017 à l’Université de Chicago à Paris, 6, rue Thomas Mann, 75013 Paris.

Deleuze et le management ! Deleuze aurait probablement détesté un tel rapprochement, lui qui a eu des mots très durs contre la production de concepts revendiquée par le marketing. Et pourtant Deleuze parle de tout ce qui nous anime en théorie des organisations ou en management, mais voilà chaque fois il le prend d’un autre côté, ou le subvertit, il lui fait dire autre chose que ce que nous faisons d’habitude. Quand on parle de hiérarchie, plates, verticales ou inversées, lui nous dessine un rhizome, vivace et acéphale. Lorsqu’on parle de motivation, il nous parle du désir, et nous demande pourquoi nous sommes amenés à désirer cela même qui nous asservit. Nous pensons le pouvoir pour conduire le changement, pour lui le pouvoir est ce qui fige les devenirs et les identités. Nous cherchons des organisations qui fonctionnent, un esprit de corps, lui théorise un corps sans organe, non asservi à ses fonctions. On parle identité, lui devenir ; routine, lui ritournelle ; plan, lui événement ; storytelling, lui agencement collectif d’énonciation ; leadership, lui un jeu de vitesses, d’intensité et de mots d’ordre.

De même pour conduire la recherche. Nous cherchons à interpréter, à composer la bonne représentation, à saisir des systèmes, lui nous invite à expérimenter et créer, à repérer des différences, des répétitions et des devenirs, à identifier les lignes de fuite. Nous nous attachons à la justesse de l’interprétation des auteurs, lui pratique une lecture inventive et productive de nouvelles possibilités de lectures qui étaient à l’intérieur du texte lui-même. Nos textes suivent un format et une langue normée, lui appelle à faire bégayer la langue majeure pour lui faire dire ce qu’elle ne parvient plus à exprimer. Nous inscrivons nos recherches bien rangées dans le mur de la connaissance, lui aime sentir une danse de la vie et de la pensée. Et il nous rappelle que les concepts que nous créons doivent être évalués selon leurs effets sur les modes d’existence.

Deleuze animait la scène parisienne, et parlait bien peu l’anglais. Et pourtant, paradoxalement, bien peu de recherches en théorie des organisations francophones se sont inspirées de sa philosophie (Duymedjian & Ferrante, 2016 ; Deroy, 2088, Moriceau, 2004). Dans d’autres langues, l’apport de Deleuze pour (re-)penser l’organisation a été plus largement souligné (Linstead &Thanem, 2007 ; Carter & Jackson, 2004 ; Fuglsang & Born, 2002 ; Cavalcanti, 2016). Les textes de Deleuze ont notamment été utilisés pour penser l’organisation en termes de société de contrôle (Sorensen, 2005 ; Cluley & Brown, 2015 ; Weiskopf & Loacker, 2006 ; Martinez, 2011), de (dé-)territorialisation (Johansson & Kociatkiewicz, 2011; Munro, 2016), de rhizome (Lawley, 2015), de corps sans organe (Thanem, 2004), de nomadisme (Lucas, 2014), de créativité destructrice (Jeanes, 2006) ou d’agencement machinique (Pedersen, 2008). Des perspectives alternatives ont été proposées sur l’éthique (Painter-Morland, 2011; Deroy & Clegg, 2011), sur la comptabilité (Neu et al., 2009) ou sur le genre (Linstead & Pullen, 2006). D’autres façons de se rapporter au terrain (Curtis, 2008 ; Buser, 2014), au temps (Lilley, 2009) ou à la gouvernementalité (Carnera, 2012). D’autres façons d’écrire sur le capitalisme en tentant le paradoxe d’une ethnographie deleuzienne (De Jong, 2014) ou d’interpréter la littérature (ex. Beverungen & Dunne, 2007).

Avec Deleuze, nous voici avec une forêt de concepts et de perspectives qui peuvent nous inviter à repenser, re-décrire, ré-imaginer, rebâtir notre discours sur les organisations. Nous sommes invités à expérimenter des pensées, à surfer sur des lignes de fuite, à traquer de nouveaux percepts et affects, à une création joyeuse de concepts. Nous sommes autorisés à regarder autrement la littérature, le cinéma, la peinture, le théâtre, à doubler la critique d’une clinique, à observer le mineur, le molaire, le non-représentatif, les machines de visagéité, à initier des machines de guerre ou constituer des agencements collectifs d’énonciation.

Nous invitons les théoriciens de l’organisation à penser l’organisation à partir de Deleuze tout comme les philosophes à prendre comme objet d’étude empirique ces choses étranges que sont l’organisation ou le management. Nous appelons aussi ceux qui détestent Deleuze. Nous invitons tous ceux-ci non pas à ajouter quelques concepts deleuziens dans leur approche habituelle mais à inventer avec Deleuze d’autres façons d’écrire, de conceptualiser, de décrire, d’approcher et de relier.

Comité scientifique

Yoann Bazin (Istec et SPSG), Fabrice Bourlez (ESAD), Malik Bozzo-Rey (UCLille/Éthique Économie Entreprise), Pierre-Antoine Chardel (TEM/Ethos), Carine Dartiguepeyrou (Uniqueness), Jean-Philippe Denis (Univ. Paris Sud), Xavier Deroy (CNAM/Lirsa), Raffi Duymedjian (Grenoble Ecole de Management), Olivier Fournout (Télécom Paristech), Guillaume Ferrante (École de Management de Normandie), Yannick Fronda (TEM/Ethos), Olivier Germain (Univ. Québec à Montréal), Rémi Jardat (Univ. Paris Est-Créteil), Armen Khatchatourov (TEM/Ethos), Erwan Lamy (Novancia et SPSG), Romain Laufer (Groupe HEC), Hugo Letiche (Univ. Leicester), Laurent Magne (ISG et SPSG), Philippe Mengue (Univ. Populaire d’Avignon), Jean-Luc Moriceau (TEM/Ethos), Yvon Pesqueux (CNAM/Lirsa), Baptiste Rappin (Univ. Lorraine et SPSG), Richard Soparnot (ESSCA/Ethos), Tiziana Villani (Univ. di Roma La Sapienza).

Comité d’organisation

Jean-Luc Moriceau, Hugo Letiche, Pierre-Antoine Chardel, Yoann Bazin, Yannick Fronda.


10 février : date limite d’envoi des propositions sous forme de résumé étendu 4000 à 10000 signes tout compris.

27 février : retour aux auteurs et sélection des propositions

16 et 17 mars : journées d’étude


Voir l’appel: Deleuze et le management3