Search results

In this article a critique of stakeholder theory is presented. The analysis highlights several concerns regarding the scientific rigor of this body of knowledge revealing the assumptions and inconsistencies that underpin its main propositions. The discussion shows in particular some of the internal contradictions between, on the one hand, the ideology of social good, and on the other hand, the ideology of control which we argue is not fully accounted for in the way stakeholder theory was popularized in recent years. Our critique opens up more possibilities for engaging with stakeholder theory acknowledging the underlying values that are at stake, thus, revealing the political and value‐laden nature of the concept of stake‐holder. What we seek to draw particular attention to is the way stake‐holder analysis reveals the challenges when not only subjectivities but identities are at stake. This latter point we hope will encourage greater reflexivity among theorists and researchers in this field, recognizing that their personal biases and partialities influence their scholarship, and the way they shape the ideologies stakeholder theory is presented by.

The purpose of this chapter was to deconstruct the underlying contradictions of crowdfunding practices and to show how crowdfunding practitioners develop a schizophrenic use of these contradictions.

The main contradictions of crowdfunding practices are introduced with theoretical references. Then short cases are used to illustrate how crowdfunding practitioners try to cope with these contradictions.

The crowd addresses many contradictions, first because it is a syncretic concept, second because online crowds are still to be proven crowds. In any case, crowdfunding practitioners do their best to take the advantage of these contradictions, and run the risk of falling between two stools.

An attempt to provide an analysis of crowdfunding as a social, and not only economic, phenomenon, to suggest avenues for further critical research on crowdfunding.

In this chapter, we explore to what extent psychological contracts occur between the crowdfunded and the crowdfunders. First argument: fundamentals of finance imply a psychological dimension in financial transactions, which are at the same time contractual. Second arguments: some concrete cases of crowdfunding scandals pertain to contractual violation, which provides evidence for the importance of psychological contracts in crowdfunding projects and processes. This leads to two contributions: (1) a systematic review of the concepts related to psychological contracts theory and the assessment of their transferability to crowdfunding and (2) a list of questions and operational recommendations for every crowdfunding project developer.

Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes.

The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive (action scripts), performative (actions themselves) elements, and artefacts (material productions).

The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing (i.e. the implementation of action scripts) is concerned. The study of practising (i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts) shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity.

Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of “not embedded” behaviors.

Crowdfunding is an emergent practice that is increasing exponentially as a means of financing to complement company capital. This chapter focuses on an innovative way of organizing peer-to-peer lending, known as crowdlending. The characteristics of crowdlending are social reward or interest and using the Internet as a medium for communication, prospection and raising funds. To fill the gap in the literature in this regard, this chapter addresses the following questions: Can crowdfunding be considered as a feasible conventional financial tool? What makes crowdlending work? Is it possible to apply the mutual cash holding (MCH) model to crowdlending as well as to previous examples such as the Mondragon Corporation and Trocobuy?

We use three cases (Mondragon Corporation, Trocobuy and Arboribus) to highlight financial tools that use the concept of stakeholder theory that is based on the collaborative management of cash surpluses. Using the Delphi technique combined with in-depth interviews we demonstrate the contribution of the MCH model to crowdlending. We show that the model could be applied to different organizations, thereby indicating its robustness and implying that it could be used in many other cases.

The present study suggests that crowdlending describes a new financing tool as a principal form of lending; it enables companies to implement a financial tool that allows for social development and stakeholder participation and that can ensure companies’ financial sustainability.

This model is based on six elements: expectations of mutual benefits, trust, management, guarantees, mutual profit and benefit. It suggests mutual benefit and positive social values for all stakeholders. However, cash surpluses will be efficiently used only when crowdlending is relevant to investors’ economic objective, because crowdlending as a social innovation does not in itself guarantee economic benefit.

The chapter provides evidence of crowdlending in practice. The research compares key cases in which the MCH model is applied. It also provides important insights into crowdlending as a social innovation.

As its academic definition refers to, induction can be seen as a process designed to prepare newcomers in a company to integrate at least the way of working and collaborating in their new environment. Thus, induction as a process is somewhat a vector for institutionalization. The purpose of this paper is to consider induction as a practice embedded in specific contexts of action. In so doing, it proposes that induction can also be turned into an institution for itself, and this lead to a kind of organizational immobility.

The paper introduces the case of a consulting company. Supposing that induction is firstly a practice, that is to say an aggregate of ostensive (explicit pattern of action), performative (what is actually done) elements and artefacts (tools and material productions), the dynamics of interactions between these elements are examined.

Organizational dynamics and change are often considered as synonymous. The paper asserts that, on the contrary, constant dynamics in practices may contribute to organizational immobility. This process can be depicted as “control through the institutionalizing of practice (in the meaning of ways of doing).”

The paper delivers an interpretation of such counterintuitive results, showing the role of modes of action in the way dynamics in practice can engender motion or stability. This research is based on a single case study in a specific range of activities. Additional analyses in other businesses should help deepen the understanding of such dynamics.

Introducing the institutional dimension of practices, this paper offers the opportunity to broaden perspectives on control and responsibility. Change is not only a matter of process design or of culture, which are organizational variables. It should be dealt with in the institutional field.

It sounds original that an organization like a consulting company, supposed to be as highly adaptable as it suggests to be, finally shows to be embedded in such traditional patterns of action.