Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Scholars have long debated the question: can institutions be critical in changing the society we live in? Ongoing discussions explore how we should contextualize institutions to better understand the systemic mechanisms through which our societies, and the organizations embedded in them, function (e.g., Amis et al., 2018, 2020; Lawrence et al., 2013; Willmott, 2015). Adopting this perspective allows us to examine the underlying motivations driving the social changes we are currently witnessing, such as the recognition, challenge, or outright disregard of systemic inequality; the ongoing struggle to defend or erode diversity, equity, and inclusion (Aliberti et al., 2024; Creary, 2025); the bright and dark sides of post-2020 hybrid work models and technologization processes, and the emerging feelings of fear and denial regarding megatrends, such as climate change, technologies, new health challenges, as well as new ways of working (Guston, 2014; Todisco et al., 2024).
 
Questions as “Why are these societal changes occurring?”, or “How do individuals and organizations respond?” are widely debated in scholarly literature by researchers focused on the role of institutions, deserving in-depth reflection in a society where both public and private organizations increasingly influence people’s experiences of workplaces and societies. By taking such positions, we can work together to explore the role of human actions within our societies, as well as their implications for future generations.

The social-symbolic perspective (Lawrence & Phillips, 2019) provides a framework for analysing how human actors deliberately construct new social-symbolic worlds. This perspective encompasses work related to the self—our emotions, identities, and career choices—the organizations we inhabit, including their boundaries, technologies, and our interactions with them, and the institutions in which both are embedded (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019; Lawrence & Phillips, 2019; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). These dimensions of work can be analysed through any meaningful patterns within a social system, whether material (e.g., physical artefacts), discursive (e.g., language and communication), or relational (e.g., social interactions). This perspective thus provides a valuable toolkit for understanding the interconnectedness of individual, organizational, and institutional efforts in driving social change—or more frequently, in maintaining the status quo (Amis et al., 2018, 2020).

Two crucial aspects to consider in this regard are the reflexivity (e.g., Mandalaki, 2023) and positionality (e.g., Jacobson & Mustafa, 2019) of both researchers and participants in our research projects. What personal motivations, perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, sensitivities, and resources drive individuals to act in ways that transform institutions? The construct of “worlds of concern” (Creed et al., 2022)—which is a reflexivity exercise—has recently been used to establish a connection between individual level of awareness and engagement with a social issue and our potential to intervene in it (Aliberti et al., 2024).

As part of this overall discussion, recent work has focused on discriminatory and exclusionary practices across organizations and societies (e.g., Aliberti et al., 2024; Creary, 2024, 2025; Karakulak & Lawrence, 2024), as well as discussions on how new ways of working are, rather than making us freer, actually increasing our oppression (e.g. Ashikali et al., 2021; Charbonneau & Doberstein, 2020). In this respect, for example, studies have linked such rapid technological progress to changes in identity, emotions, relationship management, and perceptions of inequalities in organizations and societies (Bankins & Waterhouse, 2019; Todisco et al., 2021; Tomo, 2023).
Moreover, the contexts of these studies vary. Some focus on private corporations. For instance, Aliberti, Bissola, and Imperatori (2024) identified various forms of social-symbolic work employed by consultants and DEI professionals in Italian branches of professional service firms—often to challenge but, more commonly, to reinforce the conditions that allow ethnic discrimination to persist. Creary (2024) explored these contradictions in DEI approaches with a specific focus on allyship programs, while other scholars have highlighted the unintended consequences, and even paradoxes, of these initiatives more broadly (e.g., Creary, 2025; Leslie, 2019).

Different national contexts and institutional backgrounds are also considered. In this respect, the public sector is of course very relevant for the study of institutions. Recent work seeks to explore the role of public organizations on these issues (e.g., Bertz et al., 2024; Tuominen, 2024). For example, Tuominen (2024) recently applied the lens of institutional work to analyze change within a Finnish city administration, identifying distinct patterns of reflexivity that drive institutional transformation. Similarly, Karakulak and Lawrence (2024) explored the case of Turkey, examining how gender discrimination is addressed through partnerships between public administration and NGOs. Another relevant context is that of digital transformations (e.g., technologization), analyzed in relation to the ethical and cultural challenges posed by emerging technologies in the workplace—particularly their impact on issues such as inequality, surveillance, and algorithmic bias (De Vaujany et al., 2021; Todisco et al., 2021; Zuboff, 2022).

Different methodologies and perspectives can be employed to explore these issues. For instance, applying a ritual lens to institutional analysis provides valuable insight into the delicate interplay between stability and change. Organizational rituals function as key mechanisms of social control, shaping employee experiences through communicative signalling, relational coordination, and affective influence (Islam & Sferrazzo, 2022). Adopting a reflexive and critical stance, scholars have also experimented with diverse research and writing approaches. Encouraging alternative ways of writing (e.g., Boncori, 2022; Mandalaki, 2023) can deepen our understanding of institutional fields, including explorations grounded in personal and subjective experiences (Dorion, 2021; Tomo, 2023). Furthermore, in the public sector, analyzing the perceptions and experiences of public employees fosters the possibility of understanding the relational dimension in the workplace, encouraging discussion on the critical issues of new ways of working (Babapour Chafi et al., 2021, Todisco et al., 2024).

In this sub-theme, we invite scholars to enrich this ongoing dialogue by exploring the dynamics of institutional, organizational, and self-work and the interaction between these forms of work. We encourage contributions spanning multiple levels of analysis and welcome theoretical and empirical approaches, aiming to deepen our understanding of these interconnected processes and their implications. Finally, while most research has focused on Western countries (mainly the United States and Europe), we welcome contributions from different national contexts. In line with the aim of this sub-theme to embrace critical reflexivity and positionality for the study of social changes, we embrace qualitative and critical methods.
 
Exemplary questions to be addressed include (but are not limited to):

• How can the socio-symbolic perspective, when applied to digital transformation processes, illuminate the role of institutions (e.g., the public sector, policy makers) in navigating ongoing social changes?
• How does systemic inequality manifest in hybrid work models, and what roles do organizations and institutions play in addressing it?
• What role does public backlash against hybrid work models play in sustaining systemic workplace inequalities, particularly for marginalized groups?
• What insights does reflexivity in organizational studies provide regarding the intersection of institutional work, gender, and systemic oppression in the workplace?
• What are the key challenges in achieving institutional change within private and public organizations, and how do dependencies on these organizations either complicate or facilitate the process?

References

• Aliberti, D., Bissola, R. & Imperatori, B. (2024): "Don’t Rock the Boat: The Social–symbolic Work to Confront Ethnic Discrimination in Branches of Professional Service Firms." Journal of Business Ethics, 194, 251–274.
• Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020): "The organizational reproduction of inequality." Academy of Management Annals, 14 (1), 195–230.
• Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A., Lawrence, T. B., Hirsch, P., & McGahan, A. (2018): "Inequality, institutions and organizations." Organization Studies, 39 (9), 1131–1152.
• Ashikali, T., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2021): "The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams." Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41 (3), 497–519.
• Babapour, C.M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021): "Post–pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment." Sustainability, 14 (1), 294.
• Bankins, S., & Waterhouse, J. (2019): "Organizational identity, image, and reputation: Examining the influence on perceptions of employer attractiveness in public sector organizations." International Journal of Public Administration, 42 (3), 218–229.
• Barberá–Tomás, D., Castelló, I., De Bakker, F. G., & Zietsma, C. (2019): "Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion–symbolic work for social change." Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1789–1817.
• Bertz, J., Quinn, M., & Burns, J. (2023): "Public service management reform: an institutional work and collective framing approach." Public Management Review, 26 (11), 3151–3175.
• Beyes, T., Chun, W., Hui, K.C., Clarke, J., Flyverbom, M., & Holt, R. (2022): "Ten theses on technology and organization: Introduction to the special issue." Organization Studies, 43, 1001–1018.
• Boncori, I. (2022): Researching and writing differently. Policy Press, https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447368151.
• Charbonneau, É., & Doberstein, C. (2020): "An empirical assessment of the intrusiveness and reasonableness of emerging work surveillance technologies in the public sector." Public Administration Review, 80 (5), 780–791.
• Creary, S. J. (2024): "Taking a “LEAP”: How workplace allyship initiatives shape leader anxiety, allyship, and power dynamics that contribute to workplace inequality." Academy of Management Review, 49 (4), 848–878.
• Creary, S. J. (2025): "Transforming How Ambivalence About DEI Work is Managed in Organizations." Journal of Management Studies.
• Creed, W. D., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith–Crowe, K. (2022): "A place in the world: Vulnerability, well–being, and the ubiquitous evaluation that animates participation in institutional processes." Academy of Management Review, 47 (3), 358–381.
• De Vaujany, F. X., Leclercq–Vandelannoitte, A., Munro, I., Nama, Y., & Holt, R. (2021): "Control and surveillance in work practice: Cultivating paradox in ‘new’ modes of organizing." Organization Studies, 42 (5), 675–695.
• Dorion, L. (2021): "How can I turn my feminist ethnographic engagement into words? A perspective on knowledge production inspired by Audre Lorde." Gender, Work & Organization, 28 (2), 456–470.
• Guston, D. H. (2014): "Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’." Social Studies of Science, 44 (2), 218–242.
• Islam, G., & Sferrazzo, R. (2022): "Workers' rites: Ritual mediations and the tensions of new management." Journal of Management Studies, 59 (2), 284–318.
• Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019): "Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical qualitative research." International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075.
• Karakulak, Ö., & Lawrence, T. B. (2024): "Social–symbolic work in the construction of social problems: Constructing gender inequality in Turkish social partnerships." Journal of Business Ethics, 192 (3), 461–486.
• Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2019): Constructing organizational life: How social–symbolic work shapes selves, organizations, and institutions. Oxford University Press.
• Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013): "Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues." Organization Studies, 34 (8), 1023–1033.
• Leslie, L. M. (2019): "Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences." Academy of Management Review, 44 (3), 538–563.
• Lindebaum, D., Moser, C., Ashraf, M., & Glaser, V. L. (2023): "Reading the technological society to understand the mechanization of values and its ontological consequences." Academy of Management Review, 48, 575–592.
• Mandalaki, E. (2023): "Invi(α)gorating reflexivity in research: (Un)learnings from α field." Organization Studies, 44 (2), 314–320.
• Todisco, L., Mangia, G., Canonico, P., & Tomo, A. (2024): "New forms of work in the digital era: Anticipatory Governance in response to the organizational challenges in the public sector." In: Translating Knowledge into Innovation Dynamics, 3071–3080.
• Todisco, L., Tomo, A., Canonico, P., Mangia, G., & Sarnacchiaro, P. (2021): "Exploring social media usage in the public sector: Public employees' perceptions of ICT's usefulness in delivering value added." Socio–Economic Planning Sciences, 73, 100858.
• Tomo, A. (2023): "Challenging identity issues in the public sector: Opportunity or threat?", In: Identity in the Public Sector, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 7–50.
• Tuominen, T. (2024): "Relations between reflexivity and institutional work: A case study in a public organisation." Human Relations, 78 (8), 1030-1060, https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241290637.
• Willmott, H. (2015): "Why institutional theory cannot be critical." Journal of Management Inquiry, 24 (1), 105–111.
• Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010): "Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work." Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (2), 189–221.
• Zuboff, S. (2022): "Surveillance capitalism or democracy? The death match of institutional orders and the politics of knowledge in our information civilization." Organization Theory, 3 (3), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221129290.