English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Marti and Gond (2018) recently attempted to extend our understanding of how theories shape social reality by developing a process model of performativity and by articulating the boundary conditions that delimit that process. While we laud Marti and Gond’s attempt to develop an analytical template to study the effectiveness and influence of theories, and fully share their overarching sentiment about the substantial potential for this kind of theorizing effort, we believe there are two fundamental flaws in their framework. First, Marti and Gond conceptualize a theory as an objectified, stand-alone entity. Second, they characterize the effects of a theory in terms of a linear, sequential process. In contrast to this view, weconceptualizea theoryas inherently relational (i.e., it must be considered in conjunction with actors, artifacts, practices, andother theories) and characterize the effects of a theory in terms of dynamic, nonlinear processes. We believe that conceptualizing theories relationally and characterizing the effects of theories dynamically enhance the generative potential of performativity for management research.

Performing Theories, Transforming Organizations: A Reply to Marti and Gond