While organizational deviance has become a popular research topic in the past two decades, deviant behavior remains a contested concept, with several research studies being done to better define the term. As a result, researchers have introduced various definitions and constructs which seem to overlap one another. Such proliferation might backfire and could lead to more confusion. Looking at deviance from an ontological aspect, therefore, will help to decrease such confusion among researchers. Another advantage to ontologically viewing deviance is that (...) it provides a better understanding of the concept. To prevent deviance occurring within an organization, the first step is learning more about it. This study therefore aims to discover how researchers can use ontological view to provide a better understanding of deviance, thus creating a deviance-free climate within an organization. This study looks at the role of storytelling in sharing norms within an organization to provide such a deviance-free climate. (shrink)

The central focus of this essay is Isaiah Berlin’s arguments about the concepts of negative freedom and positive freedom, developed in his philosophical work Two Concepts of Liberty. By adopting a philosophical standpoint, this essay explores the application of Berlin’s notions of freedom at the organizational level, within the workplace, and in the management field. This essay presents three philosophical arguments that provide some clarifications about the potential challenges associated with autonomy in organizations. These arguments incorporate Berlin’s ideas of freedom (...) with philosophical insights from Heidegger, Sartre, Frankfurt, and Confucius to highlight the missing elements of autonomy in management literature and its implementation in organizations, explaining the challenges of autonomy and the reasons for some unexpected results. Recommendations for future studies and managerial implications are discussed. (shrink)

In regard to the explanation of actions that are governed by institutional rules, John R. Searle introduces the notion of a mental “background” that is supposed to explain how persons can acquire the capacity of following such rules. I argue that Searle’s internalism about the mind and the resulting poverty of his conception of the background keep him from putting forward a convincing explanation of the normative features of institutional action. Drawing on competing conceptions of the background of Heidegger and (...) Wittgenstein, I propose to revise Searle’s conception. The background of institutional agency can only provide a convincing explanation if it includes the context of actions and intersubjective structures of a shared life-world. I suggest that a further development of this idea would lead to the identification of the background with a web of social recognition. (shrink)