Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Collaboration as a Relational Practice: Theorizing Affective Oscillation in Radical Democratic Organizing

Journal of Business Ethics volume 164, pages 715–730 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Recently, radical democratic initiatives have been undertaken by freelancers and founders who come together in a range of alternative forms such as ethical entrepreneurial coalitions, urban coworking spaces, and open cooperative networks. In this paper, we argue that these initiatives to invent alternative, more equal forms of organizing engage strongly with relational activities to replace hierarchical interaction with distributed peer collaboration. While the literature has emphasized the sense of experimentation and reflexivity of these alternative forms of organizing, this paper especially draws attention to the affective dynamics of everyday peer-to-peer collaboration. Drawing on an 18-month ethnography of a cooperative network of social entrepreneurs, we use a practice-based approach to study peer collaboration as a relational practice formed through a nexus of ‘weaving,’ ‘sharing,’ and ‘caring’ activities. Focusing on the affective orders enveloping relational practice, we document how the practice of peer collaboration is imbued by what we call an ‘affective oscillation’ forming contrasting amplitudes between confidence and frustration, exuberance and anxiety, and trust and exhaustion. As our core contribution, we problematize how the affirmative intent of radical democratic organizing is potentially jeopardized by this ‘cloudy affectivity,’ and we conclude that the collective pursuit of embodied ethical encounters is formed by slowing down and feeling into affective oscillation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Ashcraft, K. L. (2018). Critical complicity: The feel of difference at work in home and field. Management Learning,49(5), 613–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly,59(3), 474–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandinelli, C., & Arvidsson, A. (2013). Brand yourself a changemaker! Journal of Macromarketing,33(1), 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barin Cruz, L., Alves, M. A., & Delbridge, R. (2017). Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: Toward a relational research agenda. M@n@gement,20(4), 322–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barinaga, E. (2017). Tinkering with space: The organizational practices of a nascent social venture. Organization Studies,38(7), 937–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., Fuerstein, M., & Lee, M. (2018). New prospects for organizational democracy? How the joint pursuit of social and financial goals challenges traditional organizational designs. In R. Subramanian (Ed.), Capitalism beyond mutuality (pp. 256–288). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyes, T., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization,19(1), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerg, H., & Staunæs, D. (2011). Self-management through shame-uniting governmentality studies and the “affective turn”. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization,11(2), 138–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröckling, U. (2015). The entrepreneurial self: Fabricating a new type of subject. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabraal, A., & Basterfield, S. (2018). Better work together. How the power of community can transform your business. Wellington, NZ: Enspiral Foundation Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. K. (2016). “Plan your burn, burn your plan”: How decentralization, storytelling, and communification can support participatory practices. The Sociological Quarterly,57(1), 71–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G., Cruz, I. S., Peredo, A. M., & Nazareno, E. (2014). Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. Organization,21(5), 591–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. (2017). Post-capitalist entrepreneurship. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning,41(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darr, A. (1999). Conflict and conflict resolution in a cooperative: The case of the Nir Taxi Station. Human Relations,52(3), 279–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalaki, M., Fotaki, M., & Sotiropolou, I. (2019). Performing values practices and grassroots organizing: The case of solidarity economy initiatives in Greece. Organization Studies,40(11), 741–1765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalaki, M., & Kokkinidis, G. (2017). Organizing solidarity initiatives: A socio-spatial conceptualization of resistance. Organization Studies,38(9), 1303–1325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G. (1993). The logic of sense (Reprint edition; C. Boundas, Ed.). Columbia University Press, New York.

  • Derrida, J. (2005). Politics of friendship. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, S. (2005). A researcher’s guide to worker participation, labor and economic and industrial democracy. Economic and Industrial Democracy,26(4), 645–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, T. (2019). Why Michels’ ‘iron law of oligarchy’ is not an iron law—And how democratic organisations can stay ‘oligarchy-free’. Organization Studies,40(4), 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (2016). Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial struggles and the ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the South. AIBR, Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana,11(1), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esper, S. C., Cabantous, L., Barin-Cruz, L., & Gond, J.-P. (2017). Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization,24(5), 671–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farias, C. (2017a). Money is the root of all evil—Or is it? Recreating culture through everyday neutralizing practices. Organization Studies,38(6), 775–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farias, C. (2017b). That’s what friends are for: Hospitality and affective bonds fostering collective empowerment in an intentional community. Organization Studies,38(5), 577–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science,22(5), 1240–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (1972). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology,17, 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, S., & Collinson, D. (2017). Resistance through difference: The co-constitution of dissent and inclusion. Organization Studies,38(9), 1253–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization,7(2), 211–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste! Management Learning,40(5), 535–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2016). To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness. Organization,23(5), 680–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2017). One turn … and now another one: Do the turn to practice and the turn to affect have something in common? Management Learning,48(3), 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S. (2019). Theorizing affective ethnography for organization studies. Organization,26(6), 741–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S., Murgia, A., Bellè, E., Miele, F., & Carreri, A. (2018). Tracking the sociomaterial traces of affect at the crossroads of affect and practice theories. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management,14(3), 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S., & Rodeschini, G. (2016). Caring as a collective knowledgeable doing: About concern and being concerned. Management Learning,47(3), 266–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2014). The ties that bind? Exploring the basic principles of worker-owned organizations in practice. Organization,21(5), 645–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, E. A. (2016). Emotions and emotional labor at worker-owned businesses: Deep acting, surface acting, and genuine emotions. The Sociological Quarterly,57(1), 152–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, A., Schatzki, T. R., & Shove, E. (Eds.). (2017). The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irving, A. (2019, April 25). On being a risk-averse entrepreneur. Retrieved September 5, 2019, from Shareable website: https://www.shareable.net/on-being-a-risk-averse-entrepreneur/.

  • Johnson, P. (2006). Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy. Organization,13(2), 245–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1972). Commitment and community: Communes and utopias in sociological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keevers, L., & Sykes, C. (2016). Food and music matters: Affective relations and practices in social justice organizations. Human Relations,69(8), 1643–1668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An everyone culture: Becoming a deliberately developmental organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinidis, G. (2012). In search of workplace democracy. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,32(3/4), 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinidis, G. (2015a). Post-capitalist imaginaries: The case of workers’ collectives in Greece. Journal of Management Inquiry,24(4), 429–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinidis, G. (2015b). Spaces of possibilities: Workers’ self-management in Greece. Organization,22(6), 847–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Brussels: Nelson Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H., & Ferreras, I. (2016). In defense of workplace democracy: Towards a justification of the firm-state analogy. Political Theory,44(1), 53–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, D. K. (2016). When freedom is not an endless meeting: A new look at efficiency in consensus-based decision making. The Sociological Quarterly,57(1), 36–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior,37(Supplement C), 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D. (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies,30(12), 1309–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, I., & Thanem, T. (2018). The ethics of affective leadership: Organizing good encounters without leaders. Business Ethics Quarterly,28(1), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies,30(12), 1391–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2017). Practice theory as a package of theory, method and vocabulary: Affordances and limitations. In M. Jonas, B. Littig, & A. Wroblewski (Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 19–34). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2017). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In H. Tsoukas & A. Langley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 110–126). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M., Cheney, G., Fournier, V., & Land, C. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge companion to alternative organization. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazaitis, A., Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2017). Digital economy and the rise of open cooperativism: The case of the Enspiral Network. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research,23(2), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, M. (2014). Free and open source appropriate technology. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The Routledge companion to alternative organization (pp. 47–63). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2017). Practices and their affects. In A. Hui, T. R. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners (pp. 114–125). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reedy, P. (2014). Impossible organisations: Anarchism and organisational praxis. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization,14(4), 639–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reedy, P., King, D., & Coupland, C. (2016). Organizing for individuation: Alternative organizing, politics and new identities. Organization Studies,37(11), 1553–1573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J. (2018). Social movements and prefigurative organizing: Confronting entrenched inequalities in Occupy London. Organization Studies,39(9), 1299–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J. (2016). The logic of a co-operative economy and democracy 2.0: Recovering the possibilities for autonomy, creativity, solidarity, and common purpose. The Sociological Quarterly,57(1), 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild-Whitt, J. (1979). The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review,44(4), 509–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization Studies,26(3), 465–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., & Ingram, P. (2003). Enemies of the state: The interdependence of institutional forms and the ecology of the kibbutz, 1910–1997. Administrative Science Quarterly,48(4), 592–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, N. (2017). Becoming a commoner: The commons as sites for affective socio-nature encounters and co-becomings. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization,17(4), 751–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoglund, A., & Böhm, S. (2019). Prefigurative partaking: Employees’ environmental activism in an energy utility. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619847716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobering, K. (2016). Producing and reducing gender inequality in a worker-recovered cooperative. The Sociological Quarterly,57(1), 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert, C., & Van Looy, B. (Eds.). (2010). Relational practices, participative organizing. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning,38(1), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, N., Land, C., & Böhm, S. (2014). Anti-leaders(hip) in social movement organizations: The case of autonomous grassroots groups. Organization,21(6), 759–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanem, T. (2011). The monstrous organization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanem, T., & Wallenberg, L. (2015). What can bodies do? Reading Spinoza for an affective ethics of organizational life. Organization,22(2), 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M., & Willmott, H. (2016). The social potency of affect: Identification and power in the immanent structuring of practice. Human Relations,69(2), 483–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidaillet, B., & Bousalham, Y. (2018). Coworking spaces as places where economic diversity can be articulated: Towards a theory of syntopia. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418794003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viggian, F. A. (2011). Phoenix trucking—“I believe in democracy up to a point”: Democratizing management hierarchies. International Journal of Management and Innovation,3(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M. (2015). Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body & Society,21(2), 139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woermann, M., & Engelbrecht, S. (2019). The Ubuntu challenge to business: From stakeholders to relationholders. Journal of Business Ethics,157(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our heartfelt thank you goes to the people of Enspiral, who have invited us with unprecedented warmth and openness to learn from their bold experiments. Moreover, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the special issue editors Carl Rhodes, Iain Munro, Torkild Thanem, and Alison Pullen, as well as to the anonymous reviewers who have guided our revision process in a most constructive and collegial manner. We would also like to thank Patrizia Hoyer for her friendly review and most helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Strategy, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, The University of Sydney Business School, H70, Abercrombie St & Codrington St, Darlington, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Bernhard Resch

  2. Research Institute for Organizational Psychology, University of St. Gallen, Girtannerstrasse 6, 9010, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Chris Steyaert

Authors
  1. Bernhard Resch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Steyaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This study was funded by a mobility grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation (P1SGP1_171941).

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Bernhard Resch and Chris Steyaert declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Resch, B., Steyaert, C. Peer Collaboration as a Relational Practice: Theorizing Affective Oscillation in Radical Democratic Organizing. J Bus Ethics 164, 715–730 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04395-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04395-2

Keywords

search

Navigation