{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04337592468056489, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010759919300605245, 'mean_word_length': 5.685393258426966, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A critical perspective on “critical organizational scholarship”

I hold the chair for work and organizational psychology at Leipzig University in Germany. Founded in 1409, my university was renamed “Karl Marx University” in 1953 by the socialist party government of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, also known as East Germany). After the collapse of this dictatorial regime (which, in addition to numerous crimes against humanity, in 1968 demolished our university church that was built in 1231 and survived the two Word Wars) and the German reunification, the university’s original name was restored in 1991. Against this personal and historical background, I read the focal article by Mumby (2019), which, among other philosophers, invokes Marx, with mixed thoughts and feelings. On one hand, I understand and mostly agree with the basics of Mumby’s analysis of the role of paid and dependent work (or wage labor) in people’s lives. On the other hand, I would like to outline three points of criticism on the focal article and “critical organizational scholarship” (including “critical management studies,” “critical organizational communication studies,” and “critical work and organizational psychology”) more broadly. These points of criticism include (a) the lack of a realistic and practical alternative offered by “critical organizational scholars,” (b) the lack of rigorous empirical evidence generated by “critical organizational scholars,” and (c) the frequent use of sweeping generalizations and dramatization by “critical organizational scholars.” Before I outline these points of criticism, I would like to explain why I use quotation marks for “critical organizational scholars/scholarship.” I believe that the (implicit) distinction made by Mumby (2019) and other self-proclaimed “critical organizational scholars” into organizational scholars who are “critical” (i.e., focus on issues of power and control at work and in organizations) and organizational scholars who are “uncritical” (or “mainstream”) is problematic. Most organizational scholars I know are critical of (their own and others’) research, including theories, assumptions, methods, and findings, and of the environment in which research, teaching, and service activities are conducted (including issues of power and control). I also like to think of myself as being critical of my own work and organization, but I would not explicitly label myself a “critical organizational scholar.” I argue that categorizing oneself as a “critical organizational scholar” and others, more or less implicitly, as “uncritical” often serves a social identity function (see, for example, Hornsey, 2008). That is, self-proclaimed “critical organizational scholars” attempt to boost their professional self-esteem and reputation by creating an artificial distinction between an in-group of “critical organizational scholars” and an out-group encompassing “uncritical” or “mainstream” organizational scholars.