The persona of organization theorists - What happened to good old-fashioned relevance?

The role of intellectuals in society has been a source of enduring debate and given rise to heated discussions about values, morality and power. The current paper will make an empirical analysis of this theme in the field of organization theory. The working thesis is inspired by Ian Hunter’s argument about the ‘theory boom’ in the 1960s. According to this argument, a wide variety of academic disciplines underwent a profound transformation which left them in a state of over-theoretical, mutually hostile fractions – absorbed in their sophisticated warfare, rather than in the pursuit of practical relevance. The result is an academic Persona (in this case the organization theorist) subscribing to a position above and outside the world of practice, ever ready to dismantle its parameters and think it radically anew.

In this paper, I will explore Hunter’s hypothesis empirically by analyzing classical OT texts and comparing them to the texts and practices of selected OT communities in the present. The analysis draws on the concepts of persona, professional ethos, askesis, and responsibility in order to illuminate possible contrasts between the professional  Persona of early organization theorists versus OT Personas in late modernity.  The critical concern driving this paper is whether OT has lost its interest in and ability to offer relevant input to a world of practice which seems to need it more than ever.