“Extreme uncertainty – defined in terms of novelty, magnitude, duration, and the rapid pace of change – generates a difficult operating environment for managers and organizations. The radically changed circumstances call for new forms of leadership, new ways of working, and new operating models.” (Finn et al. 2020, 8) This statement taken from a McKinsey publication exemplifies the enormous relevance of uncertainty to todays’ organizations. As the biggest multi-national management consulting company and one of the most prestigious in the industry, McKinsey claims to condense organizations’ needs based on their work experience with numerous clients. At the same time, their publications shape trends in the business world on a discursive level. Therefore, this “call for new forms of leadership” and “new ways of working” (ibid.) can be interpreted as both a discursive trend and an expression of a need examined in organizational practice. However, the two cannot be considered separately.

            The discourse of New Work is one of many referring to the challenges organizations are facing in times of uncertainty. As the example above shows, New Work discourse is a popular-scientific one. Rooted in Frithjof Bergmann’s aspiration in the 1980s to transform radically the ways in which we organize work as society, this politico-economic discourse has always been normatively charged. The term has become increasingly prevalent, especially recently, and it has been interpreted in many ways, with no set definition. Its usage shows a wide range from idealistic attempts resembling the original concept to more business-oriented management-strategies (Taimer & Weckmüller 2020). As the McKinsey example points out, the discourse is manifesting, creating, and reproducing notions and normative expectations. From an organizational education perspective, organizations can be seen as spaces, in which institutions, discourses, and norms are enacted (Engel 2020). Simultaneously, organizations as social structures are actors that manifest and perform these institutions, discourses, and norms in specific ways, by translating the existing it into new variations (Engel & Göhlich 2022). Our contribution aims to examine the relation of institutions and organizations by exploring the institutionalization of New Work in organizations. Our research is characterized by tracing documents closely. Based on Smith’s (2002) approach of institutional ethnography, we are investigating how (selected) organizations refer to New Work discourse, how they translate it into organizational programs, and how they perform it. We wish to examine which phenomena manifest when applying each/which theoretical framework. For this purpose, we will introduce three different theoretical perspectives, making use of discourse and document analysis: A historico-philosophical approach (Adorno 1953), an institution theory perspective (Smith 2002), and a genealogical angle (Foucault 2000, 2006). The advantages of this triangulation will be described in the following.

To propose a heuristic serving the interest described above, we start by giving an overview of the (popular-scientific) New Work discourse. We then examine self-descriptions of selected organizations to identify specific organizational constellations of New Work by using a document-analytical approach (Wolff 2013, Schmidt 2016). Mainly drawing on corporate websites, we aim to examine a selection of documents, systematically using three different theoretical perspectives – not as case studies but to explore their potential for further research: What happens if we apply these perspectives to New Work discourse? Which potentially differing focal points do they reveal? Which blind spots can be illuminated by means of their triangulation? First, we use Critical Theory, in particular Theodor Adorno’s thesis of the dialectic nature of organizations (1953) as a historico-philosophical approach. This perspective emphasizes the sociality of organizations, namely their role in structuring society. Stating that organizations always hold the potential of being good or evil, Adorno underlines the necessity to critically reflect on their (or their actions’) objectives to be able to evaluate them from a normative perspective. Secondly, we draw on Dorothy E. Smith’s (2002) institutional ethnography as an institution theory perspective. This actor-centered approach looks at people’s everyday lives and explores how they are structured by social relations, especially in terms of social institutions, one of them being work. Thirdly, we want to apply a genealogical angle by making use of Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality (2000, 2006). It allows us to challenge taken-for-granted truths and knowledge, and therefore opens up possibilities to examine underlying conditions and power structures.

Our contribution aims to propose a heuristic for future research in the field of New Work discourse. By applying different theoretical perspectives in a discourse and document analysis, we want to explore different possible emphases for analyzing the relation of institutions and organizations in this field. Our proposition aims at mapping the different actors that institutionalize and materialize New Work in organizations, including a systematic consideration of how – on a programmatic level – the mechanisms and dynamics of institutionalization manifest. This can contribute to further differentiating and defining New Work discourse. By systematically utilizing the theoretical approaches described above, we can identify relevant characteristics to structure the discursive actors, e. g. by focusing on goals, conditions, and power. The resulting heuristic forms the basis for further research, which will use expert interviews and participant observation to clarify how New Work is institutionalized in and by organizations. This research will be continued over the next six months, and the results will be integrated into our paper.

Adorno, Theodor W. (1980/1953). Individuum und Organisation. In Soziologische Schriften Band 1 (S. 440–57). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bergmann, F. (2019/2004). New Work New Culture. Work we want to do and a culture that strengthens us. Alresford: John Hunt Publishing. Engel, N. (2020). Institution. In G. Weiß, & J. Zirfas (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungsphilosophie (S. 549-560). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Engel, N., & Göhlich, M. (2022). Organisationspädagogik. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Finn, P., Mysore, M. & Usher, O. (2020). When nothing is normal: Managing in extreme uncertainty. Zugriff am 24.01.2024 von https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/when-nothing-is-normal-managing-in-extreme-uncertainty. Foucault, M. (2000/2019). Die Gouvernementalität. In Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krassmann & Thomas Lemke (Hrsg.), Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen (S. 41-67). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Foucault, M. (2006/2017). Die Geburt der Biopolitik. Vorlesungen am Collège de France, 1978-1979. 5. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Schmidt, W. (2016). Dokumentenanalyse in der Organisationsforschung. In S. Liebig, W. Matiaske, & S. Rosenbohm (Hrsg.), Handbuch Empirische Organisationsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Smith, D. E. (2002). Institutional Ethnography. In T. May (Hrsg.), Qualitative Research in Action (S. 23-45). London: Sage Publications. Taimer, L., & Weckmüller, H. (2020). New-Work-Diskursanalyse. Humanisierung von Arbeit oder effektives Managen? Personalführung 10/2020, S. 14-21. Wolff, S. (2000). Dokumenten- und Aktenanalyse. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Hrsg.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (S. 502–513). Reinbek: Rowohlt.