Pluralism, post-structuralism and “engagement management”: limits for the critical management studies movement

Abstract

The aim of this article is to question pluralism in Critical Management Studies (CMS) movement, to point out the limits of the post-structuralism as a critical epistemology, to denounce the risks of a critique in line with “engagement management” and to show different ways to arrive at a debate between theory and practice on the critical movement. To do so, we described the most important post-structuralism characteristics, questioning the critical status of this epistemology and also questioning pluralism in CMS. Next, we discuss how some of CMS’ representatives defend “engagement management” through a critical perfomativity which uses inadequately formulations of post-structuralism. We also discuss other practical approaches for a critique in organization studies, using the concept of praxis and critical education as ways to enlighten consciences and reestablish a critical activism. We conclude that post-structuralism should be taken more seriously, what may indicate that is necessary to build a new theoretical movement to use its contributions, preserving its critical character.