!"# %#!&'"()*+) ,- %&.&/#%#.!

0
& '1&+!*+&2 !31. *. '1,+#)) ,1/&.*4&!*,. )!35*#)




"#$%&' ())'*&+, -&.'*%#'%#/ "''.'*)#* 0&12%''1&
Copenhagen 8uslness School
ueparLmenL of ManagemenL, ollLlcs and hllosophy
orcelnshaven 188
2000 lrederlksberg
uenmark
L-mall: ark.lpf[cbs.dk

3415)' 61,$&+, 781&*4/ 049 :%;;1<
Copenhagen 8uslness School
ueparLmenL of ManagemenL, ollLlcs and hllosophy
orcelnshaven 188
2000 lrederlksberg
uenmark
L-mall: Llh.lpf[cbs.dk

1

"='*&)>*
rocessual Lhlnklng has become an lmporLanL area of lnvesLlgaLlon because Lhe unforeseen, change and un-
predlcLablllLy are Lhe very condlLlons for Lhe creaLlon of value ln conLemporary caplLallsm. Pence, lL ls noL only
organlzaLlon sLudles LhaL have Laken a processual Lurn, Lhls has Lo a large exLenL also happened wlLhln maln-
sLream and popular managemenL Lheorles. rocess Lhlnklng ls Lherefore noL ln opposlLlon Lo malnsLream man-
agemenL LhoughL, buL can be locaLed aL lLs very core. So raLher Lhan flndlng processes ln opposlLlon Lo organl-
zaLlon and managemenL, we would llke Lo frame Lhe quesLlon of processes ln organlzaLlon sLudles dlfferenLly.
lnsLead of sLudylng how processes are repressed by Lhe bureaucraLlc organlzaLlon, we wanL Lo sLudy how
processes have become Lhe normaLlve asplraLlon halled wlLhln managemenL LhoughL. Cn behalf hereof we
make Lhe suggesLlon LhaL Lhlnklng processes ln an adequaLe way should noL be Lhe only alm of process organl-
zaLlon sLudles. Slnce Lhe dlchoLomy beLween processes and change on Lhe one hand, and managemenL and
organlzaLlon on Lhe oLher has become lncreaslngly blurred LhroughouL Lhe pasL couple of decades, we argue
for a pracLlcal Lurn wlLhln process organlzaLlon sLudles LhaL asplre Lo Lhlnk a processual onLology and meLa-
physlcs of managemenL. 1o do so we wlll make use of Lhe phllosophy of Cllles ueleuze and especlally draw on
hls ldeas of LranscendenLal emplrlclsm and creaLlon of concepLs.








2

?#*&1$+>*.1#
WlLhln organlzaLlon and managemenL Lheory Lhe lasL decade has been characLerlzed by an almosL overwhelm-
lng exploslon of conLrlbuLlons revolvlng around how we Lhlnk abouL processes ln organlzaLlonal llfe and, espe-
clally, how we concepLuallze Lheses processes wlLhln sLudles of managemenL and organlzaLlon (e.g. Chla, 1999,
Chla & klng, 1998, 1soukas & Chla, 2002, van de ven & ool, 2003, 8akken & Pernes, 2006, Chla, forLhcomlng).

ln Lhls paper, we argue LhaL processual Lhlnklng has become an lmporLanL area of lnvesLlgaLlon because Lhe
unforeseen, change and unpredlcLablllLy are Lhe very condlLlons for Lhe creaLlon of value ln conLemporary capl-
Lallsm. We furLhermore argue LhaL lL ls noL only organlzaLlon sLudles LhaL have Laken a processual Lurn, Lhls has
Lo a large exLenL also happened wlLhln malnsLream managemenL Lheorles (see e.g. Pamel & 8reen, 2007). Cn
behalf hereof we argue LhaL change, processes, flux and Lhe unforeseen are noL Lo be seen as someLhlng LhaL ls
repressed and ln need of belng saved. 1hese raLher consLlLuLe Lhe very normaLlvlLy LhaL guldes popular and
malnsLream managemenL LhoughL. Pence, process Lhlnklng ls noL ln opposlLlon Lo malnsLream managemenL
Lhlnklng, buL can be found wlLhln popular managemenL Lheorles. 8y argulng Lhls, we ln no way deny Lhe lmpor-
Lance and relevance of process organlzaLlon sLudles. 8aLher, our clalm ls LhaL lL ls lmporLanL Lo recognlze and
sLudy Lhe socleLal conLexL wlLhln whlch we recognlze processual Lhlnklng as belng lmporLanL and relevanL for
organlzaLlon sLudles.

8oberL Chla has recenLly ln a slmllar way hlghllghLed Lhe lmporLance of analyzlng whaL he calls 'organlzaLlonal
menLallLles', l.e. Lhe hlghly complex and slowly formed culLural assemblages - whlch are consLlLuLed by modes
of LhoughL, eLhlcal pracLlces, dlsclpllnes of knowledge, laws, eLc. - LhaL serves Lo orlenL us Loward ourselves,
oLhers and Lo our envlronmenL ln parLlcular ways" (Chla, forLhcomlng: 17). 1hls lmplles LhaL we have Lo orlenL
our Lhlnklng noL merely Lo lLs speclflc llngulsLlc and concepLual precondlLlons, buL also Lo Lhe wlder soclal con-
3

LexL wlLhln whlch parLlcular llnes of LhoughL galn momenLum, becomes consldered as lmporLanL and are ac-
cepLed as convlnclng. Whereas rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles argues LhaL we can achleve a beLLer undersLand-
lng of organlzaLlons by focuslng on Lhe processes from whlch organlzaLlons emerge, malnsLream managemenL
Lheorles clalm LhaL companles need Lo pay more aLLenLlon Lo processes lf Lhey wanL Lo acceleraLe Lhelr value
creaLlng poLenLlal. We flnd Lhls openness Lowards and valorlzaLlon of processes wlLhln managemenL Lheorles
lnLeresLlng, because lL seems llke processes ln no way are repressed by or subsumed under organlzaLlon. ln-
sLead, lL ls ofLen argued LhaL processes should be llberaLed from any resLrlcLlng forms and bureaucracy (Pamel
& 8reen, 2007). 1hls, however, ls noL equlvalenL Lo LhaL malnsLream managemenL Lheorles and rocess Crganl-
zaLlon SLudles share Lhe same undersLandlng of processes. ?eL, Lhough Lhere are lmporLanL dlfferences whlch
should noL be neglecLed, we would llke Lo call aLLenLlon Lo Lhe very facL LhaL processes are valued as someLhlng
poslLlve. 1herefore, raLher Lhan sLudylng how processes are repressed by Lhe bureaucraLlc organlzaLlon, we
wanL Lo sLudy Lhe changes ln Lhe soclo-hlsLorlcal conLexL and mllleu of Lhe organlzaLlon ln order Lo lnqulre lnLo
Lhe recenL surge of lnLeresL ln processes wlLhln organlzaLlon and managemenL Lheory aL large. 8y Laklng lnspl-
raLlon from Lhe lmpllcaLlons assoclaLed wlLh Lhe noLlon of organlzaLlonal menLallLles, we wlll Lry Lo map Lhe
soclo-hlsLorlcal Lendencles LhaL are slgnlflcanL ln relaLlon Lo undersLandlng Lhe wlder conLexL wlLhln whlch
Lhere has been an accenLuaLed lnLeresL ln processes. We wlll prlmarlly do Lhls by leanlng on 8olLanskl and
Chlapello's (2003) analysls of 'Lhe new splrlL of caplLallsm'.

ln Lhe paper we wlll Lherefore slLuaLe Lhls fundamenLal preoccupaLlon of process Lhlnklng wlLhln a broader
problemaLlc revolvlng around Lhe conLemporary, wldespread, generallzed and hlghly poslLlve socleLal valorlza-
Llon of processes, change, moblllLy and flux. 1hls also lmplles LhaL we wlll noL slLuaLe Lhe quesLlon of processes
ln relaLlon Lo a fundamenLal dlsLlncLlon beLween processes and change on Lhe one hand and managemenL and
organlzaLlon on Lhe oLher. lnsLead, we wanL Lo sLudy how unformed processes are formed lnLo organlzaLlons.
4

1hls laLLer polnL wlll be developed by way of maklng use of Lhe phllosophy of Cllles ueleuze (ueleuze, 1994).
We draw on ueleuze Lo propose LhaL such a form of process Lhlnklng wlll have Lo concern lLself wlLh Lhe Lran-
scendenLal fleld, l.e. Lhe condlLlons under whlch processes are consLlLuLed and condlLloned ln organlzaLlons
(ueleuze, 1994). A consequence of Lhls ls LhaL we wlll begln wlLh Lhe organlzaLlon and managemenL ln order Lo
undersLand how processes are condlLloned and consLlLuLed wlLhln Lhe organlzaLlon.

1he paper ls sLrucLured ln Lhe followlng way: lltst, we presenL meLaphyslcal Lhlnklng wlLhln rocess Crganlza-
Llon SLudles by way of marklng ouL some of Lhe cenLral dlscusslons and dlsLlncLlons LhaL have characLerlzed Lhe
fleld wlLhln Lhe lasL decade. 5ecooJ, we Lry Lo map Lhe wlder soclo-hlsLorlcal conLexL wlLhln whlch process
Lhlnklng has become a ma[or concern wlLhln organlzaLlon and managemenL sLudles. As already sLaLed, we do
Lhls by drawlng on 8olLanskl and Chlapello's ldea of a new splrlL of caplLallsm. 1bltJ, ln relaLlon Lo Lhls dlscus-
slon we Lurn Lo Lhe phllosophy of Cllles ueleuze and hls ldeas of LranscendenLal emplrlclsm and creaLlon of
concepLs. 1ranscendenLal emplrlclsm means LhaL we should begln wlLh Lhe emplrlcally glven (e.g. organlzaLlon)
ln order Lo undersLand and learn Lhe LranscendenLal condlLlon of Lhls, whlch ln ueleuze's words ls LhaL by
whlch Lhe glven ls glven" (ueleuze, 1994: 140). lloolly, we conclude by argulng LhaL we need Lo focus more on
Lhe value creaLlon processes and Lhe managemenL hereof wlLhln process organlzaLlon sLudles.

@%*),4A'.>); *4.#B.#C .# 0&1>%'' D&C)#.E)*.1# F*+$.%'
rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles sees processes as fundamenLal and hence sLudles organlzaLlons as emerglng from
onLologlcal and meLaphyslcal processes. CenLral Lo Lhls sclenLlflc fleld has been Lhe esLabllshmenL of a baLLle
llne beLween a metopbyslcs of ptocess ooJ cbooqe on Lhe one hand and a metopbyslcs of sobstooce on Lhe
oLher (Chla & klng, 1998, Chla 1999). Accordlng Lo a meLaphyslcs of process and change, whaL fundamenLally
exlsL, aL a base onLologlcal level, are processes LhaL unfold ln a more or less chaoLlc manner. Whlle argulng for
3

Lhe onLologlcal prlmacy of processes and change over enLlLles and sLasls, Lhls meLaphyslcs, however, does noL
deny Lhe exlsLence of organlzaLlons, buL vlews Lhem as effecLs or gradual hardenlngs of Lhese prlor onLologlcal
processes. 1soukas and Chla (2002: 370) descrlbe Lhls lnLerrelaLlonshlp by way of sLaLlng LhaL change musL noL
be LhoughL of as a properLy of organlzaLlon. 8aLher, organlzaLlon musL be undersLood as an emergenL properLy
of change. Change ls onLologlcally prlor Lo organlzaLlon - lL ls Lhe condlLlon of posslblllLy for organlzaLlon."

Accordlng Lo a meLaphyslcs of subsLance, Lhe reverse ls held Lo be Lrue. WhaL fundamenLally exlsL, accordlng Lo
Lhls vlew, are self-conLalned enLlLles (acLors, organlzaLlons, socleLles, eLc.) LhaL Lhen undergo some klnd of
change. 1hus, change and processes are glven a secondary role ln relaLlon Lo Lhe enLlLles Lo whlch Lhey are Lled,
[usL as Lhey are vlewed as Lhe excepLlon raLher Lhan Lhe norm (Chla, 1999: 210). ln Lhls sense, processes are
mere aLLrlbuLes Lo Lhe organlzaLlon. rocess Lhlnkers wlLhln organlzaLlon sLudles have been cenLrally preoccu-
pled wlLh polnLlng ouL Lhe weakness of Lhls laLLer vlew. A maln concern ln Lhls regard has been LhaL our Lhlnk-
lng ln general, and our Lhlnklng abouL organlzaLlonal change and managemenL ln parLlcular, loglcally end up by
denylng Lhe very exlsLence of change when we Lhlnk ln accordance wlLh Lhe vocabulary and concepLuallzaLlons
underlylng Lhls meLaphyslcs. lf, Lo name [usL one promlnenL example of Lhls meLaphyslcs, we use a sLage-model
Lo explaln how an organlzaLlon has changed, we paradoxlcally end up by denylng whaL we seL ouL Lo explaln.
1hls ls so because change ls reduced Lo a serles of sLaLlc poslLlons (.). Change per se remalns eluslve and un-
accounLed - sLrangely, lL ls whaL goes on betweeo Lhe poslLlons represenLlng change" (1soukas & Chla, 2002:
371).

1he reasons for Lhe lnablllLles of scholars and pracLlLloners Lo properly accounL for organlzaLlonal change, how-
ever, ls noL merely because of Lhe ways ln whlch we Lhlnk abouL organlzaLlons. 8aLher, Lhe way ln whlch we
accounL for change can be Lraced far back ln our lnLellecLual hlsLory. 1hus, from armenldes and uescarLes over
6

newLon Lo modern sclence we flnd an lnLellecLual and phllosophlcal predlsposlLlon Lo sLarL ouL wlLh subsLances
and sLable enLlLles as Lhe onLologlcal polnL of deparLure (8escher, 1996). Whlle noL denylng Lhe varlous merlLs
of LhoughL bullL upon Lhls LradlLlon, scholars wlLhln rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles have clalmed LhaL Lhls long
hlsLorlcal llneage ls ln Lhe way and consLlLuLes a hlndrance Lo adequaLely grasplng Lhe Lrue processual naLure of
reallLy ln general and real-llfe organlzaLlons ln parLlcular (e.g. Chla, 1999, van de ven & oole, 2003).

ln Lrylng Lo correcL Lhe shorLcomlngs of our lnLellecLual ablllLles when we Lhlnk ln accordance wlLh Lhls meLa-
physlcs of subsLance, several scholars have seL ouL Lo search for early phllosophlcal flgures LhaL were noL
caughL up ln Lhls lmage of LhoughL. A whole llneage from PeracllLus Lo 8ergson, WhlLehead, uerrlda, Serres and
ueleuze have Lhus been moblllzed as lnsplrlng flgures Lo draw upon ln reframlng how we should concepLuallze
processes and change (see e.g. Chla & klng 1998, Chla, 1999, LlnsLead, 2002, SLyhre, 2002).

1hese phllosophlcal process Lhlnkers have remalned a conLlnulng source of lnsplraLlon for Lhe fleld of rocess
CrganlzaLlon SLudles slnce Lhelr lnlLlal upLake ln Lhe laLe 1990s. lrom here on, Lhe dlscusslons have developed
by dlfferenLlaLlng beLween dlfferenL vlews of processes (van de ven & ool, 2003, Pernes & Welk, 2007), [usL
as cenLral dlscusslons have been developed by hlghllghLlng Lhe complex lnLerdependencles beLween verbs and
nouns when accounLlng for organlzaLlons ln accordance wlLh a process perspecLlve (8akken & Pernes, 2006).

Cn behalf of Lhese LheoreLlcal developmenLs wlLhln Lhe lasL decade, rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles have pro-
vlded a much needed orlenLaLlon Lowards Lhe lmporLance of onLologlcal processes and Lhe pervaslve naLure of
change wlLhln Lhe fleld of organlzaLlon and managemenL sLudles, [usL as lL has enhanced and sharpened our
concepLual reperLolre ln descrlblng processes and change. ?eL, Lhough Lhe fleld has undergone lmporLanL de-
velopmenLs, kepL on evolvlng and flourlshed as an lnLellecLual dlsclpllne, Lhe underlylng scholarly challenge
7

seems Lo have remalned a sLable one. lrom Lhe ouLseL and up unLll Loday, Lhls challenge has revolved around
our lnablllLles Lo tblok and concepLuallze movemenL, processes, becomlng, change and flux ln an adequaLe way
(Chla & klng, 1998, Chla, 1999). Pence, process Lhlnklng has remalned cenLrally preoccupled wlLh Lhe analyLl-
cal dlsLlncLlons LhaL we draw" (8akken & Pernes, 2006: 1600) when we Lhlnk abouL Lhese maLLers of concern.
Whlle recognlzlng Lhe conLlnulng lmporLance hereof, we wlll argue LhaL Lhe ma[or analyLlcal problem ls noL
only our lnablllLles Lo Lhlnk process, movemenL and change, buL also Lhe wlder conLexL wlLhln whlch Lhere ls a
generally recognlzed need LhaL we bove to tblok tbese tbtooqb. Cn behalf hereof we wlll ask: how dld process,
movemenL and change become someLhlng lL was oecessoty Lo Lhlnk Lhrough? Pow dld Lhey become ptoblems
LhaL we needed Lo reflecL upon and do someLhlng abouL? And whaL wlder concerns and Lra[ecLorles are Lhese
problems allgned wlLh and caughL up ln?

34% #%< ',.&.* 12 >),.*);.'5 )#$ *4% &%>1#2.C+&)*.1# 12 *4% ,&1>%''%' 12 G);+% >&%)*.1#
lL seems Lo have been an underlylng premlse wlLhln rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles LhaL we are noL up Lo Lhe
challenge of Lhlnklng and deallng wlLh Lhe Lrue processual naLure of organlzaLlons. ln llghL hereof managemenL
ls deplcLed as a speclflc klnd of lnLervenLlon LhaL, ofLen ln valn, seeks Lo creaLe sLablllLy, order and predlcLablllLy
ln a world of conLlnulng flux and movemenL. ln splLe of our carefully crafLed planned lnLervenLlons, we are
consLanLly Laken by surprlse by Lhe way ln whlch our besL-lald plans" are dlsrupLed ln lnnumerable ways"
(Chla, forLhcomlng: 4). 1hough Lhere are some merlLs Lo Lhls clalm, especlally when lL ls vlewed on behalf of Lhe
hlsLorlcal orlglns and lnlLlal asplraLlons of managemenL LhoughL (e.g. layol, 1949, 1aylor, 1998 [1911]), we Lhlnk
lL ls lnadequaLe lf lL ls noL seen ln accordance wlLh a ma[or Lendency LhaL have lefL a slgnlflcanL lmprlnL on Lhe
pracLlce and Lheory of managemenL wlLhln Lhe lasL couple of decades. 1hls Lendency ls whaL Lhe lrench soclol-
oglsLs Luc 8olLanskl and Lve Chlapello (2003) have called Lhe rlse of a new splrlL of caplLallsm.

8

urawlng upon Weber's (2002 [1903]) noLlon of 'Lhe splrlL of caplLallsm', 8olLanskl and Chlapello clalm LhaL we,
from Lhe end of Lhe 1980s, have wlLnessed Lhe rlse of a new such splrlL, whlch ln lLs [usLlflcaLory prlnclples and
normaLlve ln[uncLlons ls markedly dlfferenL from an earller one daLlng from Lhe 1960s. Accordlng Lo 8olLanskl
and Chlapello (2003) managemenL LhoughL has recenLly soughL Lo baLLle and overcome lLs earller asplraLlons,
of conLrol, order, hlerarchy and predlcLablllLy by way of demandlng Lhe consLanL Lransgresslon of whaL already
exlsLs, and by way of lnslsLlng on lmpermanence, fluldlLy, change and unpredlcLablllLy as someLhlng LhaL ls mu-
Lually beneflLLlng for employers and employees. 8olLanskl and Chlapello (2003: 4) provlde a mlnlmal deflnlLlon
of caplLallsm as Lhe unllmlLed accumulaLlon of caplLal by formally peaceful means." Cwlng Lo Lhls, caplLallsm
as such ls Lo a large degree an absurd sysLem, whlch ls ln need of [usLlflcaLlons, and on behalf of whlch people
wlll noL only LoleraLe lLs funcLlons and, more or less relucLanLly, parLlclpaLe ln lLs worklngs, buL acLually eoqoqe
ln lL as a meanlngful acLlvlLy. And lL ls preclsely Lhls funcLlon Lhe splrlL of caplLallsm serves. 1hus, ln conLrasL Lo
dogmaLlc Marxlsm, 8olLanskl and Chlapello vlew Lhls splrlL noL as a mere ldeologlcal and secondary phenome-
non whlch ls used by Lhe rullng class Lo suppress and explolL Lhe proleLarlaL Lo lLs own advanLage. 8aLher, Lhls
splrlL ls Lhe generallzed [usLlflcaLlon of a glven age on behalf of whlch lndlvlduals are moLlvaLed Lo be engaged
ln Lhelr dally worklng llves, and on behalf of whlch caplLallsm as a soclal sysLem ls vlewed as a common good
(2003: 10).

1hough havlng many areas of manlfesLaLlon, Lhe dlfferenL splrlLs of caplLallsm are excepLlonally deLecLable ln
managemenL LexLs, slnce Lhese noL only represenL reallLy as lL ls, buL ls also Lraversed by normaLlve sLaLemenLs
regardlng how Lhe world oughL Lo be (8olLanskl & Chlapello, 2003: 37-60). 8olLanskl and Chlapello Lherefore
develop Lhelr Lhesls on behalf of readlng and conLrasLlng pracLlLloner orlenLed managemenL LexLs from Lhe
1960s and 1990s by way of analyzlng Lhe problems Lhe varlous LexLs Lry Lo Lackle, Lhe soluLlons Lhey propose,
9

and Lhe lmages of managemenL Lhey vlew as belng problemaLlc, ouLdaLed or ouL of synch wlLh Lhe overall con-
cerns Lhey Lry Lo address (8olLanskl & Chlapello, 2003: 60, 64).

Where Lhe managemenL LexLs of Lhe 1960s were cenLrally preoccupled wlLh overcomlng nepoLlsm and replace
lL wlLh formal, leglLlmaLe crlLerla on whlch efflclency could be measured and valued, Lhe LexLs from Lhe 1990s
are concerned wlLh breaklng up such hlerarchlcal modes of orderlng and managlng ln favor of esLabllshlng
more fluld and neLwork-llke organlzaLlonal forms (2003: 103-108). 1hls enLalls a reorlenLaLlon whereby Lhe
cenLrallsL and hlghly auLhorlLaLlve organlzaLlon of work, wlLh lLs long-Lerm arrangemenLs and hlgh degree of
predlcLablllLy, ls replaced by much more flexlble and decenLrallzed modes of managlng and organlzlng.

Whereas Lhe earller splrlL of caplLallsm valued Lhe raLlonal and sLable over Lhe passlonaLe and sponLaneous,
Lhe splrlL prevalllng from Lhe 1990s Lakes Lhe sharp separaLlon beLween Lhese Lo be noL merely un[usLlfled, buL
dlrecLly suppresslng and allenaLlng (2003: 83). 1he large, hlerarchlcal and hlghly raLlonallzed bureaucraLlc flrm
ls deplcLed as a cold, calculaLlng machlne largely unlnhablLable for Lhe humans worklng Lhere, [usL as lL ls
vlewed as belng way Lo rlgld ln lLs operaLlons. 1hls noL merely lnhlblLs Lhe moblllzaLlon of commlLmenL and
creaLlvlLy, buL more lmporLanLly LhreaLen Lhe mosL essenLlal asseL of Lhe flrm: Lo be able Lo consLanLly lnnovaLe
and change lLself. ln place of plannlng and formal organlzaLlon, Lhere ls Lherefore a generallzed preference for
valulng Lhe ptoject as a shorL-Lerm and processual mode of organlzlng LhaL can reorlenL lLself, expand or con-
LracL as evenLs and clrcumsLances unfold. 1he pro[ecL noL merely deslgnaLes Lhe way work ls Lo be organlzed,
buL even forms a new [usLlflcaLory reglme dlsLlncL from earller forms (2003: 103).

lnsLead of almlng aL a sLable career wlLhln Lhe same organlzaLlon, each person goes Lhrough a successlon of
pro[ecLs, whlch open up Lo Lhe unexpecLed and Lo chance-encounLers LhaL consLanLly adds new compeLencles
10

Lo and secures Lhe employablllLy of Lhe person. 8elng by deflnlLlon dlfferenL, novel, lnnovaLory, each pro[ecL
presenLs lLself as an opporLunlLy Lo learn and Lo develop one's skllls, whlch are so many asseLs for flndlng oLher
engagemenLs." (2003: 93) 1hus, Lhere ls a clear dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe eLhlc pralsed ln Lhe managemenL LexLs
of Lhe 1960s and 1990s: Whereas Lhe former pald LrlbuLe Lo responslblllLy and long-Lerm conLrlbuLlons Lhe new
splrlL of caplLallsm halls a compleLely dlfferenL eLhlcs LhaL value acLlvlLy and movemenL: 1o be dolng some-
Lhlng, Lo move, Lo change - Lhls ls whaL en[oys presLlge, as agalnsL sLablllLy, whlch ls ofLen regarded as syn-
onymous wlLh lnacLlon." (2003: 133)

Cn behalf of 8olLanskl and Chlapello's Lhesls lL seems reasonable Lo suggesL, LhaL processes, change, flux and
movemenL are noL ln opposlLlon Lo managemenL and organlzaLlon. 8aLher, Lhey have ln slgnlflcanL ways be-
come lnscrlbed wlLhln Lhe very normaLlve asplraLlons guldlng managemenL LhoughL, l.e. Lhey are halled as
someLhlng LhaL needs Lo be faclllLaLed and aLLended Lo, because Lhey are Lhe very condlLlons for Lhe creaLlon
of value. And Lhough 8olLanskl and Chlapello's analysls ends around Lhe mld 1990s, lL seems LhaL Lhe concern
wlLh processes, change, flux and Lhe consLanL Lransgresslon of whaL already exlsLs, has noL decreased slnce
Lhen. Cn Lhe conLrary, one mlghL even sLaLe LhaL Lhls Lendency has been acceleraLed.

uue Lo Lhls, lL becomes lncreaslngly dlfflculL Lo uphold Lhe dlchoLomy beLween change and process on Lhe one
hand and managemenL and organlzaLlon as someLhlng LhaL emerges afLerwards and Lrles Lo arresL Lhese
processes on Lhe oLher hand. lnsLead we have a consLanL blurrlng beLween Lhe Lwo, where managemenL con-
sLanLly seeks Lo overcome lLs former foundaLlon by way of llquefylng and processuallzlng lLs mode of belng.
Cne promlnenL conLemporary example hereof ls Lhe hlghly lnfluenLlal managemenL guru Cary Pamel. ln hls
laLesL book (Pamel & 8reen, 2007), as well as ln a range of scholarly (e.g. 8lrklnshaw, Pamel & Mol, 2008) and
pracLlLloner orlenLed arLlcles (e.g. Pamel 2009a, 2009b), Pamel develops such a llne of LhoughL under Lhe ru-
11

brlc tbe fotote of moooqemeot, whlch necesslLaLes shlfLlng Lhe lnnovaLlon-emphasls from Lechnologles and
producLs Lo Lhe very prlnclples, processes, and pracLlces of managemenL" (Pamel, 2009a). Pence, lf organlza-
Llons are Lo remaln compeLlLlve and creaLe long Lerm value Lhey have Lo masLer Lhe process of moooqemeot
looovotloo. ln Lhe preface Lo 1be lotote of Moooqemeot (Pamel & 8reen, 2007: xl) he sLaLes hls overall vlslon
ln Lhls regard ln Lhe followlng way:

l dream of organlzaLlons LhaL are capable of sponLaneous renewal, where Lhe drama of
change ls unaccompanled by Lhe wrenchlng Lrauma of a Lurn-around. l dream of buslness-
es where an elecLrlc currenL of lnnovaLlon pulses Lhrough every acLlvlLy, where Lhe rene-
gades always Lrump Lhe reacLlonarles. l dream of companles LhaL acLually deserve Lhe pas-
slon and creaLlvlLy of Lhe people who work Lhere, and naLurally ellclL Lhe very besL LhaL
people have Lo glve.

ln order Lo reallze Lhls vlslon, however, Pamel argues LhaL we need a new form of managemenL - a form of
managemenL whlch ls fundamenLally dlfferenL from Lhe one we lnherlLed from Lhe lndusLrlal era. 1hls form of
managemenL should noL alm aL closlng and formlng Lhe value creaLlon process as we have seen mosL clearly
expressed ln Lhe works of lrederlck W. 1aylor (1998 [1911]) and Max Weber (1964 [1922]). lnsLead, manage-
menL should llberaLe and free Lhe value creaLlon process from all resLrlcLlons, sLrucLures, hlerarchles and rules
(Pamel & 8reen, 2007). 1hls, however, ls noL Lhe same as saylng LhaL we should noL have managemenL aL all,
raLher, lL ls Lo make Lhe lmporLanL polnL LhaL we need a dlfferenL klnd of managemenL. We do noL need man-
agemenL ln Lhe form of sLrucLure and hlerarchy buL we deflnlLely need managemenL LhaL can flghL Lhe unpro-
ducLlve sLrucLures and hlerarchles ln work. Pamel Lherefore argues LhaL Lhe LradlLlonal form of managemenL ls
12

ln Lhe way of lnnovaLlon and value creaLlon. Pe calls for a new managemenL paradlgm (Pamel & 8reen, 2007,
Pamel, 2009a, 2009b).

AlLhough Lhere are lmporLanL dlfferences beLween Cary Pamel's LhoughL and Lhe scholarshlp done wlLhln
rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles, we Lhlnk lL ls lmporLanL Lo recognlze LhaL Pamel, ln developlng Lhls llne of
LhoughL, subscrlbes Lo a process perspecLlve ln a double way, slnce processes show up noL only as whaL has Lo
be faclllLaLed (Pamel, 2009a: 3), buL also as LhaL whlch has Lo be grasped and concepLuallzed by managemenL
sLudles (8lrklnshaw, Pamel & Mol, 2007: 826). Cn Lhe one hand, Lhen, Pamel's wrlLlngs aLLesL Lo Lhe facL LhaL
process Lhlnklng wlLhln managemenL and organlzaLlon sLudles ls noL someLhlng LhaL exlsL aL Lhe ouLsklrLs as a
neglecLed and overlooked paradlgm, slnce lL already Lhrlves among some of Lhe mosL popular and lnfluenLlal
scholars. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhls almosL overwhelmlng success of process Lhlnklng obvlously reconflgures Lhe
former baLLle llne beLween proponenLs of meLaphyslcs of subsLance and one of becomlng (Chla & klng, 1998,
1soukas & Chla, 2002). Slnce Lhe laLLer now Lo a large exLenL has become malnsLream (alLhough ofLen ln a Lo-
Lally Lrlvlallzed way), Lhe problem Lo be aLLesLed Lo should noL be one of conLrasLlng processes on Lhe one hand
wlLh managemenL and organlzaLlons on Lhe oLher, buL should lnsLead revolve around how a proper ptocessool
ootoloqy ooJ metopbyslcs of moooqemeot should be worked ouL? ln Lhe nexL secLlon we wlll Lry Lo Lake some
sLeps ln Lhls dlrecLlon by drawlng on Lhe phllosophy of Cllles ueleuze.

9%;%+E% )#$ ,&1>%'' 5%*),4A'.>'
Cne of 8oberL Chla's greaL conLrlbuLlons Lo process meLaphyslcs ls LhaL he urges us Lo go beyond Lhe dlscusslon
of reallLy as someLhlng ouL Lhere" or ln Lhe mlnd" (Chla, 1996: 128, see also nayak, 2008: 177). ln oLher
words, we should noL ralse Lhe quesLlon of process form an eplsLemologlcal perspecLlve buL raLher from a me-
Laphyslcal perspecLlve. Pereby he frames Lhe quesLlon of process ln a dlfferenL way. Pe does noL ask whaL
13

processes are ln organlzaLlons, buL how we should be Lhlnklng abouL processes. We should noL [usL be Lhlnk-
lng abouL organlzaLlons" buL raLher creaLe an organlzaLlon of LhoughL" (nayak, 2008: 177). 1hls change of
focus from eplstemoloqy Lowards ootoloqy and metopbyslcs can be seen ln llghL of Lhe 'onLologlcal Lurn' ln
soclal Lheory (see e.g. 8urrell, 2003: 328, Lscobar, 2007). 1hls Lurn Lo Lhe onLologlcal emphaslzes Lhe lnner-
mosL consLlLuenL of reallLy lLself", as Zlzek (2004: 36) puLs lL. lL ls noL only Lhe consLlLuLlon of Lhe experlence of
reallLy LhaL musL be accounLed for, buL furLhermore Lhe consLlLuLlon of reallLy ln lLself. knowledge ls Lherefore
noL only a maLLer of Lhe foundaLlon of experlence of process, buL a maLLer of Lhe foundaLlon of process ln lLself
(Chla, 1999: 210). lL ls ln Lhls sense LhaL we speak abouL process meLaphyslcs lf we should geL aL Lhe hearL of
Lhe phenomenon of change lLself" (Chla, 1999: 210). 1hls way of Lhlnklng of process breaks wlLh more Lradl-
Llonal ways of Lhlnklng abouL sclence because Lhe quesLlon of reallLy ln lLself wlll ofLen be consldered Lo be
unLhlnkable and hence more a maLLer for meLaphyslcs. ln Lhls sense lL ls a meLaphyslcal sclence raLher Lhan a
soclal sclence.

Lven Lhough Lhe phllosophy of ueleuze has been wldely adopLed and accepLed wlLhln Lhe organlzaLlonal pers-
pecLlve on process meLaphyslcs, we belleve LhaL lL could play an even more profound role (see e.g. Chla, 1999,
nayak, 2008, LlnsLead, 2002, SLyhre, 2002). 1he reason for Lhls ls LhaL ueleuze's phllosophy does noL alm Lo go
beyond or Lo overcome meLaphyslcs, lL raLher alms aL creaLlng a new and dlfferenL meLaphyslcs (ueleuze,
1993a: 136). When asked abouL hls phllosophlcal poslLlon ln an lnLervlew ueleuze sLaLes LhaL,

l feel myself Lo be a pure meLaphyslclan. 8ergson says LhaL modern sclence hasn'L found lLs
meLaphyslcs, Lhe meLaphyslcs lL would need. lL ls Lhls meLaphyslcs LhaL lnLeresLs me (vlllanl,
1999: 130, quoLed ln SmlLh, 2003: 49).

14

lL ls ln Lhls ueleuzlan sense LhaL we would llke Lo dlscuss process meLaphyslcs. lL ls noL a quesLlon of Lhe organl-
zaLlons havlng or noL havlng meLaphyslcs. Cn Lhe conLrary, lL ls a maLLer of organlzaLlons noL havlng Lhe meLa-
physlcs Lhey need.

MeLaphyslcs ls dlfflculL Lo undersLand because lL ls far from our everyday undersLandlng of managemenL and
organlzaLlons. 1he reason for Lhls ls LhaL knowledge ls a pure ob[ecL of meLaphyslcs ln so far as lL can only be
represenLed ln and by reason (ueleuze, 1993b: 11). knowledge ls nelLher represenLed ln Lhe reallLy ouL Lhere or
ln Lhe reallLy of Lhe mlnd. lL ls nelLher appearances nor producLs of our reasonlng buL Lhe mode of our know-
ledge of ob[ecLs ln so far as Lhls mode of knowledge ls Lo be posslble a prlorl" (kanL, 1990: A12, 39, see also
ueleuze, 1993b: 14). 1hls means LhaL knowledge ls LranscendenLal ln Lhe sense LhaL lL alms Lo uncover Lhe
condlLlons of posslblllLy of oot experlence" (1amplo, 2004: 11). lor process meLaphyslcs Lhls lmplles LhaL we
should sLudy Lhe condlLlons under whlch we experlence processes. We agree wlLh SLephen LlnsLead when he
argues LhaL change musL always Lo some degree be organlzed Lo be Lhlnkable" (LlnsLead, 2002: 103). lL ls
slmply noL posslble Lo have a pure experlence of change or process ln lLself. Powever, Lhls does noL mean LhaL
we should sLudy process as someLhlng LhaL belongs Lo Lhe organlzaLlon. ueleuze offers us a Lhlrd way. 1hls ls
Lhe LranscendenLal way, whlch ls Lo go beyond Lhe glven experlence of process Lo a general posslble experlence
of process Lo lnvesLlgaLe how Lhe posslble ob[ecL of knowledge ls glven (SmlLh, 2007: 4-3). Pence, Lhe alm of
LranscendenLal phllosophy ls noL Lo know of process ln lLself, whlch we can have no knowledge of, buL Lo sLudy
Lhe LranscendenLal caLegorles and concepL ln whlch we can have knowledge of processes. We belleve LhaL Lhls
ls whaL LlnsLead polnLs Lo when he urges us Lo consLanLly reflecL change as a condlLlon ln lLs oLher Lerms"
(LlnsLead, 2002: 106). ln oLher words, we should locaLe how change and process work as a LranscendenLal con-
dlLlon ln oLher Lerms.

13

LeL us Lurn Lo how ueleuze addresses Lhls quesLlon of LranscendenLal from a dlfferenL perspecLlve Lhan kanL.
lrom a ueleuzlan perspecLlve we would argue LhaL we need Lo pay more aLLenLlon Lo Lhe mlddle layer ln-
beLween unformed processes and Lhe formed organlzaLlon. 1hls mlddle layer ls Lhe LranscendenLal ln whlch Lhe
organlzaLlon ls formed. 8y focuslng on Lhls layer lL ls posslble Lo see and address how Lhe processes are sLruc-
Lured and formed lnLo organlzaLlon.

3&)#'>%#$%#*); %5,.&.>.'5
ln Lhe preface Lo Lhe Lngllsh edlLlon of uloloqoes ueleuze wrlLes LhaL

l have always felL LhaL l am an emplrlclsL, LhaL ls, a plurallsL. 8uL whaL does Lhls equlvalence
beLween emplrlclsm and plurallsm mean? lL derlves from Lhe Lwo characLerlsLlcs by whlch
WhlLehead deflned emplrlclsm: Lhe absLracL does noL explaln, buL musL lLself be explalned,
and Lhe alm ls noL Lo redlscover Lhe eLernal or Lhe unlversal, buL Lo flnd Lhe condlLlons un-
der whlch someLhlng new ls produced (cteotlveoess) (ueleuze, 2002: vll).

AbsLracL unlversals do noL explaln anyLhlng buL have Lo be explalned Lhemselves (ueleuze & CuaLLarl, 2003: 7).
Pence, knowledge abouL someLhlng cannoL be grasped by slmply applylng absLracL caLegorles Lo Lhe emplrlcal
world of senslble ob[ecLs (8uchanan, 1999). 1hls ls ueleuze's polnL of deparLure ln developlng a ttoosceoJeotol
empltlclsm ln opposlLlon Lo kanL's ttoosceoJeotol lJeollsm (8ogue, 1989). 1he dlfference beLween Lhe Lwo
forms of LranscendenLal LhoughL ls LhaL LranscendenLal ldeallsm seeks Lo flnd Lhe formal LranscendenLal condl-
Llons of all posslble experlence ln Lhe ldenLlLy of caLegorles, whereas LranscendenLal emplrlclsm alms aL creaL-
lng Lhe geneLlc condlLlons of real experlence ln Lhe dlfferenLlaLlon of Lhe ldea (Lord, 2008: 1, see also Wllllams,
2003: 30). lL ls an emplrlclsm of Lhe LranscendenLal or as ScoLL Lash (2007: 64) puLs lL: an emplrlclsm of Lhe
16

vlrLual". ueleuze's phllosophy ls a ttoosceoJeotol emplrlclsm, because lL ls noL concerned wlLh tbe empltlcolly
qlveo buL wlLh tbot by wblcb tbe empltlcolly qlveo ls qlveo (ueleuze, 1994: 140, see also 8augh, 1992: 133, 8ell,
2003, 8ryanL, 2008, Payden, 1998, Lapou[ade, 2000).

1he phllosophy of ueleuze dlffers from Lhe LradlLlonal concepL of emplrlclsm on seven polnLs. llrsL, knowledge
ls noL derlved from experlence or from senses buL from emplrlcal ldeas (ueleuze, 1991a: 107, see also 8ell,
2003: 96, 8uchanan, 1999). Second, Lhe deLermlnaLlon ls noL purely sub[ecLlve, buL ls raLher a maLLer of Lhe
expresslon of belng (ueleuze, 1997: 194). 1here ls noLhlng human or anLhropologlcal Lo knowledge. 1hlrd, lL ls
Lherefore a maLLer of Lhe ootoloqy of sense raLher Lhan Lhe eplstemoloqy of sense, because lL ls noL a human
sub[ecL LhaL experlences how Lhe glven ls glven, Lhls ls expressed by belng. lourLh, dlfference ls lnLernal Lo be-
lng ln lLself and noL exLernal Lo belng, whlch means LhaL lL ls noL a sub[ecL who Lhlnks buL belng who Lhlnks
lLself (ueleuze, 1997: 192-194). lL ls Lherefore more accuraLe Lo say LhaL 'lL Lhlnks' Lhan 'l Lhlnk' (8ryanL, 2008:
12). llfLh, onLologlcally speaklng, knowledge ls a maLLer LhaL dlsLlngulshes beLween absoluLe knowledge (be-
lng's knowledge of lLself) and emplrlcal knowledge (reflecLlon of belng ln man), whlch means LhaL absoluLe
knowledge dlsLlngulshes lLself only by also negaLlng Lhe knowledge of lndlfferenL essence" (ueleuze, 1997:
194). lL ls lmporLanL Lo bear ln mlnd LhaL Lhls ls a dlsLlncLlon beLween absoluLe belng and emplrlcal man (and
noL hlsLorlcal man) (ueleuze, 1997: 1994). SevenLh, Lhere are no dlsLlncLlons beLween belng and LhoughL when
onLology ls seen as a maLLer of sense and noL essence: 8elng Lhlnks lLself and reflecLs lLself ln man" (ueleuze,
1997: 193).

lL ls correcL LhaL ueleuze ls for lmmanence (Chla, 1999, ueleuze, 2001), buL whaL we belleve ls aL leasL as lm-
porLanL Lo recognlze ls LhaL lmmanence ls noL a LranscendenL prlnclple. lnsLead lmmanence consLlLuLes a Lran-
scendenLal fleld. Pence we have Lo make a dlsLlncLlon beLween lmmanence ln lLself (pure lmmanence) and Lhe
17

expresslon of lmmanence ln someLhlng else (LranscendenLal fleld). Powever, lL ls lmporLanL Lo noLlce LhaL Lhls
expresslon of lmmanence ln someLhlng else does noL lmply LhaL lL ls expressed ln Lhe human sub[ecL or con-
sclousness. lmmanenL ls expressed ln lLself as lmmanence. We could hereby say LhaL unlvocallLy ls Lhe opera-
Llve funcLlon of lmmanence, Lhe funcLlon LhaL expresses lmmanence ln someLhlng else Lhan lLself whlch ls Lhe
LranscendenLal fleld (ueleuze, 1994: 33-42). As a consequence our analyLlcal focus when we sLudy process
should noL be on process ln lLself, buL Lhe LranscendenLal caLegorles or concepLs ln whlch lL becomes posslble
Lo Lalk abouL and see process. ln oLher words, lL ls Lhe caLegorles and concepLs LhaL Lransform Lhe process ln
lLself Lo someLhlng else Lhan lLself (e.g. organlzaLlon). ln ueleuzlan Lerms, we cannoL sLudy dlfference ln lLself
buL have Lo sLudy Lhe dynamlc schemaLlsm ln whlch dlfference ls expressed or lndlvlduaLed ln someLhlng else
Lhan lLself (ueleuze, 1994: 33-42, see also SLyhre, 2002: 464). 1he lmmanenL prlnclples of creaLlon are ex-
pressed ln Lhe consLlLuLlon of Lhe prlnclple of creaLlon ln someLhlng else, whlch means LhaL Lhey always have Lo
be explalned ln Lhelr LranscendenLal deploymenL, speclflcally, how Lhe prlnclples of creaLlon can be locaLed as
lmmanenL forces wlLhln a Lhlng, a human sub[ecL, an organlzaLlon.

H&%)*.1# 12 >1#>%,*'
We need Lo creaLe concepLs Lo be able Lo know. We do noL know more abouL processes by means of absLracL
Lheorles. lnsLead, we have Lo develop cerLaln forms of pragmaLlc problems ln whlch Lhe consLlLuLlon of process
can Lake place. ueleuze argues LhaL you wlll know noLhlng Lhrough concepLs unless you have creaLed Lhem"
(ueleuze & CuaLLarl, 2003: 7). 1hls mean LhaL we should noL absLracL LhoughL (Coodchlld, 2000: 164), buL on
Lhe conLrary LhaL we should redlscover Lhe real deLermlnaLlons of experlence as Lhemselves LranscendenLal
condlLlons of posslble experlence" (2000: 164). 1he ob[ecL of knowledge exlsLs ln experlence - and ls noL some-
Lhlng LhaL ls experlenced - whlch means LhaL lL ls wlLhln Lhls problemaLlc ob[ecLlflcaLlon of experlence LhaL we
18

should locaLe LranscendenLal condlLlons. CondlLlons are Lherefore noL glven as general or absLracL buL are al-
ways local, unlque and slngularly deLermlned.

ueleuze's phllosophy lnsplres Lo creaLe concepLs for ever changlng problems, LhaL ls, to Jo whaL phllosophers
have done and oot jost tepeot whaL Lhey have sald (ueleuze & CuaLLarl, 2003: 28). uL dlfferenLly, lL ls a maLLer
of defocuslng Lhe problem ln order Lo 'produce Lhe problemaLlc'" (Srensen, 2003: 121). lL ls ln relaLlon Lo Lhls
meLhodology LhaL we should undersLand Lhe ueleuzlan deflnlLlon of Lhe Lask of phllosophy as a creaLlon of
concepLs (ueleuze & CuaLLarl, 2003). 1hls perspecLlve on phllosophy ls lnsplred by nleLzsche, who wrlLes LhaL
phllosophers musL no longer accepL concepLs as a glfL, nor merely purlfy and pollsh Lhem, buL flrsL moke and
cteote Lhem, presenL Lhem and make Lhem convlnclng" (1968: 220, see also ueleuze & CuaLLarl, 2003: 3). Con-
cepLs are noL ready-made, glven Lo us from some sorL of wonderland: buL Lhey are, afLer all, Lhe lnherlLance
from our mosL remoLe, mosL foollsh as well as mosL lnLelllgenL ancesLors" (nleLzsche, 1968: 221, see also ue-
leuze & CuaLLarl, 2003: 3).

Pow can we creaLe knowledge abouL someLhlng lf we do noL have Lhe caLegorles or concepLs ln whlch Lhe glv-
en can be glven Lo us? And how can knowledge be sald Lo be Lrue lf lL ls founded on concepLs we have creaLed
by ourselves? lf we wanL Lo creaLe knowledge abouL someLhlng LhaL does noL yeL exlsL, LruLh ls noL represenLa-
Llonal accuracy buL Lhe creaLlon of problems LhaL have pracLlcal relevance. aLrlck Payden puLs lL nlcely,

1he crlLerlon for phllosophlcal acLlvlLy ls noL represenLaLlonal accuracy of how Lhe world
'really ls' as a closed sysLem lndependenL of experlence buL, glven a Lheory of lmmanence,
Lhe success of Lhe consLrucLlon of concepLs deslgned Lo respond Lo speclflc problems and
real, parLlcular condlLlons of exlsLence. 1hus for ueleuze Lhe goal of an emplrlclsL phlloso-
esto puede ser la base por la cual los nuevos conceptos o nemas, son mas
abiertos, distinguen algunas propiedades, pero no determinan lo que son. en cada
ejemplo cambia el referente al que se le aplica. un staticnema puede ser la
interfaz, puede ser la narrativa, puede ser la manera de interpretar los datos de un
sensor, etc) el encontrar una denicion en cada ejemplo podemos ver diferentes
posibilidades de diseo. El cambio se asume como parte del uso de los nuevos
conceptos, no determinan un objeto sino que son herramientas de diseccion...
19

phy ls pracLlcal: Lo make a poslLlve dlfference ln llfe, Lo lnvenL, creaLe, and experlmenL.
(1998: 79-80)

lor ueleuze, phllosophy should noL alm for LruLh by tepteseotloq or Jlscovetloq a hldden world. lL should ra-
Lher Jeoototollze Lhe general lmperaLlves for how we represenL and undersLand Lhe glven ln order Lo make
room Lo ralse problems ln new, poslLlve ways. 1ruLh lles ln Lhe efforL of creaLlng new forms of problems raLher
Lhan flndlng Lhe flrsL prlnclple, or as ueleuze and CuaLLarl puL lL, a concepL always has Lhe LruLh LhaL falls Lo lL
as a funcLlon of Lhe condlLlons of lLs creaLlon" (2003: 27).

1he acL of creaLlon ls noL only Lo lnvenL new concepLs buL also Lo poslLlvely desLrucL problems ln an efforL Lo
make lL posslble Lo sLaLe new forms of problems. So, creaLlon ls much more Lhan lnvenLlng new soluLlons. lL
also lnvolves creaLlng new problems (see also SpoelsLra, 2007: 23). 1hls focus on problems ls noL Lo say LhaL we
should noL pay aLLenLlon Lo soluLlons. lL ls slmply Lo say LhaL we need Lo address problems flrsL because Lhe
problem always has Lhe soluLlon lL deserves, ln Lerms of Lhe way ln whlch lL ls sLaLed (l.e. Lhe condlLlons under
whlch lL ls deLermlned as a problem)" (ueleuze, 1991b: 16). lf soluLlons, ln Lhls sense, are lnseparable from
problems Lhen we cannoL address soluLlons, we need Lo employ Lhe consLlLuLlve power of problems Lo be able
Lo know (ueleuze, 1991b: 16). We have Lo develop concepLs Lo apprehend someLhlng LhaL does noL yeL exlsL
buL ls abouL Lo come lnLo exlsLence. 1hls ls also why SpoelsLra (2007: 23) says LhaL Lhe meLhod of ueleuzlan
phllosophy ls noL dlscovery buL experlmenLaLlon". lL ls noL concerned abouL flndlng soluLlons buL abouL creaL-
lng problems ln whlch someLhlng new can be creaLed. ln shorL, we should creaLe an organlzaLlonal meLaphyslcs
ln whlch Lhe process of becomlng can come lnLo exlsLence.

esto esta bueno para la introduccin. Lo que se busca es abrir espacio para nuevos conceptos,
nuevos diseo, nuevos modos de ser en la realidad natural y social.
20

lrom a ueleuzlan perspecLlve whaL ls sLudled (e.g. processes) does noL exlsL ouLslde of lLs creaLlon (e.g. organl-
zaLlon), whlch lmplles LhaL whaL ls explalned ls always aL Lhe same Llme ln Lhe process of belng creaLed. ln oLh-
er words, how ls x consLlLuLed lnslde Lhe glven? 1he quesLlon ls noL whaL ls x?" because knowledge ls noL
someLhlng Lo be found ln Lhe LranscendenL ldea buL Lo be creaLed lmmanenLly wlLhln Lhe real. knowledge ls
always a quesLlon of 'whaL ls lL for me?' (ueleuze, 2003: 77). 1hls means LhaL we lnsLead should ask who and
whlch one? (ueleuze, 2004: 94-96). 1hese quesLlons mean 'whaL ls expressed abouL belng ln Lhe consLlLuLlon of
me?' knowledge ls noL based on absLracL unlversals ln whlch we seek LruLh, raLher, Lhe foundaLlon of know-
ledge ls sub[ecLlve. ConsequenLly, Lhe meLaphyslcal quesLlon ls never Lhe absLracL quesLlon of whaL value ls,
buL raLher quesLlons llke: Where ls value? ln whlch sense ls lL value? Who ls valuable? When ls lL valuable? ln
Lhls sense meLaphyslcs ls noL someLhlng LhaL ls glven buL ls always becomlng. 1here ls noL [usL one meLaphyslcs
buL always several.

H1#>;+'.1#I " 51&% ,&)C5)*.> 0&1>%'' D&C)#.E)*.1# F*+$.%'J
ln Lhls paper we have argued LhaL processual Lhlnklng has become an lmporLanL area of lnvesLlgaLlon, because
processes are Lhe very condlLlons for Lhe creaLlon of value ln conLemporary caplLallsm. Pence, lL ls noL only
organlzaLlon sLudles LhaL have Laken a processual Lurn, Lhls has Lo a large exLenL also happen wlLhln maln-
sLream managemenL Lheorles. 1oday processes are Lhe very normaLlvlLy LhaL guldes popular or malnsLream
managemenL LhoughL, whlch lmplles LhaL process Lhlnklng ls noL ln opposlLlon Lo malnsLream managemenL
Lhlnklng, buL can be found wlLhln popular managemenL Lheorles. As a consequence, we have argued LhaL we
raLher Lhan flndlng processes ln opposlLlon Lo organlzaLlon, would llke Lo frame Lhe quesLlon of processes ln
organlzaLlon sLudles dlfferenLly.

21

We have suggesLed LhaL rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles should noL alm aL represenLlng whaL process ls, buL ra-
Lher seek Lo lnvenL and experlmenL wlLh how lL ls posslble Lo Lhlnk abouL process ln pracLlce (see Payden,
1998: 79-80). As we see lL, Lhe phllosophy of ueleuze offers one way of dolng so, buL lL ls also posslble Lo rely
on oLher phllosophlcal works llke WhlLehead and 8ergson (and oLher greaL Lhlnkers of Lhls klnd). 1he lmporLanL
Lhlng ls how we address processes. We suggesL LhaL we should focus on Lhe processes of creaLlon, l.e. Lhe role
LhaL processes play ln Lhe LranscendenLal condlLlonlng and consLlLuLlon of Lhe organlzaLlon. Pence we should
noL Lry Lo undersLand meLaphyslcal processes ln Lhemselves, buL ln Lhelr deploymenL wlLhln Lhe organlzaLlonal
conLexL. 1hls ls a call for a more pragmaLlc and less pure (ln a meLaphyslcal sense) undersLandlng of rocess
CrganlzaLlon SLudles LhaL do noL see lLself ln opposlLlon Lo managemenL, buL raLher Lrles Lo change Lhe consLl-
LuLlons and Lhe condlLlonlng of process ln malnsLream managemenL. We are Lherefore noL agalnsL manage-
menL as such, buL agalnsL managemenL ln Lhe form LhaL goes agalnsL processes. 1hls, however, ls noL Lhe same
as belng ln opposlLlon Lo managemenL. We are for managemenL buL a dlfferenL klnd of managemenL LhaL focus
on processes as Lhe creaLlve and drlvlng force ln Lhe creaLlon of value.

We could perhaps frame Lhls as an urge for a pracLlcal Lurn ln rocess CrganlzaLlon SLudles. ln our oplnlon we
should noL only leglLlmlze Lhe sLudles of process LheoreLlcally, ln opposlLlon Lo malnsLream managemenL Lhlnk-
lng abouL processes, creaLlvlLy and change, buL also address Lhe pracLlcal use and value of rocess CrganlzaLlon
SLudles, whlch we belleve has much Lo offer Lo Lhe emplrlcal undersLandlng of processes.





22

(%2%&%#>%'
8lrklnshaw, !., Pamel, C. & Mol, M.!. (2008) 'ManagemenL lnnovaLlon', AcoJemy of Moooqemeot kevlew, vol.
33(4): 823-843.
8akken, 1. and 1. Pernes (2006) 'Crganlzlng ls boLh verb and noun: Welck meeLs WhlLehead', Otqoolzo-
tloo 5toJles 27(11):1399-1616.
8augh, 8. (1992): '1ranscendenLal Lmplrlclsm: ueleuze's 8esponse Lo Pegel', Moo ooJ wotlJ, vol. 23:
133-148.
8ell, M. (2003): '8elaLlons and 8eversals: ueleuze, Pume and kanL', ln A. 8ehberg and 8. !ones (Lds.) 1be
Mottet of ctltlpoe. keoJloqs lo koot's lbllosopby. Melbourne: aul & Co ub ConsorLlum.
8olLanskl, L., Chlapello, L. (2003): 1be New 5pltlt of copltollsm, London-new ?ork: verso.
8ogue, 8. (1989): ueleoze ooJ Coottotl. London: 8ouLledge.
8ryanL, L.8. (2008): ulffeteoce ooJ Clveooess. ueleoze 1toosceoJeotol mpltlclsm ooJ tbe Ootoloqy of
lmmooeoce. LvansLon: norLhwesLern unlverslLy ress.
8uchanan, l. (1999): 'lnLroducLlon', ln l. 8uchanan (Ld.) A ueleozloo ceototy? uuke: uuke unlverslLy
ress.
8urrell, C. (2003): '1he luLure of organlzaLlon 1heory: rospecLs and llmlLaLlons', ln P. 1soukas and C.
knudsen (Lds.) 1be OxfotJ nooJbook of Otqoolzotloo 1beoty. Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress.
Chla, 8. (1996): Otqoolzotloool ooolysls os Jecoosttoctlve ptoctlce. 8erlln: WalLer de CruyLer & Co.
Chla, 8. (1999): 'A 'rhlzomlc' model of organlzaLlonal change and LransformaLlon: perspecLlve from a
meLaphyslcs of change', 8rlLlsh !ournal of ManagemenL, vol. 10(3): 209-227.
Chla, 8 (forLhcomlng) 'Analyslng and ConLrasLlng CrganlzaLlonal MenLallLles: lnslghLs from an CrlenLal erspec-
Llve on rocess, Lmergence and Self-1ransformaLlon', ln 1soukas, P. & Langley (eds.) letspectlves oo
ltocess Otqoolzotloo 5toJles. Cxford unlverslLy ress.
23

Chla, 8. and klng, l. W. (1998) '1he CrganlzaLlonal SLrucLurlng of novelLy', Otqoolzotloo, vol. 3 (4): 461-478)
ueleuze, C. (1991a): mpltlclsm ooJ 5objectlvlty - Ao ssoy oo nomes 1beoty of nomoo Notote. (1rans-
laLed by C.v. 8oundas). new ?ork: Columbla unlverslLy ress.
ueleuze, C. (1991b): 8etqsoolsm. (1ranslaLed by P. 1omllnson and 8. Pabber[am). new ?ork: Zone 8ooks.
ueleuze, C. (1994) ulffeteoce ooJ kepetltloo. (1ranslaLed by . aLLon). new ?ork: Columbla unlverslLy ress.
ueleuze, C. (1993a): Neqotlotloos. (1ranslaLed by M. !oughln). new ?ork: Columbla unlverslLy ress.
ueleuze, C. (1993b): koots ctltlcol lbllosopby - 1be uocttloe of locoltles. (1ranslaLed by P. 1omllnson
and 8. Pabber[am). London: 1he ALhlone ress.
ueleuze, C. (1997) '8evlew of !ean PyppollLe, Loglque eL LxlsLence', ln !. PyppollLe loqlc ooJ xlsteoce.
(1ranslaLed by L. Lawler and A. Sen). new ?ork: SLaLe unlverslLy of new ?ork ress.
ueleuze, C. (2001): lote lmmooeoce. ssoys oo A llfe. (1ranslaLed by A. 8oyman). new ?ork: Zone 8ooks.
ueleuze, C. (2002): 'reface Lo Lngllsh Language LdlLlon', ln C. ueleuze and C. arneL uloloqoes ll. (1rans-
laLed by P. 1omllnson and 8. Pabber[am). London: ConLlnuum.
ueleuze, C. (2004) uesett lslooJs ooJ Otbet 1exts 195J-1974. (1ranslaLed by M. 1aormlna). new ?ork: Semlo-
LexL(e).
ueleuze C. (2003): Nletzscbe ooJ lbllosopby. (1ranslaLed by P. 1omllnson). London: 1he ALhlone ress.
ueleuze C., and CuaLLarl, l. (2003): wbot ls lbllosopby? (1ranslaLed by C. 8urchell and P. 1omllnson).
verso: London.
Lscobar, A. (2007): '1he CnLologlcal 1urn" ln (Lds.) Sallle MarsLon, !ohn aul !ones ll and kelLh Wood-
ward 5oclol 1beoty. A commeototy oo nomoo Ceoqtopby wltboot 5cole, 1toosoctloo of lostltote
of 8tltlsb Ceoqtopbets, vol. 32 (1): 106-111.
layol, P. (1949). Ceoetol ooJ loJosttlol Moooqemeot. London: lLman.
24

Coodchlld, . (2000): 'Why ls hllosophy so Compromlsed WlLh Cod?', ln M. 8roden (Ld.) ueleoze ooJ kellqloo.
llorence: 8ouLledge.
Pamel, C. (2009a) 'ManagemenL lnnovaLlon', ln leoJetsblp xcelleoce, May: 3.
Pamel, C. (2009b) 'ManagemenL 2.0', ln leoJetsblp xcelleoce, november: 3.
Pamel, C. & 8reen, 8. (2007): 1be lotote of MoooqemeoL. 8osLon, MassachuseLLs: Parvard 8uslness School
ress.
Payden, . (1998): Moltlpllclty ooJ 8ecomloq - 1be llotollst mpltlclsm of Cllles ueleoze. new ?ork: e-
Ler Lang.
Pernes, 1. and Welk, L. (2007) CrganlzaLlon as process: urawlng a llne beLween endogenous and ex-
ogenous vlews. Scandlnavlan !ournal of ManagemenL: 23(3):231-264
kanL, l. (1986): lbllosopblcol cottespooJeoce, 1759-1799. (1ranslaLed by A. Zwelg). Chlcago: unlverslLy of
Chlcago ress.
Lapou[ade, u. (2000): 'lrom 1ranscendenLal Lmplrlclsm Lo Worker nomadlsm: Wllllam !ames', lll. 1be wotwlck
Iootool of lbllosopby, vol. 9: 190-199.
Lash, S. (2007): 'ower afLer Pegemony: CulLural SLudles ln MuLaLlon?', 1beoty, coltote & 5oclety, vol. 24 (3):
33-78.
LlnsLead, S. (2002): 'CrganlzaLlon as 8eply: Penrl 8ergson and Casual CrganlzaLlon 1heory', Otqoolzotloo,
vol. 9 (1): 93-111.
Lord (2008): '1he vlrLual and Lhe LLher: 1ranscendenLal Lmplrlclsm ln kanL's Cpus osLumum', 8eLrleved onllne
on Lhe AugusL 31
sL
2008 [hLLp://www.dundee.ac.uk/phllosophy/sLaff/lord/vlrLual-
LLher_Webverslon.pdf].
nayak, A. (2008): 'Cn Lhe Way Lo 1heory: A rocessual Approach', ln CrganlzaLlon SLudles, vol. 29, no. 2, 173-
190
23

nleLzsche, l. (1968): 1be wlll to lowet. (1ranslaLed by W. kaufmann and 8.!. Polllngdale). new ?ork:
vlnLage 8ooks.
8escher, n. (1996): ltocess Metopbyslcs. Ao lottoJoctloo to ltocess lbllosopby. new ?ork: SLaLe unlverslLy of
new ?ork ress.
SmlLh, u. W. (2007) '1he CondlLlons of Lhe new', ueleoze 5toJles, vol. 1: 1-21.
SmlLh, u.W. (2003): 'ueleuze and uerrlda, lmmanence and 1ranscendence: 1wo ulrecLlons ln 8ecenL
lrench 1houghL', ln . aLLon and !. roLevl (Lds.) 8etweeo uettlJo ooJ ueleoze. London: ConLl-
nuum.
SpoelsLra, S. (2007): wbot ls Otqoolzotloo? Lund: Lund 8uslness ress.
SLyhre, A. (2002): 'Pow rocess hllosophy Can ConLrlbuLe Lo SLraLeglc ManagemenL', 5ystems keseotcb
ooJ 8ebovlotol 5cleoce, vol. 19: 377-387.
Srensen, 8.M. (2003): 'lmmaculaLe uefecaLlon: Cllles ueleuze and lellx CuaLLarl ln CrganlzaLlon
1heory', ln C. !ones and 8. Munro (Lds.) cootempototy Otqoolzotloo 1beoty. Malden: 8lackwell
ubllshlng.
1amplo, n. (2004): 'ueleuze and Lhe kanLlan roblemaLlc', paper prepared for Lhe 2004 Annual MeeLlng
of 1he Amerlcan ollLlcal Sclence AssoclaLlon.
1aylor, l.W. (1998 [1911]): 1be ltloclples of 5cleotlflc Moooqemeot. new ?ork: uover ubllcaLlons.
1soukas, P. and Chla, 8. (2002): 'Cn CrganlzaLlonal 8ecomlng: 8eLhlnklng CrganlzaLlonal Change', Otqoolzotloo
5cleoce, vol. 13 (3): 367-382.
van de ven, A. & oole, S. (1993): Lxplalnlng developmenL and change ln organlzaLlons. AcoJemy of Moooqe-
meot kevlew, 20(3), 310-340.
26

vlllanl, A. (1999): lo qope et l'otcblJe. ssol sot Cllles ueleoze. arls: 8elln.
Weber, M. (2002 [1903]): 1be ltotestoot tblc ooJ tbe 5pltlt of copltollsm. new ?ork: enguln 8ooks.
Weber (1964 [1922]): cooomy ooJ 5oclety. Ld. CuenLher 8oLh and Claus WlLLlch. new ?ork: 8ed-
mlnlsLer ress.
Wllllams !. (2003) Cllles ueleozes ulffeteoce ooJ kepetltloo. A ctltlcol lottoJoctloo ooJ ColJe. Ldlngburgh:
Ldlngburgh unlverslLy ress.
Wllllams, !. (2003): 1be 1toosvetsol 1booqbt of Cllles ueleoze. ocoootets ooJ lofloeoces. Manches-
Ler: Cllnamen ress.
Zlzek, S. (2004): Otqoos wltboot 8oJles. ueleoze ooJ coosepoeoces. new ?ork: 8ouLledge.