Managing and temporality

INTRODUCTION

Managing

and

temporality

Tor

Hernes

*

,

Barbara

Simpson

,

Jonas

So

¨derlund

a_{CopenhagenBusinessSchool,Denmark}

b

VestfoldUniversityCollege,Norway

c_{StrathclydeBusinessSchool,UnitedKingdom}

d_{NorwegianBusinessSchoolBI,Norway}

ThisspecialissueisthethirdintheScandinavianJournalof Management (SJM) to focus exclusively on the processual nature of managing and organizing. These three special issues offer an approximate genealogy of recent develop-ments in processthinking in thefield of management and organization. Ropo, Eriksson, and Hunt (1997) edited ‘‘ReflectionsonConductingProcessualResearchon Manage-mentandOrganizations’’,whereprocesswastheorizedinthe midstof,butseparatefrom, stability.Pettigrew’spaper in thatissuewascharacteristicofthislineofthought,insisting thatprocesses(notethepluralform)areframedbycontexts. Concernssuchashowtoapproachthestudyoforganizational processes, and how to develop validscientific theories of processes were also discussed. The second special issue, entitled‘‘ProcessualApproaches inManagementand Orga-nization Studies’’, was edited by Rehn, Strannega˚rd, and Tryggestad (2007). They pointed out that the 1997 issue hadtended toward extracting techniquesfor dealing with processes,whereasthe2007issuemarkedaturntowarda processualunderstandingoftheveryphenomenon of orga-nization. In response, some of the papers turned toward philosophy, suggestingan ontological statusfor process in the theorizing of organization, and offering new ways of engagingwiththeconceptofprocessitself.

Somewhatcuriously,boththe1997and2007specialissues announcedthearrivalofprocessapproachesinmanagement andorganizationstudies.Now,in2013,processapproaches continuetobeseenas‘‘justentering’’thefield,soonemight wellask‘‘willtheyeverbefullyembracedbymanagement

andorganization studies?’’Answeringsuchaquestion calls forgreaterclarificationoftermssinceprocessthinkingand processapproachesarenotasinglebodyofthoughtthatis tryingtogainentry.Itmightperhapsbebettertoseeprocess thinking in terms of Whitehead’s (1926) ‘‘phantastical’’ notions,which

‘‘aretransportable on conditionthat they imposetheir ownscenery,thattheysetupcamptherewheretheyrest momentarily:theyarethereforetheobjectsofan essen-tialencounterratherthanofrecognition’’(Deleuze,2004, p.356).

Processthinkingmaybeusefully understoodascamping outsideexistingbastions,fromwhenceifcanbeinvitedinas andwhenit hassomethingto offer to particulartopicsor problematics.Inthisspecialissue,wesetcamparoundthe notion of ‘‘managing in time’’, offering a process-based understandingoftime.Thusthepapersincludedherestand somewhat apart from other, more mainstream issues on managementandtime astheybring anexplicitlytemporal dimensiontothediscussion.Whatthisspecialissuesetsout toaccomplishistobetterintegrateprocesstheorizingwith time, to contribute to present thinking about process approaches in management and organization studies, and toenhancethewiderliteratureonmanagingandorganizing intime.

Thisisbyno meansthefirst attempttomake organiza-tional scholars more aware of time and temporality. Mostnotably,in2001theAcademyofManagementReview (AMR)hostedaspecialissuedevotedtotimeinmanagement andorganizationstudies. Thepapers thereprovided over-viewsofthefieldofmanagementstudiesinrelationtotime and temporality, while also emphasizing the urgency of

* Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](T.Hernes).

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

jo ur na l h o m ep a ge : h t t p :// ww w.el s ev i e r.c o m /l o ca t e/ s ca m an

0956-5221/$—seefrontmatter#2012ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

addressingtimeandtemporality.Theeditorslaidbaretheir conceptionsinanoverviewofthecontributionstothespecial issue (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). Firstly,temporalityispresentedasthelensoftheresearcher, allowingtheresearcher to drawdifferent inferences from databyviewingitthroughanalternativelens.Secondly,the notionoftemporalityisprimarilylimitedtoconceptionsof time, such as speed, sequencing, pacing, and duration. Thirdly, temporality is offered as a way to draw causal inferencesbetweenevents takingplace at differenttimes andatdifferentorganizationallevels.TheAMRspecialissue offeredinstructivereviewsofhowtimehasplayedarolein managementresearch.However,we wouldargue thatitis importanttocomplementtheseviewswithamoreprocessual perspectiveasfollows.

First,temporalityisnotmerelyalensfortheexclusiveuse of the researcher. Rather, temporality is a feature of the worldofmanagement,experiencedbymanagers. Research-erscangainaccesstothisworldonlybyengagingwiththe temporalexperienceofmanaging,byapplyingwhatShotter (2006)referstoas‘withnessthinking’.

Second, temporality implies more than different con-ceptionsoftime.Inabroadersense,temporalityisabout thewaysinwhichthepassingoftimeshapestheverybeing of things (Heidegger, 1927). To be sure, aspects such as speed, sequencing, pacing, and duration are part of the temporal experience of management, but ‘‘managing in time’’isfirst andforemost aboutbeing in time,meaning inan ongoingpresent in whichthematerials at handare continuallyusedtoprojectpast experienceuponpossible futures.ThisworkisdoneusingwhatSchultzandHernes(in press),inspiredby Mead(1932),called the ‘‘materialsof thepresent’’.Inasensethen,bygivingabroadermeaning totemporalitythanwasthecaseintheAMRspecialissue, theinherentuncertaintiesandcontingenciesofmanagerial lifeareexplicitlyinvitedintotheanalysisofmanagingand organizing.

Third, causalities play a role in an expanded view of temporalityonlyinsofarastheyareexperiencedas causal-itiesbytheactorsthemselves.InlinewithWeick(1995),we assumethatcausalitybetweeneventsisascribedratherthan inferred,andthatitistheascriptionofmeaninguponpast eventsthatgivesrisetoaprojectionoffutureevents.Itisthe temporal experience ofactors that forces them to recon-structpastandfutureonanongoingbasis.

This special issue then, aims at opening management researchtowardabroaderconceptionoftimeand tempor-alitythatmustbeunderstoodthroughthetemporal experi-enceofmanagersastheyliveintheflowoftime.Theissue comprises an invited contribution from Barbara Czar-niawskaandfivepeer-reviewedarticlesthateachprovides a different perspective on this central idea of temporal practice.Asweworkedwiththeauthorsondevelopingtheir contributions,anumberofcross-cuttingthemesemerged: thevarioustypesoftimeinvokedby processresearchers; capturing the continuity of past/present/future in practice; the different contexts and methodologies for temporalresearch; andfinally theemergence ofcreative actionas managersmanage in time.In the remainder of thisIntroduction,wewill discusseachofthese themesin turn, highlighting theirtreatment bythe authors of each contribution.

Different

types

of

time

Aproblemwith researchingtime inorganizationshasbeen thelackofatemporalvocabularythatcanbringphilosophical writingsintotheactualityofmanagingandorganizing.One stepforwardistodoresearchthatremainsgroundedinthe socialanalysis of time,but isnot reducedto that viewof measurableclocktimesoprevalentinconventionalstudiesof organizationandmanagement.Attemptstodevelopsucha vocabulary include the idea of ‘railway time’, which describes the creation of discrete time zones that allow for improved timetabling and safety of trains (Zerubavel, 1981).Thishadfundamentaleffectson efficiencyin inter-dependent activities. Another exampleis that of ‘banana time’introducedbyRoy(1959)toexplainhowpeoplehandle extremelymonotonousworksituations.Thenthereis ‘inter-actiontime’,whichindicatescertainperiodsduringtheday whenpeoplearesupposedtotalktoeachother,comparedto quiet timewhen people areworking withoutinterruptions fromtheircolleagues(Perlow,1999).Shih(2004)introduced thenotionof‘projecttime’tocapturehowpeople’sentire lives areorganized around particulardominant ‘pacers’in projectsinwhichtheytakepart,includingcriticalmilestones andreleasesinproductdevelopmentprojects.Bycontrast, ‘beach time’ was elaborated by Evans, Barley, & Kunda (2004) to analyse how technical contractors made use of theirtemporalflexibility.Thereare,ofcourse,manymore termsusedtodescribedifferentaspectsoftime.However, most ofthese are in somewayrooted in traditional clock time,withfewleadingthewaytoamoreelaborateand fine-graineddiscussionaboutorganizationaltemporality.

familyfirmasitstretchesbackintoitspastandthelayered depositsofitsheritage.

The

continuity

of

past/present/future

Differenttypesoftimehavedifferentimplicationsfor under-standinghowthepast,thepresent,andthefuturearerelated toeachother.Forinstance,theclassical,objectiveviewof clocktimeseesanendless‘‘successionofnow-points’’(Joas, 1997,p.171)inwhichthepresentisa‘‘knife-edge’’(Mead, 1932, p. 194) that separates an infinity of discrete past momentsfromanequallyinfinitestreamoffuturemoments (Capek,1961).Thusthepast,present,andfutureareoutside ofeachother,andtheyarealsooutsideofhumanexperience, servingonlytodefineanindependentfourthdimensionupon which to locate spatio-temporal reality. This perspective reduces the problem of managing in time to a stop—start lurchingfromonefleetingnowtothenextinwhichexperience isrepresentedasasuccessionofimmobileinstants,ratherlike thestillframesthatconstituteamovie(seethe cinemato-graphical metaphor of Bergson, 1919). As exemplified by Zeno’sparadox ofthearrow inflight,thisapproachto the passageoftimecan,atbest,onlyapproximatetheexperience oftemporalcontinuity.Kunderaexpressessomethingofwhat ismissingfromthisperspectiveinhisvividdescriptionofaman speedingonamotorcycle:

‘‘themanhunchedoverhismotorcyclecanfocusonlyon thepresentinstantofhisflight;heiscaughtinafragment oftimecutofffromboththepastandthefuture;heis wrenchedfromthecontinuityoftime;heisoutsidetime; inotherwordsheisinastateofecstasy.Inthatstateheis unawareofhisage,hiswife,hischildren,hisworries,and so hehas no fear, because the sourceof fear is in the future,andapersonfreed ofthefuturehasnothingto fear’’(Kundera,1996,p.3).

Hereonlythepresentmomentexistsforthemotorcyclist; neither the past nor the future has any relevance in this moment, so there can beno experience of temporal con-tinuity.Arguably,ifwepersistintreatingtimeas indepen-dent of humanexperience, we risk losingtouch with that whichmakesushuman,guidesusinmoralaction,andgives meaning to our lives.More subjective approachesto time tendtoseepast,presentandfutureasallrolledintogether, witheachimmanentintheothers(Shotter,2006).Temporal continuitythen,isexpressedintheongoingflowofpresent actions that draw simultaneously on pasts and futures as epistemicresources,whichthemselvesaresubjecttoendless reconstruction(Simpson,2009).Thisdynamicisaptly cap-turedbythemetaphorofweavingtime.InNorsemythology forinstance,fateisunderstoodascontinuouslywovenbythe threeNorns,whoresidebeneaththebranchesoftheworld ash tree, Yggdrasil. Urd, the oldest of the three sisters, alwayslooks backat thepast;Verdandi, thesecondsister gazesstraightahead;whileSkuldturnsherheadtowardthe future. Each respectively contributes the weft threads of past, present and future to the weaving of a vast web representingtheunfoldingstoryoftheworld.Theirweaving isneverstablethough,as Skuldregularlytearsaparttheir work, scattering the remnants throughout the heavens (Guerber,2011).

Itisinthisweavingtogetherofpast,presentandfuture that managers experience the temporalities particular to theirownorganizations (Schultz& Hernes,inpress). Orga-nizations live in their ‘own time’, as it were (Hernes, in press),asthey‘historizefromtheirhistoricality’(Heidegger, 1927). At the same time, managers caught up in these temporalflowsarecontinuouslyengagedinthe reconstruc-tionofbothpastsandfutures.Forexample,theHeideggerian notion that any present is both thrown from a past and projects into a future is reflected especially by Vesa and Franck (in this issue). Their interest is in the strategic problemofanticipatingwhatwillhappeninthefuturebased onwhat isperceivedto have happened in thepast.Using vectorsasanexplanatorydevice,theymapmovementsfrom the past into the present, and from the future into the present, where the present is understood as the locus of ontologicalreality.GriesbachandGrand(inthisissue) simi-larlyrecognizethatalthoughpastsandfuturesaremobilized in presentactions, these pasts and futuresare not stable entities,butrathertheyareinconstantrevision.

Beyondthemeretwistingofpast/present/futurethreads together,Heidegger(1927)arguedthattemporalexperience

istheexperienceofbeing;thatis,temporalityandbeingare two words for the same experience, namely living. In a generalsense temporality is usually taken to refer to the worldlysphereofhumanexistence,asopposedtothegodly realms,whicharetimelessandtranscendentofsecularlife. Temporalityis,therefore,integraltotheexperienceofbeing human,as itisthreadedthroughthepracticesthatshape, andareshapedbyourday-to-dayactions.Totheextentthat weignoretemporalityinourresearchthen,wearearguably adoptingagods’eyeviewthatcanneverengageadequately withthecomplexitiesandmessinessofhumanexperience, andtheactualityofmanagement.Bakkenetal.(inthisissue) layoutarelativelydetailedexplorationoftheimplicationsof thisHeideggerianthinkingfortheprocessesofmanagingin time, as managers stretch out into existential pasts and futures.Doddetal.(inthisissue)alsodrawonHeidegger’s existential temporality in their investigationof the trans-generationaldynamicsoffamilyfirms,whichreachbackinto thesharedheritageandtraditionsofthefamilyinorderto securefuturesforthecominggenerations.LorinoandMourey (inthis issue)are similarly concerned with theexistential natureoftemporal experience,buttheydrawondifferent intellectual traditions, notably American pragmatism and Bakhtin’snotionofdialogtoemphasizetheintersubjective dynamics that underpin managerial actions. In this sense, theirworkresonateswiththatofMead(1932)whopositioned temporalexperiencewithintheintersubjectivedimensions ofsociality,bymeansofwhich wecometo mutual under-standingsofourworld.

Contexts

and

methodologies

for

temporal

research

everythingthatisbecominghasnoexistenceapartfromits relation to other becomings. Process theory is therefore typicallyengagedinecologicalthinkinginthesense thatit seeksto embrace complexity andacknowledge the signifi-cance of the particular, the local, and the timely. Thus, processtheoryis‘‘sensitivetocontext,interactivity experi-ence, and time; and it acknowledges non-linearity, emer-gence,and recursivity’’ (Langley & Tsoukas, 2010, pp.5— 6).Inthissection,wewillpointoutspecificcontexts parti-cularlysuitedtotemporalityresearchandtheresearch meth-odologiesrequiredtoproducetemporal,processtheories.

Thefirstissueinconductinganyprocess-orientedstudyis howtocapturetimeempirically:

‘‘...process scholars may study their phenomenon by tracingitbackwardintothepast(historical,retrospective studies),byfollowingitforwardintothefuture (ethnog-raphy,longitudinalcasestudies),byexamininghowitis constituted,orbydoingalloftheseatthesametime.’’ (Langley&Tsoukas,2010,p.11)

The papersincluded inthisspecial issue tryto capture time in different andcomplementary ways, addingto our understandingoforganizationaltemporalityastheongoing becomingofpast,present,andfuture.Czarniawska(inthis issue),forexample,considersspeedasacontextaffecting productionandacceleration,andtheresistanceitgenerates in modern society. She specifically considers firstly news productionwithitsattendantimplicationsoftoughdeadlines andtime-to-marketcompetition,andsecondlythepressures ofacceleratingtimeframesinthefinancialservicessector.In both cases, she shows how the implementation of new technologies accentuates the demand for ever greater speed. Thus speed has become a source of competitive advantage,and equallya significantpartoforganizational cultures.

Bycontrast,twooftheotherpapersdealwithaspectsof inter-generationalbusinessandthemanagementofafamily firm,wherethepastisever-present,wherethepastshedslight onthefuture,andwherethepresentisshapedinthe experi-enceofpastandfuture,allsimultaneously.Thisisobservedby GriesbachandGrand(inthisissue)whoinvestigatehowthe currentmanagerofafamilyfirmisengagedinthesituated enactmentofpresentissuesandsituations,butalsoseeksto transcendthepresenttowardthefuture.Similarly,Doddetal. (inthisissue)presentastudyoftwelvefamilyfirms,whichthey arguedeal with time quitedifferently from otherkinds of firms,deployinganeffectivetemporalrepertoirewhichallows themtomovebetweentheirhabitualworldtimeandamore linearandcalculativeclocktime.

ThepaperbyVesaandFranck(inthisissue)addressesthe manifestationsofstrategyinthepresent.Thispaperdoesnot focusontheex-poststrategy,thedetectionofpatternsina streamofaction,butinsteadtheactualityandpotentialityof strategy.Bysodoing,theauthorsshowhowmanagers experi-encestrategyasinsituvectors.VesaandFranckdrawupon case-basedandprocessualmethods.Theirstudydoesnotuse retrospectiveinterviews,whichareaverycommonresearch method in longitudinal strategy research, but rather it focussesonobservationsofnegotiationsinaseriesof meet-ingsdealingwithstrategicpriorities.Theobservationswere followed by interviews with key informants. Observations weremadeduringfivemonthswheretheresearcherssatinat

topmanagementmeetingsandinbusinessunitmanagement meetings. The participant observation methods generally seemtobeimportanttobeabletouncoverthetemporality ofmanagement andorganizing —tounveil how organizing happens,inrealtime—theactualityoforganizingandthe actualityoftemporality.

Lorino andMourey(inthis issue)studythedynamics of inter-organizationalrelations. They makeuse of empirical findingsfromastrategicchangeprojectintheFrenchretail industryoveraperiodof14months.The studyisbasedon participantobservationoftheredesignofsupplier—retailer relationships using acategory management approach. The authorsdemonstratehowtheprocessoforganizingdevelops asahighlysituatedanddialogicalformofinquirybetween thepastandthefuture,wherethesituationisrolledtogether intheongoingexperienceofthepresentmoment.

Ofthefourempiricalpapersinthisspecialissue,twoare longitudinalstudiesoffamilybusinesses,andtwoarestudies ofchangeprocesses.Thequalitative,in-depthnatureofthe empiricaldataisobvious.Inthatrespect,they underscore thevalueofprocesstheorizingtounderstandchange,butat thesametime longtermsustainability,for instanceinthe contextsoffamilyfirms.Asforthelatteronemightgetthe impressionthat theinter-generational issues ofsuch firms would be particularly relevant for process theorizing and temporalitystudies,however,itseemsasrelevanttosuggest thatfamilybusinessbringstolightwhatisapparentinmost organizational contexts —the continuity of past, present, andfuture.

Whatkindofresearchmethodsandapproacheswouldbe particularlyinterestingforthestudyofmanagingintime?All of the empirical papers here have used qualitative approaches which are generally accepted as suitable for producinggroundedprocess theories.Severalof themrely on participant observation combined with a longitudinal approach,thereby beingableto capturetheactualityand potentialityofmanagingintime,andthechangesoccurring over time.The approach adoptedinseveralof thepapers couldthusbeseenasoneofstudyingtemporalityof mana-ginginandovertime—notwhathappenstothemanaged object,firm,process, butrather,whatoccursinthe situa-tion, in the process — over time. This accentuates the importanceofconductingresearchthatiscapableof identi-fying,understanding,andanalyzingtheactualityand poten-tiality, for instance through observations of management coordinationmeetings,andofobservingandunderstanding thesemeetingsovertimeandbeingabletounderstandthe contextsinwhichtheyoccur.

The

emergence

of

something

new

continuouslyandmutually co-constituting.Thisorientation towardperpetualemergenceiswellreflectedinthepapers collectedtogetherhere.Soforinstance,VesaandFranck(in thisissue)recognizethecontinualnegotiationand re-nego-tiationoftemporaldimensionsasthemanagersintheirstudy proceeded to strategize, while both Dodd et al. (in this issue), andGriesbach andGrand (inthis issue) argue that creating sustainablefuturesfor thecominggenerations of familyfirmsrequiresre-constructiveandinnovativeactions inthepresent.Whatislessevidentthough,ishowcreative action arises in managers’ practices, and how situational constraintsinfluencetheemergenceofnoveltyin organiza-tionalcontexts.DrawingonHeidegger,Bakkenetal.(inthis issue) propose ‘play’as a metaphorfor practice in which playersadjustto eachother’s movesandto shared under-standingsoftherulesofthegamethroughcontinuous impro-visation.Themanager’srolemaybeunderstoodthen,more asplayfullyfacilitativethanasinstrumentalandcontrolling. FromadifferentperspectiveinformedbyDeweyandFollett LorinoandMourey(inthisissue)seetransformational world-making as an emergent andever-changing product of the socialprocessesof‘inquiry’.Forpragmatists,‘inquiry’isan intersubjective,dialogicalmeansofengagingabductive ima-ginationinorder tomovebeyondcurrentlyperceived con-straintsonsocialandinterpersonalpractices.Althoughboth ‘play’ and ‘inquiry’ suggest that emergence requires an effort of toil to bring novelty into existence (Shotter, 2006),thenatureofthistoilcontinuestoevadeclosescrutiny in much ofthe process literature relating to management practice.

Itisonthispoint,wepropose,thatMeadhassomethingto offer.Forhim,changecanhappenonlyinthepresent,asitis herethatagenticactionismanifest(Mead,1932).However, thisraisesthequestion,whatdoweactuallymeanbythe present?Psychologicalstudieshavedemonstratedthatthere isaminimumtemporalextensionrequiredforperceptionto occur and conscious awareness to arise (Joas, 1997) This psychological time span was originally referred to as the ‘specious present’, to indicate a spurious pseudo-now not tobeconfusedwithtrue,oruniversaltime.Inthelate19th andearly 20thcenturies however,thisterm morphedinto exactlytheoppositemeaning,sothe‘speciouspresent’came to refer to thetrue presentof conscious experience. This speciouspresentmayhavevaryinglengths,andindeedmay beextendedindefinitelyintobothpastandfuture.Thusthe passage of time becomes a succession of epochs, which arguably still leaves the question of continuity between epochs unaddressed. In Mead’s(1963—4) view, this notion of a specious presentdenies thepossibilitiesfor unantici-patedemergencebyinextricablybindingthefutureandpast togetherwithinthesamespeciouspresent.‘‘[T]heworldthat willbecannotbedifferent fromtheworldthatis without rewritingthepasttowhichwenowlookback’’(Mead,1932, p.37).

Meadcharacterizedthepassageofpresentsasemergent becomings.WhileWhiteheadandJamessharedhisemphasis onpassageastheessentialtemporalexperience,Mead,with hissocio-psychologicalfocus,developedthenotionofthe socially constructedpresentand itsrole inredefiningthe past so that ‘‘from every new rise the landscape that stretchesbehindusbecomesadifferentlandscape’’(Mead, 1932,p.42).Atthesametime,eachnewpastopensupnew

possibilitiesforfutures,andtheseinturncondition,butdo notfullydetermine,theactionsofthepresent.Bycontrast withthenotionofthespeciouspresentasthespanoftime requiredforapersontobeherself,Mead’sconceptofthe presentisthetimerequiredforsomethingnewtoemerge. He defines an event as an interval during which there is somethinguniquethatarises,abecoming.Aneventoccursin apresentthat‘‘isnotapiececutoutanywherefromthe temporal dimensionofuniformly passing reality.Itschief referenceistotheemergent event,thatis,tothe occur-renceofsomethingwhichismorethantheprocessesthat haveleaduptoitandwhichbyitschange,continuance,or disappearance,addstolaterpassagesacontenttheywould nototherwisehavepossessed’’(Mead,1932,p.52).Whereas classicalclocktimeisstructuredbyaninfinitesuccessionof instantsthatareentirelyindependentofhumanexperience, for Mead temporal passage is structured by events that thrustthemselvesintotheotherwiseundifferentiatedflow of time, providinga mechanism for ordering and making senseofexperience.Passagethen,becomesasuccessionof distinguishableemergenceseachofwhicharisesinapresent asthepastisreconstructedtosupportananticipatedfuture. Thisperspectiveinvitesnewwaysofapproachingempirical researchthatattendtotheconfluenceofmovementsand thepunctuatingeventsthatconstitutethepassageoflived experience.Forinstance,CarrollandSimpson(2012)have usedMead’s ideastofocusspecificallyonmovementsand eventsinthepracticeofleadership.Bydevelopingmethods thatcanbetterengagewiththedynamicqualitiesof every-day experience, the creative and generative aspects of managingintimewillbebroughttotheforeasanecessary complementtothehabits,routines,andstandardoperating procedures that are the more usual fareof management research.

Returningtoplayfulnessandinquiry,discussedbyBakken etal.(inthisissue)andLorinoandMourey(inthisissue),itis byelaboratingonthepresentanditsemergentnaturethat managerialworkintimecanbeunderstoodbetter.Notonly doesthepresentemerge,butitalsopassesaway,thusmaking existenceaseriesofcontiguouspresences(Mead,1932,p. 53). The evanescent nature of the present does by itself influencehow actorsin the present keep past and future alive. While Emirbayer and Mische (1998) were right in pointing out that ‘the contingencies of the moment’ (p. 963) frame social processes informed by the past while orientedtowardthefuture,wesuggestthatunderstanding theemergent,passingorevanescentnatureofthepresent adds depth to the understanding of the present. In other words,thereisaneedforincreasedattentiontothevarious encounters in organizations characterized by emergence, playfulness and inquiry, and the dynamics by which such eventsreachbackintotheorganizationalpastwhileatthe same time weaving the fabric of the future. While the majority of encounters serve to reproduce organizational arrangements,someturnoutmoredecisivein lettingnew perspectives emerge and thus redefining both past and future.

alongsidethedeterministicassumptionsthattendcurrently todominateourfield.Amorefullydevelopedtheoryoftime andmanagementcannotavoidtheimplicationsofagencyin theemergenceofpresents,andneither canitneglectthe embodiedexperiences ofmanagers asthey go abouttheir work.Wehopethatthisspecialissuewillserveasanother brick in the road that will stimulate ongoing debate and inquiry, which in turn will enrich understandings of time and temporality in the management and organizational literatures.

References

Ancona,D.G.,Goodman,P.S.,Lawrence,B.S.,&Tushman,M.L. (2001).Time: A new research lens. Academy ofManagement Review,26(4),645—663.

Bergson,H.(1919).Creativeevolution.London:Macmillan. Capek,M.(1961).Thephilosophicalimpactofcontemporaryphysics.

NewYork:VanNorstrandReinholdCompany.

Carroll,B.,&Simpson,B.(2012).Capturingsocialityinthe move-mentbetweenframes:Anillustrationfromleadership develop-ment.HumanRelations,65,1283—1309.

Chia, R.,& Holt,R. (2009). Strategy withoutdesign: Thesilent efficacyofindirectaction.CambridgeUniversityPress. Deleuze,G.(2004).Differenceandrepetition.Continuum. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American

JournalofSociology,103(4),962—1023.

Evans,J.,Barley,S.R.,&Kunda,G.(2004).Beachtime,bridgetime, andbillablehours:Thetemporalstructureoftechnical contract-ing.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,49,1—38.

Guerber,H.A.(2011).MythsoftheNorsemenfromtheEddasand Sagas.London:Ballantyne&Co.

Hall,E.(1984).Thedanceof life:Theother dimensionoftime. GardenCity:AnchorPress.

Heidegger,M.(1927).Beingandtime.Oxford:Blackwell.

Hernes,T. (in press). A process theory of organization. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Joas,H.(1997).G.H.Mead–—Acontemporaryre-examinationofhis thought.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Kundera,M.(1996).Slowness.London:FaberandFaber.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing ‘‘Perspectives on processorganizationstudies’’.InT.Hernes& S.Maitlis(Eds.),

Process, sensemaking, & organizing (pp. 1—26). Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversityPress.

Mead,G.H.(1932).Thephilosophyofthepresent.IL:LaSalle. Mead, G. H. (1963—1964). Relative space-timeand simultaneity.

ReviewofMetaphysics,17,514—535.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuringinorganizations.OrganizationScience,13(6),684— 700.

Perlow,L.A.(1999).Thetimefamine:Towardsasociologyofwork time.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,44,57—81.

Rehn,A.,Strannega˚rd,L.,&Tryggestad,K.(2007).Puttingprocess through its paces. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23, 229—232.

Ropo,A.,Eriksson,P.,&Hunt,J.G.(1997).Reflectionsonconducting processualresearchonmanagementandorganizations. Scandi-navian.JournalofManagement,13,331—335.

Roy,D.F.(1959).Bananatime:Jobsatisfactionandinformal inter-action.HumanOrganization,18,158—168.

Schultz, M. & Hernes, T. (in press). A temporal perspective on organizationalidentity.OrganizationScience.

Shih,J.(2004).ProjecttimeinSiliconValley.QualitativeSociology, 27(2),223—245.

Shotter,J.(2006).Understandingprocessfromwithin:Anargument for‘withness’-thinking.OrganizationStudies,27,585—604. Simpson,B.(2009).Pragmatism,Meadandthepracticeturn.

Orga-nizationStudies,30,1329—1347.

Tsoukas,H.,&Chia,R.(2002).Onorganizationalbecoming: Rethink-ingorganizationalchange.OrganizationScience,13,567—582. Weick,K.E.(1995).Sensemakinginorganizations.Sage:Thousand

Oaks,Cal.

Whitehead,A.N.(1926).Scienceandthemodernworld.NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress.