Management and emancipation – two opposing ideas: The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this conceptual‐theoretical review article is to examine two claims made by critical management studies (CMS): that CMS is emancipatory and that it has critical theory (CT) as its origin and prime theoretical base.Design/methodology/approachTwo theories are contrasted: CT and CMS. The paper analyses one of CMS' newest key publications: theOxford Handbook of Critical Management Studiesin great detail focusing on epidemiology and philosophy.FindingsThe main finding is that CMS is a critical representation of mainstream MS. CT focuses on emancipation while CMS provides a system‐conforming interpretation of traditional MS that rarely presents alternatives to mainstream MS.Research limitations/implicationsThe key implication is that CMS assists mainstream MS as a corrective but, in general, does not enhance emancipation.Practical implicationsThe paper assists researchers in the field of management studies (MS) and its “critical” offspring of CMS in understanding the role CMS plays for traditional MS.Social implicationsIt makes scholars aware that research conducted from within CMS provides system‐conforming solution to issues such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental issues. CMS scholarship is not a critical evaluation of, for example, CSR and environmental issues directed towards emancipation from present structures of managerial domination.Originality/valueThe value of the paper is threefold: for the first time, CMS has been measured against its own claims; the article provides clarity on three issues: MS, CMS and CT; and it assists research in the area of CMS and CT because it shows that the former is about improving mainstream MS while the latter is about emancipation.