Problems of Fact, Method, Theory, and Concepts in Tsoukas (2018)

Abstract

On January, 27, 2017, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13769 on immigration and travel (EO 13769), which restricted entry into the U.S. of the citizens of seven primarily Muslim countries. Many academics reacted with outrage, including me and other members of the Academy of Management (AOM), of which I was President at the time. Some scholarly associations condemned EO 13769 as immoral, but the AOM did not immediately issue such a condemnation because the AOM’s Constitution included a policy of no-political-stands (NPSP) and a principle that nobody, including the AOM President, could represent personal views as those of the organization. Within a few weeks, the AOM Constitution was changed, and in October, 2017, the AOM joined other associations in issuing a condemnation. An article was published in this journal on this situation (Tsoukas in J Bus Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3979-y, 2018) that was subsequently amended through a published Correction (Tsoukas in J Bus Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04194-9, 2019), but the Correction only partially addressed the problems in the original. The main contribution of this commentary is to take up the invitation in Tsoukas (2018) to examine the case for insights on theoretical and conceptual questions raised in the literature on prototypicality and moral imagination. It also briefly outlines the most significant omitted errors of fact in Tsoukas (2018) that were not corrected in Tsoukas (2019), and describes the most important methodological problems in Tsoukas (2018). The conclusion suggests that the complex, nuanced, and evolving interactions that unfolded at the AOM are not fully addressed theoretically or conceptually in this literature.