'You can criticise because you care': How attributions affect responses to ingroup and outgroup critics

There are times when people feel compelled to stand up and articulate their group's shortcomings, an act that carries with it enormous social risks. Indeed, a mechanistic reading of social identity theory might lead one to believe that ingroup critics are doomed to face hostility because they are attacking a fundamental part of people's self-concept. But often ingroup critics are doing more than attacking their group — they are trying to incite positive change. Criticism is the cornerstone of protest, and it is difficult to imagine how a group can be reinvigorated, reinvented, or reformed without some process of critical self-reflection. Thus, although the ingroup critic might create tension within the group, it is possible that internal criticism could be seen by other group members as beneficial in terms of promoting positive change and stimulating innovation, creativity, and flexibility in decision making. In this talk I examine the 'identity rules' that ingroup critics need to follow to avoid defensiveness, and look at empirical evidence of how factors such as language, the intergroup context, and choice of audience shape people's attributions regarding criticism and their subsequent evaluations of critics.

Business Strategy and Dominant Economic Theories under Critics

En este ensayo el autor analiza, o más exactamente critica, la esencia del pensamiento “estratégico” y los modelos de gobierno corporativo de tipo anglosajón, y el pensamiento neoliberal dominante que predomina en la escena académica y gerencial, dibujando simultáneamente los escritos que sobre este tema han predominado desde el punto de vista histórico, epistemológico y metodológico. El autor se refiere específicamente al “Porterismo”, presentando una profunda critica, tanto a las teorías de gerencia “estratégica” como a los autores más notables en este campo, principalmente, Michael Porter.