Liminality in Management and Organization Studies: Process, Position and Place

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12168
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Author: Elisabeth Borg,Jonas Söderlund
• Published date: 01 October 2018

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, 880–902 (2018)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12168

Liminality in Management and

Organization Studies: Process, Position

and Place

Jonas S¨

oderlund and Elisabeth Borg1

Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway, and 1Department of

Management and Engineering, Link¨

oping University, Sweden

Corresponding author email: jonas.soderlund@bi.no

This paper explores liminality, a concept receiving increased attention in management

and organization studies and gaining prominence because of its capacity to capture

the interstitial and temporary elements of organizing and work. The authors present

a systematic review of the literature on liminality, covering 61 published papers, and

undertake a critical analysis of how the concept of liminality has been used in prior re-

search. This reviewreveals associations with three main themes: process; position; and

place. For each theme, the authors identify the central research questions posed, while

comparing individual and collective levels of analysis. During this process, the authors

revisit several ideas central to the original, anthropological research on liminality, a

perspective from which they suggest a rejuvenation of liminality research in manage-

ment and organization studies. This paper argues for a greater focus on the liminal

experience itself – especially its ritual and temporal dimensions – and for improving the

comparative analysis of liminality following the three themes identified in this paper.

The authors suggest that revising the agenda for liminality research along these lines

could facilitate more informed responsesto the challenges of an increasingly temporary

and dynamic work life.

Introduction

Much of contemporary work is ‘projectified’,

whereby organizational structures adopt temporary

characteristics, and organizational membership be-

comes associated with project-based and flexible par-

ticipation (Cappelli and Keller 2013; Lundin et al.

2015). Such developments call for scrutiny of the in-

terstitial occurrences and ongoing processes of social-

ization (Bryman et al. 1987) typical of post-modern

organizations and work conditions (Bauman 2000;

Boltanski and Chiapello 2005). Organizational ana-

lysts have argued that there is a need for concepts

and metaphors that better grasp this emerging ‘be-

twixt and between’ veracity: the fluid, the temporary

We acknowledge the constructive comments from the edi-

tor and four anonymous reviewers. This research received

financial support from the Swedish Research Council.

and the ambiguous elements of work and organizing

(Walshet al. 2006). One concept that has gained much

ground in management and organization studies,

largelybecause of its ability to capture the essence and

emergence of such realities, is that of ‘liminality’ –

a concept with its roots in anthropology.

In recent years, an increasing and broadened use

of the liminality concept in management and orga-

nization studies has helped further address and ad-

vance various aspects of contemporary organization–

individual dynamics as wellas present-day challenges

associated with an increasingly changeful world of

work. Liminality research in management and organi-

zation studies have, inter alia, advanced understand-

ing of the inherent problems and tensions involved

in transitioning from one condition and identity to

another, and the profound challenges and significant

consequences of developing and living with multiple

identities and competing value systems. Research has

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Liminality in Management and Organization Studies 881

also identified the central mechanisms that individu-

als rely on to forge new identities and cope with limi-

nal periods and phases in working life. Adding further

to the understanding of individual-level concerns as-

sociated with liminality,recent empirical research has

addressed the competences and skills that individuals

need to develop to cope with liminality at work and

how individuals can learn to live with and take ad-

vantage of their liminality (Barley and Kunda 2004).

However, this broadened use increases the risk

of conceptual confusion and analytical vagueness

(Johnsen and Sorensen 2015; Thomassen 2009),

which calls for regular conceptual developments to

keep pace with the rapid expansion of liminality re-

search (Ibarra and Obodaru 2016). In particular, the

wider application of liminality makes more likely an

intellectual disconnect – from the original anthropo-

logical ideas of liminality – that may hamper further

theoretical progress. Therefore, the main goal of this

paper is to improve understanding of howthe concept

of liminality is currently used in the field of man-

agement and organization. This aim motivated our

systematic review of the literature; and, on the basis

of that review, we identify distinct themes in extant

research, discuss problems with the concept’s use in

management and organization studies, and suggest

possible avenues for future research.

A central idea of this paper is its emphasis on the

need to revisit some of the core elements of the origi-

nal and classic anthropological research on liminality.

We focus in particular on the need to analyze more

thoroughly the essence of the liminal experience, the

ritualization of liminal processes, and the temporality

of liminality. Additionally, this paper accords with

early anthropological research on liminality in ar-

guing for the benefit to be gained from developing

a stronger comparative research agenda. Revisiting

these original ideas on liminality renders us better

equipped to grasp the intricacies of modern organiz-

ing and contemporary work life and thus improve

future research on liminality.

The paper is structured as follows. We start

by briefly reviewing the origins of the liminality

concept. Next, we describe our method for reviewing

the literature; this includes presenting the inclusion

and exclusion criteria for the papers sampled. We

then review the selected papers, summarizing them

in terms of three broad themes (process, position and

place) and identifying the main questions addressed

by each theme. After offering a detailed analysis

based on a close reading of early liminality research,

we conclude by proposing a rejuvenated research

agenda for liminality in the field of management and

organization.

Origins of liminality

The word ‘liminality’ derives from the Latin limen,

which roughly translates as threshold. In his book

Les Rites de Passage,van Gennep (1909) reported on

his studies of the ritual behavior and the dynamics

of individual and collective life. He introduced the

concept of liminality when referring to a transition

from one social state to another – for example, in the

ritual initiation of an adolescent to adulthood or in

rituals following seasonal changes.

In his empirical work,van Gennep (1909) identified

a rather specific pattern and ‘ritual form’ (Thomassen

2009, p. 6). The identified passage rites were de-

scribed as associated with three distinct phases. Van

Gennep argued that this sequence was generic and

offered a profound approach to understanding hu-

man experience. First is the ‘separation phase’, dur-

ing which the individual is disjointed ‘from the ev-

eryday flow of activities’ (Turner 1969, p. ix); this

phase typically involves symbols of detachment and

anxiety. Next is the ‘liminal phase’, where the lim-

inality corresponds to a transition over time that is

ambiguous and inherently uncertain for the liminal

subject (whether individual or collective) experienc-

ing the transition. As originally understood, the status

of liminality is imposed on the individual or collective

in conjunction with certain evolutionary and natural

cues. Finally, the ‘incorporation phase’ demarcates

integration leading to a new and relatively stablestate

in which obligations and norms differ from those of

the initial state. This generic sequence is illustrated

schematically in Figure 1.

VanGennep was interested in the evolution of these

stages over time during an individual’s lifetime. For

that reason, his analysis was structured around the

ages and aging of human beings. As pointed out by

Thomassen (2015), a main argument was that the

liminal phase constitutes a uniquely intense period of

development that could yield insights into both past

and future experiences.

Van Gennep’s work became widely known in the

Anglo-Saxon anthropology community with the 1960

translation of Les Rites de Passage(van Gennep 1909,

1960), in the wake of the renewed interest among

British anthropologists in French anthropology

(Belier 1994). It was, however, not until the late 1960s

that British anthropologist Victor Turner discovered

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.