J Organ Behavior - 2007 - Eikhof

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 523–538 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.462
For art’s sake! Artistic and economic

logics in creative production
DORIS RUTH EIKHOF1* AND AXEL HAUNSCHILD 2
1
University of Stirling, Scotland, U.K.
2
University of Trier, Germany
Summary In creative or cultural production, work practices are shaped by both artistic and economic
logics of practice. We apply a practice theory-framework to qualitative research in German
theatres and analyse (i) the nature of the relationship between artistic and economic logics of
practice and (ii) how art and business as reference points influence creative production.
Exploring logics of practice in theatre reveals a central paradox of creative production:
economic logics tend to crowd out artistic logics, and thus endanger the resources vital to
creative production. Consequently theatre actors and theatres, as organisations, have to
develop means of safeguarding artistic logics of practice in order to delimit the influence
of economic logics. The article shows that despite of this need, no respective organizational
routines have emerged. Rather, human resource management practices in theatres are highly
personalized and theatre artists have to find their own, idiosyncratic ways of dealing with the
tension between artistic and economic logics. We argue that the central paradox in creative
production, which is caused by the necessity to manage and market habitually incorporated
non-economic norms and values, is also of crucial relevance for other, especially knowl-
edge-intensive industries. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Throughout creative industries research, it is assumed that there exists a putatively conflicting
relationship between art/creativity on the one hand and business/management on the other. The
common claim is that art/creativity and business have to be balanced or integrated. Allegedly,
appropriate means are specific forms of organizing production (Davis & Scase, 2000), approaches to
management (Howkins, 2001; de Monthoux, 2004) or cultural policies (Jeffcutt & Pratt, 2002). Few
attempts, though, have been made to investigate how art and business as distinct reference points can
influence concrete creative production or what exactly is the nature of the tensions between these
paradigms. Most authors see artistic or creative production thriving on creative individuals being
* Correspondence to: Doris Ruth Eikhof, Department of Management and Organization, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA,
Scotland, U.K. E-mail: d.r.eikhof@stir.ac.uk
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received XX XXXX

Revised XX XXXX
Accepted XX XXXX
10991379, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.462 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [01/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
524 D. R. EIKHOF AND A. HAUNSCHILD
‘passionately involved in their work’ (Howkins, 2001: 125) and valuing ‘independence’,
‘non-conformist ways’ (Davis & Scase, 2000: viii) as well as ‘individuality, difference and merit’
(Florida, 2002: 8). It is also widely acknowledged that management attempts to economise creativity
and artistic motivation run the risk of damaging these resources: ‘Creative people tend to rebel at efforts
to manage them overly systematically.’ (Florida, 2002: 133; see also, Caves, 2000: 3; Davis & Scase,
2000: 8, 19–21; Sutton, 2001).
Such peculiarities are taken to be the reason for the uniqueness of creative industries with respect to
industry characteristics (e.g. Caves, 2000; Christopherson & Storper, 1989); particularities of
employment systems (e.g. Haunschild, 2004; Menger, 1999) and careers (Jones, 2002; Faulkner &
Anderson, 1987; Jones & Walsh, 1997); management of companies and human resources (e.g. Davis &
Scase, 2000; de Monthoux, 2004; Sutton, 2001); labour processes (e.g. Blair, 2001; Smith & McKinlay,
2005); and the importance of project networks and social capital (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1998; Grabher,
2002; Sydow & Staber, 2002). However, none explain why and in what ways the economisation of
creative and artistic practices affects the intrinsic motivation of creative work. To date, research on the
relationship between art and business has lacked a sound theoretical model of individual action in
creative production. As a result, it can only be observed that, but not fully understood why, for instance,
only low levels of explicit human resource management (HRM) can be found in creative industries (see
e.g. Haunschild, 2003; Howkins, 2001; Sutton, 2001), why employees accept and even request
precarious project-focused employment (see e.g. Blair, 2001; Storey, Salaman, & Platman, 2005) or
cease to be loyal to companies (see e.g. Boltanski & Chiapello, 2003). The drivers of individual action
in these and other similar situations are highly relevant for creative production but remain unclear. It is
the aim of this paper to contribute to the understanding of creative and cultural production by exploring
this gap in understanding.
We argue that in order to research individual action in creative production and the relationship
between art and business, the concrete (work) practices of creative production have to be analysed.
A framework for this analysis is provided by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. According to his
theory of practice, individual practices are driven by specific logics. Amongst these logics are
economic and artistic logics of practice. We apply this framework to qualitative research in German
theatres and analyse (i) the nature of the relationship between artistic and economic logics of
practice; and (ii) how art and business as reference points influence creative production. Analysing
logics of practice in theatre reveals a central paradox of creative production: when the artistic logic
of practice is economically utilized, economic logic tends to crowd out the artistic logic and, thus,
erodes the very resources upon which creative production depends. We will describe in which way
this paradox is relevant for German theatre production, how it is dealt with by theatrical human
resource management and what collective structures underpin work and employment in theatre. It is
particularly interesting to research these phenomena in German repertory theatres. Although they
are nearly exclusively financed by public subsidies and thus l’art pour l’art should be in an
advantageous position, economic logics of practice are still strong enough to pose a serious threat to
artistic logics of practice.
After introducing research setting and theoretical background in the first section, we identify the way
artistic and economic logics are played out in theatre (Sections ‘Economic Logics of Practice in
Theatre’ and ‘Artistic Logics of Practice in Theatre’). In the light of these findings, Section ‘When
Artistic meets Economic Logic’ discusses the relationship between economic and artistic logics of
practice and outlines the central paradox of creative production. We describe how theatre actors and
theatre management handle this paradox in Section ‘Managing Artistic and Economic Logics of
Practice’. Finally, we outline how understanding the interplay of different logics of practice in theatre
can contribute to understanding the logics of creative production and cultural economies in general, as
well as in other industries featuring similar characteristics.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 523–538 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LOGICS IN CREATIVE PRODUCTION 525
Research Setting and Theoretical Background
Research setting
The paper is based on qualitative empirical data and secondary data both collected by the authors.
Primary data mainly draw on 45 semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted between 2000 and
2003. The first set of interviews (10 interviews) was carried out in a German public theatre situated in a
city with approximately 500,000 inhabitants that we refer to as Julia Theatre. Interview partners here
included the theatre manager (artistic director), a senior administration manager, a director, a project
coordinator, and several actors linked to the theatre by different contractual arrangements. The second
set of interviews (five interviews) was conducted with representatives of intermediary organizations
such as the national employers’ (Deutscher Bühnenverein) and employees’ (Genossenschaft Deutscher
Bühnen-Angehöriger (GDBA)) associations, the state-run work agency for actors (ZBF), and a
state-run theatre school (see also Haunschild, 2003). A third set of interviews (30 interviews) was
conducted with theatre actors, theatre students, dramaturges,1 directors and a theatre manager in two
public theatres, referred to as Ophelia Theatre and Titania Theatre, situated in a city with approximately
two million inhabitants. Among the interviewees were actors with temporary employment contracts
(ensemble members) as well as self-employed theatre artists. The interviews were analysed along
categories such as career aims, work motivation, perception of work situations, flexibility and spatial
mobility and enactment of work-life-boundaries. Additionally, informal discussions mainly with
so-called free artists provided further information on theatre employment. Although theatres employ
quite large numbers of technical and administrative staff, our research focused only on the creative core
work force, that is, theatre management, dramaturges, directors, theatre students, and above all, theatre
actors.
Secondary data used includes interviews with theatre artists in newspapers and practitioner journals,
statistical reports, and information given on theatres’ and intermediary organisations’ websites.
Theoretical background
The general assumption of creative industries research is that art and business constitute distinct and
potentially contradictory points of reference for those involved in creative production. Yet, the nature of
these reference points and the putative tension between them often remain unclear. As a result, concrete
aspects of creative work, such as human resource management or motivations to work and to work with
specific people, cannot be fully understood. In order to explore the deeper layers of everyday
interaction, creative production has to be researched with a theory that explains how art and business as
reference points can influence individual work-related actions (on the need to integrate an individual
perspective into the theoretical background of creative industries research see also Alvarez, Mazza,
Strandgaard Pedersen, & Svejenova, 2005). Such a theory is provided by Pierre Bourdieu (for the
following see Bourdieu, 1983, 1984, 1990, 1993; Eikhof, 2005). Bourdieu conceptualises individuals
as producers of social practices that are driven by specific logics of practice. Amongst such logics are
the economic logic of practice and the artistic logic of practice. Bourdieuian conceptualisation allows
research of the drivers behind individual creative practices by analytically separating and identifying
different drivers and exploring these drivers’ (in some respects paradoxical) relationship. In addition to
his model of individual action Bourdieu’s theory offers rich descriptions of different fields of social
1
Within the German-speaking theatre world, dramaturges act as artistic consultants with very idiosyncratic job definitions, but are
key players in staffing and recruiting decisions in every theatre.
DOI: 10.1002/job
action (i.e. the business field or the art field), with both models based on and verified in extensive
empirical analyses. We will use Bourdieu’s distinction to analyse (i) the extent to which creative
production in theatre is driven by each of these two logics of practice and (ii) the relationship between
these two logics of practice.
According to practice theory, individual actors produce social practices, that is any enactment that
can be observed and attributed to an individual. Social practices can be concrete decisions and
(inter)actions in work life, for example staffing decisions or contract negotiations, but also every day
activities such as shopping or travelling, and habitual features such as gestures, language or clothes.
Individuals produce these practices drawing on a portfolio of resources containing economic capital
(wealth in general), individual competencies (cultural capital2) or resources that can be mobilised due
to membership of a specific group (social capital). Each actor is driven by the aim of maintaining or
increasing the quantity and quality of his/her resources. Our empirical analysis focuses on the logics of
practice driving the accumulation of different forms of capital in creative production.
Individual actors produce practices within fields, for example business, culture, politics or
academia. Within these fields, different logics for generating surplus from capital investment prevail. In
the business field, investment of economic capital will render the most benefit, while in the cultural field
specific forms of cultural capital accrue most benefit. The field-specific logics can be understood as sets
of norms, values and unwritten laws upon which the actions of all players in a field are based. For our
analysis, the creative industries can be understood as an area of production where the business field and
the cultural fields overlap, and thus both economic and artistic logics of practice are at work:
(i) The economic logic of practice is characterised by an explicit market orientation. The central idea
is that individual benefits are gained from exchanging goods and services via markets of whatever
kind, for example product markets, capital markets or labour markets. Practices produced
following economic logics often involve attempts to measure quantity and quality of the output,
in order to foster market exchange and to achieve cost efficiency, that is the most profitable use of
financial resources involved in producing (social) practices. Although intrinsic motivation to
produce practices may exist, according to economic logics, the principal legitimisation for
producing specific (patterns of) practices is the market value. Thus, social practices can be
interpreted to follow an economic logic of practice if they are produced with the primary intention
of exchanging the output on a market.
(ii) By contrast, the artistic logic of practice is marked by the desire to produce l’art pour l’art. Art
itself is seen as an abstract quality that surfaces, for example, in specific aesthetics or individual
reactions by the recipient, and needs no external legitimisation. Although market values may exist,
according to artistic logic the principal legitimisation for producing specific (patterns of) practices
is their involvement with art, regardless of which kind. Thus, social practices can be interpreted to
follow an artistic logic of practice if they are produced with the primary intention of contributing to
art as a greater good.
Both of these logics of practice drive the individual production of work-related practices in the
creative industries. Some patterns of practices may be attributed to organizations (e.g. producing and
staffing a play or a film, publishing a book series), and generally individual practices are inseparably
linked to their societal context (in the case of the creative industries, that is mainly the fields of arts and
business). However, in order to understand the relationship between art and business in creative
2
Bourdieu (1983) distinguishes three sub-forms of cultural capital: (i) incorporated cultural capital, that is roughly an individual’s
capabilities resulting from education and upbringing, (ii) objectivised cultural capital, that is material objects that represent
accumulated knowledge or competencies and (iii) institutionalised cultural capital, that is the legitimised form of incorporated
cultural capital as represented in degrees, diplomas and titles. However, unless otherwise stated, we will use cultural capital in the
sense of incorporated cultural capital.
DOI: 10.1002/job
production, individual work practices have to be the starting point for empirical research. In the
following sections ‘Economic Logics of Practice in Theatre’ and ‘Artistic Logics of Practice in
Theatre’ we will apply a practice-focused perspective to identify how economic and artistic logics of
practice shape creative practices in theatre. Based on these findings we will explore the (potentially
paradox) nature of the relationship between the two logics of practice in Section ‘When Artistic meets
Economic Logic’.
Economic Logics of Practice in Theatre
For the cultural or creative industries, uncertainties about success on product markets is usually said to
be a main characteristic (e.g. Caves, 2000: 3). The German theatre industry, on the contrary, is protected
from product market pressure by two main principles: public funding and ‘Kunstfreiheit’, best
translated as ‘freedom of art’, as the legitimising principle for theatre management. Unlike in other
countries, nearly all German theatres of artistic relevance are public theatres owned by cities or states.
Privately owned theatres do exist, but mainly stage commercial plays and are only exceptionally
considered to be of artistic relevance. In essence, Germany’s theatre industry comprises 151 publicly
funded theatres that receive a total of s 2 bn of public funding per year (on average s 13 m per theatre).
For the most commercially successful public theatre, the Thalia Theater in Hamburg, box office
revenues accounted for only 23% of the annual budget in 2002/03. Other, especially small, theatres earn
as little as 5–7% of their annual budgets themselves (Deutscher Bühnenverein, 2004). Until the second
half of the 20th century, most German theatres of artistic relevance were organized as sub-departments
of public administration and thus did often not even have their own finance or personnel departments—
all expenses were accounted for directly by the respective city or state administration. Today, 43% of
the public theatres are still organized this way. Most theatres of the remaining 57% are limited
corporations with the respective city or state as the sole owner. Despite their theoretical independence
as organizations, the public owners of these theatres still finance 80–95% of the theatre’s annual budget
and automatically account for any overspend (Pitz & Köhn, 2001). The reason for public funding is that
theatres are regarded as fulfilling cultural and educational functions in the same way as schools or
universities. In return for public funding, theatres are expected (i) to stage dramas of artistic and
educational, rather than purely entertainment value (i.e. Goethe, Miller and Jelinek instead of Starlight
Express), and (ii) to offer a different drama every night, drawing on a standing repertory of 15–30 plays
for a season (repertory system).
The central management principle for public theatres is the ‘Kunstfreiheit’, freedom of art, granting
theatre managers the right to decide on repertory, staffing and monthly programme according to their
individual understanding of theatre as art and without external interference. Due to the principle of
‘Kunstfreiheit’, organizational aspects of theatre management culminate in the theatre manager’s
person. German theatre managers are responsible to the local government for the theatres overall
artistic production and have to legitimise the use of public funding, but once a manager is hired, the
city/state government does not have any direct means of control until the manager’s contract runs out. It
may try to politically influence a manager’s artistic and economic decisions, for example by threatening
not to renegotiate the manager’s contract—but even this threat has proven to have little effect on theatre
managers convinced of their artistic vision. Recently, cuts in public budgets have lead to cuts in theatre
budgets and stimulated discussions about efficacy and efficiency amongst theatre managers. Using
public funding not only to achieve cultural goals but also in a cost-efficient way has gained importance
as a managerial goal. As a result, economic logics of creative production have become more explicit at
DOI: 10.1002/job
the organizational level. Nevertheless, due to the public funding system German theatres still face little
economic pressure from the product markets.
German theatre production is embedded in structures constructed according to artistic logics of practice,
and economic logics could be expected to be of less importance. Work-related practices in German
theatrical production should be far less structured by the intention to produce a market-oriented output. An
analysis of the logics of practice shaping concrete theatre production, though, reveals that economic logics
are still very influential. However, their impact does not stem from the product market. Rather, the artistic
labour market, especially the labour market for actors, provides an important arena where economic logics
of practice are played out. In order to understand this market orientation, the wider context of work and
employment in German theatres has to be taken into account (for more details of the following see also
Haunschild, 2003, 2004; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2006; Waidelich, 1991).
Public theatres are run by a theatre manager, plus, usually, up to four dramaturges, a commercial
director and a technical director. They employ an ensemble of theatre actors; 25 to 40 in a medium- to
large-sized theatre. Ensemble actors’ contracts, the collectively negotiated ‘Normalvertrag Bühne’, run
for one year (seldom two or three) and are automatically prolonged for one year unless either the theatre
manager or the actor calls off prolongation. For the production of each play, theatre managers assemble
a team consisting of theatre-employed ensemble actors, dramaturges, stage and costume staff and
freelance directors, chief stage and costume designers and guest actors. A major theatre’s season is
structured into four periods of two months and during each period up to four teams will produce one
premiere each; amounting to 16 premieres for a season’s repertory. Actors usually rehearse for the
premieres during daytime and stage repertory plays at night. This production in transitory teams results
in a lot of change and fluidity in a theatre actor’s daily work. In addition to their ensemble work, many
actors engage in projects outside the theatre, for example in much better paid TV or film productions.
Thus, they provide an example of work arrangements between freelancing and self-employment on the
one hand, and open-ended employment relationships on the other.
In order to enhance their reputation as professionals, theatre actors need to work either as ensemble
members at theatres of at least medium size, or as successful freelancers. Since the chances of becoming a
successful freelancer are small, most actors seek ensemble contracts with major theatres. However, out of
the estimated 9.000–10.000 professional actors in Germany, only 2.345 held an ensemble contract in 2002/
2003 (Deutscher Bühnenverein, 2004; Haunschild, 2004). As the repertory system forces public theatres to
stage and staff a number of different plays per season, actors have to remain employable for a variety of
roles once they become ensemble members. Pressure in this internal labour market is also high because (i)
only a few roles per play offer the opportunity to gain artistic reputation through outstanding performance
and every actor in the ensemble competes for these roles; (ii) theatre managers can easily terminate
ensemble contracts, with more than enough other actors in the market looking for an ensemble contract;
and (iii) theatre managers regularly hire freelance actors as guests for a play if they consider none of the
ensemble members good enough for the role.
Staffing decisions for each play are made by the theatre management in collaboration with the
director hired for the play and are, as every interviewee admitted, subject to subjective influences and
likings. Although ‘success at the theatre is unlikely if you are not good at acting’ (dramaturge),
everybody stated that role assignments are crucially influenced by friendships and acquaintances with
directors, theatre managers and dramaturges, that is by an actors’ social capital.
‘If you want to work with a certain director, you have to actively seek contact with him or at least
make sure that he—through third parties—gets to know about your interest’ (ensemble actress)
Analysis of the interview data with respect to staffing revealed the subtle but powerful influence of
economic logics of practice in two ways. Firstly, when asked to describe theatre management’s
DOI: 10.1002/job
activities, all interviewed actors named staffing decisions, and only some added contract negotiations or
programme decisions. All of the latter are management activities directly indicating the theatre
management’s perception of an actors’ (internal and external) market value and thus of interest from an
economic logic-point of view. Even upon further inquiry, the actors did not name budget decisions,
co-ordination of non-artistic staff or PR and marketing, that is management activities not directly
linked to their own employment situation. Secondly, since staffing and recruitment decisions are
influenced by personal contacts, theatre artists admit strategically investing in social capital. They
explained how work relationships are usually friendship-like and of economic value at the same time.
Although actors generally appreciate the friendly atmosphere at work, all of them reported how the
omnipresence of (latent) economic logic underlying relationships regularly makes them feel uneasy in
personal interaction. Too often they do not know whether someone else’s friendliness is heartfelt and
thus trustworthy or whether it is just enacted to gloss over economic interest.
Economic logics of practice also become visible when actors describe their daily work. They very
consciously calculate the allocation of their creative resources. . .
‘If I’m shooting a film with a prestigious director in the morning and am scheduled to play a minor
character in the nightly show the same day—I don’t think twice about how to allocate my energies
for that day. I’m sure the theatre manager won’t like it, but that’s just the way the business goes.’
(ensemble actor)
. . . and control the outcome of their efforts:
‘You are not only exposed to external judgement all the time, you also constantly monitor your own
work. [. . .] There is a low barrier to panic and you are always afraid that you will be cast for too little
or too small roles—you are always afraid that theatre management and audience will not love you
enough.’ (actor)
Moreover, sustaining and enhancing one’s employability governs private life to an extent where the
latter is organized around employability: actors report buying furniture which is easiest to move houses
with; and not wanting kids or a permanent relationship, because all of this would limit spatial mobility
and chronological flexibility. When asked about leisure time activities, they mention going to the gym
and the movies, but explain that these activities are geared towards keeping in shape for the stage and
monitoring other actors’ screen performance.
Summed up, tight internal and external labour markets, temporary employment contracts and
idiosyncratic staffing decisions put (even) ensemble actors under a high pressure to perform and to be
employable. Consequently, they show extraordinarily high degrees of market-orientation, self-
economization and economization of life—in all of which they very obviously follow economic logics
of practice (see also Eikhof & Haunschild, 2004; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2006). Such internalisation of
market mechanisms has also been addressed in debates on the subjectivisation of work (Moldaschl &
Voß, 2002) or enterprising selves (Fenwick, 2002; Storey et al., 2005).
Analysing economic logics of practices in German theatres reveals a first paradox: at the
organizational level, public funding and the principle of Kunstfreiheit protect theatres from
product market pressure and in theory should enable artists to pursue art for art’s sake. Nevertheless
economic logics of practices have a crucial impact on theatre. This latter logic drives many of
the work-related practices produced by those who, more than anyone, might be expected to be driven
by l’art pour l’art—the theatre actors. The tight labour market for theatre actors brings back
economic logic into an industry that governments, for art’s sake, had decided to protect from market
pressure.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Artistic Logics of Practice in Theatre
Although theatre artists produce work-related practices driven by economic logic, our empirical data
clearly showed them driven also by artistic logics of practice. The idea of producing l’art pour l’art
implies the notion of art as a greater good. Despite this ethereal nature of art as a greater good, artistic
logics of practice are central for theatrical production in two concrete ways.
Firstly, the individual way of enacting artistic logics determines each individual’s standing in the
cultural field. Theatre managers are taken to stand for a specific understanding of theatre as, for
example, avant-garde, opulent, minimalist, modern or classical. Local German governments hire
theatre managers because of their artistic values and expect them to mould their artistic vision into a
season’s repertory and thus build up a unique profile of the respective theatre. Theatre managers choose
a repertory programme of classical, contemporary and/or avant-garde plays, hire directors and decide
how to staff the ensemble in general and the plays in particular. In doing so, they chose from among
directors and actors, who again each represent a specific artistic understanding and style of directing/
acting within the occupational community. Since individual reputation is earned by each artist’s way of
playing out artistic logics of practice, this logic plays a crucial role in positioning oneself in the field.
For theatre managers, directors, dramaturges or actors, their individual way of producing art for art’s
sake determines their standing in the occupational community and thus their future possibilities to be
included in the production of art for art’s sake.
The example of the Titania Theatre’s and Ophelia Theatre’s managers illustrates this point. A theatre’s
legitimisation to use public funding depends on its standing in the theatrical community and its general
reputation. Since (i) employment contracts for all theatre artist are either project-based or can easily be
terminated; and (ii) loyalties are enacted towards persons rather than theatre houses, a theatre’s artistic
profile (and reputation) can generally be changed within a relatively short time by simply not renegotiating
the manager’s contract. During the time of research, the Titania Theatre had a reputation for staging both
common folk entertainment and avant-garde plays. While some plays won prizes of high status within the
artistic community, other (less intellectually demanding but still top quality) productions were sold out
weeks in advance. Consequently, the Titania Theatre’s manager had little trouble negotiating the
prolongation of his own contract with the local government. The Ophelia Theatre contracted actors and
directors as renowned as those working at the Titania Theatre, and the plays staged were even more
‘daring’ in terms of being avant-garde art. Nevertheless, the overall output appealed only to a small number
of (mostly young) audiences and critics. Since the government followed a conservative maxim for cultural
politics, it did not prolong the Ophelia Theatre manager’s contract and hired a new, reputedly more
mainstream theatre manager. In general, when a theatre manager moves from one theatre to another, about
one third of the actors from his/her former theatre will move to the new theatre as well. Ties between
theatre managers and freelance directors are largely independent of workplaces anyway. Thus, the
government could be certain that by simply changing the Ophelia Theatre’s manager, public subsidies
would be financing a completely different cultural product in the following season.
Secondly, artistic logics of practice are essential to the bohemian lifestyle that is enacted by theatre
artists. Generally, the main characteristic of bohemian lifestyle is the aim to integrate all aspects of life
into an individual life that is itself a work of art, following only the logic of l’art pour l’art by so doing.
This paradigm is not only both egocentric and totalizing; it also deliberately contradicts bourgeois
norms and values which are the main points of reference for Western society in general, and the
business field in specific (Bourdieu, 1999: 96–103; see also, e.g., Boltanski & Chiapello, 2003; Brooks,
2000). Essentially bohemian lifestyles are typical only for a specific milieu in society, in which
individuals dispose of relatively more cultural than economic capital and tend to work in the cultural
and academic field (Bourdieu, 1984, 1999; Vester, von Oertzen, Geiling, Hermann, & Müller, 2001).
DOI: 10.1002/job
According to bohemian values, holding a job that requires commitment to work and development of
one’s whole personality is more important than monetary rewards for working overtime (Eikhof &
Haunschild, 2006; see also Brooks, 2000; Florida, 2002). Actors tend to regard their job as a vocation
rather than an occupation; they feel called to devote their production of work practices entirely to the
production of theatre art as a greater good.
‘Being on stage every night, doing what you are best at and being rewarded with applause and, even,
money—that is just the most magnificent thing ever. Everything else becomes less important
compared to that.’ (ensemble actor)
Most actors wanted to become actors since they were children and many would not even imagine
working in another occupation. This strong intrinsic motivation helps to overcome disadvantages other
employees would not want to cope with; even the subordination of the most private and personal
aspects of life to their job is accepted with an explicit devotion to theatre.
‘One reason for breaking up with my wife was that I had to change places so many times. Still I do
not regret moving around that much.’ (ensemble actor)
For most theatre artists, the idea of being part of a bohemian milieu and sharing cultural rather than
materialistic or economic values is central to their self-perception. ‘Being something special’ (actor),
‘not being one of those grey, worn-out blue or white collar workers’ (director) justifies a special attitude
towards work. What seems disadvantageous from an external point of view—long-term spatial
mobility, for instance—is often not perceived as disadvantageous, but instead is seen as an opportunity
to commit one’s whole personality to the higher mission of l’art pour l’art. Perceiving themselves as
bohemians (and being perceived as bohemians by the rest of society) becomes self-perpetuating:
bohemian work attitudes are enacted because actors perceive themselves as bohemians and actors
perceive themselves as bohemians because they enact bohemian work attitudes. Thus the bohemian
work ethos, with artistic logics of practice as an essential element, backs up the high involvement with
work demanded in theatre. Without these intrinsic drivers behind artistic work practices, artistic inputs
could not only be expected to be pricier (Caves, 2000: 3), it can also be doubted that the disadvantages
and (employment) uncertainties which come with an occupation as an actress/actor would be accepted
at all.
Thus, the individual way of enacting artistic logics of practice does not only influence an individual’s
standing within the cultural field, it also sustains the motivation to participate in this field. In both cases,
artistic logics of practice can be considered as resources. L’art pour l’art is not only an abstract idea
referring to a greater good of humankind, it is also a resource brought into play in the cultural field. This
field differs from the market for economic capital because it does not simply follow the logic of ‘the
more the better’. Cultural capital in its various forms is subject to a more compound logic of
acknowledgement, including complex ways of symbolisation and distinction (Bourdieu, 1983, 1999).
However, just like the business field, the cultural field too is governed by the paradigm of accumulating
specific quantities and qualities of capital. The next section will explore the relationship between
artistic and economic logics of practice.
When Artistic Meets Economic Logic
The key feature of creative or cultural industries is that creative goods and services are not only
produced, but that their production is embedded in a context of economic utilisation. While amateur
DOI: 10.1002/job
theatre companies may follow only their calling to produce l’art pour l’art; professionalized artistic
production is in a less unambiguous position: social (work) practices produced in such contexts refer to
both the cultural field and the business field—and thus invoke the two respective logics of practice,
both at the individual and the organizational level. As our analysis of German theatre has revealed,
theatre actors are indeed driven by both artistic and economic logic of practice. We will now apply
Bourdieu’s model to analyse the relationship between the two logics in more depth.
Drawing on extensive empirical research, Bourdieu (1984, 1993, 1999) characterises artistic logics
as referring to the idea of art as a greater good, as a transcendental phenomenon represented only in
humankind’s doings, and accounting for more than the sum of all works of art. Accordingly, the artistic
logic of practice invokes at best a vaguely defined phenomenon that exists solely in subjective
interpretations and, per definitionem, resists the idea of comparisons based on exact measurement. But
l’art pour l’art is not only ‘for art’, it is at the same time essentially ‘against economic reasoning’.
Non-measurability and non-comparability are central to l’art pour l’art as a reference point for
individual action. Bourdieu points out that, very famous paintings set aside, the more well-established
the commercial value of a piece of art or an artistic practice, the less its reputation within the cultural
field and the less a ‘true’ artist’s motivation to produce it (Bourdieu, 1993, 1999). Artistic logics refer to
a fairly vague and continuously contested idea of l’art pour l’art. Thus, in order to justify their actions
to themselves and to significant others, artists need to constantly reconstruct their understanding of art
and re-relate their contribution to it. A homogenous understanding of art to which every one could
relate is absent (see also Throsby, 2001). The contrary is true for the business field: market-values are
quantifiable, usually monetarily, and thus unanimously understood; they are believed to be established
by ‘the market’ as an objective institution; and comparability is a leading principle. While it takes
continuous individual effort to re-construct artistic legitimisation for individual practices, economic
assessment comes easy—either market values are already established or proxies seem to be found
easily. Bourdieu argues that due to this stronger, more robust position of economic logic, economic
logic dominates public discourse and that individuals are the more likely to substitute economic for
artistic reasoning the stronger their involvement with the business field. Bourdieu’s theory suggests that
when artistic practices become professionalized, they are in danger of being overtaken by economic
logics.3 In the following, we will apply Bourdieu’s findings to our empirical data.
While Sections ‘Economic Logics of Practice in Theatre’ and ‘Artistic Logics of Practice in Theatre’
gave examples of practices predominantly driven by economic or artistic logics of practices, a broader
picture reveals this distinction to be an analytical one. When artistic production is professionalised,
artistic practices are connected to whatever kind of market and therefore comparisons and
measurements become inevitable. Accumulation of cultural capital, driven by artistic logics, and
accumulation of economic capital, driven by economic logics, become intertwined. This amalgamation
is most obvious on the labour market where theatre artists explicitly enact economic logics of practice
(Section ‘Economic Logics of Practice in Theatre’) in order to market their resources for earning a
living and for securing future participation in the cultural field, that is their artistic capabilities and
credibility (Section ‘Artistic Logics of Practice in Theatre’). For individual artists, professionalisation
of artistic practices via employment is crucial. Payments are made, that is practices produced with the
3
Bourdieu’s explanation is mirrored in the psychological literature on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, that points out how
intrinsic motivations such as the aim to produce art for art’s sake can be crowded out once the respective individual actions are
externally rewarded (e.g. Frey, 1997). Throughout creative industries research, it is mentioned that economic constraints may
sometimes enhance creativity (e.g. Davis & Scase, 2000: passim). While likely to be true, this argument is of little importance
here, since (a) the presence of economic constraints is not the same as individual practices mainly being driven by economic logic,
(b) there is no evidence of economic constraints stimulating artistic creativity in any other way than other constraints such as
choice of artistic methods or lack of talent and (c) so far, no comparative research exists on creativity in cultural fields with and
without economic constraints that could confirm the positive influence of economic constraints on creativity.
DOI: 10.1002/job
intrinsic motivation of l’art pour l’art earn external, monetary rewards and thus become subject to
economic logic.
According to Bourdieu, one should now be able to observe not only co-existence of artistic and
economic logics, but a (growing) domination of the first by the latter. This phenomenon can indeed be
observed in theatre. By German standards, theatre actors are paid at a fairly low level considering their
academic training (s 1550 as a minimum salary). Asked about the role of monetary rewards in
their professional life, most of the interviewees admitted that they would not mind a pay rise, but
said their main motivation was to be able to be on stage, regardless. When asked to explain what
success meant to them, all of them mentioned approval of theatre management, critics and
spectators, and none brought up money—let alone a specific monthly wage indicating ‘having
made it’ as an actor. The overall impression is that generally actors do not (like to) think of
themselves as being involved with economic reasoning and certainly do not want to be perceived
as economically driven. Nevertheless they recounted a number of situations in which very
obviously the presence of economic logic diminishes their artistic motivation.
Firstly, a considerable number of actors reported being de-motivated by the signing of guest actors.
Guest actors are usually hired by the theatre manager for artistic reasons, that is when no ensemble
actor seems appropriate to play a specific role. Guest actors are paid a much higher salary than
ensemble actors and are hired for main (i.e. attractive) roles. According to our interviewees, having to
play with such privileged colleagues frequently causes frustration about one’s own low payment and
diminishes artistic impetus to an ‘I’ll give just what (little) they pay for’-attitude.
Permissions for jobs outside the theatre are a second common source of de-motivation. Actors at
Titania Theatre reported how frustration about the way their manager granted permissions affects their
daily work. In their perception, the theatre manager allowed ‘star’ ensemble actors to participate in
prestigious film projects because film publicity, for example media coverage mentioning the main
actress being based at the Titania Theatre, would positively influence ticket sales. In contrast, less
famous colleagues were often denied permission to take up external jobs in order to keep their creative
resources focused on the Titania Theatre. One such less famous actor decided not to ask for permission
when undertaking outside work anymore: ‘I know it’s against labour law. And it does leave me feeling
guilty. But I’ve discovered my work for the theatre to be less affected by this guilt than by the frustration
upon a ‘No’ by the theatre manager.’
A third example is the integration of off-theatre artistic activities into a theatre’s portfolio. A number
of actors described participating in extra-theatrical activities such as readings, chanson performances
etc. solely for the fun of it. In one typical case, the Titania Theatre’s manager ‘offered’ to take their
formerly off-theatre show on to the programme. The respective ensemble actor involved demanded
extra monetary rewards.
‘Of course I did it only for fun in the beginning! But if he [the theatre manager] wants to earn money
from it, then I want my share!’ (ensemble actor)
In these and similar accounts, theatre actors expressed an explicit connection between economic
compensation and artistic logic as a driver of work-related practices. Actors are suspicious of
management activities trying to exploit their precarious employment situation (the word ‘exploitation’
and its synonyms were mentioned in nearly every interview) and promptly withdraw their artistic input
if they feel taken advantage of. Any activity related to managing and marketing artistic practices thus
endangers the very resources required for the production of art: artistic logics, the motivation to
produce l’art pour l’art. Analysing the relationship between artistic and economic logics of practice
thus reveals a second and most vital paradox of cultural production: the overlapping of the cultural and
the business fields in professional creative production, that is the core characteristic of creative
DOI: 10.1002/job
industries, endangers the availability of exactly those resources upon which this production draws, that
is the artistic logics of practice. Bringing artistic motivation to market runs the risk of ultimately
destroying it. The following section will outline how theatre actors and theatre management deal with
this paradox.
Managing Artistic and Economic Logics of Practice
In daily theatrical production, the boundaries between artistic and economic practices are blurred. Any
pattern of artistic work practices in theatre renders both cultural and economic capital, no matter
whether it is a manager’s decision to design monthly programmes according to mainstream rather than
high brow preferences, an actor’s participation in a commercial TV production, or a director working
for a popular festival rather than an avant-garde theatre event. Thus, every individual actor involved in
creative production constantly straddles the art field and the business field. Since it is commonly
acknowledged that professional artists experience an economic necessity to market their artistic
capabilities and credibility, a certain level of market-orientation will not spoil an artist’s credibility
within the occupational community. However, leaning too far to the market will be dysfunctional with
respect to one’s standing in the cultural field. Therefore, theatre managers and actors individually have
to find a viable way of balancing artistic and economic logics. But since economic logics are likely to
jeopardize artistic logics of practice, ‘simply’ balancing these two drivers is insufficient for securing the
vital resources of creative production. Rather, theatre actors and theatres as organisations have to
develop means of safeguarding artistic logics of practice in order to delimit the influence of economic
logics. Such means can be, for instance, specifically accommodated practices of HRM. Additionally,
collective structures at field and societal level can back up creative work in theatre.
From the theatre manager’s perspective, actors and their motivation to produce art for art’s sake are
crucial inputs to creative production. Still, actors’ and theatre management’s opinions about the ‘right’
way to balance artistic and economic logics of practice will clash regularly, both with respect to how
extensive concessions to the business field should be and with respect to games within the cultural field:
‘The basic schizophrenia in theatre is that you ask your actors to understand themselves as
independently acting, creative and critical partners, while at the same time you expect them to
dispose of their independence on spot and at your discretion, whenever decisions simply have to be
accepted as orders and have to be carried out.’ (theatre manager)
Theatre managers try to resolve problems and tensions resulting from this ‘schizophrenia’ by
reducing human resource management practices to a minimum. For non-artistic theatre staff, the usual
HRM portfolio from recruitment to appraisal, training and development and flexible working hours is
brought into play. Quite the contrary, HRM practices concerning ensemble actors are basically limited
to recruiting, contract negotiations and staffing decisions (see also Haunschild, 2003). Apart from that,
actors are provided with scripts and schedules and are expected to organize the remainder themselves.
Staffing decisions are officially communicated via notice board announcements listing the cast for each
play approximately three weeks before rehearsals start. Despite that, HRM in theatre consists of
one-on-one talks amongst theatre managers, dramaturges, actors and directors. These activities take up
a considerable amount of time: as one theatre manager estimated, he and each of the four dramaturges
spend at least one full working day per week talking with actors and directors, mostly trying to sort out
conflicts resulting from staffing decisions or incompatibilities in artistic collaboration—basically, as
DOI: 10.1002/job
both the theatre manager and two of his dramaturges estimated, talking the same issues over again and
again. Still, no attempts are made to standardise these conversations and thus make them more efficient.
This personalization of HRM practices integrates the essentially economic logics of selection, staffing,
and career decisions into an artistic work relationship that is valued according to its contribution to the
accumulation of cultural capital. From the actors’ perspective, theatre managers (and their respective
idiosyncratic styles of HRM) are the main point of reference when recounting their professional
careers.
In addition to this personalization of HRM practices, theatre managements can, in many ways, rely
on structural characteristics of the employment system to canalise the behaviour of the theatrical labour
force (see also Haunschild, 2004; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2006). As outlined in the second section, actors
show explicit activities of marketing and managing their artistic capabilities and credibility. The
combination of project-based production, short-term contracts and tight internal and external labour
markets forces them to enact self-management and economization of life in a way that will in most
cases be beneficial for the theatre where they are employed. Despite all claims of contributing to l’art
pour l’art, theatre actors are explicitly concerned with sustaining and increasing their employability by
strategically investing in cultural, economic and social capital, that is with enacting economic logics of
practice. Since assessment criteria for cultural capital and artistic credibility are vague, theatre artists
have considerable discretion to justify their doings to themselves and others by invoking l’art
pour l’art. Bohemian lifestyles support this devotion to theatrical production and help both theatre
actors and theatres to protect intrinsic motivation from market logics. Various other collective
frameworks ensure that by striving for their own goal of making a living by producing l’art pour l’art,
individual actors execute a high level of compliance with a specific theatre’s needs. Occupational
networks produce unofficial, but remarkably consistent (and continually updated) evaluations of
actors’ market values both in terms of artistic capabilities and teamwork compatibilities. Labour
market institutions, such as state-run drama schools or collective bargaining between a union and an
employers’ association, provide standardised professional training and back up employment contracts.
To conclude, personalized HRM practices together with structural characteristics of the employment
system enable theatre artists to deal with the paradox of economic logics endangering artistic logics and
thus exactly those resources upon which creative production draws. Although the outstanding
importance of this paradox for creative production would seem to call for standardised, organizational
routines of dealing with it, no such institutionalised routines can be found. In the absence of
well-defined external criteria, theatre artists have to rely on (and continuously reconstruct) their own
position between the cultural and the business field. In a way, the ability to continuously (re)define this
position can even be regarded as a constituent part of a professional (theatre) artist’s self-conception.
Conflicts between art and business are, therefore, often conflicts between an individual’s positions in
the artistic and the business fields.
Conclusion
A deeper analysis into the drivers of individual action in creative production helps to understand better
the relationship between art and business in creative industries. We have employed Bourdieu’s theory
of social practice to identify economic and artistic logics of practice as ideal types of social action. This
differentiation has then been used as an analytical tool to explore the role of, and the relationship
between these different forms of practices in the German theatrical employment system. By
DOI: 10.1002/job
differentiating between economic and artistic logics, central tensions or paradoxes individual and
collective actors in the creative industries have to deal with can be pinpointed.
The paper has revealed two paradoxes. The first paradox refers to the German theatre system. While
public subsidies and Kunstfreiheit seek to protect l’art pour l’art in German theatre at organizational
level, tight internal and external labour markets put individual theatre artists under economic pressure.
The second paradox is relevant for cultural production in general and results from the overlap of
cultural and business fields in the creative industries. Bringing artistic motivation to market runs the
risk of weakening or even destroying it and thereby endangers artistic logics of practice invoking l’art
pour l’art. Therefore, we argue that all attempts to manage and market artistic practices following
economic logics of practice endanger the resources vital to creative production.
As our in-depth studies have shown, no standardised procedures or organizational routines to deal
with this latter paradox exist in German theatre. Rather, HRM practices are highly personalized, and
individuals are expected to continuously (re-)construct their own way of balancing artistic and
economic logics of practice and thus maintain a position viable with respect to both the business and the
artistic field. Consequently, standardised management tools and best practice examples are of little use
in this and other industries depending on the economization of artistic logics.
The revelation that the central paradox in creative production is caused by the necessity to manage
and market habitually incorporated non-economic norms and values broadens the explanatory potential
of our empirical research findings. The artistic vocation to contribute to l’art pour l’art may remain an
extreme example as far as work motivations are concerned. But similar work ethos can be observed in
other industries: workers in creative industries in a broader, Floridian sense, that is in advertising and
new media, consulting or science and education, for example, do care about their product as well. Their
lifestyles increasingly comprise bohemian elements (e.g. Boltanski & Chiapello, 2003; Brooks, 2000;
Vester et al., 2001); and their employment relationships resemble those of theatre artists (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996; Kanter, 1995; Pongratz & Voß, 2004). Thus organizations operating in such industries
and employing workers from such backgrounds (will) face problems similar to artistic production when
trying to manage non-economic, lifestyle-based logics of practice. Some of these problems are already
addressed in HRM and organization theory discourses concerned with the individualisation of
employment relationships (Cappelli, 1995; Carnoy, Castells, & Benner, 1997; Hall & Mirvis, 1996).
However, these analyses fail to systematically take into account the social embeddedness of
individual-organization-relationships and thus are of little help for understanding origins of and ways
of dealing with paradoxes in creative production in a broader sense. As the example of German theatre
shows, such understanding requires examining the collectively influenced logics of practice that shape
creative (work) practices.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank three anonymous reviewers, Gernot Grabher and Chris Warhurst for their helpful
comments. The authors are also grateful to David Garrod for his help.
Author biographies
Doris Ruth Eikhof is a Lecturer in Organization Studies at the Department of Management and
Organization, University of Stirling, Scotland and Research Associate at the Wirtschaftsuniversität
DOI: 10.1002/job
Wien, Austria. Her research interests include social theories in organization studies, changing forms of
work and organization, creative industries, organizational boundaries, organizations and lifestyles. She
has published in German and international academic books and journals, including Creativity and
Innovation Management and Employee Relations.
Axel Haunschild is Professor of Human Resource Management at the University of Trier, Germany.
He is also a visiting professor at Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK, and the
University of Innsbruck, Austria. He received his Ph.D. in 1997 and his Habilitation (postdoctoral
qualification) in 2005, both from the University of Hamburg, Germany. His research interests include
changing forms of work and organization, creative industries, the institutional embeddedness of work
and employment, and organizational boundaries. He has published in Human Relations, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Tamara, and
in a variety of German academic books and journals.
References
Alvarez, J. L., Mazza, C., Strandgaard Pedersen, J., & Svejenova, S. (2005). Shielding idiosyncrasy from
isomorphic pressures: Towards optimal distinctiveness in European film making. Organization, 12, 863–888.
Arthur, M. B., RousseauD. M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blair, H. (2001). You’re only as good as your last job: The labour process and labour market in the British film
industry. Work, Employment & Society, 15, 149–169.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2003). Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale
Ungleichheiten. Goettingen: Soziale Welt, Sonderband 2, 83–198.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Die Regeln der Kunst. Genese und Struktur des literarischen Feldes. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
Brooks, D. (2000). Bobos in paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cappelli, P. (1995). Rethinking employment. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 563–602.
Carnoy, M., Castells, M., & Benner, C. (1997). Labour markets and employment practices in the age of flexibility:
A case study of Silicon Valley. International Labour Review, 136, 27–48.
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between arts and commerce. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Christopherson, S., & Storper, M. (1989). The effects of flexible specialization on industrial politics and the labor
market: The motion picture industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42, 331–347.
Davis, H., & Scase, R. (2000). Managing creativity: The dynamics of work and organization. Buckingham and
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1998). Paradox in project-based enterprise. California Management Review, 40,
125–139.
Deutscher B. (Ed.). (2004). Theaterstatistik 2002/2003. Vol. 38. Köln.
Eikhof, D. R. (2005). Pierre Bourdieus Theorie der Praxis als praxeologische Theorie der Arbeitswelt. Wien:
Unpublished manuscript.
Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2004). Arbeitskraftunternehmer in der Kulturindustrie. Ein Forschungsbericht
über die Arbeitswelt Theater. In H. J. Pongratz, & G. G. Voß (Eds.), Typisch Arbeitskraftunternehmer? Befunde
der empirischen Arbeitsforschung. Berlin: Sigma; 93–113.
Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2006). Lifestyle meets market. Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative industries.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 234–241.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood.
American Journal of Sociology, 92, 879–909.
Fenwick, T. (2002). Transgressive desires: New enterprising selves in the new capitalism. Work Employment and
Society, 16, 703–723.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday
life. New York: Basic Books.
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Grabher, G. (2002). The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents, and teams. In G. Grabher (Ed.), Production
in projects: Economic geographies of temporary collaboration. Regional Studies special issue 36, 245–262.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart.
In D. T. Hall, Associates (Eds.), The career is dead—long live the career. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15–45.
Haunschild, A. (2003). Managing employment relationships in flexible labour markets: The case of German
repertory theatres. Human Relations, 56, 899–929.
Haunschild, A. (2004). Employment rules in German theatres: An application and evaluation of the theory of
employment systems. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42, 685–703.
Howkins, G. (2001). The creative economy How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
Jeffcutt, P., & Pratt, A. (2002). Managing creativity in the cultural industries. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 11, 225–233.
Jones, C., & Walsh, K. (1997). Boundaryless careers in the US film industry Understanding labor market dynamics
of network organizations. Industrielle Beziehungen, 4, 58–73.
Jones, C. (2002). Signaling expertise: How signals shape careers in creative industries. In M. Peiperl, M. Arthur, &
N. Anand (Eds.), Career creativity. Explorations in the remaking of work (pp. 209–228). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1995). Nice work if you can get it. The software industry as a model for tomorrow’s jobs. The
American Prospect, Fall, 52–58.
Menger, P.-M. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 541–574.
Moldaschl, M., & Voß, G. G. (Eds.). (2002). Subjektivierung von Arbeit. München and Mering: Hampp.
de Monthoux, P. (2004). The art firm: Aesthetic management and metaphysical marketing from Wagner to Wilson.
Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pitz, C., & Köhn, M. (2001). Öffentliche Trägerschaft—aber wie?. Die Deutsche Bühne, Heft 7, 26–29.
Pongratz, H. J., & Voß, G. G. (Eds.). (2004). Typisch Arbeitskraftunternehmer? Befunde der empirischen
Arbeitsforschung. Berlin: Sigma.
Smith, C., & McKinlay, A. (2005). Creative Labour: Content, contract and control. Glasgow: Paper to the 23rd
Annual International Labour Process Conference, University of Strathclyde.
Storey, J., Salaman, G., & Platman, K. (2005). Living with enterprise in an enterprise economy: Freelance and
contract workers in the media. Human Relations 58, 1033–1054.
Sutton, R. (2001). The weird rules of creativity. Harvard Business Review, 79, 94–103.
Sydow, J., & Staber, U. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: The case of content
production in German television. Regional Studies, 36, 215–227.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vester, M., von Oertzen, P., Geiling, H., Hermann, T., & Müller, D. (2001). Soziale Milieus im gesellschaftlichen
Strukturwandel. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Waidelich, J.-D. (1991). Theatermanagement/Theaterorganisation. Hagen: 2 Bände, Fernuniversität.
DOI: 10.1002/job

J Organ Behavior - 2007 - Eikhof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Organ Behavior - 2007 - Eikhof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 523–538 (2007)

For art’s sake! Artistic and economic

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received XX XXXX

Research Setting and Theoretical Background

Economic Logics of Practice in Theatre

. . . and control the outcome of their efforts:

Artistic Logics of Practice in Theatre

When Artistic Meets Economic Logic

Managing Artistic and Economic Logics of Practice

You might also like