{"word_count": 461, "character_count": 3637}
Contemporary political approaches to RIO oscillate, to be short, between viewing the [organizational] polities as made of subjugated individuals (in a narrow critical version) or seeing empowered and entrepreneurial actors everywhere (in a narrow post-bureaucratic version). Put differently, as for instance Lukes recently reformulates it (2005), nobody has really achieved to conflate &#8220;power over&#8221; and power to&#8221; visions of organizational politics. However, as demonstrated a long time ago by classics, this coalescence between politics as forms of domination and forms of creation is the very basis of the social and institutional development of organizations. The latter need both compliance and rebellion in order to achieve and legitimize institutional change and engineering. Still, deeply rooted in a one-sided version of intra-organizational political connections, most studies are incapable to address simultaneously those two extremes of the large array of political behaviours. Similarly, political studies of organizations tend to maintain the opposition between patterns of resilience and patterns of instability, without trying to think how resilience and instability might be part of the same movement of political transformation.This is a major flaw of organizational and political studies, especially in times where individual and collective political behaviours are increasingly mixing and combining apparently opposed forms and rationales&#160;: being both compliant and rebel, toeing the managerial line(s) and taking personal risks, developing strong identities and belonging to temporary performance-oriented sub-groups...Thinking contestation and rebellion as forms of organizational and institutional entrepreneurship is a promising way, among others, to think the hybridization of political behaviours.In this sub-theme, we will shed light on empirical and theoretical contributions which demonstrate the renewed complexity of individual and collective political behaviours. The challenge is to rethink the &#8220;old&#8221; concept of resistance by suggesting that political approaches to organizations should further investigate how new endogenous social movements shape future political relationships within and between organizations.In the spirit of the previous Egos colloquia, this sub-theme will provide a forum to trigger and keep up the dialogue between the great variety of sub-streams of political theory applied to the organizational realm. We strive to rebuild and rethink the long-lasting but sometimes fitfully addressed connections between political science and organization studies. We therefore invite papers for this sub-theme that&#160;:-&#160;&#160; explore empirically the inventiveness of individuals in &#8220;spawning&#8221; new forms of rebellion -&#160;&#160; explore theoretically how these new forms are questioning social movement and political theory in their capacity to grapple with the shaping of hybrid peculiar political configurations within organizations -&#160;&#160; conceptually advance new avenues for thinking these emergent phenomena and suggest new directions for [re]connecting political science and organization studies.-Pour avoir plus de pr&#233;cisions &#224; propos du th&#232;me et du groupe de travail, cliquez ci dessous : [http://www.egosnet.org/conferences/collo23/sub_ 17.shtml-&#62;http://www.egosnet.org/conferences/collo23/sub_ 17.shtml]-Pour adresser votre abstract veuillez suivre les instructions qui se trouvent dans le lien suivant [http://www.egosnet.org/conferences/subthemes/-&#62;http://www.egosnet.org/conferences/subthemes/]