Organizational misbehavior is primarily behavior that does not conform to expectations and which, although disapproved and discouraged, is not prevented. The main parts of this entry consider the noncompliant behavior of ordinary employees, which has been consistently researched for decades. Here misbehavior is revealed to involve limiting working effort and/or the time spent on work and the appropriation of materials or products. The identity and allegiance of the employee is also in contention. More recently, this aspect has become more significant, and some new types of expressive misbehavior have been identified. Some of these involve giving voice to criticism and some to making demands for action from management; examples here are demands for action on bullying and gender politics in the workplace. Comparable sociological research on other groups – such as professionals and senior managers – is relatively scarce, and so the misbehavior of managers, professionals, and workers is seldom realistically compared. However, new research now becoming available that makes possible the unification of this field.

By organizational failure is usually meant failure against some measure of performance, or failure to achieve a goal that is normally expected. Thus, a company can be identified as failing if it is not profitable, or a school if it does not educate students to a required level, or in sufficient numbers. Clearly, such measured organizational failure might be purely nominal (and/or imposed), an artifact of the application of performance criteria, rather than a substantive failure of organization as such. Thus, the internal working of an organization might be highly efficient given the resources available; but, nonetheless, because it does not reach a prescribed level of performance, it is deemed to fail. If the price of an indispensable commodity suddenly makes production at a saleable price impossible for a firm, failing profitability is almost inevitable and, for a small or new organization, bankruptcy (the most commonly used indicator of failure) is likely.

There is little that more graphically indicates the normative character of much social science than its handling of misbehaviour. There is a great deal of evidence, particularly gathered from ethnographic research, indicating that misbehaviour at work is prevalent at all levels and amongst all types of employment (Fleming and Spicer, 2007). Research has revealed tendencies to misbehave – and especially for employees to innovate non-sanctioned ways of responding to work and of evading attempts to control what they do. Yet, at the same time, there are also tendencies amongst social scientists and others to overlook such behaviour or to minimize its importance.

The importance of political relations and political processes in organizations has been remarked on recurrently by researchers and people with experience of organizations. This entry considers the following aspects. First, the politics within organizations and especially that between different groups. This intraorganizational politics is widely reported, and some recurrent patterns have been observed. Second, there are political dimensions to the activities and actions of organizations themselves. Zald long ago identified “social movement organizations” that embody the aspirations of particular social groups, but almost all organizations share this characteristic to some extent, being the instrument for the advancement of some particular group. This can lead them into collision or collusion with other organizations. Finally how intra‐ and interorganizational politics connects with politics in society is considered. This is potentially the most important area in the field of organizational politics. From this discussion, it seems that there is much about social change that can be better understood through the systematic study of political aspects of organization. Conflict and its resolution (the essence of politics) is one key to understanding social change more adequately, and sociological study in this area has much to contribute to organizational theory.

Purpose – The paper's aim is to consider the effects of recurrent economic crisis on the management and organisational structures of transnational companies based in the UK by considering contemporary evidence and scholarly views of the processes involved, and especially to consider the contributions of the papers that follow in this special issue of the journal. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a summary overview of some of the key evidence and arguments concerning the origin of recent continuing crises in Western capitalism. The paper places in context and assesses the contribution of five papers especially selected by the editors to be included in this special issue which bear on different aspects. Findings – The paper suggests several key processes are at work in contemporary capitalism, which can be summed up as increasing financialisation. This is the process by which businesses are increasingly orientated to the extraction of value, and success is primarily assessed in terms of the rate of return to capital employed. In their different ways the papers in the special issue illustrate aspects of the process of financialisation, including: the operation of a new set of financial institutions including private equity and hedge funds, and the effects of these on the various policies and priorities of the executive leaders of large businesses in such areas as human resource management and the adoption of new organisational forms. The discussion extends to the consideration of the effects of change on international finance and argues for the origins of changes in changed class relations. Research limitations/implications – The implications of this work are that the character and reach of current economic change are further illuminated – including especially the underlying causes of the present economic crisis. Social implications – Financialisation represents both a reorganisation of the processes of capitalist production and a class strategy of international elites to entrench their advantages in the new conditions of international political economy opened through the intellectual and policy triumph of neoliberal thinking. Originality/value – The work brings together scattered insights and viewpoints and builds them into a coherent synthesis. It thus moves beyond limited conceptions and insights.