Reintegrating the question of intention: Investigating “counter-performativity” and the “problem of description” in the financial industry

This article draws on the concepts of “counter-intentionality” and “saturated phenomena” developed by phenomenologists to analyse how performative processes can fail in organizations. To make our point, we investigate the case of new transparency requirements for European investment firms following the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) in 2007. Using an ethnographic study conducted in an investment firm between 2006 and 2009, we show a case where implementation of the normative text is counter-performed, that is, deployed in a significantly different way from the intention initially expressed by the regulator. Drawing on the work of Jean-Luc Marion, our analysis reveals three different forms of the counter-intentionality found in performativity processes. The first reveals itself in the form of alteration, and is generated by interactions between the investment firm and its consultants. The second takes the form of disappointment and concerns interactions between the investment firm and local regulators. The third, resistance, stems from interactions between functions within the firm. This study with its focus on the concept of counter-intentionality contributes to the organization studies literature in two different ways. Firstly, by delineating counter-intentionality using the concept of saturated phenomena, rather than by straightforward reference to counter-performativity, it provides a more detailed understanding of the conditions for infelicitous performativity. Secondly, we contend that counter-intentionality advances understanding of the question of description (Muniesa, 2014), which has recently been shown to be crucial for making sense of performative processes in organizations.