The aim of this article is to question pluralism in Critical Management Studies (CMS) movement, to point out the limits of the post-structuralism as a critical epistemology, to denounce the risks of a critique in line with "engagement management" and to show different ways to arrive at a debate between theory and practice on the critical movement. To do so, we described the most important post-structuralism characteristics, questioning the critical status of this epistemology and also questioning pluralism in CMS. Next, we discuss how some of CMS' representatives defend "engagement management" through a critical perfomativity which uses inadequately formulations of post-structuralism. We also discuss other practical approaches for a critique in organization studies, using the concept of praxis and critical education as ways to enlighten consciences and reestablish a critical activism. We conclude that post-structuralism should be taken more seriously, what may indicate that is necessary to build a new theoretical movement to use its contributions, preserving its critical character.
critical management studies; engagement management; post-structuralism; pluralism