Critical Management Studies (CMS) has been flourishing world-wide since the 1990s with the UK as its geographical centre. However, it is less known in Japanese academia on business administration probably due to the wide range of difficult theoretical research topics. This study conducts a systematic review of CMS literature to date to clarify what CMS is, what the term “critical” means, how it has emerged, and which field it has actively studied. We found that: 1) Originated in the research on Critical Theory, recent CMS is based on a diverse theoretical background, and adopts such various perspectives as race, environment, sexuality, and gender, and 2) major reviews on CMS share the view that CMS can be characterized by denaturalization, reflexivity, and (non) performative intent. We also found that in recent years there has been a growing research on “critical performativity”, which has evolved from the debate on the (non) performative intent.

Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) described a vicious circle in which an organization that “protesting too much” to obtain legitimacy loses its legitimacy, and defined it as “double-edge”. Then, after dividing the process used by organizations in seeking legitimacy into “substantial management” and “symbolic management,” the conditions that are likely to be double-edged were suggested based on aspects in which the process is executed and the attitude of the actor who executes the process. According to Ashforth and Gibbs (1990), “extended” or “defended” legitimacy tends to be symbolic management, where an actor becomes “clums,” “nervous” and “overacting” and protest too much; thus likely to cause a decrease in legitimacy. In other words, it is not only the choice of method that matters, but the situation in which legitimacy is required, and the actor’s attitude can change the perception of legitimacy by the constituents. The declining legitimacy by constituents is a result of a vicious circle, not necessarily a lack of legitimacy.