Sub-theme 55: Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Unconventional Forms of Organization
Call for Papers
Our society faces multiple global challenges such as climate change, digital workforce, algorithmization, datafication,
exploitive labor, extreme poverty, gender inequality, mass migration, aging populations, or increasing disaster risks. Scholars
have named such problems “grand challenges”, i.e. “specific critical barrier(s) that, if removed, would help solve an important
societal problem with a high likelihood of global impact through widespread implementation” (George et al., 2016: 1881). Grand
challenges are characterized by wide constellations of interrelated systems and stakeholders, either directly involved or
indirectly affected. This deep interconnectedness makes it increasingly difficult to forecast grand challenges’ future developments
(Ferraro et al., 2015). Therefore, grand challenges confront society with enormous complexities and uncertainties that call
for more adaptive collective action forms to provide solutions.
Organizations are related to grand challenges in two crucial respects. First, organizat ions are more often than not directly affected by those challenges and have to cope with them (Vaara & Durand, 2012). For instance, organizations have to deal with natural disasters, manage migration, and implement digital transformations. Second, organizations are fundamental when it comes to tackling grand challenges (Ferraro et al., 2015). Due to their unmatched capabilit ies, organizations can fight poverty and gender inequality, shape digital changes, and ensure decent work environments (cf. Ahrne et al., 2016; Apelt et al., 2017). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that grand challenges are an issue of growing importance in organization studies.
Scholars have, for example, investigated organizational responses to issues like climate change (Chaudhury et al., 2016; Schneider et al., 2017; Schüssler et al., 2014), underwater noise pollution and sustainable innovation (Berkowitz, 2018), societal effects of “datification” (Newell & Marabelli, 2015), disaster risk (Grothe-Hammer & Berthod, 2017), sustainability of supply chain (Acquier et al., 2015; Longoni et al., 2014), extreme poverty (Besio & Meyer, 2015), aging societies (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2016), refugee crises (Kornberger et al., 2017), or digital and exploitative labor (Bartley, 2007; Bauer & Gegenhuber, 2015). Given their complexities and wide-reaching effects, grand challenges thereby often evade well-establis hed organizational forms such as conventional bureaucracies. Instead, grand challenges seem to both spawn and require rather fluid and unconventional forms of organization (Brès et al., 2018; Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010).
In this respect, we identify at least three possibilities of how unconventional forms of organization relate to societal grand challenges:
First, organizations organize their environments. For instance, in meta-organizations, organizations create new organizations that have organizations as their members in order “to transform part of their environment into organization” (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008: 90). Such meta-organizations have been identified to co-construct responses to sustainability problems (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Moreover, environments can also be partially organized to varying degrees of organizationality (Ahrne et al., 2016; Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015). New forms of partially organized settings like “crowdsourcing” have emerged, creating new challenges such as digital exploitative work (Nielsen, 2018). In other instances, such partially organized constellations allow for tackling issues such as public safety (Grothe-Hammer, 2019).
Second, organizations can combine and mediate between differing macro-logics. Hybrid organizations and multi-referential organizations tackle challenges like extreme poverty by combining differing societal-level logics in order to make certain problems perceivable and processable for certain logics (Apelt et al., 2017; Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Besio & Meyer, 2015; Gümüsay, 2018). Similarly, boundary organizations address challenges of climate change in environmental policy making by connecting differing realms of social reality (Guston, 2001) while polyphonic organizations bring together differing voices to manage diversity (Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017).
Third, organizations can bridge the global and the local. For example, referent organizations link societal projects to local contexts to tackle societal “meta-problems” (Trist, 1983). Moreover, grand challenges seem to foster the emergence of different levels of meta- and macro-organizations (Brunsson et al., 2018) that organize specific sectors and markets from the local up to the global.
Our sub-theme aims at advancing this line of research. We want to explore how the mentioned as well as other unconventional forms of organization can tackle societal grand challenges and/or how grand challenges spawn the emergence of new organizational forms. Submission can be both empirical or theoretical in nature. Possible topics include but are not limited to:
How do grand challenges affect organizations and perhaps force changes in organizational forms? How do grand challenges foster the emergence of new forms or categories of organization or trigger the decline of established organizatio nal forms? Different types of grand challenges may differently impact organizations and may produce varying changes. How can we build a better understanding of the interconnection between these specific problems and the way organizations have evolved?
How can certain organizational forms provide solutions to grand challenges? Under which conditions are specific organizational forms more efficient or effective in offering solutions to grand challenges? What do we mean by efficiency here? To what extent are organizations for grand challenges necessarily spatially, temporally, culturally embedded and therefore not only grand challenge specific but also era and region specific?
Critical comparative analysis of organizations’ contribution to grand challe nge solutions versus other devices of collective action, regulation or governance (networks, institutions, etc.). To what extent are organizations the answer to grand challenges? How do they or should they interact with other governance devices?
- Acquier, A., Valiorgue, B., & Daudigeos, T. (2015): “Sharing the Shared Value: A Transaction Cost Perspective on Strategic CSR Policies in Global Value Chains.” Journal of Business Ethics, 144 (1), 139–152.
- Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2008): Meta-organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016): “Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations.” European Management Journal, 34 (2), 93–101.
- Apelt, M., Besio, C., Corsi, G., von Groddeck, V., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Tacke, V. (2017): “Resurrecting organization without renouncing society: A response to Ahrne, Brunsson and Seidl.” European Management Journal, 35 (1), 8–14.
- Bartley, T. (2007): “Institutional Emergence in an Era of Globalization: The Rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions.” American Journal of Sociology, 113 (2), 297–351.
- Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010): “Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1419–1440.
- Bauer, R.M., & Gegenhuber, T. (2015): “Crowdsourcing: Global search and the twisted roles of consumers and producers”. Organization, 22 (5), 661–681.
- Berkowitz, H. (2018): “Meta-organizing firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: A conceptual framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 420–430.
- Berkowitz, H., Bucheli, M., & Dumez, H. (2017): “Collectively Designing CSR Through Meta-Organizations: A Case Study of the Oil and Gas Industry.” Journal of Business Ethics, 143 (4), 753–769.
- Besio, C., & Meyer, U. (2015): “Heterogeneity in world society. How organizations handle contradicting logics.” In: B. Holzer, F. Kastner & T. Werron (eds.): From Globalization to World Society Neo-Institutional and Systems-Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 237–257.
- Brès, L., Raufflet, E., & Boghossian, J. (2018): “Pluralism in Organizations: Learning from Unconventional Forms of Organizations.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 20 (2), 364–386.
- Brunsson, N., Gustafsson, I., & Hallström, K.T. (2018): “Markets, Trust, and the Construction of Macro-Organizations.” In: N. Brunsson & M. Jutterström (eds.): Organizing and Reorganizing Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 136–152).
- Chaudhury, A.S., Ventresca, M.J., Thornton, T.F., Helfgott, A., Sova, C., Baral, P., Rasheed, T, & Ligthart, J. (2016): “Emerging meta-organisations and adaptation to global climate change: Evidence from implementing adaptation in Nepal, Pakistan and Ghana.” Global Environmental Change, 38, 243–257.
- Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015): “Fluidity, Identity, and Organizationality: The Communicative Constitution of Anonymous.” Journal of Management Studies, 52 (8), 1005–1035.
- Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015): “Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited.” Organization Studies, 36 (3), 363–390.
- George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016): “Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Management Research.” Academy of Management Journal, 59 (6), 1880–1895.
- Grothe-Hammer, M. (2019): “Organization without actorhood: Exploring a neglected phenomenon.” European Management Journal, 37 (3), 325–338.
- Grothe-Hammer, M., & Berthod, O. (2017): “The programming of decisions for disaster and emergency response: A Luhmannian approach.” Current Sociology, 65 (5), 735–755.
- Gümüsay, A.A. (2018): “Unpacking entrepreneurial opportunities: an institutional logics perspective.” Innovation: Organization & Management, 20 (3), 209–222.
- Guston, D.H. (2001): “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26 (4), 399–408.
- Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S., Meyer, R.E., & Höllerer, M.A. (2017): “Rethinking the Sharing Economy: The Nature and Organization of Sharing in the 2015 Refugee Crisis.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 4 (3), 314–335.
- Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014): “The role of New Forms of Work Organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations.” International Journal of Production Economics, 147, Part A, 147–160.
- Newell, S., & Marabelli, M. (2015): “Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of ‘datification’.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24 (1), 3–14.
- Nielsen, K.R. (2018): “Crowdfunding through a partial organization lens – The co-dependent organization.” European Management Journal, 36 (6), 695–707.
- Schirmer, W., & Michailakis, D. (2016): “Loneliness among older people as a social problem: the perspectives of medicine, religion and economy.” Ageing & Society, 36 (8), 1559–1579.
- Schneider, A., Wickert, C., & Marti, E. (2017): “Reducing Complexity by Creating Complexity: A Systems Theory Perspective on How Organizations Respond to Their Environments.” Journal of Management Studies, 54 (2), 182–208.
- Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010): “CROSSROADS – Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms.” Organization Science, 21 (6), 1251–1262.
- Schüssler, E., Rüling, C.-C., & Wittneben, B.B. (2014): “On Melting Summits: The Limitations of Field-Configuring Events as Catalysts of Change in Transnational Climate Policy.” Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 140–171.
- Trist, E. (1983): “Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains.” Human Relations, 36 (3), 269–284.
- Trittin, H., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017): “Diversity as Polyphony: Reconceptualizing Diversity Management from a Communication-Centered Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics, 144 (2), 305–322.
- Vaara, E., & Durand, R. (2012): “How to connect strategy research with broader issues that matter?” Strategic Organization, 10 (3), 248–255.