Call for Papers

More and more organizational scholars seek to develop theories that not only describe social phenomena, but also help create more desirable futures (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022, 2024). Desirable futures may include futures in which the economy operates without exploiting nature (Whiteman et al., 2013), in which organizations engage in robust action to address grand societal challenges (Ferraro et al., 2015), or in which companies use artificial intelligence in ways that foster rather than undermine democratic decision processes (Scherer et al., 2023). Theories can help enact desirable futures because theories can be performative (MacKenzie, 2006; Reinecke et al., 2022). Theories may change the behavior of individuals and how individuals make sense of their role within the economy and society (Ferraro et al., 2005; Goshal & Moran, 1996), thereby performing more desirable futures.
 
The key challenge for prospective theorizing is that no data is available about the future yet (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022). One way in which organizational researchers have dealt with this challenge is by studying and theorizing “real utopias” where non-mainstream actors experiment with new ways of organizing. Reinecke (2018), for example, has analyzed how the Occupy movement used principles of horizontal decision-making, direct democracy, and communal living, thereby creating insights on how such principles could be enacted within broader society. Another way in which researchers have dealt with this challenge is by combining empirically established insights about human behavior and social dynamics in novel ways to theorize how pathways toward more desirable futures could be possible. Marti and Gond (2018), for example, build on known insights on when market participants experiment with new practices and how they assess anomalies to develop a theory of how the business case for corporate sustainability could become a self-fulfilling prophecy that enacts a more sustainable market.
 
Yet, efforts to theorize desirable futures remain at an early stage – and criteria for academic speculative rigor need to be elaborated. In this sub-theme, we therefore want to gather researchers who seek to develop academically rigorous theories on desirable futures. We want to help each other engage in prospective theorizing, thereby starting to establish a common understanding of how we – as authors, reviewers, and handling editors – can achieve and assess “speculative rigor” (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022, p. 238). We also seek to discuss the role of normativity in (prospective) theorizing. People – both within academia and broader society – may disagree on what futures are desirable. With theories always performing certain interests and values (Ezzamel & Willmott, 2014; Marti & Scherer, 2016), this raises the question of how researchers deal with the inherent normativity of theorizing desirable futures.
 
In line with the 41^st EGOS Colloquium’s theme “Creativity That Goes a Long Way”, we call for scholarly creativity towards new, ambitious and forward-looking forms of theorizing. Hence, we invite submissions of empirical and conceptual papers that engage in prospective theorizing or advance future-oriented theory building more broadly. Importantly, while addressing topics that are relevant for creating desirable futures (CSR, grand challenges, etc.) is essential, such a thematic focus in not sufficient to ensure a good fit with the sub-theme. Crucially, papers will be preferred that explicitly focus on theorizing how alternative futures could be realized. Prospective theorizing can be the central motivation of the paper, integrated within the empirical analysis, or elaborated upon conceptually. For instance, scholars could employ thought experiments or counter-factual reasoning. They could engage science fiction literature in dialogue with scientific scholarship (Mikes & New, 2023).
 
Scholars could also explore whether and how theories may be deliberately performative. Alternatively, papers may explicitly problematize or address the role of normativity in (prospective) theorizing. They may also engage with other disciplines, from science to philosophy, to advance our thinking of how theories can become future-oriented. Equally important, we do not expect that prospective theorizing produces grand theories, but mid-range theories about specific developments. In a similar way as phenomenon-based theorizing (Fisher et al., 2021) abstains from overly abstract ideas and relationships, while staying close to underexplored phenomena, we expect that prospective theorizing also engages closely with tangible developments. Prospective theorizing should provide actionable insights into how desirable futures could be enacted.
 

References

• Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2014): “Registering ‘the ethical’ in organization theory formation: Towards the disclosure of an ‘invisible force’”. Organization Studies, 35 (7), 1013–1039.

• Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015): “Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited.” Organization Studies, 36 (3), 363–390.
• Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. (2005): “Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling.” Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 8–24.
• Fisher, G., Mayer, K., & Morris, S. (2021): “From the Editors – Phenomenon-based theorizing.” Academy of Management Review, 46 (4), 631–639.
• Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996): “Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory.” Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 13–47.
• Gümüsay, A.A., & Reinecke, J. (2022): “Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives.” Journal of Management Studies, 59 (1), 236–242.
• Gümüsay, A.A., & Reinecke, J. (2024): “Imagining Desirable Futures: A call for prospective theorizing with speculative rigour.” Organization Theory, 5 (1); https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241235939.
• MacKenzie, D. (2006): An Engine, Not a Camera. How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Marti, E., & Gond, J.-P. (2018): “When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity.” Academy of Management Review, 43 (3), 487–508.
• Marti, E., & Scherer, A.G. (2016): “Financial regulation and social welfare: The critical contribution of management theory.” Academy of Management Review, 41 (2), 298–323.
• Mikes, A., & New, S. (2023): “How to create an optopia? Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘Ministry for the Future’ and the politics of hope.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 32 (3), 228–242.
• Reinecke, J. (2018): “Social movements and prefigurative organizing: Confronting entrenched inequalities in Occupy London.” Organization Studies, 39 (9), 1299–1321.
• Reinecke, J., Boxenbaum, E., & Gehman, J. (2022): “Impactful Theory: Pathways to Mattering.” Organization Theory, 3 (4); https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131061.
• Scherer, A.G., Neesham, C., Schoeneborn, D., & Scholz, (M. 2023): “New challenges to the Enlightenment: How twenty-first-century sociotechnological systems facilitate organized immaturity and how to counteract it.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 33 (3), 409–439.
• Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013): “Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability.” Journal of Management Studies, 50 (2), 307–336.