Call for Papers

Every day that passes by reminds us that the world we live in has become increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). Migratory crises, a global health pandemic, accelerating climate change, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine in February 2022, the reigniting of a troublesome middle east since October 2023, geopolitical competition between China and the USA, as well as political and economic instability across the globe, often resulting from the effects of climate change, have contributed to a state of permanent crisis. These highly dynamic, complex, and turbulent environments, where probabilities of negative events and the extent of future disruptions cannot always be foreseen (Frigotto et al., 2022: 8), pose major challenges to modern organizations and societies and push them to use their creativity and find new ways to “go a long way”.
 
Interpreted both as a process and a feature, resilience has been an intensely debated topic in a broad range of disciplines, from engineering to ecology and from psychology to political science (Anderson, 2015; Bhamra et al., 2011; Holling, 1973; Walker & Salt, 2006). In the social sciences defined as “the ability of a social entity – such as an individual, organization, system, or society – to retain its function while responding to adversity” (Frigotto et al., 2022: 9), resilience encompasses aspects of change and of continuity, because most social systems will “show resilience by finding different [and new, creative] ways to operate” instead of returning to an old status-quo (cf. Giustiniano et al., 2018: 17).
 
Creativity can be identified as a central element for nurturing resilience, as organizations, both public and private, leverage cognitive and emotional resources to foster resilience antecedents. This, in turn, influences creative behaviours, facilitating future adaptations (Richtnér & Löfsten, 2014). The creative process is intrinsic to resilience, as it requires innovative and useful responses to threatening adversities, highlighting the need to explore how creativity is triggered within and between different organizations and different sectors.
 
Against this background, there has been a surging interest in the resilience mainly of private organizations. However, also governments and public administrations seek to adapt to emerging circumstances and to develop effective responses to various kinds of disturbances. In fact, while resilience is relevant in all types of collectives and organizations, it holds special significance in the case of the public sector, which has surprisingly received little scholarly attention over the years. Government bodies, publicly funded or controlled agencies, and other organizations that deliver public services – in short, organizations that either exert political authority or are constrained by it (Bozeman, 1987: 84) – are central to the functioning of areas such as healthcare, education, and social services. They are also essential for the maintenance of critical infrastructure and the continuous delivery of public services during and after large scale disruptions, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 crisis (cf. Trondal et al., 2022), as well as for enabling the private sector activity itself (OECD, 2023).
 
As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, resilience pushes public and private institutions to cooperate and to jointly find creative solutions to face adversities. In this light, further investigation into the interaction of public and private resilience becomes pivotal, including the role of the public sector in fostering resilience in private organizations, local communities, and policy fields. Similarly, understanding how the private sector stimulates resilience in public institutions, communities, or in lobbying efforts is a critical avenue of inquiry. The connection between public sector resilience, or its absence, and democratic resilience defined as “the ability of a political regime to prevent or react to challenges without losing its democratic character” (Merkel & Lührmann, 2021: 872), is an emerging research topic, offering insights into how creative processes shape and contribute to both normative and empirical aspects of resilience construction.
 
We also call for attention to the resilience related to implementation of contested issues in society (Helberg et al., 2018), and how diverse forms of organizational spaces face such transformation. For instance, temporary organizations, collective environmental entrepreneurship (Doh et al., 2019) and open collaborative spaces (e.g., innovation hubs, hackathons, incubators; cf. Bednář et al., 2023) in which essentially creativity, temporality and strategic resilience (Hepfer & Lawrence, 2022) are intertwined. Startups and entrepreneurs must endure a long trajectory to surpass rounds of investment, innovation hubs are also challenged to adapt to new future scenarios and add value to stakeholders. Similarly, governments try to orchestrate ecosystems with sceptical stakeholders regarding new climate-driven agendas.
 
The pursuit of new knowledge on how diverse organizational spaces, private and public organized, their interaction, and their creative underpinnings holds promise for broader research interests in societal and political systems, institutions, for-profit organizations, and governance actors. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to navigate the complexities of resilience, addressing fragmented conceptual accounts and maximizing the potential for understanding and applying creativity as both a concept and a theoretical toolbox for unpacking resilience. In addition, examining resilience in both public and private organizations under the creativity lens, provides a valuable focal point for organizational scholars, students of political systems, and public policy/administration, shedding light on the preconditions, process dynamics, and effects of resilience in diverse contexts.
 
This sub-theme invites both theoretical and empirical contributions addressing the pivotal role of creativity in fostering resilience that cuts across traditional notions of the public, private and civic sectors. Possible avenues for inquire include but are not limited to the following queries:

• How does creativity contribute to the development of novel and effective responses in building resilience within both public and private sectors?

• In what ways do cognitive and emotional resources, along with creative behaviours, influence the ability of organizations to absorb, adapt, and learn from shocks, ensuring better preparation for future crises?

• What role does creativity play in the continuous adaptation of local actors within the public sector to emerging circumstances, while remaining aligned with public mandates, values, and professional identities?

• How can the creative process be triggered and nurtured within and between the public and private sectors to enhance their resilience in the face of challenging adversities?

• To what extent does creativity contribute to the interaction between public and private resilience, and how can it stimulate resilience in public institutions, local communities, or lobby for resilience?

• In what ways does creativity enhance the ability of organizations to navigate negotiations, power struggles, and stakeholder interests, both inside and outside public agencies, thereby influencing public sector resilience?

• How new organizational forms, as collective entrepreneurship, open collaborative spaces and ecosystems contribute to rising creativity to orchestrated stakeholders to implement contested agendas (e.g., energetic transition)?

• Is there a dark side to the role of creativity in public sector resilience, and what measures can be taken to minimize or prevent any pervasive negative effects?

References

• Anderson, B. (2015): “What kind of thing is resilience?” Politics, 35 (1), 60–66.

• Ball, K., Degli Esposti, S., Dibb, S., Pavone, V., & Santiago-Gomez, E. (2019): “Institutional trustworthiness and national security governance: Evidence from six European countries.” Governance, 32 (1), 103–121.
• Bednář, P., Danko, L., & Smékalová, L. (2023): “Coworking spaces and creative communities: making resilient coworking spaces through knowledge sharing and collective learning.” European Planning Studies, 31 (3), 490–507.
• Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014): “What VUCA Really Means for You.” Harvard Business Review, 92 (1/2).
• Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011): “Resilience: The concept, a literature review and future directions.” International Journal of Production Research, 49 (18), 5375–5393.
• Bozeman, B. (1987): All Organizations Are Public. Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Doh, J.P., Tashman, P., & Benischke, M.H. (2019): “Adapting to grand environmental challenges through collective entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 33 (4), 450–468.
• Franken, E., Plimmer, G., Malinen, S., & Bryson, J. (2022): “Growing and adapting during continuous change: Building employee resilience in the public sector.” In: R. Pinheiro, L. Frigotto, & M. Young (eds.): Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 143–170.
• Frigotto, L., Young, M., & Pinheiro, R. (2022): “Resilience in organizations and societies: The state of the art and three organizing principles for moving forward.” In: R. Pinheiro, L. Frigotto, & M. Young (eds.): Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–40.
• Giustiniano, L., Clegg, S.R., Pina e Cunha, M., & Rego, A. (2018): Elgar Introduction to Theories of Organizational Resilience. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018): “Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility.” The Information Society, 34 (1), 1–14.
• Hepfer, M., & Lawrence, T.B. (2022): “The Heterogeneity of Organizational Resilience: Exploring functional, operational and strategic resilience.” Organization Theory, 3 (1), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221074701.
• Holling, C.S. (1973): “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4 (1), 1–23.
• Merkel, W., & Lührmann, Anna (2021): “Resilience of democracies: Responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges.” Democratization, 28 (5), 869–884.
• OECD (2023): More resilient public administrations after COVID-19: Lessons from using the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) 2020. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 29. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Richtnér, A., & Löfsten, H. (2014): “Managing in turbulence: how the capacity for resilience influences creativity.” R&D Management, 44 (2), 137–151.
• Trondal, J., Pinheiro, R., Keast, R., & Noble, D. (2022): “Governing complexity in times of turbulence.” In: L. Trondal, R. Keast, D. Noble, & R. Pinheiro (eds): Governing Complexity in Times of Turbulence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2–12.
• Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006): Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
•