Call for Papers

In this sub-theme, we are interested in exploring the intersection between the past and the future. The past is prologue is a common saying that embodies a linear view of the present and future emerging from actions and decisions in the past. It places memories, traditions, and legacies in a specific temporal frame and invests them with endurance, immutability, and an objective force over present actions (Marquis & Qiao, 2024; Schreyögg et al., 2011; Simsek et al., 2015).
 
However, recent scholarship in questions such sharp contrasts between past, present, and future and calls for an understanding of the multi-temporality of reality whereby the past is not a bygone fact but a persistent feature of social reality (Koselleck, 1985; Maclean et al., 2023). The past is constructed as it is talked into being (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013), as it is remembered and forgotten (Coraiola et al., 2023), and as it is mobilized as a resource for the construction of the present and the future (Suddaby et al., 2023). Such a view sees time (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Shipp & Jansen, 2021), memory (Coraiola et al., 2023; Foroughi et al., 2020), traditions (Cancellieri et al., 2022; Dacin et al., 2019; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020), and legacies (Barbera et al., 2018; Greve & Rao, 2014; Walsh & Glynn, 2008) as sources for the development of creativity and social change.
 
Prior research has shown how the past informs the definition of what is considered innovative or not. For instance, the creation of new categories of products and services and the definition of movements are established against a background of what has come before. This is clearly the case when we consider the emergence of different artistic and social movements such as modern architecture (Jones et al., 2012) and nouvelle cuisine (Rao et al., 2003). Balancing between innovation and tradition is important in this context (Erdogan et al., 2019), as the examples of Edison’s light (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001) and Italian opera (Cancellieri et al., 2022) show. The past also provides an important source for the development of cultural and historical narratives targeted at investors and stakeholders (Foster et al., 2017; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Suddaby et al., 2023). Moreover, the past informs the development of future innovations, although it does not determine it. Research has also shown that organizations strive to maintain a consistent identity over time by drawing from past identity statements and products (Lyle et al., 2022; Maclean et al., 2018; Nissley & Casey, 2002; Ravasi et al., 2019; Sasaki et al., 2020) to build continuity and change.
 
When managers understand and draw upon the past it not an merely an exercise in nostalgia; it is a strategic imperative for fostering meaningful innovation and entrepreneurship. The past is a repository of experiences, successes, and failures that can provide profound insights into the dynamics of creativity, resilience, and adaptability (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020). The past also informs the present and provides for the development of a historical consciousness that can lead to the renewal of dynamic capabilities, the production of innovations, and the development of entrepreneurial action (Coraiola et al., 2022; Ge et al., 2022; Sasaki & Ravasi, 2024; Suddaby et al., 2020). Moreover, the past serves as an engine of imagination, shaping the contours of economic futures and influencing organizational strategies (Beckert, 2021; Thompson & Byrne, 2022; Wenzel et al., 2020). Understanding how the past, in the form of history, memory, traditions, and legacies, is leveraged for entrepreneurship and social change is pivotal as organizations grapple with pressing global and strategic challenges (Augustine et al., 2019; Nyberg et al., 2018). By interrogating how the past informs the present and guides future actions, scholars can provide a more precise picture of the intertwining temporalities of social reality and their contribution for innovation and entrepreneurship.
 
In this sub-theme we welcome submissions from scholars from different traditions interested in exploring, expanding, and challenging our current understanding of how the past can be harnessed for innovation and entrepreneurship. Submissions might address the following questions (please note that this list is not exhaustive):

• How does the past contribute to and constrain creative destruction?

• How does time as a social construction affects our understanding of innovation and entrepreneurship?

• How do entrepreneurs develop a historical conscience?

• How do organizations negotiate the tensions between tradition and innovation?

• How does a creative view of the past inform capability renewal?

• How does memory contribute with the production of innovation?

• How do entrepreneurs experience the past as their ventures grow?

• How does legacy evolve across generations?

• How do corporate museums contribute to strategic entrepreneurship?

• How do entrepreneurs shape and reshape their historical narratives?

• What is the future of past innovations?

References

• Amis, J., Munir, K., Lawrence, T.B., Hirsch, P., & McGahan, A. (2018): “Inequality, Institutions and Organizations.” Organization Studies, 39 (9), 1131–1152.
• Augustine, G., Soderstrom, S., Milner, D., & Weber, K. (2019): “Constructing a Distant Future: Imaginaries in Geoengineering.” Academy of Management Journal, 62 (6), 1930–1960.
• Barbera, F., Stamm, I., & DeWitt, R.-L. (2018): “The Development of an Entrepreneurial Legacy: Exploring the Role of Anticipated Futures in Transgenerational Entrepreneurship.” Family Business Review, 31 (3), 352–378.
• Beckert, J. (2021): “The Firm as an Engine of Imagination: Organizational prospection and the making of economic futures.” Organization Theory, 2 (2); https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211005773.
• Bluedorn, A.C., & Denhardt, R.B. (1988): “Time and Organizations.” Journal of Management, 14 (2), 299–320.
• Cancellieri, G., Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2022): “Tradition as a resource: Robust and radical interpretations of operatic tradition in the Italian opera industry, 1989–2011.” Strategic Management Journal, 43 (13), 2703–2741.
• Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M., Mena, S., Foroughi, H., & Rintamäki, J. (2023): “Ecologies of Memories: Memory Work Within, Between, and Beyond Organizations.” Academy of Management Annals, 17 (1), 373–404.
• Coraiola, D.M., Tsujiguchi, F., & Suddaby, R. (2022): “Historical Cognition and Strategic Entrepreneurship.” In: V.K. Gupta, G.V. Shirokova, A. Karna, & A.B. Goktan (eds.): Handbook of Strategic Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 125–144.
• Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., & Kent, D. (2019): “Tradition in Organizations: A Custodianship Framework.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 342–373.
• Erdogan, I., Rondi, E., & De Massis, A. (2019): “Managing the Tradition and Innovation Paradox in Family Firms: A Family Imprinting Perspective.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44 (1), 20–54.
• Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D.M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S., & Foster, W.M. (2020): “Organizational Memory Studies.” Organization Studies, 41 (12), 1725–1748.
• Foster, W.M., Coraiola, D.M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J., & Chandler, D. (2017): “The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework.” Business History, 59 (8), 1176–1200.
• Ge, B., De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2022): “Mining the Past: History Scripting Strategies and Competitive Advantage in a Family Business.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46 (1), 223–251.
• Greve, H.R., & Rao, H. (2014): “History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 27–41.
• Hargadon, A.B., & Douglas, Y. (2001): “When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (3), 476–501.
• Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J.G., & Rau, S.B. (2015): “Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing, 30 (1), 29–49.
• Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F.G., & Svejenova, S. (2012): “Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category ‘Modern Architecture’, 1870–1975.” Organization Science, 23 (6), 1523–1545.
• Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W.J. (2013): “Temporal Work in Strategy Making.” Organization Science, 24 (4), 965–995.
• Koselleck, R. (1985): Future Pasts: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. (2001): “Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6/7), 545–564.
• Lyle, M.C.B., Walsh, I.J., & Coraiola, D.M. (2022): “What is NORML? Sedimented Meanings in Ambiguous Organizational Identities.” Organization Studies, 43 (12), 1991–2012.
• Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J.A.A., & Golant, B.D. (2018): “Intertextuality, Rhetorical History and the Uses of the Past in Organizational Transition.” Organization Studies, 39 (12), 1733–1755.
• Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Suddaby, R., & Coraiola, D.M. (2023): “Multi-Temporality and the Ghostly: How Communing with Times Past Informs Organizational Futures.” Journal of Management Studies, first published online on November 23, 2023; https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13022.
• Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. (2024): “History Matters for Organizations: An Integrative Framework for Understanding Influences from the Past.” Academy of Management Review, first published online on January 5, 2024; https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0238.
• Nissley, N., & Casey, A. (2002): “The Politics of the Exhibition: Viewing Corporate Museums Through the Paradigmatic Lens of Organizational Memory.” British Journal of Management, 13 (S2), S35–S45.
• Nyberg, D., Wright, C., & Kirk, J. (2018): “Fracking the Future: The Temporal Portability of Frames in Political Contests.” Organization Studies, 41 (2), 175–196.
• Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003): “Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy.” American Journal of Sociology, 108 (4), 795–843.
• Ravasi, D., Rindova, V., & Stigliani, I. (2019): “The Stuff of Legend: History, Memory, and the Temporality of Organizational Identity Construction.” Academy of Management Journal, 62 (5), 1523–1555.
• Sasaki, I., Kotlar, J., Ravasi, D., & Vaara, E. (2020): “Dealing with revered past: Historical identity statements and strategic change in Japanese family firms.” Strategic Management Journal, 41 (3), 590–623.
• Sasaki, I., & Ravasi, D. (2024): “Historical Consciousness and Bounded Imagination: How History Inspires and Constrains Innovation in Long-Lived Firms.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 10 (1), 59–90.
• Schreyögg, G., Sydow, J., & Holtmann, P. (2011): “How history matters in organisations: The case of path dependence.” Management & Organizational History, 6 (1), 81–100.
• Shipp, A.J., & Jansen, K. J. (2021): “The ‘Other’ Time: A Review of the Subjective Experience of Time in Organizations.” Academy of Management Annals, 15 (1), 299–334.
• Simsek, Z., Fox, B.C., & Heavey, C. (2015): “’What’s Past Is Prologue’: A Framework, Review, and Future Directions for Organizational Research on Imprinting.” Journal of Management, 41 (1), 288–317.
• Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D.M., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020): “History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal, 41 (3), 530–556.
• Suddaby, R., Israelsen, T., Bastien, F., Saylors, R., & Coraiola, D.M. (2023): “Rhetorical History as Institutional Work.” Journal of Management Studies, 60 (1), 242–278.
• Suddaby, R., Israelsen, T., Mitchell, J.R., & Lim, D.S.K. (2023): “Entrepreneurial Visions as Rhetorical History: A Diegetic Narrative Model of Stakeholder Enrollment.” Academy of Management Review, 48 (2), 220–243.
• Suddaby, R., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2020): “Managing Traditions: A Critical Capability for Family Business Success.” Family Business Review, 33 (3), 234–243.
• Thompson, N.A., & Byrne, O. (2022): “Imagining Futures: Theorizing the Practical Knowledge of Future-making.” Organization Studies, 43 (2), 247–268.
• Walsh, J.I., & Glynn, A.M. (2008): “The Way We Were: Legacy Organizational Identity and the Role of Leadership [journal article].” Corporate Reputation Review, 11 (3), 262–276.
• Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020): “Future and Organization Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations.” Organization Studies, 41 (10), 1441–1455.
•