Search results

Most academic work on sustainability has been focused on the organizational level, reflecting the popular “business case for sustainability” idea. However, organizations are certainly not the only locus of entrepreneurial action for sustainability, nor are they the most ideal. This chapter reports on a six-year study of the Sustainability Consortium, a collaboration started in 1999 between large companies that were seeking to lead their industry through innovative initiatives for sustainability. The findings, based on 60 interviews and many other sources of data, identify eight “ecologies of entrepreneurial action,” all of which were critical for driving change. These ecologies are: Individual Aspiration; Network Affiliation; Process Optimization; Entrepreneurial Innovation; Value Chain Collaboration; Industry/Sector Coordination; System-Wide Integration; and Social Transformation. As shown by complexity theory, the interdependent and interconnected nature of these ecologies means that only by expanding beyond organizationally focused endeavors can we help generate the social transformation that will lead to a sustainable world.

Complexity researchers have identified four basic assumptions underlying non‐linear dynamic systems (NDS): the assumption that change is a constant; the assumption that emergent systems are not reducible to their parts; the assumption of mutual dependence; and the assumption that complex systems behave in non‐proportional ways. In this paper I use these new assumptions as a basis for explaining why order emerges in organizations, and for uncovering a three‐stage process model of complex adaptive systems change (CASC). The insights from these NDS models are revealed through examples from two entrepreneurial firms undergoing transformative shifts in their development. These assumptions of NDS and the model of CASC may therefore be useful for understanding order creation and self‐organizing processes in work groups, project ventures, and organizations.

At the heart of the new venture growth that fuels the economic expansion is the question of how organizations make transitions from one stage of their development to the next (Churchill & Lewis, 1983; Covin & Slevin, 1997). To study this phenomenon, a three-stage model of self-organization was formulated and then tested in four growth-based new ventures that were each undergoing a major developmental transition. Although the outcomes of the transitions were all different, the process of the transitions was virtually the same, each time validating the three-stage model. Implications for research and practice of new venture growth are provided.

Corporations are now collaborating to meet complex global sustainability challenges, which, until recently, were considered beyond the mandate of business leaders. Multi-organizational consortia have formed, not as philanthropic efforts, but to find competitive advantage. To examine the dynamics of an early collaboration of this sort, with a view to suggesting how future inter-organizational projects might be fostered, we pursued an in-depth multi-method case study of “The Sustainability Consortium.” The Consortium has convened Fortune 50 senior managers since 1998. Our analysis uncovers the primacy of “Relational Space” – a rich context for aspirational trust and reflective learning across organizational boundaries, which is enabled by, and in turn gives rise to, collaborative projects. Within this space, an ecology of organizational leaders committed to sustainability can accomplish together what would be impossible in their individual organizations. We explain the viability of this collaboration.

Cognition has always been central to the popular way of thinking about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs imagine a different future. They envision or discover new products or services. They perceive or recognize opportunities. They assess risk, and figure out how to profit from it. They identify possible new combinations of resources. Common to all of these is the individual’s use of their perceptual and reasoning skills, what we call cognition, a term borrowed from the psychologists’ lexicon.

The article explores issues of what matters most in individual organizational and societal transformation – economic issues or spirit? Transformation is defined and literature on individual, organizational and societal transformation is presented. The article looks at the standard arguments that economics are the driving force in transformation and then postulates that spirituality may be as much – if not more – of a driving force. Evidence is provided on the growth of interest in spirituality. Then three theories of transformation are offered, one at the level of societal transformation. Each of these theories incorporates elements of spirituality in order to understand the prerequisites of transformation.

Focuses on integrating the theory and practice of organizational transformation through the metaphors of chaos theory and self‐organization. Case study data were collected through in‐depth interviews of three practitioner/theorists ‐ Peter Senge, William Torbert and Ellen Wingard ‐ all of whom have formulated theories of organizational change which they use as practitioners for generating transformations in organizations. The interviews suggest that all three of them utilize the logic of their (very different) theories to rationally set up the conditions for organizational change, but that the transformations they describe were sparked not through rational efforts but, in their words, through “grace”, “magic”, and “a miracle”. The new sciences of chaos and self‐organization provide a number of useful metaphors that can help us understand these non‐linear events. Describes the case studies in some depth and then identifies commonalities across the interventions in terms of a three‐phase model of dynamic order, thresholds at the edge of logic, and the self‐organized emergence of new order. Uses metaphors from new science to explain this process, aiming to identify a “chaotic logic” that links rational theory and intuitive practice in transformations of groups and organizations.

Organizational learning continues to be an important issue for all types of firms. Managerial accounts of organizational learning are in high demand; for example, Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990a) has sold over 500,000 copies in the U.S. Studies exploring the nature of knowledge creation, intellectual capital, and knowledge management have been on the rise, with recent papers being published for academics (McElroy, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994), and practitioners (Brown & Duguid, 1998; Fryer, 1999). According to some experts, the ability to transform information into knowledge through organizational learning is a critical success factor for all businesses in the current knowledge-based economy (Davis & Botkin, 1994; Lei, Slocum & Pitts, 1999).