Search results

Labeling something as “impossible” can be performative and deprive businesses from promising ideas, by activating limiting mental models and self-fulfilling prophecies. Adopting an “everything may be(come) possible” thinking as the default option can lead businesses to discover unexpected and valuable directions and make the world a better place. This paper aims to propose practical insights to harness the power of “impossible” thinking such as considering impossibility as a current and temporary state, adopting an unconventional mindset and redirecting the reflection on what is needed to make the idea possible. Falling in love with any impossible target is obviously not without downsides.

This paper discusses conceptually how adopting an impossible thinking approach can help business to discover unexpected and valuable directions.

The authors caution managers on the inappropriate use of the “impossible” label that can be performative, activate a limiting mental model, lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and deprive businesses from promising ideas. This paper proposes ways by which the power of impossible thinking can be harnessed to make a difference.

Discarding impossible ideas seems perfectly justified from a logical or cultural viewpoint while constituting simultaneously a bad decision from a business viewpoint. The generalization of authors’ insight must be undertaken with caution, given that harnessing the power of impossible does not mean to fall in love with any impossible idea.

Learning to not neglect seemingly impossible options and sometimes to reveal them can lead to sustainable competitive advantages.

While generating a competitive advantage for the concerned companies, implementing impossible ideas can also contribute to make the world a better place.

The authors identify some mechanisms that can make impossible thinking beneficial and profitable for companies. These insights can help managers to nurture an environment that facilitates the emergence of pathbreaking advances.

James March argued that irrational approaches to problem solving and foolishness can be useful for addressing complex problems. Grand challenges are complex problems that often involve “guarded societal institutions” – societal beliefs and practices guarded by political or commercial powers. To explain how organizations with impossible goals dismantle such institutions by mobilizing irrationality and foolishness, we develop a process model which is illustrated with the case of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Our main contribution is to expand James March’s ideas on logics of action and organizational intelligence to advance a novel perspective for tackling big societal problems. We argue that foolishness is not only a means for finding distant solutions to complex problems but also a means for generating sustained motivation, well-being, and ideas that spark debate and lead to the questioning of taken-for-granted societal beliefs.

The paper's purpose is to use religious thought to inform accounting, and in particular to make a contribution to the ongoing debates concerning the merits of rules‐ and principles‐based accounting systems and the value of a rule‐overriding requirement of fair presentation in financial reporting.

The paper applies to accounting a conception of religion that is heavily influenced by Jacques Derrida's writings on religion and deconstruction. In order to clarify the nature of this religion and to facilitate appreciation of its significance for accounting it is progressively recast, in the paper, first in terms of deconstruction and then in terms of a demand for an infinite justice.

At the core of the paper, religious responsibility, as a demand for justice, in accounting is explored through Derrida's analysis of the relation between justice and law, which is found to have clear application to accounting in terms of an aporetic tension between an infinite demand for fairness in accounting and accounting regulation.

The analysis implies that the pursuit of justice as fairness in accounting, “doing the truth” in accounting, will always demand the negotiation of an unstable and difficult mediation between the poles of regulation and fairness, the calculable and the incalculable, the possible and the impossible.

The paper draws on the postsecular current in religion to make a novel contribution to the critical and interdisciplinary awareness in accounting that has begun to unsettle the hold that certain modernist dichotomies, such as that of myth and reason, have had on accounting thought.

This chapter explores the connection between the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (i.e. deconstruction) and organizational analysis from an aporetic perspective. In the first part, I introduce Derrida's philosophy as a way to expose the aporetic nature of theorizing about organizations. I label this part of the discussion ‘Organizing Derrida’ as I attempt to organize parts of his philosophy. In the second part of the chapter, after reviewing the existing literature on Derrida and organization theory, I discuss three aporias – regarding environmental adaptation, decision-making and rule following – and show how Derridian philosophy can help us to better understand how the experience of the impossible acts as a necessary limit to our theorizing about the functioning of organizations. I argue that the recognition of aporias turns against well-established oppositions within organization theory and helps us to better understand the rich interplay between the formerly separated poles of these oppositions. This second part is labelled ‘Derrida Organizing’ as it shows what implications Derridian philosophy can have for organization theory.

While monetary autonomy is self-explanatory for cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin with predetermined supply path, it is of great interest to probe into the monetary structures of Stablecoins. In these supply contracts and expands and capital restrictions apply due to the existence of reserves as the exchange rate arrangement adheres to a price rule.

Ever since the launch of Bitcoin and its offspring, examination of cryptocurrencies' trading activity from the empirical finance viewpoint has received much attention and continues to do so. The particular monetary arrangements found in Stable cryptocurrencies (colloquially referred to as Stablecoins), however, have not been properly (1) classified and (2) studied within an empirical international finance and banking context. This paper provides an empirical framework analogous to Impossible Trinity for exploring monetary arrangements across Stablecoins wherein reserves are held as price stability is targeted.

The study findings of existence of the degree of achievement along the three dimensions of the Impossible Trinity hypothesis, namely monetary independence, exchange rate stability and financial openness for a representative sample able to cover all varieties of Stablecoins, provide fresh empirical insights and arguments to this growing literature with respect to the success of their embedded exchange rate stabilization mechanisms. While the hypothesis can be supported for all cryptocurrencies in question, the trade-off combination among exchange rate stability, capital openness and monetary independence varies with the categorical types of Stablecoins.

If Stable cryptocurrencies, therefore, claim the role of global monetary assets freed from sovereign limits and national boundaries, it is critical to explore whether they adhere to traditional monetary frameworks. It goes without saying that in this work the author does not use a complete catalogue of all the available Stablecoins, rather a complete catalogue of all the possible asset classes of Stablecoins. While there is a significant difficulty in finding Algorithmic Stablecoins and, so far, there is plethora of Stable Token initiatives, a broader sample to further examine these under this paper's empirical framework is suggested. Enrichment of the robustness analysis by constructing additional proxies, possibly building time series for the proposed cmo1 subindex and using additional estimation methods is encouraged.

Stablecoins have been developed aiming to address the issue of excessive price variation in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Holders of Stablecoins enjoy the combined advantages of using a blockchain-based digital infrastructure in fulfilling the functions of store of value and media of exchange and of using a traditional currency, which merely plays the role of the unit of account (and in some circumstances the trusted reserve to which is convertible to). Understanding the varieties of Stablecoins and quantifying the components for success of their price stabilization may result in designing better Stablecoins.

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies have introduced new challenges to money and banking. Cryptocurrencies, which independently float such as Bitcoin, have gained the interest so far due to price variation that allows for gains. But these should be by far not considered to be a substitute to traditional means of payment. Lately, Stablecoins have increasingly gained attention for that USD Tether/Bitcoin pair (a Stablecoin pegged to the US dollar at parity) has outrun the US dollar/Bitcoin pair as the most traded pair in digital exchanges marking the strong position and high demand for Stablecoins.

This approach uncovers the varieties of Stablecoins with respect to their monetary constraints compared to the rest of the cryptocurrencies, which independently float. In this paper, the author provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of the exchange rate mechanisms conditional on Stablecoin asset classes accompanied with an empirical study from the monetary viewpoint. This is the first work in this attempt. The empirical framework employed is analogous to the traditional theory of international monetary economics referred to as Impossible Trinityz.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/JES-06-2020-0279

Theoretical reconstruction for the sake of deeper and clearer understanding of an important theme in classical philosophy (aporia/euporia)

Logical critique (and reconstruction); aporetic and euporetic logic.

Using key texts by Plato and Aristotle on aporia and euporia, I attempt to show that Derrida’s, and more broadly deconstructive, readings are problematic and require careful and critical reconsideration.

A full account of aporia in the work of Derrida is beyond the scope of the paper – so too is a full account of aporia and euporia in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

The paper has important implications in terms of our reading and interpretation of important classical texts such as Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

The paper builds on important research by philosophers like Matthews and on the nature and role of aporia in classical philosophy, just as it extends the author’s own critique of deconstructive appropriations of aporia. It argues for the importance of reconstructing our understanding of aporetic and euporetic thinking in order to see it more clearly especially in its classical forms, contexts and frameworks.

The purpose of this paper is to test the practical utility of attack graph analysis. Attack graphs have been proposed as a viable solution to many problems in computer network security management. After individual vulnerabilities are identified with a vulnerability scanner, an attack graph can relate the individual vulnerabilities to the possibility of an attack and subsequently analyze and predict which privileges attackers could obtain through multi-step attacks (in which multiple vulnerabilities are exploited in sequence).

The attack graph tool, MulVAL, was fed information from the vulnerability scanner Nexpose and network topology information from 8 fictitious organizations containing 199 machines. Two teams of attackers attempted to infiltrate these networks over the course of two days and reported which machines they compromised and which attack paths they attempted to use. Their reports are compared to the predictions of the attack graph analysis.

The prediction accuracy of the attack graph analysis was poor. Attackers were more than three times likely to compromise a host predicted as impossible to compromise compared to a host that was predicted as possible to compromise. Furthermore, 29 per cent of the hosts predicted as impossible to compromise were compromised during the two days. The inaccuracy of the vulnerability scanner and MulVAL’s interpretation of vulnerability information are primary reasons for the poor prediction accuracy.

Although considerable research contributions have been made to the development of attack graphs, and several analysis methods have been proposed using attack graphs, the extant literature does not describe any tests of their accuracy under realistic conditions.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

A physical process, the course of which according to the Lorentz transformations is impossible in the frame of reference in inertial motion, can be created in some inertial frame of reference.