Search results

Why is it that highly trained and seasoned executives fail? On the surface, this doesn’t make sense because they are very successful; yet research in the organization sciences provides no shortage of evidence to prove just that. From the classic Mann Gulch fire disaster of Weick’s famous collapse of sensemaking study, to studies of myopia of learning, escalation of commitment, threat-rigidity, dominant logic, the architecture of simplicity, the Icarus Paradox, to core competencies turning into core rigidities, and navigating new competitive markets using “old” cognitive maps, and many more such examples point to a ubiquitous phenomenon where highly trained and experienced professionals find themselves “stuck” in the heat of battle, unable to move and progress. On the one hand, for some, there is a desperate need for change, but are unable to do so, due to their trained incapacities. On the other hand, some simply cannot see the need for change, and continue with their “business as usual” mentality. For both, their visions of the world shrink, they have a tendency to cling onto their past habitual practices and oversimplify the complexity of the situation. In moments like these: DROP YOUR TOOLS and UNLEARN! This book chapter introduces a framework (grounded in clinical psychology) that has had consistent success in helping seasoned executives and key decision-makers open up the alternatives whenever they find themselves stuck with complexity.

This chapter provides an introduction to the world of family companies and family constitutions from a legal perspective. It first studies the legal types of business organizations that family firms have chosen across time and jurisdictions. It then illustrates how early predecessors of family constitutions evolved in the late Middle Ages and what modern family constitutions look like in different countries today. Further considerations are devoted to the governance framework of family firms. The chapter concludes by exploring the potential legal effects of family constitutions under German company and contract law.

This chapter suggests that enhancing sustainable development in the age of technologies requires reflection about the relationship between business practice and sustainable development, as well as clarification of the relationship between sustainability and sustainable development. At the core of business activity is the definition of sustainable development defined by Brundtland (1987) as ‘meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Although that captures only one aspect of the sustainability story and its relationship to sustainable development, it nonetheless shapes business approach in research and in sustainability practices. To illustrate the contradictions and tensions in practice so far, this chapter uses three lenses: measurement in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment, the problem of scalability and the challenge of bias in artificial intelligence (AI). It is not clear that we need a paradigm shift, but a shift in mindsets around sustainability business practice will be needed if sustainable development is to be enhanced in the age of technologies.