Search results

Meta-organizations are crucial devices to tackle grand challenges. Yet, by bringing together different organizations, with potentially diverging views on these grand challenges, meta-organizations need to cope with the emergence of contradictory underlying social orders. Do contradictory orders affect meta-organizations’ ability to govern grand challenges and if so, how? This paper investigates these essential questions by focusing on the evolution and intermeshing of social orders within international governance meta-organizations. Focusing on the International Whaling Commission and the grand challenge of whale conservation, we show how over time incompatible social orders between the meta-organization and its members emerge, evolve and clash. As our study shows, this clash of social orders ultimately removes the “decidability” of certain social orders at the meta-organizational level. We define decidability as the possibility for actors to reach collective decisions about changing an existing social order that falls under a collective’s mandate. We argue that maintaining decidability is a key condition for grand challenges’ governance success while the emergence of “non-decidability” of controversial social orders can lead to substantial failure. We contribute to both the emerging literature on grand challenges and organization theory.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) through the theoretical framework of meta-organizations that focusses on organizations that are themselves made up of organizations.

The data are drawn from a unique case study based on interviews with WADA experts and documentary analysis.

The authors analyzed WADA through the organizational and strategic dimensions of meta-organizations, which are themselves each defined by two criteria: the mission and scope of the organization vs the hierarchical stratification and decision-making process. The findings suggest that the WADA can be examined through the lens of meta-organizational theory. The criterion of consensus in the decision-making process has already been put forward by scholars, but it needs to be nuanced in the study since it is not the only process used by WADA in its decision-making.

The paper enhances the understanding of a specific international sports organization at the heart of current major sports issues and enriches the literature on meta-organizational theory, which is a relatively recent development. A next step is a longitudinal study, focussing on the decision-making process and the evolution of a meta-organization over time.

While the meta-organization has been considered recently in the management literature, this paper seeks to advance the discussion by linking it to the international sports field to gain more insight into its complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and analyse how intellectual capital (IC) is created and deteriorated in a meta-organization by assessing the interdependency between the collective IC of the meta-organization and the individual IC of its members.

A case study conducted in a seaport is adopted to explore how creation or deterioration of IC at one level of analysis affects the IC at the other. Four different illustrations are provided, depicting different instances of articulation between both types of IC.

Evidence suggests that, in a meta-organization, IC appears as a function of both individual and collective IC dimensions. Changes in the meta-organization’s IC or in its members’ IC may have different impacts on each other, generating intellectual assets or intellectual liabilities at both levels. Evidence also suggests that those changes in IC should be analysed in a longitudinal way, since both levels affect each other in different ways over time.

Despite the validity of the interpretations provided in the context of the case study, generalization to other situations should be conducted only in a theoretically framed manner.

This study provides important strategic and managerial implications for meta-organizations and their members, who are concerned with their performance.

Although there have been some efforts to apply the traditional IC methodologies to a bigger scope, such as regions or nations, some meso level empirical contexts are yet far unexplored, such as the case of meta-organizations. Furthermore there is a gap in management sciences’ research on seaports.

Scholarship on alternative organizations and cooperatives has argued that networks and intermediaries foster organizational form stability and protect collectivist-democratic organizations from rationalization as well as decoupling. This study of field-level organizing among food co-ops in the United States shows that rather than buffering collectivist organizations from conventional market and rationalization pressures, meta-organizations can also serve as a conduit for rationalizing pressures, subjecting vulnerable organizations to what I call quasi-coercive isomorphism. Using interviews of field participants, ethnographic observations of conferences, and content analysis of organizational documents, I examine the formation and impact of National Co+op Grocers, a meta-cooperative created to leverage scale and pool resources among food co-ops. I find that this meta-organization enforced grocery industry-oriented norms of operation, management, and presentation among its member organizations in return for providing mutual liability and economies of scale. This focus on select operationally scalable processes and structures for support generated isomorphic pressures that exposed, rather than sheltered, co-ops, especially smaller, resource-poor ones, from industry standards. The meta-organization thus promoted a sectorized model of more marketized practices for the field’s cooperatives that pushed co-ops to adopt conventional grocery store practices and distanced them from the practices of other cooperative form fields. Moreover, the potential of cooperative form-specific elements for scaling was not realized: collective ownership and democratic governance remained local concerns. These findings suggest that whether meso-level cooperation among cooperatives can support alternative form maintenance is contingent on the structure and scope of the meta-organization and on the perceived scalability of operational and governance elements of the cooperative organizational form.

Business collective action (BCA) is often necessary to address sustainability issues, which are generally complex and multi-layered issues that cannot always be properly addressed by individual businesses. Firms participating in BCA for corporate sustainability have access to clearer rules and guidelines for managing sustainability issues, are more efficient in managing multiple stakeholder demands due to enhanced opportunities for learning, benefit from individual and joint reputation management, and are better able to capture weak signals about opportunities and threats in the external environment. Despite these benefits, our understanding of BCA for corporate sustainability is still limited. Most of the existing work in this area has examined different forms of BCA for corporate sustainability – for example, multi-stakeholder initiatives, trade associations, and other forms of business membership organizations – individually. In this chapter, the authors provide an overview of BCA for corporate sustainability. The authors start the chapter by discussing the importance of BCA in general and BCA for corporate sustainability, in particular to research and practice, and its benefits to firms and society. The authors then present a typology of the different forms of BCA for corporate sustainability, discussing their differences and similarities from an issues management perspective. The authors conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of future research in this area.

How do organizational associations affect extra-organizational boundaries? This chapter addresses this question by looking into the long-established practice among universities to form associations. In order to examine how associations delineate boundaries in universities’ institutional environment, the chapter draws on the scholarly work on categories and conceptualizes associations as meta-organizations. The chapter finds that category-based identities, and other organizational characteristics, enacted to demarcate members from non-members play a central role in this process. In following these lines of demarcation on a sample of 185 national and international university associations a typology emerges, accompanied by a global diffusion pattern. Three sets of institutional conditions are then identified as being conducive to this process: (1) the twentieth-century university expansion and the consolidation of national higher education fields, (2) the intensification of cross-border interaction and the advent of international institutions, and (3) the formation of a global field and the rise of competition as an ideological imperative.

The growing uses of digital technologies have been creating several new business opportunities. Recently, a new concept has emerged in the literature, the “digital entrepreneurship ecosystem” (DEE). However, it has been empirically understudied. Thus, this study aims to analyze the influence of DEE on entrepreneurial activity. The meta-organization theory was used as a perspective of analysis. A quantitative methodology was applied in a sample that includes data from 28 European countries through the generalized method of moments. It was concluded that the DEE pillars, informal and formal institutions, market conditions, physical infrastructure, human capital and talent and networking and support positively influence entrepreneurial activity. It was also found that the variables knowledge, creation and dissemination and finance have a negative impact on entrepreneurial activity. Several theoretical and empirical contributions are also left for the various stakeholders. The present study is original, as no known studies analyze the influence of DEE on entrepreneurial activity in European countries from the perspective of meta-organization theory.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the management of collective intellectual capital (CIC) occurs in a seaport through the actions of the network coordinator.

A case study was conducted in a seaport, focusing on the actions taken by a network coordinator – a port authority – to develop the seaport’s CIC. The seaport is conceptualised as a meta-organisation, composed by interdependent actors which may possess different interests and different levels of power.

Evidence suggests that the mobilisation of different dimensions of power, in both coercive and non-coercive ways, is needed to promote a higher level of collaboration. Indeed, by mobilising non-coercive dimensions of power, the network coordinator can foster a sense of community within the meta-organisation, grounded in a trust-based collective culture that can potentiate collaboration, and thus allow the attainment of a more “sustainable” type of CIC.

Despite the validity of the interpretations provided by the case study, generalisation of this study should only be conducted in a theoretically framed manner.

The findings can provide network coordinators with a better understanding of the consequences of using different dimensions of power to leverage its intangible assets and enhance the meta-organisation’s performance.

The paper focus on the IC management of a specific type of meso-level unit, which possess some particular characteristics of its own: a seaport. Also, the paper aims to fill a gap in literature regarding the management of different dimensions of power and its effects over IC creation.

Is the sharing economy a field? Answering this question is crucial to understanding how sharing organizations look and behave, as well as how the sharing economy might develop. In this chapter, the authors applied two different field conceptions – organizational field and issue field – as a starting point for an explorative empirical analysis. To capture both field concepts, the authors collected relational data and data on organizations’ self-representations to see how organizations engaged in the debate on the sharing economy relate to each other. The observed network of organizations suggests that the sharing economy is an issue field. In addition, the core of this network shows the relational structure of an organizational field. Surprisingly, it is not an organizational field of the sharing economy. Instead, it is a field of organizations heavily engaged in proselytizing new organizational forms that will change other fields. What the authors observed is a new field configuration – the authors call it a disruptive field – that is, less inward-oriented than other fields but much more engaged in changing other fields’ structures and dynamics. With these insights, the authors contribute to institutional research on field configuration and shed light on the phenomenon of the sharing economy and its potential development.

Boundaries are a popular topic among organizational researchers, many of whom argue that over the past decade we have witnessed a trend toward permeable boundaries and in some cases a blurring between organization and environment. Contrary to received wisdom, we argue that the question as to whether organizational boundaries have become more permeable or not cannot be decided empirically but is mainly a theoretical issue. Whether or not data indicate permeability or impermeability depends on the theoretical lens employed. Against this backdrop, we review how two prominent approaches to the study of boundaries, sociological systems theory and new institutionalism, not only arrive at different conclusions but also mandate diverging avenues of research. We focus in depth on several empirical trends: advances in information and communication technologies, increasingly dynamic fields and markets, invasive transparency regimes, and meta-organizations. We then introduce the contributions in this volume, showing how they elaborate on these and other empirical trends, drawing on different theoretical perspectives, to advance our understanding of the importance of boundaries within and around organizations.