| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1208
Organizational fields undergo upheavals. Shifting industry boundaries, new network forms, emerging sectors, and volatile ecosystems have become the stuff of everyday organizational life. Curiously, profound changes of this sort receive scant attention in organization theory and research. Researchers acknowledge fieldwide flux, emergence, convergence, and collapse, but sidestep direct investigations of the causes and dynamic processes, leaving these efforts to political scientists and institutional economists. We attribute this neglect to our field’s philosophical, theoretical, and methodological fealty to the precepts of equilibrium and linearity. We argue that ingrained assumptions and habituated methodologies dissuade organizational scientists from grappling with problems to which these ideas and tools do not apply. Nevertheless, equilibrium and linearity are assumptions of social theory, not facts of social life. Drawing on four empirical studies of organizational fields in flux, we suggest new intellectual perspectives and methodological heuristics that may facilitate investigation of fields that are far from equilibrium. We urge our colleagues to transcend the general linear model, and embrace ideas like field configuration, complex adaptive systems, self-organizing networks, and autocatalytic feedback. We recommend conducting natural histories of organizational fields, and paying especially close attention to turning points when fields are away from equilibrium and discontinuous changes are afoot.
INSEAD, 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, Singapore 138676
LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
ameyer{at}uoregon.edu
vibha.gaba{at}insead.edu
kcolwell(drexel.edu
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. H. Chiles, C. S. Tuggle, J. S. McMullen, L. Bierman, and D. W. Greening Dynamic Creation: Extending the Radical Austrian Approach to Entrepreneurship Organization Studies, January 1, 2010; 31(1): 7 - 46. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. L. Wright Domination in Organizational Fields: It's Just Not Cricket Organization, November 1, 2009; 16(6): 855 - 885. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Bhavnani and D. Miodownik Ethnic Polarization, Ethnic Salience, and Civil War Journal of Conflict Resolution, February 1, 2009; 53(1): 30 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Kaplan Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty Organization Science, September 1, 2008; 19(5): 729 - 752. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Chiles, V. K. Gupta, and A. C. Bluedorn On Lachmannian and Effectual Entrepreneurship: A Rejoinder to Sarasvathy and Dew (2008) Organization Studies, February 1, 2008; 29(2): 247 - 253. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Langley Process thinking in strategic organization Strategic Organization, August 1, 2007; 5(3): 271 - 282. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Chiles, A. C. Bluedorn, and V. K. Gupta Beyond Creative Destruction and Entrepreneurial Discovery: A Radical Austrian Approach to Entrepreneurship Organization Studies, April 1, 2007; 28(4): 467 - 493. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Walsh, A. D. Meyer, and C. B. Schoonhoven A Future for Organization Theory: Living in and Living with Changing Organizations Organization Science, September 1, 2006; 17(5): 657 - 671. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Garud, A. Kumaraswamy, and V. Sambamurthy Emergent by Design: Performance and Transformation at Infosys Technologies Organization Science, March 1, 2006; 17(2): 277 - 286. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
