Our capacity to tackle grand challenges facing humanity depends on collaborative creativity. Increasingly, such collaborative creativity is affected by advanced technology such as mobile technology...

10.5465/amp.2018.0178

Businesses are increasingly participating in cross-sectoral partnerships to reduce their environmental impacts on society. At the same time, some are pursuing more entrepreneurial ventures to stimulate environmental innovations. Environmental issues, however, are evolving into grand challenges that could create massive disruptions to organizational and societal systems that transcend the interests or influence of individual firms. As such, successful adaptation to these challenges will require innovative solutions that leverage the resources and capabilities of all relevant actors. Drawing from research on cross-sectoral partnerships and environmental entrepreneurship, we propose collective environmental entrepreneurship (CEE) as a strategy to facilitate adaptation to changing global ecosystems. We explain how cross-sectoral partnerships can overcome some of the constraints facing individual sectors in developing innovative adaptations to grand environmental challenges by pursuing CEE. Further, we show how these initiatives can institute governance arrangements that help individual sectors reconcile their diverging interests. We then apply these insights to three cases where governments, private interests, and nonprofits have collaborated to adapt to the physical impacts of climate change through innovative partnerships and draw implications for how this construct could be applied to other global challenges facing society.

Diffusion of environmentally beneficial practices is often portrayed as either the result of regulatory action or the heroic leadership of powerful actors within an industry. But is this characteri...

Prospect theory has had an immense impact on strategic management scholarship, stemming from an apparent belief that the theory leads to relatively straightforward general hypotheses relating perfo...

Although there is considerable agreement that mainstream organization and management theory (OMT) has been undergirded by religious faith and beliefs, we nevertheless lack a well-developed understa...

This paper explores blockchain technology’s potential to alter contracting both in the market and within organizations. We identify and discuss how blockchain reduces certain types of transaction c...

As part of the current debate about the scholarly value of the entrepreneurial opportunity construct, some critics have suggested that the construct be dislodged. We challenge this position by desc...

This article contributes to the growing body of research and scholarship in management and organization studies (MOS) concerning the dynamics and impact of conscious and nonconscious cognitive processes on individual and collective behavior in the workplace. Dual-process theories have occupied the center ground of this literature. However, in recent years, the field of psychology, in which these theories originated, has differentiated two fundamentally different categories of dual-process theory—default-interventionist and parallel-competitive. These alternative conceptions are predicated on incommensurable assumptions but MOS researchers are seemingly oblivious of this important distinction, risking the development of a body of work that is fundamentally incoherent, being predicated on psychological foundations that are untenable. Whereas default-interventionist accounts have tended to dominate MOS, we argue that parallel-competitive formulations offer a more nuanced and realistic depiction of organizational decision makers who, as thinking and feeling beings, are as reliant on inspiration and the skillful management of emotion and intuition, as on cold, calculative cognition. We explore the implications of our arguments for multiple streams of research, spanning strategic management, entrepreneurship, organizational behavior, and human resource management, united by the desire to explicate more comprehensively the behavioral microfoundations and neural substrates of managerial and organizational decision making.

In order to advance theory, key concepts need to be clearly defined (e.g. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Suddaby, 2010). Scholars in the field of positive organizational inquiry are engaging in meaningful work on the processes, practices, and attributes which enable optimal human and organizational functioning. Much of this work incorporates the concept of virtue as an integral part of positive organizing. However, we argue that the efficacy of this scholarship is undermined by poorly defined and misconstrued conceptualizations of virtue, which vary widely in their scope and perspective (Gotsis & Grimani, 2015). This article draws on the philosophy of Aristotelian virtue ethics and the deep ontological framework of critical realism to articulate a clear definition of virtue, and a five factor framework for determining what is virtuous in which contexts. These contributions provide the foundation for a stronger virtue-based perspective in positive organizational inquiry.