Organizational scholars often adopt biological models to explain the emergence and evolution of organizations and human systems. One recent example of such adoption is the organizational ecosystem metaphor. In this article, we contend that taking a rigorous ecological approach over the application of loose ecosystem language has the potential to illuminate patterns in the life span of organizations and human systems. We first define five central properties of biological ecosystems and demonstrate their potential relevance to human-constructed systems (organizational ecosystems). We then argue the value of developing biologically based hypotheses that can be tested in the context of organizational systems. Next, we propose a set of hypotheses specific to organizational stability and disruption, using Arizona charter schools as an example to demonstrate the promise of the rigorous application of the organizational ecosystem metaphor. We close with a discussion of how the insights generated might be applied across other organizational settings and systems.
AmarasekareP. (2009). Competition and coexistence in animal communities. In LevinS. A. (Eds.), The Princeton guide to ecology (pp. 196-201). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
ArumR. (2000). Schools and communities: Ecological and institutional dimensions. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 395-418.
3.
AslanC. E.BronsteinJ. L.RogersH. S.GedanK. D.BrodieJ.PalmerT. M.YoungT. P. (2016). Leveraging nature’s backup plans to incorporate interspecific interactions and resilience into restoration. Restoration Ecology, 24(4), 434-440. doi:10.1111/rec.12346
4.
BascompteJ. (2009). Disentangling the web of life. Science, 325, 416-419.
5.
BascompteJ.JordanoP. (2013). Mutualistic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BenderE. A.CaseT. J.GilpinM. E. (1984). Perturbation experiments in community ecology: Theory and practice. Ecology, 65, 1-13.
7.
BorinsS. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development, 23, 467-476.
8.
BrodieJ. F.PostE. S.DoakD. F. (Eds.). (2012). Wildlife conservation in a changing climate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BronsteinJ. L. (2015). The study of mutualism. In BronsteinJ. L. (Ed.), Mutualism (pp. 3-19). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
BrosiB. J. (2016). Pollinator specialization: From the individual to the community. New Phytologist, 210, 1190-1194.
11.
BulkleyK.FislerJ. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17, 317-342.
12.
DybzinskiR.TilmanD. (2009). Competition and coexistence in plant communities. In LevinS. A. (Ed.), The Princeton guide to ecology (pp. 186-195). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
FaustK. (2011). Animal social networks. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 148-166). London, England: Sage Publications.
14.
FukudaK.WatanabeC. (2008). Japanese and US perspectives on the national innovation ecosystem. Technology in Society, 30, 49-63.
15.
GolleyF. B. (1996). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
HerzA. (2015). Relational constitution of social support in migrants’ transnational personal communities. Social Networks, 40, 64-74.
17.
LamotheM.LamotheS. (2009). Beyond the search for competition in social service contracting: Procurement, consolidation, and accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 164-188.
18.
LaneJ. (2000). The public sector: Concepts, models and approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
LenkerU. (2000). The monasteries of the Benedictine Reform and the “Winchester School”: Model cases of social networks in Anglo-Saxon England?European Journal of English Studies, 4, 225-238.
20.
MarantoR.MillimanS.HessF.GreshamA. (Eds.). (2001). School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
MarsM. M.BronsteinJ. L.LuschR. F. (2012). The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 271-280.
22.
MarsM. M.BronsteinJ. L.SullivanP. L. (2015). The ecosystem of dark networks: A biological perspective. Combatting Terrorism Exchange, 5(3), 31-36.
23.
MarwellN. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review, 69, 265-291.
24.
MorrisW. F.DoakD. F. (2002). Quantitative conservation biology: Theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
NiY. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28, 571-584.
28.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15, 5-21.
29.
RenzulliL. A. (2005). Organizational environments and the emergence of charter schools in the United States. Sociology of Education, 78, 1-26.
30.
RohrbeckR.HolzeK.GemundenH. G. (2009). Opening up for a competitive advantage: How Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 39, 420-430.
31.
SavasE. S. (2002). Competition and choice in New York City social services. Public Administration Review, 62, 82-91.
32.
SchwenkenbergJ.VanderHoffJ. (2014). Why do charter schools fail? An analysis of charter school survival in New Jersey. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33, 300-314.
33.
ShafferM. L. (1981). Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience, 31, 131-134.
34.
ThompsonV. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 1-20.
35.
TylianakisJ. M.LaliberteE.NielsenA.BascompteJ. (2010). Conservation of species interaction networks. Biological Conservation, 143, 2270-2279.
36.
Van der HulstR. C. (2011). Terrorist networks: The threat of connectivity. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 256-270). London, England: Sage.
37.
WeinerC. N.WernerM.LinsenmairE.BlüthgenN. (2014). Land-use impacts on plant pollinator networks: Interaction strength and specialization predict pollinator declines. Ecology, 95, 466-474.
38.
ZimmerR.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.SassT. R.WitteJ. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
