In this article, based on a Symposium held at the 2022 Academy of Management Meeting, we present a moderated discussion between established scholars in the field of grand challenges—Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, Natalie Slawinski, and Eero Vaara—focusing on the role of institutional, paradox, and practice theories in research on grand challenges. Our goal for the symposium was to bring these theoretical perspectives into conversation, reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses, and discuss potential intersections for future research on grand challenges. We present the panelists’ prepared remarks as well as the interactive discussion covering four topics: the limitations of existing concepts and theories, materiality, impact, and relations between theory and practice. As part of these four discussion topics, we also present questions and reflections from the audience. We conclude by summarizing insights gleaned from the symposium about critical gaps and avenues for future research.
Academy of Management (AOM) Conference Theme. (2022, August 5–9). Creating a better world together [Paper presentation]. 82nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA, United States.
2.
AndriopoulosC.LewisM. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
3.
AnsariS.FissP.ZajacE. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok67
4.
AnsariS.GrayB.WijenF. (2011). Fiddling while the ice melts? How organizational scholars can take a more active role in the climate change debate. Strategic Organization, 9(1), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010395525
5.
AnsariS.WijenF.GrayB. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24(4), 1014-1040. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0799
6.
BarleyS. R. (2008). Coalface institutionalism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 491-518). Sage Publications.
7.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
8.
BesharovM.SmithW.DarabiT. (2019). A framework for sustaining hybridity in social enterprises: Combining differentiating and integrating. In GeorgeG.BakerT.TraceyP.JoshiH. (Eds.), Handbook of inclusive innovation (pp. 394-413). Edward Elgar.
9.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
10.
BowenF. E.BansalP.SlawinskiN. (2018). Scale matters: The scale of environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1411-1436. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2764
11.
BoxenbaumE.JonesC.MeyerR.SvejenovaS. (2015). Call for papers: Special issue of organization studies the material and visual turn in organization theory: Objectifying and (re)acting to novel ideas. Organization Studies, 36(1), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614550150
12.
BrentonJ.SlawinskiN. (2023). Collaborating for community regeneration: Facilitating partnerships in, through, and for place. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(4), 815-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05365-5
CleggS.CunhaM. P.BertiM. (2022). Research movements and theorizing dynamics in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 47(3), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0466
15.
CornelissenJ. P.MantereS.VaaraE. (2014). The contraction of meaning: The combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the Stockwell shooting. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 699-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12073
GeorgeG.Howard-GrenvilleJ.JoshiA.TihanyiL. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
GolsorkhiD.RouleauL.SeidlD.VaaraE. (Eds.) . (2015). Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GrayB. (2023). A call for activist scholarship in organizational theorizing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 32(3), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926231169160
23.
GrayB.PurdyJ.AnsariS. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0299
24.
GrayB.PurdyJ.AnsariS. (2022). Confronting power asymmetries in partnerships to address grand challenges. Organization Theory, 3(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221098765
25.
GrewatschS.KennedyS.BansalP. (2021). Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211038635
26.
GümüsayA. A.ClausL.AmisJ. (2020). Engaging with grand challenges: An institutional logics perspective. Organization Theory, 1(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720960487
27.
HahnT.FiggeF.PinkseJ.PreussL. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3587-2
28.
HahnT.PinkseJ.PreussL.FiggeF. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
29.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463-487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
30.
HallettT. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122409357044
31.
HallettT.ShulmanD.FineG. A. (2009). Peopling organizations: The promise of classic symbolic interactionism for an inhabited institutionalism. In AdlerP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: Classical foundations (pp. 486-509). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199535231.001.0001
32.
HallettT.VentrescaM. J. (2006). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 908-924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285171
HengstI. A.JarzabkowskiP.HoeglM.MuethelM. (2020). Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 246-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0960
35.
HoffmanA. J. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026611404336
JarzabkowskiP. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040675
38.
JarzabkowskiP.BednarekR.ChalkiasK.CacciatoriE. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018805345
39.
JarzabkowskiP.BednarekR.ChalkiasK.CacciatoriE. (2022). Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: Knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1477-1506. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0745
40.
KhanaghaS.AnsariS.ParoutisS.OviedoL. (2022). Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 476-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3147
41.
KimS.KimA. (2022). Going viral or growing like an oak tree? Towards sustainable local development through entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1709-1746. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0041
42.
KohtamäkiM.WhittingtonR.VaaraE.RabetinoR. (2022). Making connections: Harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 210-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12274
43.
KokshaginaO.ReineckeP. C.KaranasiosS. (2023). To regulate or not to regulate: Unravelling institutional tussles around the regulation of algorithmic control of digital platforms. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962221114408
44.
KrautzbergerM.FohimE.CoorenF.SchumacherT. (2021). The communicative constitution of institutional change in expression games. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 667-692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020959253
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
47.
LeonardiP. M.BarleyS. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.03.001
48.
LewisM.SmithW.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions. Oxford University Press.
LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2022). Reflections on the 2021 AMR Decade Award: Navigating paradox is paradoxical. Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 528-548. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0251
51.
MartíI.FernandezP. (2013). The institutional work of oppression and resistance. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1195-1223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613492078
52.
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594
OcasioW.LaamanenT.VaaraE. (2018). Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2702
55.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
56.
PowellW. W.ColyvasJ. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276-298). Sage Publications.
57.
PradiesC. (2023). With head and heart: How emotions shape paradox navigation in veterinary work. Academy of Management Journal, 66(2), 521-552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0633
58.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
59.
ReineckeJ.AnsariS. (2015). When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618-648. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.1004
60.
SchadJ.BansalP. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1490-1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12398
61.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
62.
SchüßlerE. S.LohmeyerN.AshwinS. (2023). “We can’t compete on human rights”: Creating market-protected spaces to institutionalize the emerging logic of responsible management. Academy of Management Journal, 66(4), 1071–1101. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1614
63.
SlawinskiN.BansalP. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960
64.
SlawinskiN.PinkseJ.BuschT.BanerjeeS. B. (2017). The role of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance in organizational inaction on climate change: A multi-level framework. Business & Society, 56(2), 253-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576136
65.
SlawinskiN.WinsorB.MazutisD.SchoutenJ. W.SmithW. K. (2021). Managing the paradoxes of place to foster regeneration. Organization & Environment, 34(4), 595-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619837131
66.
SmithW. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932
67.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826
68.
SmithW. K.JarzabkowskiP.LewisM. W.LangleyA. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford University Press.
69.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
70.
SmithW. K.TushmanM. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
71.
StadtlerL.Van WassenhoveL. N. (2016). Coopetition as a paradox: Integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37(5), 655-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615622066
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/210361
74.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford University Press.
VaaraE.FritschL. (2022). Strategy as language and communication: Theoretical and methodological advances and avenues for the future in strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 43(6), 1170-1181. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3360
Van der BylC.SlawinskiN.HahnT. (2020). Responsible management of sustainability tensions: A paradoxical approach to grand challenges. In LaaschO.SuddabyR.Edward FreemadnR.JamaliD. (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 438-452). Edward Elgar.
79.
Van der BylC. A.SlawinskiN. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575047
80.
VinceR.BroussineM. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700101
81.
VoronovM.FosterW. M.PatriottaG.WeberK. (2023). Distilling authenticity: Materiality and narratives in Canadian distilleries’ authenticity work. Academy of Management Journal, 66(5), 1438–1468. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0017
WijenF.AnsariS. (2007). Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1079-1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078115
85.
WilliamsA.HeucherK.WhitemanG. (2021). Planetary emergency and paradox. In BednarekR.CunhaM. P. E.SchadJ.SmithW. K. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Learning from Belief and Science, Part A (research in the sociology of organizations) (Vol. 73a, pp. 151-170). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2021000073a012
