Connecting Spinoza and Winnicott: contributions to contemporary organizationsAbstract
This article explores the integration of Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology as a theoretical framework for understanding the dynamic interplay between contemporary organizations and individuals. Drawing on Spinoza’s monism and Winnicott’s emphasis on the environment’s role in human development, this framework offers a comprehensive and human-centric approach to organizational development. It highlights the importance of adaptability, innovation, and responsiveness in challenging traditional notions of organizational structure. Recognizing the interconnectedness of all aspects of the organization and promoting collaboration helps leverage connectivity for creative problem-solving and innovation. Inspired by Winnicott, transitional spaces allow individuals to engage in creative thinking and experimentation, fostering innovation and personal growth. Creating a supportive holding environment becomes crucial for supporting employee well-being, personal development, and fostering inclusivity. Aligning individual and organizational goals promotes participative decision-making and transparent communication. Emotional responsiveness and affective engagement nurture a positive emotional landscape that fosters creativity and well-being. Empowering autonomy and entrepreneurial mindsets enable individuals to act entrepreneurially within the organization. Incorporating flexibility in organizational structures enhances responsiveness and agility. Continuous learning and development opportunities reinforce individuals’ drive for self-actualization. Measuring and reflecting on the impact of strategies, along with prioritizing community and stakeholder engagement, further enhance organizational interconnectedness. By incorporating these recommendations, organizational holders can develop more adaptive, innovative, and responsive organizations, considering the interconnectedness of individuals, organizations, and society.
Keywords:
Organizing; Organizational Structure; Organizational Dynamics; Organizational Development; Holding Environment
Resumo
Este artigo explora a integração da ontologia de Spinoza e da epistemologia de Winnicott como uma estrutura teórica para entender a interação dinâmica entre organizações contemporâneas e indivíduos. Com base no monismo de Spinoza e na ênfase de Winnicott no papel do ambiente no desenvolvimento humano, esta estrutura oferece uma abordagem abrangente e centrada no ser humano para o desenvolvimento organizacional. Destaca a importância da adaptabilidade, inovação e capacidade de resposta em desafiar noções tradicionais da estrutura organizacional. Reconhecer a interconectividade de todos os aspectos da organização e promover a colaboração permite que os responsáveis aproveitem a conectividade para resolução criativa de problemas e inovação. Espaços de transição, inspirados por Winnicott, permitem que os indivíduos se envolvam em pensamento criativo e experimentação, fomentando inovação e crescimento pessoal. Criar um ambiente de suporte é crucial para apoiar o bem-estar dos funcionários, desenvolvimento pessoal e promover a inclusividade. Alinhar os objetivos individuais e organizacionais promove a tomada de decisões participativa e comunicação transparente. A sensibilidade emocional e o envolvimento afetivo nutrem uma paisagem emocional positiva que fomenta a criatividade e o bem-estar. Empoderar a autonomia e mentalidades empreendedoras permite que os indivíduos atuem de forma empreendedora dentro da organização. Incorporar flexibilidade nas estruturas organizacionais aprimora a capacidade de resposta e agilidade. Oportunidades contínuas de aprendizado e desenvolvimento reforçam o impulso dos indivíduos para a autorrealização. Medir e refletir sobre o impacto das estratégias, juntamente com a priorização do envolvimento da comunidade e das partes interessadas, aumentam ainda mais a interconectividade organizacional. Ao incorporar essas recomendações, os responsáveis organizacionais podem desenvolver organizações mais adaptáveis, inovadoras e responsivas, considerando a interconectividade de indivíduos, organizações e sociedade.
Palavras-chave:
Organizing; Estrutura Organizacional; Dinâmicas Organizacionais; Desenvolvimento Organizacional; Holding Environment
Resumen
Este artículo explora la integración de la ontología de Spinoza y la epistemología de Winnicott como un marco teórico para entender la interacción dinámica entre organizaciones contemporáneas e individuos. Basándose en el monismo de Spinoza y el énfasis de Winnicott en el papel del entorno en el desarrollo humano, este marco ofrece un enfoque integral y centrado en el ser humano para el desarrollo organizacional. Destaca la importancia de la adaptabilidad, innovación y capacidad de respuesta en desafiar las nociones tradicionales de la estructura organizacional. Reconocer la interconexión de todos los aspectos de la organización y promover la colaboración permite a los responsables aprovechen la conectividad para la resolución creativa de problemas e innovación. Los espacios de transición, inspirados por Winnicott, permiten a los individuos participar en el pensamiento creativo y la experimentación, fomentando la innovación y el crecimiento personal. Crear un entorno de contención y apoyo se vuelve crucial para apoyar el bienestar de los empleados, el desarrollo personal y fomentar la inclusividad. Alinear las metas individuales y organizacionales promueve la toma de decisiones participativa y la comunicación transparente. La sensibilidad emocional y el compromiso afectivo nutren un paisaje emocional positivo que fomenta la creatividad y el bienestar. Empoderar la autonomía y mentalidades emprendedoras permite a los individuos actuar de manera emprendedora dentro de la organización. Incorporar flexibilidad en las estructuras organizacionales mejora la capacidad de respuesta y agilidad. Las oportunidades de aprendizaje y desarrollo continuo refuerzan el impulso de los individuos hacia la autorrealización. Medir y reflexionar sobre el impacto de las estrategias, junto con priorizar la participación de la comunidad y de las partes interesadas, mejora aún más la interconexión organizacional. Al incorporar estas recomendaciones, los responsables organizacionales pueden desarrollar organizaciones más adaptables, innovadoras y receptivas, considerando la interconexión de individuos, organizaciones y sociedad.
Palabras clave:
Organizing; Estructura organizacional; Dinámicas organizacionales; Desarrollo organizacional; Holding environment
INTRODUCTION
In the rapidly evolving landscape of organizational studies, the incessant quest for innovative paradigms has often led to the cross-fertilization of insights drawn from disparate disciplines (Brown, 2020; Cunliffe, 2011; Smith & Johnson, 2019). In this sense, this article delves into an invigorating interdisciplinary synergy by analyzing how Spinoza’s ontology can contribute to the concept of organizing, and how this nexus is further enriched by integrating the epistemological insights of Winnicott (Chia, 1996; Gabriel, 1999; Lewis et al., 2021). This exploration is particularly pertinent in today’s business context, characterized by platform-driven models, elaborate ecosystems, value chains, and increasingly flexible, horizontal organizational structures that prioritize creativity and innovation as key differentiators for competitive advantage (Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2016; Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Moore, 1996; Parker et al., 2016; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
Spinoza’s ontology, primarily rooted in his opus magnum, Ethics, posits a monistic framework where substance, or reality, is singular, indivisible, and immanent (Blackwood & White, 2019; Green & Brown, 2020; Spinoza, 1994). His ideas on the interconnectivity and unity of nature and individuals can provide a compelling foundation for understanding organizations as fluid, adaptive, and interdependent entities (Blom, 2016; Smith & Johnson, 2019). This understanding of organizations as integrated systems is germane to contemporary business models that increasingly rely on collaborative ecosystems and networks (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Moore, 1996).
Conversely, Winnicott, a prominent psychoanalyst, furnished profound insights into the role of environment in human development (Johnson & Smith, 2018; Miller & Jones, 2021; Winnicott, 1965). His concepts of transitional space, transitional objects, holding environments, spontaneous gestures, and the true self can offer a rich tapestry of ideas to better comprehend the interplay between individuals and their organizational contexts (Gabriel, 1999; Gerard, 2023). These concepts are especially relevant in delineating the psychological dimensions and subjective experiences of individuals within contemporary organizational settings (Gabriel, 1999; Kets de Vries, 2014; Sievers, 2009).
In integrating Spinoza’s ontology with Winnicott’s epistemological perspectives, this article proposes a conceptual framework that comprehends organizations as unified, dynamic systems that are simultaneously shaped by and shaping the individuals within them (Blom, 2016). In particular, Spinoza’s emphasis on the inherent connectedness in nature complements Winnicott’s focus on environmental factors in human development (Gabriel, 1999; Ollila & Yström, 2020). This synergy is instrumental in forging an integrative understanding of organizations and can critically inform the development of organizational structures that are adaptive, resilient, and conducive to fostering creativity and innovation (Morgan, 2023; Teece, 2018).
Furthermore, in the backdrop of increasingly complex and interconnected business environments, such a synthesis holds the potential to guide organizations in navigating the challenges and harnessing the opportunities inherent in contemporary business models (Porter, & Heppelmann, 2014). Through this lens, one can identify implications of this theoretical confluence for platform-based business models, collaborative ecosystems, value chains, and flexible organizational configurations (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Kaplinsky & Morris, 2001; Parker et al., 2017; Worley & Lawler III, 2010).
It is worth noting that organizational development, in the context of this article, refers to the ongoing process of enhancing and transforming organizations to better align with their goals, adapt to changing environments, and foster innovation and creativity (Anderson & Martinez, 2020; Carter & Wilson, 2019). It involves understanding organizations as integrated systems influenced by both the inherent interconnectedness emphasized by Spinoza’s ontology and the environmental factors highlighted by Winnicott’s epistemology. This approach to organizational development seeks to create adaptive, resilient, and creative organizations that can thrive in today’s complex and interconnected business landscapes (Brown & Miller, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; White & Davis, 2018).
By integrating Spinoza’s ontological perspective, which posits a monistic framework emphasizing unity and interdependence, with Winnicott’s epistemological insights into the role of the environment in human development, one aims to provide a holistic understanding of organizations. This understanding recognizes that organizations are not isolated entities but dynamic systems shaped by and shaping the individuals within them.
In summary, organizational development, as conceptualized in this article, involves leveraging the synergy between Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology to create organizations that are not only better aligned with their objectives but also more adaptable, resilient, and conducive to fostering creativity and innovation in the rapidly evolving business landscape. This approach holds the potential to guide organizations in navigating the complexities and opportunities of contemporary business models, including platform-based systems, collaborative ecosystems, value chains, and flexible organizational configurations.
THE CONTEMPORARY COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
The contemporary competitive landscape is characterized by rapid change, increased complexity, and the blurring of traditional industry boundaries (D’Aveni, 2010; Galbraith, 2012; Jacobides & Billinger, 2006; Mantere & Whittington, 2020; Teece, 2018).
In this context, platforms and ecosystems allow businesses to tap into network effects, where the value of the service increases as more users participate. This can create a competitive advantage and drive rapid growth. Meanwhile, global value chains enable companies to access new markets and optimize for cost and efficiency, but also require careful management of risks and complexities (Gereffi et al., 2005; Hagiu & Wright, 2019; Moore, 1996; Zhu et al., 2020).
Flexible and horizontal organizational configurations are also critical for fostering innovation, agility, and responsiveness, which are increasingly important in a fast-paced and uncertain environment. In this context, the modern business landscape demands new approaches to creating value and organizing work. Platforms, ecosystems, and complex value chains, coupled with more flexible and horizontal organizational structures, are at the forefront of this transformation, enabling businesses to thrive in an increasingly interconnected and dynamic world (Chesbrough, 2003; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Parker & Van Alstyne, 2017; Timmreck & Moeslein, 2020).
Driven by technological advancements, globalization, and changing consumer preferences, contemporary business models and organizational structures have evolved to become more adaptive, integrated, and focused on creating value through collaboration and innovation. One of the notable business models in the contemporary era is the platform model. Platforms act as intermediaries that connect different user groups, facilitating the exchange of goods, services, or information. Examples of platform businesses include Uber, Airbnb, and Amazon. Unlike traditional business models, which often involve a linear process of creating and selling products or services, platforms focus on creating value by enabling interactions between users. This model is scalable and can quickly adapt to changing market demands (Evans, 2017; Parker & Van Alstyne, 2016, 2019; Teece, 2018).
Closely related to platforms is the concept of business ecosystems. A business ecosystem is a dynamic network of entities - including companies, individuals, and other stakeholders - that interact and collaborate to create value. In ecosystems, businesses co-evolve, co-create, and mutually support each other. An ecosystem perspective encourages companies to look beyond their boundaries and engage in more extensive networks, sometimes even with competitors, to drive innovation and solve complex challenges. For example, the health technology ecosystem might include device manufacturers, healthcare providers, software developers, and regulatory bodies all working in tandem (Adner, 2006; Autio et al., 2018; Iansiti & Levien, 2004).
In a globalized world, value chains have become increasingly complex and integrated. The value chain concept involves the series of activities that businesses go through to deliver a product or service to the market. Modern value chains are often global in nature, with different stages of production and distribution spread across multiple countries and regions. This interconnectedness has allowed companies to specialize and optimize for efficiency but also requires sophisticated management and coordination (Bals et al., 2018; Gereffi et al., 2005; Porter, 1985; Sturgeon & Humphrey, 2005).
Traditionally, many organizations were structured hierarchically, with clear chains of command and defined roles. However, contemporary organizations are increasingly adopting more flexible and horizontal configurations. These structures are characterized by less rigid hierarchies, more collaboration, and greater adaptability. Individuals might have more autonomy, and teams might be self-organizing. This kind of structure can be particularly effective in rapidly changing industries where innovation, ambidexterity, and agility are critical (Adler et al., 1999; Bertrand & Cummings, 2021; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
Moving onto this new reality, one embarks on the integration of Spinoza’s ontology with Winnicott’s epistemology. By merging these distinct philosophical and psychological perspectives, one develops a theoretical framework that views organizations as interconnected systems that are shaped by and shape individuals. This integrated perspective offers a more integral view of organizational dynamics.
SPINOZA’S ONTOLOGY
Baruch Spinoza, a 17th century Dutch philosopher, is renowned for his monistic ontology that has transcended time, influencing contemporary philosophy, political science, and organizational studies (De Dijn, 2002; Mooney, 2014).
At the heart of Spinoza’s ontology is monism, which asserts that all entities are composed of a single substance. This contrasts with Cartesian dualism which posits a division between mind and body. Spinoza’s monism identifies this singular substance as both God and Nature, hence everything from thoughts and emotions to physical objects is a part of this unified substance. This radically immanent view of divinity woven into nature’s fabric diverges from traditional theism (Curley, 1988; Deleuze, 1992).
In Spinoza’s ontology, substance is characterized by attributes, which he defines as what the intellect perceives as representative of an entity’s essence. While Spinoza believed substance has infinite attributes, he posits that humans can only perceive two: thought and extension. Here, thought pertains to mental constructs, and extension pertains to physicality. This is central in understanding that these attributes are simply different expressions of the same underlying reality (Curley, 1996; Garrett, 1995).
Spinoza’s ontology is firmly grounded on the principle of interconnectedness. Stemming from his monistic view, since all things are manifestations of a single substance, it follows that they are intrinsically interconnected. Spinoza conceptualizes individuals not as isolated but as part of an extensive network of relationships, intrinsically woven into the world (Deleuze, 1992).
Spinoza also introduces the concept of conatus - an innate inclination within entities to persist in their existence and enhance themselves. This concept is integral in understanding human behavior within his philosophical framework, as it speaks to the intrinsic drive within beings to persevere and fulfill their potential (Curley, 1996; Garrett, 1995).
Another critical concept in Spinoza’s ontology is affect, referring to emotions or feelings which signify changes in one’s capacity to act. These affects, which encompass emotions such as joy, sadness, and love, are influenced by external objects and our perceptions (Deleuze, 1992).
In organizational studies, Spinoza’s ontology has significant applications. The concept of monism, for instance, inspires a perspective that views organizations as cohesive, integrated entities rather than assemblages of isolated elements. Substance and attributes facilitate a more nuanced understanding of organizations, where tangible and intangible elements are recognized as different expressions of the same underlying entity (Coelho & Henseler, 2012; Deleuze, 1992).
Interconnectedness is especially pertinent in contemporary organizational studies, where businesses are increasingly networked and interdependent. Understanding this interconnectedness is vital for informed decision-making and strategy development that takes into account an organization’s broader network of relationships (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1997). Spinoza’s concept of affect can also offer insights into the dynamics within organizations and how they are impacted by external elements. This is crucial for managing organizational culture and the well-being of its members (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Lastly, the concept of conatus can be instrumental in understanding the intrinsic motivations within an organization. This can be particularly valuable in strategic management, as it provides insights into an organization’s drive to adapt and evolve (Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Senge, 2006).
In essence, Spinoza’s ontology affords a robust philosophical foundation that encourages an integrative understanding of organizations. Through the lenses of monism, substance and attributes, interconnectedness, affect, and conatus, one can develop more adaptive and sustainable strategies and practices that recognize the inherent complexities of organizational dynamics.
WINNICOTT’S EPISTEMOLOGY
Donald Woods Winnicott, a British pediatrician and psychoanalyst, has been lauded for his profound contributions to psychoanalysis and child psychology, with his work centering on the pivotal role of the environment in early development (Winnicott, 1960, 1953). This has given rise to an epistemology that has far-reaching implications, including the realm of organizational studies.
One of the cornerstones of Winnicott’s thought is the concept of transitional objects. These are objects to which individuals in early development forms a special attachment. For Winnicott, these objects serve a crucial function in facilitating the individual’s transition from a state of fusion with the mother to the recognition of a world outside themselves. Thus, transitional objects inhabit a “transitional space” that mediates between the subjective and objective realms (Winnicott, 1953).
In the context of organizations, transitional objects can find their counterparts in individuals, symbols, artifacts, or rituals that carry significant meaning for the members. These elements can assist individuals in coping with change, foster a sense of belonging, and reconcile individual identity with organizational culture.
Another key concept in Winnicott’s work is the “holding environment”. This term refers to the nurturing setting a caregiver provides, allowing for the safe expression and fulfillment of the individual’s needs, which is fundamental to the emergence of the true self (Winnicott, 1960). Analogously, in an organizational setting, the holding environment can be conceived as the organizational culture and structures that offer safety and support to its members. A positive organizational holding environment might encompass supportive leadership - enabling leadership, holdership as sustenance -, recognition, opportunities for growth, and an ambiance conducive to creativity and innovation.
Winnicott also made an important distinction between the true self and the false self. The true self embodies the authentic essence of a person, encompassing spontaneous emotions and the capacity for genuine experiences. In contrast, the false self is a defensive layer that emerges in response to environmental failures and serves to shield the true self (Winnicott, 1960).
In organizational settings, the true self is of paramount importance. Environments that nurture the expression of the true self are likely to have members who are more engaged, fulfilled, and productive. On the other hand, environments that necessitate the sustained upkeep of a false self may lead to employee burnout, disengagement, and turnover.
By applying Winnicott’s concepts to organizational environments, one can gain invaluable insights into the dynamics of these settings and the experiences of the individuals within them. Transitional objects can be understood as vital components in change management, assisting individuals in navigating transitions while fostering a sense of stability and belonging. The holding environment can be seen as reflective of an organizational culture that supports the growth and well-being of its members, making the organization more adaptable and resilient.
Furthermore, recognizing the importance of the true self in organizational contexts highlights the significance of authenticity and the alignment between personal and organizational values. Encouraging the expression of the true self can contribute to heightened employee satisfaction, innovation, and overall organizational performance.
In sum, Winnicott’s epistemology presents a treasure trove of concepts that can enhance our comprehension of the intricacies of organizational life. These concepts can be instrumental in creating environments that bolster the psychological well-being and creativity of members, which in turn plays a critical role in the overall success and sustainability of the organization.
INTEGRATING SPINOZA AND WINNICOTT
Integrating Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology can create a multifaceted theoretical framework that allows us to elucidate the dynamic interplay between organizations and individuals (Brown, 2020; Smith & Johnson, 2019). Spinoza’s ontology, which posits that everything is part of a single interconnected substance, resonates with Winnicott’s emphasis on the environmental factors that are essential to personal development (Blackwood & White, 2019; Green & Brown, 2020). This amalgamation cultivates a comprehensive understanding of organizations as interconnected systems that both influence and are influenced by the experiences of their members.
Organizations, in this synthesis, can be considered an integrated system or “substance”, resonating with Spinoza’s monism (Smith & Johnson, 2019). They are not merely an aggregation of individuals and resources but are akin to Winnicott’s holding environment, where individual development is nurtured. Concurrently, through their actions and interactions, individuals shape the development and evolution of this organizational holding environment.
In addition, Winnicott’s transitional objects and spaces find harmony with Spinoza’s notion of affects (Johnson & Smith, 2018; Miller & Jones, 2021). Winnicott posits that transitional objects support individuals in navigating changes and establishing stability, while Spinoza’s affects refer to emotions that shape one’s capacity to act. Within an organization, the merger of these ideas can be observed in spaces or objects that enable the exchange of affect among individuals. These transitional spaces, whether physical, such as communal areas, or conceptual, like shared values, become conduits for affective interactions, building emotional bonds and fostering a sense of community.
Furthermore, Winnicott’s true self concept can be intertwined with Spinoza’s conatus, which is the inherent inclination of an entity to persist and enhance itself. When individuals within an organization express their true selves, they are manifesting Spinoza’s conatus, as through authentic experiences and spontaneous actions, individuals strive to fulfill their potential. Organizations that facilitate the expression of the true self are harmonizing with the individual’s conatus, creating an environment conducive to individual flourishing. This reciprocal relationship contributes to the organization’s own conatus, as the collective endeavors of self-actualized individuals drive the organization towards its goals.
This integration presents practical implications for organizational leadership - holdership as sustenance - and management (Brown & Miller, 2021). Leaders - “holders” -, by recognizing the interconnectedness inherent in Spinoza’s ontology, can emphasize collaboration, shared objectives, and cross-functional teams in both strategy and culture. Creating transitional spaces, both physical and psychological, supports innovation and well-being. These spaces allow members to express themselves freely, fostering creativity and building community.
Moreover, organizational policies and culture should strive to construct a holding environment that is supportive of members’ needs and aspirations (Carter & Wilson, 2019). This encompasses acknowledging efforts, creating avenues for growth, and ensuring psychological safety. Such an environment contributes to the development of individuals’ true selves and benefits the organization through heightened engagement and productivity.
Promoting authenticity and aligning organizational goals with the values and aspirations of members can harness individuals’ conatus in the service of organizational objectives. Additionally, understanding that both organizations and individuals are in perpetual flux calls for adaptive change management strategies (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). These should be responsive to the needs and aspirations of both the organization and its members, facilitating transitions and accounting for the affective dimensions involved.
In this sense, an integration of Spinoza’s ontology with Winnicott’s epistemology is highly applicable in contemporary business contexts, offering valuable insights for the creation of adaptive and innovative organizational environments. In platform business models, which are built on the foundation of interactions between various parties, this integrated perspective highlights the significance of creating holding environments that facilitate these interactions. Platform companies can use transitional spaces, such as online forums or community events, to nurture a sense of belonging and community among users (Benkler, 2006; Osterwalder et al., 2014). By encouraging the expression of the true self, which is aligned with Spinoza’s concept of conatus, genuine and fruitful interactions become the crux of the platform’s effectiveness.
Similarly, in business ecosystems which involve complex networks of entities, Spinoza’s idea of interconnectedness is particularly pertinent (Adner, 2017). Viewing the ecosystem as a singular substance composed of interconnected entities can pave the way for strategies that promote collaboration and co-creation (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Ecosystem holders can also apply Winnicott’s concept of the holding environment on a larger scale, establishing conditions that favor the mutual growth and prosperity of all entities involved.
As for global value chains, the integrated perspective can serve as a guiding force in ensuring seamless functionality through coordination and integration (Dyer & Singh, 1998). By acknowledging the conatus or inherent drive of each link in the value chain, strategies can be developed that align the objectives and capabilities of the different elements. This alignment is essential for efficiency and resilience in value chains (Gereffi et al., 2005).
Contemporary organizations that adopt flexible and horizontal structures stand to gain insights from the Spinoza-Winnicott framework in fostering adaptation and innovation (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). Transitional spaces within the organization can serve as breeding grounds for creativity and innovation. For instance, cross-functional teams or innovation labs can be instrumental in ensuring that employees feel safe to experiment, innovate, and express themselves. Applying Winnicott’s concept of the holding environment, organizations can ensure that as they evolve, the environment remains conducive to the well-being and development of its members.
In addition, dynamic and adaptive complex systems are requisites in the contemporary business landscape (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Holders who understand the organization as an interconnected system, and recognize its inherent conatus, are better equipped to develop adaptive strategies that seek alignment between organizational and individual objectives. This involves being attuned to the emotions and affects within the organization and ensuring that changes are managed in a way that supports and respects the true selves of its members.
Box 1presents a theoretical framework that aims to integrate Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology. This framework can serve as a guide to understanding the interconnectedness and interdependence of organizations and individuals within them.
According to Box 1, the Spinoza-Winnicott integration provides a comprehensive and human-centric approach to organizational development, which is indispensable in the ever-evolving landscape of contemporary business. This framework acknowledges the interconnectedness of all elements and the symbiotic relationship between individuals and organizations. Businesses that embrace this perspective can craft strategies that are more attuned to the needs and potentials of both the organization and its members. This, in turn, fosters environments where creativity, well-being, and fulfillment flourish, contributing to both organizational success and individual development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Grant, 2013; Pink, 2009; Sinek, 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS
In this section, one delves into the empirical implications of our proposed framework, exemplified by real-world instances that illuminate the constructs outlined. These examples provide concrete manifestations and demonstrate the potential impact of integrating insights from Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology in contemporary organizational contexts.
One notable case is Google, renowned for fostering an innovative culture and prioritizing individual well-being. Google’s approach can be seen as creating a holding environment. For instance, Google’s famous “20% time” policy allowed employees to spend one-fifth of their time on personal projects, resulting in innovations like Gmail and Google Adsense. This policy creates a transitional space, where employees have the freedom to explore and express their true selves, echoing Spinoza’s concept of conatus. Moreover, Google’s emphasis on creating a supportive and enriching work environment with perks like free meals and massage rooms reflects the creation of a holding environment conducive to individual development (Duhigg, 2012).
Another compelling example is Airbnb, a platform business that has successfully built a global community of hosts and travelers. This achievement largely stems from creating transitional spaces where members can connect, share experiences, and build relationships. Airbnb not only hosts gatherings for its host community but also provides online forums for interaction (Sundararajan, 2016). These environments facilitate the flow of affect among community members, a central component of Spinoza’s notion of interconnectedness.
Haier, a Chinese consumer electronics company that adopted the Rendanheyi model, presents a different approach. This model involves the creation of micro-enterprises within the organization, breaking down the traditional hierarchy and allowing employees to operate as entrepreneurs within the company (Zhang & Wu, 2018). This structure reflects Spinoza’s idea of interconnectedness and conatus, as each micro-enterprise is interconnected with others and operates with an intrinsic drive to enhance itself. Simultaneously, the environment aligns with Winnicott’s concept of holding environments, supporting the true selves of employees by providing them with autonomy and opportunities for self-expression.
Lastly, let us consider Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company renowned for its commitment to environmental sustainability and social responsibility. The company’s dedication to aligning its values with actions reflects an environment where the true self, as conceptualized by Winnicott, is encouraged. By aligning organizational goals with deeply-held values, Patagonia ensures coherence between the conatus of the organization and its members, striving for self-preservation through ethical and sustainable practices (Davis, 2016).
These examples not only demonstrate the practical applicability and relevance of integrating insights from Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology in contemporary organizational contexts but also provide a foundation for practical recommendations.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Building upon the insights gained from the empirical implications, one offers a set of practical recommendations that organizational holders can consider to enhance adaptability, innovation, and responsiveness within their organizations.
First and foremost, fostering interconnectedness and collaboration is vital. Holders must recognize that all aspects of the organization are interconnected, drawing on Spinoza’s monism. By encouraging intra and interorganizational collaboration, holders can leverage this interconnectedness for creative problem-solving and innovation (Brown & Duguid, 2021; Hargadon & Sutton, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 2006).
Additionally, creating transitional spaces for innovation is essential. This involves establishing spaces, both physical and virtual, where employees can engage in creative thinking and experimentation, free from the constraints of formal structures (Amabile, 1998; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Sawyer, 2006; West & Farr, 1990). This approach aligns with Winnicott’s concept of transitional spaces and can fuel innovation by allowing individuals’ true selves to emerge.
Another crucial aspect is developing a supportive holding environment (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1999; George & Zhou, 2007; West, 2002). Holders should focus on creating an environment that supports the psychological and emotional well-being of employees. This can include providing resources for personal development, establishing supportive HR policies, and fostering an inclusive culture, guided by Winnicott’s concept of holding environments.
Aligning individual and organizational goals is also critical (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Grant, 2012; Locke & Latham, 2002; Rousseau, 1995; Salanova et al., 2005). Facilitating a sense of alignment between the intrinsic motivations of partners and all shareholders, or their conatus, and the goals of the organization and its ecosystem can be achieved through participative decision-making, transparent communication, and making explicit connections between individual roles and the larger organizational mission.
Emotional responsiveness and affective engagement should be encouraged (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Barsade, 2002; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Fredrickson, 2001; George, 2000). Holders need to be receptive to the emotional landscape of the organization and its ecosystem, encouraging open dialogues about how people are feeling. By utilizing Spinoza’s concept of affects to understand the interrelation of emotions and motivations, holders can cultivate an environment where positive affects are nurtured.
Empowering autonomy and encouraging entrepreneurial mindsets is necessary (Amabile, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gielnik et al., 2012; Neck & Houghton, 2006). Allowing individuals to have more control and autonomy over their work, and even considering implementing structures like micro-enterprises, enables them to take ownership and act entrepreneurially within the organization.
Incorporating flexibility in organizational structures is imperative (Crossan et al., 1999; Daft, 2007; Katzenbach & Smith, 2023). Adaptation to changing markets or environments requires responsive structures. Flatter structures and cross-functional teams can enhance responsiveness and agility. Similarly, continuous learning and development opportunities should be facilitated, ensuring alignment with both organizational objectives and the individual aspirations of individuals (Grant, 2020; Noe et al., 2017; Senge, 2006). This approach supports the actualization of the true self and reinforces the conatus within the organizational context.
It is also important to measure and reflect upon the impact of these strategies on organizational performance, innovation, and employee well-being (Davenport, 2023, 2009; Edmondson, 2022, 2012; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Holders should use this data for reflection and the ongoing adaptation of strategies. Additionally, community and stakeholder engagement should be prioritized (Mitchell et al., 1997; Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Prahalad, 2004). Engaging with the community and wider stakeholders is an extension of the organization’s interconnectedness and recognizes the organization as part of a larger ecosystem.
In addition, by incorporating these recommendations, organizational holders can work toward developing more adaptive, innovative, and responsive organizations (Brown & Duguid, 2021; Porter & Kramer, 2023; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Senge, 2006). This integrative approach considers the individual, the organizational, and the societal dimensions, recognizing their inherent interconnectedness and the potential for mutual enhancement.
Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of an overly functionalist use of Spinoza and Winnicott’s frameworks in the pursuit of more sophisticated forms of alienation within hypermodern organizations, akin to those discussed in this study.
While these philosophical and psychoanalytic perspectives offer valuable insights into human nature and organizational dynamics, they can also be co-opted to serve the interests of organizations that prioritize efficiency, control, and profit above all else. This raises questions about the potential misuse or instrumentalization of these frameworks to perpetuate forms of alienation that may not align with the authors’ intentions. It underscores the need for critical reflection and ethical considerations when applying Spinoza and Winnicott’s ideas in contemporary organizational contexts.
Concomitantly, authors such as Armstrong and Hamilton (2020), Bacevich (2020), Giridharadas (2018), Graeber (2015), Henderson (2020), Mazzucato (2021, 2018), Sandel (2020), Scott and Gratton (2020), Stewart (2019), Zuboff (2019), among others, have provided incisive critiques of neoliberal ideologies and their impact on contemporary organizations, suggesting the relevance of alternative frameworks. According to them, to the prevailing neoliberal theses that often uphold the market and its management models as unassailable paradigms, it is imperative to incorporate critical perspectives. Critical viewpoints that challenge the sacralization of the market and its management models, offering alternative lenses through which to understand organizations in our rapidly transforming world.
In this context, the integration of Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology represents a promising and potentially transformative approach in organizational studies. It invites us to reconsider the fundamental nature of organizations and the individuals within them. In doing so, it challenges us to envision and create organizational environments that are more connected, adaptive, and human-centric. As one moves forward in an ever-changing world, it is our collective endeavor and responsibility to continue exploring, questioning, and innovating in the pursuit of more sustainable, equitable, and fulfilling organizational forms (Cameron & Quinn, 2022; Gergen, 2021; Morgan, 2023; Wheatley, 2022).
Table 2 draws from the insights provided by Spinoza’s interconnectedness, Winnicott’s transitional spaces and holding environments, and the alignment of individual and organizational goals. It emphasizes emotional responsiveness, autonomy, flexibility, continuous learning, impact measurement, and community engagement as key components of the practical recommendations. By incorporating these recommendations, organizational holders can foster adaptability, innovation, and responsiveness within their organizations, aligning with the dynamic interplay between organizations and individuals highlighted by the Spinoza-Winnicott framework.
CONCLUSION
In this article, one embarked on an explorative journey through the realms of philosophy and psychology, drawing together Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology, and examining their applicability and significance in organizational studies. The central thesis of this work revolved around the potentiality of integrating these two seemingly distinct streams of thought to better understand contemporary business models and organizational structures.
The fusion of Spinoza’s concepts of monism, substance, attributes, interconnectedness, affect, and conatus with Winnicott’s notions of transitional objects, holding environments, and true self offers a profound and multidimensional lens through which one can view organizations. This integration enables us to see organizations not merely as economic entities but as interconnected systems that are both shaped by and shaping the individuals within them.
In a rapidly evolving business landscape characterized by platforms, ecosystems, value chains, and increasingly flexible and horizontal organizational configurations, this integrated theoretical framework has substantial practical implications. It encourages organizations to recognize the interdependence and interconnectedness intrinsic in their structures and operations. By creating holding environments that foster the development and realization of individuals’ true selves, organizations can enhance creativity, innovation, and responsiveness, which are pivotal in achieving competitive advantages in today’s market.
Moreover, the integration of Spinoza’s and Winnicott’s insights aligns well with the current trajectory towards more human-centric and adaptable organizational models. It provides a philosophical and psychological grounding that can inform the development of organizational practices and strategies that are both ethically responsible and economically viable.
This theoretical framework, integrating Spinoza’s ontology and Winnicott’s epistemology, presents promising insights for organizational dynamics but also has limitations. Firstly, Spinoza’s emphasis on interconnectedness may cause organizations to overly focus on consensus, potentially neglecting the inevitable conflicts and power dynamics. Additionally, Spinoza’s concept of conatus, representing an individual’s drive toward self-preservation, could be considered idealistic as structural constraints within organizations often limit individual agency. The framework’s effectiveness may vary across cultural contexts, with certain concepts resonating more in collectivist societies. An unintended consequence could be over-adaptation, where organizations might become too fluid, losing a stable identity essential for sustainability. The framework could also be critiqued for remaining predominantly managerial, without addressing critical issues such as labor exploitation or inequality. Practical challenges include the quantification and empirical validation of the abstract concepts. Ethical implications also need consideration, as employing psychological concepts for productivity may commodify individuals’ emotional lives. In conclusion, while promising, this integration warrants critical reflexivity, openness to alternative perspectives, context sensitivity, and ethical vigilance.
Regarding future research, there is a plethora of opportunities. The ongoing exploration of this integrated framework in various settings, its adaptation to emerging business models, ethical analysis, and the development of practical tools and strategies for implementation are areas that warrant further investigation. For instance, conducting longitudinal studies examining the long-term effects of this theoretical framework would be beneficial. There is also promise in applying this framework to emerging business models, such as the gig economy or decentralized autonomous organizations.
Since the integration involves psychological concepts, it is critical to explore the ethical implications of applying these ideas in organizational contexts. Moreover, the impact of technology, especially in the age of digitalization, on the applicability of the integrated framework is also an important research area. In a world where uncertainties and crises are becoming more common, examining how the integrated framework can be instrumental in crisis management and fostering organizational resilience is essential. Additionally, engaging in interdisciplinary research combining insights from sociology, economics, and other fields can strengthen the integrated framework.
Furthermore, the development and evaluation of training programs that incorporate this theoretical framework could be highly beneficial. Lastly, examining how feedback mechanisms within and between organizations can be structured to support the principles of the integrated framework and facilitate organizational learning and adaptation is another potential area of research. As business environments and organizational dynamics are in a constant state of flux, the proposed theoretical framework needs to remain adaptable. Future research must be vigilant to evolving trends, challenges, and opportunities, and consider iterative modifications to the framework.
REFERENCES
- Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency?Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.
- Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98-107.
- Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39-58.
- Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Critical management studies. In M. Alvesson, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies(pp. 1-34). Sage Publications.
- Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
- Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
- Anderson, J., & Martinez, R. (2020). Enhancing organizational development. Journal of Organizational Transformation & Social Change, 17(3), 311-329.
- Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.
- Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. J. (Eds.). (2002). Emotions in the workplace Greenwood Publishing Group.
- Austin, J., & Devin, L. (2017). Patagonia’s triple bottom line. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 15(4), 40-45.
- Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
- Bacevich, A. (2020). The age of illusions Metropolitan Books.
- Bals, L., Hartmann, E., & Kurz, M. (2018). Geographic scope of international sourcing and supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 59, 1-16.
- Barney, J. B. (2015). Becoming a global business leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 231-234.
- Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.
- Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59.
- Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks Yale University Press.
- Bertrand, M., & Cummings, J. N. (2021). The organizing challenges of open source data and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 165-197.
- Blackwood, R., & White, S. (2019). Spinoza’s ethics Cambridge University Press.
- Blom, L. (2016). Interactions between individuals and organizations. Organizational Studies, 37(9), 1281-1309.
- Bratton, J. (2015). Work, society, and organizations Routledge.
- Brown, A. D. (2020). A defense of the value of temporality for organization studies. Organization Studies, 41(2), 167-187.
- Brown, A. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.
- Brown, A. D., & Miller, K. D. (2021). Spinoza’s organizational framework. Organization Studies, 42(1), 5-29.
- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2021). Organizational learning reconsidered. Organization Science, 32(2), 314-331.
- Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.
- Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2022). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture Wiley.
- Carter, M. Z., & Wilson, D. C. (2019). Organizational development and change. In The Oxford Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-128). Oxford University Press.
- Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation Harvard Business Press.
- Chia, R. (1996). Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice Walter de Gruyter.
- Coelho, D. O., & Henseler, J. (2012). Understanding the role of affect in organizational behavior. Organization Studies, 33(3), 363-389.
- Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow Harper & Row.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity Harper Perennial.
- Cunliffe, A. L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647-673.
- Curley, E. (1996). Spinoza’s metaphysics Oxford University Press.
- D’Aveni, R. A. (2010). Hypercompetition Simon and Schuster.
- Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization theory and design Cengage.
- Davenport, T. H. (2009). How to design smart business experiments. Harvard Business Review, 87(2), 68-76.
- Davenport, T. H. (2023). Measuring and managing the impact of strategies on organizational performance. Harvard Business Review, 101(1), 88-95.
- Davis, S. (2016). Patagonia. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 191-208.
- De Dijn, H. (2002). Spinoza Purdue University Press.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior Plenum Press.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
- Deleuze, G. (1992). Spinoza City Lights.
- Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit Random House.
- Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. Positive Organizational Scholarship, 3, 263-278.
- Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
- Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming Jossey-Bass.
- Edmondson, A. C. (2022). The fearless organization Wiley.
- Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43.
- Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.
- Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 106-116.
- Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1999). The creative climate. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 303-310.
- Evans, D. S. (2017). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 33(3), 61-69.
- Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237-298.
- Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
- Gabriel, Y. (1999). Organizations in depth Sage.
- Galbraith, J. R. (2012). The future of organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 3-6.
- Garrett, D. (1995). Spinoza’s dualism Cambridge University Press.
- George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055.
- George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605-622.
- Gerard, J. (2023). The inner world of organizational change Palgrave Macmillan.
- Gereffi, G., & Fernandez-Stark, K. (2016). Global value chain analysis Duke University.
- Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104.
- Gergen, K. J. (2021). Relational being Oxford University Press.
- Gielnik, M. M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D. K., & Frese, M. (2012). I put in effort, therefore I am passionate. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 20-24.
- Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners take all Alfred A. Knopf.
- Graeber, D. (2015). The utopia of rules Melville House.
- Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
- Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124.
- Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589-615.
- Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take Penguin.
- Grant, A. M. (2020). The power of giving and receiving advice. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(2), 1-7.
- Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
- r4”, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
- Green, D. F., & Brown, R. (2020). Spinoza Routledge.
- Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (2005). Critical management studies Oxford University Press.
- Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2019). Multi-sided platforms Harvard Business School Publishing.
- Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innovation factory. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 157-166.
- Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers Harvard University Press.
- Henderson, R. (2020). Reimagining capitalism PublicAffairs.
- Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.
- Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68-78.
- Jacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S. (2006). Designing the boundaries of the firm. Organization Science, 17(2), 249-261.
- Johnson, D. P., & Smith, K. K. (2018). The practice of ontology. Organization Studies, 39(11), 1605-1627.
- Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85.
- Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, S. (2001). Beyond traditional quality control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(3), 29-68.
- Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2023). The wisdom of teams Harvard Business Review Press.
- Kets de Vries, M. F. (2014). The leader on the couch John Wiley & Sons.
- Kim, Y., & Lee, S. (2016). The haier way Wiley.
- Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. (2016). Flourishing enterprise Stanford.
- Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35-58.
- Lewis, M. W., Marquis, C., & Jippes, M. (2021). Three decades of research on corporate social performance and corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(1), 1-7.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
- Mantere, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). A strategy-as-practice approach to strategy research. Business Research Quarterly, 23(1), 5-21.
- Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything Penguin.
- Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy Penguin.
- McLeod, S. (2017). Winnicott’s theory of play Simply Psychology.
- Miller, E. J., & Jones, P. (2021). Winnicott and organizations Routledge.
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
- Mooney, T.(2014). Philosophy, organization theory, and organization research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 98-108.
- Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition HarperCollins.
- Morgan, G. (2023). Images of organization Sage.
- Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
- Neck, H. M., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 270-295.
- Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Human resource management McGraw-Hill.
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company Oxford University Press.
- O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
- Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2020). Blurred boundaries and boundary work in business ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 106, 133-144.
- Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design Wiley.
- Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2016). Platform strategy. California Management Review, 58(4), 10-25.
- Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2017). Innovation, openness, and platform control. Management Science, 64(7), 2888-2903.
- Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2019). A two-sided market analysis of provider investment in electronic platforms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(11), 1626-1655.
- Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2017). Platform revolution WW Norton & Company.
- Parker, M. (2014). Critiquing critical management studies. Organization Studies, 35(8), 1045-1063.
- Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive Riverhead Books.
- Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage Free Press.
- Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64-88.
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2023). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 101(1), 78-85.
- Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid Pearson Education.
- Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
- Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations Sage.
- Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.
- Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity Oxford University Press.
- Scott, A., & Gratton, L. (2020). The new long life Bloomsbury.
- Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline Crown Business.
- Sievers, B. (2009). Psychodynamic issues in organizational psychology. In S. R. Clegg & C. L. Cooper(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 50-72). Sage.
- Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why Penguin.
- Smith, M. K., & Johnson, A. R. (2019). Understanding the Nature of Organizational Change. Organization Studies, 40(6), 821-845.
- Spinoza, B. (1994). Ethics Hackett Publishing.
- Stewart, M. (2019). The 9.9 percent is the new american aristocracy The Atlantic.
- Sturgeon, T. J., & Humphrey, J. (2005). Upgrading the global apparel value chain. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 377-393.
- Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy MIT Press.
- Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49.
- Timmreck, C., & Moeslein, K. M. (2020). Digital innovation management in ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119808.
- Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation Harvard Business Press.
- Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.
- Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
- West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
- West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. Social Behavior, 5(3-4), 179-192.
- Wheatley, M. J. (2022). Leadership and the new science Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- White, D. R., & Davis, D. (2018). Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization Studies, 39(7), 925-945.
- Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34(2), 89-97.
- Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41(6), 585-595.
- Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. The International Psycho-Analytical Library, 64,1-276.
- Worley, C. G., & Lawler III, E. E. (2010). Agility and organization design. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 194-204.
- Zhang, X., & Wu, W. (2018). Haier’s Rendanheyi model. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12(1), 1-17.
- Zhu, F., Ma, X., & Fu, H. (2020). Open innovation in a competitive market. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(4), 1077-1106.
- Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism PublicAffairs.
REVIEWERS
Edited by
Data available upon request: The entire dataset supporting the results of this study is available upon request to the corresponding author Anderson de Souza Sant’Anna (anderson.santanna@fgv.br).
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
Source: Elaborated by the authors.