From dualisms to dualities: On researching creative processes in the arts and sciences

Creativity and organization are usually considered as contradictory or even paradoxical (e.g. DeFillippi et al., 2007), not only in the arts but also in the sciences. For creativity implies the creation of something novel and, at least potentially useful (Shalley et al., 2004) and, as such, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation widely praised to guarantee the survival of organizations if not societies. Creativity is traditionally assumed to be fostered by individual freedom and slack resources. By contrast, organization – or organizing – with its emphasis on formality, rules, routines and systemness does not seem to foster but rather to hinder the unfolding of creativity in time and space. While temporary as well as partial forms of organizations are considered principally more supportive in this respect (Burke and Morely, 2016; Ahrne and Brunsson, 2018), I will argue in the following that any analysis of creative processes in and across organizations has to focus on both freedom and constraints – as well as on the tensions and contradiction arising from there, no matter whether these are of a truly paradoxical nature or not. Any process research on creativity, of a strong or more moderate nature (Fortwengel et al., 2017), should not only study “patterns in events” (Langley, 1999: 692) but focus on the interrelating of the two poles of the tensions, more appropriately conceived as a duality than a dualism. For Giddens (1984), whose work has been quite well received by economic geographers with respect to his concept of duality of structure and agency (e.g. Bathelt and Glückler, 2014), a duality is a melding of opposites. In more concrete terms, and following the definition by Graetz and Smith (2008), a duality comprises “the simultaneous presence of competing and ostensibly contradictory” (p. 270) properties, not unlike in a paradox. Ashforth and Reingen (2014), in a recent study of the relationships of idealist and pragmatists in a natural food cooperative, not only build on this definition and differentiation. Rather, these authors rightly emphasize that “the notions of ostensible contradiction and unified whole provide more conceptual space for exploring how the elements may in fact be complementary” (p. 475). With regard to such complementarities, or even supplementaries in a Derridean sense, including the more often than not productive role of (even self-imposed) constraints in creative processes (Ortmann and Sydow, 2018), we do need a more reflective and balanced account of organization and organizing – one which was already asked for by Adler and Borys (1996) more than two decades ago with regard to the enabling and constraining effects of bureaucratic structures. In fact, the four papers accepted for publication in this themed issue reflect to a large extent the long-needed move towards recognizing the importance of such a focus on tensions and contradictions as dualities (Farjoun, 2017). As correctly emphasized by Hautala and Ibert (2018) in their introduction to this theme issue these papers even share a processual approach to such dualities. In what follows, I will recap the tensions which not only of the four papers but also the commentary by Grabher (2018) address and inquire into exactly how they address them, for instance by unearthing the concepts these authors mobilize to theorize them. I will conclude that, from an organization theory perspective, economic geography seems on a good way to a more balanced and conflict-sensitive, even dialectical process understanding of creativity and organization that could well be pushed a bit further into this direction by not only considering tensions and contradictions as conditions and outcomes of organizing for creativity but also as important means. In addition, a more explicit study of tensions and contradictions and their role in creative processes in arts and sciences across different levels of analysis may be useful. At the same time, organization research has, despite some attempts to consider spatiality more seriously (e.g. Clegg and Kornberger, 2006), to learn a lot from economic geography about the multidimensional character of spatiality of creative processes

A Process View

The structuring and behaviour of organizations is increasingly explained with the help of process theories, taking into account that history and sequencing matter. Among them, the notion of path dependence has gained prominence, in particular when an explanation for the rigidification of organizational routines and strategies is at stake. The distinguishing feature of this concept is its emphasis on self-reinforcing mechanisms when explaining the dynamics of narrowing down the scope of alternative actions in and among organizations. After having presented and discussed the theory of organizational path dependence, the paper highlights commonalities and contrasts between related concepts. Thereafter, the papers of this Special Themed Section will be introduced

Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms

An important new stream of thought stressing the importance of organizational fluidity has emerged in recent years. It represents a reaction to the increasing complexity and environmental turbulence that organizations have to master. The solutions proposed are highly flexible and fluid organizational forms, based on relentlessly changing templates, quick improvisation, and ad- hoc responses. This approach is in sharp contrast to other recent organizational research that emphasizes identity, path dependence, economies of specialization, and recursive practices. We juxtapose the idea of organizational fluidity with this latter stream of research. If taken to its final conclusion, then the idea of promoting organizational fluidity would imply losing the very essence of organizing. Nevertheless, achieving organizational flexibility remains imperative in increasingly complex and volatile environments. To deal with this dilemma, an alternative approach is needed. We suggest a conceptualization of this dilemma that emphasizes the complementary dynamics between the two perspectives. We therefore provide an alternative conception that favors the idea of balancing countervailing processes in organizations with respect to the conflicting demands of organizational efficiency and fluidity

Path Dependent Platforms : A Process Perspective on Enterprise Ecosystem Governance

In their editorial to the workshop on the role of platforms for enterprise ecosystems, Beimborn et al. (2011: 4) emphasize that “the emergence of platforms as backbones for inter-organizational cooperation and collaboration also impacts the way economic activity is organized.” In a similar vein, Tiwana et al. (2010: 686) argue that platform-based enterprise ecosystems actually constitute “complex alliance networks”, where an approach grounded in literature on inter-organizational relationships might be a helpful complement to “the burgeoning exclusively macro, two-sided markets literature in economics.” Conceptualizing the relationships between platform and module providers as historically contingent, inter-organizational processes exhibits both new explanatory potentials and methodological difficulties. Scholars in the tradition of the two-sided markets paradigm such as Economides and Katsamakas (2006) ask how collaborative or competitive the relationship between platform leader and providers of complementary goods should be. In contrast, focusing on inter-organizational relations (e.g., Dyer and Singh 1998) would acknowledge that such a question cannot be decided in the abstract but rather depends, among others, on a platform’s governance history and expected future. Coming from such an organization-theory perspective, it might sound odd to combine such an approach with insights from path dependence theory, which again roots in works by the economists David (1985) and Arthur (1989). The reason for this choice is threefold: first, while we do want to strengthen the role of managerial contingency in platform governance, we want to warn against overstating managerial leeway too. Second, as pointed out by Langlois (2002: 25), modular innovation promoted by platforms might come at the cost of increasing costs of systemic innovation. Third, recent applications of path dependence theory in an organizational realm (see, for example, Sydow et al. 2009; Dobusch 2010) sensitize for rigidities or even lock-ins in particular, which may result from initially successful governance practices. All these points taken together imply following the recommendation by Tiwana et al. (2010: 685) to “explicitly consider the possibility of nonlinear and threshold effects.

The Case of Labor Standards and International Framework Agreements

Although institutional work has recently attracted considerable attention from organization research, there is a surprising neglect of inter-organizational negotiations as a form of institutional work. This neglect is astonishing, since negotiations provide a unique opportunity both to study institutional change in settings characterized by diverging institutional logics and to illustrate how institutional constraints and strategic agency are linked in interaction processes. Based on a combination of the literature on institutional work and the theory of strategic negotiations, we examine in detail three illuminating negotiation processes taking place around International Framework Agreements on global labour standards. This examination reveals three types of (proto-)institutional outcomes produced by these processes: institutional creation, modification and stagnation. Whereas institutional creation and modification, albeit differing in quality, show how integrative negotiation practices of global unions might engage management in a joint endeavor for institutional change, institutional stagnation illuminates some of the pitfalls of negotiation work

The case of a network in the Berlin-Brandenburg optics cluster

Much research on regional business clusters refers to path dependence as a central feature in the evolution of cluster structures. In many cases, however, little is known about the agentic processes and mechanisms that underlie path dependence. In this article, we explore changes in a specific network in the optics cluster in the German region of Berlin-Brandenburg to show that development of clusters can be driven by elements of both emergence and planning. In particular, we argue that current actors actively and purposively draw upon rules and resources that were shaped not only in the long and discontinuous history of the cluster but also in the recent process of network development that involves careful planning and well-structured planning tools. Using central concepts from structuration theory, we show how agency is implicated in the coordination of the network and how agency turns coordination into a self-reinforcing mechanism. The findings suggest that purposive planning involves a fundamental ambivalence in the processes and outcomes of path dependence, at the level of both the cluster and its constituent networks

Projects, paths, and practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships

In this article, we examine how project entrepreneurs maintain and leverage long-term project-based relationships in highly uncertain and volatile project businesses with clients and key service providers across ever changing collaborative contexts. Based on a thorough analysis of TV project networks, using both quantitative and qualitative data, we find that project entrepreneurs form core teams with particular clients and service providers, and establish sequences of related projects thereby forming collaborative paths. These paths allow partners to exploit and stretch existing, and explore new capabilities and partner resources across time and contexts of collaboration. Paths are promoted by connecting practices partners apply to establish task and team linkages between past, present and potential future projects. Our findings promote a more processual understanding of project-based organizing and learning, and tie formation and maintenance in dynamic industry contexts

Resourcing Goal-directed Networks: Toward A Practice-based Perspective

This paper proposes a practice-based perspective on how managers resource goal-directed networks in the public sector, especially those governed by a network administrative organization. While previous literature shows that network managers need to acquire and allocate resources in order to achieve network goals, little is known about specific resourcing practices and related challenges to resourcing goal-directed networks. To shed light on these issues, we outline a processual, multilevel, network-centric perspective that focuses on network resourcing practices and takes their interplay with network rules and goals into account. This paper shows that, to attain network goals, network managers need to mitigate developing tensions arising from the different interests of network members, external stakeholders, and the network itself, while navigating a trajectory of network resourcing. The paper contributes to the literature on public networks by examining potential sources of network-level resources; outlining basic resourcing practices of controlling, producing, reproducing, and transforming such resources; discussing multilevel tensions around network resourcing; and exploring trajectories of network resourcing. In addition, we propose avenues for empirical research on network resourcing