Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

In a world shaped by technological, ecological, and social grand challenges, organizations face the hurdle of balancing power with an unprecedented ethical responsibility. Within this landscape, self-managed organizations and self-managed organizing (SMOs) emerge as an alternative that do not only casts doubts on traditional hierarchical structures but also reshapes relationships between humans, technology, and the environment, promoting more human-centered and sustainable organizations and ways of organizing. By decentralizing decision-making, SMOs empower individuals and teams to act with autonomy and accountability, challenging conventional notions of authority and control (Lee & Edmondson, 2017). Rather than formal hierarchies, these models operate like living, complex adaptive systems (Bernstein et al., 2016), attuned to shifting environments and capable of integrating diverse agents – from emerging technologies to natural ecosystems (Montefusco & Angeli, 2021; Tsoukas, 2017). Importantly, self-managed organizational models are not limited to singular organizations but extend to the inter-organizational space, for example through spontaneous, temporally bounded inter-agency collaborations (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016) or more stable participant-shared networks (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Raeymaeckers & Kenis, 2016). Missimer et al. (2017) already forecasted self-organization as one of the basic principles of sustainability, since this capacity is key when confronted with a sudden change in the environment and to prevent deterioration. Despite their potential, research on SMOs remains nascent, leaving much to be understood about their unique dynamics and limitations (Ketkar & Workiewicz, 2022).
 
Adopting a self-managed model represents a radical transformation not only in organizational structures but also in their underlying culture and inter-organizational space. It introduces significant challenges, requiring people working in these organizational contexts to develop certain literacies (self-awareness, decision-making, teamwork, flexibility, etc.) to work effectively and to relate in different ways. Hence, they have profound implications for the human experience of work (Schell & Bischof, 2022). On one hand, SMOs aim to create environments where employees feel more valued and engaged (Laloux, 2014). On the other hand, they reveal paradoxes that demand deeper investigation (Mazzelli, 2023). For instance, while SMOs promise more inclusive spaces where every voice is heard, they also face tensions between their ideals of equality and autonomy and the practical realities of managing limited resources and achieving organizational goals (Martela, 2019). In the absence of formal hierarchies, employees may encounter uncertainty about their roles and responsibilities, potentially leading to internal conflicts or burnout (Lee, 2019).
 
Similarly, larger network structures typically face tensions between seeking the unity of ideas and intent while preserving the diversity of voices, or between the stability and dependability of inter-organizational relationships which may come to the detriment of network flexibility (Saz-Carranza et al., 2016; Saz-Carranza & Ospina, 2011). Moreover, decentralizing authority can give rise to informal power dynamics that are harder to identify and regulate, posing additional challenges to their ideals of fairness and transparency. In network structures, this manifests with potentially conflicting goals at organizational, partnership and network level which can be difficult to reconcile and may undermine consensus and the legitimacy of collective actions.
 
Building on this foundation, self-managed models present a unique opportunity to reimagine organizations through a people-centered lens. However, they also pose critical questions about identity, inclusion, ethics and sustainability that require careful and rigorous exploration. These challenges highlight the need for theories that address not only the internal dynamics of SMOs but also their interactions with broader contexts. This sub-theme, therefore, invites exploration of both the internal and external dynamics of SMOs, offering the following critical questions for reflection:

• How are ethical boundaries defined in self-managed organizational models (whether organizations or organizational networks) without a formal hierarchy?

• Where does responsibility lie in a radically decentralized system?

• How is trust developed and maintained in SMOs (whether organizations or organizational networks)?

• What literacies are needed to work effectively in these organizations and networks?

• What coordination mechanisms do radically decentralized organizational models use?

• Do self-managed models help reduce inequalities and increase perceived inclusion or do they implicitly reproduce societal biases and marginalization? What mechanisms ensure that collective decisions are truly inclusive and do not reflect invisible power dynamics?

• What new organizational identities and identity processes emerge in these contexts? How the multiple identities and identity levels (social, organizational, group, personal) are aligned? Are professional identities diluted in these contexts as hierarchies do, or on the contrary, made salient?

• How does autonomy affect employees’ well-being? Do they feel more empowered and satisfied, or do they experience new anxieties due to the lack of clear structures? What impact do these dynamics have on their sense of purpose and engagement in their jobs and identification with their organizations?

• How do these organizations balance the demands of sustainability with immediate human needs, such as job security and well-being? Do they risk prioritizing collective goals over organizational and individual needs?

• What are the epistemological and methodological possibilities of researchers to integrate knowledge from different fields and disciplines (psychology, organization studies, business sustainability, etc.) to better understand new organizational and inter-organizational ways that can be sustained over time?

• How are self-managing principles sustained when organizations and organizational networks grow?

• How is diversity managed differently in SMOs?

References

• Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M.Y. (2016): “Beyond the Holacracy Hype. The overwrought claims – and actual promise – of the next generation of self-managed teams.” Harvard Business Review, July–August, 38–49.

• DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016): “Project Networks: Governance Choices and Paradoxical Tensions.“ Project Management Journal, 47 (5), 6–17.

• Ketkar, H., & Workiewicz, M. (2022): “Power to the people: The benefits and limits of employee self-selection in organizations.” Strategic Management Journal, 43 (5), 935–963.

• Laloux, F. (2014): Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human. Millis, MA: Nelson Parker Publishing.

• Lee, M.Y. (2019): Self-Managing Organizations: Exploring the Dynamics and Consequences of Radically Decentralizing Authorit. Doctoral dissertation. Boston: Harvard Business School.

• Lee, M.Y., & Edmondson, A.C. (2017): “Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing.“ Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35–58.

• Martela, F. (2019): “What makes self-managing organizations novel? Comparing how Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg’s adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental problems of organizing.“ Journal of Organization Design, 8 (1), 1–23.

• Mazzelli, A. (2023): “Why managers matter: the paradox of organizing.” Journal of Organization Design, 12 (1–2), 31–36.

• Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.H., & Broman, G. (2017): “A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 1: Exploring the social system.“ Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 32–41.

• Montefusco, A., & Angeli, F. (2021): “Teaching and Learning Complex Reasoning: An Integrative Framework.“ Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.13520abstract

• Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P. (2008): “Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness.“ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–252.

• Raeymaeckers, P., & Kenis, P. (2016): “The influence of shared participant governance on the integration of service networks: A comparative social network analysis.” International Public Management Journal, 19 (3), 397–426.

• Saz-Carranza, A., & Ospina, S M. (2011): “The Behavioral Dimension of Governing Interorganizational Goal-Directed Networks – Managing the Unity-Diversity Tension.“ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (2), 327–365.

• Saz-Carranza, A., Salvador Iborra, S., & Albareda, A. (2016): The Power Dynamics of Mandated Network Administrative Organizations.” Public Administration Review, 76 (3), 449–462.

• Schell, S., & Bischof, N. (2022): “Change the way of working. Ways into self-organization with the use of Holacracy: An empirical investigation.” European Management Review, 19 (1), 123–137.

• Tsoukas, H. (2017). “Don’t Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies.“ Journal of Management Studies, 54 (2), 132–153.