Organizational Ecology: No Darwinian Evolution After All. A Rejoinder to Lemos

Schölz, Markus; Reydon, Thomas A. C.

doi:10.1177/0048393109348866

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…entrepreneurial, organizational and environmental, and argued for the need to understand these new businesses by integrating the three perspectives. Organizational theories are quite poor in arguments about the evolution of start-ups, the start-up phase, and most existing theories and perspectives in the science of the organization are focused on answering questions about more sophisticated stages of the company's existence, such as the theory of organizational ecology (Scholz & Reydon, 2009), organizational configurations (Miller, 2000), contingency theory (Tosi & Slocum, 1984), resource dependence theory, uncertainty theory (Kamps & Pólos, 1999) etc., as well as the specific contributions of Gartner (1985) and Katz and Gartner (1988) related to this category (Salamzadeh, 2015). The management theory starts from its general principle, i.e.…”

Section: Start-ups: Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Start-Ups and Internationalisation: The Case of Romania. Part 1. Theoretical Overview

Herte

Bădulescu

2020

OJBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the general concept of companies, start-ups are, more practically than theoretically, a distinct category including the so-called newly born companies struggling for existence and confirmation. Although theories of start-ups are still emerging, it is known that these companies are set up to put in practice great ideas and they grow to reach the success desired by their founders. The definition is, from a strict scientific point of view, approximate and quite inconsistent, which is why the clarification of the category of start-ups can be done using contributions from the theories of management, organization, complexity, and entrepreneurship or life stages, while admitting that a clear picture of these entities is not yet available. Regardless of the multitude of perspectives, researchers and practitioners agree that growth is therefore an essential part in the development, consolidation and orientation of start-ups. It is therefore not uncommon to find that the vast majority of European start-ups are interested in internationalizing, or expanding their internationalization, in the immediate future, despite considerable difficulties and challenges, exacerbated by lack of experience and the market power of new companies. The situation of start-ups in Romania is a bit more complex and certainly not as enthusiastic - a series of constraints, objectives and subjective, make the expansion on new markets an option not as attractive for young small and medium Romanian companies.

show abstract

Section: Start-ups: Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Start-Ups and Internationalisation: The Case of Romania. Part 1. Theoretical Overview

Herte

Bădulescu

2020

OJBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was committed to the notion of fixed, immutable, or ideal types and thus logically prevented the conceptualization of evolutionary change (Mayr 1959). 6 Through this approach, Darwin presented an entirely new way of thinking (Mayr 1976), creating a philosophical schism that was barely perceived at the time and that even today is underappreciated by evolutionary scholars (Hull 1990;Scholz and Reydon 2010). Darwin dismissed the prevailing analytical priority of representative types and introduced the population thinking perspective that instead privileges variety, the critical source of change in evolving systems.…”

Section: Reydon and Scholz's Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a defense of organizational ecology's Darwinian credentials, Lemos (2009) proffered an immediate but ultimately unpersuasive challenge to Reydon and Scholz's critique, based as it was on the resolute view that sets can be conceived as real entities. 8 This was dismissed by the authors in a rejoinder (Scholz and Reydon 2010) where they reasserted the need for a population thinking approach for Darwinian evolutionary selection processes. 9…”

Section: The Limitations Of Reydon and Scholz's Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untangling the Conceptual Issues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations

Dollimore

2013

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reydon and Scholz raise doubts about the Darwinian status of organizational ecology by arguing that Darwinian principles are not applicable to organizational populations. Although their critique of organizational ecology's typological essentialism is correct, they go on to reject the Darwinian status of organizational populations. This paper claims that the replicator-interactor distinction raised in modern philosophy of biology but overlooked for discussion by Reydon and Scholz provides a way forward. It is possible to conceptualize evolving Darwinian populations providing that the inheritance mechanism is appropriately specified. By this approach, adaptation and selection are no longer dichotomized, and the evolutionary significance of knowledge transmission is highlighted.

show abstract

“…In earlier work (Reydon and Scholz 2009;Scholz and Reydon 2010), we argued that Organizational Ecology, a self-professed Darwinian research 1 Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany 2 FHWien University of Applied Science of WKW, Vienna, Austria 1 Dawkins's distinction is between replicators and vehicles, Hull's is between replicators and interactors. 2 Note that we do not hold that there is no possible solid theoretical foundation for the program-only that it is highly unlikely that there is a Darwinian foundation in any meaningful sense of " Darwinian.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Darwinism and Organizational Ecology

Reydon

Schölz²

2013

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Dollimore criticized our claim that Organizational Ecology is not a Darwinian research program. She argued that Organizational Ecology is merely an incomplete Darwinian program and provided a suggestion as to how this incompleteness could be remedied. Here, we argue that Dollimore's suggestion fails to remedy the principal problem that Organizational Ecology faces and that there are good reasons to think of the program as deeply incompatible with Darwinian thinking.

show abstract

Organizational Ecology: No Darwinian Evolution After All. A Rejoinder to Lemos

Abstract: In a recent article we argued that organizational ecology is not a Darwinian research program. John Lemos criticized our argumentation on various counts. Here we reply to some of Lemos's criticisms.

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Start-Ups and Internationalisation: The Case of Romania. Part 1. Theoretical Overview

Start-Ups and Internationalisation: The Case of Romania. Part 1. Theoretical Overview

Untangling the Conceptual Issues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations

Darwinism and Organizational Ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About