Suffering catalyzing ecopreneurship: Critical ecopsychology of organizations

Abstract

The article bridges the gap between ecology and mind in organization theory by exploring the role of psychological suffering for sustainable organizing. In particular, it shows how burn-out, experiential deprivation, and ecological anxiety prompt ecopreneurs within the Swedish back-to-the-land movement to become ecologically embedded. Three counter-practices illustrate how this suffering represents an inner revolt against the exploitative structures of modern society and growth capitalism, and a catalyst for alternative ecopreneurship. The article takes the first steps toward critical ecopsychology of organizations, which offers an ecocentric ontology and a moral-political framework for degrowth transition.

Suffering, recovery and participant experience in a video game development accelerator

“…For some, the trial by fire built organizational resilience. This follows Gill's argument (2019, p. 398) that suffering need not be “viewed in purely negative terms.” Unlike for ecopreneurs where suffering builds legitimacy (Vlasov et al ., 2021), the benefits in an accelerator were in expanding skill sets, building teamwork and increasing productivity for some participants.…”

“…This suggests that participation in an accelerator is not a static experience and provides a foundation for how the temporal length of an accelerator is related to various aspects (see also Gidley and (Pauwels et al, 2016), lead to different types of suffering? Do video game developers accept overwork as an industry norm (Whitson, 2020), or are certain types of suffering expected (Calvey, 2021;Vlasov et al, 2021)? We argue suffering in an organizational accelerator is complex, and our contribution is one of the first to suggest the possible consequences.…”

“…Likewise, South African gold miners might risk their health and safety in order to meet production targets (Phakathi, 2013), organizational stakeholders may endure daily structural violence (Bruck and Garthwaite, 2021) or ethnographers may assume fieldwork involves hardship (Lubit and Gidley, 2021; Warden, 2013). Some have even argued for the benefit of suffering as a means to embed in an ecosystem (Vlasov et al ., 2021). The administration of surveys on suffering at work both constructs knowledge of suffering at work and portrays it as the result of working conditions (Allard-Poesi and Hollet-Haudebert, 2017).…”

“…Physical suffering covers pain, injury and other bodily ailments (Calvey, 2021; Lubit and Gidley, 2021; Stowell and Warren, 2018; Phakathi, 2013). Mental suffering includes stress, burnout, depression and other psychological impacts (Allard-Poesi and Hollet-Haudebert, 2017; Vlasov et al ., 2021; Warden, 2013). Relatedly, emotional labor or emotional wellbeing touch on mental turmoil (Clarke, 2014; Søgaard and Krause-Jensen, 2020).…”

Towards a biosocial turn in management and organization research? Proposals for a paradigm shift

“…In 2013, the journal published a special issue on ‘Organizing in response to climate change’ (Wright et al, 2013); in 2016, a special issue on animals and organizations (Labatut et al, 2016); in 2018, a special issue on Organizing in the Anthropocene (Wright et al, 2018), and in 2019, the first special issue of any organization studies journal on food systems (Böhm et al, 2020). Vlasov et al (2021) took the first steps towards a critical ecopsychology of organizations, defending an eco-centric ontology to analyse and embrace a degrowth transition. In 2020, in the journal Organization Studies , Ergene et al proposed a radical paradigmatic shift to revise the field of sustainability in management and organization studies.…”