Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking

Abstract

Strategy scholars are increasingly attempting to tackle complex global social and environmental issues (i.e. wicked problems); yet, many strategy scholars approach these wicked problems in the same way they approach business problems—by building causal models that seek to optimize some form of organizational success. Strategy scholars seek to reduce complexity, focusing on the significant variables that explain the salient outcomes. This approach to wicked problems, ironically, divorces firms from the very social-ecological context that makes the problem “wicked.” In this essay, we argue that strategy research into wicked problems can benefit from systems thinking, which deviates radically from the reductionist approach to analysis taken by many strategy scholars. We review some of the basic tenets of systems thinking and describe their differences from reductionist thinking. Furthermore, we ask strategy scholars to widen their theoretical lens by (1) investigating co-evolutionary dynamics rather than focusing primarily on static models, (2) advancing processual insights rather than favoring causal identification, and (3) recognizing tipping points and transformative change rather than assuming linear monotonic changes.

How can SMEs effectively embed environmental sustainability? Evidence on the relationships between cognitive frames, life cycle management and organizational learning process

“…Second, our study contributes to the recent debate among sustainability scholars, which calls for contributions on the evolutionary dynamics within organizations (Grewatsch et al (2021). Organizational cognitive frames are dynamic and can change according to the prevailing type of learning mindsets.…”

“…Sustainability scholars have traditionally focused on identifying causal relationships between environmental practices and financial performance (Damert et al, 2017; Lewandowski, 2017; Miroshnychenko et al, 2017 by focusing on certain variables to explain business outcomes (Grewatsch et al, 2021). However, organizational fields where companies operate have becoming increasingly complex (Greenwood et al, 2011, 2014; Waeger & Weber, 2019).…”

“…However, previous studies have investigated cognitive frames as a static feature, overlooking the evolutionary dynamics that can lead an organization to change its own frame (Bianchi, Testa, Boiral, et al, 2021; Carollo & Guerci, 2018; Grewatsch & Kleindienst, 2018). As recently emphasized by Grewatsch et al (2021), co‐evolutionary dynamics should be prioritized over the use of static models in order to understand how organizations tackle wicked problems.…”

“…As recently emphasized by Grewatsch et al (2021), co-evolutionary dynamics should be prioritized over the use of static models in order to understand how organizations tackle wicked problems.…”

Questioning Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of Certification Standards for Sustainability

“…Such a system-based approach would better enable scholars to ascertain the actual processes and mechanisms that drive the impact of a certification standard across systems and for the different stakeholder groups involved and, thus, not only complements specific knowledge on local net effects but also the ongoing development of more complex accounts of impact. Resting on a variety of different methods and analytical tools—ranging from system-related scoping tools that determine the social and ecological elements to be included into a study (Sitas et al, 2021) to network analysis that unpacks how elements are connected with each other and whether dependencies, trade-offs, and synergies exist between them (Maciejewski & Baggio, 2021)—such approaches may support scholars studying the impact of certification standards to conceptualize impact from a more holistic perspective and across spatial and temporal scales (Grewatsch et al, 2021). To give this further shape, we turn next to recent advances in social-ecological research on impact that are based on complex systems accounts of causal mechanisms (Rocha et al, 2018).…”