Philosophy of Management最新文献

This paper wants to shed light on the way the philosophical school of Stoicsm in Greco-Roman antiquity has dealt with the relationship of men and nature by pointing out to some of the key texts in which these issues are mentioned. Although the modern concept of sustainability or environmental protection did not really exist in antiquity, the Stoa was convinced that individual decisions had a direct impact on this world. Following the concept of environmental humanities, the ancient texts and authors are collected as historical ideas of the multifaceted interactions between nature and men that can be fruitfully mirrored with the arguments of the current Anthropocene discourse and its focus on (post)industrialism. By doing so we might come across helpful approaches deeply rooted in our cultural heritage that we could possibly adopt and find practical answers for our age in terms of individual behaviour as well as management decisions to face the ecological and social challenges ahead.

Management theory is a diverse field where multiple theoretical perspectives coexist and coevolve, leading to conceptual pluralism. While conceptual pluralism is useful for grasping different aspects of the complex reality we live in, it may limit the further development of knowledge on elemental concepts. In this article, we focus on knowledge on the natural environment (NE) in management theory. We argue that management scholars and practitioners often rely on theoretical lenses that tend to reify the NE, thereby limiting the conceptualization of some of the essential properties of the NE. Drawing on the example of the conceptual development of the ecosystem services (ES) at the intersection of economics and biology, we identify the advantages and the limits of interdisciplinary theory-building and testing. Finally, we discuss how tools from the philosophy of science can be useful for proposing a way forward for integrating reliable knowledge on the natural environment in management theory.

The extent of harm and suffering caused by the coronavirus pandemic has prompted a debate about whether the epidemic could have been contained, had the gravity of the crisis been predicted earlier. In this paper, the philosophical debate on predictive reasoning is framed by Hume's problem of induction. Hume argued that it is rationally unjustified to move from the finite observations of past incidences to the predictions of future events. Philosophy has offered two major responses to the problem of induction: the pragmatic induction of Peirce and the critical rationalism of Popper. It is argued that of these two, Popper's critical rationalism provides a more potent tool for preparing for unanticipated events such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Popper's notion of risky predictions equips strategic foresight with clear hypotheticals regarding potential crisis scenarios. Peirce's pragmatic induction, instead, leans on probabilities that are slower to be amended as unexpected events start unfolding. The difference between the two approaches is demonstrated through a case study of the patterns of reasoning within the World Health Organization in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40926-022-00203-6.

COVID19 pandemic is pushing business organizations to cope in newer, more resilient ways. In this study, in-depth qualitative research was conducted using Weick's sensemaking framework (1995) to give organizational leaders a snapshot of how individuals grappled with sensemaking during this time. The enactment of sensemaking for individuals occurred based on four major COVIDian realities: life during the lockdown, work from home, moments of reflection, and struggles and emotions. The implications of the findings are two folds. First, the dynamic nature of extracted cues coupled with greater technology use increased enactment frequency amongst individuals leading to a collapse in sensemaking. Secondly, we propose that this collapse has a significant impact on human cognition, which will further affect the nature of work as well as the meaning of work in life.