Collaborating Across Organizational Boundaries to Co-Create a More Just,Resilient,and Thriving Society

Abstract

In this editorial for our special issue on interorganizational collaboration (IOC), we position collaborative action in the context of the concurrent global crises that necessitate the bridging of interests, positions, competencies, and resources. We unpack the notion of IOC in terms of its conditions, phases, practices, and dynamics, and provide an overview of how the contributing authors support such understanding of cross-boundary collaboration. Through their action-oriented approaches to research and learning, they show a promising interplay of insight and impact. We underline their search for impact and aim to reinforce the potential of IOC not just to be successful, but also highly meaningful to address grand challenges. We therefore take a normative stance and describe how the intertwined notions of justice, resilience, and thriving can serve as a compass to legitimize, organize, facilitate, assess, and study IOC as an important pathway for the co-creation of a better world.

Keywords

interorganizational collaboration cross-sector partnerships transorganizational systems grand challenges organization development and change collaborative action normative approaches

Introduction

This special issue about collaboration across organizational boundaries addresses both the promise and the challenges of working together—from different settings, with contrasting goals, logics, and resources—to create a more just, resilient, and thriving society. We believe that no organization can deal with our current global crises singlehandedly. We need to embrace our interdependency in efforts that bring together both the intellectual and practical knowhow of actors who gather in interorganizational spaces with the intention of co-creating a better world. The authors contributing to this issue provide rich examples of interorganizational collaboration (IOC) for reasons as varied as city development, open innovation, or management education. Together, they offer us rich insights into the complexity of IOC, whilst demonstrating both its workability and vulnerability.

At the time that we wrote our call for papers, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the social, economic, political, and academic agenda globally. Thanks to the media coverage, for the first time in modern history, we had real-time experience of the impact of a non-linear, interdependent, and emergent disruption in our daily life on a global scale. For example, non-linear infection rates were tracked and displayed daily very early in the process (e.g., see https://www.coronatracker.com/), our dependence on reliable basic services, supply chains, and healthcare infrastructure was laid bare, and the strategies aimed at controlling a non-linear complex phenomenon were shown to be uncertain and unstable, and caused unpredictable collateral effects (Alamri, 2021; Belitski et al., 2022; Cianfarani & Pampanini, 2021; Deb et al., 2022). We were exposed, vividly, to what scientists had said for decades about the potential dangers of the challenges that will characterize the society of the 21st century (Mithani, 2020).

Two years later and still in “recovery mode” (e.g., travel restrictions, as well as new Covid outbreaks and strains), the world is facing unprecedented—and perhaps more severe—intertwined crises, including food, water, and energy shortages, historic inflation rates, the war in Ukraine, worldwide immigration/refugees, and severely diminished trust in governments and established institutions to deal with the problems. Although these types of challenges might seem to be different or disconnected from one another, they have one thing in common, namely the nature of the problems to be solved and their impact on human and natural welfare. According to Ferraro et al. (2015), these “grand challenges” are characterized by three elements. First, they are complex, which means they entail a great number of actors and interactions (with multiple and usually contradictory viewpoints), emergent understandings, and non-linear dynamics. Second, they are embedded with radical uncertainty, so actors cannot define a clear possible future state and the consequences of their current actions cannot be predicted or anticipated. Third, they are evaluative, meaning that they cross jurisdictional boundaries, require multiple criteria of evaluation and/or appraisal (by a large number of stakeholders), and reveal emerging concerns by the time they are being addressed.

According to Mithani (2020), 21st century challenges with life-threatening potential have increased both in number and visibility over the last four decades. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that most leaders and organizational designs were neither well-prepared nor skilled to effectively address these types of challenges (Worley & Jules, 2020). However, it also revealed some outstanding cases of well-organized and effective responses that illustrate how to address problems in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment (Laszlo et al., 2020; Nembhard et al., 2020; Roth, 2020). A common pattern in the most effective responses to the COVID-19 and other recent societal challenges (e.g., extreme weather events and refugee crises) is that they involve some form of collaboration across pre-established boundaries between organizations and even industries (Kituyi, 2020; Laszlo et al., 2020; Roth, 2020). Indeed, the premise of this special issue is that IOC is of high importance to identify the innovative responses that the current challenges demand, not only to address them effectively, but to enhance the positive role of business in society and promote sustainability (Gray & Dewulf, 2021; Gray & Purdy, 2018; Termeer et al., 2019).

If we take COVID-19 as an illustrative example of a disruption that could work as a wake-up call for society, there are three feasible scenarios for the landscape of IOC (Brammer et al., 2020). First, we can opt to work for a full return to normal and treat the COVID-19 crisis and its related impacts as a 100-year event that we simply need to overcome (Marcus, 2020). Second, we can acknowledge that the effects of the disruption are so profound that a return to normal might not be possible even if we wish to do so. Finally, we can opt to strive for a new and better normal, where there is a more profound “appreciation for the interconnectedness of countries and of the contributions of all elements of society to creating a successful and resilient society” (Brammer et al., 2020, p. 501). In this scenario, Brammer et al. (2020) highlighted the role of collaborations. They stated:

“COVID-19 has, according to some observers, led to a resurgence of community spirit and greater recognition of the contributions of essential workers, especially in medical professions. The crisis has demonstrated how collaboration among government, business, and civil society could work and an unexpected appetite for responding to the crisis in a relatively selfless and community spirited way, delivering benefits for all” (p. 501).

We believe that the intertwined crises we have experienced recently have given us both a unique opportunity to learn more about IOC and a heightened necessity to take collaborative action toward the creation of a new and better normal. While the “new normal” is in itself an empty concept, it can be filled by higher aspirations when socially constructed as an opportunity to create a more just, resilient, and thriving society (Cooperrider & Fry, 2020; Pavez et al., 2021a; Sharma et al., 2022). How can this be done collaboratively? This is the question that we set out to explore in this special issue.

To place the papers included in this special issue in context, we first describe the basic concepts and approaches that constitute IOC as a field of study. Then, we examine how the papers that comprise this edition contribute to the IOC knowledge base. We conclude the editorial by discussing how current debates in the field have given precedence to a more normative framing of collaborative action. We propose that IOC should be undertaken from a normative perspective with a clear intent to help solve major societal issues in order to build a better world now and in the future.

Contribution of the Papers to an Understanding of the Conditions, Phases, Practices, and Dynamics of Interorganizational Collaboration (IOC)

More than 50 years ago, Emery & Trist (1965) presaged our current VUCA world with the concept of a turbulent field, which they defined as a complex and dynamic environment that induces changes in the components of the organizations derived from the context itself. More importantly, they noted that organizing in a turbulent environment requires collaborating across organizational boundaries, which can give rise to new and better organizational forms and even systems that transcend the organizations that form it. They stated:

“turbulent fields demand some overall form of organization that is essentially different from the hierarchically structured forms to which we are accustomed […] turbulent environments require some relationship between dissimilar organizations whose fates are, basically, positively correlated. This means relationships that will maximize cooperation” (Emery & Trist, 1965, pp. 28–29).

Building on the foundational idea that collaboration (between organizations, industries, and beyond) is required to deal with highly turbulent, uncertain, or challenging environments (Emery & Trist, 1965), IOC has evolved into an important, multidisciplinary field of study in organization and management research (Gray, 1985; Gray & Purdy, 2018; Majchrzak et al., 2015). It has been studied under different names (e.g., interorganizational collaboration, multistakeholder partnerships, or transorganizational systems) (Cummings et al., 1983; Gray, 1985; Selsky & Parker, 2005), but it is commonly understood as “a cooperative, interorganizational relationship that is negotiated in an ongoing communication process, and which relies on neither market nor hierarchical mechanisms of control” (Hardy et al., 2003, p. 323). Different approaches to IOC have added some nuances to the aforementioned definition, providing a larger and richer picture of the topic. Multistakeholder partnerships, for instance, add the criteria of including organizations from various sectors (government, business, communities, and non-governmental organizations), which are also associated with a problem domain or an “issue field” (Gray & Purdy, 2018), such as climate change, healthcare, or homelessness. Similarly, the transorganizational systems approach highlights the importance of expanding IOC studies into understanding efforts to affect change through the involvement of multiple organizations that have agreed to work interdependently to accomplish a commonly held goal that is too large in scope for a single organization (Ainsworth & Feyerherm, 2016).

We believe there are four conditions that are generally apt for IOC and which are currently present in our society, more than ever before. First, there needs to be explicit interdependencies at play for organizations to realize the value (and necessity) of engaging other stakeholders—with whom they are interdependent—to collaborate on an issue that matters to all parties (Gray, 1989; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Second, the task at hand for an IOC effort requires multiple resources to address the complexity of issues presented, such as any “grand challenge” or “wicked problem” that characterizes our VUCA world (Dentoni et al., 2018, 2021). Shared resources can be in the form of time, money, personnel, knowledge, connections, or access, but are greater in scope compared with what an organization can provide alone. Third, there is a need for agility to match the changing environment and the complexities therein. Organizations have routines that make them more agile: strategizing, perceiving, testing, and implementing (Worley et al., 2014). IOCs facilitate greater perceiving since they have multiple organizations that all have different perspectives on the issues being tackled. There are also abundant possibilities for testing and experimentation, as that is often the claim for these collaborations. And implementing any initiatives across a system becomes more realistic if the parties have been involved in creating the action plans. Finally, many decades of research on IOC have shown that it is also useful for actors in the issue field to have a collaborative mindset in order to note interdependencies, acknowledge the need for multiple resources, and develop agility. This means that the mindset of most people involved should be conducive to collaborating in a complex environment, which requires adopting a focus on “we” rather than “me,” a willingness to listen and learn from other actors/parties, collective support for creative or generative interactions, and an alignment with a sense of a shared purpose (Gray, 1989; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Majchrzak et al., 2015).

The papers included in this issue illustrate how these four conditions have been present in the formation or operation of IOC from three complementary perspectives (i.e., IOC phases, IOC practices, and IOC dynamics), but also illustrate the richness and depth of the field today when the focal issue is related to the creation of a better society. Table 1 provides a brief description of the key features of each paper with regard to the purpose of the special issue, which we will discuss in detail in the remainder of the editorial.

Table 1.

Summary of the papers in this special issue

Authors	1. Antonacopoulou	2. Martínez-Orbegozo, de Jong, Bowles, Edmondson, Nahhal, and Cox	3. Ceulemans, Finstad-Milion, and Avetisyan	4. Varesco Kager, Sparr, and Grote	5. Worley, Loftis, Scheepers, Caren, Nicols, and Parcelle	6. Schumacher, Krautzberger, and Wörner	7. Sevil, Muñoz, and Godoy-Faúndez
Title	Partnering for Impact: A Grand Challenge and Design for Co-creating a Just, Resilient, and Flourishing Society	Entry Points: Gaining Momentum in Early-Stage Cross-Boundary Collaborations	Facilitating Collaboration for Responsible Management Education: Voluntary Brokerage in the PRME Network	Looking for Guidance? Five Principles for Leveraging Tensions in Corporate–Startup Collaboration	Building trust through action learning in an uncertain transorganizational context	Enacting Leadership Legitimacy under Terms of Limited Formal and Informal Power in a Heterarchical Network of Organisations	Aligning global efforts for a carbon neutral world: The Race to Zero Campaign
IOC phases	-	Identifying stakeholders Convening Organizing Evaluating	Organizing Evaluating	Organizing	Convening Organizing Evaluating	Convening Organizing	Identifying stakeholders Convening Organizing Evaluating
IOC practices	Knowledge co-creation	Problem-solving Action learning	Steering group Leadership Common goals	Goal setting Collaborative processes Social relationships	Action learning	Governance	Procedures Leadership Metrics
IOC dynamics	Inclusiveness	Representation Trust Agency	Communication Network brokerage	Paradoxes	Trust	Leadership Legitimacy Power	Uncertainty
Theoretical lens	Knowledge co-creation Collaborating as co-creation Axiology of partnering for impact	Cross-boundary collaboration Problem-oriented governance Social paradoxes	Network brokerage	Corporate-startup collaboration Paradox theory	Transorganizational systems Trust formation (social exchange theory) Action learning	Inter-organizational networks Leadership legitimacy Practice-based view	Cross-sector partnerships
Research methods	Theoretical	Mixed methods action research approach	Autoethnography	Case study	Action learning	Case study	Case study
Positioning of actors	Mindset Relations	Participants (IOC agents)	Brokerage roles Facilitators	Brokerage roles	Brokerage roles Facilitators	Leaders	High Level Champions
Focal context	Education and research	Field lab (city teams)	PRME network	Corporate accelerator program	Education	Banking cooperative	Transnational (Net Zero campaign)
Attributes of the normative framing	Justice Thriving	Justice	Justice Resilience	Resilience	Resilience	Not explicit	Justice

Insights into the Phases of IOC

Even though the conditions in the environment may exist, initiating an IOC is another matter entirely. Coming from the field of Organization Development, Cummings (1984) proposed four overarching IOC phases—for a transorganizational system—that can offer insights here: (1) identifying stakeholders, (2) convening the transorganizational system, (3) organizing, and (4) evaluating. In every phase, there are activities such as goal-setting sessions, pilot experiments, establishing communication systems and the like, depending on the issues being approached and the organizations that are involved. The IOC process starts with the identification phase, which consists of an assessment of who the relevant stakeholders are for the issue to be addressed. Then, there needs to be a convening phase, where an organization, or a group of people, are willing to convene these multiple stakeholders. In the current issue, the study by Martínez-Orbegozo et al. illustrates this phase, and it is also described by Worley et al. in the partnering between two universities and client organizations. In these formation phases, an organization that either has or which can develop legitimacy is generally important, as shown in the paper by Schumacher, Krautzberger, and Wörner.

Once the stakeholders are convened, IOCs follow certain patterns in their development. The organizing phase involves organizing the various tasks and processes needed for performance, which include forming structures, developing leadership, instituting communication systems, and creating policies and procedures that will govern the IOC. In essence, the organizations negotiate how the network will operate. These processes and systems evolve over time. An IOC is therefore like creating a kaleidoscope or a mosaic. There are many pieces that have to be orchestrated into a cohort way of moving forward. However, there is no “master artist” but rather a collection of organizations and people that have hitherto had no hierarchical relationship, no shared mission, no structure or communication system, nor any processes that are agreed upon. As Varesco Kager, Sparr, and Grote suggested, this issue creates multiple tensions which must be navigated in order to succeed. In that respect, it is essential to remember that since the stakeholders involved also have “home” organizations that have their own missions, goals, philosophies, and values to which they are beholden, there is an inner complexity in this emergent organizing phase. Therefore, some researchers warn caution that unless one must collaborate across stakeholders, don’t do it! (Huxham & Vangen, 2005).

In effective IOCs, there will also be an evaluation phase which may be at the end of the collaboration, but more effectively, will continue throughout the life cycle of the network. This raises the point that not all IOCs will have a permanent lifespan, such as the intervention described by Martínez-Orbegozo et al. These arrangements will often only last for the time needed to resolve the problem or a natural phase in the overall tackling of the issue at hand. Others will be more lasting structures that become necessary for the organizations involved or to continue to handle the complexity of the issue, as it is evident in the case of the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) described by Ceulemans, Finstad-Milion, and Avetisyan. And sometimes IOCs are more emergent and informal, as illustrated by Worley et al. Finally, as shown in most of the papers that comprise this special issue, IOCs are fluid systems that involve managing tensions. To study these intricate, contextual dynamics, researchers in this special issue used a case study methodology or conducted action research to concurrently facilitate and study collaboration.

Insights into the Practices of IOC

A practice perspective is yet another lens through which to understand IOC. In open systems, practices are the means by which core inputs are transformed into outputs and they include both social and technological components (Ainsworth & Feyerherm, 2016). This perspective thus postulates that the positive effects reported in IOCs are not a foregone conclusion without practices that are created to handle issues of governance and leadership, information systems, social relationships, managing conflict and power, learning, and creating a shared goal and/or values.

In this special issue, not all of the papers had their main focus on practices, but many are mentioned in the descriptions of the IOC. Characterizations of learning processes and practices are frequently evident in the papers. For example, Worley et al. focus on the action-learning that underpins the educational IOC case they study, and Martínez-Orbegozo et al. examine an action-research intervention for city teams in a field-lab setting. We also obtain insights about governance practices through enacting leadership in the paper by Schumacher et al., and both Ceulemans et al. and Sevil et al. mention the influence of leaders or instituting leadership practices. Leadership is a mechanism by which the agenda of the collaboration is shaped and implemented and is often accomplished through structures, practices, procedures, and network participation (Winkler, 2006). Another practice that was commonly mentioned was the creation of common goals. Varesco Kager et al., for example, highlighted this practice as a paradox that emerges when actors strive to create a higher-order goal, while simultaneously pursuing localized goals. Taking a different angle, Ceulemans et al. observed that common goals and a shared vision were part of the practices that needed to be facilitated when developing an IOC. Finally, Sevil et al. noted that there was a standard set of procedural criteria (and metrics) to manage and monitor the achievement of the Race to Zero objectives.

Insights into the Dynamics of IOC

In addition to studying IOC using a phase and practices approach, another lens for investigating an IOC is by examining and paying attention to key dynamics that often emerge in the face of uncertainty, such as the formation of trust and inclusiveness, how communication evolves, attending to social relationships, how the negotiation of power and leadership emerges, and how these elements affect the legitimization and structuring processes of IOCs (Ainsworth & Feyerherm, 2016; Gray, 1989; Majchrzak et al., 2015). These dynamics are important in forming a “negotiated order” (Nathan & Mitroff, 1991) that occurs as the participants, through discourse and negotiation, work to constitute and deploy their IOC. Given that IOCs are often under-organized, formation of trust has become a key element that allows a more organized system to evolve (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Worley et al., for example, illustrate the role that trust plays in initiating and smoothing the transorganizational system. Communication and the nature of discourse between actors are also an important dynamic that is present in IOC (Hardy et al., 2005), as illustrated by Ceulemans et al. through the brokerage roles that Steering Group members adopted in the PRME Chapter France-Benelux, and in Antonacopoulou's paper commenting on the attributes of the partners in the GNOSIS inclusive approach for co-creating knowledge for impact.

Relatedly, the means by which leadership is negotiated by establishing legitimacy by an organization is addressed in this issue by Schumacher et al. More recently, researchers have focused on paradoxical tensions that emerge in IOC (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021; Sharma & Bansal, 2017) and how those are managed in order to “focus on the unity of opposites and the forces that connect them” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 71). Varesco Kager et al. address this issue by studying how the tensions that emerge in corporate–startup collaboration can be understood as a set of paradoxes that IOCs need to handle, and the knotted tensions (i.e., relationships and dynamics between multiple paradoxes) that emerge in this form of IOC (Sheep et al., 2017).

Finally, it is important to note that leading scholars in the field have made a recent call to approach IOC as active experimentation with researchers and practitioners, as well as being reflexive with respect to the impact in the context under study. In other words, to be an activist or engaged scholar (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022; Hoffman, 2021; Van de Ven, 2007) who collaborates with different stakeholders to conduct research that positively impacts the world (Bansal & Sharma, 2022; Sharma et al., 2022). Interestingly, the above are hallmarks of organization development as a field, exemplified by the notions of action research, collaborative inquiry, and reflexive practitioners (Shani & Coghlan, 2021; Worley & Good, 2021), and it is an area of knowledge that the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science has developed and published for decades (Schwarz & Vakola, 2021).

Approaching IOC from a Normative Stance: In Search of Research for Impact

Current debates in the fields of organization development and organization theory have evolved to understand how and why IOC can help solve major societal challenges (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022; Sharma et al., 2022). This issue has been reinforced not only in academia but in practitioner contexts, especially after acknowledging that IOC is a key pillar for attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—SDG 17: Partnerships for The Goals, one of the most ambitious multinational agreements (backed by the United Nations) to provide “a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” (United Nations, 2022).

Heeding the call of several IOC scholars (e.g., Johansson, 2013; Marchington & Vincent, 2004; Phillips et al., 2000), we believe it is essential to acknowledge that the capacity to tackle grand challenges, both in the present and in the future, is not solely the product of the sound structuring of IOC initiatives. It also results from the social construction of meaning, purpose, and legitimacy by stakeholders, at both institutional and interpersonal levels (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Hardy et al., 2005). There is still much progress to be made regarding these issues in IOC research, as studies often focus on understanding the optimal functionality of IOC practice in relation to outcomes. Therefore, in the editing of this special issue, we aspire to bring these issues to the fore in our discussion of content and methodological approaches.

We are living in a crisis-ridden post-pandemic world, where a viable future might no longer be clearly discernable, representable, predictable, and agreed upon (Petriglieri, 2020), and where planning and implementation technologies might lose their grip on reality regardless of their intent to procure well-being. In this environment, we believe that focusing on the normative dimension of IOC is crucial to gain a more comprehensive understanding of IOC in light of the challenges of the 21st century. As Phillips et al. (2000) noted, collaborative relationships operate under a set of cultural rules and resources that shape our experience and interpretation of the world, the social activities within it, and our ideas of legitimate patterns of organizing. Building on this idea, we believe that in order to strive collectively and heterogeneously for a better future, we must embrace the notion that any given IOC effort is always constrained by shared assumptions that operate below and above mere cognition to generate legitimacy via the conformity of beliefs and the social construction of norms and cultural values (Hardy et al., 2005; Munir, 2002). While we do not have the space in this editorial to elaborate on the norms that would be most appropriate for effective IOC in different sectors and contexts (e.g., Sharfman et al., 1991), we can advance three interrelated concepts that we believe can guide the future shaping of IOC from a normative standpoint: (1) justice, (2) resilience, and (3) thriving.

The first concept, justice, refers to the perception of fairness by actors vis-à-vis collaboration procedures, decision-making criteria, and everyday interactions (Rhodes, 2011). At a more macro-level, it also includes a concern about socio-environmental unsustainability and inequality as experienced in, and produced by, governance arrangements and socioeconomic exchange regimes (Heath & Isbell, 2017). From a normative standpoint, justice represents an example of a commonly held ideal (i.e., valued and accepted by most societal actors) when thinking of a better society or when working for the common good, as it is usually recognized as part of the universal virtues that transcend epochs and cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In this special issue, justice—as a token (or umbrella term) to represent commonly held ideals—is addressed by most of the authors in different contexts. Antonacopoulou, for example, addresses this normative idea by acknowledging the axiology of partnerships through the concept of inclusiveness, while Ceulemans et al. highlight the importance of IOC to promote and deliver responsible management education, and Martínez-Orbegozo et al. describe several focal issues (e.g., access to affordable housing or equitable economic development) that were addressed by cross-boundary collaboration teams to create more livable and humane cities.

The second concept, resilience, is a central construct for the crisis management and occupational psychology fields (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016; Powley, 2020; van der Vegt et al., 2015). Its initial conceptualization referred to the psychological property of individual actors to bounce back from traumatic experiences and persist in efforts to coordinate and reorganize with others to overcome crisis (Hartmann et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2017). More recently, it has been also conceptualized as the ability of social groups, such as teams, organizations, or communities, to build and activate relational dispositions (e.g., emotional carrying capacity or distributed leadership) that lead to the absorption of adversity through the adaptive use of resources, active collective sense-making, empathic communication, and the containment of anxiety, among other things (Kahn et al., 2017; Sanfuentes et al., 2021; van der Vegt et al., 2015). Given that IOC is a risky (interpersonal) endeavor, we conceptualize resilience—from a normative standpoint—as an umbrella term for dealing with human vulnerability and how people construct their struggles when rooted in a broader set of social and political norms that usually undermine their capacity (especially oppressed groups) to deal effectively with adversity (Gilligan, 1982; Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012). Resilience also refers to the pragmatic objective of dealing with, overcoming, and adapting to adversity when a commonly shared ideal (e.g., justice) cannot be attained, when collective action negatively departs from a shared goal, or when the process of achieving a better future becomes uncertain and elusive. In this special issue, the notion of resilience—as conceptualized here—is primarily addressed through the tensions that actors experience when implementing IOC. Ceulemans et al. for example, identifies several tensions of voluntary brokerage, and Varesco Kager goes one step further to frame IOC tensions as paradoxes that actors need to overcome when pursuing effective collaborations/partnerships.

The third concept, thriving, goes beyond the capacity of establishing effective alliances between organizations to achieve a socially accepted or shared ideal (e.g., justice) (Feller et al., 2013) to explore the possibility of unlocking and leveraging the full potential of an (inter)organizational system to achieve its highest state of development and well-being across the individual, group, organizational, and institutional levels (Cooperrider & Selian, 2021; Karlsson et al., 2020; Pavez et al., 2021b). In our view, this is the most difficult element to study and attain, as it involves moving away from institutional pressures (e.g., cultural values, practices, and norms) to envision the highest possible future for the interorganizational system at hand. It implies tackling grand challenges by exploring and/or co-creating developments before they are reality, and involves engaging in collective acts of imagination that seek “to articulate desirable futures and then, ‘backcast’ as to how they might become more likely” (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022, p. 239). For researchers, this is a challenging endeavor, as it implies collaborating with multiple stakeholders in a process of future-forming theory building (Gergen, 2015; Pavez et al., 2021a; Sharma et al., 2022), where the focus is to “study, conceptualize, and theorize what is not (yet) observable and does not (yet) exist” (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022, pp. 236–237). In this special issue, Antonacopoulou addresses this element in a theoretical paper that articulates the “common good” as a collaborative design logic in which the focus of IOC is “partnering for impact.”

Altogether, justice, resilience, and thriving express a fundamental concern with the need to procure IOC while navigating recurrent crises and deep imbalances at a societal level, as Mintzberg (2015) warned not long ago. We believe that normative frameworks for IOC should be conceived from an ethical standpoint that assumes justice (or widely valued attributes of a good society) as a sine qua non condition, resilience as baseline capacity that needs to be constantly renewed, and thriving as an indisputable ideal that should be pursued in any form of collective action. Figure 1 illustrates our proposition regarding these three key elements (at least) that can help address IOC from a normative standpoint. We believe this framework can help IOC scholars to find new opportunities to approach IOC phases, IOC practices, and IOC dynamics. For example, the three components of the framework can serve to assess the impact (i.e., evaluation phase) of IOC processes and dynamics, to study the legitimization of IOC efforts for multiple stakeholders, to explore the how the framing of focal issues (e.g., normative vs. non-normative framings) can affect IOC endeavors, and to consider which research methods are more appropriate to move from description to co-creation.

Figure 1.

The IOC Normative Triangle: A perspective to embrace IOC as a pathway to co-create a better world.

Conclusion

IOC is currently at the forefront of the research and practice that can help successfully navigate VUCA environments (or turbulent fields) and it has the potential to generate novel insights on how to address current grand challenges collaboratively (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Sharma et al., 2022). To achieve its potential, however, we argue that organizational scholars need to engage with IOC by embracing its normative dimension more deeply, which we describe here as the deliberate purpose of collaborating across organizational boundaries to co-create a more just, resilient, and thriving society. This way of embracing studies on IOC has profound roots in the pioneering work of organization development scholars, such as Emery and Trist (1965), Cummings (1984), Gray (1989), and Huxham (1996), whose research was imbued with humanistic values, a development orientation, and based on an action research approach that was aimed at tackling problems that were “messy, confusing, and of practical relevance” (Worley & Good, 2021, p. 473).

With this special issue, we hope to contribute to the current discussion on how to produce research that not only describes the world, but can actually change it for the better (Bansal & Sharma, 2022; Laszlo, 2021; Pavez et al., 2021a), and suggest that IOC research needs to adopt a more normative approach in light of the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the field of organization development and change has much to offer, both to the IOC field and for the larger academic community, as it has developed a coherent axiology (i.e., humanistic values and development orientation), applied research perspectives (i.e., action research, collaborative inquiry, or reflexive practice), and thought processes (i.e., systems thinking, social constructionism, or appreciative/generative framing) that can make a distinctive contribution to the grand challenges in today's world (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2022; Gray, 1989; Worley & Good, 2021). The invitation, therefore, is to recommit and reappraise a more normative engagement of collaboration and set the stage for applied research to pave the way for scholars to conduct meaningful, relevant, and impactful research. Do we have the courage to direct our wisdom (through research) to heal, regenerate, and positively impact the world? If not now, then when?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ignacio Pavez

References

Ainsworth

Feyerherm

A. E.

(2016). Higher order change: A transorganizational system diagnostic model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(5), 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2015-0209

Alamri

E. S.

(2021). Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behavior: A review. Journal of Public Health Research, 10(3), jphr.2021.2088. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2088

Bansal

P. (Tima)

Sharma

(2022). Three different approaches to impact: Translating, cocreating, and performing. Business & Society, 61(4), 827–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211015926

Belitski

Guenther

Kritikos

A. S.

Thurik

(2022). Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Small Business Economics, 58(2), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00544-y

Brammer

Branicki

Linnenluecke

M. K.

(2020). COVID-19, societalization, and the future of business in society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0053

Cianfarani

Pampanini

(2021). The impact of stress on health in childhood and adolescence in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hormone Research in Paediatrics, 94(7–8), 345–349. https://doi.org/10.1159/000517460

Cooperrider

D. L.

Fry

(2020). Appreciative inquiry in a pandemic: An improbable pairing. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320936265

Cooperrider

D. L.

Godwin

L. N.

(2022). Our earthshot moment: Net positive OD for the creation of a world of full spectrum flourishing. Organization Development Review, 54(1), 29–42.

Cooperrider

Selian

(Eds.). (2021). The business of building a better world: The leadership revolution that is changing everything. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

10.

Cummings

T. G.

(1984). Transorganizational development. In Staw

Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. Vol. 6, pp. 367–422). JAI Press.

11.

Cummings

T. G.

Blumenthal

J. F.

Greiner

L. E.

(1983). Managing organizational decline: The case for transorganizational systems. Human Resource Management, 22(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930220406

12.

Deb

Furceri

Ostry

J. D.

Tawk

(2022). The economic effects of COVID-19 containment measures. Open Economies Review, 33(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-021-09638-2

13.

Dentoni

Bitzer

Schouten

(2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3858-6

14.

Dentoni

Pinkse

Lubberink

(2021). Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological resilience through cross-sector partnerships: A Complex adaptive systems view. Business & Society, 60(5), 1216–1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320935015

15.

Emery

F. E.

Trist

E. L.

(1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103

16.

Feller

Parhankangas

Smeds

Jaatinen

(2013). How companies learn to collaborate: Emergence of improved inter-organizational processes in R&D alliances. Organization Studies, 34(3), 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612464758

17.

Ferraro

Etzion

Gehman

(2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

18.

Gergen

K. J.

(2015). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12075

19.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

20.

Gray

(1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503801001

21.

Gray

(1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Wiley.

22.

Gray

Dewulf

(2021). Partnerships to save the planet? Motivations, types and impacts of sustainability partnerships. In Teeerikangas

Onkila

Koistinen

Mäkelä

(Eds.), Research hanbook on sustainability agency (pp. 230–247). Edward Elgar Publishing.

23.

Gray

Purdy

(2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. In Collaborating for our future. Oxford University Press. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198782841.001.0001/oso-9780198782841 .

24.

Gümüsay

A. A.

Reinecke

(2022). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12709

25.

Hardy

Lawrence

T. B.

Grant

(2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281426

26.

Hardy

Phillips

Lawrence

T. B.

(2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342

27.

Hartmann

Weiss

Newman

Hoegl

(2019). Resilience in the workplace: A multilevel review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 0(0), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12191

28.

Heath

R. G.

Isbell

M. G.

(2017). Interorganizational collaboration: Complexity, ethics, and communication. Waveland Press, Inc.

29.

Hoffman

A. J.

(2021). The engaged scholar: Expanding the impact of academic research in today’s world. Stanford University Press.

30.

Huxham

(Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. Sage Publications.

31.

Huxham

Vangen

(2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

32.

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Chalkias

Cacciatori

(2021). Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: Knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems. Academy of Management Journal, 62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0745

33.

Johansson

(2013). Institutions and norms in collaboration: Towards a framework for analysing law and normativity in inter-organizational collaboration. In Social and legal norms: Towards a framework for analysing law and normativity in inter-organizational collaboration (pp.107-120). Routledge.

34.

Kahn

W. A.

Barton

M. A.

Fisher

C. M.

Heaphy

E. D.

Reid

E. M.

Rouse

E. D.

(2017). The geography of strain: Organizational resilience as a function of intergroup relations. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0004

35.

Karlsson

Garvare

Zingmark

Nordström

(2020). Organizing for sustainable inter-organizational collaboration in health care processes. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1638760

36.

Kituyi

(2020, May 15). COVID-19: Collaboration is the engine of global science – especially for developing countries. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/global-science-collaboration-open-source-covid-19/.

37.

Kossek

E. E.

Perrigino

M. B.

(2016). Resilience: A review using a grounded integrated occupational approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 729–797. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1159878

38.

Laszlo

(2021). Prospective theorizing: Researching for social impact. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.51327/OBNX5448

39.

Laszlo

Cooperrider

Fry

(2020). Global challenges as opportunity to transform business for good. Sustainability, 12(19), 8053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198053

40.

Lawrence

T. B.

Maitlis

(2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 641–663. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0466

41.

Majchrzak

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Bagherzadeh

(2015). A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1338–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314563399

42.

Marchington

Vincent

(2004). Analysing the influence of institutional, organizational and interpersonal forces in shaping inter-organizational relations. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 1029–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00465.x

43.

Marcus

(2020, April 20). Our goal must be a total return to normal. The Federalist. https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/20/our-goal-must-be-a-total-return-to-normal/.

44.

Mintzberg

(2015). Rebalancing society: Radical renewal beyond left, right, and center. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

45.

Mithani

M. A.

(2020). Adaptation in the face of the new normal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(4), 508–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0054

46.

Munir

K. A.

(2002). Being different: How normative and cognitive aspects of institutional environments influence technology transfer. Human Relations, 55(12), 1403–1428. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872602128782204

47.

Nathan

M. L.

Mitroff

I. I.

(1991). The use of negotiated order theory as a tool for the analysis and development of an interorganizational field. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272002

48.

Nembhard

I. M.

Burns

L. R.

Shortell

S. M.

(2020). Responding to covid-19: Lessons from management research. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0111.

49.

Pavez

Godwin

Spreitzer

(2021a). Generative scholarship through prospective theorizing: Appreciating the roots and legacy of organization development and change to build a bright future. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211049836

50.

Pavez

Kendall

L. D.

Laszlo

(2021b). Positive-impact companies: Toward a new paradigm of value creation. Organizational Dynamics, 50(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100806

51.

Peterson

Seligman

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (1 edition). American Psychological Association / Oxford University Press.

52.

Petriglieri

(2020, June). Are our management theories outdated? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/06/are-our-management-theories-outdated.

53.

Phillips

Lawrence

T. B.

Hardy

(2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00171

54.

Powley

E. H.

(2020). Introduction: Framing resilience research. In Powley

E. H.

Caza

B. B.

Caza

(Eds.), Research handbook on organizational resilience (pp. 2–8). E. Elgar. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788112208/9781788112208.00006.xml

55.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Banghart

(2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421

56.

Rhodes

(2011). Organizational justice. In Painter-Morland

ten Bos

(Eds.), Business ethics and continental philosophy (pp. 141–161). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013338.008 .

57.

Roth

(2020, October 12). The unexpected side effect of covid-19: Collaboration. HealthLeaders Exchange. https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/innovation/unexpected-side-effect-covid-19-collaboration.

58.

Sanfuentes

Valenzuela

Castillo

(2021). What lies beneath resilience: Analyzing the affective-relational basis of shared leadership in the Chilean miners’ catastrophe. Leadership, 17(3), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020986061

59.

Schwarz

G. M.

Vakola

(2021). Project forward! We know where organization change has been, but where is it headed? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211049534

60.

Selsky

J. W.

Parker

(2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601

61.

Shani

A. B. (Rami)

Coghlan

(2021). Researching change and changing: Integrating collaboration and action through interiority. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 478–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211026094

62.

Sharfman

M. P.

Gray

Yan

(1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272003

63.

Sharma

Bansal

(2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616683739

64.

Sharma

Greco

Grewatsch

Bansal

(2022). Cocreating forward: How researchers and managers can address wicked problems together. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 43. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0233

65.

Sheep

M. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Khazanchi

(2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640845

66.

Termeer

C. J. A. M.

Dewulf

Biesbroek

(2019). A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: Relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Policy and Society, 38(2), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971

67.

United Nations (2022, August 26). Do you know all 17 SDGs? https://sdgs.un.org/es/goals.

68.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press Inc.

69.

van der Vegt

G. S.

Essens

Wahlström

George

(2015). Managing risk and resilience. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4004

70.

Williams

T. A.

Gruber

D. A.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Shepherd

D. A.

Zhao

E. Y.

(2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733–769. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0134

71.

Winkler

(2006). Network governance between individual and collective goals: Qualitative evidence from six networks. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(3), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190601200308

72.

Worley

C. G.

Good

D. J.

(2021). Forward to the past. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211049837

73.

Worley

C. G.

Jules

(2020). COVID-19’s uncomfortable revelations about agile and sustainable organizations in a VUCA world. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320936263

74.

Worley

C. G.

Williams

I. I. I.

(2014). The agility factor: Building adaptable organizations for superior performance. Jossey-Bass.