Addressing Grand Challenges Through Different Forms of Organizing: A Literature Review

Abstract

Abstract We conduct a literature review on forms of organizing that address grand challenges, which are operationalized as the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, as this framework is universal and widely adopted. By analyzing the articles that match our criteria, we identify six differentiable organizational forms: movements, temporary organizations, partnerships, established organizations, multi-stakeholder networks, and supranational organizations. These six forms are differentiated based on the two following categories: organizing segment and communicational technological approach. Our analysis shows that tackling a grand challenge often starts with collectives as a protest culture without any expected goal, besides sending an impulse to others. This impulse is received by criticized institutionalized organizations that have the capacity and resources to address the problem properly. However, new challenges arise as these organizations inadequately resolve these problems, thereby leading to conflict-laden areas of tension, wherein emergent organizations complement institutionalized organizations that have created the first infrastructure. To solve the most complex problems, a trichotomous relationship between different forms of organizations is necessary. Moreover, communicational technological approaches become more sophisticated as grand challenges increase in complexity. Keywords Grand challenges Forms of organizing Organizing segments Communicational support Technological support Process model Movements Temporary organizations Partnerships Established organizations Multi-stakeholder networks Supranational organizations Citation Kaufmann, L.J. and Danner-Schröder, A. (2022), "Addressing Grand Challenges Through Different Forms of Organizing: A Literature Review", Gümüsay, A.A., Marti, E., Trittin-Ulbrich, H. and Wickert, C. (Ed.) Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 79), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20220000079014 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2022 Leo Juri Kaufmann and Anja Danner-Schröder License This chapter is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Introduction Grand challenges are formulations of complex, large-scale, and global problems, which are sought to be solved through collaborative and social efforts (George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016). The essence of encouraging dialogues and innovative solutions has thus driven multilateral agencies, foundations, and governments to solve such grand problems collectively (George et al., 2016). Recent research covers several grand challenges, such as climate change, exploitative labor, famine, and poverty, “perhaps the most universal and widely adopted grand challenges are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN)” (George et al., 2016, p. 1881). In 2015, all 195 member countries of the UN agreed upon the 17 goals to “end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of their new global ‘Agenda 2030’” (Howard-Grenville et al., 2017, p. 107). From an organizational perspective, the interest in grand challenges is aimed toward forms of organizing to tackle grand challenges. Some researchers even argue that existing organizational forms are unsuitable (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015). However, the call for institutional and organizational change toward novel forms and mechanisms (Luo, Zhang, & Marquis, 2016) has been confronted by other scholars based on existing organizational forms of addressing vast social problems (Puranam, Alexy, & Reitzig, 2014). This paper aims to reveal different forms of organizing to address grand challenges by analyzing and outlining previous studies. We conclude that six organizational forms – movements, temporary organizations, partnerships, established organizations, multi-stakeholder networks, and supranational organizations – can be differentiated based on two categories. First, three different segments are differentiable: designed organizations, emergent organizations, and collectives (Puranam et al., 2014); second, these forms depend on communicational technological approaches. Methods We conducted a literature review to analyze different forms of organizing addressing grand challenges that have been previously studied. To operationalize grand challenges, we decided to follow the definition by George et al. (2016), who stated that the SDGs are “the most universal and widely adopted grand challenges” (p. 1881). To ensure thoroughness and rigor, this review began with planning the architecture (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Basic building blocks were established, stating inclusion and exclusion criteria (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003). Using the EBSCOhost database (http://www.ebscohost.com\) solely English language peer-reviewed articles were considered without restrictions based on July 2019 publications. According to the Boolean phrase, all SDGs were applied to titles, abstracts, and full texts, thereby resulting in an intentionally high number of 31,510 hits. To increase the consistency and robustness of the analysis, editorial volumes (Colquitt & George, 2011; George, 2016) and special issues (Howard-Grenville et al., 2017) with similar foci were surveyed. This survey and discussions with experts in the field added 11 additional articles. Initially, most of the 31,510 studies contained foci that were irrelevant herein. To exclude irrelevant hits, such as philosophical and solely technological discourses, legislation, jurisdiction, and treaties, EBSCOhost operators were applied (AND “Sustainable Development Goals,” AND “social,” AND “organization”). This application yielded 412 relevant organization-related articles, meeting the inclusion criteria and manifesting none of the exclusion criteria. The abstracts of all the 412 organization-related articles were initially examined, followed by an in-depth appraisal of the remaining articles to exclude studies that neglected the interplay of grand challenges (SDGs) and organizational structures for a more comprehensive evaluation. Using this procedure, 40 journal articles matched the defined criteria, combined with the 11 added by experts, thus constituting the core of this review. Therein, the common foci and significant differences were scrutinized via an in-depth analysis (Tranfield et al., 2003). Results Upon evaluation, we realize that six organizational forms are differentiable: movements, temporary organizations, partnerships, established organizations, multi-stakeholder networks, and supranational organizations. Moreover, we notice that these forms vary according to organizing segments (Puranam et al., 2014) and communicational technological support. As both categories are extremely important toward differentiating the six organizational forms, we briefly introduce them before outlining the various forms. Organizational Segments The following three segments are distinguishable: designed organizations (e.g., established corporations); emergent organizations [e.g., emergent non-governmental organizations (NGOs)]; and collectives (e.g., social movements). Designed organizations maintain the prerequisite to have a certain expectation of contribution toward a common goal. Emergent organizations seem to have some agents’ contributions toward a common goal. Furthermore, collectives can neither be expected nor seem to contribute toward a common goal and hence are not considered as an organization but remain a separate case of organizing (Puranam et al., 2014). Designed organizations include a conglomeration of persons, some hierarchical level, division of labor, structural arrangements, common goals, and varying bureaucratic or procedural viewpoints, of which outcomes are expected (Katz & Gartner, 1988; Puranam et al., 2014). Conversely, emergent organizations have challenged this view to share a common technostructure and information infrastructure but do not have the prerequisite of pre-existing group memberships, tasks, roles, and expertise (Danner-Schröder & Müller-Seitz, 2020; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Hollingshead, 2007). However, they seem to contribute toward a certain goal (Puranam et al., 2014). While both segments are classified as organizations, collectives neither seem nor can be expected to contribute toward a common goal and hence are not categorized as organizations (Puranam et al., 2014). They are often defined as loosely organized with the sole purpose of provoking social change (Akemu, Whiteman, & Kennedy, 2016). Nonetheless, arguably, the promotion of new social ventures through media and professional associations by social movement organizations (SMOs) is an emergent organizational form and hence does not violate the condition of Puranam et al. (2014) (Akemu et al., 2016). In this case, SMOs are emergent organizations according to Puranam et al. (2014), and thus seem to contribute toward a certain goal, while social movements in their most basic forms are not organizations. Communicational Technological Approach The communicational approach is analyzed regarding not only the degree, closeness, and betweenness of centrality, which focuses solely on tie weights, but also the number and construction of ties, including formal and informal channels, pertaining to the interconnectedness and complexity (Opsahl, Agneessens, & Skvoretz, 2010). Hence, nodes can represent individuals in formal or informal contexts, organizations, or even countries with ties referring to formal/informal cooperation, friendship, and trade (Opsahl et al., 2010). The extent of communication approaches and organizational interaction among people increases due to complex interconnectedness, as does the emphasis on boundary or bridging organizations (BOs) and technological infrastructure (Herlin & Pedersen, 2013; Zarestky & Collins, 2017). Notably, BOs facilitate relationships between concerned parties, convene and build frameworks of trust, translate and enable comprehensible resources and information in all spheres, and mediate disputes and conflicts (Herlin & Pedersen, 2013). Technological infrastructure enables and supports organizational processes for information technology (IT) as “both an antecedent and a consequence of organizational action” (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 13). Technological support reflects digitalization, the technical specialization of functional structures, sophisticated tools, information systems (IS), dynamic market responsiveness, and the inclusion of new generation technologies (e.g., social media), thereby depicting a key component of organizational communication (Fernando, 2018; Miles & Snow, 1986). Technological support describes the use of devices for all functions. These include paying bills (Warnecke & Houndonougbo, 2016), transforming energy resources (Thakur & Mangla, 2019), learning necessary entrepreneurial skills (Noske-Turner & Tacchi, 2016), or being updated owing to cloud computing or open data portals (Corbett & Mellouli, 2017; Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Organizational Forms Throughout the analysis, six organizational forms have emerged, and they are classified according to the defined categories that distinguish each form from another. Table 1 provides an overview. Table 1. Overview of Organizational Forms. Organizational Forms Movements Temporary Organizations Partnerships Established Organizations Multi-stakeholder Networks Supranational Organizations Characteristics Solely voluntary members Administrative control is external Meetings and protests as main mean of coordination No permanent structure intended Focus on few or one SDG Promotion of one agenda Lasting contributions toward SDG achievement Focus on one SDG Agreement of common purpose, specific task and shared risks & resources Public value governance instead of traditional administration Institutionalized contribution to address one or many SDGs Reconsidered and developed strategies of existing structures Changing education and attitudes Quantify progress via eco-labels and certifications Democratic and ecological decision-making apparatus as core principle Respond to failed initiatives of designed organizations Social processes as mean of coordination instead of traditional command and control Meta-governed inclusion of all stakeholders: collectives, designed and emergent organizations Ambivalent: supporting flexibility & stability, agglomeration & individual variation, hierarchy & heterarchy Empirical examples Neighborhood associations Grassroots movements Projects Consortiums Programs Initiatives Public–private partnerships (PPP) Information communication technology for development partnerships (ICT4D) Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MPS) Cross-sectoral partnerships (CPS) Community partnerships Project poverty alleviator (PPA) Micro finance institutions (MFIs) Social enterprises Networks of Labour Activism (NOLA) Self-helping groups of micro-entrepreneurs Social network facilitators Green economies/energy networks Ecological citizenships Communicative ecologies Resilient networks Collaborative platforms Open innovation platforms Collaborative ecosystems 4 Industrial Revolution organizations Interscalar networks Organizational segments Collectives Designed (for one purpose by the UN) Designed Designed Emergent & designed Emergent (continuously evolving through interactions making outcomes hard to expect or predict) Communicational technological approach Only one-way interaction stream No significance of BOs Indifferent toward ICT Temporary stream of communication designed by the UN Platforms as bridging tool to bring partners together, no particular organization Consumer of ICT Increased long-lasting interactivity to achieve sustainable objectives among equally important partners Introduction of BOs to function as incubator and decision-influencer, building trust, translate and enable comprehensive information Reciprocal interaction with ICT Higher rate of interaction among state-like public administration and social entities Established organizations function as promoter towards balance between global economy, green markets and national political systems Reformation of ICT Higher rate of interaction throughout institutions, sectors, states, industries and communities via long-lasting institutionalized nodes and ties Fluid role assessment of BOs: decision-making and responsibilities are completely open and diffusive Developer of ICT Most intertwined and complex interactions BOs are crucial and become backbone organizations to foster communication; can function with or without lead organizations Melting pot of ICT and human interaction with digital structures as central nervous system Movements The first organizing form – movements – represents the least institutionalized and cross-sectoral form. This form not only solely consists of voluntary members but also has its administrative control entailed in external entities, such as government agencies, which can restrict the pursuit of such forms (King, 2004). Empirical Studies King (2004) analyzes sustainable city development in Albuquerque, USA, emphasizing the leadership role of neighborhood associations, which are a type of grassroots associations/movements in urban decision-making, bridging community members, and providing citizen input. Kumar and Chamola (2019) depict a developed social movement that has evolved into a fair trade organization (FTO), establishing new governance mechanisms in many food industries (e.g., the case of Dehradun, India) and examining production and consumption behavior. While the neighborhood associations remain a social movement, the grassroots fair trade movements do not (Kumar & Chamola, 2019). Organizational Segment Movements are seen as local actors’ intelligent efforts to achieve local legitimacy via periodically challenging moral and material impacts, involving periods of pain, protests, and discursive translations (Lawrence, 2017). Both early movements without any degree of corporation and institutionalization can be seen as collectives (Puranam et al., 2014). The outcome of these forms cannot be anticipated and may even be disruptive, hence framing these early forms as “alternative culture” (Kumar & Chamola, 2019, p. 79). However, the fair trade movement has developed into an FTO, stating expected outcomes, and transformed into a designed organization (Puranam et al., 2014). Communicational Technological Approach As the least institutionalized form with a one-way interaction stream, this form has the least sophisticated communication technological approach, stating indifference toward ICT, with sole personal meetings – mostly provoking change via critique – and no particular need for mediators and moderators among the stakeholders. This depicts the lowest degree of interconnectedness and complexity, following a usual phase of energizing via protests, exploring via disruptive translations, and ultimately integrating embedded practices (King, 2004; Lawrence, 2017; Opsahl et al., 2010). Temporary Organizations The second form – temporary organizations – is characterized by an organizational structure that is not conceptualized to be permanent and is “[…] able to handle only a few problems, or in the extreme case, only one” (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995, p. 447). This form is not only characterized by the mere focus of one SDG but also is an umbrella term for projects (Fernando, 2018), consortiums (Watson, 2016), declarations or programs (Wysokińska, 2017), and especially initiatives (Anders, 2018; Calderòn, 2018; Weidenkaff, 2018) to promote certain agendas (Jones, Comfort, & Hillier, 2016). Empirical Studies Anders’ analysis (2018) of the organization Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) fosters transparency concerning environmental aspects, with European organizations being provided with concepts and standards to disclose sustainability-related data. Calderòn (2018) places the responsibility of climate action toward the global economy, urging global players to invest in new technologies for sustainable infrastructure, such as new mobility services in a multi-partner global initiative. The UN policy initiative, “Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights” (Arnold, 2010, p. 371), incorporates human rights policies that have been reported to exist as soft law guidelines before they become hard law, committing transnational corporations to human rights protection. Jones et al. (2016) analyze the “Common Ground” initiative consisting of institutional stakeholders, such as the UN General Secretary and six of the world’s leading marketing companies, to promote health, education, and human rights. This designed initiative advertises environmental strategies to protect and create social value (Jones et al., 2016). Similarly, the initiative “Decent Jobs for Youth” (Weidenkaff, 2018, p. 26) in 2016 functions as a platform to integrate various partners – governments, youth, and civil society – to provide partner organizations with expertise and offer youth networking possibilities (Weidenkaff, 2018). Furthermore, in targeting youth unemployment, Fernando (2018) examines the UN Program “Youth Empowerment Project […] the first-ever multi-stakeholder alliance on action for youth” (Fernando, 2018, pp. 14–15), a global initiative to support young digital natives with skills via technical and vocational training. Wysokińska (2017) analyzes SDG implementation in a constitutional framework, a Polish program involving all key stakeholders to implement the Post-2015 SDG agenda into Polish legislature – a well-designed cooperation with allocated roles to address various SDGs (Wysokińska, 2017). The development intervention “corporate community development” (McEwan, Mawdsley, Banks, & Scheyvens, 2017, p. 28) in South Africa is another institutionally designed interventive form, which has transformed from a simple subordinate to the private sector to a stakeholder among other actors (McEwan et al., 2017). Similarly, in the 1990s, the US Congress established the empowerment zone and enterprise community initiative (EZ/EC), partnering with religious organizations, private industries, and community development organizations (CDCs) to revitalize distressed neighborhoods in urban US communities (Oakley & Tsao, 2007). The EZ/EC initiatives failed to meet the expectations of increasing professional and technical occupations in the service sector and hence were replaced by US CDCs, which accumulated more capital, had a stronger impact on SDGs, and were slowly rooted in urban community involvement (Oakley & Tsao, 2007). Similarly, the Nepali state disaster risk management has formed a consortium to bring humanitarian and development partners together to build resilience to external risks and hazard exposure with new modes of coordination mechanisms, such as emergency operation centers or early-warning systems (Watson, 2016). Organizational Segment All temporary organizations have been clearly designed and mostly part of the UN or state program to address the SDGs. However, some of them are rooted in societal structures – administrations, public governance, or foundations – and can institutionalize (McEwan et al., 2017; Watson, 2016, Wysokińska, 2017). Others remain to be examined to determine whether they have fulfilled the temporary function (Fernando, 2018; Weidenkaff, 2018) or even failed to fulfill expectations (Oakley & Tsao, 2007). Nevertheless, these outcomes are expectable and can thus be addressed as designed organizations. Communicational Technological Approach This organizing form depicts a temporary radial stream of communication between those that the UN is responsible for and the consortiums, initiatives, etc. (Anders, 2018; Calderòn, 2018; Watson, 2016; Weidenkaff, 2018). The platform, provided by the UN, bridges partners and facilitates working relationships without BOs, but with the use of IT (Fernando, 2018; Herlin & Pedersen, 2013). Technological support is immanent for temporary organizations to address SDGs as they use digital transformational change by developing digital skills and green jobs (Fernando, 2018). This mere consumption of ICT can be considered as both the strength and weakness of such organizing forms because initiatives are based upon already existing platforms and ICT infrastructures (Jones et al., 2016), mobility services (Calderòn, 2018), open internet access (Anders, 2018), simulations, and new generation technologies (Watson, 2016). Partnerships Partnerships, as the third form, correspond with the 17th SDG “Partnerships for the Goals” (George et al., 2016). This organizing form aims at lasting contributions toward SDG achievement through revitalizations, thus embedding the collaborative action of various parties with a common purpose, specific tasks, shared risks, responsibilities, and resources (George et al., 2016; Ismail, Heeks, Nicholson, & Aman, 2018). Empirical Studies Pinz, Roudyani, and Thaler (2018) examine public–private partnerships (PPPs) in South Korean restructuring ports, Sri Lanka’s textile industry, and infrastructure projects in Spain. Thus, they state PPPs as an appropriate instrument to achieve sustainable objectives by shifting the paradigm in public management from traditional administration to new public value governance. This designed PPP heavily relies on another organization – the GRI – to provide sustainability-balanced scorecards for improved public service delivery (Pinz et al., 2018). The heavily technocratic form of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) has been studied by Ismail et al. (2018), mostly focusing on the progress of digital harmony. This technology-focused partnership combines material elements – organizations, technologies, and processes – and symbolic elements – values, ideas, and discourses. Based on a Malaysian PPP, the ICT4D is considered an evolution of partnerships to address SDGs, which NGOs and governments have failed to solve in the past. One partnership in western Uganda underlying the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which has evolved from “purely philanthropic actions and focus on second generation CSR” (Adiyia & Vanneste, 2018, p. 220), depicts community partnerships as linkage creators between the accommodation sector and poor neighborhood communities. Organizational Segment This designed organizational form can be considered an organizational instrument to achieve sustainable objectives – PPPs (Pinz et al., 2018) – or an organizational form in itself, such as ICT4D. Both perspectives, from instrumental or institutional perspectives, can be categorized as designed, contributing toward an articulated and communicated goal, thus increasing public value (Ismail et al., 2018; Pinz et al., 2018). Communicational Technological Approach The increased interaction can be observed through the multinational partnerships analyzed by Herlin and Pedersen (2013), examining the importance of BOs in a Danish corporate multinational foundation. Herlin and Pedersen (2013) state the role of foundations as incubators, while NGOs act as decision influencers. BOs are designed organizations that facilitate relationships between other organizations – the founding companies or established NGOs and emergent partners – resulting in a tri-part relationship of BO–foundation–NGO (Herlin & Pedersen, 2013). Aiming at a lasting partnership for the goals according to reports in India, ICT4D has previously failed due to its high complexity and conflict potential, thus emphasizing the importance of conflict management and BOs (Herlin & Pedersen, 2013; Ismail et al., 2018). As the degree of interaction increases, the need for technological support and digital infrastructure becomes more important. Partnerships emphasize and use existing ICT infrastructure (Herlin & Pedersen, 2013; Pinz et al., 2018). However, in the process, ICT4D partnerships also provide IT, business processes, and digitally enabled services and develop a digital framework (Ismail et al., 2018). Hence, partnerships develop and advance the digital infrastructure in a reciprocal manner. Established Organizations The fourth form – established organizations – embodies a more institutionalized character developing existing strategies rather than building structures from scratch. Established organizations are characterized with a higher rate of interaction among levels of state-like public administration (Scherer, 2018), eco-innovation (Ma, Wang, Skibniewski, & Gajda, 2019), and social entities (Beck, 2017; Murisa & Chikweche, 2013; Warnecke & Houndonougbo, 2016). Empirical Studies Organizations, especially microfinance institutions (MFIs), have recalibrated the operational focus of shareholder value and economic growth with the emergence of SDGs (Murisa & Chikweche, 2013; Wright, Nyberg, & Grant, 2012). While MFIs have aimed at poverty reduction since the 1970s (Murisa & Chikweche, 2013), the efficiency and impact have been challenged by refocused agendas, thus importing grand challenges concerns into daily business (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Beck (2017) elaborates on development strategies for microfinance NGOs in Guatemala with feminized policies to ensure gender equality, quality education, and the end of poverty. These policies can either solely focus on monetary aid or a rather holistic approach, providing women with cultural, financial, and environmental education, similar to the tools applied in rural Bangladesh communities (Mair, Marti, & Ventresca, 2012). Women are empowered through basic math and accounting training and lessons about citizens and property rights (Mair et al., 2012). Similarly, Murisa and Chikweche (2013) analyze micro-entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe, with a new role being introduced – the project poverty alleviator (PPA) – imitative entrepreneurship driven by sustainable services in rural areas where traditional banks find markets extremely unattractive or risky. Furthermore, PPAs, as the holistic MFIs examined by Beck (2017), strongly emphasize education and attitude transformation to address poverty reduction, (gender) equality, and financial sustainability (Murisa & Chikweche, 2013). Social enterprise accelerators, a social enterprise with a pay-as-you-go business model, combat the low electrification rate in Sub-Saharan Africa (Warnecke & Houndonougbo, 2016). The products of such enterprises range from sophisticated grid projects, with extremely high initial costs, to home system kits that can be installed off-grid or even a pico-solar system, the easiest installation even for non-specialists. Social enterprises may not solve all developmental problems but function as an accelerator for the public sector and institutional investments, providing an initial boost to the development of a functioning infrastructure (Warnecke & Houndonougbo, 2016). Organizational Segment Altered strategies, such as sustainability specialists, developed guidelines, and frameworks of existing organizations, imply a refocused contribution toward a certain sustainable goal (Wright et al., 2012). Business plans and strategies define thresholds to combat poverty (Murisa & Chikweche, 2013) or gender inequality (Beck, 2017), thus formulating an outcome to be expected and stating a designed organization (Puranam et al., 2014; Wright & Nyberg