Integrating Botanical Insights into Organizational Ecology: Enhancing Cooperation and Sustainability through Complex Adaptive Systems [1]

?

?

ABSTRACT

?

This study explores the interdisciplinary integration of contemporary botanical insights with organizational ecology theory, offering perspectives on how organizations can enhance their adaptability, resilience, and sustainability. By drawing parallels between botanical ecosystems and organizational systems, the study emphasizes the importance of cooperation, resource sharing, and emergent properties in fostering organizational resilience. Key concepts such as the “mother tree phenomenon" and “mycorrhizal networks” - akin to Winnicott’s “good enough mother” in psychoanalysis, the “rhizome” in Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis, or “enabling leadership” in Uhl-Bien and her colleagues’ leadership approach - are used to illustrate how recent findings in botanical research on collaborative and adaptive behaviors in nature can inform organizational strategies. Theoretical implications challenge traditional competition-focused models by promoting a more cooperative and networked approach to organizational management. Practical applications are discussed, including strategies for enhancing organizational resilience, fostering innovation, and integrating sustainable practices. This interdisciplinary approach provides a transformative framework for understanding and leading organizations as complex adaptive systems in a dynamic, multipolar environment.

Keywords: Organizational Ecology, Complex Adaptive Systems, Adaptive Space, Cooperation; Enabling Leadership.

?

Introduction

?

Organizational ecology is a theoretical framework that applies principles of biological ecology to the study of organizations, emphasizing the processes of variation, selection, and retention that operate within organizational populations, much like the evolutionary processes in natural ecosystems (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). The theory focuses on how organizations emerge, grow, and decline within their environments, considering the role of environmental adaptation, resource dependency, and change (Carroll & Hannan, 2000). A central theme in this field is the balance between collaboration and competition, and how organizations adapt to ensure survival and sustainability in complex environments (Astley & Fombrun, 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Similarly, findings in contemporary botany studies have witnessed significant advancements in understanding the intricate dynamics of botanical life, particularly through the lens of complex adaptive systems and cooperative behaviors (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, 2015). These developments challenge traditional notions of competition and survival, highlighting instead the profound interconnectedness and mutual support that characterize many botanical communities.

These recent studies reveal that botanical ecosystems, often viewed through the simplistic lens of individual survival, are far more cooperative and integrated than previously thought (Linnaeus, 2007), offering new insights that are increasingly relevant to organizational ecology, particularly in the context of collaborative processes (Barlow & Harrison, 2020; Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997).

One of the most striking examples of this paradigm shift is the discovery of the so-called “mother tree” phenomenon, where mature trees play a crucial role in the sustenance and growth of younger generations. Through an intricate network of mycorrhizal fungi, these “mother trees” facilitate the transfer of nutrients and water to saplings, ensuring their survival and fostering a resilient forest ecosystem (Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). This symbiotic relationship between trees and fungi exemplifies the complexity and interdependence within forest systems, where cooperation rather than competition drives the health and longevity of the community (Gorzelak, Asay, Pickles, & Simard, 2015; Beiler, Simard, Durall, Maxwell, & Kretzer, 2010).

Likewise, research on sunflower (Helianthus annuus) behavior has uncovered another layer of cooperative interaction within botanical systems. Sunflowers have been observed to exhibit a form of “altruism”, positioning themselves in a manner that allows sunlight to reach younger, smaller plants growing among them (Weiner, 1985). This behavior not only highlights the adaptive strategies of plants but also underscores the significance of cooperative mechanisms in ensuring the proliferation and effectiveness of the ecosystem (Cahill & McNickle, 2011).

These findings have profound implications for organizational studies, particularly in the domain of organizational ecology. The analogies drawn between botanical ecosystems and organizational systems offer a fresh perspective on the importance of cooperation, resource sharing, and adaptive strategies in fostering organizational resilience and sustainability (Duchek, 2020; Edmondson, 2019; Hannan & Freeman, 1977). By examining these biological systems, this paper aims to better understand the mechanisms that underlie effective collaboration and resource management in complex, adaptive organizational environments (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

This paper will explore these recent developments in contemporary botany and their implications for organizational ecology. It will delve into the concepts of complex adaptive systems and cooperation in botanic life, examining how these insights can inform and enrich our understanding of collaborative processes in organizational settings. Through this interdisciplinary approach, the paper seeks to bridge the gap between botanical science and organizational theory, offering novel perspectives on the dynamics of cooperation and adaptation in both natural and organizational ecosystems.

?

Organizational Ecology Studies

?

Organizational ecology is a theoretical framework that applies principles of biological ecology to the study of organizations, emphasizing the processes of variation, selection, and retention that operate within organizational populations. Much like ecosystems in the natural world, organizations are seen as entities subject to environmental pressures that determine their survival, growth, and eventual decline. This perspective, first articulated by Hannan and Freeman (1977), introduces the population ecology model of organizations, which draws heavily on Darwinian evolutionary theory. According to this model, organizations exist within a broader ecosystem where they must continuously adapt to survive, much like species in nature. Central to this theory are the concepts of population density, niche width, and organizational inertia, each of which plays a crucial role in determining an organization’s ability to endure environmental changes and competitive pressures (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

The notion of population density refers to the number of organizations within a given environment. As this density increases, competition for resources intensifies, leading to greater selection pressures. In this context, organizations must either find ways to differentiate themselves or risk being outcompeted by others (Carroll & Hannan, 2000). Closely related to this is the concept of niche width, which describes the range of environmental conditions within which an organization can survive. Organizations with a broad niche, known as generalists, are able to adapt to a variety of conditions, while specialists are highly adapted to specific environments and may struggle when conditions change (Freeman & Hannan, 1983). Organizational inertia, the tendency of established organizations to resist change, is another critical concept. While inertia can provide stability and predictability, it can also hinder an organization’s ability to adapt to new challenges, making it vulnerable in dynamic environments (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

Transitioning from these foundational concepts, it is important to recognize that while competition is a significant focus of organizational ecology, collaboration is equally crucial. Collaboration among organizations, whether through alliances, partnerships, or networks, facilitates resource sharing and collective problem-solving. This aspect of organizational ecology underscores the importance of interorganizational networks, which consist of interlinked organizations that share resources, knowledge, and capabilities. These networks allow organizations to collectively respond to environmental challenges, enhancing their adaptive capacity (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2021; Astley & Fombrun, 1983). For instance, organizations within such networks can share technological innovations or jointly invest in research and development, thereby pooling their strengths to overcome challenges that would be insurmountable individually (Rajala & Westerlund, 2021; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).

Moreover, the relevance of resource dependency theory within this framework cannot be overstated. Resource dependency theory suggests that organizations are inherently interdependent with their environments, relying on external resources to survive. This dependency creates both vulnerabilities and opportunities. To mitigate risks associated with resource dependency, organizations often form collaborations that secure critical resources while reducing their exposure to environmental uncertainties (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In this sense, collaboration is not merely a strategy for survival but a means to achieve greater resilience and long-term effectiveness (Duchek, 2020; Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe, Shepherd, & Zhao, 2017).

Further elaborating on the theme of adaptation, organizational ecology also explores how organizations change in response to their environments. The concept of punctuated equilibrium is particularly insightful here, suggesting that organizations experience long periods of stability, known as equilibrium, punctuated by brief periods of significant change (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). During these periods of upheaval, organizations must adapt quickly to survive. Those that manage these transitions effectively are more likely to thrive in the long term.

This leads to the concept of organizational ambidexterity, which refers to an organization’s ability to balance the exploitation of existing resources with the exploration of new opportunities. Ambidextrous organizations, capable of refining their current operations while simultaneously innovating and exploring new avenues, are better equipped to adapt to environmental shifts (Raisch & Tushman, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; March, 1991). This dual capability is essential in today’s rapidly changing environments, where technological advancements and globalization demand both incremental and radical innovations.

Building on these ideas, it becomes clear that the principles of organizational ecology underscore the importance of both collaboration and adaptation in achieving organizational resilience. Resilient organizations are those that can anticipate, prepare for, and respond to environmental changes while maintaining their core operations and values. This resilience often results from a combination of factors, including strong leadership, a culture of innovation, and robust networks of collaboration (Schaltegger, Beckmann, & Hansen, 2021; Edmondson, 2019; Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005). In practice, fostering a culture of learning, collaboration, and adaptability can significantly enhance an organization’s resilience, allowing it to weather crises and emerge stronger (Bansal & Song, 2021; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Finally, contemporary applications of organizational ecology demonstrate its ongoing relevance in today’s complex and dynamic global economy. As the business environment becomes increasingly interconnected and subject to rapid technological change, the insights provided by organizational ecology become more valuable. For example, technology companies like Google and Amazon exemplify the principles of organizational ecology by maintaining broad niche - offering a wide range of products and services - and fostering extensive networks of collaboration through partnerships and acquisitions (Iyer & Davenport, 2008).

Similarly, in the healthcare sector, the collaborative efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the power of interorganizational networks in responding to unprecedented challenges (Figueroa, Wadhera, Mehtsun, Riley, & Sommers, 2021; Puranam & Swamy, 2021; Czakon, Srivastava, & Le Roy, 2020). These examples illustrate how the principles of organizational ecology can guide organizations in navigating complexity and uncertainty, ensuring their long-term effectiveness and sustainability.

?

Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems

?

The notion of complex adaptive systems (CAS) has become increasingly relevant in the study of ecosystems. In botany, CAS frameworks are employed to describe how plant communities function as integrated networks, where individual components - such as plants, fungi, and bacteria - interact in dynamic and adaptive ways, leading to emergent behaviors that are not predictable from the properties of individual components alone (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Van Der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, 2015).

One of the most profound discoveries in this area is the role of mycorrhizal networks, often referred to as the “wood wide web”, in facilitating communication and resource distribution among plants. These networks consist of symbiotic associations between fungi and plant roots, which enable the transfer of nutrients, water, and signaling molecules across different plant species within a forest ecosystem (Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). Through these networks, plants can exchange resources in a manner that is not strictly competitive but rather cooperative, supporting the survival and growth of both individual plants and the larger community (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019).

Research by Simard and colleagues (1997) demonstrated that older, more established trees, often referred to as “mother trees”, play a crucial role in these networks by supplying carbon and nutrients to younger seedlings. This finding challenges the traditional Darwinian view of survival of the fittest by revealing a system where mutual aid and cooperation are vital for the ecosystem’s resilience. Beiler, Simard, Durall, Maxwell, and Kretzer (2010) expanded on this by showing that these mycorrhizal networks can link multiple generations of trees, further reinforcing the idea of forests as complex adaptive systems where the interactions between organisms lead to emergent properties that contribute to the stability and sustainability of the ecosystem (Gorzelak, Asay, Pickles, & Simard, 2015).

The concept of “mother trees” highlights the importance of keystone species within plant communities. These large, old trees serve as central hubs in the mycorrhizal network, providing essential nutrients to seedlings, particularly under stressful conditions such as shade or drought (Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). This nurturing role is a key aspect of the forest’s adaptive capacity, allowing it to maintain diversity and resilience over time. The presence of mother trees has been shown to significantly increase the survival rate of young trees, especially in species like Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Teste, Simard, Durall, Guy, Berch, & Tweig, 2009).

This nurturing behavior exemplifies a complex adaptive system where individual entities (trees) are interdependent, and their interactions contribute to the overall health and functionality of the ecosystem. This perspective aligns with the broader understanding of CAS, where systems are self-organizing and capable of adapting to environmental changes through decentralized and cooperative behaviors (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021).

In CAS, emergent properties refer to patterns or behaviors that arise from the interactions of individual components within the system, which cannot be predicted by simply analyzing the components in isolation. In botanical ecosystems, emergent properties include the formation of stable, resilient communities that can adapt to environmental changes, such as fluctuations in climate or the introduction of new species (Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016).

Research has shown that these emergent properties are often a result of cooperative interactions within the ecosystem. For example, the sharing of resources through mycorrhizal networks allows plants to thrive even in nutrient-poor soils, leading to the emergence of diverse and productive plant communities (Singh, Trivedi, Egidi, Macdonald, & Delgado-Baquerizo, 2020; Van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, M.-A., & Sanders, 2015). This cooperative behavior is a hallmark of CAS, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the system’s ability to adapt and survive is enhanced by the interconnectedness and interdependence of its members.

The insights gained from studying plant ecosystems as complex adaptive systems have significant implications for organizational ecology. Just as plant communities rely on cooperation and resource sharing to maintain resilience and adaptability, organizations can benefit from similar strategies. By fostering networks of cooperation and encouraging adaptive behaviors, organizations can enhance their ability to respond to changes in the external environment and maintain long-term sustainability (Puranam & Swamy, 2021; Czakon, Srivastava, & Le Roy, 2020).

?

Cooperative Mechanisms

?

The study of cooperation in botany has unveiled a fascinating array of mechanisms that challenge the traditional view of plants as passive organisms solely engaged in competition for resources (Linnaeus, 2007). Research previously discussed has demonstrated that plants can exhibit a range of cooperative behaviors, from nutrient sharing through complex root networks to altruistic actions that benefit neighboring plants. These behaviors illustrate how their communities function as integrated, cooperative systems and have significant implications for understanding both ecological and organizational dynamics (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty, 2019; Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016).

One of the most well-documented forms of cooperation in plant life is the sharing of nutrients through interconnected root systems, particularly via mycorrhizal networks (Johnson, Graham, & Smith, 2020; Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019). Studies have shown that plants can transfer essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon to neighboring plants, especially those that are younger, weaker, or in shaded conditions where photosynthesis is less efficient (Selosse, Richard, He, & Simard, 2006; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997).

For example, in a study by Van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, (2015) CMN can dynamically allocate resources to optimize the overall health and growth of the plant community. This form of nutrient sharing not only benefits the individual plants involved but also enhances the stability and resilience of the entire ecosystem. The ability of plants to engage in such cooperative resource management highlights the complexity and sophistication of plant interactions, which are crucial for the sustainability of plant communities in variable environments (Singh, Trivedi, Egidi, Macdonald, & Delgado-Baquerizo, 2020).

In addition to nutrient sharing, plants have been observed to exhibit behaviors that can be considered altruistic, where they act in ways that primarily benefit other plants, even at a potential cost to themselves. Such the phenomenon observed in sunflower populations, plants adjust their growth patterns to allow sunlight to reach shorter plants growing nearby (Weiner, 1985). This behavior, which might reduce the competitive advantage of the taller plants, ultimately benefits the overall health and productivity of the plant community.

Another striking example of plant “altruism” involves kin recognition, where plants are able to distinguish between genetically related and unrelated individuals. Research by Dudley and File (2007) demonstrated that the plant species Cakile edentula (sea rocket) exhibits less root competition when grown with kin compared to when it is grown with non-kin plants. This reduced competition among related individuals suggests a form of kin altruism, where plants adjust their growth to favor the well-being of their relatives, thereby enhancing the overall genetic fitness of the plant community.

Plants also cooperate in their defense against herbivores and pathogens through the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other signaling molecules. When a plant is attacked, it can emit specific VOCs that alert neighboring plants to the presence of a threat, prompting them to activate their own defensive mechanisms (Balzergue, Chabaud, Barker, & Bécard, 2018; Karban, Baldwin, Baxter, Laue, & Felton, 2000). This form of chemical communication enables plants to collectively respond to environmental stressors, improving their chances of survival as a community.

For instance, studies have shown that plants like lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus) can release VOCs in response to herbivore damage, which in turn induces defense responses in nearby undamaged plants, making them less susceptible to attack (Arimura, Ozawa, Nishioka, Boland, & Takabayashi, 2000). Such cooperative defense strategies exemplify how plants can engage in community-level responses to threats, which are more effective than individual actions.

The cooperative behaviors observed in plants - from nutrient sharing to altruistic growth adjustments and collective defense strategies - underline the importance of cooperation in maintaining ecosystem resilience. These behaviors allow plant communities to adapt to changing conditions, optimize resource use, and collectively defend against threats, thereby ensuring the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem (Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020).

The insights gained from studying cooperation in plant life also offer valuable lessons for organizational theory, particularly in the context of fostering collaborative work environments and enhancing organizational resilience. Just as plants use cooperation to navigate complex and dynamic environments, organizations can benefit from cultivating collaborative practices that enhance entrepreneurial ecosystems, collective problem-solving, and resource management.

?

Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Ecology Research

?

Organizational ecology has evolved significantly since its inception, expanding both its theoretical and empirical foundations. Its current state of research in reflects the maturity of its core concepts and the growing interest in its application to contemporary organizational challenges. This evolution has been driven by advancements in understanding how organizations interact with their environments, adapt to change, and balance the competing demands of stability and innovation (Puranam & Swamy, 2021; Czakon, Srivastava, & Le Roy, 2020).

One of the primary focuses of current research in organizational ecology is the exploration of organizational adaptation in increasingly complex and dynamic environments. Scholars are particularly interested in how organizations manage to survive and thrive amid rapid technological advancements, globalization, and shifting market demands. This has led to a deeper investigation into the mechanisms of organizational change, including how organizations adapt their structures, strategies, and cultures in response to external pressures. The traditional view of organizational ecology, which emphasized the deterministic role of environmental selection, has been nuanced by research exploring how organizations proactively adapt and shape their environments (Carroll & Hannan, 2000; Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

Another important area of research is the study of organizational diversity and niche dynamics. Researchers are increasingly focusing on how diversity within organizational populations contributes to overall system resilience and innovation. This includes examining how organizations occupy different niches within an ecosystem and how niche overlap or differentiation affects competition and collaboration. The study of generalists versus specialists within organizational populations remains a key topic, with ongoing debates about the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy in various environmental contexts (Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Freeman & Hannan, 1983).

Interorganizational networks and collaboration have also become central themes in contemporary organizational ecology research. There is growing recognition that organizations do not exist in isolation but are part of broader networks that include suppliers, customers, regulators, and even competitors. These networks facilitate the flow of resources, information, and innovation, contributing to organizational survival and sustainability. Current research explores how these networks function, the role of social capital within them, and how organizations can strategically manage their network positions to enhance resilience and competitiveness (Rajala & Westerlund, 2021; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).

The concept of organizational inertia and change continues to be a critical area of inquiry. Researchers are examining the factors that contribute to organizational inertia - such as established routines, cultures, and structures - and how these factors can both enable and constrain an organization’s ability to adapt to environmental changes. There is a growing body of research that seeks to reconcile the tension between the need for stability (to maintain efficiency and reliability) and the need for change (to innovate and respond to new challenges) (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

Additionally, the application of organizational ecology to sustainability and ethical practices is an emerging area of interest. Researchers are increasingly looking at how principles of ecology, such as resource dependency and environmental stewardship, can inform more sustainable and ethical organizational practices. This includes exploring how organizations can balance economic objectives with social and environmental responsibilities, ensuring long-term sustainability in a way that mirrors the balance found in natural ecosystems (Bansal & Song, 2021; Astley & Fombrun, 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Methodological advancements have also shaped the current state of research in organizational ecology. The use of computational models, big data, and network analysis tools has allowed researchers to analyze complex organizational ecosystems with greater precision (Meyer, Gaba, & Colwell, 2005). These methodologies enable the simulation of organizational behaviors over time, offering new insights into the dynamics of organizational populations and their interactions with the environment (Puranam, Stieglitz, Osman, & Pillutla, 2015; Monge & Contractor, 2003).

Despite significant advancements in the field of organizational ecology, several research gaps persist, highlighting areas where further exploration is essential. Addressing these gaps is crucial for developing a more comprehensive understanding of how organizations operate within their environments and adapt to change (Hannan & Freeman, 1989).

To begin with, one of the primary gaps in organizational ecology is the integration of micro-level processes, such as individual and group behaviors within organizations, with macro-level dynamics, such as organizational populations and ecosystems. While the field has traditionally focused on macro-level phenomena, such as population dynamics and environmental selection, there is a growing recognition of the need to understand how micro-level interactions influence and are influenced by broader ecological processes (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2021; Baum & Amburgey, 2002). This calls for more research that connects individual and group behaviors with organizational survival, growth, and adaptation, thus bridging the gap between organizational ecology and fields like organizational behavior and psychology (Argote & Greve, 2007).

Additionally, there is a significant need for more longitudinal studies that track organizational adaptation over extended periods. Much of the existing research in organizational ecology is cross-sectional, providing only snapshots of organizations at specific points in time. However, understanding how organizations evolve, adapt, and respond to environmental changes requires long-term data that can capture the dynamics of these processes (Delmar & Shane, 2003). Longitudinal studies would offer deeper insights into how organizations sustain themselves through periods of stability and change and how adaptation strategies unfold over time (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001).

Furthermore, the impact of digital transformation and emerging technologies on organizational ecosystems remains underexplored. As digital technologies continue to reshape industries and organizational practices, it is increasingly important to examine how these changes influence organizational survival, competition, and collaboration (Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013). Critical questions, such as how digital platforms alter organizational networks, how technology-driven disruptions affect organizational populations, and the role of technological innovation in ecological adaptation, are still inadequately addressed in current research (Czakon, Srivastava, & Le Roy, 2020; Yoo, Boland, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak, 2012).

Moreover, while the concept of organizational resilience has gained attention, there remains a gap in understanding the specific mechanisms that contribute to resilience across different types of organizations and environments. Existing research often treats resilience as a broad capability, but there is a need for more nuanced studies that identify which specific practices, structures, and cultural attributes foster resilience (Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Additionally, more work is needed to develop methods for measuring and assessing resilience within organizational populations, particularly in the context of systemic shocks such as economic crises or pandemics (Duchek, 2020; Sheffi, 2007).

The effects of globalization and environmental change on organizational ecosystems are also areas that require more focused research. As organizations increasingly operate in globalized environments, they face complex challenges related to cross-border competition, cultural diversity, and regulatory differences (Ghoshal, 1987). Furthermore, environmental changes, including climate change, pose significant risks to organizational survival and adaptation (Winn, Kirchgeorg, Griffiths, Linnenluecke, & Günther, 2011). Research that explores how organizations can navigate these global and environmental challenges, and how they contribute to or mitigate such changes, remains limited.

The growing interest in the ethical and sustainability dimensions of organizational ecology also points to an area where more research is needed. Questions about how organizations can balance economic goals with environmental and social responsibilities, and how these considerations affect their long-term survival, are critical yet underexplored (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Furthermore, the role of ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility (CSR) within organizational ecosystems demands further investigation (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).

Another gap in organizational ecology research is the need for a broader exploration of diverse organizational forms and contexts. Much of the existing literature has focused on traditional corporate structures and industries, often neglecting non-traditional organizations such as startups, social enterprises, non-profits, and cooperatives. These organizations may operate under different ecological principles, and understanding their dynamics could offer new insights into organizational survival and adaptation (Battilana & Lee, 2014). Additionally, more research is needed to examine organizational ecology in different cultural and regional contexts, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies (George, Corbishley, Khayesi, Haas, & Tihanyi, 2016).

Finally, while methodological advancements have enhanced the study of organizational ecology, there is still a gap in the development and application of innovative methodologies. The use of big data analytics, machine learning, and simulation models in organizational ecology is still in its early stages. These tools have the potential to provide deeper insights into organizational dynamics by analyzing complex datasets and predicting future trends (Kitchin, 2014). Expanding the methodological toolkit of organizational ecology will be essential for advancing the field and addressing its current limitations.

?

Bridging Botany and Organizational Studies

?

The integration of contemporary advancements in botanical studies offers promising avenues for addressing existing research gaps in organizational ecology. By applying insights from plant ecosystems and their complex adaptive behaviors, organizational scholars can develop more nuanced and comprehensive frameworks to understand and manage organizational dynamics (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, 2015; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997).

Firstly, the integration of botanical concepts can significantly enhance the understanding of micro- and macro-level integration within organizations. Botanical studies, particularly those focusing on mycorrhizal networks and nutrient exchange among plants, demonstrate how micro-level interactions, such as the exchange of resources between individual plants, contribute to the stability and resilience of entire ecosystems (Beiler, Simard, Durall, Maxwell, & Kretzer, 2010; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). Translating these insights to organizational contexts can help bridge the gap between individual and group behaviors and broader organizational ecosystems. For instance, the study of resource-sharing mechanisms in plants can inform how collaboration and information exchange at the micro-level influence the overall adaptability and effectiveness of organizations in their respective environments (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).

Moreover, the longitudinal study of plant adaptation to environmental changes provides a robust model for understanding organizational adaptation over time. In botany, long-term studies of plant species’ responses to climatic shifts, soil degradation, and competition offer valuable data on how ecosystems evolve (Jump & Pe?uelas, 2005). Applying similar longitudinal approaches to organizational studies could provide insights into how organizations adapt their structures, cultures, and strategies in response to prolonged environmental pressures (Johnson, Graham, & Smith, 2020; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). This would help fill the gap in longitudinal research by offering concrete examples of adaptation strategies that unfold over extended periods, providing a deeper understanding of the evolutionary dynamics within organizations (Delmar & Shane, 2003).

Additionally, contemporary botanical research on plant responses to digital and technological changes - such as the impact of genetic modification, biotechnology, and environmental monitoring technologies - can inform organizational ecology in the context of digital transformation (Singh, Trivedi, Egidi, Macdonald, & Delgado-Baquerizo, 2020; Esvelt & Wang, 2013). Just as plants have adapted to technological interventions, organizations must adapt to digital platforms, big data, and AI-driven processes. By studying how plants integrate technological changes into their adaptive strategies, organizational researchers can develop better models for understanding and managing technological disruptions in organizational ecosystems (Yoo, Boland, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak, 2012).

The concept of resilience in plant ecosystems also provides a valuable framework for enhancing our understanding of organizational resilience. In botanical studies, resilience is often linked to biodiversity, redundancy, and the ability to recover from disturbances (Loreau, Naeem, & Inchausti, 2002). These principles can be applied to organizations by emphasizing the importance of diversity in talent, ideas, and operational processes (Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Furthermore, the study of how ecosystems recover from natural disasters or human interventions can offer insights into how organizations might design more resilient structures and processes capable of withstanding economic, social, or environmental shocks (Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020; Sheffi, 2007).

Botanical research also contributes to understanding the impact of multipolarity and environmental change on organizational ecosystems. Plants often face challenges related to habitat loss, climate change, and invasive species, which parallel the challenges organizations face in a globalized world (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Winn, Kirchgeorg, Griffiths, Linnenluecke, & Günther, 2011). Studying how ecosystems manage to maintain balance and adapt to these changes can inform organizational strategies for navigating the complexities of globalization and environmental shifts (Ghoshal, 1987). This can include developing adaptive strategies that ensure sustainability and resilience in the face of global challenges (Bansal & Roth, 2000).

Furthermore, the growing emphasis on ethical and sustainable practices in botanical research can directly inform organizational approaches to sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Botanical studies often focus on the balance between growth and conservation, exploring how ecosystems can thrive without depleting their resources (Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor, & Polasky, 2002). These insights can be translated into organizational contexts, where there is a need to balance profitability with social and environmental responsibilities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). By integrating botanical principles of sustainability, organizations can develop strategies that ensure long-term viability while contributing positively to the broader ecological and social systems in which they operate (Bansal & Roth, 2000).

The diversity of plant forms and ecosystems studied in botany can also inform a broader exploration of diverse organizational forms and contexts. Botanical research covers a wide range of ecosystems, from forests to deserts, each with unique adaptive strategies (Whittaker, 1975). Similarly, organizations operate in diverse environments with varying challenges. By studying how different ecosystems thrive under different conditions, organizational researchers can gain insights into how various organizational forms - such as startups, non-profits, and social enterprises - adapt and succeed in different contexts (Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016; Battilana & Lee, 2014). This could help address the gap in understanding the dynamics of non-traditional organizational forms and their role in the broader economic ecosystem (George, Corbishley, Khayesi, Haas, & Tihanyi, 2016).

Lastly, botanical research can inspire methodological innovations in organizational ecology. The use of advanced technologies in botany, such as remote sensing, genetic analysis, and ecological modeling, can be adapted for use in organizational and entrepreneurial studies (Holling, 2001). These methodologies can help analyze complex organizational ecosystems, predict future trends, and simulate the impact of various factors on organizational survival and adaptation (Kitchin, 2014). By adopting these innovative methodologies, organizational ecology can enhance its analytical capabilities and provide more precise insights (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Monge & Contractor, 2003).

?

Theoretical Implications

?

The integration of botanical insights into organizational studies offers profound theoretical implications, particularly in our understanding of complex adaptive systems, collaboration, resilience, and leadership within organizations. These insights challenge traditional views in organizational theory and provide new perspectives that enrich our understanding of organizational dynamics (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Levin, 1998).

To begin with, one of the most significant contributions of botanical studies to organizational theory is the enhanced understanding of complex adaptive systems (CAS). In botany, ecosystems are frequently described as CAS, where individual organisms interact in dynamic and interdependent ways, leading to emergent properties that cannot be predicted by analyzing components in isolation (Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016; Holland, 1992; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). This concept directly applies to organizational systems, where interactions among individuals, departments, and external stakeholders create complex behaviors and outcomes. Understanding organizations as ecosystems shifts the focus from hierarchical, top-down management to a more networked and decentralized approach, emphasizing the importance of flexibility and responsiveness to change (Northourse, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Furthermore, botanical findings, particularly on mycorrhizal networks and resource sharing among plants, underscore the importance of collaboration and resource dependency in organizational effectiveness. In organizational studies, this translates to a greater appreciation for interorganizational networks, alliances, and strategic partnerships (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). Traditional competitive strategies that focus solely on outmaneuvering rivals are increasingly supplemented by strategies that emphasize mutual support, knowledge sharing, and resource pooling (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). This shift aligns with resource dependency theory, suggesting that organizations are more successful when they secure and share critical resources through cooperative relationships rather than relying solely on competition (Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997).

In addition, botanical studies on plant resilience, such as adaptive responses to environmental stressors, provide valuable lessons for building organizational resilience. Just as ecosystems rely on diversity and redundancy to withstand and recover from disruptions, organizations must develop similar capacities to ensure their long-term viability (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Loreau, Naeem, & Inchausti, 2002). Theoretical implications here include a challenge to traditional efficiency models, which often prioritize streamlined processes at the expense of resilience. Instead, a balance between efficiency and robustness is advocated, allowing organizations to adapt more effectively to changing environments (Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020; Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011).

Moreover, the concept of “mother trees” in botany - akin to Winnicott’s “good enough mother” in psychoanalysis, the ‘rhizome” in Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis, or “enabling leadership” in Uhl-Bien and her colleagues’ leadership approach - suggests a shift from traditional, “entity-centric” leadership models that emphasize the leader’s person, control, and direction, toward those that focus on nurturing environments, mentoring, and empowering others (Northouse, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Gorzelak, Asay, Pickles, & Simard, 2015; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997; Winnicott, 1971). Theoretical implications include the development of leadership frameworks that prioritize the growth and development of team members, fostering a culture of collaboration and support. Such leadership is crucial for cultivating the next generation of leaders and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the organization (Edmondson, 2021; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Winnicott, 1971).

Additionally, the concept of emergent properties in plant ecosystems, where interactions among various species lead to outcomes greater than the sum of their parts, has significant implications for understanding innovation in organizations. In organizational studies, this suggests that innovation is not merely the result of isolated genius or top-down directives but is often an emergent property of a collaborative and interactive environment (Van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, 2015). This challenges linear models of innovation and supports theories that emphasize the role of networks, cross-functional teams, and a culture that encourages experimentation and risk-taking (Singh, Trivedi, Egidi, Macdonald, & Delgado-Baquerizo, 2020; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Finally, these insights from botanical studies also have ethical implications for organizational theory. The cooperative and sustainable practices observed in plant ecosystems suggest that organizations could benefit from adopting more ethical and sustainable practices, not just as a moral imperative but as a strategic approach to long-term viability (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020). This includes considering the impact of organizational practices on the broader ecosystem - whether that be the community, the environment, or the economy - and striving to operate in ways that contribute positively to these systems (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).

?

Practical Implications

?

The interdisciplinary integration of botanical insights into organizational studies offers numerous practical contributions that can significantly benefit contemporary organizations. By drawing on the principles and behaviors observed in plant ecosystems, organizations can adopt strategies that enhance their adaptability, resilience, and overall effectiveness in navigating complex and dynamic environments (Singh, Trivedi, Egidi, Macdonald, & Delgado-Baquerizo, 2020; Holling, 2001; Levin, 1998).

To begin with, one of the most practical contributions of this interdisciplinary approach is the promotion of enhanced collaboration and resource sharing within and between organizations. Botanical studies, particularly those focused on mycorrhizal networks, demonstrate how plants share nutrients and resources through interconnected root systems, thereby strengthening the entire ecosystem (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). Translating this into organizational practice, companies can develop more effective collaborative networks that facilitate the sharing of knowledge, resources, and innovations. This approach encourages organizations to move beyond competitive silos and embrace partnerships and alliances that drive collective growth and resilience (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).

Moreover, the concept of resilience, deeply rooted in botanical research, has direct applications in enhancing organizational resilience. Plants that survive in harsh conditions often do so by developing diverse and redundant systems, ensuring they can adapt to changes and recover from disturbances (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Loreau, Naeem, & Inchausti, 2002). Organizations can apply these principles by diversifying their operations, workforce, and supply chains, thereby creating multiple pathways to resilience. For example, companies can invest in developing a versatile workforce with a broad skill set, enabling them to pivot quickly in response to market shifts or disruptions (Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Similarly, maintaining diverse product lines or sourcing from multiple suppliers can reduce vulnerability to external shocks, helping organizations not only survive crises but also thrive in the face of adversity (Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020; Sheffi, 2007).

In addition, the emphasis on sustainable and ethical practices found in botanical ecosystems offers valuable lessons for contemporary organizations. These ecosystems operate on principles of balance and sustainability, where growth is managed in harmony with available resources (Johnson, Graham, & Smith, 2020; Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor, & Polasky, 2002). Organizations can adopt similar practices by integrating sustainability into their core strategies, which might involve reducing waste, optimizing resource use, and ensuring that business practices do not deplete the environmental or social resources on which they depend (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Practically, this could manifest in the adoption of circular economy principles, where organizations design products and processes to minimize waste and maximize reuse, or in corporate social responsibility initiatives that prioritize environmental stewardship and social well-being (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).

Furthermore, insights gained from botanical studies, particularly the concept of “mother trees” that nurture and support younger trees, can be directly applied to leadership development and organizational culture. In practical terms, organizations can cultivate leadership styles that emphasize mentorship, empowerment, and the nurturing of talent (Gorzelak, Asay, Pickles, & Simard, 2015; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). Leaders can focus on developing their teams, sharing knowledge, and creating environments where employees feel supported and valued. This approach fosters adaptive spaces, a culture of collaboration, and continuous learning, all of which are essential for organizational ambidexterity, innovation, and sustained development (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Moreover, by promoting inclusive and supportive leadership, organizations can enhance employee engagement and retention, leading to a more motivated and productive workforce (Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011).

The principle of emergence observed in botanical ecosystems, where complex behaviors arise from simple interactions, also inspires new approaches to innovation within organizations. Rather than relying solely on top-down innovation strategies, organizations can create environments where innovation emerges organically through collaboration and interaction among diverse teams (Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016; Holland, 1992). This could involve setting up innovation hubs or incubators where employees from different departments and backgrounds come together to experiment and co-create. By encouraging this type of emergent collaboration, organizations can tap into a broader range of ideas and perspectives, leading to more innovative solutions that are well-suited to the complexities of modern markets (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

As organizations increasingly operate in a globalized world, they face the dual challenges of navigating diverse markets and responding to environmental changes. The interdisciplinary integration of botanical principles can guide organizations in developing adaptive strategies that are both flexible and sustainable. Just as plants adapt to varying climates and environmental conditions, organizations can tailor their strategies to different regional markets while maintaining a core set of sustainable practices (Ghoshal, 1987). This might involve adopting localized business models that respect cultural differences and environmental constraints or developing products that are environmentally friendly and tailored to the specific needs of different markets (Bansal & Roth, 2000). By adopting these adaptive strategies, organizations can enhance their global competitiveness while contributing to environmental sustainability (Winn, Kirchgeorg, Griffiths, Linnenluecke, & Günther 2011).

Finally, this interdisciplinary approach offers practical benefits through the application of advanced methodologies inspired by botanical research. The use of big data analytics, simulation models, and network analysis - tools commonly used in ecological studies - can be adapted to analyze organizational ecosystems (Kitchin, 2014). For example, organizations can use these tools to map out their networks of relationships, identify key influencers and resource flows, and predict the impact of various strategic decisions (Monge & Contractor, 2003). These methodologies provide organizations with a more detailed and dynamic understanding of their internal and external environments, enabling them to make more informed and strategic decisions (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Puranam, Stieglitz, Osman, & Pillutla, 2015).

?

Conclusion

?

This paper has explored the rich intersections between contemporary botanical research and organizational ecology, offering both theoretical and practical insights that can significantly inform how organizations navigate complex, dynamic environments. By applying principles from plant ecosystems - such as complex adaptive systems, cooperation, and resilience - organizational theory can be enriched and made more relevant to the challenges faced by modern organizations (Tedersoo & Bahram, 2019; Levin, 1998; Holland, 1992).

One of the key takeaways is the recognition that organizations, much like plant ecosystems, operate within intricate networks where collaboration and interdependence are crucial for survival and growth. The analogy of mycorrhizal networks in forests, where plants share resources to ensure collective resilience, provides a powerful framework for understanding how organizations can benefit from fostering robust interorganizational networks (Wipf, Krajinski, Van Tuinen, Recorbet, & Courty 2019; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). These networks are not merely beneficial but essential for navigating the uncertainties of today’s global economy (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).

Moreover, insights from botanical studies challenge traditional, competition-focused models of organizational behavior by highlighting the importance of cooperation and mutual support in achieving lasting effectiveness. The concept of “mother trees”, which nurture younger plants, underscores the importance of leadership that prioritizes the growth and development of others, ensuring the sustainability and continuity of the organization (Gorzelak, Asay, Pickles, & Simard, 2015; Simard, Perry, Jones, Myrold, Durall, & Molina, 1997). This perspective shifts the focus from short-term gains to long-term resilience, emphasizing the need for organizations to adopt more nurturing, inclusive leadership styles (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

Additionally, the application of concepts such as emergent properties and resilience from plant ecosystems to organizational contexts has profound implications for innovation and adaptability. Organizations that cultivate environments where collaboration and experimentation are encouraged are more likely to develop innovative solutions that address complex challenges (Van der Putten, Bradford, Brinkman, Van de Voorde, & Veen, 2016; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This aligns with the understanding that in both natural and organizational ecosystems, diversity and redundancy are key to withstanding disruptions and adapting to change (Lefèvre, Fort, & Volaire, 2021; Loreau, Naeem, & Inchausti, 2002; Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011).

Furthermore, the ethical and sustainability dimensions of botanical research offer valuable lessons for organizations striving to balance profitability with social and environmental responsibilities. By integrating these principles into their core strategies, organizations can enhance their long-term viability while contributing positively to the broader ecological and social systems in which they operate (Tamm, Thommen, Fliessbach, & Scherer-Lorenzen, 2020; Bansal & Roth, 2000). This holistic approach is increasingly necessary in a world where the impact of organizational actions extends far beyond their immediate environment (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).

However, while this paper offers significant insights into the integration of botanical principles into organizational ecology, several limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, the interdisciplinary nature of this paper presents challenges in fully aligning the principles of botany with those of organizational studies. The direct application of botanical concepts such as mycorrhizal networks or ‘mother trees’ to organizational contexts, while innovative, may oversimplify the complexities inherent in human organizational dynamics. These analogies, although compelling, may not always capture the nuances of organizational behavior, particularly in environments where human agency, cultural factors, and socio-political dynamics play critical roles (Pettigrew, 2019; Barile, Pellicano, & Polese, 2018).

Secondly, the paper primarily relies on theoretical and conceptual frameworks rather than empirical evidence to support the proposed integration of botanical and organizational principles. While the theoretical linkages are well-articulated, the lack of empirical studies or case examples that demonstrate the practical application of these ideas in real organizational settings limits the paper’s ability to provide actionable insights. This theoretical bias might restrict the paper’s impact on practitioners who require evidence-based strategies (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019; Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

Another limitation is the generalization of botanical principles to all types of organizations. The paper does not sufficiently address the potential variability in how different organizational forms (e.g., startups, non-profits, multinational corporations) might engage with or benefit from these botanical insights. Organizations operating in vastly different contexts may require tailored approaches that consider their specific environmental, cultural, and operational challenges, which the paper does not fully explore (Dess, Lumpkin, & Eisner, 2021; Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014).

Furthermore, the focus on positive aspects of botanical principles, such as cooperation and resilience, may inadvertently overlook the competitive and conflictual elements that are also present in both ecosystems and organizations. The paper could benefit from a more balanced perspective that considers how both cooperative and competitive dynamics interplay within organizational ecosystems (Walrave & Raven, 2022; Chen, 2020).

Lastly, while the paper proposes methodological innovations inspired by botanical research, it does not provide detailed guidance on how these methods can be practically implemented in organizational studies. The suggestions to use big data analytics, simulation models, and network analysis, though valuable, require further elaboration to be effectively utilized by organizational researchers and practitioners (Contractor, DeChurch, & Zaccaro, 2021; Vogenbeck & Weber, 2019).

In conclusion, the interdisciplinary integration of botanical insights into organizational studies offers a transformative approach to understanding and managing organizations. By viewing organizations through the lens of ecology, scholars and practitioners can develop more resilient, innovative, and sustainable models that are better equipped to thrive in an increasingly interconnected and complex world. This approach not only enhances the theoretical richness of organizational ecology but also provides practical strategies that can be applied to real-world challenges, ensuring that organizations are well-prepared for the future (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein, 2021; Baldwin, 2020).

?

References

?

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968.

Arimura, G., Ozawa, R., Nishioka, T., Boland, W., & Takabayashi, J. (2000). Herbivory-induced volatiles elicit defence genes in lima bean leaves. Nature, 406(6795), 512-515.

Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm: 40 years and counting. Organization Science, 18(3), 337-349.

Astley, W. G., & Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Collective strategy: Social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 576-587.

Baldwin, C. Y. (2020). The value of ecosystems. Harvard Business Review, 98(1), 79-87.

Balzergue, C., Chabaud, M., Barker, D. G., & Bécard, G. (2018). Plant microbe signaling: The complex language of mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Physiology, 176(1), 1145-1156.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.

Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2021). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 128-178.

Barile, S., Pellicano, M., & Polese, F. (2018). Social innovation and complexity in the changing world. Journal of Business Research, 91, 441-447.

Barlow, H. S., & Harrison, D. (2020). Plant communities as complex adaptive systems: Implications for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 30(2), 1-12.

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.

Baum, J. A., & Amburgey, T. L. (2002). Organizational ecology. In The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 304-326). Blackwell.

Beiler, K. J., Simard, S. W., Durall, D. M., Maxwell, S. A., & Kretzer, A. M. (2010). Architecture of the wood-wide web: Rhizopogon spp. genets link multiple Douglas-fir cohorts. New Phytologist, 185(2), 543-553.

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471-482.

Cahill, J. F., & McNickle, G. G. (2011). The behavioral ecology of nutrient foraging by plants. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 42(1), 289-311.

Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2000). The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton University Press.

Chen, M.-J. (2020). Competitive dynamics: Eastern roots, Western growth. Management and Organization Review, 16(1), 5-32.

Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2021). Big data and teams research: The future of studying team diversity. Group & Organization Management, 46(3), 493-514.

Czakon, W., Srivastava, M. K., & Le Roy, F. (2020). Coopetition strategies: Critical issues and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101948.

Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165-1185.

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Eisner, A. B. (2021). Strategic management: Text and cases (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436.

Dudley, S. A., & File, A. L. (2007). Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biology Letters, 3(4), 435-438.

Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215-246.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.

Esvelt, K. M., & Wang, H. H. (2013). Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 9(1), 641.

Figueroa, J. F., Wadhera, R. K., Mehtsun, W. T., Riley, K., & Sommers, B. D. (2021). Association of race, ethnicity, and community-level factors with COVID-19 cases and deaths across U.S. counties. Healthcare, 9(1), 100495.

Freeman, J., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). Niche width and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1116-1145.

George, G., Corbishley, C., Khayesi, J. O., Haas, M. R., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Bringing Africa in: Promising directions for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 377-393.

Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5), 425-440.

Gorzelak, M. A., Asay, A. K., Pickles, B. J., & Simard, S. W. (2015). Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates complex adaptive behavior in plant communities. AoB Plants, 7.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press.

Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17-30.

Iyer, B., & Davenport, T. H. (2008). Reverse engineering Google’s innovation machine. Harvard Business Review, 86(4), 58-68.

Johnson, N. C., Graham, J. H., & Smith, F. A. (2020). Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum. New Phytologist, 225(4), 1692-1706. doi:10.1111/nph.16202

Jump, A. S., & Pe?uelas, J. (2005). Running to stand still: Adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecology Letters, 8(9), 1010-1020.

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little, Brown Spark.

Karban, R., Baldwin, I. T., Baxter, K. J., Laue, G., & Felton, G. W. (2000). Communication between plants: Induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oecologia, 125(1), 66-71.

Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 2053951714528481.

Lefèvre, T., Fort, F., & Volaire, F. (2021). Long-term dynamics in resource use strategies among coexisting plant species across water regimes. Functional Ecology, 35(4), 963-974.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2005). Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: How organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31(5), 738-757.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243-255.

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 431-436.

Linnaeus, C. (2007). Species plantarum: A facsimile of the first edition, 1753 (2 Vols.). The Ray Society.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. A. (2005). Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organizational fields. Organization Science, 16(5), 456-473.

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press.

Paquin, R. L., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2021). The evolution of facilitated inter-organizational collaboration: A longitudinal study of network structure and performance. Organization Studies, 42(1), 55-80.

Pettigrew, A. M. (2019). The conduct of qualitative research in organizational settings. Strategic Management Journal, 40(10), 1710-1727.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145.

Puranam, P., & Swamy, M. (2021). Complexity in organization design: An introduction. Organization Science, 32(1), 1-16.

Puranam, P., Stieglitz, N., Osman, M., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Modelling bounded rationality in organizations: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 337-392.

Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. (2021). Ambidextrous leadership and organizational ambidexterity: Building dynamic capabilities for innovation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 485-507.

Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. (2021). Networked business models: Emerging strategies for digital ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 671-680. Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hansen, E. G. (2021). Sustainability accounting and integrated reporting: A review and comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124760.

Selosse, M. A., Richard, F., He, X., & Simard, S. W. (2006). Mycorrhizal networks: Des liaisons dangereuses? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(11), 621-628.

Sheffi, Y. (2007). The resilient enterprise: Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press.

Simard, S. W., Perry, D. A., Jones, M. D., Myrold, D. D., Durall, D. M., & Molina, R. (1997). Net transfer of carbon between ectomycorrhizal tree species in the field. Nature, 388(6642), 579-582.

Singh, B. K., Trivedi, P., Egidi, E., Macdonald, C. A., & Delgado-Baquerizo, M. (2020). Crop microbiomes and sustainable agriculture. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 18(11), 601-602.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. Positive Organizational Scholarship, 94(1), 110-130.

Tamm, L., Thommen, A., Fliessbach, A., & Scherer-Lorenzen, M. (2020). Organic farming enhances the drought resistance of arable crops: Evidence from a 30-year field experiment. Nature Sustainability, 3(8), 607-614.

Tedersoo, L., & Bahram, M. (2019). Mycorrhizal networks and forest ecosystem dynamics. Journal of Ecology, 107(4), 1655-1667.

Teste, F. P., Simard, S. W., Durall, D. M., Guy, R. D., Berch, S. M., & Tweig, S. D. (2009). Access to mycorrhizal networks and roots of trees: Importance for seedling survival and resource transfer. Ecology, 90(10), 2808-2822.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671-677.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Van der Heijden, M. G. A., Martin, F. M., Selosse, M.-A., & Sanders, I. R. (2015). Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: The past, the present, and the future. New Phytologist, 205(4), 1406-1423.

Van der Putten, W. H., Bradford, M. A., Brinkman, E. P., Van de Voorde, T. F. J., & Veen, G. F. (2016). Where, when and how plant–soil feedback matters in a changing world. Functional Ecology, 30(7), 1109-1121.

Vogenbeck, S., & Weber, A. (2019). Network analysis in organizational studies: Current challenges and future opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 56(2), 343-360.

Walrave, B., & Raven, R. (2022). Strategic niche management: A study of transition pathways in the energy sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 42, 24-36.

Weiner, J. (1985). Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology, 66(3), 743-752.

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.

Winn, M., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M., & Günther, E. (2011). Impacts from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(3), 157-173.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Tavistock Publications.

Wipf, D., Krajinski, F., Van Tuinen, D., Recorbet, G., & Courty, P. E. (2019). Trading on the arbuscular mycorrhiza market: From arbuscules to common mycorrhizal networks. New Phytologist, 223(3), 1127-1142.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398-1408.

[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Postdoctoral Fellow in the Psychiatry Graduate Program at USP. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna.

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2024). Integrating Botanical Insights into Organizational Ecology: Enhancing Cooperation and Sustainability through Complex Adaptive Systems. Manuscript Discussion Series, 2(22):1-20. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress).