Norman Meisinger

More than almost any other topic in philosophy, the problem of universals has been debated for centuries among the schools of nominalism, conceptualism, and realism. But why do scholars continue to address this issue without reaching consensus? This article argues that the persistence of the problem lies in the existence-centered structure of argumentation, which tends to promote binary responses, and in the fact that the explanatory approaches employed are primarily rooted in classical philosophical traditions. Accordingly, the central element of the debate ‐ existence ‐ is analytically decomposed into emergence and persistence. This shift reveals previously overlooked features of the constitution of universals ‐ namely intersubjectivization, institutionalization, and materialization ‐ thus paving the way for the development of a socio-ontologically informed theory, allowing universals to appear in a new light.

This paper argues that ontological category systems (OCS) should be assessed against explicit target criteria. To compare the highly diverse OCS, we focus on the epistemic issue of the category problem, not on the ontological one, and examine the system architecture at the bicategorical level. From existing systems we extract mutual exclusiveness, exhaustiveness, and generalness, and add a neglected criterion: recursiveness – the requirement that, at themost general level, the categories also categorize themselves, thereby conceptually closing the system. On this basis we motivate the most defensible number of categories and re-evaluate the traditional divide between universals and particulars in a slightly revised form. The resulting framework clarifies how OCS can remain maximally general while retaining classificatory power and shows why systems that exceed two top-level categories trade generalness for individuation without clear gain.

As a consequence of a variety of dynamics that firms have to deal with, their structures are continually evolving. Some of the resulting patterns and structural properties, however, only become visible at a greater distance from the object of analysis. Thus, this paper analyzes organization structures – conceptualized as the way in which firms divide and institutionalize labor – in their long-term development and shapes the phenomenon of aggregating structural self-reference. This self-reference is decomposed into a taxonomy based on three orders of the division of labor (DoL), each with a corresponding division logic (efficiency, effectivity, and viability) and structural implementation method (specialization, contextualization, and reflection) that firms apply to cope with steadily-changing environmental conditions. Each of the three orders reflects a response to a distinct period of change conceptualized as different bundles of stimuli (the Taylorian, Schumpeterian, and VUCA ‘zeitgeist’) through which new orders of the division of labor emerged.

#Purpose – During the past decades, numerous contributions to organizational learning have emerged. However, these theories are plagued by the same paradoxical core that prevents organizational learning from being unambiguously determined or stably located throughout the entire organization and its individuals. The purpose of this paper is to understand how researchers approach this issue. #Design/methodology/approach – Through a meta-lens, this conceptual study observes how researchers are taming the paradox of organizational learning, referring exclusively to the theories that deal with its inherent paradox. #Findings – The author distinguishes fundamentally different theorizing strategies. Therefore, the paper aims not to sharpen the elusive and fuzzy nature of organizational learning but to sharpen the elusive understanding that its nature is fuzzy. As a consequence, the study further emphasizes how challenging an instrumental use of the academic construct of organizational learning for practicing managers outside research laboratories is. #Originality/value – The paper contributes (first) to the core understanding of the inherently conflicting construct of organizational learning by (second) uncovering the dialectics of the theories concerning it – the former only becomes feasible as a result of the latter.

The socioecological discourse has recently gained strong attention. Suddenly, most firms now try to engage quickly with precarious issues because consumers demand an attitude toward our grand challenges, not merely products anymore. Starting from neo‐institutionalist critiques, which dominate the corporate green and socialwashing discourse, this essay argues from a largely neglected perspective by drawing attention to the impacts on the longstanding pioneers of socioecologically valuable business practices. Almost no research to date has illuminated the phenomenon whereby pioneering firms lose their unique selling propositions because others are ‘riding the wave’ and reaping where they have not sown. By applying a resource-based argumentation, the idea of a tragedy of intangible commons is unfolded to explain what made this phenomenon possible and why it could even occur.

Erklärungsansätze für die Existenz der ›firm-like Organization‹ werden nicht selten monokausal ausgeführt. Entweder ist der Sachverhalt zu komplex, um ihn mit einer Argumentationsfigur zusammenhängend - und seiner Vielseitigkeit angemessen - einzukreisen oder es fehlte bislang ein adäquates Modell, es systematisch tun zu können. Unter Rückgriff auf die Ursachenlehre nach Aristoteles nähert sich der vorliegende Artikel dieser Lücke theorieintegrativ. Mit den vier Erstursachen, der causa materialis (den Bestandteilen, hier in sozioökonomischer Lesart), der causa formalis (der Form), der causa finalis (dem eigentlichen Zweck einer Sache) und der causa efficiens (dem in Gang Setzenden) werden unternehmenstheoretische Erkenntnisse jahrzehntelanger Management- und Organisationsforschung in eine konsistente Argumentationsfigur überführt. Schließlich wird die neu entwickelte unternehmenstheoretische Konzeption auf ihre Kompatibilität zu gegenwärtigen betriebspraktischen Entwicklungstendenzen überprüft - konkret der zunehmenden Maschinisierung der Arbeitswelt.

When Lisanne Bainbridge wrote about counterintuitive consequences of the increasing human–machine interaction, she concentrated on the resulting issues for system performance, stability, and safety. Now, decades later, however, the automized work environment is substantially more pervasive, sophisticated, and interactive. Current advances in machine learning technologies reshape the value, meaning, and future of the human workforce. While the ‘human factor’ still challenges automation system architects, inconspicuously new ironic settings have evolved that only become distinctly evident from a human-centered perspective. This brief essay discusses the role of the human workforce in human–machine interaction as machine learning continues to improve, and it points to the counterintuitive insight that although the demand for blue-collar workers may decrease, exactly this labor class increasingly enters more privileged working domains and establishes itself henceforth as ‘blue collar with tie.’