Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An autecological interpretation of the firm and its environment

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Explaining the survival and failure of firms is an important issue for researchers and managers of firms in society. Ecological approaches to the study of firms have existed for over 100 years, and have been increasingly popular during the past 40 years, especially since the pioneering works of Hannan and Freeman on one hand, and Aldrich on the other. This paper, in keeping with recent developments elsewhere in mainstream ecology outlines and positions the theoretical and philosophical foundations of an alternative ecological approach, autecology, that has not yet been formulated for the study of firms. The autecological approach affords the individual firm more autonomy in creating its own future evolutionary trajectory. The idea of an ecological complex is developed to provide clear focus on what is central to the application of autecology to the study of firms. The paper also considers several emergent research opportunities that highlight the potential value of employing an autecological approach to the study of firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abatecola, G. (2014). Research in organizational evolution. What comes next? European Management Journal, 32(3), 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrewartha, H. G., & Birch, L. C. (1954). The distribution and abundance of animals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrewartha, H. G., & Birch, L. C. (1984). The ecological web. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C. (1996). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77–114). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994). Organizational hierarchies and evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theory of organizational evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 39–49). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bews, J. W. (1935). Human ecology. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology: Essays in evolutionary biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2014). Calm in the storm: Simulating the management of organizational co-evolution. Futures, 57(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D., & Jones, C. (2012). The evolution of entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(3), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruyat, C., & Julien, P. A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R. (1985). Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1262–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R., & Khessina, O. M. (2005). The ecology of entrepreneurship. In S. A. Alvarez, R. Agarwal, & O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: Disciplinary perspectives (pp. 167–200). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., Tse, K. K. T., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2013). The dynamics of corporate co-evolution: A case study of port development in China. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1881). The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits. London: John Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daubenmire, R. F. (1974). Plants and environment. Sydney: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1959). Human ecology and population studies. In P. M. Hauser & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), The study of population (pp. 678–716). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2014). Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary triple embeddedness framework. Research Policy, 43(2), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. P., & Walter, W. T. (1959). Toward a theoretical system of human ecology. The Pacific Sociological Review, 2(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1994). Dynamics of organizational population: Density, legitimation and competition. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja, E. (1982). Are individuals really subordinated to their genes? A theory of living entities. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 99, 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, A. H. (1944). Ecology and human ecology. Social Forces, 2(7), 393–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, A. H. (1950). Human ecology. New York: The Ronald Press Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, A. H. (1968). Roderick D. McKenzie on human ecology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengeveld, R., & Walter, G. H. (1999). The two coexisting ecological paradigms. Acta Biotheoretica, 47, 141–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. (2004). The evolution of institutional economics. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2005). Firm transformation: Advancing a Darwinian perspective. Management Decision, 43(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2007). Using old concepts to gain new insights: Addressing the issue of consistency. Management Decision, 45(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2009). Towards a consistent account of firm survival. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. http://eprints.utas.edu.au/9272/. Accessed September 20, 2013.

  • Jones, C. (2013). Understanding local processes: Contemplating franchisation. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 1(1/2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, P. C., & Risser, P. G. (1979). Species packing in the fast-food restaurant guild. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of American, 60, 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1983). Gene, organism, and environment. In D. S. Bendall (Ed.), Evolution from molecules to men (pp. 273–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luksha, P. (2008). Niche construction: The process of opportunity creation in the environment. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes, R., & Sanchez, R. (2009). Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1994). The evolution of evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 39–49). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, M., & Aldrich, H. E. (2012). Evolutionary theory. In D. Hjorth (Ed.), Handbook on organizational entrepreneurship (pp. 79–96). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, R. (1924). The ecological approach to the study of the human community. The American Journal of Sociology, 30(3), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. (1915). The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, H. E. H. (1993). Evolution and the recognition concept of species. London: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosavljevic, M. (2008). Autopoiesis vs. social autopoiesis: Critical evaluation and implications for understanding firms as autopoietic social systems. International Journal of General Systems, 37(2), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathcke, B. (1983). Competition and facilitation among plants and pollination. In L. Real (Ed.), Pollination biology (pp. 305–308). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, K. (2005). Nonequilibrium ecology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, R. B. (1967). The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecological Monographs, 37(4), 317–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines. London: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1979). Evaluating competitive strategies. In D. E. Schendel & C. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning (pp. 197–211). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D., & Service, E. R. (1960). Evolution and culture. New York: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T. W. (1974). Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science, 185(4145), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, P. B. (1980). Deserts on the march. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spomer, G. G. (1970). The concepts of “interaction” and “operational environment” in environmental analyses. Ecology, 54(1), 200–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D. B., Roth, G., & Wake, M. H. (1983). On the problem of stasis in organismal evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 101, 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, G. H., & Hengeveld, R. (2014). Autecology: Organisms, interactions and environmental dynamics. Florida: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B. H., & Depew, D. J. (2003). Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (1964). Economic ‘natural selection’ and the theory of the firm. Yale Economic Essays, 4, 225–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (1990). Survival, selection, and inheritance in evolutionary theories of organization. In J. V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational evolution (pp. 269–297). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author appreciates the comments made on the draft of this paper by the editors of the special edition and by three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Innovation Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia

    Colin Jones

Authors
  1. Colin Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, C. An autecological interpretation of the firm and its environment. J Manag Gov 20, 69–87 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-014-9306-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-014-9306-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation