Contemporary climate crises, such as wildfires, droughts, floods, and tropical storms, are increasing in frequency, intensity, scale, and duration. Organization and management scholars have been calling for more systematic study of the impacts of this increasing complexity on extant crisis governance arrangements and capacities for collaboration in response. We here bring together insights from organization and management studies and public administration research to investigate the disruptive impacts of the 2019-2020 'Black Summer' bushfires - a prototypical contemporary climate crisis. We conceptualize the complexity of such crises in terms of manifestation on, and across multiple, scalar dimensions (i.e., jurisdictional, functional [organizational, sectoral], spatial, cultural, and temporal dimensions) and mobilize transboundary crisis theory to explain how this disrupts the functioning of standing collaborative governance arrangements through five distinct mechanisms: stretching, blurring, fracturing, ossifying, and improvising. In turn, we synthesize a conceptual model of how these mechanisms interact to undermine collaborative capacity as crisis complexity increases. Our work bridges and extends ongoing debates in organization and management studies as well as public administration, offering a foundation for adaptation of crisis governance and response in a climate-changed future.

In this Curated conversation, we bring together five scholars with a shared interest in collaborative approaches to grand challenges but who offer distinct approaches and foci. Our intention is to deepen the conversation between different communities in management research, with the ultimate objective of exploring potential avenues for mutual inspiration, learning, ­and collaboration. In their individual essays, the contributors to this conversation offer pointed insights into different aspects of collaboration in the context of grand challenges. In addition, we identify four pivotal themes across these essays, which, so we argue, constitute suitable foci for scholarly collaboration across community boundaries with the potential to recenter the “big picture” of collaboration. Our hope is to facilitate cross-pollination and thereby generate additional rigorous, realistic, and actionable approaches to the topic.

We build on the phenomenological sociology of knowledge and argumentation theory to distinguish different rhetorical strategies mobilized by science sceptics based on the structure of their underlying arguments and the form of denial that they espouse. In more detail, we discuss three typical challenges to scientific knowledge: ‘real’ vs. ‘wrong/fake’ science (challenges to the cogency of data and warrants), ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ scientists (challenges towards speaker credibility and authenticity), and ‘democratic’ vs. ‘expert’ science (challenges towards the appropriateness of science as a sphere of knowledge). Across these strategies, arguments often rely on elements of standard scientific critique; they don the insignia of science and appropriate ostensibly legitimate discourse positions, which makes it difficult to establish whether critique is made in good or bad faith. We conclude the chapter by briefly reflecting on ways of responding to the different rhetorical strategies and their underlying challenges to scientific knowledge.

A crisis is a juncture that demands decision and action. We live in times of wicked crises, that is, crises that are non-linearly interlinked; transgress organizational, institutional, and cultural boundaries; and can be addressed only collectively. Our chances to rise to wicked crises depend on our capacity to decide and to act in concert, which is power, according to political philosopher Hannah Arendt. In this essay, in honor of Administrative Science Quarterly's 70th volume, I highlight different features of wicked crises and discuss two interrelated forces that weaken and undermine such power: first, organizational fragmentation, which results in governance complexity and fault lines, and second, societal fragmentation, which manifests in growing distrust in core cultural institutions, polarization, the loss of a shared lifeworld, and the rise of authoritarianism. I conclude with a call to action for our discipline.

In this essay, we take the burgeoning scholarship on multimodal approaches to the study of organization and management as our point of departure to explore substantial limitations hindering a genuinely multimodal understanding within our discipline. We problematize how existing academic conventions: (a) limit our research agenda and the choice of relevant phenomena, topics, research questions, and empirical designs; (b) restrict the conceptual and empirical toolbox within the research process, restricting researchers' ability to explore and exploit opportunities afforded by multimodality; and (c) narrow down the channels for scholarly communication, including the distribution of findings and knowledge transfer. Subsequently, we outline three promising "shifts"-toward research as a creative endeavor, toward research as an encounter, and toward research as a material practice-that we believe may successfully pave the way to fully harness the potential of multimodality in our field.

This Introduction to the special issue ‘Collective Action in Crisis?’ explores two key themes. First, it seeks to deepen understanding of how collective action can be organized in crises, connecting established knowledge in the field with new insights from the articles of this special issue. Second, the question mark in our guiding theme invites critical reflection on whether the theories we use to understand collective action are themselves in crisis. Through this theme, we propose both a theoretical exploration and an empirical agenda, recognizing that crises amplify foundational concerns in organization studies around problems of collective action. We begin by ‘zooming out’ to provide an overview of foundational theoretical approaches to collective action during crises. Then, we ‘zoom in’ and foreground the specific value of middle-range theories and core concepts from organization and management studies. Our aim is to offer conceptual resources for scholars and practitioners tackling the critical task of organizing collective action in crises.

Although research has provided valuable insights into how management ideas circulate across contexts and undergo translation, the prevailing focus remains on the one-directional journey from idea suppliers to adopting entities. In contrast, we advance an ecology of roles perspective to capture the dynamic relationships between multiple actors and roles in the translation process. To develop our argument, we draw from a 10-year case study examining how the US-born management idea of the leadership pipeline was translated into a domesticated version in Denmark, which became widely adopted but also contested and renewed. In analysing this case, we show how the same actors assumed an array of interdependent roles that dynamically shifted over time to circulate the idea. We identify three characteristics of an ecology of translation roles: multiplicity of roles, morphing of roles, and reciprocal authorization of roles. By advancing an ecology of roles perspective, our study contributes novel insights to the expanding literature on translation and recent work on translation ecosystems.

The formation of the first Islamic bank in Germany in 2015 came with considerable tensions at the interface of the religious logic, on the one hand, and the state logic, on the other. With the Islamic religious logic being novel to the German field of banking and finance, innovative templates were established to deal effectively with the resulting tensions and conflicts. Drawing on qualitative data, we investigate how the bank, with its strong commitment to Islam, navigated such novel institutional complexity and the challenges stemming from the jurisdictional overlap. We identify four distinct compromise mechanisms in this institutionally complex situation, in which a committed actor prioritizes one logic over another: explaining, convincing, conceding and suspending. Importantly, as options, these mechanisms are situated in a cascading order of preference for the focal actor. More generally, our research posits that in any encounter between institutional logics in which the specific instantiation of a logic stems from a foreign interinstitutional system, the resulting novel institutional complexity may necessitate the development of innovative templates which, at the same time, may imply 'stretching' an institutional logic and, in consequence, impact the compatibility of its jurisdictional claims.

The symbol is one of the key concepts in organization and management scholarship. Yes as indicated by the authors in this debate, it has not been adequately conceptualized and as such it remains rather blunt and opaque. In what is the first systematic conceptual debate on this topic, the authors of this Point-Counterpoint debate seek to address this issue. The respective essays, despite marked differences in their approaches, offer novel and thought-provoking accounts of what the symbol is and how it works. Taken together these contributions offer a series of exciting new avenues to guide and redirect future research in this area.

In this Counterpoint, we introduce a conceptualization of the symbol that constructively contrasts the ideas presented by Phillips and Moser. We do not see the need to mobilize ideas and vocabularies from evolutionary biology, as they do, but instead propose to return to cultural approaches to the symbol that resonate more deeply and profoundly within our discipline. Specifically, we revisit the work of German philosopher Ernst Cassirer on the symbolic foundation of culture and society. To fully harness the potential of such a renewed approach in organization research, we encourage a conversation with foundational and more recent work in institutional organization theory. The aims of our article are to (a) offer an alternative understanding of the symbol; and (b) elaborate how such understanding can reinvigorate organizational and institutional analysis.

Shuang Ren, Riikka M. Sarala, Paul Hibbert The advent of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has sparked both enthusiasm and anxiety as different stakeholders grapple with the potential to reshape the business and management landscape. This dynamic discourse extends beyond GAI itself to encompass closely related innovations that have existed for some time, for example, machine learning, thereby creating a collective anticipation of opportunities and dilemmas surrounding the transformative or disruptive capacities of these emerging technologies. Recently, ChatGPT's ability to access information from the web in real time marks a significant advancement with profound implications for businesses. This feature is argued to enhance the model's capacity to provide up-to-date, contextually relevant information, enabling more dynamic customer interactions. For businesses, this could mean improvements in areas like market analysis, trend tracking, customer service and real-time data-driven problem-solving. However, this also raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information sourced, given the dynamic and sometimes unverified nature of web content. Additionally, real-time web access might complicate data privacy and security, as the boundaries of GAI interactions extend into the vast and diverse Internet landscape. These factors necessitate a careful and responsible approach to evaluating and using advanced GAI capabilities in business and management contexts. GAI is attracting much interest both in the academic and business practitioner literature. A quick search in Google Scholar, using the search terms ‘generative artificial intelligence’ and ‘business’ or ‘management’, yields approximately 1740 results. Within this extensive repository, scholars delve into diverse facets, exploring GAI's potential applications across various business and management functions, contemplating its implications for management educators and scrutinizing specific technological applications. Learned societies such as the British Academy of Management have also joined forces in leading the discussion on AI and digitalization in business and management academe. Meanwhile, practitioners and consultants alike (e.g. McKinsey & Company, PWC, World Economic Forum) have produced dedicated discussions, reports and forums to offer insights into the multifaceted impacts and considerations surrounding the integration of GAI in contemporary business and management practices. Table 1 illustrates some current applications of GAI as documented in the practitioner literature. Zalando [online platform for fashion and lifestyle] Instacart [e-commerce application] Salesforce [cloud-based customer relationship software provider] DHL [logistics provider] Coca-Cola [beverage company] Nestlé and Mondelez [confectionary] Heinz [food processing company] Air India [airline] Duolingo [language learning application] Mastercard [financial services] In an attempt to capture the new opportunities and challenges brought about by this technology and to hopefully find a way forward to guide research and practice, management journals have been swift to embrace the trend, introducing special issues on GAI. These issues aim to promote intellectual debate, for instance in relation to specific business disciplines (e.g. Benbya, Pachidi and Jarvenpaa, 2021) or organizational possibilities and pitfalls (Chalmers et al., 2023). However, amidst these commendable efforts that reflect a broad spectrum of perspectives, a critical examination of the burgeoning hype around GAI reveals a significant gap. Despite the proliferation of discussions from scholars, practitioners and the general public, the prevailing discourse is often speculative, lacking a robust theoretical foundation. This deficiency points to the challenges to existing theories in terms of their efficacy in explaining the unique demands created by GAI and indicates an urgent need for refining prior theories or even redeveloping new theories. There is a pressing need to move beyond the current wave of hype and explore the theoretical underpinnings of GAI and the dynamics of its potential impact, to ensure a more nuanced and informed discussion that can guide future research and application in this rapidly evolving area. In this direction, the British Journal of Management (BJM) invited prominent scholars who serve as editors in leading business and management journals to weigh in and contribute with their diverse theoretical knowledge to this symposium paper on the emerging GAI phenomenon. This collaborative effort aims to advance the theorization of business and management research in relation to the intricacies associated with the impact of GAI by engaging in intensive discussions on how theoretical attempts can be made to make sense of the myths and truths around GAI. The quest for theory, either seeking or refining, is a long-standing tradition in business and management research (e.g. Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007). While the seven pieces below place different elements under the spotlight of theoretical scrutiny, one common thread is the need to reconceptualize the relational realm of workplaces. The introduction of GAI in the workplace refines the norm of working together as a person-to-person group to working in a human–GAI group, with the latter illustrating three novel conceptual contributions in comparison to traditional understandings of the dynamics in the workplace. In the realm of the GAI-laden workplace, it is imperative to shift our perspective from a deterministic outlook to one that manages emergence. Quattrone, Zilber and Meyer encapsulate the emergent nature of GAI-related phenomena by pointing out that ‘the future is not out there’. Rather than attempting to predict the future, they advocate the making of the future through creativity and reflection. Equally, they posit that GAI should be viewed as a construction whose functions and effects are not predetermined but shaped by people's decisions and utilization. The etymological lens they bring encourages a rethinking of the impacts of GAI ontologically. The recognition of our inability to know what the future is points to a relational approach to creating it, centred upon relations between the current and future generations in specific ways, and between people within generations, objects and locations more broadly. Relationality thus establishes the context for sense-making, where the workings and outcomes unfold as emergent phenomena, in the GAI-laden workplace. MacKenzie, Decker and Lubinski illuminate the importance of contextual understanding when examining the impact of GAI on the workplace, advocating an approach where ‘context matters’. The context they propose is an expansive concept that can encompass the analysis of past imaginaries of existing technologies, an examination of technologies currently in question along with other technologies, as well as the incorporation of institutional forces over time (e.g. economic, political systems). In essence, the call to recognize that ‘context matters’ should serve as a guiding principle to move beyond idiosyncratic, isolated examinations of GAI and place it within the intricacies of contextual relationships that contribute to its emergence and future development. Brown, Ellis and Gore ask a critical question of how we should redefine ‘team’ if GAI integrates into our daily work. As the conventional definitions of team comprise individuals, the extent to which AI can be considered as a team member becomes pivotal. As much as GAI technologies may seem human-like (including robotic ‘human’), GAI does not yet possess feelings, desires, intentions and responsibility in the same way as human beings. In the context of a human–GAI team, Davison and Ravishankar provide their first-hand experience of using GAI in their research, specifically for tasks such as literature review, transcribing and analysing data. They caution against the mere reliance on GAI in generating original research. Nonetheless, they conclude by highlighting the potential of leveraging effective ‘prompts’ to maximize the capabilities of GAI, leaving readers with valuable food for thought. Munzio and Faulconbridge take the concept of human–GAI relationships forward by focusing on the producer–consumer relationships that shape professionalism. They highlight a range of new research questions in which the human–GAI group will challenge established constructs both theoretically and empirically. In addition, Islam and Greenwood contribute to debates about the nature (or absence) of responsibility in the use of GAI as human–GAI interactions unfold. They take a relational perspective to knowledge production in which the use of GAI-based large language models challenges the production of knowledge and the nature of accountability. These issues are perhaps more profound as the interactions between humans and GAI can be either coordinated or uncoordinated. In sum, BJM is committed to fostering a deeper understanding and stimulating debate around GAI and its profound impact on business and management studies. The diverse contributions in this symposium collection do not seek to offer definitive solutions; instead, they serve as an invaluable starting point on a journey of exploration and discovery in the field. The insights offered here extend beyond the conventional boundaries, challenging and enriching existing management theories with fresh perspectives stimulated by the phenomenon of GAI. These discussions are pivotal in developing, extending, adapting and evolving theoretical frameworks to remain relevant in a business landscape that could become GAI-driven. The discussions also extend to the ethical and societal considerations of GAI in management, emphasizing responsible and sustainable business and management practices. By bridging theory and practice, BJM aims to provide managers and practitioners with insights and tools to navigate the complexities of integrating GAI into their strategies and operations, where appropriate, in a sustainable and responsible manner. In essence, with this symposium, BJM aims to contribute to a collective body of knowledge that not only seeks to understand and explain GAI but also to shape the future of GAI in work, employment, business, governance and society towards sustainable and responsible directions. Paolo Quattrone, Tammar Zilber, Renate Meyer The etymology of words is often a source of insights to not only make sense of their meaning, but also speculate and imagine meanings that are not so obvious and thereby see the phenomena signalled by these words in new and surprising ways. The etymology of ‘artificial’ and ‘intelligence’ does not disappoint. ‘Artificial’ comes from ‘art’ and -fex ‘maker’, from facere ‘to do, make’. ‘Intelligence’ comes from inter ‘between’ and legere ‘choose, pick out, read’ but also ‘collect, gather’. There is enough in these etymologies to offer a few speculations and imagine the contours of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and its possible futures. The first of these is inspired by the craft of making and relates to the very function and use of AI. Most of the current fascinations with AI emphasize the predictive capacity of the various tools increasingly available and at easy disposal. Indeed, marketers know well in advance when we will need the next toothbrush, fuel our cars, buy new clothes, and so forth. The list is long. This feature of AI enchants us when, for instance, one thinks of a product and, invariably, an advertisement related to that product appears on our social media page. This quasi-magical predictive ability captures collective imaginations and draws upon very well-ingrained forms of knowledge production which presuppose that data techniques are there to represent the world, paradoxically, even when it is not there, as is the case with predictions. The issue is that the future is not out there; we do not know what future generations want from us and still, we are increasingly called to respond to their demands. Despite the availability of huge amounts of data points and intelligence, the future, even if proximal and mundane – as our examples above, always holds surprises. This means that AI may be useful not to predict the future, but to actually imagine and make it, as the -fex in ‘artificial’ reveals. This is the art in the ‘artificial’ and points to the possibility of conceiving AI as a compositional art, which helps us to create images of the future, sparks imagination and creativity and, hopefully, offers a space for speculation and reflection. The word intelligence is our second cue, which stresses how ‘inter’ means to be and explore what is ‘in between’. As entrepreneurs are in between different ventures and explore what is not yet there (Hjorth and Holt, 2022), AI may be useful to probe grey areas between statuses and courses of action. It can be used to create scenarios, to make sure that the very same set of data produces alternative options that leave space for juggling among different decision-making criteria without reducing decisions about complex states of affairs to single criteria, most likely, value rather than values. This is how, for instance, one could wisely refrain from both apocalyptic and salvific scenarios that characterize the debate about AI. On the one hand, AI is seen as one of the worst possible menaces to humankind. It will take control of our minds and direct our habits, making us entirely dependent. Very likely, as the Luddites were proven wrong (but not completely) when looking at the first and second Industrial Revolutions, the pessimist views will prove wrong, but not completely, as it is clear that AI has agency (Latour, 1987) in informing our judgement and it does so through various forms of multimodal affects, that is, relying on our vast repertoire of senses, all mobilized by new forms of technology (e.g. think of smartwatches and how they influence our training habits). On the other hand, AI – similar to the first enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems – is seen as a panacea for many of our problems, diseases and grand challenges, from poverty to climate change, at least until one realizes that SAP does not stand for ‘Solves All Problems’ (Quattrone and Hopper, 2006). These dystopian and utopian attitudes will soon be debunked and leave room for more balanced views, which will acknowledge that AI is both a means to address wicked problems and a wicked problem itself, and, again, realize that wisdom is always to be found in the middle, the very same middle in between views. In this case, a more balanced in-between view is to realize that AI itself is a construction. Like all resources (Feldman and Worline, 2006) and technologies (Orlikowski, 2000), their function and effect are not pre-given but will be determined by our use thereof. For example, AI will be productive of ‘facts’ but of those that are reminiscent of the fact that facts are ‘made’, and that there is nothing less factual than a fact for, as the Romans knew so well (from factum, i.e. made), a fact is always constructed, and AI will be making them in huge quantities. This will be good to speculate, to foster imagination by having a huge amount of them available, but also potentially bad, as those who will own the ability to establish them as facts will magnify Foucault's adage that knowledge is power. The third cue stands in the root leg-, which originates so many words that characterize our contemporary world, both academic and not, including legere (to read, but also to pick and choose), legare (to knot) and indeed a religion. As much as medieval classifying techniques used inventories of data to invent new solutions to old problems by recombining such data in novel forms, by choosing and picking data depending on the purpose of the calculation, to imagine the future and reimagine the past (Carruthers, 1998), AI will use even bigger inventories of data to generate inventions until we finally realize that to explore ‘what is not’ and could become is much more fruitful in imagining the future and the unprecedented than to define ‘what is’ (Quattrone, 2017). Only then will AI be truly generative. As was the case with Steve Ballmer, then CEO of Microsoft, when presented with the first iPhone. He exclaimed ‘who would want to pay five hundred dollars for a phone?’. He had not realized that to comprehend the power and complexities of technologies, it is better to think in terms of what they are not, rather than what they are. The cell phone is not a phone so much as it is a camera, a TV or cinema, a newspaper, a journal/calendar. Google begins a search with X, a negative, and then by creating correlations defines what Z could be (a phone may be a cinema) and what it could become (a meeting place). This move from the negative to the potential, from what is not to what can be, is the core of AI. AI can facilitate this exploration into what is not obvious and help us avoid taking things for granted. So, predicting how AI will develop and affect our lives is bound to fail as there are so many ways this can go and many unintended consequences. At this stage, it may be more fruitful not to predict the future but to explore how we try to make sense of the unknowable future in the present and which potential pathways we thereby open and which we close. Exploring the framing contests around AI, the actors involved and the various interests they attempt to serve may tell us more about ourselves than about AI – about our collective fantasies, fears and hopes that shape our present and future. This brings us to whether and to what extent AI can inform human thinking and actions. That technologies influence our behaviour is now taken for granted, but given that this influence is not deterministic, and technologies have affordances that go beyond the intentions of the designers, what counts as agency and where to find it is possibly a black box that GAI can contribute to reopen. Since the invention of the printing press, and the debate between Roland Barthes and Michael Foucault, the notion of authorship has been questioned (Barthes, 1994; Foucault, 1980), along with authors’ authority and accountability. This is even truer now, when algorithms of various kinds already take decisions seemingly autonomously, from high-frequency trading in finance to digital twins in construction, and now also being able to write meaningful sentences that potentially disrupt not only research but also the outlets where these texts are typically published, that is, academic journals (Conroy, 2023). We are moving from a non-human ‘decision-maker’, be it a self-driving car or a rover autonomously exploring Mars, to non-human ‘makers’ tout court, with the difference that they have no responsibility and no accountability. And yet they influence the world and affect our personal, social and work lives. This has policy and theoretical implications. In policy terms, as much as the legal form of the corporation emerged to limit and regulate individual greed (Meyer, Leixnering and Veldman, 2022), we may witness the emergence of a new fictitious persona, this time even more virtual than the corporation, with no factories and employees, while still producing and distributing value through, and to, them, respectively. Designing anticipatory governance is even more intricate than with corporations, as these non-human ‘makers’ are even more dispersed and ephemeral, not to say slippery. Theoretically, we may be at the edge of a revolution as important as the emergence of organization theory in the twentieth century. It was Herbert Simon (1969) who foresaw the need for a science of the artificial, that is, a science the object of which was the organization of the production of artefacts of various kinds, of the need for making sense of the relationship between means and ends when new forms of bounded rationality informed decision-making. We would not be surprised if a ‘New Science of the Artificial’, this time related to the study of AI rationality, emerged in the twenty-first century. For sure, there will be a need to govern AI and study how the governance and organization of AI intertwine with human rationality, possibly changing the contours of both. Niall G. MacKenzie, Stephanie Decker, Christina Lubinski Recently, generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has been subject to breathless treatments by academics and commentators alike, with claims of impending ubiquity (or doom, depending on your perspective) and life as we know it being upended, with millions of jobs destroyed (Eglash et al., 2020). Historians will, of course, point out that this is nothing new. Technological innovation and adoption have a long and generally well-researched history (Chandler, 2006; Scranton, 2018) and the same is true for resistance to these innovations (Juma, 2016; Mokyr, 1990; Thompson, 1963) and moral panics (Orben, 2020). What, if anything, does history have to tell us about GAI from a theoretical perspective other than ‘it's not new…’? Good historical practice requires a dialogue between past and present (Wadhwani and Decker, 2017). Thus, if we want to understand GAI we should understand the character of its development and the context in which it occurred and occurs. GAI's history was/is underpinned by progression in several other areas including mathematics, information technology and telecommunications, warfare, mining and computing science (amongst many more) (Buchanan, 2006; Chalmers, MacKenzie, and Carter, 2021; Haenlein and Kaplan, 2019). This means that despite GAI's rapid recent progress, it is still the result of iterative developments across various other sectors which enable(d) and facilitate(d) it. Consistent within this is the imagined futures (Beckert, 2016) pushed by technologists, entrepreneurs, policymakers and futurists about what it could mean for society. The value of historical thinking with regard to new technologies like GAI can be illustrated by considering the social imaginaries (Taylor, 2004) that have been generated as part of the experience of previous technologies and their development and adoption. When a technology emerges, there may be a fanfare about how it will change our lives for the better, and/or concerns about how it will disrupt settled societal arrangements (Budhwar, 2023). Ubiquity-posited technologies like GAI are then often subject to competing claims – promises of imagined new futures where existing ways of doing things are improved, better alternatives averred and economic and societal benefits promised, but are also often accompanied by challenges and concerns regarding job destruction, societal upheaval and the threat of machines taking over. As a consequence, the imaginaries compete with each other and are generative in and of themselves in that they create spaces of possibility that frame experiments of adoption (Wadhwani and Viebig, 2021). We can analyse past imaginaries of existing technologies to better understand what the emergence of new technologies and the auguries posited with them tell us about how societies adopt and adapt to the changes they bring. However, it is only in a post-hoc fashion that we can understand the efficacy of such claims. For example, recent work by business historians has considered how we understand posited past futures of entrepreneurs across a range of technological and non-technological transformations (Lubinski et al., 2023), illustrating the value that historical work brings to theorizing societal change brought about by such actions. The imaginaries, good and bad, associated with technologies like GAI play an important role in their legitimation and adoption, as well as their opposition. Given the contested nature of such societally important technologies, it is therefore important to also recognize and consider the context in which new technologies such as GAI emerge in terms of the promises associated with them, the societal effect they have and how they unfold in order to provide appropriate theories and conceptual lenses to better understand them. When exploring the integration of new technologies in context, historical analysis of both the technology in question and other technologies illustrates nuances and insights to inform deeper theory to understand what a technology like GAI can mean to society. The different imaginaries associated with GAI possess clear parallels with what has come in the past. The Luddite riots of the nineteenth century, whereby agricultural workers sought to destroy machinery that was replacing their labour (Mokyr, 1990; Thompson, 1963), are probably the most famous negative societal response to the introduction of new technology, giving rise to the term ‘Luddite’ that is still commonly used today to describe someone opposed to technology. Contrastingly, the playwright Oscar Wilde posited in his 1900 essay ‘The soul of man under socialism’ that ‘All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery’ (Wilde, 1891/2007). More recently, Lawrence Katz, a labour economist at Harvard, repeated Wilde's suggestion by predicting that ‘information technology and robots will eliminate traditional jobs and make possible a new artisanal economy’ (Thompson, 2015). Both Wilde's and Katz's comments tilt at the imaginary of the benefits that technology and automation can bring in freeing up people's time to focus on more creative and rewarding work and pursuits, whilst the Luddites were expressing serious misgivings about the imaginary that their jobs, livelihoods and way of life were under serious threat from mechanization. Good and bad imaginaries are a necessary part of the development of all new technologies but are only really understood post hoc and within context. As Mary O'Sullivan recently pointed out, based on her analysis of the emergence of steam engine use in Cornish copper mines in the eighteenth century, technology itself does not bring the general societal rewards suggested if the economic system in which it is developed remains controlled by small groups of powerful individuals (O'Sullivan, 2023). Similar concerns have been made about GAI with its principal proponents comprising a few global multinationals, as well as state-controlled interests such as the military, racing for dominance in the technology (Piper, 2023). The economic and political systems in which GAI is being developed are important to understand in relation to the imaginaries and promises being made concerning its value and warnings of its threats, particularly in light of the history of societally important technological shifts. As scholars, we face ongoing challenges to explain new, ubiquity-focused technologies and the accompanying imaginaries (which often constitute noise, albeit with kernels of truth/accuracy hidden therein). In this sense, when we seek to theorize about GAI and its potential impact on business and management (and vice versa), it is important to recognize that historical analysis does not foretell the future, but rather provides a critical understanding of how new innovations impact and are impacted by the societies they take place in. Interrogating the contested imaginaries through the incorporation of historical thinking in our conceptualization of new technologies such as GAI will provide a deeper understanding of their impact, which in turn will allow us to better harness them for the greater good. Olivia Brown, David A. Ellis, Julie Gore Digital technologies continue to permeate across society, not least the way in which they allow individuals and teams to collaborate (Barley, Bechky and Milikhen, 2017). For instance, innovations in communication have led to a shift towards virtual working and the proliferation of globally distributed corporate teams (see Gilson et al., 2015). As the volume and variety of data types that can be linked together has also accelerated, we have witnessed the emergence of large language models (LLMs), with the introduction of ChatGPT bringing them to the attention of a much wider audience. Broadly referred to as a form of generative artificial intelligence (GAI), ChatGPT allows individuals (or teams) to ask questions and quickly be provided with detailed, actionable, conversational responses. Sometimes referred to as virtual agents as part of customer service and information retrieval systems, these conversational responses can effectively become virtual team members. The view of technology as a means with which to facilitate effective teamwork in organizations has now shifted towards questions of whether, and under what circumstances, we can consider this GAI as a ‘team member’ (Malone, 2018). Conceptualizing GAI in this manner suggests a trend away from viewing technology as a supportive tool that is adjunct to human decision-making (see Robert, 2019 for a discussion of this in healthcare) to, instead, having a direct and intrinsic role within the decision-making and task-execution processes in teams (O'Neill et al., 2022). New questions are therefore being raised as to whether AI team members improve the performance of a team, and would organizations trust them? And if so, how much? To what degree are AI team members merely adjunct to, or replacements for real team members when it comes to decision-making? When a hybrid AI team completes a task, who takes responsibility for successes and failures? How can or should managers or leaders quantify accountability? Addressing these early questions dictates that it may soon be necessary to reframe and readdress the way in which teams are studied from theoretical, practical and ethical perspectives. From a theoretical perspective, across the many definitions of teams that have been developed within th

To the surprise of many in the West, the fall of the USSR in 1991 did not lead to the adoption of liberal democratic government around the world and the much anticipated “end of history.” In fact, authoritarianism has made a comeback, and liberal democracy has been on the retreat for at least the last 15 years culminating in the unthinkable: the invasion of a democratic European country by an authoritarian regime. But why does authoritarianism continue to spread, not only as an alternative to liberal democracy, but also within many liberal democracies where authoritarian leaders continue to gain strength and popularity? In this curated piece, contributors discuss some of the potential contributions of management scholarship to understanding authoritarianism, as well as highlight a number of directions for management research in this area.

Organizations—including bureaucratic ones—are increasingly confronted with complex social issues for which there are no clear solutions. Public bureaucracies are called upon for multiple tasks, including the framing of social problems, the deployment of public resources, and the collective mobilization of non-state actors, all the way down to the delivery of essential public services. Similarly, large, private, bureaucratic organizations’ operations often span the globe and are enmeshed in the perpetuation of issues—from environmental degradation to modern-day slavery—while also holding the potential for catalyzing change given their resources and reach. While these issues fueled research in organization theory and public administration, there has been relatively little theoretical engagement across fields. We believe this is a missed opportunity. Understanding how bureaucracies can address complex social problems requires more systematic interdisciplinary conversations. This panel symposium will engage a group of scholars working across organizational theory and public administration in interactive discussions around the following topics: (1) the variety of organizational forms and practices of bureaucracy that facilitate or constrain its ability to address complex social issues; (2) how bureaucratic organizations interact with their wider contexts to build and sustain collective action for tackling complex social problems; (3) how concepts and findings in organizational theory and public administration research can better inform one another to generate a more robust understanding of bureaucracy and its relationship with social issues. By bringing together scholars across fields, we hope the symposium will stimulate synergies and enhance the impact of the scholarship on emerging challenges for organizations, management, and society.