Conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt: Reflections on six expert commentaries

We are grateful to the authors of six expert commentaries for their thoughtful responses our article and editor George Wright, opportunity respond. It is particularly gratifying have such valuable from scholars practitioners whose work we admire. At time writing original article, world was fully in grip uncertainties a global pandemic. As write this rejoinder there land war Europe. Putin, archetypal autocratic leader, would rather wage on civilians, hospitals schools than risk any challenge his conviction single story country's future. Like many other hubristic leaders, he has acted successfully incentivize those who report him, Russian media, much wider population, not offer information or perspectives that can narrative. In terms narrative theory, constructed local environment maintain divided state which data, opinions, theories, emotions, thoughts do fit prevailing exist disconnected ignored count. The symbolism vast space between him team television appearances striking telling. Faced with war, pandemic, climate change, technological disruption, major migration human populations, getting less uncertain anytime soon. Yet short leaders governments business avoid uncertainty. Rather face anxiety uncertainty, flee into embrace passionate future, and, as Hodgkinson Healey (2022) describe, “escalate commitment courses action borne emotional cognitive fixations bind them irrationally future fundamentally rooted past present choices.” commentary all more welcome given championing taking emotions seriously study strategic management. commentary, prior work, they argue importance moving “cold-cognition” model decision-maker attending role emotion interacting modulating processes strategy foresight work. an example, discuss micro-foundations Teece's (2007) dynamic capabilities framework. agree theory (CNT) support additional insights among theories. suggest (as & Healey, 2011), important decision-makers availability new information, but reactions it consequences attention gets. context, CNT implies sensing depend markedly whether narratives adopted (integrated state) mindset organizational configuration supports open curiosity tolerance ambivalence. If, Teece et al. (2016, p. 26) suggest, transforming organisations response opportunities “breaking conventional modes thinking,” then ambivalence associated negative capability integrated precondition transformation. though characterize part “kitbag tools techniques,” better seen potentially unifying perspective approaches, offering insight mindful use tools, calculations, models components future-facing recognizing useful fictional nature futures necessarily provoke. sense serve source bias, because by closing off alternate options leave things out. However, bias maladaptive response) underlying normative concept, itself suffering hindsight bias. If take significant limits how far helps us know (i.e., if radical uncertainty contexts be quite usual) “small world” concepts, including need reconceptualizing. try relation two paradigmatic mindsets developed (divided vs. state). response, concerned avoiding, developing - thus becoming unhelpfully locked about subsequently shown too “optimistic” “pessimistic.” Second, Klein (2011) conditions emphasis should shift forecasts biases (certainly forecasts) “expert gambles attention” make unfolding situation. von der Gracht (2022), invites consider widely solely situations He asks “[w]hat activity daily life even theoretically conceivable—without narrative?” (p. 1). ubiquitous. Many allow function lives largely unattended shared narratives; socially institutional “facts” quotidian act, pass unnoticed until disrupted. have, though, chosen focus since these must faced (or defended against). Certainly, apply well beyond bounds practice. Perhaps one lesson recent pandemic mundane often mask great deal face. note existing causal layered analysis (Inayatullah Milojevic, 2015), deconstructing lead treat version past. hope offered central may endeavors. Light-heartedly describing persuasive powers “magic,” links discussion sociology expectations (van Lente, 2012). Conviction course magic product sentient imaginative evolved humans inhabit required navigate innovate adapt. This something normatively based science economics forgotten while chasing what see phantastic object making social like physics, imagining brains computers11 Bruner, key figures revolution overthrew behaviourism psychology argued movement originally founded core concern meaning constructed. suggested that, brain computer metaphor took hold, shifted processing leading under-appreciation reasoning (Bruner, 1990). processors, logic processors (Haidt, 2012).. While understanding physical changed lot last millennia, rules governing not. Economic stationarity similar assumptions cannot possibly forecast events—indeed macroeconomic consistently miss turning points struggle 2 years ahead. made expectations; both treating expectations, underlie them, acts imagination. idea “fictional expectations” (in contrast “rational neo-classical economic theory) been Beckert (2016), now turn to. blazed trail demanding “imaginaries” opens rejection universal applicability rational calculation optimal solutions, common assumption dangerous most high-impact real-world decision-making contexts. suggests “normative theories optimizing reach when taken seriously” 1); correctly identifies underpinning basis unpacking some elements paper, areas require further elaboration, particular power adaptation adoption, calculative devices decision-making, appropriate boundaries draw around productivity Turning first power, deserves greater examining built. question tacit element, retell Nokia. There little doubt element exercised groups frame debate conducted considered legitimate. Similarly, competing interests different mean assembly adoption contested process. good Boje (see e.g., al., 2016) resistance stories dominant elites (counter-narratives) scope here counter-narratives achieve purchase, structures dynamics development conviction. clear account, include models, images, graphical representations, devices. Beckert, done explore shapes narratives, conviction, action. Good examples way financial just describe markets actively shape (MacKenzie 2006) through influence market accepted view Moore's law computing (the doubling number transistors silicon wafer every 18 months) quickly moved description data self-fulfilling prophecy, manufacturers began needed compete (Garud 2014). An task elaboration establish applicability. boundary argues productive context entrepreneurial innovation. Here disagree, entrepreneurship research field most, ample evidence success willingness pivot, reuse resources, relationships, learning ways pursuit monolithic unalterable Dew 2008; Garud 2014; Sarasvathy, 2001). effective interpretation weak signals timely pivots seems likely ability tolerate constructive capability. While, economists focused primarily (probabilistic) at expense seriously, John Kay counter example (e.g., King, 2020). lack serious treatment takes issue rationality understood economics. “when imperfect unequally distributed, irrational act on, subjective probabilities events outcomes, incompletely specified ambiguously determined” Langlois Cosgel put it, framing influenced over-simplistic Knight meant could assign outcomes (1993, 457). was, time, distinction fitted rhetoric proponents objective probability adherents Arrow, 1951). Within realm theoretical economics, ambiguity insisting always articulated possible ignore entirely…By definition, probabilistic matters (Langlois Cosgel, 1993; ignores Knight's insistence infer also inability relevant states world. A ignored, concerns problem categorization framing. discusses length comprehend phenomena imposing systems necessary simplifications doing so, arguing grapple knowledge. Considering might find courage whilst avoiding unjustified value mediating hierarchy (Blair Stout, 1998) firm governance. forms leadership leader's “is tell everyone assemble views clarify decision end process negotiation” (Kay, 2022; 2) achieving state. clearly sufficient condition. First, Blair Stout's formulation hierarchy, reaction dominance agency its shareholder primacy, considers boards directors balance claims stakeholders. brings back Beckert's reminder narratives. Whether consequential decisions importantly within management, teams, Rayner (2012), written compellingly fragile coalitions downplay uncomfortable knowledge threaten alliances. Nokia illustrates, requires plurality perspectives, board, organization, hinder sufficiently wide range interests, regardless provoke anxiety. final discuss, combining scholarly interest deep experience (Derbyshire, 2021; Wilkinson Flowers, 2022). Derbyshire describes practice episode nicely encapsulates discussed earlier supporting hindering chairman company highly identified modelling approach unable countenance failure predict credit crunch. relates management team, unwillingness doubt, despite training very facet individual insufficient deciding acting (which debate). Organization routines matter. For recount paid engagement board meetings generation consideration alternative before being able bold move completely refocus (Vuori Huy, Flowers phrase “selecting futures.” intent using phrase. (prescriptive) suggestion crafting cocreation diverse participants experimentation dialogue skill. outlining framework applications aim descriptive (how made). created de novo. Rather, generating selection, adaptation, context. choose (however provisionally) preferred Among interesting stressing status future-focussed reduce barriers create safe space. rider add insight. against) eventually. moves debate, safely space, actions, re-encountered. Thus stress conclusion target needs extend enabling “organizations aiming benefit incentives, structures, routines, ambivalence, experiments, recognize involved tolerating knowing, still willing act” (Fenton-O'Creevy Tuckett, 12). Otherwise, happens, intellectually stimulating emotionally engaging fail actions result. Several emphasize empirical tests builds conceptual foundation set call validate contribution. calls predictive account become credible. needed, inter alia, elaborate factors identify relate each important. scenario planning practices Von highlights potential “abuse potential” examining, tricks manipulation used promote change denial. stated choice under uncertainty—situations where enumerated assigned Johnson (2020). novel assume people rely judgments, although, certainly government, already rejoinder, few actually possible. issues nonstationary non-ergodic common. Humans so unpredictable limits, specification capacity kind Bayesian solution formation beliefs themselves. view, therefore, overwhelming clinging almost aspect utility maximising tradition micro-foundation non-starter, studies. Indeed, argued, case divorce realty (Mehrling, proposes solves problems help form situations. combine goals Narratives dual purpose arise interplay embodied cognition emotion) environment. So, adopt feels “right” explain available affectively evaluate imagined futures. places achievement centre stage. extensive cognitive, behavioral, sciences basic model, lab interview studies, econometric analyses, were out paper. show not, large, behave alignment principles rationality. thorough deeper uses four inter-related (explanation, simulation, affective evaluation, communication) enable, (2020), will shortly wide-ranging interdisciplinary Behavioral Brain Sciences. Our related studies improve decision-making. proposition enrich design successes implementing forward-looking exploring prove successful come about—that is, about. hypothesize arrangements conflicts, failures searched surfaced. best protect organization against main stumbling block faces either trying monitor uncertainty: namely, commit scale capture learn course. real-world, assumed, agile firms experiment ensure developments State. active steps rapidly start play shifting culture safety blame “one shot” towards monitored experiments time. cultures attitudes textures. Three types decisions, after looking compare: prevention, environmental regulation mitigation, “levelling up.” Each involves multiple coordination activities small measures. By Levelling Up refer efforts engaged across address spatial inequalities opened up. United Kingdom, elsewhere, heavily centralized governance, loss control fear failure, cause policy ineffectiveness over 40 (McCann, 2021). three highlighted policies contextualized Past timid. But inaction no longer option. meanwhile, passivity, cynicism, hopelessness tend infuse government departments responsible, risk-averse captured cases, generic formal efforts) exists. indicates although frameworks centrally, implementation mixed knowledge, empowerment (Collier Decisions large gain center does nor anyone else. decentralizing forward raise formidable (Ditchley, 2022) political, likelihood resolve goal conflict winners losers. hypothesis narrative, action, state, nuanced ongoing horizon scanning, rapid generate emotion. envisage exciting “tech clusters” exploiting university businesses inward investment Silicon Valley. aspiration “phantastic object” evaluated depth detail test plan appropriately subtle transparently measurable intermediate spelt along mechanisms progress, engage scanning (Rowe 2017), adapt alter expectations. experiment, careful envisioning intervention subtly independently measured. Very formulated way. Policy (such energy policy), timid, enough effort meet diminished self-defeating past, tended switch incoherently another without learning. situations, standard cost–benefit analysis, proved disastrous. Not applicable Data sharing analyzed study.