Beyond Darwin: The Potential of Recent Eco-Evolutionary Research for Organizational and Information Systems Studies

  • Francesca Ricciardi


Theoretical studies that actually propose to use evolutionary paradigms in organizational/management studies are quite rare, as well as field studies explicitly adopting them. Moreover, these rare writings tend to refer to classical, “Darwin+Mendel+DNA” thought, surprisingly overlooking the last decades’ advancements in evolutionary research, although these recent studies are progressively explaining complex phenomena, which Darwin’s model did not encompass. This paper identifies three streams within recent evolutionary research, whose adoption may result in useful innovation for management, organizational and information system research. These streams of studies present evolutionary, ecological and social processes in an integrated fashion, providing strong frameworks to understand learning processes, procedure creation, flexibility, decision making, networks evolution, cooperation, and the role of relationships, moods and nonrational triggers in change processes. This paper suggests that deeper insights into these factors not only would let us better understand how organizations evolve, but would also give us hints for building organizations which are more compatible with human nature.


Organizational Behavior Complex Adaptive System Evolutionary Paradigm Organizational Ecology Tunnel Vision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dieckmann U., Doebeli M. (2005). “Pluralism in Evolutionary Theory”. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18:1209-1213 (2005).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nicholson, N.; White, R. (2006). “Darwinism – a new paradigm for organizational behavior?”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 111-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson, N. (2005) “Objections to evolutionary psychology:reflections, implications and the leadership exemplar”. Human Relations, 58 (3), 393-409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lawrence, P.; Nohria, N. (2002). Driven. The four drives underlying human nature, San Francicsco, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicholson, N. (2000). Executive Instinct: Managing the human animal in the information age, New York, Crown Business.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aldrich, H.E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hannan, M.T.; Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelson, R.R.; Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change., cambridge, the Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baum, Joel A.C. (1999). “Organizational Ecology”. In Clegg S.r.; Clegg S.; Hardy C., Studying Organizations: theory and method, Sage.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Price, (2006). “Monitoring, reputation, and greenbeard reciprocity in a Shuar work team”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pierce, White, (2006). “Resource context contestability and emergent social structure: an empirical investigation of an evolutionary theory”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, M. (2005). Family, Village, Tribe: the story of the Flight Centre Ltd. Melbourne, Random House.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lorenz, K. (1966), On Aggression, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorenz, K. (1973), Behind the Mirror. A search for a natural history of human knowledge, Harcourt Brace, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorenz, K. (1996), Innate bases of learning. In Pribram, K. H., and King, J., eds., Learning as Self-Organization. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campbell, D.T.,(1966). Pattern matching as an essential in Distal Knowing, Holt, Rinehard & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brunswik, E. (1957) “Scope and aspects of the Cognitive problems”, in Bruner et al., Contemporary approaches to Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciborra, C. and Willcocks, L. (2006), “The mind or the heart? It depends on the (definition of) situation”, Journal of Information Technology 21, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ciborra, C. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dreyfus, H.L. (1991). Being-in-the-World. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seabright, P. (2004), The company of strangers: a natural history of economic life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maier N.R.F. (1929). “Reasoning in White Rats”, in Comp. Psycol. Monogr., 6, p. 29 ReydonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maier N.R.F. (1930), “Reasoning in Humans, I. On direction”, in J. comp. Psycol, 10, pp. 115-43.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown, J.s.; Duguid, P. (1991). “Organizational learning and communities of practice. Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation”. Organization Science, 2,1, pp. 40-57.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jrgensen S.E. (ed.), (2008). Encyclopedia of Ecology, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Metz J.A.J., Mylius S.D., Diekmann O., (2008). “When Does Evolution Optimise?” Evolutionary Ecology Research 10:629-654Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brandt H., Ohtsuki H., Iwasa Y., Sigmund K. (2007). “A Survey on Indirect reciprocity”. In Takeuchi Y., Iwasa Y., Sato K. (eds): Mathematics for Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 21-51.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferrière R. (1998). Help and You Shall be Helped”. Nature 393:517-519 (1998).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hauert C, Traulsen A, Brandt H, Nowak MA, Sigmund K. (2007). “The Emergence of Altruistic Punishment: Via Freedom to Enforcement”. Science 613:1905-1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henrich J., Bowles S., Boyd R.T., Hopfensitz A., Richerson P.J., Sigmund K., Smith E.A., Weissing F.J., Young H.P. (2003). “The cultural and genetic evolution of human cooperation”. In Hammerstein P. (ed): Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, MIT Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 445-468.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowak M.A., Sigmund K. (2005). “Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity”. Nature 437:1292- 1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nowak M.A., Sigmund K. (2007). “How Populations Cohere: Five Rules for Cooperation”. In May R.M., McLean A. (eds): Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, Oxford UP, Oxford, pp. 7-16.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sigmund K., Nowak M.A. (2001).: “Evolution – Tides of Tolerance”. Nature 414:403 (2001).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sigmund K., Nowak M.A. (1996). “The Natural History of Mutual Aid”. In Stadler F. (ed): Wissenschaft als Kultur, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, pp. 259-272.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sigmund K. (1998), “Complex Adaptive Systems and the Evolution of Reciprocation”. Ecosystems 1:444-448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sigmund K. (2007). “Punish or Perish? Retaliation and Collaboration Among Humans”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:593-600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sigmund K.(2002). “The Economics of Fair Play”. Scientific American 286:82-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barney, J.B.; Hansen, M.H,.(1994). “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”. Strategic management Journal, 15, pp. 175-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Conner K.R.;Prahalad C.K. (1996). “A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge vs. opportunism”. Organizational Science, 7, pp. 477-501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Doney P.M; Cannon J.P. (1997). “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”. Journal of Marketing, 61, pp. 35-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dyer J.H.; Singh H. (1998). “The relational view: cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage”. The Academy of Management Review, 23,4, oct. 1998, pp. 660-679.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dercole F, Dieckmann U, Obersteiner M, Rinaldi S. (2008). “Adaptive Dynamics and Technological Change”. Technovation 28:335-348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thomas A.C., Scholz, M. (2009). “Why Organizational Economy Is Not a Darwinian Research Program”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 3, 408-439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catholic UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations