Organizations shaping a thriving future – On future-oriented innovations and personal transformation

  • M. F. PeschlEmail author
  • Thomas Fundneider
Part of the Management-Reihe Corporate Social Responsibility book series (MRCOSORE)


We are facing huge changes and challenges in today´s hypercomplex and high-speed world (e. g., in terms of economy, climate change, new technologies, migration, etc.). How can we understand these changes and how should we deal with them in a sustainable and thriving manner? It will be shown that it is not sufficient to just react to these changes in the sense of “solving problems”: rather, we have to actively shape and innovate our environment(s) according to their own potentials in a future-oriented manner and in such a way that a flourishing future might emerge. Such an approach to profound and proactive change and innovation calls for completely new skills, functionalities, and attitudes. In most cases it will not be an individual who can achieve such changes, but organizations in the sense of sustainable social systems, working environments, and Enabling Spaces pursuing the purpose of bringing about thriving futures. We will show that the concept of organization has changed dramatically over time, how today´s (and tomorrow´s) organizations are characterized, and what their needs as future-oriented organizations are. On the basis of these insights, we will develop guiding principles (and their practical implications) for how to implement such organizations and new working environments that are based on the concept of being an Enabling Space for bringing forth future-oriented, sustainable, thriving, and responsible innovations. These principles comprise radical epistemic openness, deep understanding, designing and co-creating meaningful and desired futures, emergence, enabling, identifying and cultivating potentials, and learning from the future as it emerges. Finally, we will develop an important implication of such a perspective of future-oriented organizations: It turns out that creating innovations can no longer be seen as an “abstract” activity, but that the persons involved in such a process must also go through a transformation (of their thinking, perception, and attitudes).


Cognitive System Radical Innovation Profound Understanding Incremental Innovation Responsible Innovation 
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.


  1. Aristotle. (2007). Metaphysics. Retrieved from (date of download: 02.04.2011)Google Scholar
  2. Binder, T., Ehn, P., Michelis, G. de, Linde, P., & others. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind. Myths and mechanisms (second). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making. Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware. A pragmatics of experiencing. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organisational strategic and structural differences for radical vs. incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2008). Decision No 1350/2008/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 16 December 2008 concerning the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (2009). Official Journal of the European Union, L 348, 115–117.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from (date of download: 03.02.2012)Google Scholar
  14. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies. The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felin, T., Kauffman, S. A., Koppl, R., & Longo, G. (2014). Economic opportunity and evolution: beyond landscapes and bounded rationality. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(4), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glanville, R. (1998). Re-searching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 88–91.Google Scholar
  17. Glanville, R. (2007). Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. Kybernetes. The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, 36(9/10), 1173–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2003). Organizations as self-organizing and sustaining systems. A complex and autopoietic systems perspective. International Journal of General Systems, 32(5), 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard Business Review, 87(2), 91–98.Google Scholar
  20. Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics. Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157–172.Google Scholar
  21. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. W. van. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable. Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychological, 94(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hohwy, J. (2013). The Predictive Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ingold, T. (2013). Making. Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kaiser, A., & Fordinal, B. (2010). Creating a ba for generating self-transcending knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 928–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kauffman, S. A. (2014). Prolegomenon to patterns in evolution. BioSystems, 123(2014), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kay, R. (2001). Are organizations autopoietic? A call for new debate. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koppl, R., Kauffman, S. A., Felin, T., & Longo, G. (2014). Economics for a creative world. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2014, 1–31.Google Scholar
  30. Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “Design is making sense (of things).” Design Issues, 5(2), 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis CRC Press.Google Scholar
  32. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism. A guide to our future. UK: Penguin Books, Random House.Google Scholar
  34. Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (pp. 2–60). Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Pub.Google Scholar
  35. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1975). Autopoiesis: the organization of the living. In H. R. Maturana & F. J. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (pp. 63–134). Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Pub.Google Scholar
  36. Menary, R. (Ed.). (2010). The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (Ed.). (2003a). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: the application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003b). Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: the application of complexity theory to organisations (pp. 23–50). Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  39. Mumford, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biological Cybernetics, 66, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor, T., & Wong, H. Y. (2009). Emergent Properties. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition). Retrieved from (date of download: 21.02.2012)Google Scholar
  41. Paulus, B. P., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Collaborative creativity. Group creativity and team innovation. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 327–357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2008). Emergent Innovation and Sustainable Knowledge Co-creation. A Socio-Epistemological Approach to „Innovation from within“. In M. D. Lytras, J. M. Carroll, E. Damiani, Tennyson, D, Avison, D, & Vossen, G. (Eds.), The Open Knowledge Society: A Computer Science and Information Systems Manifesto (Vol. CCIS (Communications in Computer and Information Science) 19, pp. 101–108). New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (CCIS 19).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change (OTSC), 9(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2013). Theory-U and Emergent Innovation. Presencing as a method of bringing forth profoundly new knowledge and realities. In O. Gunnlaugson, C. Baron, & M. Cayer (Eds.), Perspectives on Theory U: Insights from the field (pp. 207–233). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference/IGI Global. Retrieved from doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4793-0 (date of download: 24.10.2013)Google Scholar
  45. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and enabling interfaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation. From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers and Human Behavior, 37, 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poli, R. (2006). The ontology of what is not there. In J. Malinowski & A. Pietruszczak (Eds.), Essays in Logic and Ontology (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 91) (Vol. 91, pp. 73–80). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  47. Poli, R. (2010a). An introduction to the ontology of anticipation. Futures, 42(7), 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poli, R. (2010b). The many aspects of anticipation. Foresight, 12(3), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poli, R. (2011). Ontological categories, latents and the irrational. In J. Cumpa & E. Tegtmeier (Eds.), Ontological categories (pp. 153–163). Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  50. Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., & Vreede, T. de. (2012). Team creativity and innovation. The effect of group composition, social processes, and cognition. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 295–326). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society. The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Roth, W. M., Socha, D., & Tenenberg, J. (2016). Becoming-design in corresponding: re/theorising the co- in codesigning. CoDesign, 12(1).
  53. Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. In Z. D. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 141–160). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  54. Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge. Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. The social technology of presencing. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning.Google Scholar
  56. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Seidl, D., & Becker, K. H. (2006). Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems. Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Organization, 13(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (third). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stephan, A. (1999). Varieties of emergentism. Evolution and Cognition, 5(1), 49–59.Google Scholar
  60. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Varela, F. (2000). Three gestures of becoming aware. Retrieved from (date of download: 27.04.2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Philosophie und Bildungswissenschaft, Institut für PhilosophieUniversität WienWienAustria
  2. 2.Managing DirectorTheLivingCore GmbHWienAustria

Personalised recommendations